Organizational Maturity - Managing Programs Better

Organizational Maturity – Managing Programs Better Suhail Iqbal, PE, PgMP, PMP, PMI-RMP, PMI-SP, MCT, PRINCE2 Practitioner CEO, SysComp International (Pvt.) Ltd. Introduction We are aware of the various Maturity Models, and some of them are very specific to project and program management as well. Before we can drill down to the specific maturity model contributing directly to the assessment and improvement of program management, we need to understand the concept of organizational maturity as a broader concept. This is required not only to cast away some stereotype beliefs but also to have a strategic view of maturity. Program management, being closer to organizational strategy, by way of its focus on benefits management and having its own program strategy, it is only befitting to lead it to a generic organizational maturity, rather to a pre-conceived and tailor-made maturity model, making program management fit into it. Ludden, P., (2004) quotes the definition of maturity from Random House Dictionary as “full development or perfected condition”. Maturity is defined as “full development” (Merriam-Webster, p. 456). If we look at the Oxford Concise Dictionary for an answer, it suggests “developed fully” and “duly careful and adequate”. When someone is not fully developed or in perfect condition, anything which can be achieved seems like increased maturity, and we tend to gauge various levels of maturity with different methods. An organization is a living entity like a human being. It has a lifespan, and it must grow over a period of time. It has to learn from its mistakes, or it seeks lessons from other’s mistakes or best practices. All organizations are at some stage of maturity striving to attain perfection. So considering their present state of maturity we can say their journey forward to perfection is a step further toward achieving maturity. We usually forget that there must have been some limits to maturity. There must be an optimum level for an organization beyond which it cannot grow anymore and thus cannot mature any further, or it will fall like an over-ripe fruit. This is discussed briefly toward the end of this chapter and gives us all a food for thought to put some limits to an un-ending enthusiasm toward maturity. (Iqbal, S., 2005) Whenever maturity of an organization is under discussion, different people view it from different points of view. Where people inclined toward quality will refer to Capability Maturity Model (CMM), people focused on process will be talking about Process Maturity Model (PMM), and yet project managers look at it from Project Management Maturity Model (PMMM) and Organization Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3) perspective. All of these people are talking about a maturity model, but none have formulated a universally acceptable definition of maturity as such. From strategic point of view, if we can combine all these viewpoints and try to find how an organization really matures, we probably will be able to find the most appropriate maturity model. To this day, all approaches fail to provide an acceptable shared definition of maturity, and literature is yet to propose a comprehensive approach which is much needed for practical applications at strategic organizational levels. The object of this chapter is threefold. First, it reviews the literature to find synergies among different organizational maturity models in order to propose a common definition. A second goal is to use the common key concepts to formulate a uniform standard of organizational maturity. The longer-term goal is to alleviate the theoretical shortcomings that have prevented the development of a more generally accepted organizational maturity model. After having discussed the possible maturity models, it would be proved that the ideal organizational maturity model indicated in this chapter does not really exist as such except in Utopia, but there is enough reason to believe that such a maturity model needs to be conceived. We can anyway discuss, in light of existing maturity models, and with an idea of organizational maturity at the back of our mind, how it would apply to program management to yield maximum benefit to program management professionals. CMM: From where it all started Maturity models are not a new concept. Crosby (1979) developed a Quality Management Maturity Grid in which he described five stages of maturity. (Levin, G., and Ward, J.L., 2012) © 2012, Suhail Iqbal, PE, PMP Originally published as a part of “Program Management: A Life Cycle Approach”, CRC Press edited by Ginger Levin -1- The CMM was the pioneer of Maturity Models developed by the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) for software engineering (Paulk M. C., 1995). Most maturity models owe their existence to the work of the SEI of Carnegie Mellon University. Beginning in the late 1980s, the SEI began the development of an assessment framework to evaluate vendors of software solutions for the US Department of Defense. What is generally referred to as the 'Capability Maturity Model' (CMM) actually consists of five different maturity models plus an integration framework, which provides a means of evaluating various different aspects of the software production process (Mullaly, Mark E., 2005). Later SEI came up with CMMI (Capability Maturity Model Integrated) and P-CMM (People Capability Maturity Model). The CMM model is only concerned about the software processes and tries to develop a mechanism to bring perfection to these processes. It has five levels namely initial, repeatable, defined, managed and optimizing, each level having its own key process areas (KPAs) identifying issues that must be addressed to achieve a maturity level. (Ludden, P., 2004) The CMM levels are broadly accepted in software industry, and almost all maturity models are trying to emulate the same leveling mechanism in one way or the other. It is clearly imminent by the wide use and success of CMM in the software industry that it does serve to improve quality, but the problem is that the base on which it was designed came from software industry, and it hinges only on software processes. Just as the CMM was becoming so popular, and other industries were eyeing software industry with anguish for having the CMM, the SEI released a generalized version namely CMMI in 2000. It was later updated in 2002, 2006 and 2009 and is now generally referred as CMMI-Development or CMMI-DEV (latest version 1.3), with a focus on integrating software and systems engineering. It was followed in 2007, by a CMMI-Acquisition or CMMI-ACQ model (latest version 1.3), emphasizing the acquisition process. In 2009 CMMI-Services or CMMI-SVC (latest version 1.3) was released, focused on service organizations since the development of quality service processes lead to improvements in performance, customer satisfaction and overall profitability (Phillips and Shrum, 2010). Although the levels for all of these models are the same, the processes have been slightly tailored to address specific orientations. It still serves to improve the quality, which though is extremely useful, but misses the point to having Organizational Maturity because quality or processes are not the only ingredients contributing toward an organization’s maturity. The CMMI has done a great job in encompassing all possible areas contributing to organizational maturity. In the process they have given special attention to project management by adopting the Project Management Institute’s (PMI) standards in the CMMI and using the same terminology. The People Capability Maturity Model or P-CMM (latest version 2.0) is also a SEI maturity model with a focus on people competency development and human resource capability improvement, and thus was again addressing a specific view. (Iqbal, S., 2005) All CMMI models have three parts: an introduction, the process areas and generic goals and practices, and the appendices. All CMMI models contain multiple process areas that each have a purpose statement, one or more goals, and multiple specific practices. They all have generic goals and practices that apply to all process areas. Figure 1: CMMI – Continuous and Staged Representations © 2012, Suhail Iqbal, PE, PMP Originally published as a part of “Program Management: A Life Cycle Approach”, CRC Press edited by Ginger Levin -2- All CMMI models share 16 core process areas tailored for each model but contain essentially the same information. These process areas include practices that cover concepts in project management, process