A Contingency View On The Effect of Project Management Maturity On Perceived Performance

A contingency view on the effect of project management
maturity on perceived performance

Luciano Cerqueira Torres

A thesis

submitted for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy in Strategy, Programme and Project Management

April 9, 2014

Luciano Cerqueira Torres, 2014 Page 2

CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORSHIP/ORIGINALITY

I certify that the work in this thesis has not previously been submitted for a degree nor has
it been submitted as part of requirements for a degree except as fully acknowledged
within the text.
I also certify that the thesis has been written by me. Any help that I have received in my
research work and the preparation of the thesis itself has been acknowledged. In addition,
I certify that all information sources and literature used are indicated in the thesis.

Luciano Cerqueira Torres

Wednesday, 9 April 2014

Acknowledgements

This thesis would not be completed without the help of Dr. Ginger Levin, my advisor,
who always went the extra mile helping me any day of the week, with very detailed and
timely reviews, suggestions, and messages of encouragement and support. She was also
extremely helpful in securing the use of the ProjectFRAMEWORK maturity model and
helping its customization for the use in this thesis.

I would also like to thank Professor Ralf Mller, for all the support given in the classes of
the program and throughout. Also, the workshops held by Professor Ralf Mller and
Professor Rodney Turner were crucial to the development of this thesis, and their help
during those intense sessions was key for me to be able to define the research model, the
research questions and the methodology most importantly the one held in Warsaw in
July 2008.

I would like to thank Christophe Bredillet who took me in the program and supported the
start of this undertaking in any way he could, including getting me a very cozy apartment
in Lille.

And finally I would like to thank Vivian, my wife, for enduring this journey with me.

Table of Contents
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORSHIP/ORIGINALITY .................................................... 2
Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................. 3
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................. 4
List of Figures ...................................................................................................................... 8
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... 10
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................. 13
Abstract .............................................................................................................................. 14
Chapter 1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 16
1.1. Background .......................................................................................................... 16
1.1.1. Maturity Models ............................................................................................ 16
1.1.2. Contingency .................................................................................................. 19
1.1.3. Performance .................................................................................................. 20
1.2. Research Question ............................................................................................... 21
1.3. Methodology ........................................................................................................ 21
1.4. Summary of the Results ....................................................................................... 22
1.5. Structure of the Thesis ......................................................................................... 25
1.5.1. Chapter 2 Literature Review ...................................................................... 25
1.5.2. Chapter 3 Methodology ............................................................................. 25
1.5.3. Chapter 4 Data Analysis ............................................................................ 25
1.5.4. Chapter 5 Conclusions ............................................................................... 25
1.6. Summary .............................................................................................................. 26
Chapter 2 Literature Review ........................................................................................... 27
2.1. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 27
2.2. Project Management Maturity ............................................................................. 27
2.3. Statistical Process Control ................................................................................... 28
2.4. Maturity Models ................................................................................................... 30
2.4.1. Stages of Growth ........................................................................................... 30
2.4.2. The Quality Management Maturity Grid ...................................................... 30
2.4.3. The Capability Maturity Model (CMM) ....................................................... 32
2.4.3.1. Level 1 The Initial Level ..................................................................... 34
2.4.3.2. Level 2 The Repeatable Level ............................................................ 34
2.4.3.3. Level 3 The Defined Level ................................................................. 34
2.4.3.4. Level 4 The Managed Level ............................................................... 35
2.4.3.5. Level 5 The Optimizing Level ............................................................ 35
2.4.4. The People CMM .......................................................................................... 35
2.4.5. The CMM Integrated (CMMI) ...................................................................... 35
2.4.6. Maturity Models ............................................................................................ 37
2.4.7. Project Management Maturity Models ......................................................... 39
2.4.7.1. OPM3 Organizational Project Management Maturity Model (PMI,
2013b) 40
2.4.7.2. PM
2
- Project Management Maturity Model (Crawford, 2007) ............ 43
2.4.7.3. ProjectFRAMEWORK (Levin et al., 2013c) ...................................... 45
2.4.7.4. Project-oriented company Maturity Model (Gareis & Fssinger, 2007) 46
2.4.7.5. Project Management Maturity Model (Kerzner, 2005) ......................... 47
2.4.7.6. PM3M - Portfolio, Programme and Project Management Maturity
Model (OGC, 2010a) ............................................................................................. 48
2.4.7.7. MGP Project Management Maturity (Prado, 2008) ............................ 49
2.4.7.8. Risk Maturity Model (Hillson, 1997) and ProMMM Project
Management Maturity Model (Hillson, 2003) ....................................................... 49
2.4.7.9. CPMEM Cultural Project Management Effectiveness Model (Piney,
2004) 51
2.4.8. The Value of Project Management Maturity Models ................................... 51
2.4.8.1. Strategic Value ....................................................................................... 51
2.4.8.2. Benchmarking ........................................................................................ 52
2.4.8.3. Project Management Performance ......................................................... 53
2.4.9. Criticisms of Maturity Models ...................................................................... 55
2.4.10. Process Capability and Project Management Maturity ............................... 56
2.5. Contingency Theory ............................................................................................. 57
2.5.1. Contingency Theory in Project Management Research ................................ 62
2.5.2. Studies of Project Management Using Contingency .................................... 64
2.6. Performance ......................................................................................................... 69
2.7. Studies of Maturity and Contingency .................................................................. 72
2.8. Summary .............................................................................................................. 74
2.8.1. Summary of concepts .................................................................................... 74
2.8.2. Knowledge gap and justification for the research topic ................................ 75
Chapter 3 Methodology .................................................................................................. 76
3.1. Research Philosophy ............................................................................................ 76
3.1.1. Ontology and Epistemology ......................................................................... 76
3.1.2. Philosophies and Research Methods ............................................................. 77
3.2. Research Methods ................................................................................................ 80
3.3. Research Model ................................................................................................... 81
3.4. Research Methodology ........................................................................................ 81
3.4.1. Instrument Design ......................................................................................... 81
3.4.1.1. Project Management Maturity ............................................................... 83
3.4.1.2. Contingency ........................................................................................... 85
3.4.1.3. Performance ........................................................................................... 85
3.4.2. Pilot ............................................................................................................... 87
3.4.3. Ethical Considerations .................................................................................. 88
3.5. Sampling .............................................................................................................. 88
3.6. Data Analysis ....................................................................................................... 89
3.7. Data Check ........................................................................................................... 90
3.8. Summary .............................................................................................................. 91
Chapter 4 Data Analysis ................................................................................................. 93
4.1. The Sample .......................................................................................................... 93
4.2. Project Management Maturity ............................................................................. 96
4.2.1. Reliability of the Scale .................................................................................. 98
4.3. Project Context ..................................................................................................... 99
4.4. Performance ....................................................................................................... 101
4.4.1. Factor Analysis ........................................................................................... 103
4.5. Review of Research Model and Hypotheses Definition .................................... 106
4.6. Regression Analysis ........................................................................................... 107
4.6.1. Impact on Team .......................................................................................... 108
4.6.2. Organizational performance ........................................................................ 111
4.6.3. Impact on customer ..................................................................................... 114
4.6.4. Project Financial Results ............................................................................. 117
4.6.5. Preparing for the future ............................................................................... 121
4.6.6. Project impact on business .......................................................................... 122
4.6.7. Project efficiency ........................................................................................ 122
4.6.8. Internal Efficiency ...................................................................................... 124
4.6.9. Overall Performance ................................................................................... 127
4.6.10. Summary of Results .................................................................................. 129
4.7. Summary ............................................................................................................ 131
Chapter 5 Discussions and Conclusions ....................................................................... 132
5.1. Project management maturity ............................................................................ 132
5.2. Contingency applied to project management ..................................................... 132
5.3. Impact of maturity on performance ................................................................... 133
5.4. Industry of the project ........................................................................................ 134
5.5. Project management maturity, context and performance .................................. 135
5.5.1. Impact on team ............................................................................................ 135
5.5.2. Organizational Performance ....................................................................... 137
5.5.3. Impact on Customer .................................................................................... 138
5.5.4. Project Financial Results ............................................................................. 141
5.5.5. Internal Efficiency ...................................................................................... 144
5.5.6. Overall Performance ................................................................................... 144
5.5.7. Variance ...................................................................................................... 145
5.5.8. Discussion on Counterbalancing Contingency Factors .............................. 146
5.6. Contributions to Theory ..................................................................................... 146
5.7. Contributions to Practice .................................................................................... 147
5.8. Limitations of the Research ............................................................................... 147
5.9. Opportunities for Future Research ..................................................................... 148
5.10. Summary .......................................................................................................... 149
References ........................................................................................................................ 151
Appendix A Questionnaire ....................................................................... 168
Appendix B Additional analysis figures and charts .................................. 183


List of Figures
Figure 1 Control chart of process not under statistical control, adapted from Shewhart
(1939, p. 114) ............................................................................................................. 29
Figure 2 Control chart of process under statistical control, adapted from Shewhart
(1939, p. 114) ............................................................................................................. 29
Figure 3 Building blocks of OPM3 (PMI, 2013b) .......................................................... 41
Figure 4 Sample Results of OPM3 assessment, from PMI (2008, p. 6) ......................... 42
Figure 5 Project-oriented company Maturity Model, adapted from Fssinger (2006, p. 2)
.................................................................................................................................... 46
Figure 6 Kerzner's Project Management Maturity Model levels of maturity ................. 48
Figure 7 Goals and Methods Matrix, adapted from Turner & Cochrane (1993, p. 95) .. 65
Figure 8 Shenhar & Dvir Diamond Model (Shenhar & Dvir, 2007, p. 14) .................... 68
Figure 9 Research Model ................................................................................................ 81
Figure 10 Missing data analysis for maturity ................................................................. 97
Figure 11 Missing value analysis for performance variables ....................................... 102
Figure 12 Boxplot for Stakeholder Value ..................................................................... 102
Figure 13 Scree Plot of Performance Factors ............................................................... 105
Figure 14 Regression line for impact on team .............................................................. 136
Figure 15 Regression line for impact on team, project industry ................................... 137
Figure 16 Regression line for organizational performance and project strategic goals 138
Figure 17 Regression lines for organizational performance and industry of the project
.................................................................................................................................. 138
Figure 18 Regression line for impact on customer and goals ....................................... 139
Figure 19 Regression line for impact on customer and novelty ................................... 140
Figure 20 Regression line for impact on customer and industry of the project ............ 141
Figure 21 Regression line for project financial results and complexity ....................... 142
Figure 22 Regression line for project financial results and technology ........................ 143
Figure 23 Regression lines for project financial results and industry of the project .... 143
Figure 24 Internal efficiency and age of organization .................................................. 144
Figure 25 Regression lines for overall performance and industry of the project .......... 145
Figure 26 Scatterplot for impact on team regression .................................................... 188
Figure 27 Scatterplot for impact on team and project industry .................................... 189
Figure 28 Scatterplot for organizational performance and project industry ................. 189
Figure 29 Scatterplot for impact on customer regression ............................................. 189
Figure 30 Scatterplot for impact on customer and project industry regression ............ 190
Figure 31 Scatterplot for project financial results regression ....................................... 190
Figure 32 Scatterplot for project financial results and project industry regression ...... 190
Figure 33 Scatterplot for internal efficiency, using age of organization as moderator . 191
Figure 34 Scatterplot for internal efficiency and industry of the project as moderator 191

List of Tables
Table 1 Nolan's Stages of Growth (Gibson & Nolan, 1974) .......................................... 30
Table 2 Adapted from Crosby (1996, p. 32) ................................................................... 31
Table 3 Performance Improvements from Gibson et al (2006) ...................................... 54
Table 4 Organizational structures, (Perrow, 1967) ......................................................... 60
Table 5 Typology for project strategy from Pich & Loch (2002) ................................... 66
Table 6 Comparison of four research philosophies in management research (M.
Saunders et al., 2009, p. 119) ..................................................................................... 79
Table 7 Analysis of maturity models as instruments ...................................................... 83
Table 8 Project Contingency Constructs ......................................................................... 85
Table 9 Project Performance Questionnaire, adapted from Shenhar & Dvir (2007) ...... 86
Table 10 Organizational Performance Constructs .......................................................... 87
Table 11 Sources and the number of responses .............................................................. 93
Table 12 Country distribution ......................................................................................... 94
Table 13 Role of respondent distribution ........................................................................ 95
Table 14 Descriptive Statistics for Project Management Maturity ................................. 96
Table 15 EM Means for Project Management Maturity ................................................. 97
Table 16 Descriptive statistics for maturity variables after filling missing data ............ 98
Table 17 Reliability analysis for maturity variables ....................................................... 98
Table 18 Pearson correlation indexes for maturity variables .......................................... 99
Table 19 Descriptive Statistics for Context Variables .................................................... 99
Table 20 Descriptive Statistics For Ratio Variables After Transformation .................. 100
Table 21 Frequencies For Project Customer ................................................................. 100
Table 22 Frequencies for Project Strategic Goal .......................................................... 100
Table 23 Frequencies for Project Industry .................................................................... 101
Table 24 Descriptive Statistics to The Project Contributed to Stakeholder Value ....... 103
Table 25 KMO and Bartlet's test for Performance Variables ....................................... 103
Table 26 Rotated Component Matrix for Performance (coefficients above 0.5) ......... 104
Table 27 Reliability Tests for Performance Factors ..................................................... 105
Table 28 Regression for impact on team ...................................................................... 108
Table 29 Regression for impact on team with reduced terms ....................................... 109
Table 30 Regression for impact on team and project strategic goal ............................. 110
Table 31 Regression for impact on team and project industry ..................................... 110
Table 32 Regression for impact on team and project industry ..................................... 111
Table 33 Regression for organizational performance ................................................... 111
Table 34 Regression for organizational performance, with goals as interaction term .. 112
Table 35 Regression for organizational performance and project strategic goal .......... 112
Table 36 Regression for organizational performance and project strategic goal .......... 113
Table 37 Regression for organizational performance and project industry .................. 113
Table 38 Regression for organizational performance and government projects .......... 114
Table 39 Regression for impact on customer ............................................................... 114
Table 40 Regression for impact on customer with reduced terms ................................ 115
Table 41 Regression for impact on customer and project strategic goal ...................... 116
Table 42 Regression for impact on customer and project industry .............................. 116
Table 43 Regression for impact on customer and project industry .............................. 117
Table 44 Regression for project financial results ......................................................... 118
Table 45 Regression for project financial results using reduced interaction terms ...... 118
Table 46 Regression for project financial results and project strategic goal ................ 119
Table 47 Regression for project financial results and project strategic goal ................ 119
Table 48 Regression for project financial results and industry of the project .............. 120
Table 49 Regression for project financial results and industry of the project .............. 120
Table 50 Regression for preparing for the future .......................................................... 121
Table 51 Regression for project impact on business .................................................... 122
Table 52 Regression for project efficiency ................................................................... 123
Table 53 Regression for project efficiency and project strategic goal .......................... 123
Table 54 Regression for project efficiency and industry of the project ........................ 124
Table 55 Regression for internal efficiency .................................................................. 125
Table 56 Regression for internal efficiency using company age as interaction term ... 125
Table 57 Regression for internal efficiency and project strategic goal ........................ 126
Table 58 Regression for internal efficiency and industry of the project ....................... 126
Table 59 Regression for internal efficiency and industry of the project with reduced
terms ......................................................................................................................... 127
Table 60 Regression for overall performance ............................................................... 127
Table 61 Regression for overall performance and project strategic goal ..................... 128
Table 62 Regression for overall performance and project strategic goal ..................... 128
Table 63 Regression for overall performance and industry of the project ................... 129
Table 64 Summary of results ........................................................................................ 129
Table 65 Performance factors and link to maturity ...................................................... 133
Table 66 Significant contingency factors ..................................................................... 135
Table 67 Factors influencing the impact of project management maturity on
performance ............................................................................................................. 150
Table 68 Descriptive statistics for performance questions before treatment for missing
values ....................................................................................................................... 183
Table 69 Descriptive statistics for performance questions after treatment for missing
values ....................................................................................................................... 184
Table 70 Performance questions anti-image correlation diagonals (Measure of Sample
Adequacy) ................................................................................................................ 186
Table 71 Reliability test for impact on team ................................................................. 186
Table 72 Reliability tests for organizational performance ............................................ 186
Table 73 Reliability tests for impact on customer ........................................................ 187
Table 74 Reliability tests for project financial results .................................................. 187
Table 75 Reliability tests for preparing for the future .................................................. 187
Table 76 Reliability tests for project impact on business ............................................. 187
Table 77 Reliability tests for project efficiency ............................................................ 188
Table 78 Reliability tests for internal efficiency ........................................................... 188
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

