Each organization in its development goes through certain stages, characterized by a different mission, strategy, technology, organizational structure, level of competence of personnel and other qualitative and quantitative characteristics.
The transition to each next, higher level of development, makes the organization more competitive, dynamically responding to market requirements and optimally using its internal resources.
A model that describes the stages (levels) of an organization's development is called the project management maturity model. In relation to project activities, two main types of organizations can be distinguished:
Process-oriented. The specifics of the business of such enterprises determine the process approach to the management of the main activity (production enterprises with a conveyor flow, lining enterprises). Project management is used in the processes of internal (in relation to the main activity) development of the organization - reorganization, introduction of information systems, creation of new products, etc.
Project-oriented. These enterprises use a project approach to management not only for internal development, but also for the implementation of the main business activities (for example, the creation of local networks, construction, etc.)
Nevertheless, it is safe to say that in both types of organizations there is a need for the use of project management technologies. Therefore, organizations create and develop project management systems (PMS), focusing on their four main components:
- Personnel
- Methodology;
- Organizational structure;
- Technologies (including information technologies).
The project management maturity model provides organizations that aim to create effective project management with the ability to assess the current state of the project management system and determine the strategy and tactics for the development of SUP in the enterprise.
I would like to note that these are not just theoretical developments, but a very real methodological basis for planning the development of project management in practice, which is actively used in Russia.
As an example, we can cite a project implemented in the summer of 2003 in a Moscow holding, which includes about 10 enterprises engaged in various types of business - from the distribution of household appliances to IT consulting.
The holding, as an actively developing structure, was faced with the task of determining the directions and priorities for the development of the corporate project management system. And this problem was solved using the model of maturity of project management development of the German scientist Harold Kerzner (at that time OPM3, which will be discussed below, had not yet been released).
The Kerzner model consists of five levels, each of which represents a different degree of maturity (development) of project management practices in the company.
- Level 1 – terminology. At this level, the organization is aware of the importance of project management and the need for deep mastery of basic knowledge in the field of project management and the study of related terminology;
- Level 2 – general processes. The Organization recognizes the importance of defining and developing common processes so that the success of one project can be replicated in the implementation of others;
- Level 3 – unified methodology. The organization is aware of the importance of synergies arising from the integration of project management with other methodologies (quality management, processes, etc.);
A brief description of the project management maturity levels is given in Table 1. At the same time, a description from the model and brief information about the degree of maturity of certain indicators in the Holding in question are given.
Table 1. Brief description of project management maturity levels (levels 1-3)
| Maturity level | A brief description of the level taken from the Kerzner model | The degree of existence of maturity properties in the Holding |
| Level 1 | availability of separate practices of successful projects | the Holding has considerable experience of successful projects |
| individual "hotbeds of interest" in project management | there are large "foci" and serious attempts to implement the UP | |
| understanding at the management level of the overall usefulness of the use of honey UP | support exists | |
| training of individual employees on UP | serious funds are invested in training | |
| unified terminology of project management has been introduced | there is no general terminology of the UP, the same terms can be understood as different entities | |
| general accounting of ongoing projects has been introduced | Registers of projects exist at the level of individual enterprises of the Holding. At the level of the Holding as a whole, there is no consolidated register | |
| Level 2 | awareness of the tangible benefits of using project management | Exists |
| support of project management at all levels of management | Exists | |
| availability of a common project management methodology | not available, various units are developing a methodology | |
| availability of project control system | fragmentary | |
| development of a systematic plan for the development of personnel in the field of project management | Missing | |
| establishment of a project office or project management center | Missing | |
| Level 3 | integrated project management processes and other areas (quality, processes, etc.) | Missing |
| support from the organization (at the level of corporate culture, not only at the management level) | exists partially | |
| balancing the degree of formalization of project management | Missing | |
| setting up procedures for accumulation and dissemination of best practices in project management | Missing |
Based on the above table, in general, the maturity of project management in the Holding was positioned at level 2. However, some elements of Level 1 (e.g., the lack of a common common terminology for project management) and Level 3 (e.g., senior management's understanding of the possibility of achieving synergies by integrating project management with other areas of management – change, processes, etc.) were visible.