management, infrastructure, and support. These basic concepts are fundamental to process improvement in any area of interest (i.e., acquisition, development, services). The core process areas of each model express these concepts in the context of that area of interest. In addition to the core process areas, each model also includes process areas found only in that model. CMMI Model Foundation (16 Core Process Areas) 1. Causal Analysis and Resolution (CAR) 2. Configuration Management (CM) 3. Decision Analysis and Resolution (DAR) 4. Integrated Project Management (IPM)* 5. Measurement and Analysis (MA) 6. Organizational Process Definition (OPD) 7. Organizational Process Focus (OPF) 8. Organizational Performance Management (OPM) 9. Organizational Process Performance (OPP) 10. Organizational Training (OT) 11. Project Monitoring and Control (PMC)** 12. Project Planning (PP)*** 13. Process and Product Quality Assurance (PPQA) 14. Quantitative Project Management (QPM)**** 15. Requirements Management (REQM) 16. Risk Management (RSKM) Process areas found only in CMMI for Acquisition 1. Acquisition Requirements Development (ARD) 2. Solicitation and Supplier Agreement Development (SSAD) 3. Agreement Management (AM) 4. Acquisition Technical Management (ATM) 5. Acquisition Verification (AVER) 6. Acquisition Validation (AVAL) Process found only in CMMI for Development 1. Product Integration (PI) 2. Requirements Development (RD) 3. Requirements Management (REQM) 4. Supplier Agreement Management (SAM)***** 5. Technical Solution (TS) 6. Validation (VAL) 7. Verification (VER) Process areas found only in CMMI for Services 1. Capacity and Availability Management (CAM) 2. Incident Resolution and Prevention (IRP) 3. Supplier Agreement Management (SAM)***** 4. Service Continuity (SCON) 5. Service Delivery (SD) 6. Service System Development (SSD) 7. Service System Transition (SST) 8. Strategic Service Management (STSM) ------------------------------* Integrated Work Management (IWM) in CMMI-SVC ** Work Monitoring and Control (WMC) in CMMI-SVC *** Work Planning (WP) in CMMI-SVC **** Quantitative Work Management (QWM) in CMMI-SVC ***** Supplier Agreement Management (SAM) is shared between CMMI-DEV and CMMI-SVC © 2012, Suhail Iqbal, PE, PMP Originally published as a part of “Program Management: A Life Cycle Approach”, CRC Press edited by Ginger Levin -3- The models also contain generic goals and generic practices that apply across multiple process areas. They describe the characteristics that must be present to institutionalize processes that implement a process area. All generic goals and generic practices are internally consistent and apply to every model. The staged approaches uses maturity levels to show the state of the organization’s processes as a whole, while the continuous approach uses capability levels to characterize the state of the organization’s readiness in an individual process area. This model is applicable to project management as its levels 2 and 3 focus on it extensively. Level 2, for example, emphasizes requirements management, project planning, project management and control, supplier agreement management, and configuration management, with Level 3 including a focus on requirements development, integrated project management, and risk management, among other areas. (SEI, 2000) Existing Maturity Models Ludden, P., (2004) opines that CMM has been reused for the development of many other maturity models in many fields including project management. Since the original development of the CMM for software, a number of other organizations have developed maturity frameworks to support different industries and disciplines, not least of which is project management (Mullaly, Mark E., 2005). According to Cooke-Davies et al, (2001), to date there are estimated to be over 30 maturity models currently serving the market place. Rosenstock et al (2000) listed 23 capability maturity model resources that covered quality and project management. Currently there are approximately 50 different maturity models in circulation, and each address a specific aspect of the organization. The list has been taken from Copeland (2003) and have since been updated to specially highlight 17 maturity models related to project, program and/or portfolio management (bold and italic from serial 9 to 23). It follows:1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. Capability Maturity Model for Software (SW-CMM) Capability Maturity Model Integration – Acquisition (CMMI-ACQ) Capability Maturity Model Integration – Development (CMMI-DEV) Capability Maturity Model Integration – Services (CMMI-SVC) People Capability Maturity Model (P-CMM) Integrated Product Development Capability Maturity Model (IPD-CMM) IT Service Capability Maturity Model (IT Service CMM) Business Excellence Model, European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) Project Management Maturity Model (PMMM or KPM3) by Harold Kerzner, IIL Project Management Maturity Model (PMMM) by Jim K. Crawford Portfolio Management Maturity Model by Jim K. Crawford Berkeley Project Management Process Maturity Model PMPM or (PM)2 by Young Hoon Kwak and C. William Ibbs Organizational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3) by PMI PRINCE2 Maturity Model by OGC, UK Portfolio, Programme, and Project Management Maturity Model (P3M3) by OGC, UK ProjectFRAMEWORK™ Project Management Maturity Model by ESI International ProgramFRAMEWORK™ Program Management Maturity Model by ESI International PortfolioFRAMEWORK™ Portfolio Management Maturity Model by ESI International Programme Management Maturity Model by Russ Martinelli and Jim Waddell Cultural Project Management Effectiveness Model (CPMEM) by PMGS IMSI Project Management Assessment Model by Steve J. Holmes and Robert T. Walsh Project Portfolio Management Maturity Model by James S. Pennypacker, PM Solutions Project Risk Maturity Model (RMM) by Martin Hopkinson, QinetiQ, UK Risk Maturity Model by Dr. David Hillson Earned Value Management Maturity Model (EVM3) by Ray W. Stratton, ManagementConcepts Broccoli Maturity Model Services Maturity Model Self-Assessment Maturity Model (SAMM) Testing Maturity Model (TMM) Web Services Maturity Model © 2012, Suhail Iqbal, PE, PMP Originally published as a part of “Program Management: A Life Cycle Approach”, CRC Press edited by Ginger Levin -4- 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. Security Maturity Model (SMM) Operations Maturity Model e-Learning Maturity Model eGovernment Maturity Model Outsourcing Management Maturity Model Change Proficiency Maturity Model Performance Engineering Maturity Model IT Architecture Maturity Model Information Process Maturity Model Learning Management Maturity Model (LM3) Automated Software Testing Maturity Model Website Maturity Model Internet Maturity Model Usability Maturity Model Software Reliability Engineering Maturity Model System Security Engineering Capability Maturity Model Configuration Management Maturity Model Common Assurance Maturity Model (CAMM) Business Development CMM by Nutt and Kessler Organizational Maturity Model by HP Project Management Maturity Models With the strong realization of the budding discipline of Project Management, a new understanding was developed, which was of establishing a linkage between strategies of an organization to its projects. This was very romantic in the sense that all changes in an organization can actually be brought either through strategy or projects. The CMMI was addressing only processes without specifying whether the processes are operational or project related. Generally it was assumed that it applies to all processes. But the interesting point here is that an operational process tested for maturity, if needs improvement, must go through a change process, which leads to a project. Quality has an equally important role in project management, and even the CMMI can very smoothly apply to it, but there was a need for some further deliberation. With opening of this new line of thinking, a number of project management maturity models were suggested, used and tested, but it opened up another unending list of maturity models, this time related to project management. Project Management has its own level of development in an organization like projects, programs and portfolios, which also are indicative of some level of maturity. Where Peterson (2000) sees project management maturity model as a logical framework that defines different levels of project management capability, Hillson (2001) being a risk management expert, views it as providing a structured route to excellence in project