CMM Capability Maturity Model
CMMI Capability Maturity Model Integration
CPI Cost Performance Index
CPMEM Cultural Project Management Effectiveness Model
EDP Electronic Data Processing
EM Expectation-maximization
ESI Educational Services Institute
EVM3 Earned Value Management Maturity Model
IMSI Integrated Management Systems Inc.
IPD-CMM Integrated Product Development Capability Maturity Model
IS Information Systems
IT Information Technology
NTCP Novelty, Technology, Complexity and Pace
OGC Office of Government Commerce
OPM3 Organizational Project Management Maturity Model
PM3M Portfolio, Programme and Project Management Maturity Model
PMBOK Project Management Body of Knowledge
PMI Project Management Institute
PMMM Project Management Maturity Model
PRINCE2 Projects in Controlled Environments 2
RMM Risk Maturity Model
SEI Software Engineering Institute
SECM Systems Engineering Capability Model
SMCI Standardize, Measure, Control and Improve
SPI Schedule Performance Index
Abstract

For over two decades now a number of project management maturity models have
appeared with the promise to use them to improve the project delivery capabilities of
organizations. Although many practitioners, consultants and researchers claim success in
implementing those models, the real benefits of those models are yet to be proven. It is
time we look at project management maturity from a contingency perspective and start
from the assumption that not all projects and organizations are the same, seeking to learn
more about the dynamics of maturity, context and performance. This thesis addresses the
topic of the value of maturity models using contingency theory.

The research question formulated is What are the factors that influence the impact of
project management maturity on performance? Taking a critical realist view, the thesis
uses quantitative methods to answer the question, using different context factors and
different performance perspectives.

The research model, common to studies using contingency theory, is composed of the
study of the main relationship between maturity and performance and of moderating
factors impacting the relationship. Two general hypotheses were defined, the first being
maturity has a significant positive relationship with performance, and the second that this
relationship is moderated by contingency factors. The second hypothesis was then
detailed according to the contingency factors investigated, being split into three different
hypotheses.

A questionnaire was designed using mostly existing instruments. Maturity was measured
based on the ProjectFRAMEWORK
TM
model. The moderating factors were taken from
contingency research applied to project management, such as the NTCP (Novelty,
Technology, Complexity and Pace) model from Shenhar & Dvir (2007) and the Goals and
Methods matrix from Turner & Cochrane (1993). For performance, a multi-dimension
measure was used to collect different aspects of project and organizational performance,
both tangible and intangible levels.

During a two-month period, 211 responses from a questionnaire were collected. The data
were analyzed, and the hypotheses were tested using moderated hierarchical regression
analysis.

The results show that different context factors, such as technology, complexity and
novelty of the project, clarity of goals and methods, strategic goal of the project and
industry do play a role in the value obtained by maturity in different performance aspects
of the project. More specifically, the results show that low-technology projects benefit
more from higher maturity than high-technology projects, likening high maturity
organizations to the mechanistic profile from classical contingency theory. On the other
hand, project novelty plays a contrary role, maximizing the value of maturity, perhaps
driven by the liability of newness effect. Those results characterize further steps toward
a better theoretical understanding of the value of maturity in project management and
ultimately could lead to improvements on existing maturity models, or to the creation of
new, more mature, project management maturity models.
Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1. Background
As companies struggle to deliver projects, they recognize that delivering successful
projects cannot depend only on the effort and skills of individuals but also on
organizational capabilities to globally support their project managers. To evaluate their
current capabilities, processes, tools, policies, systems, and analyze the gaps between
them and the best practices of the industry, they turn to project management maturity
models (Cooke-Davies, Schlichter, & Bredillet, 2001).

As the review of the literature will show, even though there are a number of claims that
increasing the project management maturity bring organizational benefits (Ibbs & Kwak,
2000; Pennypacker & Grant, 2003), the context where improving maturity brings value is
not yet fully understood. This thesis intends to look at the claimed benefits of achieving
high levels of project management maturity contextualized into the environment and
nature of the projects of the organizations.

1.1.1. Maturity Models
The maturity models, as they are known today, originated from the combination of
concepts for quality management from Deming and Juran, together with statistical quality
control from Shewhart (Cleland & Ireland, 2006; Humphrey, 1989).

The assumption is that the project processes were similar to production processes to run
an assembly line; therefore the same quality concepts could be applied: if the processes
and their inputs and outputs are not standardized, the results are unpredictable. As
performing the same activities will produce the same results, standardizing the processes
would bring the performance to a controlled and predictable state (Humphrey, 1989). This
would allow improvements in the performance by making changes to the process. If the
process is not standardized, those incremental improvements are not possible (Humphrey,
1989).

These ideas inspired the creation of the successful Capability Maturity Model (CMM)
from the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) at the Carnegie-Mellon University (Paulk,
Curtis, Chrissis, & Weber, 1993), which inspired a number of project management
maturity models starting from the late 1980s (Cooke-Davies, 2007).

Those models inherited from the Capability Maturity Model (CMM) the strong emphasis
of standardization and control of the project management processes (Pasian, Sankaran, &
Boydell, 2012).

When the first maturity models were being developed, the understanding of project
success was a more operational one, measuring project efficiency using the iron triangle
of cost, schedule and adherence to technical specifications (Shenhar & Stefanovic, 2006).
Assessing project performance using those measures is convenient, as the data is readily
available at the end of project, and its immediacy allows continuous improvement using
the feedback on incremental improvements to the process and its impact on performance
(Pinto & Slevin, 1988; Shenhar, Levy, & Dvir, 1997). However the view of project
performance has evolved from operational to a more strategic one, which takes into
account other factors such as the long-term effects of the project after the project is
finished, and the actual value it brings to the users (Jugdev & Mller, 2005).

One other operational measurement of performance, the compliance to requirements and
technical specifications, is often taken as a proxy for the customer satisfaction, however it
does not consider that, for some projects, some customers do not have a clear
understanding of the requirements upfront (Shenhar et al., 1997). One often cited example
of such disparity of operational versus strategic measures of project performance is the
Sidney opera house, whose costs were 14 times higher than the budget and it took 15
years to finish, by no means an example of project performance using the iron triangle,
but today it represents an engineering masterpiece (Shenhar & Dvir, 2007). For those
reasons, this thesis will look at many performance indicators and the impact of maturity
on all of them, to attempt an increase in our understanding of the impact of maturity on
more strategic project performance indicators.

Maturity models are used by the organization to assess the situation in which the
organization currently is placed in regards to processes standardization, and assist in the
planning of the implementation of the next processes assuming that an organization must
follow a predictable path to maturity (Cooke-Davies, 2007). For that it assumes there is a
general set of steps that can be followed by any organization to that end even though
there are too many project environments different industries, markets, strategies and
types of projects raising doubts that a single project management maturity model can
exist and offer a global development path to a single perfected end-state and be
applicable to all organizations (Cooke-Davies, 2007). This thesis will address this
question, by looking not only at the performance obtained by increasing the project
management maturity, but also looking for differences in this relationship in different
project contexts and industries.

There is empirical evidence that achieving higher project management maturity brings
value, even if sometimes not a strong one. Early studies tried to find the relationship with
project efficiency, with mixed results. Flowe & Thordahl (1994) found a link between
maturity and CPI/SPI, but only for certain maturity levels and project sizes. Herblseb et
al. (1997) found, in general, a link between maturity and several dimensions of
performance, but customer satisfaction, in certain cases, actually dropped when maturity
increased which also was the result in another study done by Gibson et al (2006). Ibbs et
al. (Ibbs & Kwak, 2000; Ibbs, Reginato, & Kwak, 2004) found a link between maturity
and the variation of Cost and Schedule Performance Indicators (CPI/SPI), but a very weak
link between maturity and the actual CPI/SPI. In their extensive research project on the
value of project management, Mullaly and Thomas showed that higher levels of project
management maturity increase the intangible value that is obtained from project
management in the organization, but they could not find evidence of increase in tangible
value (Thomas & Mullaly, 2008). Also, they emphasized in their study the link between
the value of project management and its fit to the organizations context. One important
result of their research is that the sustainability of the value is correlated to the degree of
this fit (Mullaly & Thomas, 2009). In other words, the concept of value of project
management and fit to the environment is dynamic, and the misfit between the project
management maturity and the organization project context would impact the future value
of project management, even if at the present moment project management is providing
value for the organization (Mullaly & Thomas, 2009).

The study of project context and how it affects the value of project management maturity
is possible through the use of contingency theory, as explained next.

1.1.2. Contingency
In fact, by looking at projects as temporary organizations, we can argue that projects are
subject to the contingency theory, which proposes (in regard to organizational structures):
1. There is no best way to organize
2. Any way of organizing is not equally effective (Galbraith, 1973, p. 2)

It means that organizations operating in different environments, with higher or lower
uncertainties, instability and complexity, must have different structures in order to cope
with the requirements of the environment (Betts, 2011), which conflicts with the
generalist approach of maturity models.

However, contingency theory may explain why some projects can actually benefit from
higher organizational maturity. Contingency theory proposes a scale of structural
archetypes, having in the extremes the mechanistic and organic structures, with
mechanistic being better suited to cope with stable and simple market and technology
settings, while organic is adequate for complex, unpredictable and ever changing
environments (Mintzberg, 1979). In the mechanistic structure, the activities are
coordinated with clear definition of rules and procedures, while in the organic structure
the coordination shifts to the definition of the end goals and by allocating personnel with
the required skills, without much concern with the methods employed (Galbraith, 1977;
Mintzberg, 1979). Clear definition of rules and procedures is a pre-condition for
achieving higher maturity levels (Pasian et al., 2012), therefore, it is possible that higher
maturity results in higher performance in those environments with less inherent
uncertainty.

As uncertainty of environments can be one strong moderating factor, there are possibly
others that also influence this link. In the literature reviewed, there were studies of
contingency factors impacting performance obtained by maturity using factors such as
knowledge of methods and goals (Pasian, 2011), organizational culture (Yazici, 2009b),
baseline changes (Flowe & Thordahl, 1994) or risk profiles (Bahli, Sidenko, & Borgman,
2011). Some studies were focused on a specific type of project such as product
development (Dooley, Subra, & Anderson, 2001). This thesis intends to look at this
question by investigating the effect of project management maturity on perceived
performance of different types of projects exploring variables that influence this link,
derived from the contingency theory.

1.1.3. Performance
Project management maturity, as an organizational asset, is designed to improve the
project management effectiveness and performance (Kwak & Ibbs, 2002). In order to
understand the claimed increase in performance, it is necessary to look at the concepts of
project performance and organization performance.

Project performance is, according to a number of researchers, a multi-dimensional
concept (Jugdev & Mller, 2005; Shenhar et al., 1997). A model to measure success must
take into account the assessment of a range of stakeholders over different time scales
(Turner, Zolin, & Remington, 2009). Shenhar (2007) proposed a list of measures that
cover a wide spectrum of project situations and time horizons, as well as the point of view
of different stakeholders. The measures were used in the definition of the performance
construct. They are:
Project efficiency
Impact on the customer
Impact on the team
Business and direct success
Preparation for the future

Similarly, the construct of organization performance must be, according to the literature
(Chenhall & Langfield-Smith, 2007; Kaplan & Norton, 1996; Venkatraman &
Ramanujam, 1986), multidimensional, taking into account financial and non-financial
measures.

For this thesis, the instrument to measure performance will be created based on
dimensions used in existing literature researching the impact of different strategies on
organizational performance (Bisbe & Otley, 2004; Denison & Mishra, 1995; Gupta &
Govindarajan, 1984; W. R. King & Teo, 2000; Nahm, Vonderembse, & Koufteros, 2003;
Tracey, Vonderembse, & Lim, 1999; Ward & Duray, 2000; Yazici, 2009b). The
dimensions are divided in those related to a financial perspective: sales growth rate,
profitability; and non-financial: customer satisfaction, market share, internal efficiency
and overall business performance.

1.2. Research Question
From the background of the research exposed, the research question can be formulated as
What are the factors that influence the impact of project management maturity on
performance?

1.3. Methodology
The research methodology took a critical realist view. The method chosen for the research
is quantitative. The justification for the methods and a discussion on the implications are
presented in Chapter 3.

The research model uses maturity as independent variable, and the dependent variables
are project and organizational performance. The moderating variables are project novelty,
technology, complexity, pace, the knowledge of project goals and methods, strategic goal
and industry of the project.

Four high-level hypotheses were proposed initially, which were subsequently expanded
after factor analysis on the performance variables. They are:
H1: Organizational project management maturity has a positive relationship on
performance.
H2: Project context affects how organizational project management maturity is
related to performance.
H3: Strategic goal of the project affects how organizational project management
maturity is related to performance
H4: Industry of the project affects how organizational project management

The questionnaire was developed based on existing measurements for project
management maturity, contingency factors, project and organizational performance. The
measurement for project management maturity involved an analysis of a number of
existing models to select one that was adequate for an online survey and, at the same time,
captured the construct as faithfully as possible considering the conceptualization of
maturity done in the literature review, as discussed in Chapter 2.

The data were collected via an online survey with professionals involved on projects.
Since the test of the hypotheses would be made with regressions, the data were pre-tested
for normality and other aspects required by regression analysis.