Based on the above table, in general, the maturity of project management in the Holding was positioned at level 2. However, some elements of Level 1 (e.g., the lack of a common common terminology for project management) and Level 3 (e.g., senior management's understanding of the possibility of achieving synergies by integrating project management with other areas of management – change, processes, etc.) were visible.
For a clearer positioning of the Holding in the maturity model, Level 2 was detailed in the life cycle phases (Table 2).
Table 2. Phases of the life cycle of the second level of project management maturity
| Level 2 Lifecycle Phase | Phase characteristics | The degree of existence of maturity properties in the Holding |
| initial phase | awareness of the need to apply project management methods and tools in the organization | Exists |
| Acceptance of the UP by senior management | explicit support of project management by the company's management | Exists |
| management's understanding of project management | Exists | |
| the presence of the institute of sponsorship (curatorship) over projects | exists partially | |
| willingness to change the established style and nature of the company's functioning | Exists | |
| Adoption of UP by line managers | clear support for project management by line managers | Exists |
| training of line managers in project management | Held | |
| separation of employees of functional units from their direct work to participate in project management training programs | partly | |
| growth | development of project management methodology | begins to be realized |
| effective project planning | is absent or exists in extremely limited variants | |
| minimization of changes in the content of the project (minimization of "sprawl" of the project boundaries) | Missing | |
| selection of project management software to support the methodology | Missing | |
| maturity | development of a control system for cost and schedule management | Missing |
| integration of cost control and schedule control | Missing | |
| development of a training program to support project management and improve staff skills | Missing | |
| establishment of a project office or project management center | Missing |
Based on the above analysis, it was determined that the maturity of project management in the Holding correlates with the stage of growth of the second level of maturity.
After this analysis, the directions of development of the corporate project management system in the Holding were formulated. Directions of development were formulated on the basis of the following prerequisites:
- Achieving each next level of project management maturity increases the efficiency of project management and reduces the risks of project failure;
- To carry out development for the transition to the next level of maturity, without having completed the work to achieve the current level, it is possible, but the risks due to the loss of consistency in development increase significantly.
Based on these prerequisites, it seems strategically correct to complete level 1 and reach the completed second level of maturity with a subsequent decision on the advisability of moving to level 3.
Based on this conclusion and additional analysis of the current state of project management, the directions and priorities for the development of the project management system were determined:
– 1st stage, alignment of the starting level of the UE in the Holding (completion of the level "General Terminology"):
formation and implementation of a common glossary of project management terms;
creation of the Register of projects at the level of the Holding and procedures for its maintenance;
– 2nd stage, creation of the basic elements of the Corporate Project Management System (KSUP) (access to the level of "General Processes"):
development of a unified methodology for project management in the Holding;
formation of a "Project Office" of the Holding level with the tasks of developing and ensuring the implementation of the KSUP, supporting and administering the project management system, summarizing and disseminating best practices;
formation of a staff development program and organization of training in UP. The most effective form of training at this stage of development is coaching - conducting practical seminars based on the real tasks of the Holding (cases)
– Stage 3, the development of KSUP and its integration with other corporate management systems. At the same time, such integration should be carried out only after fixing the basic project management elements in the methodology (step 2).
In the Kerzner model, the maturity of a company's project management is assessed in qualitative terms (as can be seen in the above example).
This leads to the presence of risks associated with the subjective assessment of qualitative parameters.
Today, there is a clear need to create an integrated model for the development of the project management system of the enterprise, the use of which would allow a simple and effective way to develop project management in organizations and which would contain assessments of not only qualitative, but also quantitative parameters.
No comments:
Post a Comment