management. Kerzner (2001, p.41), who is more into strategic planning and its relation with project management, states the model should assist companies in performing strategic planning for projects. Johnston (2003) also supports the Kerzner’s view of strategic planning by highlighting that firms are recognizing the value of establishing measurements and indicators that provide a perspective on overall performance against strategic objectives. It is generally agreed that project management maturity models must provide an assessment framework that enables an organization to compare its project delivery with best practice or against its competitors (Hillson, 2001). Levin, G., and Ward, J.L. (to appear in 2012)., in their chapter on Maturity Models in The Gower Handbook of Project Management, 5th edition, edited by Turner, R.J., provides a very comprehensive introduction to Project Management Maturity Models as follows:PMI (2003) defines a maturity model as “a conceptual framework, with consistent parts that defines maturity in the area of interest. . . it also may describe a process whereby an organization can develop or achieve something desirable . . . this process can result in a more highly evolved organizational state; in other words, a more mature organization.” (p. 5) Capability Maturity Models (CMM) “attempt to define industry practices that correlate with increasing levels of process maturity. The resulting CMMs seek to provide (a) an industry standard or ‘framework’ by which relative maturity can be assessed, (b) a clear path © 2012, Suhail Iqbal, PE, PMP Originally published as a part of “Program Management: A Life Cycle Approach”, CRC Press edited by Ginger Levin -5- to evolve processes to achieve increasing mature states, and (c) specific guidance on best practices and their applicability and implementation”. (Nutt, Kessler and Levin, 2003, p. 11) Organizational project management (OPM) (to include programs and portfolios) according to PMI (2008) then is “the systematic management of projects, programs, and portfolios in alignment with the organization’s strategic business goals.” (p. 9). The emphasis is to ensure that the programs and projects under way are reflective of the organization’s overall strategic goals and objectives and also that the portfolio management process continues to serve these goals and objectives and remains relevant as shown in Figure 2. Figure 2: Organizational Project Management (OPM) While it is true that the CMM includes project management as one of the capability areas that it evaluates, it addresses only a subset of the project management discipline. The majority of independent project management maturity models are designed to be on some level transparent with respect to industry and the underlying technical disciplines being managed. (Mullaly, Mark E., 2005) Segregating only the maturity models dealing with projects, programs and portfolios, we have a list of 17 such maturity models, which are separately listed here. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Project Management Maturity Model (PMMM or KPM3) by Harold Kerzner, IIL Project Management Maturity Model (PMMM) by Jim K. Crawford Portfolio Management Maturity Model by Jim K. Crawford Berkeley Project Management Process Maturity Model PMPM or (PM)2 by Young Hoon Kwak and C. William Ibbs Organizational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3) by PMI PRINCE2 Maturity Model by OGC, UK Portfolio, Programme, and Project Management Maturity Model (P3M3) by OGC, UK ProjectFRAMEWORK™ Project Management Maturity Model by ESI International ProgramFRAMEWORK™ Program Management Maturity Model by ESI International PortfolioFRAMEWORK™ Portfolio Management Maturity Model by ESI International Programme Management Maturity Model by Russ Martinelli and Jim Waddell Cultural Project Management Effectiveness Model (CPMEM) by PMGS IMSI Project Management Assessment Model by Steve J. Holmes and Robert T. Walsh Project Portfolio Management Maturity Model by James S. Pennypacker, PM Solutions Project Risk Maturity Model (RMM) by Martin Hopkinson, QinetiQ, UK Risk Maturity Model by Dr. David Hillson Earned Value Management Maturity Model (EVM3) by Ray W. Stratton, ManagementConcepts © 2012, Suhail Iqbal, PE, PMP Originally published as a part of “Program Management: A Life Cycle Approach”, CRC Press edited by Ginger Levin -6- The first three maturity models, developed by Kerzner, Crawford, and Kwak/Ibbs are very specific to project management and are very flat models developed on the lines of Capability Maturity Model. Similarly, several other models in this list are staged just like CMM and have three-six levels. Such models may be simple to understand and implement but being one-dimensional, would only serve one direction or aspect, and definitely not the multidisciplinary organizational maturity. OPM3 is probably the only model which has used a novel approach of addressing the maturity issue from three different dimensions and therefore makes much more sense. Still it addresses only projects, programs and portfolios and not strategy or operations of an organization. On the other hand CMM addresses a lot of areas even including project management (and not program or portfolio management) but in a traditional flat structure of stages or levels. Out of the 17 models listed, at least four maturity models do exist which take into account the program management maturity to some extent. OPM3 naturally leads this group followed by OGC, ESI and Martinelli and Waddell. Out of these four Program Management Maturity Models (OPM3, P3M3, ESI, Martinelli/Waddell), only OPM3 is multidimensional as indicated earlier. On the Portfolio side, at least two of the models (ESI, PM Solutions) on the long list specifically address Portfolio Management Maturity and one IMSI Project Management Assessment Model, shows Portfolio Management as one of the levels (Level 4) of Project Management Maturity. We have two models that deal with Risk Management Maturity and one for Earned Value Management. Project Management Maturity Model (PMMM or KPM3) by Harold Kerzner, IIL Also Kerzner, in 2001, developed a 5-stage Project Management Maturity Model (PMMM) also known as KPM3, see Figure 1. While in Level 1, he emphasizes on establishing a Common Language for consistency, Level 2 homes on Common Processes to make the processes repeatable. In Level 3, Kerzner debates about the need for a Singular Methodology as process control can be facilitated, while in Level 4 he suggests Benchmarking where an organization needs to benchmark with other companies to maintain a competitive advantage. The last level is Level 5, which emphasizes on Continuous Improvement, see Figure 3. Figure 3: Harold Kerzner’s Project Management Maturity Model As it is clearly imminent, that this maturity model may just be indicative for its use in program management, but cannot be said to have been designed for that specific purpose. So will be the case with some of the subsequent maturity models discussed. Project Management Maturity Model (PMMM) by PM Solutions © 2012, Suhail Iqbal, PE, PMP Originally published as a part of “Program Management: A Life Cycle Approach”, CRC Press edited by Ginger Levin -7- The PM Solutions PMMM, with 5 Levels of maturity is designed more closely in syntax to the CMMl and used the nine Knowledge Areas of PMI’s PMBOK® Guide to ascertain maturity in each area. The levels of project management maturity used is as follows:1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Level 1 – Initial Processes Level 2 – Structural Process and Standards Level 3 – Organizational Standards and Institutionalized Process Level 4 – Managed Process Level 5 – Optimizing Process According to Crawford (2007), it was necessary to breakdown each of the nine areas into key components. This is where the real measurement of maturity takes place. Porrfolio Management Maturity Model by , PM Solutions The PM Solutions Portfolio Management Maturity Model follows a similar structure to that in its Project Management Maturity Model. The only difference is the Components which are as follows:1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Component 1 – Portfolio Governance Component 2 – Portfolio Opportunity Assessment Component 3 – Project Prioritization and Selection Component 4 – Portfolio and Project Communication Management Component 5 – Portfolio Performance Management Component 6 – Portfolio Resource Management There is a clear lack of any Maturity Model for Program Management from PM Solutions, but it can be clearly understood that if such a