The performance dimensions analyzed were the results of the factor analysis performed in
the data collected, they are:
Impact on team
Organizational performance
Impact on customer
Project financial results
Preparing for the future
Project impact on business
Project efficiency
Internal efficiency
Overall performance

To search for moderating variables, regression analysis was used with interaction terms as
variables (Saunders, 1956; Sharma, Durand, & Gur-Arie, 1981), using multiple
hierarchical regression analysis to verify the impact of the moderation.

1.4. Summary of the Results
The hypothesis H1 was highly supported, as a significant positive relationship was found
for seven of the nine factors for project performance. The supported hypotheses are below
performance. Performance is measured as
H1a: Impact on team: supported
H1b: Organizational performance: supported
H1c: Impact on customer: supported
H1d: Project financial results: supported
H1e: Preparing for the future: not supported
H1f: Project impact on business: not supported
H1g: Project efficiency: supported
H1h: Internal efficiency: supported
H1i: Overall performance: supported

The hypothesis H2 was also supported for some of the sub-hypotheses. They are listed
below
related to performance. Performance is measured as
H2a: Impact on team: supported, moderating factor is knowledge of project
goals
H2b: Organizational performance: not supported
H2c: Impact on customer: supported, moderating factors are knowledge of
project methods and novelty of the project
H2d: Project financial results: supported, moderating factors are
complexity and technology of the project
H2g: Project efficiency: not supported
H2h: Internal efficiency: supported, moderating factor is age of
organization
H2i: Overall performance: not supported
The results show that the positive relationship between maturity and performance is
affected by moderating factors.

Using project strategic goal as moderator, the results are listed below
H3: Project strategic goal affects how organizational project management maturity
is related to performance. Performance is measured as
H3a: Impact on team: not supported
H3b: Organizational performance: supported, for infrastructure as project
strategic goal
H3c: Impact on customer: not supported
H3d: Project financial results: not supported
H3h: Internal efficiency: not supported
H3i: Overall performance: not supported

And finally for industry of the project, the results are
is related to performance. Performance is measured as
H4a: Impact on team: supported, for consumer electronics as industry
H4b: Organizational performance: supported, for government as industry
H4c: Impact on customer: supported, for software as industry
H4d: Project financial results: supported, for telecommunications as
industry
H4h: Internal efficiency: supported, for consulting as industry
H4i: Overall performance: supported, for software as industry

A full discussion of the results is presented in Chapter 5.

1.5. Structure of the Thesis
The thesis follows the structure described below.

1.5.1. Chapter 2 Literature Review
This chapter presents a review of the existing literature of the concepts under study and
the existing research linking those concepts, namely project management maturity,
contingency theory and project performance. The justification to study the topic, and the
managerial problem being addressed, is gradually built based on the literature.

1.5.2. Chapter 3 Methodology
Here the methodology of the study is presented and justified. The philosophical
underpinnings and its implications are discussed. The research question is formulated,
based on the topic under study, and the philosophical stance is adopted. The initial
hypotheses are presented, and the methods for data analysis are discussed.

1.5.3. Chapter 4 Data Analysis
In this chapter the results of the analysis of the data collected are reported. The descriptive
statistics are presented. The moderating factors are uncovered using regression analysis,
which enable us to refine the main hypotheses defined in Chapter 3. The research model
and the refined hypotheses are then tested using moderated hierarchical regression
analysis.

1.5.4. Chapter 5 Conclusions
To conclude, the statistical results are then analyzed against the original problem and the
theory, and conclusions are drawn based on the study. Suggestions for practitioners are
presented, limitations of the research are discussed and possible future research topics are
proposed.

1.6. Summary
This chapter introduced the thesis, presenting the justification for the research and the
background of the problem addressed. The methodology is briefly presented, with the
research questions and hypotheses. Finally the structure of the thesis is explained.
Chapter 2 Literature Review

2.1. Introduction
This chapter will review the literature based on four core concepts, which are part of this
thesis. The first concept is project management maturity models, and its underlying
concepts of maturity stages and statistical process control. A review of project
management maturity models will be presented. Then, there is a discussion of the
potential value of project management maturity models and their common criticisms.

The second concept is contingency theory. Its theoretical foundation will be reviewed,
along with its applications in project management theory and its weaknesses. The third
concept is performance. There will be an analysis of the constructs and their application
on project management and organizational theory research.

Before closure, there is a literature review of contingency theory applied to project
management maturity. Finally the chapter will present a summary of the concepts, the
current knowledge gap and justification for the research.

2.2. Project Management Maturity
In order to study the concept of project management maturity it is necessary to start by
defining the terms. Mature, according to the Merriam Webster Dictionary, is having
completed natural growth and development, and having attained a final or desired state
(Mature, 2013), and maturity is the state of being mature.

Projects are, according to the Project Management Institute (PMI) (PMI, 2013a, p. 3), A
temporary endeavor undertaken to create a unique product, service or result, and project
management is The application of knowledge, skills, tools, and techniques to project
activities to meet the project requirements (PMI, 2013a, p. 3). And according to the
Office of Government Commerce (OGC), projects are a temporary organization that is
created for the purpose of delivering one or more business products according to an
agreed business case (OGC, 2009, p. 3), and project management is the planning,
delegating, monitoring and control of all aspects of the project, and the motivation of
those involved, to achieve the project objectives within the expected performance targets
for time, cost, quality, scope, benefits and risks. (OGC, 2009, p. 4).

Applying the concept of project management maturity to organizations, it would mean a
state where the organization is in a perfect condition to achieve its objectives and to deal
with its projects (Andersen & Jessen, 2003).

In this context, a maturity model is a model that identifies gaps between the current
organizational situation and the intended one, which can be closed by succeeding
development activities (Mettler & Rohner, 2009). The maturity models describe the
current situation of the organization, either in a sequence of discrete levels of maturity
(Becker, Knackstedt, & Pppelbu, 2009), or in a continuum (Cleland & Ireland, 2006;
PMI, 2013b), for a class of entities. It contains a desired or typical evolution path of these
entities. Typically, these entities are organizations or processes (Becker et al., 2009).

The concept of project management maturity has, in the literature and in practice, a strong
connection with the view that project management capability is achieved through
definition of repeatable and predictable project management processes that are under
statistical control (Pasian et al., 2012). For that reason it is necessary to understand the
concept of process control.

2.3. Statistical Process Control
Shewhart (1939), in his study of quality control in manufacturing, proposed that the
variations in the manufacturing processes should be controlled using statistical tools. He
defended that the continuous analysis of the process variation, using control charts, and
the gradual elimination of the assignable causes of variation, would cause the
manufacturing process to reach a state of statistical control (Shewhart, 1939). In this state
all variation would be caused by the normal randomness (or chance) of the system
(Shewhart, 1939). Figure 1 presents an example of a control chart of a process that is not
in statistical control from Shewharts studies. In the chart, the dots represent the inspected
quality of resistors coming out of an assembly line. After removing all special causes, or
assignable causes, the process enters statistical control, and the resulting chart is shown in
Figure 2.

Figure 1 Control chart of process not under statistical control, adapted from Shewhart (1939, p. 114)
Shewhart defines an assignable cause as a one that can be found by experiment without
costing more than it is worth to find it (Shewhart, 1939, p. 30). Consequently, the
benefit of removing assignable causes and achieving a state of statistical control is that the
costs of non-conformance are reduced to an economic minimum (Shewhart, 1939).

Figure 2 Control chart of process under statistical control, adapted from Shewhart (1939, p. 114)

Deming (1982) advocated that using statistical tools to control the process performance,
as Shewhart proposed, would increase efficiency and reduce waste in the form of
inspections and rework the companies should cease the dependence on inspections to
achieve quality, and instead build quality in the product in the first place (Deming, 1982).
In addition it allowed the organizations to focus on the system, the ultimate responsible
for the variations in the process, instead of blaming the people involved, which had
limited influence in the outcome (Deming, 1982).

The work of Deming and Shewhart was influential in the conception of the majority of the
maturity models, as will be shown later.

2.4. Maturity Models
2.4.1. Stages of Growth
The concept of modeling of organizational evolution in stages, called stages of growth,
have been used widely in both organizational research and information systems research
(Greiner, 1972; W. R. King & Teo, 1997). In information systems (IS), the most famous
model of stages of growth is the one describing the assimilation of computing technology
in organizations described by Gibson & Nolan (1974).

In this model, it was described four stages that a department of Electronic Data Processing
(EDP) goes through when faced with growth in IS spending and assimilation in the
organization. The model takes into account three types of growth: growth in computer
applications, growth in the specialization of EDP personnel, and a growth in formal
management techniques and organization (Gibson & Nolan, 1974). The phases are
described in the table below.
Table 1 Nolan's Stages of Growth (Gibson & Nolan, 1974)
Growth of Applications Growth of Personnel Specialization Formal Management
Techniques
Stage
1
Cost reduction accounting
applications
Specialization for computer efficiency Lax management
Stage
2
Proliferation of applications in all
functional areas
Specialization to develop variety of
applications
Sales-oriented management
Stage
3
Moratorium on new applications,
emphasis on control
Specialization for control and
effectiveness assurance
Control-oriented
management
Stage
4
Database applications Specialization for database technology
and teleprocessing
Resource-oriented planning
and control

2.4.2. The Quality Management Maturity Grid
Crosby, from the standpoint of quality management, developed another model, which he
called the quality management maturity grid. Its purpose was to introduce managers and
executives to the actions that were involved in running a successful quality management
effort. (Crosby, 1996, p. 31). According to Crosby experience implementing quality
management, companies follow a similar path in their adoption of quality concepts. Along
this path there are patterns of problems, behaviors and challenges that are common across
organizations, as they go through the improvement steps. Crosby modeled these patterns
in what he called the quality management maturity grid.

The grid demonstrated, among other things, that quality management was not confined to
the quality department, being a key factor the attitude of all managers toward quality
management (Crosby, 1979, 1996). The grid is presented in Table 2.

According to Crosby the model accelerated the process of adoption of quality
management, offering managers a roadmap to implement quality management in their
organizations. All they needed to do is to assess their organization in the grid, so the
required missing steps to improve quality would be clearly identified (Crosby, 1979), and
in case of deterioration of the implementation program the grid can also be read in reverse
order in order to identify the steps to put the program back on track (Crosby, 1979).

Table 2 Adapted from Crosby (1996, p. 32)


2.4.3. The Capability Maturity Model (CMM)
Crosbys concepts inspired IBM to apply them to assessing software processes (Radice,
Harding, Munnis, & Phillips, 1985). They devised a model, also with five stages (from
lowest to highest): traditional, awareness, knowledge, skills & wisdom, and integrated
management system. The five stages were used to assess eleven attributes that they
deemed important to software development, similar to Crosby measurement categories.
They used the model to assess the capabilities of different IBM development sites, and the
main purpose of the model was to compare the capabilities and share knowledge of
processes and tools between them, but they recognized the potential value of the model in
planning process improvement activities (Radice et al., 1985).

Humphrey, who led the work at IBM, brought the model to the Software Engineering
Institute (SEI) from Carnegie Mellon University (CMU), initially defining for the
Department of Defense of the United States a similar assessment model to evaluate
software contractors (Humphrey et al., 1987). Humphrey combined the software maturity
framework inspired by Crosby with the principles of process statistical control from
Deming, to develop a software process maturity model with maturity levels, similar to
Crosby maturity grids. This model was soon identified as valuable for any organization to
assess their current level, and to plan the necessary steps to implement the changes that
combined would allow more successful software projects (Humphrey, 1988, 1989).

The main assumption was that, since process effectiveness and efficiency has such a high
importance in manufacturing environments, they could be just as applicable to software
development in his own words: While there are important differences, these concepts
are just as applicable to software as they are to automobiles, cameras, wristwatches, and
steel. A software-development process that is under statistical control will produce the
desired results within the anticipated limits of cost, schedule, and quality (Humphrey,
1988, p. 74). Without statistical control, according to Humphrey, continuous progress is
not possible (Humphrey, 1989), as When a process is under statistical control, repeating
the work in roughly the same way will produce roughly the same result. (Humphrey,
1988, p. 74), which enables the organization to achieve better results by improving the
process. To reach a state of statistical control, it was necessary to ensure that the processes
were stabilized, in other words, that the results were repeatable (Humphrey, 1988).
According to Humphreys model, as suggested by Crosby earlier, in order to reach this
state the organization must follow a series of stages, or maturity levels, each one acting as
a foundation, or pre-requisite, to the next (Humphrey & Curtis, 1991). And by positioning
the organization in the maturity structure, managers and software professionals can better
identify where improvement actions will be most relevant (Humphrey, 1989).

Humphreys framework defined the principles from which the SEI created the Capability
Maturity Model (CMM) (Paulk, Curtis, Chrissis, & Weber, 1991). The CMM is based in
the five levels of maturity defined by Humphrey.

The CMM model starts by describing undisciplined organizations In undisciplined
organizations, the general outcome is projects that run over budget and late (Paulk et al.,
1991). Better tools and methods cannot have their benefit realized in those undisciplined
organizations. If there are successful projects, they relied on heroic efforts of individuals,
and future successes depend on the availability of the same people. That does not provide
a "basis for long term productivity and quality improvement throughout an organization"
(Paulk et al., 1991, p. 1).

According to CMM, the path to discipline involves becoming a mature organization the
difference between mature and immature software organizations is that in immature
organizations, processes are generally improvised, or if they are documented they are
ignored. The organization reacts to problems, solving immediate crises. In immature
organizations, "there is no objective basis for judging product quality or for solving
product or process problems. Therefore, product quality is difficult to predict." (Paulk et
al., 1991, p. 2). A mature software organization has "an organization-wide ability to for
managing software development and maintenance process" (Paulk et al., 1991, p. 2). This
means the process is correctly communicated to all relevant people, it is consistent to the
actual work methods, and it is maintained and updated.

To achieve maturity, it is needed a framework that assists the gradual improvement of
organizational processes so the necessary foundation is built to support the increase in
maturity. This framework combines three concepts: process performance, process
capability and process maturity. Process capability is the means to predict the outcomes of
a project. Process performance is the actual result obtained from following a software
process. Its important to notice that the CMM expects that the project context may keep
the organization from achieving the process performance predicted by the process
capability for instance, changes in the technology may impose a learning curve to the
project staff which will directly impact the performance (Paulk et al., 1993).

Software process maturity is the combination of the organization's software process and
the consistency with which it is applied in projects throughout the organization. The
CMM assumption is that process maturity indicates process capability, which allows
gradual and consistent improvements on performance (Paulk et al., 1991). The levels
proposed by CMM are explained below.

2.4.3.1. Level 1 The Initial Level
At this level, the process capability is unpredictable, as the processes are constantly
changing or even being dropped in crisis situations. Performance depends on the
capabilities of the managers and individuals assigned to the project. The products
resulting from the project frequently are functional, even though they are constantly over
budget and schedule. The management has no visibility into the software process.

2.4.3.2. Level 2 The Repeatable Level
At the repeatable level, procedures for managing projects are established so that planning
and managing new projects is based on experience with similar past projects. Even if the
specific practices for projects may vary, the project management practices are
documented and enforced. The process capability is disciplined, because the project is
tracked and planned, and previous successes can be repeated.

