Application of Organizational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3) to Construction in China: An Empirical Study

Jia, Guozhu; Li, Cao; Chen, Jianguo; Shuisen, Zhou; Wang, J.

doi:10.1109/iciii.2008.182

Cited by 25 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The features that will sustain the model The nature of maturation The evolution of the elements or agents over time The direction of evolution Wangenheim et al, 2010 ), the assistance to e-government by companies (Röglinger & Pöppelbuβ, 2011 ), the evaluation of suppliers (Mettler, 2010 ), the development of products (Bing, Shan, Tao, & Gang, 2010 ), innovation (Essmann & Preez, 2009 ), the development of projects and their management (Gareis, 2002 ;Guangshe, Li, Jiangguo, Shuisen, & Jin, 2008 ), the assessment of the communication level in collaborative activities (Maier, Eckert, & Clarkson, 2006 ), the risk management in IT activities (Mayer & Fagundes, 2009 ), the knowledge management (Jiankang, Jiuling, Qianwen, & Kun, 2011 ;Röglinger & Pöppelbuβ, 2011 ), the development of business intelligence (Chuah, 2010 ), the evaluation of leadership capabilities and the assessment of archives systems (Wetering, Batenburg, & Lederman, 2010 ).…”

Section: Maturity Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrated Management Systems: A Model for Maturity Assessment

Domingues

Sampaio

Arezes

2015

Achieving Competitive Advantage Through Quality Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Maturity models are adopted to minimise our complexity perception over a truly complex phenomenon. In this sense, maturity models are tools that enable the assessment of the most relevant variables that impact on the outputs of a specifi c system. Ideally a maturity model should provide information concerning the qualitative and quantitative relationships between variables and how they affect the latent variable, that is, the maturity level. Management systems (MSs) are implemented worldwide and by an increasing number of companies. Integrated management systems (IMSs) consider the implementation of one or several MSs usually coexisting with the quality management subsystem (QMS). It is intended in this chapter to report a model based on two components that enables the assessment of the IMS maturity, considering the key process agents (KPAs) identifi ed through a systematic literature review and the results collected from two surveys. IntroductionIMSs are being developed worldwide by companies operating on the most disparate activity sectors. At the present, there is not an ISO standard to assist companies during the IMSs implementation like the ISO 9001 or ISO 14001 standards guide companies on the implementation of QMSs and environmental management systems (EMSs), respectively. This fact leads to similar companies achieving different integration levels and adopting different integration paths which infl uence IMSs effi ciency. Maturity models are being developed in several fi elds and are useful tools when aiming at the assessment of complex systems like the IMSs. These complex systems are usually characterised by a great deal of variables involved, often related to each other, but

show abstract

Section: Maturity Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrated Management Systems: A Model for Maturity Assessment

Domingues

Sampaio

Arezes

2015

Achieving Competitive Advantage Through Quality Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The second element is assessment where guidelines are provided to evaluate project capabilities using best practices as benchmarks (Hillson, 2003). The third element is improvement, where the completed assessment is used to identify areas requiring improvement and map out the necessary steps to achieve performance improvement goals (Lianying et al, 2012;Guangshe et al, 2008). Thiry and Deguire (2007) criticise OPM3 on the distinction between projects and programs, stating that the 'process' groups in both are similar.…”

Section: Opm3mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…P3M3 uses a five-level maturity framework -level 1: awareness; level 2: repeatable; level 3: defined; level 4: managed; level 5: optimised -and seven criteriamanagement control, benefits management, financial management, stakeholder engagement, risk management, organisational governance and resource managementwhich can be assessed under all three modules. Table 1 compares the above-discussed project maturity models in terms of features, focus areas and means of assessment mentioned in Guangshe et al (2008) and Khoshgoftar and Osman (2009). None of the maturity models include or acknowledge sustainability and uncertainty.…”

Section: P3m3 Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…None of the maturity models include or acknowledge sustainability and uncertainty. Guangshe et al (2008) and Khoshgoftar and Osman (2009) …”

Section: P3m3 Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The mainstream project management maturity models include: the capability maturity model (CMM) (for example, Weber et al, 1991;Paulk et al, 1993;Vergopia, 2008;Lianying et al, 2012); organisation project management maturity model (OPM3) (for example, Hillson, 2003;Milosevic and Patanakul, 2005;Thiry and Deguire 2007;Vergopia, 2008;Guangshe et al, 2008;Lianying et al, 2012); project management maturity model (PMMM) (for example, Vergopia, 2008); and project, programme and portfolio management maturity model (P3M3) (P3M3, 2013). Each of these maturity models and their characteristics are discussed here.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Measuring project sustainability maturity level - a fuzzy-based approach

Siew¹,

Balatbat

Carmichael

2016

IJSD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Traditionally, project management is focused on outcomes such as quality, time and cost, with little consideration for environmental and social issues. While project management maturity has been discussed at length in the literature, there is currently a paucity of research exploring ways to embed sustainability into project management. Being able to measure levels of sustainability attainment in project management will help project owners identify strengths and weaknesses in their current practices. This paper addresses a gap in the literature by: 1) prescribing a set of criteria for assessing project sustainability maturity levels leading to a project sustainability maturity level (PSML) model, and 2) presenting a fuzzy-based approach to measure maturity levels. An example illustrates the various steps involved in the approach. The fuzzy-based approach is seen as appropriate for reflecting the uncertainty in sustainability maturity assessments. The originality of this paper lies in showing how sustainability can be assessed in a progressive manner through maturity levels.

show abstract

Achieving Competitive Advantage through Quality Management

Peris‐Ortiz¹,

Álvarez‐García²,

Rueda‐Armengot³

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Application of Organizational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3) to Construction in China: An Empirical Study

Cited by 25 publications

References 2 publications

Integrated Management Systems: A Model for Maturity Assessment

Integrated Management Systems: A Model for Maturity Assessment

Measuring project sustainability maturity level - a fuzzy-based approach

Achieving Competitive Advantage through Quality Management

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About