model had been developed, it would have exactly the same five Levels but the Components may have been different. Again we can observe that we have a simple but flat model here, which may have several dimensions unexplored. Berkeley Project Management Process Maturity Model PMPM or (PM)2 by Young Hoon Kwak and C. William Ibbs The PM2 model provides a means for identifying and measuring project management levels by integrating nine knowledge Areas with five project processes under a quantified scheme. It is well suited to assess an organizational PM2 level. Furthermore, the PM2 Model provides an orderly and disciplined process to achieve higher levels of project management maturity. This model should be continuously refined to reflect advances in our project management knowledge base. This refined PM2 model could further determine and evaluate an organizational project management maturity level more effectively, as shown in Figure 4. (Kwak and Ibbs, 2000). © 2012, Suhail Iqbal, PE, PMP Originally published as a part of “Program Management: A Life Cycle Approach”, CRC Press edited by Ginger Levin -8- Figure 4: Project Management Process Maturity PMPM or (PM)2 Model Organizational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3) by PMI The OPM3 by PMI (2003) is so far the most comprehensive maturity model for projects, programs and portfolios, and it can rightly claim to be an organizational maturity model, but only in the areas of the overall domain of project management. As mentioned earlier, OPM3 does not stray into the areas of strategic management or operations management and therefore cannot be compared directly with CMM or similar approaches. PMI’s OPM3 is the latest addition to the list of maturity models, and it is much more attractive as it starts with addressing the organization and not the projects. Moreover its maturity model is also very interesting as it is not in conventional layers but in a threedimensional model. The three dimensions are processes, domains and stages where processes include all the five process groups of project management i.e., initiating, planning, executing, controlling and closing. Domains are projects, programs and portfolios, and Stages are standardize, measure, control and continuously improve. OPM3 is a major leap in project management maturity models but it makes the whole thing extremely complex, and Kerzner’s PMMM seems comparatively simpler to implement. Again the focus is on the domains, which are all project related. Levin, G., and Ward, J.L. (to appear in 2012) explains OPM3 as follows:PMI (2003) in 1998 initiated a global project to develop OPM3 as a standard for organizational project management. This standard was published in 2003, comprising three areas: Knowledge – the contents of the standard Assessment – a method for comparison against the Standard Improvement – an approach to establish a process for possible improvements based on the Standard PMI developed OPM3 to help strengthen the relationship between strategic planning and the execution of programs and projects so the results were ones that were “predictable, reliable, and consistent, and correlate with organizational success” (2003, p. xi). As part of this standard, an approach for a self assessment was included along with directories that contained over 600 best practices, capabilities, and outcomes. OPM3 is set up in a manner in which assessments can be conducted on project management, program management, and/or portfolio management according to the following four stages of process improvement: © 2012, Suhail Iqbal, PE, PMP Originally published as a part of “Program Management: A Life Cycle Approach”, CRC Press edited by Ginger Levin -9- standardize, measure, control, and continuous improvement. OPM3 does not contain levels of maturity but instead emphasizes best practices that need to be in place for multiple perspectives of maturity, see Figure 5. Figure 5: Organizational Environment and OPM3 The Second Edition of the Standard (2008) contains 488 best practices or optimal ways to achieve stated goals or objectives in order to deliver portfolios, programs, or projects predictably, consistently, and successfully to bring to fruition the organization’s strategic intent. These best practices are based on at least two capabilities, or specific competencies that must exist in the organization. These capabilities each have multiple outcomes and key performance indicators (KPIs) associated with them. The KPIs are used to see if each outcome associated with the capability is in place and can be either quantitative or qualitative. There are also dependencies within the best practices in OPM3, enabling a sequence to follow to achieve best practices that are not in place as noted during an assessment. The best practices are mapped to the knowledge areas in portfolio, program, and project management. Business results, including predictability of success, resource use, and the balanced scorecard, are other areas that can be assessed using OPM3, see Figure 6 below. While the OPM3 Standard contains an abbreviated assessment method, an OPM3 On Line assessment tool is available as well as detailed assessments conducted by individuals certified as OPM3 Professionals who have the ability to conduct assessments using the proprietary Product Suite methodology, a detailed on line tool to not only determine the best practices in place in an organization but also to chart an improvement plan or roadmap to help organizations achieve other best practices. © 2012, Suhail Iqbal, PE, PMP Originally published as a part of “Program Management: A Life Cycle Approach”, CRC Press edited by Ginger Levin - 10 - Figure 6: What is Measured in OPM3 In PMI’s second edition (2008), 74 organizational enablers are part of the 488 best practices. These organizational enablers cover areas such as those shown in Table 1: OPM Policy and Vision OPM Practices OPM Techniques Training Management Systems Competency Management Success Criteria Benchmarking OPM Communities Metrics Sponsorship Resources Knowledge Management OPM Methodology Strategic Alignment Table 1: Organizational Enablers Portfolio, Programme, and Project Management Maturity Model (P3M3) by OGC, UK The Office of Government Commerce (OGC) also has been active in the development of maturity models in portfolio, program, and project management. Beginning as part of a project management maturity model in its PRINCE2 (PRojects In Controlled Environments) methodology, in 2006, OGC released its Portfolio, Programme, and Project Management Maturity Model (P3M3). It then was updated in 2008 and 2010, recognizing that more organizations were moving into program and portfolio management. Even with the updates, OGC (2010) has set up each new version so it is comparable with the first model, making it easier for organizations to use the assessment approach. Its emphasis is to identify an organization’s current capabilities, enable the organization to compare its current state to its desired state, and determine needed improvements. OGC also has a self-assessment tool available. See Figure 7 for an overview of the P3M3 structure © 2012, Suhail Iqbal, PE, PMP Originally published as a part of “Program Management: A Life Cycle Approach”, CRC Press edited by Ginger Levin - 11 - Figure 7: P3M3 Structure OGC purposely set up P3M3 without interdependencies between the models in order that independent assessments can be conducted. It also follows a five-level staged approach, building on the CMM-SW structure: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Level 1 = awareness of the process Level 2 = repeatable process Level 3 = defined process Level 4 = managed process Level 5 = optimized process The seven perspectives as shown in Figure 7 are in each of the three models and can be assessed at each level. Attributes are part of each perspective, with specific and generic attributes described as appropriate. The emphasis is to provide a flexible approach to meet an organization’s specific and unique requirements. Although a self-assessment approach is included, similar to PMI in OPM3 with its Certified OPM3 Professionals, the APM Group accredits consulting organizations to develop maturity questionnaires. PRINCE2 Maturity Model by OGC, UK The PRINCE2 Maturity Model (P2MM) is a standard which provides a framework with which organizations can assess their current adoption of the PRINCE2 project management method and put in place improvement plans with measurable outcomes based on industry best practice. P2MM is derived from the Portfolio, Programme and Project Management