2.4.3.3. Level 3 The Defined Level
At the defined level, both the management and the engineering processes are documented
and enforced, and the processes are coherent as a whole. The standard processes are
known and supported throughout the organization. The projects tailor the processes to
their needs. Cost, schedule and scope are tracked and under control.


2.4.3.4. Level 4 The Managed Level
At the managed level, the organization sets quantitative goals for quality of the products
and processes. All processes are instrumented to collect measurements of their
performance, and the data for project measurements are collected in a database across the
organization. The variation in project performance is very narrow, and when meaningful
deviations occur they can be easily distinguished from random noise of the process, and
actions are taken to correct the situation.

2.4.3.5. Level 5 The Optimizing Level
At the optimizing level, the entire organization commits to continuous process
improvement. Weaknesses in the process are identified and fixed proactively, preventing
defects. When defects occur, their cause is analyzed and the process is evaluated and
changed, to prevent its reoccurrence.

2.4.4. The People CMM
SEI recognized that managing the people is essential to reach process maturity, therefore
they created a companion model to manage the workforce in a disciplined way the
People CMM (Curtis, Miller, & Hefley, 2001).

Defining five stages of maturity as the CMM, the People CMM intends to gradually
improve the processes to manage the workforce moving from the lower stages, where
there is a low awareness of the value and the importance of managing the people as part
of the business, to the higher stages, where the competencies of the workforce are
managed proactively to ensure high performance. At the highest stages, the process to
manage competencies are measured and continuously improved, similarly to the CMM
higher levels.

2.4.5. The CMM Integrated (CMMI)
The CMM model, created for software projects, triggered the creation of similar maturity
models for other engineering areas, such as the Systems Engineering Capability Model
(SECM) (Electronic Industries Alliance, 2002) and the Integrated Product Development
Capability Maturity Model (IPD-CMM). While all those models were being developed or
in the process of dissemination, including the draft of the second version of CMM, SEI
took the opportunity to approach the industry and seek consensus to release a unified
model, called the CMM Integration (CMMI Product Team, 2010). The CMMI model
expanded the CMM, including the full life cycle of product development and not only
software engineering. It also expanded the coverage of organizational processes, risk
management and measurement (CMMI Product Team, 2000). However it was still based
in statistical control of the development processes, following the fundamental premise is
that the quality of a system or product is highly influenced by the quality of the process
used to develop and maintain it (CMMI Product Team, 2010, p. 5).

The CMMI model also incorporated two different representations of maturity levels, the
staged representation from the CMM and the continuous representation from the SECM.
In the staged representation, the maturity level characterize the overall state of
organizational maturity in processes relative to the model (CMMI Product Team, 2010),
whereas the continuous representation uses capabilities levels to characterize the maturity
of the organization processes relative to an individual process area. For each process area
a level is assessed according to the definitions below:
0: Incomplete not performed or partially performed
1: Performed process that accomplishes the needed work
2: Managed process that is planned, executed, monitored, controlled and
reviewed
3: Defined when its managed and tailored for each project

One of the effects of the staged representation is that the sequence of improvements is
pre-defined in the model, as fulfilling the requirements of one stage works as a foundation
for the next. In the continuous, the order in which the improvements are made is not
prescribed, so the organization can choose according to the business objectives and
associated risks. Also, the staged representation allows comparisons at the organizational
level of maturity, whereas the continuous the comparisons are made at the individual
process level.

In regards to the impact of project context to performance and process maturity, as stated
before, CMM recognized that new technology may impact project performance despite
process capabilities "For instance, radical changes in the application or technology
undertaken may place a project' s staff on a learning curve that causes their project's
performance to fall short of the organization's full process capability." (Paulk et al., 1991,
p. 4). When the model evolved to CMMI, though, the view changed and maturity was
seen as an enabler of adoption of new technology Effective processes also provide a
vehicle for introducing and using new technology in a way that best meets the business
objectives of the organization. (CMMI Product Team, 2010, p. 4).

2.4.6. Maturity Models
The CMM and CMMI family of models was very successful and influential in the
software industry (Bollinger & McGowan, 2009). Its success inspired a number of other
maturity models, starting from the late 1990s. Today there are more than 150 such models
(De Bruin, Freeze, Kaulkarni, & Rosemann, 2005) addressing issues from information
technology, business management, innovation, project management, and others.

What is common among all the models, as inherited from the CMM, is the strong
emphasis of standardization and control of processes (Pasian et al., 2012), and the
assumption that an organization must follow a predictable path to a mature end state
(Cooke-Davies, 2007).

The models will typically have a combination of components described as the following
(adapted from Fraser, Moultrie, & Gregory, 2002):
A number of maturity levels
A descriptor for the level, such as initial, repeatable, defined, managed and
optimized
A summarized description for each level, with their characteristics and
peculiarities
A set of process areas, or dimensions, or both (Gareis, 2004; PMI, 2013b). This
allows the assessment of maturity to be performed in different dimensions or
perspectives, instead of a single value for the whole organization
A number of elements or activities for each process area and dimension
A description of each activity, as it might be performed at each maturity level
The purpose of the models is to define the stages of maturation paths, its characteristics
and the logical relationship between them (Rglinger, Pppelbu, & Becker, 2012). They
can be used for three different applications (De Bruin et al., 2005; Rglinger et al., 2012):
Descriptive, which assesses the organization current state of maturity, in a single
point in time, without any provision for improving the maturity (Fraser et al.,
2002; Mettler & Rohner, 2009)
Prescriptive, which provides guidance in actions to reach higher levels of maturity,
enabling the development of an improvement roadmap (Mettler & Rohner, 2009;
Prananto, McKay, & Marshall, 2003)
Comparative, allowing benchmarking of the organization processes with other
groups inside the organization, with other organizations within or across industries
and regions (Hillson, 2003; Ibbs et al., 2004; Kwak & Ibbs, 1998; Pennypacker &
Grant, 2003; Pennypacker, 2006)

It is possible to also consider those applications as a life cycle of model development,
which starts as a prescriptive model, to understand the domain situation, and evolving so
it can act as a prescriptive or comparative model (De Bruin et al., 2005).

The models also differ in their approach to determine the current maturity stage. Similar
to CMMI, there are continuous and staged models (Cleland & Ireland, 2006; Cooke-
Davies et al., 2001):
Continuous: model that defines a baseline from which an organization can be
assessed from different perspectives. The elements to be improved, and the rate of
improvement, can be tailored to the organizations needs.
Staged: model that defines a number of steps and criteria for each step. All areas
are considered essential in order to move up the maturity levels.

The continuous model allows a multidimensional view of the organizational maturity, in
which the organization is not in a single stage, but in different maturity stages depending
on the perspective used (CMMI Product Team, 2010; Gareis, 2004; PMI, 2013b). A
continuous model could also provide a faster feedback loop than the staged model, as it
assesses smaller incremental improvements to the maturity facilitating a faster cycle of
continuous improvement (Lubianiker & Levin, 2001).

2.4.7. Project Management Maturity Models
Since project management is an integral part of the software development process,
naturally the concept of organizational maturity also migrated to project management
(Cooke-Davies et al., 2001). Starting from the 1990s, a number of project management
models appeared in the marketplace.

Below there is a list of project management maturity models compiled by Iqbal (2012),
updated with the Prado model and additional references
Programme Management Maturity Model by Russ Martinelli and Jim Waddell
Cultural Project Management Effectiveness Model (CPMEM) by Project
Management Global Solutions (Piney, 2004)
Integrated Management Systems Inc. (IMSI) Project Management Assessment
Model by Steve J. Holmes and Robert T. Walsh
Project Risk Maturity Model (RMM) by Martin Hopkinson, QinetiQ, UK
Risk Maturity Model by David Hillson (Hillson, 1997)
Project Management Maturity Model (ProMMM) by David Hillson (Hillson,
2003)
Earned Value Management Maturity Model (EVM3) by Ray W. Stratton,
Management Concepts
Berkeley Project Management Process Maturity Model (PM)
2
Model by Kwak &
Ibbs (2002)
Project Management Maturity Model (PMMM or KPM3) by Kerzner (2005)
Portfolio Management Maturity Model by Pennypacker (2005)
Project Management Maturity Model (PMMM) by Crawford (2006)
Prado Project Management Maturity Model (Prado-PMMM), by Prado (2008)
PRINCE2 Maturity Model (P2MM) by OGC (2010b)
Portfolio, Programme and Project Management Maturity Model (P3M3) by OGC
(2010a)
ProjectFRAMEWORK
TM
Project Management Maturity Model by ESI
International (Levin, Artl, & Ward, 2013c; Levin, Hill, Defilippis, Ward, &
Shaltry, 1999)
ProgramFRAMEWORK
TM
Program Management Maturity Model by ESI
International (Levin, Artl, & Ward, 2010b, 2013b)
PortfolioFRAMEWORK
TM
Portfolio Management Maturity Model by ESI
International (Levin, Artl, & Ward, 2010a, 2013a)
Organizational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3) by PMI (2013b)

Most of the models have five levels, similar to the CMM (De Bruin et al., 2005), while
the criteria to assess organizations in each level may differ (Cleland & Ireland, 2006).
Also, most models used functional areas from the standard Project Management Body of
Knowledge (PMBOK) (PMI, 2013a, 2013b), or the methodology Projects in Controlled
Environments version 2 (PRINCE2) (OGC, 2010b). Some of the models are described
below.

2.4.7.1. OPM3 Organizational Project Management Maturity Model (PMI, 2013b)
OPM3 is a maturity model developed under the sponsorship of the PMI by hundreds of
volunteers (PMI, 2013b). The first version was published in 2003, and the latest version is
the third, published in 2013. The OPM3 its explicitly related to the PMI standards for
project, program and portfolio management, and its model differs considerably from other
models based on CMM (Cooke-Davies, 2007). The main building blocks of the model are
the following:

Best practices: The organizational project management maturity of the
organization is assessed by the existence of the best practices. They are the
methods to achieve an objective or goal, and are defined by volunteers of the
industry during the standard development process carried by PMI. Every best
practice contains a list of capabilities and outcomes, and a best practice is
considered achieved when the organization consistently demonstrate the presence
of all capabilities (PMI, 2013b). If all but one capability is demonstrated, the best
practice is not considered achieved.
The capabilities represent the collection of people, processes and technology that
enables an organization to deliver projects (PMI, 2013b). Incrementally, the
capabilities enable an organization to achieve a best practice, even if the model
does not prescribe an order to which the capabilities must be fulfilled. There are
dependencies between capabilities and best practices, in which capabilities of one
best practice can be required for achieving other best practices, so some best
practices require the attainment of certain capabilities and other best practices. The
analysis of these dependencies will guide the improvement plans of the
organization.
The outcomes are results, tangible and intangible, that are used to verify the
existence of a capability. A tangible outcome is, for instance, the presence of a
policy or template in the organization. An intangible outcome is a verbal
acknowledgement of the policy. The presence of one outcome is enough to
achieve a capability, even if the capability has a list of possible outcomes.
KPI, or Key Performance Indicators, are the criteria for which an organization can
determine, quantitatively or qualitatively, if an outcome is present and to what
extent it is present. The indicators can be directly measured or assessed by an
expert.

The relationship between those blocks is expressed in the Figure 3 below.

Figure 3 Building blocks of OPM3 (PMI, 2013b)


The OPM3 standard contains a list of hundreds of such best practices, divided in two
types:
Domain: Portfolio, Program, and Project with Process Improvement Stage:
Standardize, Measure, Control and Improve (SMCI)
Organizational Enabler: Non-domain-based processes, belonging to environmental
and cultural aspects of the organization (PMI, 2013b, p. 47).

The organization enablers underpin the implementation of SMCI practices. And the SMCI
practices are classified in the different domains of project, program and portfolio. Based
on the reported presence of the best practices, the maturity of the organization is assessed
in a multidimensional format, containing the dimensions of project, program, and
portfolio management in one focus area, and standardize, measure, control and
continuously improve in the other. The maturity can be assessed based on the dimensions
prioritized by the organization (PMI, 2013b). This representation of the results is the
greatest difference compared to CMMI. Instead of discrete levels of organizational
maturity, the OPM3 model assesses the maturity in a matrix, having different scales, as
shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4 Sample Results of OPM3 assessment, from PMI (2008, p. 6)
OPM3 also describes a life cycle for process improvement, while using the model to
increase maturity. The life cycle is similar to the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle
(Deming, 1982), and defines the following steps:
Acquire knowledge, covering the contents of the standard;
Perform assessment, providing means to compare organizations to the standard;
Manage improvements, assisting in organizational changes to increase the project
management maturity (PMI, 2013b).

The steps can be used differently depending on the approach the organization is taking
towards organizational project management. The model proposes three alternatives, which
are similar to the different purposes of a maturity model as described by De Bruin et al
(2005), they are:
Comparative: for organizations adopting elements of organizational project
management, as a means to compare against the OPM3 model to determine the
extent of their implementation
Design: organizations who have not an approach to organizational project
management can use the best practices to design their approach to implement
organizational project management
Improvement: organizations who lack a process improvement and strategy
execution framework in place, could use the model to determine their
improvement plan

2.4.7.2. PM
2
- Project Management Maturity Model (Crawford, 2007)
The PM
2
is a developed by the consulting company PM Solutions. Based on CMM, it
defines five levels of maturity (Crawford, 2006):
Initial process
Structured process and standards
Organizational standards and institutionalized process
Managed process
Optimizing process

The model combines the five levels with knowledge areas from the PMBOK (PMI,
2013a) integration, scope, time, cost, quality, human resources, communication, risk
and procurement and breaks them down to 42 key components (Grant & Pennypacker,
2006). The assessment of the maturity level is done for each of the components, which are
aggregated by knowledge areas, and a global maturity level can be calculated for the
organization.
The components are a breakdown of the knowledge areas. As an example, the
components for scope management are:

Scope planning and management, which is the process to define, verify and
control the project scope
Business requirements definition, processes and standards to collect business-
related requirements for the project
Technical requirements definition, processes and standards to collect technical
requirements for the project
Work breakdown structure, looks at how formal is the process to identify the
scope of the project
Scope change control, processes to incorporate additions and changes to the scope

The model defined three areas as key points to rapidly develop a project management
culture and accelerate the increase in project management maturity. They are components
that are not directly taken from the PMBOK as the others, but according to the author are
very important in the acceleration of the improvement process. They are

Project Office: the formation of a project office, according to the model, helps the
project teams by providing support in the areas of scheduling, status reporting,
project management tools and training The project office facilitates improvements
in project management maturity by acting as the main focal point for the
consistent application of project management processes and methodologies
Management oversight: also a main point of the CMM model, the PM
2
model
assumes that the institutionalization of project management processes can not
happen if it do not have full support from the leaders of the organization. The
management must empower the project manager and hold him accountable for the
success of the project, to send a message to the organization of the importance of
the role (Crawford, 2006).
Professional development: here borrowing from the People CMM (Curtis et al.,
2001), the PM
2
model recognizes the need to develop the project manager in terms
of technical, management and leadership skills, and to continuously improving the
skills of the people behind the projects.

