A Management Maturity Model (MMM) for project-based organisational performance assessment

Abstract

Common sense suggests that organisations are more likely to deliver successful projects if they have systems in place that reflect a mature project environment based on a culture of continuous improvement. This paper develops and discusses a Management Maturity Model (MMM) to assess the maturity of project management organisations through a customisable, systematic, strategic and practical methodology inspired from the seminal work of Darwin, Deming, Drucker and Daniel. The model presented is relevant to organisations, such as construction and engineering companies, that prefer to use the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK™ Guide) published by the Project Management Institute (PMI), but without the disadvantages of excessive time and cost commitments and a ‘one size fits all’ approach linked to rigid increments of maturity. It offers a game-changing advance in the application of project-based organisational performance assessment compared to existing market solutions that are unnecessarily complex. The feasibility of MMM is field-tested using a medium-sized data centre infrastructure firm in Tehran.

Defining and assessing industry 4.0 maturity levels – case of the defence sector

“…As the ability to embrace Industry 4.0 is a key to the future success, the framework enables the firm to achieve its forecasted ambitious objectives (Erol et al, 2016). To operationalize this further and allow progress on the implementation of the Industry 4.0 technologies, the benchmarking exercise to assess the current position and best practices was undertaken (Langstone & Ghanbaripour, 2016).…”

“…Qin et al, (2016) suggest that the criteria which define the successful implementation of Industry 4.0 have yet to be fully agreed and that a roadmap Becker and Knackstedt (2009) suggest maturity models have been proven to be an important instrument as a result of their ability to position organisations against the concept being assessed and help find better solutions for change. Maturity assessment models are described as a framework for systematic and continuous performance improvement (Langstone & Ghanbaripour, 2016). Backlund et al, (2014) support this by suggesting the capabilities of an organisation can be managed as a framework and thus be measured for maturity.…”

A web-based design for occupational safety and health capability maturity indicator

“…This third requirement is commonly overlooked in existing CMMs (e.g. Filho et al, 2010;Meng et al, 2011;Computer Integrated Construction Research Program, 2013;Kang et al, 2015;Langston and Ghanbaripour, 2016;Liang et al, 2016) and could therefore result in CMMs generating misleading results. The methodological process undertaken consisted of four interrelated stagesdata collection, model development, web-based system development and system testing.…”

“…weights) of the capability attributes), several maturity models assume that the relevant key process areas carry the same weight of importance (e.g. Filho et al, 2010;Meng et al, 2011;Computer Integrated Construction Research Program, 2013;Kang et al, 2015;Langston and Ghanbaripour, 2016;Liang et al, 2016), which might not be the case. In view of this, researchers or CMM developers, when developing CMMs should seek to determine and incorporate the weights of key process areas.…”

Comparison and analysis of PMBOK 2013 and ISO 21500

“…This paper describes how these standards are integrated into the project management assessment tool. It discusses the theoretical foundations for the project management assessment tool and the methodologies used for developing the tool and for applying the tool to specific project situations (Langston & Ghanbaripour, 2016). Grau (2013) presented a paper about standards and excellence in project management.…”