Maturity Model (P3M3). The P2MM can be used by organizations that have adopted PRINCE2 as the basis for their project management method, in place of the Project Management Maturity Model (PjMM) that forms part of the P3M3. The PRINCE2 Maturity Model uses the same structure as the P3M3 from which it is derived, using:  A five-level maturity framework to characterize the levels of organizational maturity  Seven process perspectives covering key aspects of organization-wide project management 1. Management Control 2. Benefits Management 3. Financial Management 4. Stakeholder Engagement 5. Risk Management 6. Organizational Governance © 2012, Suhail Iqbal, PE, PMP Originally published as a part of “Program Management: A Life Cycle Approach”, CRC Press edited by Ginger Levin - 12 -  7. Resource Management Specific and generic attributes for each level of maturity within each of the process perspectives. Project, Program and Portfolio Management Maturity Model by ESI International ESI International, since 1999, has developed three separate models for project, program and portfolio maturity as follows:   ProjectFRAMEWORK™ Project Management Maturity Model ProgramFRAMEWORK™ Program Management Maturity Model PortfolioFRAMEWORK™ Portfolio Management Maturity Model Based on a paper and presentation by Fincher and Levin (1997), ESI International began the development of the Project Framework Maturity Model. These five levels and their definitions also were similar to those of the CMMSW: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Initial – Ad hoc, no formal project management process Repeatable – Implementing a project management methodology Defined – Project management practices used and adapted Managed – Project management practices measured and controlled Optimizing – Focusing on process improvement Fincher and Levin proposed goals for Levels 2-4 based on each of PMI’s knowledge areas in the PMBOK® Guide of 1996, with Level 5 consisting of seven goals. ProjectFRAMEWORK™ ProjectFRAMEWORK™ (Levin, Hill, DeFillipis, Ward, and Shaltry, 1999) expanded on this work with the purpose of the model to provide guidance to organizations to improve the way they manage projects throughout their organizations. It focuses on continuous improvement in managing and developing project management at the organizational level. ProjectFRAMEWORK™ consists of five levels, similar to those originally proposed by Fincher and Levin, but with Level 3 titled Integrated, and Level 4 titled Comprehensive. Following the work of the SEI in the CMM-SW (Software) and in discussions with the SEI, ProjectFRAMEWORK™ describes for Levels 2-5 objectives, commitment to perform, ability to perform, activities performed, evaluation, and verification, with examples in each area based on the PMBOK® knowledge areas, see Figure 8. © 2012, Suhail Iqbal, PE, PMP Originally published as a part of “Program Management: A Life Cycle Approach”, CRC Press edited by Ginger Levin - 13 - Figure 8: ProjectFRAMEWORK™ The model was once available on ESI’s web site for downloading at no cost by interested organizations. It was accompanied by a detailed assessment methodology, which included a questionnaire to be sent to project professionals at a variety of levels, questions to ask during interviews held, and items for consideration in review of organizational documents, such as policies, procedures, and processes in project management, along with different items for review of documents prepared on actual projects. ESI established a training program in use of the model and certified professionals at the completion of this program. ProjectFRAMEWORK™ was updated after the second, third, and fourth editions of the PMBOK® were issued. In 2010, (Levin, Arlt, and Ward) prepared comparable models and assessment methodologies for program and portfolio management based on the second editions of the PMI standards in these areas. ProgramFRAMEWORK™ Levin, G., Arlt, M., and Ward, J.L. (2010) suggests ProgramFRAMEWORK™ , a model with five levels similar to ProjectFRAMEWORK™. Level 1 “adhoc”, has no specific objectives or activities described assuming all organizations would be at this level of program management by default. Level 2 “Consistent” focuses on establishing a foundation of basic program management processes and eliminating fundamental problems by characterizing a methodology, governance and training. Level 3 “Integrated” serves to establish the base founded in the previous level and focuses on gaining a strategic competitive advantage. Level 4 “Comprehensive” recognizes the value of grouping interdependent projects into a program management structure and the benefits associated with program management, with emphasis on stakeholder and benefits management. Level 5 “Optimizing” suggests an organization where all established mechanisms are being used appropriately and ir being continuously improved, resulting in expansion of expert/knowledge-base systems for decision models. PortfolioFRAMEWORK™ PortfolioFRAMEWORK™ by Levin, G., Arlt, M., and Ward, J.L. (2010), like the previous two models by ESI has exactly the same Level structure and Level 1 in this case is again like ProgramFRAMEWORK where no specific objectives are defined. Level 2 “Consistent” focuses on establishing basic processes and standards for portfolio management and to ensure that management has some visibility into the portfolio management process. An organization with Level 5 “Integrated” is motivated to gain a strategic, competitive advantage through its portfolio management process with emphasis on organizational standards and institutionalized processes. At Level 4, the organization recognizes the value of portfolio management and all programs, projects, and operational activities contribute to the organization’s strategic goals and objectives. At Level 5 “Optimizing”, an organization’s portfolio management methodology operates routinely and efficiently, and the portfolio is assessed regularly. The © 2012, Suhail Iqbal, PE, PMP Originally published as a part of “Program Management: A Life Cycle Approach”, CRC Press edited by Ginger Levin - 14 - organization focuses on the processes by which portfolio management is practiced, ensuring that any common causes of problems are prioritized and systematically eliminated. It strives to improve its portfolio management processes and further refine them to meet new business challenges. Programme Management Maturity Model by Martinelli and Waddell The benefit of using a framework for introducing and/or maturing the program management model within an organization is that it provides a structured approach for setting direction, initiating actions, driving decisions, and changing the cultural components of the enterprise. Figure 9 illustrates the stages of the PgMMM. (Martinelli and Waddel, 2007) Figure 9: Program Management Maturity Model Martinelli and Waddel’s (2007) Program Management Maturity Model has only 4 Stages as compared to traditional 5 Levels in other models. Stage 1 is “Organization”, which is the foundation upon which program management is built. It is critical that the right organizational structure, management governance, and roles and responsibilities be put in place for the program management model to yield effective business results. Stage 2 is “Methods and Processes”, which establishes the core development lifecycle framework and the primary program and project management methodologies and associated processes to consistently manage programs to success. Stage 3 “Metrics and Tools”, brings in a consistent and effective set of metrics to measure the achievement of the business objectives driving the need for each program. Additionally, a suite of program management tools are phased into the organization to support increased productivity and efficiency. Stage 4 “The Enterprise Program Management Office” establishes program management as a true function within the organization on par with the other key development functions. This stage brings a strong alignment between business strategy and program execution, consistency in business results across programs, and development of a true program management career path and competency development. (Martinelli and Waddel, 2007) A robust development life cycle methodology must first be established to provide a consistent framework to synchronize the cross-project, cross-discipline work within a program. Once the life cycle is established, the supporting program management processes are developed and put into practice. Also in stage two, the program manager takes on the business management