2.4.7.3. ProjectFRAMEWORK (Levin et al., 2013c)
ProjectFRAMEWORK

is a maturity model developed for the consulting firm ESI
International. It was first published in 1999, had a second version in 2006 and the latest
version in 2013, according to changes in the PMI Standards.
As other models it contains performance objectives based on the nine knowledge areas of
PMBOK. It describes five levels of maturity, which are: Ad hoc, consistent, integrated,
comprehensive and optimizing, similar to CMMI levels. The model is structured in the
following components for each knowledge area and maturity level:
Objectives Objectives for the maturity level
Commitment to perform actions that must be taken by the organization to ensure
that the process are established
Ability to perform preconditions that must exist in the organization to enable
process implementation
Activities performed specific tasks necessary to implement the objectives
Evaluation metrics that can be used to determine a given maturity level
Verification organization oversight and activities to verify that the process are
being performed properly

Those components are also used in the CMM for Software (Paulk et al., 1993). The
assessment defines a discrete maturity level for the organization using a staged approach,
based on the presence of the components on the knowledge areas.
The ProjectFRAMEWORK
model also contains some concepts from the People CMM

(Curtis et al., 2001). For instance, the model supports the creation of organization-wide
strategic long-term plan to develop the competencies and workforce required for project
management. Also, it supports the formal definition of an integrated compensation system
that rewards individual and team performance.
The model is part of a group of three individual models, assessing maturity of project,
program and portfolio management in the organization (Levin et al., 2013a, 2013b).

2.4.7.4. Project-oriented company Maturity Model (Gareis & Fssinger, 2007)
This is a multidimensional model to assess maturity of organizations. The maturity is
described in a spider-web chart containing eight dimensions, as shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5 Project-oriented company Maturity Model, adapted from Fssinger (2006, p. 2)
The assessment is made with a questionnaire with 74 questions, assessing items according
to the dimensions of the spider web. It includes in one model the dimensions of project,
program and portfolio management, as does OPM3 (PMI, 2013b). Also, the model
includes other organizational dimensions, they are ((Fssinger, 2006)
Assurance of management quality of a project or program proposes audits and
consulting to improve the quality of the management of the project
Assignment of a project or program in addition to the portfolio management
processes to start and cancel projects, it proposes that during the assignment of the
project a decision is taken whether to start or not the project
Personnel management similar to concepts introduced by the People CMM
(Curtis et al., 2001), this model assesses the processes to recruit, and continuously
develop the competences of the people responsible for projects, including the
project managers and project members
Organizational design this dimension includes the creation of a project
management office, a project portfolio group and corporate standards for
managing projects
Business process management this dimension assesses the capabilities of the
organization to manage their operational business processes, in a similar fashion to
what has been proposed by different business process maturity models (Jochem,
Geers, & Heinze, 2011; Rglinger et al., 2012; Smith & Fingar, 2004)

The maturity result is given as a percentage of compliance of the organization with the
model. A maturity result for the organization is also calculated, using a weighted average
of the results for the dimensions (Gareis & Fssinger, 2007).

2.4.7.5. Project Management Maturity Model (Kerzner, 2005)
Kerzners model is composed of five levels of maturity, similar to the CMM group of
models, although their meanings are somewhat different:
Level 1: Common Language basic knowledge on project management and the
terminology
Level 2: Common Processes organization recognizes that project management
processes need to be defined, so that success in one project can be repeated in
others
Level 3: Singular Methodology organization recognizes the effect of
consolidating all corporate methodologies, having project management in the
center
Level 4: Benchmarking organization recognizes that process improvement is
necessary and performs benchmarking continuously
Level 5: Continuous Improvement in this level, the organization is capable of
evaluating information from benchmarking and decides if it should be adopted in
the methodology

The assessment is done with questionnaires for each of the levels, ranging from 15 to 30
questions for each level, that gives a score for the level. Each level has defined criteria to
interpret the score, and to assess if the level has been achieved or not. There are no
knowledge areas, only questions related to the concept the level describes.

Figure 6 Kerzner's Project Management Maturity Model levels of maturity

2.4.7.6. PM3M - Portfolio, Programme and Project Management Maturity Model
(OGC, 2010a)
The United Kingdom Office of Government Commerce (OGC) develops this model. The
first version was published in 2006, and the second in 2010.
The model in fact is a group of three individual models, assessing the maturity of project,
program and portfolio management in the organization. All of the individual models
follow the CMM in defining five levels of maturity: awareness of process, repeatable
process, defined process, managed process and optimized process. Where it differs from
many other maturity models is that, instead of using the key process areas from the
PMBOK, the maturity is described in process perspectives common to project, program
and portfolio management. They are:
Management control
Benefits management
Financial management
Stakeholder management
Risk management
Organizational governance
Resource management

The three models contain a self-assessment questionnaire for each model, with one
question per process perspective. The questionnaires contain the criteria to assess the level
of each process perspective. OGC offers a separate project management maturity model
based on PRINCE2, using the same basic five levels and process perspectives for
organizations which adopt the PRINCE2 methodology (OGC, 2010b).

2.4.7.7. MGP Project Management Maturity (Prado, 2008)
The MGP model (Maturidade em Gerenciamento de Projetos in Portuguese) is a model
developed by Prado. Its five levels are named: initial, known, standardized, managed and
optimized, which are equivalent to the CMMI levels. There are five dimensions to the
assessment:
Technical and contextual competence
Methodology
Automation and use of IT systems
Organizational structure
Strategic alignment
Behavioral competence

The assessment questionnaire contains ten questions per level, except level 1 which is not
assessed. The model documents the criteria for the calculation of the organizational level,
and level 1 is assumed if level 2 is not achieved.

2.4.7.8. Risk Maturity Model (Hillson, 1997) and
ProMMM Project Management Maturity Model (Hillson, 2003)
The risk maturity model was defined to assist organizations implementing risk
management processes. As the other models, it assumes that the implementation of risk
processes has to be treated as a project, and a model to guide the organization through the
steps necessary for the implementation can accelerate the process. It was succeeded by the
ProMMM model, which incorporates all project management processes. What is common
between the risk maturity model and ProMMM is the approach to include more
components than the traditional framework of processes and standards, which according
to the model are important but insufficient to assess the project management maturity of
an organization. As such, the model proposes additional elements in the assessment. They
are:
Organizational culture: covers the belief structure, and how the members of the
organization think, which guides the decisions and assumptions. In an immature
organization, according to the model, the culture does not recognize the
importance of project management and is resistant to change. As the organization
matures, the culture changes and people start to recognize the value of practices
and process to apply project management, and the value of applying them
proactively
Experience: analyzes the project management experience of the organization and
of its individuals. The experience is what indicate what is known and what the
people are capable of doing, and how they understand the principles and practices
of project management. The mature organization has individuals with experience
and formal training in project management, whereas the immature has no
experience in using it.
Application: is the extent to which the organization actually practices in terms of
project management. In immature organizations, the application is patchy and
inconsistent, and as the organization matures, it starts to apply consistently,
routinely across the whole organization.

The model defines four levels of maturity, they are:
Nave: in which the organization have no awareness of the value of project
management, and the processes (if they exist) are reactive without any learning
from past experiences
Novice: One organization that began to experiment with project management but
has no formal structure or process in place.
Normalized: At this stage, the organization has implemented formal project
management processes and they are consistently applied. Even if the benefits are
not always obtained, the organization understands the value of the processes.
Typically, according to the model, most organizations will aim at this level in their
improvement initiatives.
Natural: level at which an organization has a fully project based culture. Project
information is used to improve business processes and gain competitive
advantage.

2.4.7.9. CPMEM Cultural Project Management Effectiveness Model (Piney,
2004)
This model, as many others listed here, uses the PMBOK (PMI, 2013a) knowledge
process areas to assess the maturity of the organization. However, the results are based on
weight scores obtained by consulting senior management about priorities and critical
success factors for projects, using a questionnaire that is part of the model. By having a
weighted score, the model claims that the model is tuned for the needs of the
organization; therefore the buy-in obtained from management for the maturity
improvement initiative is stronger.

2.4.8. The Value of Project Management Maturity Models
Humphreys original software maturity framework was developed to improve the
business performance of software projects based on a framework to evaluate software
suppliers (Humphrey, 1989; Humphrey et al., 1987). Since then, many authors have
claimed that increasing the maturity brings a number of benefits for the organization
(Cooke-Davies, 2007).
A number of those benefits will be discussed below.

2.4.8.1. Strategic Value
One view of project management maturity advocates that, since it is through projects that
an organization implements its strategy, the capabilities to consistently deliver projects
obtained by increase the maturity in project management are strategic to the organization
(Schlichter, 2001).

This view guided the development of some models, more importantly the OPM3 model
(Friedrich, Schlichter, & Haechk, 2003). As the model integrated all best practices for
management of project, programs and portfolio, an organization adopting the model
would be able to successfully implement the defined strategies, gaining key competitive
advantage (Schlichter, 2001). Still on strategy, according to some authors the commitment
to improve the project management maturity with a maturity model has to be treated as
strategic, as it is a long-term endeavor, and it impacts how the organization implements its
business strategy (Kerzner, 2005; OGC, 2010b; PMI, 2013b). Kerzner defines in his
model the concept of strategic planning for project management, as the development of a
methodology to increase project performance, using a project management maturity
model (Kerzner, 2005).

In that sense, high levels of project management maturity could be claimed as the
provider of agility to the organization, enabling it to rapidly implement strategy, and
change, via projects quickly adapting to changes in the environment and opportunities
as they appear (Schlichter, McEver, & Hayes, 2010).

A few of those claims have been contested by some authors, such as the link between
project management maturity and competitive advantage (Jugdev & Thomas, 2002b), for
which a longer discussion is presented later in this chapter.

2.4.8.2. Benchmarking
Benchmarking is the process of researching for new methods, practices and processes
being adopted by other organizations, from the same or different industries (Camp, 1989).
The purpose of the search is to compare the performance and practices of ones own
organization with the ones from the best performing companies. With the results of the
comparison, an organization can plan the implementation and the adaptation of those
practices (Camp, 1995).

The benchmarking process can be one performed by one organization targeting other
organizations directly, collecting data and performing the gap analysis (Camp, 1989), or
alternatively a maturity model can be used as a benchmarking tool, as it is composed of
practices commonly used by successful organizations (Ibbs et al., 2004). In fact, many
authors use the term benchmarking for the process of assessing an organization maturity
and, based on the results, defining the improvement steps (Hillson, 2003; Ibbs et al., 2004;
Mullaly, 2006; Pennypacker & Grant, 2003).

In the maturity model developed by Kerzner (2005), the activity of benchmarking project
management best practices from other organizations is the requirement for one of the
levels. The model describes a process similar to Camp (1995), in which organizations are
selected to be benchmarked, data is collected and shared between the organizations and
the best practices are implemented after the gap analysis.

2.4.8.3. Project Management Performance
Some studies sought to find empirical evidence of increase in performance linked to an
increase in process maturity. Using CMM and CMMI, a number of studies were published
to find such evidence, with mixed results (Flowe & Thordahl, 1994; Galin & Avrahami,
2006; Gibson et al., 2006; Harter & Krishnan, 2000; Herbsleb et al., 1997; Jiang, Klein,
Hwang, Huang, & Hung, 2004; Jung & Goldenson, 2009; Subramanian, Jiang, & Klein,
2007). In general, all of these studies found some correlation between the maturity and
project performance, measured in project cost performance indicators (CPI) and schedule
performance indicators (SPI), however, with different results depending on the level
achieved and the project context. Flowe & Thordahl (1994) found correlation between
CPI and maturity between CMM levels 1 and 2, but not between levels 2 and 3; also, both
cost and performance were correlated with maturity when the scope baseline suffered less
than 15% of changes during the project, but they were not correlated when changes were
more than 15% of the scope baseline.

Gibson et al (2006) collected data from 35 case studies of companies who invested in
CMMI based processes. Those companies were mainly big enterprises, and the
improvement efforts were performed in small or big business units. CMMI was applied to
engineering disciplines, mostly software and systems engineering. The data was collected
before and after the improvement initiatives started, and the results are shown in increase
of the baseline before the CMMI-based process improvement, or of ratio of return on
investment. The data was collected using a number of different measures, as it was taken
from several case studies, and it was grouped into the following performance categories:
cost, schedule, productivity, quality, customer satisfaction, and return on investment
estimated. The averages are shown below in Table 3.


Table 3 Performance Improvements from Gibson et al (2006)
Performance
Category
Median improvement Number of data
points
Lowest improvement Highest improvement
Cost 34% 29 3% 87%
Schedule 50% 22 2% 95%
Productivity 61% 20 11% 329%
Quality 48% 34 2% 132%
Customer satisfaction 14% 7 -4% 55%
Return on investment 4.0:1 22 1.7:1 27.7:1

This result is important, because it shows the impact of maturity in a number of
performance measures, not only cost and schedule performance it found a median
improvement of 14% in customer satisfaction measures linked to maturity improvements,
even if one of the cases had a decrease of 4%.

Some empirical studies were conducted using project management maturity models as
well. Ibbs et al. (2004) conducted an analysis of return of investment in project
management and concluded that an increase in project management maturity improved
pure project performance and the consistency of performance, measured in CPI and SPI.
Fssinger (2006) applied a model in Austrian organizations and concluded that high
project management maturity led to more consistent project results. Pennypacker (2006)
found evidence of an increase in project performance when maturity increased, using
several performance measurements schedule, budget, customer satisfaction, resource
allocation, optimization, strategic alignment, estimating quality, employee satisfaction
and portfolio optimization. Yazici (2009a) measured business performance indicators,
external and internal, and found a positive correlation between business performance and
project management maturity. OHara & Levin (2000) studies concluded that project
management maturity correlated with CPI and SPI performance indicators, but most
importantly, maturity had an even higher correlation with CPI and SPI consistency,
meaning that higher maturity may lead to higher predictability but not necessarily to
higher performance.

In their extensive research project in the value of project management, Mullaly & Thomas
(2008) showed that higher levels of project management maturity increase the intangible
value that is obtained from project management in the organization. However, an
important result of their research is that the sustainability of the value is correlated to the
degree of fit of the project management implementation to the companys context
(Mullaly & Thomas, 2009). This concept will be explored in the section of this chapter
dedicated to the contingency theory.

2.4.9. Criticisms of Maturity Models
A number of authors have criticized the concept of maturity models. In regard to the
statement that a maturity model represents a global development path to a single
perfected end-state, Cooke-Davis (2007) argues that there is neither a universal
description of this perfect condition nor an agreement on the steps to achieve it. Models
contain the steps to reach higher levels but not the factors that actually influence evolution
and change (King & Kraemer, 1984). Additionally, there are too many project
environments different industries, markets, strategies and types of projects raising
doubts that such a path or state can exist and be applicable to all organizations (Cooke-
Davies, 2004), instead, there could be multiple maturation paths (King & Teo, 1997). This
was confirmed by study from Mullaly & Thomas (2014) in the value of project
management. In their study, although they found correlation of organizational maturity
and the attainment of intangible value, this was only found in a macro level there was
no correlation between the different practices associated with higher maturity and the
different types of value obtained.

In regard to the strategic value of project management maturity, Jugdev and Thomas
(2002a, 2002b) explored the models through the resource-based view of the firm. Their
conclusion is that project management maturity models, and its common sets of levels,
practices and processes, are easily available for competing firms, therefore are imitable
and not a source of competitive advantage, even if its value can lead to competitive parity.

Other criticisms are related to the high number of maturity models published for similar
applications, without clear justification or motivation for developing a new model (Becker
et al., 2009), the lack of construct validity and empirical evidence for the models (Cooke-
Davies, 2007; Fraser et al., 2002; Mullaly, 2006), and the inherent complexity of maturity
models, making their application difficult (Jugdev & Mathur, 2012).

2.4.10. Process Capability and Project Management Maturity
When the first maturity models were developed, the understanding of project success was
more operational, and measured project efficiency using the iron triangle of cost, schedule
and adherence to technical specifications (Shenhar & Stefanovic, 2006). Continuous
improvement based on statistical control requires fast feedback on incremental
improvements to the process and its impact on performance, so using cost, schedule and
technical performance measures to assess performance is convenient, as the data is readily
available at the formal end of project (Pinto & Slevin, 1988; Shenhar et al., 1997).
However, to be able to efficiently deliver projects is valuable as an enabler for the
organization (Jugdev & Thomas, 2002b), but alone it is not enough to cause positive
business impact (Shenhar & Stefanovic, 2006). For that reason, the view of project
performance has evolved from operational to a more strategic one, which takes into
account other factors such as the lasting effects of the project outcome long after the
project is finished, and the actual value it brings to the users (Jugdev & Mller, 2005).
When maturity models focus on the process capability, the important strategic aspects are
not covered (Shenhar & Stefanovic, 2006).

Also, maturity models assess the process maturity in terms of institutionalization and
repeatability and not the maturity in managing those processes as part of the business
(Rglinger et al., 2012; Smith & Fingar, 2004). Therefore the processes could be mature
but do not generate value for the organization, in other words, the process are efficient but
not effective (Bollinger & McGowan, 2009; Fraser et al., 2002).

Some authors argue that mature processes and performance are not compatible: process
maturity is based on reproducibility and uniformity, which is the aim of manufacturing
where the concept originated contrasting with projects, that are unique by definition
(Bollinger & McGowan, 1991; Kujala & Artto, 2000). In addition, the commitment of
organizations to rigid maturity models may push them away from actions that will bring
down the maturity level, such as improvements to the process (Bollinger & McGowan,
1991) or implementing projects with high risk, in which the potentially high payoff is
essential to the survival of the organization (DeMarco & Lister, 1999). Herbsleb et al.
(1997) tried to refute some of those concerns by surveying companies that had been
through CMM-based software process improvement programs and the majority of
respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that the organization had become more rigid
and bureaucratic; they also looked at the risk acceptance of lower and higher maturity
organizations, and found out that higher maturity organizations are significantly more
willing to take risks (Herbsleb et al., 1997).

A number of studies of project management maturity models defend that they are
compatible with high performance, as long as process capability is complemented by
other strategic factors, as process capability alone is not sufficient to predict project
management success (Cooke-Davies, 2004, 2007; Teague & Cooke-Davies, 2007). These
studies suggest the addition of other perspectives to measure maturity. They are:
Organization strategy: considers the attainability of the organization strategies, in
the form of the vision, mission, objectives and goals, and its alignment with the
organization projects and programs (Cleland & Ireland, 2006; Cooke-Davies,
2005; Hartman & Skulmoski, 1998; Kerzner, 2005; Lee & Anderson, 2006;
Shenhar & Stefanovic, 2006).
Organization attitude and culture: considers the general attitude and culture of the
organization toward acceptance of project management, adaptability and risk
(Andersen & Jessen, 2003; Cooke-Davies & Arzymanow, 2003; Hartman &
Skulmoski, 1998; Hillson, 2003; Pasian et al., 2012; Suares, 1998)
Competence: considers the availability of competent project and program
managers (Cooke-Davies & Arzymanow, 2003; Curtis et al., 2001; Hillson, 2003;
Levin et al., 2013c; Prado, 2008; Skulmoski, 2001)

2.5. Contingency Theory
This thesis intends to look at project management maturity models from a contingency
theory perspective. In order to understand the concept presented by the contingency
theory, it is important to discuss the distinction between the views of the organization as
open and closed systems.

For many years the study of organizations adopted a closed systems approach (Scott,
2004), which is a rational model that looks at organization as a group of variables and
relationships that can be controlled and manipulated in order to achieve the desired goal
(Thompson, 1967) while the uncertainties can be removed from the system.

The classic schools that follow this approach are, for instance, the scientific management
proposed by Taylor (1911). He looked at the organization from the perspective of the
tasks executed at the shop floor and proposed the standardizing and optimizing work,
sequencing tasks, and organizing the tasks into jobs and departments (Taylor, 1911).
Fayol (1919) studied the role of management, the chain of command and delegation of
authority how managers can be divided to cope with complex systems. Weber (1968)
proposed the view of the organization as a bureaucracy, using staffing and structure to
handle cases and clients. All of those studies focused on actors (workers, managers) and
processes, with little attention to the environment in which they operated (Scott, 2004).
This view, design-driven, formalized and prescriptive, was challenged by proponents of
open systems, which placed the organization as a responsive system, subject to an
external environment, working in larger and more encompassing systems (Scott, 2004). In
open systems, uncertainty is expected, and it is assumed that the systems contain more
variables that can be comprehended at one time, and some of the variables are subjected
to influences that cannot be predicted or controlled (Thompson, 1967).

In the context of open systems, the contingency theory appeared to propose that the best
structure for an organization depends on the environment to which the organization
relates (Betts, 2011). This view assumes that 1. There is no best way to organize and 2.
Any way of organizing is not equally effective (Galbraith, 1973, p. 2). Accordingly,
organizations whose structures are more adequate to its environment (concept of fit) are
more prepared for survival and can achieve higher performance (Drazin & Ven, 1985).
Starting from the 1950s, a group of researchers started publishing studies of organizations
under the view of the contingency theory. Woodward (1958) studied different
manufacturing organizations and how their structures differed in terms of number of
levels of hierarchy, span of control of the first line managers and the ratio of managers to
total personnel. Also, she looked at the environment in terms of the technical systems, if
they were made to produce unique individual units, mass-market units, or continuous
processes such as chemical production. The different structures alone were not related to
the organization performance, but the combination of structure and technical systems
were good predictors of performance, confirming the theory of fit.

Burns & Stalker (1961) defined the concepts of mechanistic and organic systems of
management, as systems that can be designed for an organization to cope with stable or
dynamic environments. The mechanistic approach is appropriate for stable conditions,
and is characterized by specialization of functional tasks, by the focus on the activities
performed rather than the outcomes, by the strong hierarchical structure, and by clearly
defined responsibilities and obligations for each member of the organization (Burns &
Stalker, 1961). The organic, appropriate for changing conditions, is characterized by the
fact that the individual tasks and roles are continuously redefined through interaction with
others, in which members contribute their knowledge and experience to the purpose of the
organization. The responsibilities are not limited nor well defined, and problems cannot
be transferred to others in the hierarchy (Burns & Stalker, 1961).

Lawrence & Lorsch (1967) went further and looked at the organization as a larger set of
smaller subsystems, each coping with sub-environments. According to the uncertainty of
the tasks performed by each subsystem, the structure of the subsystem must be adequate
to cope with this uncertainty. As a whole, the organization should promote differentiation
between subsystems dealing with environments with different attributes.

Perrow (1967) proposed an integrated framework, extending the work of Burns & Stalker
(1961), taking into account the complexity of the technology and the stability of the raw
materials, defining four basic types of organization structures to cope with different
environments. The types differed in terms of the independence (discretion) of workers to
perform their technical tasks and of the middle managers (supervisors); how are the
control performed (via planning or constant feedback); and the independence of the
teams. The four types are described as decentralized, formal centralized, flexible
centralized, and flexible decentralized, and the profiles are shown in Table 4.

Table 4 Organizational structures, (Perrow, 1967)

The organization described in cell 2, the flexible and polycentralized, is the archetype of
the organic organization described by Burns & Stalker (1961), whereas the organization
profile of cell 4 is the mechanistic. The left two cells are organizations well suited for
situations where the problems, or exceptions, are rare and most of the work is routine so
the technical worker has low discretion to solve those exceptions, and need to escalate to
his supervisor when one is encountered. The technical planning of the activities can be
performed, as the exceptions are few and can be treated as they occur. On the right hand
side of the table, the exceptions are the norm, therefore the technical worker must have
independence to solve the problems as part of the activities. The planning needs to be
constantly updated, so it needs continuous feedback. As for the top half of the matrix, the
organizations are structured to handle problems that are hard to analyze, so the supervisor
needs power and independence to analyze those problems. Whereas in the bottom half,
the problems have solutions that can be found by experts, therefore the supervisory power
is low as they rely on the technical workers to solve the exceptions (Perrow, 1967).

Mintzberg (1979) analyzed a number of studies of organization structures under the
theory of contingency, and proposed a framework in which the performance of the
organization would depend not only on the fit between parameters of the organization
design and contingency factors (external and internal), but also in the internal consistency
of these parameters. The contingency factors used by Mintzberg were the following:
Age and size of the organization: the age and size of the organization would
predict the formalization of behavior, the job specialization and differentiation
between units, and the complexity of its administrative systems
Production systems: expanding on the work from Woodward (1958), Mintzberg
suggested that technical systems for mass production, which are regulating and
standardized, indicate a bureaucratic and mechanistic structure for operations, as
opposed to organic structures found in technical systems used for production of
individual units and prototypes.
Stability of the environment: the more dynamic the environment, the more organic
the structure. Similarly, stable environments would indicate mechanistic
structures.
Complexity of the environment: the more complex the environment, the more
decentralized the structure.
Power: organizations that are submitted to external controls have a structure that is
more formal and decentralized. Also, organizations in which its members have
power needs tend to generate structures that are excessively centralized.

Contingency theory, as any theory, has its share of criticism. One that is common is the
difficulty in explaining the causation between the variables, and the assumption in some
studies that if correlation between design characteristics and environment is found in
organizations, it is the best fit, without considering the effectiveness of the design (Drazin
& Ven, 1985). Another criticism is the assumption that the relationships between
variables are symmetrical, where some relationships could be linear, and others could be
curvilinear (Betts, 2011), such as the task orientation of employees in very low or very
high uncertainty environments as studied by Lawrence & Lorsch (1967).

Similarly, the age of the organization and industry can change the dynamics of the
mechanistic and organic structures, as young organizations may require formal structures
to cope with uncertainties caused by the liability of newness (Stinchcombe, 1965). This
was confirmed by Sine, Mitsuhashi, & Kirsch (2006) in their study of internet startups: in
their study, they linked the success of new ventures to structures closer to the mechanistic
approach, such as team formalization, functional specialization and administrative
intensity (Sine et al., 2006).

Another criticism to contingency theory is the possible lack of practical value, as they
tend to be overwhelmingly difficult to apply in the industry giving the complexity of
combinations of environment and industry characteristics (Betts, 2011), and because the
environment changes faster than the organizations can adapt their structures (Mintzberg,
1979). Despite the criticism, it is a theory that is powerful because of its simplicity and at
the same time large scope, addressing many factors that other theories do not (Betts,
2011).

The main line of thought that can be extracted from contingency theory research is the
duality of mechanistic and organic structures, the first is better suited to cope with stable
and less complex market and technology environments, while the second is one that is
adequate for complex, unpredictable and ever changing environments (Mintzberg, 1979).
According to Galbraith, the coordination mechanisms change according to the
uncertainties of the tasks tasks that contain less uncertainty are coordinated with direct
supervision and clear definition of rules and procedures, while more uncertainty is
coordinated with definition of goals for the output and required skills (Galbraith, 1977;
Mintzberg, 1979). Definition of rules and procedures is a pre-condition for achieving
higher maturity levels according to project management maturity models (Pasian et al.,
2012), therefore, according to contingency theory, it is better suited for tasks that have
less inherent uncertainty.

2.5.1. Contingency Theory in Project Management Research
For many years, projects have been studied as entities detached from their environments,
but this view changed when projects were viewed as temporary organizations, which led
to applying contingency theory to projects as well (Hanisch & Wald, 2012). Many studies
on project management theory appeared using the contingency view, and it is recognized
as one of the nine schools of project management research (Bredillet, Anbari, & Turner,
2008; Bredillet, 2008; Turner, Anbari, & Bredillet, 2013), which are
The optimization school: The project as a machine in this school of research, the
project is compared to a machine that can be optimized using tools such as gantt
charts and earned value management
The modeling school: the project as a mirror an evolution of the optimization
school, the modeling school integrates the individual components of project
management to get a full view of the system. Here the focus is on the integration
of hard and soft systems and modeling a total project management system
The governance school: the project as a legal entity views the project as a
temporary organization, as such investigates the mechanisms of governance of the
project and its parent organization
The behavior school: the project as a social system the behavior school studies
the social aspects of the project such as organizational behavior, leadership,
communication, team building and human resources management
The success school: the project as a business objective focus on project success
factors, which are elements of the project that can be influenced to increase the
likelihood of success, and the success criteria, which are the measures by which
the successful outcome of the project can be evaluated
The decision school: the project as a computer investigate aspects of initiation
and approval for funding of projects. Its focus is on the decision making process at
the early stages of the projects.
The process school: the project as an algorithm aims to define structured
processes to achieve the project objectives. This school investigates effectiveness
of processes used to manage projects in different environments
The marketing school: the project as a billboard focuses in the marketing of the
project to stakeholders, internal and external, starting from the identification of
their needs going to the alignment of project management to company strategies,
selling the viewpoint of project management as a tactical and operational matter.
The contingency school: the project as a chameleon this school recognizes the
different contexts between projects and organizations and attempts to adapt the
project management process to the environmental needs of the project. It research
typologies and project categorizations to align project capability with strategy, and
seeks to find methods to adapt the organization approaches to different types of
projects

The use of contingency theory in project management studies increased considerably
since the last ten years and it is an important and ever growing foundation for a number of
studies in project management (Hanisch & Wald, 2012).

2.5.2. Studies of Project Management Using Contingency
Several studies applied contingency theory to investigate project management and many
of them proposed categorization models to assess the relevant contextual variables of the
project.

Henderson & Clark (1990) created a project categorization model based on the degree of
innovation, introducing the concept of architectural innovation, positioned in the middle
between incremental and radical innovation. In projects described as architectural
innovation, the effort and complexity can be underestimated, stressing the communication
channels, processes and structures of the firm.