responsibilities associated with his or her program. This means focusing on creating the business case for the program, establishing and managing to the business success criteria, monitoring the market, customers, and competitors, and ensuring continued alignment of the program to business strategy. With the establishment of effective program management methodologies and processes, as well as consistency in the practices involved in managing programs to success, an organization is ready to move from stage two to stage three. The focus of the transition from stage two to three is on establishing the correct set of metrics to measure performance and a suite of tools to generate the measures. © 2012, Suhail Iqbal, PE, PMP Originally published as a part of “Program Management: A Life Cycle Approach”, CRC Press edited by Ginger Levin - 15 - The final stage of program management maturity is the introduction of an enterprise program management office (PMO). The PMO addresses two of the most common problems that arise as the use of program management increases within an organization. First is the need for consistency in the definition, planning and execution of all programs within a business unit. Without consistency across the portfolio of programs, business results are not predictable or repeatable on a recurring basis. Second is the need for a single program management point of contact within an organization as shown in Figure 10. © 2012, Suhail Iqbal, PE, PMP Originally published as a part of “Program Management: A Life Cycle Approach”, CRC Press edited by Ginger Levin - 16 - Figure 10: Transitioning in Program Management Maturity Model Stages IMSI Project Management Assessment Model by Holmes and Walsh The Integrated Management Systems, Inc. (IMSI) Assessment Model is employed to identify incremental steps to improve how a company manages its projects and to increase the likelihood of achieving project success. The IMSI assessment model looks at each of the project management knowledge areas and the enablers, critical elements and processes associated with them. If the benefits derived from project management increase in proportion to how well project management processes are used, the intent of the IMSI project management assessment model is to help organizations better use the project management processes, elements and enablers (Holmes and Walsh, 2005). Like previous maturity models, IMSI Project Management Assessment Model also consists of 5 Levels, Level 1 being the lowest and named “Need Awareness”. When some PM Methodologies are developed and implemented, an organization may reach Level 2, which is at Level 2 “Organized & Documented”. With better project management practices used and adapted, it will promote to Level 3, which is “Bought In/Integrated”. Interestingly, the IMSI model does not have a separate model for program and portfolio management, but it shows Level 4 of its basic model as “Portfolio Management”, which the authors insist can be acquired through Measured and Controlled project management processes. Like other maturity models, Level 5 here is “Continuing Improvement” which comes through focus on process improvement. The maturity model is shown in Figure 11. © 2012, Suhail Iqbal, PE, PMP Originally published as a part of “Program Management: A Life Cycle Approach”, CRC Press edited by Ginger Levin - 17 - Figure 11: IMSI Project Management Assessment Model Strategic View of Organizational Maturity Looking at the progress made so far on the various maturity models and specially those related to program management, it is observed that there always was an awareness of the organizational strategy in all the models so far evolved, but because of the inclination of these well-noted and respected authors toward project management, they tend to focus more on the topics related to project, program and/or portfolio management and organizational maturity is still not the main focus. OPM3 is probably the only model, which starts addressing the organizational aspects, but it still remains pre-dominantly project oriented. All maturity models look at the organization from their window of choice and pamper their own area of interest more than any other, gradually building a strategic justification for their respective maturity model. It is agreed that, whether the focus is on quality, people, or projects, it is definitely going to contribute positively to overall maturity of the organization. It is also agreed that if all these maturity models are analyzed and somehow tailored together, it will still be a positive contribution. But the question is, has organizational maturity even been considered in isolation? The maturity of an organization is a very broad issue and must be addressed top-down rather than evolving it in bottom-up fashion. Bottom-up will definitely miss out some very important strategic ingredients, which will let this never-ending evolution continue forever. © 2012, Suhail Iqbal, PE, PMP Originally published as a part of “Program Management: A Life Cycle Approach”, CRC Press edited by Ginger Levin - 18 - From Learning Organization to Learning Maturity Learning Organizations To find a solution to this problem, we have to take a unified strategic view of organizational maturity. This probably will not be possible without an intimate knowledge of organizational behavior, which to some extent has already been taken care of, in developing several of these maturity models. Senge (1990, 1994) introduced five learning disciplines at the core of Learning Organization namely, Personal Mastery, Mental Models, Shared Vision, Team Learning and Systems Thinking. It has also been repeatedly reported that organizations seriously committed to quality management are uniquely prepared to study the “learning disciplines” (Senge, P., 1994, 10). Strategic thinking starts with reflection on the deepest nature of an undertaking and on the central challenges it poses. Projects and Strategy Project management has an edge here as project management becomes the way to implement corporate strategy (Turner 1993; Frame 1994). Projects, being the catalyst for change, are instrumental in realizing the strategic objectives of an organization. "Projects are undertaken to add value to the sponsoring organization. In the private sector this ultimately means increasing the value of shares to the holders of equity in the company." But performance also comes from the maturity of an organization to deal with projects, especially through the aspects of learning. (Bredillet, C, 2003). Bredillet proposes a method in his design for a life-long learning model, in which he discusses two dimensions, individual/organizational dimension and synchronic/diachronic dimension. Some development including knowledge management and measurement of performance is based on Bontis (1999) as shown in Figure 14. Figure 12: Four Fields of Knowledge Management in Two Dimensions (Bredillet, C., 2003; Bontis, N, 1999) © 2012, Suhail Iqbal, PE, PMP Originally published as a part of “Program Management: A Life Cycle Approach”, CRC Press edited by Ginger Levin - 19 - Figure 12 serves to portray that highest level of input at organizational level is organizational learning, where maturity models are placed at a lower tier with more orientation toward diachronic dimension. As we are discussing organizational maturity here, we will not focus on the individual dimension, but the organizational dimension alone. OPM3 bases its three-dimensional model more on the best practices. and thus performance is measured in relation to the model evolved from these best practices. We can see that best practices lie more on synchronic dimension and are at much lower tier on organizational hierarchy. The second dimension of OPM3 catering to projects, programs and portfolios, does show an inclination towards organizational learning but this aspect is not very well emphasized. The next revision of OPM3, scheduled to be released in 2013, is expected to further improve the model and make it more organizational. Programs and Strategy Where projects are catalyst for change, they are dependent on the organizational strategy to tailor a solution to bring that change about. Organizational change is not usually handled directly by projects. In mature organizations, the organizational strategy is broken down into smaller strategic objectives which may be organized in shape of programs. These programs would have their own program strategic objectives, naturally in alignment with the overall organizational objectives. All the projects under a program would be