Turner & Cochrane (1993) proposed a 2x2 matrix project typology, according to the
uncertainty of goals and methods, resulting in four types of projects:
Type 1 projects: when both goals and methods are well defined. Typically are
represented by engineering projects. They are well defined and have a solid
foundation.
Type 2 projects: when the goals of the projects are well defined but not the
methods to achieve them. A good example of this type is product development.
Type 3 projects: when goals are not well defined, but the methods are. Software
development projects tend to fit this description, as it is difficult to specify the
requirements early in the project, and they typically are discovered as the project
evolves.
Type 4 projects: when neither the goals nor the methods are well defined. Blue sky
research activities belong to this type, as well as organizational development.
The four types are represented in Figure 7.

Figure 7 Goals and Methods Matrix, adapted from Turner & Cochrane (1993, p. 95)

For each type, it was proposed to use different techniques to deal with project start and
implementation. The project startup of Type-1 projects, for instance, would focus on
detailing the scope of work, project organization and constraints of quality, cost and time.
The startup of Type-4 projects would, instead, focus on ensuring the project context and
purpose is well defined, before developing the objectives and methods.

Davila (2000) applied a contingency model to measure the impact of management control
systems to project performance. The contingency factors used in his model included
technology and market uncertainty.

Pich & Loch (2002) defined different strategies to cope with uncertain project
environments and adequacy of information, grouped by a 2x2 matrix as well. In this
matrix, one dimension divides projects in the extent of the learning that happens during
the project some projects start with a clear plan to achieve its objectives from the
beginning to the end, and the plan hardly changes during the project; other projects learn
and adapt itself during the project, only providing detailed plans for the next phases.
The other dimension, inspired by natural sciences and tactics for survival of species, is
split by two different strategies: selectionism, in which a number of different projects with
the same goal but different methods are started to increase the chances of success, even if
some of the projects fail; and optimization, which attempts to evolve and change a single
project according to the problems encountered (see Table 5). Each one of the strategies is
adequate to deal with a type of environment, according to the complexity, ambiguity and
uncertainty of the project environment. In this view, traditional project management,
enforced by maturity models, would be placed in the cell where no learning occurs during
the project, and an optimization approach is taken, called the instructionist strategy
scope is defined as early as possible in the project, and detailed planning is made before
project execution. It assumes the information is adequate always available for the
project team and with low ambiguity.

Table 5 Typology for project strategy from Pich & Loch (2002)
Optimization Selectionism
L
e
a
r
n
i
n
g

Learning Strategy
Learning occurs by scanning for
unknown-unknowns, and using
original problem solving. Detailed
plans are only provided for the next
phases, based on overall vision.
Project provides capacity for
replanning.
Learning and Selectionism
Multiple projects exchange
information to increase learning.
Projects can be stopped or merged
based on success of one candidate.
N
o
-
L
e
a
r
n
i
n
g

Instructionist Strategy
Uses detailed plans with critical
paths, adding buffers to cope with
unknown-unknowns.
Manage risks with risks lists and
contingency plans. Tracks progress
using percentage completions.
Selectionist Strategy
Plan multiple trial projects, hedging
against anticipated events. Choice of
winner is ex post. Success is shared
between winners and losers, as
winners cannot be predicted.

Shenhar & Dvir (Shenhar & Dvir, 2007; Shenhar, 2001), starting from the earlier studies
in contingency theory applied to project management, developed a model containing
different dimensions of uncertainty and complexity to categorize projects, aiming to use it
to define the methodology to be used in management of the project. Based on studies of
contingency theory, they used three dimensions: uncertainty, complexity and pace.
Uncertainty is split between market uncertainty and technology uncertainty. The model is
called Novelty, Technology, Complexity and Pace (NTCP). According to the project type
in the dimensions, a different management style must be adopted.

The degree of novelty of the project is important in planning the definition of project
requirements. A completely new product do not have a market, therefore market research
and customer surveys are of little value, and the definition is based on market trials and
gradual changes to project requirements. The requirements freeze must happen only at
later stages of the project, as the results of the market trials are known. On the other hand,
projects that produce only incremental changes from previous products or new product
generations can rely on existing data from market surveys, and need to ensure a timely
product introduction with a relatively low cost, therefore the requirements must be frozen
as early as possible in the project.

The technology level is independent of the project novelty and affects other
characteristics of the management of the project, although both interact in their effect on
the project. Higher technology levels will require increased design and development time
and effort. It means it will have a later design freeze, as the risks and uncertainties
involved with the adoption of new technology are mitigated. High technology projects
also require better interaction between team members, to collectively solve problems
encountered during the project. In lower technology projects, the priority is on increasing
the project management efficiency, delivering the project with the lower cost and in the
shorter time possible, therefore the design is frozen as early as possible to avoid rework,
and the communication between team members is more formal and simplified.

The complexity is related to the size and number of different integrations involved in
delivering the project. The more complex the project gets, the more difficult it is to the
project manager to manage all the changes and communication required. Low complexity
projects tend to have a more informal communication structure, as the team is small and
working on a single location. High complexity projects require a great deal of formalism
and bureaucracy to manage all the communication of the project, documenting
agreements and contracts between different groups.

The pace of the project is the criticality of the time constraints imposed in the project.
Higher time constraints can be imposed by reasons of market window of opportunity or
by external events, such as an emergency and natural disasters. A very high pace project
may require an organization to change their internal structures, from a matrix organization
to a pure project organization, sometimes co-located in what is called skunk works
structure. These teams have to be very focused, and they need to be given high autonomy
to solve the problems as they appear in the project. Such projects dont do any formal
documentation or non-essential, bureaucratic activities. The model was validated through
a series of case studies (Shenhar & Dvir, 2007, Chapters 5A, 6A)

Figure 8 Shenhar & Dvir Diamond Model (Shenhar & Dvir, 2007, p. 14)

Mller & Turner (2007) studied the impact of the leadership style to project success,
moderated by a set of contingency variables related to the project. They discovered that
leadership competency was correlated to project success, and the correlation was
moderated by project complexity, the strategic importance of the project, contract type,
culture and life cycle of the project. The conclusion was that different leadership styles
are appropriate for different types of projects, for instance
Medium and high complexity projects require transformational leadership
(emotional resilience, communication, sensitivity), more than transactional
leadership.
In regards to the strategic importance of the project, repositioning projects require
a more transactional leadership (motivation) whereas renewal projects would
require a more transformational style of leadership (self-awareness,
communication)
For fixed price contracts, sensitivity and communication are important leadership
competences, whereas in remeasurement contracts influence and communication
are important, all related to a transactional leadership style
In regards to the life cycle of the project, conscientiousness and communication
are important throughout the project. At the design stage, managing resources
competence is important, and motivation and sensitivity are important at the
commissioning stage. Strategic perspective correlates negatively with project
success except during feasibility and closeout phases, indicating that during
project execution the project manager must focus on the tasks at hand, and let the
strategic side be managed by other stakeholders.
On home based projects (as opposed to expatriate), motivation and managing
resources are important, whereas strategic perspective detrimental to project
success
As for application areas, on engineering projects, motivation is important and
vision is detrimental to project success, therefore a more transactional style is
needed. On information systems projects, self-awareness and communication are
important (among others with less importance), and vision is detrimental
therefore, in general a transformation style is important.

As a summary, the general view of contingency theory applied to project management
advocates that projects cannot be studied without considering the context, and the
effectiveness of the project organization is determined by its fit to the environment
(Hanisch & Wald, 2012). Its important to notice that, even though there is a diversity of
frameworks, variables and constructs for performance to analyze project contingencies
such as the frameworks described above from Turner & Cochrane (1993), Shenhar &
Dvir (2007) and Mller & Turner (2007), and other studies using degree of innovation
(Bisbe & Otley, 2004; Henderson & Clark, 1990), uncertainty (Davila, 2000) and learning
and optimization (Pich & Loch, 2002), there is not yet a consensus of the set of variables
that are relevant to analyze project contingencies and the structural needs to cope with
those contingencies (Sauser, Reilly, & Shenhar, 2009).

2.6. Performance
Project management maturity, as an organizational asset, is designed to improve the
project management effectiveness and performance (Kwak & Ibbs, 2002). Furthermore,
any research on organizational theory is only relevant to practitioners if there is emphasis
on organizational effectiveness (Nahm et al., 2003). Therefore, the impact of project
management maturity, mediated by contingency factors, must be measured in terms of an
increase in project and organizational performance. In order to understand the claimed
increase in performance, it is necessary to look at the concepts of project performance and
organization performance.

Project performance is, according to a number of researchers, a multi-dimensional
concept (Jugdev & Mller, 2005; Shenhar et al., 1997). Shenhar (2007) proposed a list of
measures that cover a wide spectrum of project situations and time horizons, as well as
the points of view of different stakeholders. The measures were divided into the following
Project efficiency measures the degree of efficiency of project management, in
terms of meeting the schedule and the budget of the project. Indicates if the project
was well managed. Its a short-term measure, usually available as soon as the
project ends. However its importance diminishes as the time passes.
Impact on the customer represents the perspective of the stakeholder whose
perception is arguably the most important to assess the project success. It indicates
not only if the project met the requirements and specifications, but also if the
results improved the business of the customer, and how his needs were addressed.
It can be measured quantitatively, using metrics such as improvement in process
indicators, or qualitatively, with customer satisfaction interviews. The effect of
this success measure lasts longer then the project efficiency.
Impact on the team measures the satisfaction and morale of the team, if they
developed new skills and felt energized by the project. It has a financial impact in
the organization, promoting retention of the team and learning.
Business and direct success measures the impact on the organization bottom
line. It assesses sales, income, profits, cost savings, cash flow and other financial
measures. This dimension becomes significant only some time after the project is
finished, and cannot be measured in the short term.
Preparation for the future measures the project outcome in creating or exploring
new technologies, new markets, new organizational competencies and building the
future of the organization. It only affects the organization years after the project is
delivered.

A model to measure success must take into account the assessment of a range of
stakeholders over different time scales (Turner et al., 2009), even if they are sometimes
conflicting and the stakeholders do not agree (Cheung, Zolin, Turner, & Remington,
2010).

Turner & Zolin (2012) performed an study of different measures to measure project
success, using the perspective of different stakeholders and timescales, and arrived to nine
scales. They are:
Stakeholder satisfaction general satisfaction of all stakeholders, such as
contractors, suppliers, project executive and investor
Project executive satisfaction measures the satisfaction from the project
executive perspective
Product satisfaction measures if the resulting product or prototype is useful for
the customer and operator
Product efficiency measures if the resulting product or prototype achieved the
expected performance and efficiency
Satisfaction with specifications takes into account if the specifications are
appropriate, from the point of view of the customer, operator and investor
Project manager satisfaction scale that measures if the project manager had high
satisfaction and morale during the project, if there was enough recognition and
opportunities for personal growth
Contractor satisfaction if the contractor and supplier are satisfied with
performance and contract compliance
Supplier profitability if the supplier was allowed to profit from the project
Public stakeholder measures the social costs and environmental effects of the
project

Similarly to project performance, the construct of organization performance must be,
according to the literature (Chenhall & Langfield-Smith, 2007; Kaplan & Norton, 1996;
Venkatraman & Ramanujam, 1986), multidimensional, taking into account financial and
non-financial measures.

Different dimensions for organizational performance have been used in the literature
researching the impact of different strategies on organizational performance, such as
management control systems (Bisbe & Otley, 2004), organizational culture (Denison &
Mishra, 1995), business strategy and managerial characteristics (Gupta & Govindarajan,
1984), information systems planning (W. R. King & Teo, 2000), organizational structure
(Nahm et al., 2003), manufacturing technology (Tracey et al., 1999; Ward & Duray,
2000) and also project management maturity (Yazici, 2009b). This is another place to add
something on each one. The dimensions are divided in those related to a financial
perspective: sales growth rate and profitability; and non-financial: customer satisfaction,
market share, internal efficiency and overall business performance.

2.7. Studies of Maturity and Contingency
As it is an important concept, there are a number of studies on project management
maturity related to environmental factors. In an early study, Flowe & Thordahl (1994)
investigated the relationship between CMM ratings and performance, moderated by a set
of variables. They measured project success using Cost and Schedule Performance
Indexes (CPI and SPI) from earned value analysis,. The sample was composed of
acquired projects for the Department of Defense (DoD) of the United States, excluding
internal projects. In general, their results were that CPI was correlated with the CMM
rating, but only from level 1 to 2, not from 2 to 3. SPI showed significant difference
between levels 1 and 3 and between 2 and 3. Using moderators for baseline volatility,
they discovered that CPI and SPI are impacted by maturity levels in projects with less
than 15% baseline changes, whereas in projects with more than 15% changes there was no
statistically significant impact. They also used project size as moderating factor as the
projects were delivering software, the measure was in thousands of lines of code, or
KLOC. The results were that projects with less than 100K LOC had maturity impacting
CPI and SPI whereas in projects with more than 100K there was no significant
relationship. The results of this study are important, even if it was restricted only to one
aspect of performance, which is project efficiency. It is also interesting that in projects
that are bigger and more complex, the impact of maturity in efficiency is weaker.

One factor studied is the industry of the organization, and how it influence maturity levels
of different project management practices (Cooke-Davies & Arzymanow, 2003; Grant &
Pennypacker, 2006; Pennypacker & Grant, 2003). Although the results from Grant &
Pennypacker did not find significant deviation of maturity among industries, Cooke-
Davies & Arzymanow found that there is evidence of higher maturity in what they call
industries of origin, or industries that adopted project management relatively earlier
than others this finding is consistent with Mintzbergs hypothesis that the structure of
the organization reflects the age of the appearance of the industry (Mintzberg, 1979).

Skulmoski (2001) looked at the topic from a competence perspective and suggested that
there must be a fit between the project management maturity of the organization, the
required competencies of the project context and the competencies of the project
members, in order to achieve project performance.

Pasian et al (2012) studied emergent factors as potentially predictors of project
management maturity, effective in different project contexts using Turner & Cochranes
goals and methods project typology (Turner & Cochrane, 1993). She did a textual analysis
of a number or maturity models of different disciplines, including but not restricted to
project management, looking for maturity factors beyond process control. From the
factors that were found, a case study was performed in two universities with e-learning
projects of Type-3 (when methods are known, but project goals are not well defined at the
outset) according to Turner & Cochrane (1993) typology. They found that, beside defined
processes, other factors were also important in a project management maturity model.
They were
Customer involvement as the projects were of type-3, and the goals were not
very well defined, it was deemed of high importance to have the customer
involvement in the project as a key part of the framework
Adaptable variants the maturity framework must be also be adaptable to
different project contexts, as the project organization itself, to be mature, needs to
be adaptable do changing conditions
Dynamic non-events giving the uncertainties of type-3 projects, the human
factors must be taken into account, in the projects and in the maturity framework.
Aspects such as motivation, attitude and loyalty of the people involved in the
project must be managed (Pasian, Sankaran, & Boydell, 2011; Pasian et al., 2012;
Pasian, 2011)

Giving the apparent inconsistency of the requirement of fit between different project
structures for different project contexts, and the rigidity of project management maturity
models, other authors also suggested the development of maturity models that are
adaptable to different situations. Mettler & Rohner (2009) and Ofner, Huener & Otto
(2009) proposed models in which the assessment strategy would be customized and
adapted for the organization structure; while the reference model would be the superset of
best practices. The team developing the OPM3 model, recognizing the need to adapt
maturity models to the context of the organization, attempted to adopt a contingency
framework in the initial development of the model, but until its third release it was not
realized (Schlichter et al., 2010).