organized in a way that all projects are aligned with the overall program objectives. Projects do have their separate business case but they are focused on delivering the product, service or result, and are not much concerned about the long term benefits, as these benefits would be available to reap much after the project has already closed down. It does not mean that the business case of a project does not justify these benefits. It simply means projects would not be there when the benefits will be realized. Programs take account of the benefit realization as they are designed to last as long as the benefits are satisfactorily realized. They are therefore of generally longer durations as compared to the projects. In case of independent projects working directly under organizational strategy, it becomes the responsibility of organization to ensure benefits realization. Organizations, probably cannot be mature enough without existence of Programs, and if there are no programs, then they must be having some kind of project support mechanism in shape of a PMO to take care of issues related to benefits or transition of products after the projects have closed down. Generally it is not the responsibility of PMO to look after benefits management except when the level of PMO has intentionally been raised to Enterprise or Strategic levels. OPM3 addresses the maturity of programs very appropriately as domains are one of the dimension of OPM3. Portfolios and Strategy For a mature organization all the three domains, projects, programs and portfolios have to meet the maturity standards. Portfolio plays a very high level strategic role by ensuring that project investments are being managed most appropriately. Portfolio is the level closest to the organizational strategy and is wholly responsible for investment in all programs and projects being run under the organizational control. Portfolios have a much higher responsibility of investment portfolio and thus it would not be appropriate to involve portfolio management with daily running of program and project management. Portfolio may control strategic resources and investments and may even have a PMO at Portfolio level to assist in its own strategic objectives, but we seldom assign the responsibility of physically managing or day-to-day monitoring individual programs and projects to the portfolio. This clearly shows the maturity requirements of a Portfolio are completely different from those of Programs or even Projects. From the perspective of Project Management, Portfolio is the highest level which communicates with organizational strategy and that is where all Project Management Maturity Models lose track of Organizational Maturity. OPM3 is the only model which addresses all aspects of projects, programs and portfolios to be assessed and managed for maturity, but as soon as it comes to the organizational strategy, Project Management Maturity Models have their hands off. Naturally, for operational aspects or from dimensions of capability, quality or risk, we may have to assess an organization’s maturity through some other maturity model, but here is the disconnect. All maturity models are different structurally and the unified strategic view, we are expecting to emerge, is not likely to emerge. To find or develop a common unified maturity model, we need to evolve as suggested by Senge (1990, 2994) in the concept of Organizational Learning. Learning Maturity Learning maturity is applicable when subjects use external structures (i.e., technologies) in new and novel ways to perform behaviors that were previously unattainable. (Templeton, G. F., 2004). Organizations, as explained earlier, © 2012, Suhail Iqbal, PE, PMP Originally published as a part of “Program Management: A Life Cycle Approach”, CRC Press edited by Ginger Levin - 20 - are living organisms, and like intellectual intelligence (IQ) and emotional intelligence (EQ) in human beings, Templeton G. F. (2004) proposes a model (Figure 13) of effective intelligence for learning organizations, which is a summation of technological intelligence and natural intelligence. Learning maturity, according to him, contributes directly to technological intelligence. Figure 13: Proposed Model of Effective Intelligence (Templeton, G. F., 2004) An organization needs to accumulate use-development experience and have access to technology to learn maturity, thus increasing its technological intelligence and subsequently effective intelligence. This contribution to the learning organization may not be apparently visible as the maturity is diachronic and will yield results in long run. Only if organizations can focus on the learning processes, they can actually work toward their maturity. All maturity models can only serve to provide them a mean for measurement of their performance. Even after understanding the importance of having a unified strategic view of organizational maturity, the learning organization and learning maturity, we have only reached a state of common understanding that none of the existing maturity models serve the organizational maturity as a whole. How Much Maturity is Required? It is now necessary to return back to the very important question of how much maturity is required. This is something we forget to understand when we start growing up, we do not estimate how much we want to grow and how much maturity is suitable for us. Will it be fine for a child to be as mature as an adult? Definitely a child does not need to be as mature as an adult, and thus the level of maturity is less. Similarly if an organization has limited strategic objectives and needs not to grow more than a specific limit, will any of these maturity models serve it well. It may improve its processes, its quality, its human resources, and even its project management skills, but for how long and how much? The size of organization plays an important role in its maturity, and therefore, a model which can adjust itself to the needs of an organization must be developed. Moreover, we need to understand that all organizations and businesses have a definite span of life, and like humans and programs and projects they have to die one day. Continuous improvement is good motivator, but an organization has to understand that improvement beyond its life span or beyond its strategic objectives is not desired. There is a need to explore this new area of research and find a well-suited organizational maturity model which can answer all these open questions. © 2012, Suhail Iqbal, PE, PMP Originally published as a part of “Program Management: A Life Cycle Approach”, CRC Press edited by Ginger Levin - 21 - Summary The research has highlighted and indicated a very important and missing research area, which can change the shape of maturity models for the times to come. The need to bring all the maturity models to the drawing board and consolidate their results to form an organizational maturity model may even not be enough, and some creative and fresh thinking is required to identify all ingredients of organizational maturity. This also brings us to the realization that various organizations may have different maturity requirements, and therefore the new organizational maturity model must address it appropriately. Currently useful research is under way in the field of organizational maturity but the irony is that, most of it is specific to a certain area and the spirit of organizational maturity is not being addressed as such. The object here is not to propose yet another maturity model but to find synergies amongst several viewpoints on organizational maturity and to answer the question "HOW DOES AN ORGANIZATION MATURE AND WHY?" If this question is well-responded, we can start working towards the next question "HOW CAN WE FIND A COMMON STANDARD FOR ORGANIZATIONAL MATURITY?" Future direction from this study would be to formulate a universally accepted ORGANZATIONAL MATURITY MODEL. © 2012, Suhail Iqbal, PE, PMP Originally published as a part of “Program Management: A Life Cycle Approach”, CRC Press edited by Ginger Levin - 22 - References Bontis, Nick. 1999. The Knowledge Toolbox: A Review of Tools Available to Measure and Manage Intangible Resources. European Management Journal 17 (4). Bredillet, C. (2003) Proposition of a Systemic and Dynamic Model to Design Lifelong Learning Structure—The Quest of the Missing Link between Men, Team, and Organizational Learning, Chapter 4 Retrieved from The Frontiers of Project Management Research, Jeffrey K. Pinto, David I. Cleland and Dennis P. Slevin (eds) (2003), Newtown Square: Project Management Institute Brookes, N., and Clark, R., (2009), Using Maturity Models to Improve Project Management Practice, POMS 20th Annual Conference, Orlando, Florida, May 1-4, 2009 Carnegie Mellon University. Center for Technology Transfer and Enterprise Creation. (2010). DoD funding renewed for Software Engineering Institute. June 30. http://www.cmu.edu/cttec/News/2010-news Cooke-Davies, T, J. Schlichter and C. Bredillet, (2001, November). Beyond the PMBOK® Guide, Proceedings of the Project Management Institute Annual Seminars & Symposium, 200, Nashville, TN Crawford, J.K., Project Management Maturity Model, 2nd Edition, 2007, Auerbach Publications. Crosby, P. (1979). Quality is free. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc. Fincher, A. and Levin, G. (1997). Project management maturity model. Project Management Instritute 28th Annual Seminars & Symposium. Chicago, IL: Papers presented September 29 to October 1, pp. 1028-1035. Frame, J. Davidson. (1994) The New Project Management: Tools for an Age of Rapid Change, Corporate Reengineering, and Other Business Realities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hillson, D., (2001, November), Benchmarking Organisational Project Management Capability, Proceedings of the Project Management Institute Annual Seminars & Symposium, Nashville, Tenn., Nov. 1-10,2001 Holmes, S. J., and Walsh, R. T. (2005), Conducting Effective Project Management Maturity Assessment Interviews, IMSI TECH, 2005 Humphrey, W.S. (1989). Managing the software process. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Professional. Humphrey, W.S. (1997), Managing Technical People: Innovation, Teamwork, and the Software Process, Reading, MA: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc. Iqbal, S. (2005), A Strategic View of Organizational Maturity, Proceedings of PMI Global Congress Asia Pacific 2005 Proceedings, Singapore, and PMI Global Congress EMEA 2005 Proceedings, Edinburgh, Scotland. Iqbal, S. (2006), Creative Maturity - Resolving the Organizational Maturity Conflict, Proceedings of PMI Global Congress Asia Pacific 2006 Proceedings, Bangkok, and PMI Global Congress EMEA 2006 Proceedings, Madrid, Spain. Johnston, R. (2003, Jan), Organisational Process Improvement- Project and Programme Management Maturity, Insight, 2003, p 7-9. Jugdev, K and Thomas, J. (2002). Project management maturity models: The silver bullets of competitive advangage? Project Management Journal 33(4), 4-14. Kerzner, H., (2001), Strategic planning for project management using a project management maturity model, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley Kerzner, H. (2009). Project management: A system approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling. Tenth edition. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Kerzner, H. (2011). Personal correspondence with Ginger Levin, August 31. Keuten, Tom (2005), CMMI© and OPM3®: A Powerful Combination for Increasing Organizational Maturity, Project Magazine, http://www.projectmagazine.com/v5i4/cmmi.html, last accessed on Dec 9, 2005. Kwak, Y. H., and Ibbs, C.W., (2000), Berkeley Project Management Maturity Model: Measuring the value of project management, 2000, IEEE EMS Int. Engineering Management Cong., 1-5. Kwak, Y. H., and Ibbs, C.W., (2000). Assessing project management maturity. Project Management Journal. 36(1), 32.43. Kwak, Y. H., and Ibbs, C.W., (2002), Project Management Process Maturity Model (PM)2 Model, Journal of Management in Engineering, July 2002 Levin, G. and Ward, J.L. (to appear in 2012), Maturity Models. in Turner, J.R. (ed). The Gower Handbook of Project Management, 5th edition. Aldershott: Gower. Levin, G., Hill, G.M., DeFilippis, P., Ward, J.L., and Shaltry, P. (1999). ProjectFRAMEWORK™. Arlington, VA: ESI International. Levin, G., Arlt, M., and Ward, J.L. (2010). ProgramFRAMEWORK™. Arlington, VA: ESI International. Levin, G., Arlt, M., and Ward, J.L. (2010). PortfolioFRAMEWORK™. Arlington, VA: ESI International. © 2012, Suhail Iqbal, PE, PMP Originally published as a part of “Program Management: A Life Cycle Approach”, CRC Press edited by Ginger Levin - 23 - Ludden, P., Coates. A., McGarry, S. (2004) OPM3™ in a CMM World – EDS Ireland’s (a CMMI3 organization) experience with OPM3™, Proceedings of the PMI Global Congress 2004 – Europe (Prague, Czech Republic) Martinelli, R., and Waddell, J., (2007), The Program Management Maturity Model – A Framework for Change, PM World Today, March 2007, Vol IX, Issue III. Merriam-Webster. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary (1997). Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. Mullaly, M.E., (2001) So Who Needs Maturity Anyway?, Gantthead, http://www.gantthead.com/article.cfm?ID=74350, last accessed on Feb 5, 2012 Mullaly, M.E., (2005), Maturity Models – A Framework For Organizational Improvement, PM Topics, PMI IT & Telecom SIG, Sep 01, 2005, http://pmi-ittelecom.org/pmtopics/maturity-models-a-framework-fororganizational-improvement/, last accessed on Apr 2, 2012. Mullaly, M.E., (2006). Longitudinal analysis of project management maturity. Project Management Journal 36(3), 62-73. Nutt, H., Kessler, N., and Levin, G. (2003). Business development capability maturity model transforming the business development enterprise. Farmington, UT: Shipley Associates. Office of Government Commerce (2010). Portfolio, programme, and project maturity model (P3M3)® Version 2.1 Paulk, M. C., CV Weber, B Curtis, MB Chrissis (1995), The Capability Maturity Model: Guidelines for Improving the Software Process. Pittsburgh, PA :SEI, Addison Wesley Longman Inc., 1995 Penneypacker, J.S., PM Solutions’ Project Portfolio Management Maturity Model, 2005, Center For Business Practices ® Peterson, A.S., (2000, September), The Impact of PM Maturity on Integrated PM processes, Proceedings of the Project Management Institute Annual Seminars & Symposium, Houston, Texas, Sept. 7-16, 2000. Phillips, M. and Shrum, S. (2010). Process improvement for all: What to expect from CMMI Version 1.3. Crosstalk The Journal of Defense Software Engineering (23)1, 10-14. PMI Organisational Project Management Maturity Model – Knowledge Foundation (OPM3), (2003) Newtown Square: Project Management Institute Project Management Institute. (2003). Organizational project management maturity model knowledge foundation. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute. Project Management Institute. (2007). A Guide to the Project Management Body Of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) 4th Ed, Newtown Square: Project Management Institute Project Management Institute. (2008). Organizational project management maturity model (OPM3®) Second Edition. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute. Rosenstock, C. , R.S. Johnston and L.M. Anderson, (2000, September), Maturity Model Implementation and Use: A Case Study, Proceedings of the Project Management Institute Annual Seminars & Symposium, Houston, Texas, September 7-16, 2000. Senge, Peter M. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of The Learning Organization, New York: Doubleday/Currency Senge, Peter M. et al. (1994), The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing. Senge, Peter M., Art Kleiner, Charlotte Roberts, Richard B. Ross, and Bryan J. Smith (1994), The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tolls for Building a Learning Organization, New York: Doubleday/Currency Software Engineering Institute. (2000). CMMI for systems engineering/software engineering/integrated product and process development, Version 1.02. Pittsburgh, PA: Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Melllon University. Stewart, J., (2004) Promoting Project Management Maturity with an Enterprise Project Management Methodology, Proceedings of the PMI Global Congress 2004 – North America (Anaheim, CA) Stratton, R.W., Earned Value Management Maturity Model, 2006, Management Concepts. Templeton, Gary F. (2004) Proposition Learning Maturity: Incorporating Technological Influences in Individual and Organizational Learning Theory, Chapter 12 Retrieved from Creating Knowledge Based Organizations, Jatinder N. D. Gupta and Sushil K. Sharma (eds) (2004), Idea Group Publishing Turner, J. Rodney. (1993), The Handbook of Project-Based Management. The Henley Management Series, London: McGraw-Hill. Yazici, J. (2009). The role of project management maturity and organizational culture in perceived performance. Project Management Journal (40)3, 14-33. © 2012, Suhail Iqbal, PE, PMP Originally published as a part of “Program Management: A Life Cycle Approach”, CRC Press edited by Ginger Levin - 24 -