According to Mullaly & Thomas (2014), project management maturity models should, at
the very minimum, take into account the context and contingency variables the
organization face in order to define how project management is implemented and which
practices should be utilized.

2.8. Summary
2.8.1. Summary of concepts
In this literature review, the concept of maturity, how it was inspired from the total quality
movement and its emphasis on standardization and statistical process control is described.
As such, the Capability Maturity Model appeared in the software industry, which inspired
similar maturity models in many other disciplines, including project management. A
number of project management maturity models were developed from the beginning of
the 1990s, largely inspired by SEIs CMM. The purpose of a maturity model is to define
levels or stages of maturity, or a value to describe the maturity in a continuum, indicating
a path the organization must follow in order to achieve maximum performance in a given
discipline (Cooke-Davies, 2007).

The basic composition of a maturity model is (adapted from Pppelbu & Rglinger,
2011):
Basic information about the application domain, target group and purpose
Description of maturity levels, maturation paths and criteria for level assessment
Improvement procedures for achieving higher levels

Also in this literature review the concept of contingency was discussed, which can be
summarized as
3. There is no best way to organize
4. Any way of organizing is not equally effective (Galbraith, 1973)
It means that organizations operating in different environments, with higher or lower
uncertainties, instability and complexity must have different structures in order to cope
with the requirements of the environment.

Finally, the literature review looked at the concept of performance, and how can it be used
to measure effectiveness of higher maturity levels in different environments.

2.8.2. Knowledge gap and justification for the research topic
In the literature reviewed, there were some studies of contingency factors impacting
performance obtained by maturity. Some of them were restricted to a few factors such as
knowledge of methods and goals (Pasian, 2011), organizational culture (Yazici, 2009b),
baseline changes (Flowe & Thordahl, 1994) or risk profiles (Bahli et al., 2011). Some
studies were focused on a specific type of project such as product development (Dooley et
al., 2001). But published studies on effectiveness of applying project management
maturity models using the combination of different project contexts are not available. This
thesis intends to look at this question by investigating the effect of project management
maturity on perceived performance, exploring situational variables that influence this link.
In broader terms, there is a need for research in contextual application of project
management and to demonstrate how the overall discipline works coherently to deliver
projects successfully (Cooke-Davies, 2007; Morris, 2000). Specifically, there is not a
consensus on one project management framework to address project contingencies
(Sauser et al., 2009). The results of this research may advance knowledge in this area.
Chapter 3 Methodology

This chapter presents the methodology for the study. It covers the philosophical
underpinnings, the research model, the instrument design and the procedures for data
collection and analysis.

3.1. Research Philosophy
No discussion about the research methodology is complete without concern for the
research philosophy, which underpins the strategy adopted by the researcher (Saunders,
Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009). Management research deals with the creation and legitimation
of knowledge related to management issues, and the philosophical worldview of the
researcher carries assumptions that are key to the methodology that will be adopted in
generating this knowledge (Remenyi, Williams, Money, & Swartz, 1998). According to
Guba & Lincoln, Questions of methods are secondary to the questions of paradigm,
which we define as the basic belief system or world view that guides the investigation, not
only in choices of method but in ontologically and epistemologically fundamental ways.
(Guba & Lincoln, 1994, p. 105).
In the following sections a summary of the existing standpoints will be presented.

3.1.1. Ontology and Epistemology
Ontology refers to the researchers view of the nature of reality (M. Saunders et al., 2009).
Two aspects represent competing paradigms on ontology, one being the objectivism, in
which social entities exist and are independent of social actors. The other is subjectivism,
in which social phenomena are created from the perception of the social actors concerned
with its existence (M. Saunders et al., 2009).

Management researchers adopting an objective perspective study management in terms of
particular aspects, such as the formal structure of the organization, the operating
procedures in place and job descriptions. It assumes those aspects will have different
structures, but its essence is the same in organizations (Saunders et al., 2009). A
subjective view is different as it considers those objective aspects to be less important
than the way the managers attach meaning to them. The subjectivist view is often attached
to the term constructionism, which views reality as socially constructed by actors
(Saunders et al., 2009).

Epistemology concerns the nature of knowledge and what do we accept as valid
knowledge (Saunders et al., 2009). There are two opposite views in the epistemological
continuum that are relevant to management and organizational science, which are
positivism and relativism (Rousseau, Manning, & Denyer, 2008). Those views will be
discussed in the next section, along with the philosophies that represents intermediate
views in the continuum.

3.1.2. Philosophies and Research Methods
The positivism philosophy is based in logic, and it assumes reality is observable and
from those observations the researcher seeks causality connections, to derive laws and
generalizations, similarly to physical and natural scientists (Remenyi et al., 1998).
Positivist researchers typically structure their investigation with hypotheses generated by
existing theories, which are tested and confirmed, or refuted, which leads to further theory
development (Saunders et al., 2009). The research method can be quantitative or
qualitative (Saunders et al., 2009).

Relativism or interpretivism is opposite to the positivist view and advocates that the world
is not composed by a single objective reality but of a series of multiple socially
constructed realities (Remenyi et al., 1998). Interpretivists consider the world to be too
complex to be reduced to simple laws and generalizations of cause and effect, as is the
case for positivists (Saunders et al., 2009). Relativists investigate instead the explanations
and narratives of social actors, with a goal of understanding their perspectives (Rousseau
et al., 2008). In a study using a relativist stance it is not possible, or desirable, to define
the steps and hypothesis instead, the study unfolds as the research proceeds, and early
collection of evidence suggests how subsequent phases will be (Remenyi et al., 1998), a
process called grounded theory (Edmondson & Mcmanus, 2007). In grounded theory, the
researcher approaches the enquiry with an open mind as to what kind of theory will
emerge from the study of course, preconceptions coming from previous literature
reviewed and the researchers own experience cannot be avoided, but they must be
acknowledged in the study (Remenyi et al., 1998). The research methods are primarily
qualitative (Saunders et al., 2009).

Standing between the two poles is the philosophy of critical realism. In critical realism, it
is accepted the epistemological stance that an objective reality exists and is knowable, at
the same time recognizing that the understanding of reality is mediated by human
perception and cognition (Rousseau et al., 2008). Critical realism does not advocate one
method over the other, recognizing that every method has shortcomings, mixing
qualitative and quantitative methods instead and adopting triangulation across methods
and forms of data (Rousseau et al., 2008). Methodological triangulation is the use of
different methods, such as qualitative and quantitative, to study the same phenomena, in
the same or subsequent studies (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998).

A fourth research paradigm is called pragmatism. The pragmatism view does not require a
prior choice of philosophical stance from the researcher and advocates the choice of the
methodology according to the research question under study (Saunders et al., 2009). This
paradigm is often criticized for ignoring the role theory plays and focus on can
something be made to work not why it works (Rousseau et al., 2008, p. 18).

A table is presented below, from Saunders et al (2009), which compares the four
philosophies.

Table 6 Comparison of four research philosophies in management research (M. Saunders et al., 2009, p. 119)

The choice of the research method is, ultimately, driven by the background and
philosophical preferences of the researcher (Remenyi et al., 1998). This thesis will take a
critical realism philosophy. Management and organizational science is a human science
and contains multiple levels of complexity in organizations, teams, markets, social
institutions, and those multiple levels require multiple methods to increase our
understanding and create knowledge (Rousseau et al., 2008). Furthermore, project
management maturity and success contain elements of socially constructed and physical
external realities (Cooke-Davies et al., 2001; Jugdev & Mller, 2005), therefore a critical
realist approach is needed to investigate these concepts.
Finally, while a more interpretivist perspective would mean a gradual development of the
hypothesis, a critical realism approach allow us to investigate and prove, or reject, the pre-
defined hypothesis that project management maturity impacts performance, mediated by
contingency factors.

3.2. Research Methods
According to Edmondson & Mcmanus (2007), depending on the prior work on the theory
under study, a different methodology may be a better fit for the research. What they call
nascent theory requires qualitative methods and open-ended inquiries in order to
advance our knowledge and formulate a new theory, whereas a mature theory would call
for quantitative methods to test formal hypothesis, adding new mechanisms and
boundaries for existing theories. In this model, if the methodological fit is low the
researcher may face problems with the theoretical contribution of the research in case of
using quantitative methods with nascent theory, the constructs are still emerging, and the
significant associations may be found by chance. In the other extreme, using qualitative
methods with mature theory may incur in findings that only reinvent the wheel or that
are too obvious to contribute to new knowledge (Edmondson & Mcmanus, 2007).

Contingency theory can be considered mature because of its 50 years of application in
organizational theory (Hanisch & Wald, 2012). Extant research of contingency theory
applied to project management range from theoretical (Artto, Martinsuo, Dietrich, &
Kujala, 2008; Pich & Loch, 2002; Turner & Cochrane, 1993) and purely qualitative
(Pasian et al., 2012; Sauser et al., 2009; Shenhar & Dvir, 2007) to the use of mixed
methods (Mller & Turner, 2007; Shao, Mller, & Turner, 2012). At the same time,
project management maturity is a stable concept with a number of published quantitative
studies (Ibbs et al., 2004; Pennypacker, 2006; Yazici, 2009a). Therefore it is intended
with this research to build upon existing theory and test a contingency model of the effect
of project management maturity on performance, which could be added to existing project
management theory. By adding contingency mechanisms to understand the impact of
maturity in performance, we are adding new boundaries to the existing theory, therefore
according to Edmondson & Mcmanus (2007) model of methodology fit the most
appropriate methodology for such investigation is a quantitative method.

3.3. Research Model
The literature review presented the existing research in project management maturity and
contingency theory. The knowledge gap that was uncovered is the understanding of the
impact of contingency factors in the application of project management maturity models.
The following research question can then be formulated: What are the factors that
influence the impact of project management maturity on performance?
The unit of analysis is the business unit, which can be assessed in regard to its project
management maturity. The theoretical perspective is the one from the contingency theory.
The research model is shown in Figure 9.

Figure 9 Research Model
The research model is the classic model for contingency theory studies using the
interaction approach (Drazin & Ven, 1985; Venkatraman, 1989), in which contextual
variables act as moderating factor between organizational structure (in this case, project
management maturity) and performance.

3.4. Research Methodology
3.4.1. Instrument Design
This section describes the instruments used to measure the variables from the hypotheses
and research model of this thesis. In order to define valid instruments, the factors below
must be taken into account (Cooper & Schindler, 2006; Rudestam & Newton, 2007):
Existing instruments are preferable to the development of new instruments if they
exist newly developed or modified versions of existing ones lack the pretests and
are questionable in terms of reliability and validity. The development of new
instruments requires its own research steps and can be alone the topic of a
dissertation
Appropriateness of the instrument the instrument must be adequate for the target
population of the study, and it must conceive the phenomenon studied in terms
similar to the manner it has been conceptualized in the thesis
Validity, reliability, and structure of the instrument reliability means the ability
for the instrument to provide consistent results, validity indicates the instrument
measures what it allegedly measures, and structure refers to the number and
meaning of subscales of an instrument. At the instrument definition stage, the only
way to maximize reliability and validity is through existing literature.
Procedures to administer the instrument the procedures to collect the data using
the instrument, for instance via self-reported questionnaire or interviews with
qualified personnel, must be taken into account. In order to test the complexity of
the instrument, a pilot must be performed to gather participant feedback on items,
which they found ambiguous or difficult to understand.

The use of self-reported questionnaires is recognized as indispensable in organizational
research, but the researcher must be aware of the inherent problems of using the tool
(Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). The main problems, according to Podsakoff & Organ (1986)
are:
Common method variance when using the same source to report two or more
variables, any defect in the source can contaminate the variables in the same
fashion and direction, producing erroneous correlations
Consistency motif people tend to be consistent in their answers, based on what
they believe to be true, producing again illusory correlations, which only support
their beliefs
Social desirability respondents may answer questions in a way to present
themselves in a favorable light.

In order to mitigate the problems of self-reporting, the following actions were taken, as
suggested by Conway & Lance (2010) and Podsakoff & Organ (1986):
Ensure construct validity construct validity was ensured by utilizing existing
instruments, which were tested in the literature using both quantitative and
qualitative methods
Lack of overlap of different constructs the constructs were validated against
overlap by the advisors of the thesis and by the pilot of the questionnaire
Use of different scales and methods the scale for maturity, contingency and
success were different, and the instruments came from different sources
Design of the questionnaire the questions for different variables were grouped
by their concepts in different pages, in order to provide a separation for the
respondents
Anonymity in order to mitigate the social desirability problem, the introduction
of the survey made clear the answers were anonymous

In the following sections, the choice of instruments for the constructs of project
management maturity, project context and performance will be presented.

3.4.1.1. Project Management Maturity
The literature review has shown a number of existing project management maturity
models. In order to operationalize the construct for the research, it was necessary to select
one of existing models according to the criteria described above for appropriateness and
procedures.
Table 7 presents the analyzed maturity models.

Table 7 Analysis of maturity models as instruments
Model Rating Concepts Applicability
MGP - Darci-Prado 5 levels Project management, strategic
alignment, organizational and
competence.
Simple, 40 questions
P3M3 OGC 5 levels Project management, benefits
management, organizational and
financial.
Simple, nine
questions for project,
nine for program and
nine for portfolio
management
Project oriented Company
Maturity Model Gareis
Continuous Project, programme, quality
assurance, assignment of a project
or programme, project portfolio
coordination and networking
between projects, organizational
design, personnel, process
Long, 74 questions
OPM3 PMI Continuous Project, Program and Portfolio.
Organizational enablers,
standardize, measure, control and
continuously improve.
Complex, 488 best
practices to be
assessed by certified
consultant
PMMM - PM Solutions 5 levels
Rating as the
average
maturity
Knowledge areas from PMBOK Simple, survey with
42 questions
ProjectFRAMEWORK
ESI
5 levels
Rating as
fulfilling pre-
requisites
Knowledge areas from PMBOK Simple, survey with
11 questions

The chosen model is the ProjectFRAMEWORK based on the following reasons:

Appropriateness: the model must represent, as closely as possible, the construct as
defined by the theoretical foundation adopted. As seen in the literature review, the
core concept of organizational maturity is the standardization of processes and
statistical process control as defined by Shewhart (1939), and the progressive five
levels described by Humphrey (Humphrey, 1989), as the ProjectFRAMEWORK
model is structured. In regard to the concept of project management, the model
must adopt processes as recognized by practitioners for being project management
processes. ProjectFRAMEWORK adopts the PMBOK, which is one recognized
standard for project management processes (PMI, 2013a).
Applicability of procedures: giving the quantitative nature of the study, the
instrument must be applicable to a large quantity of subjects via a questionnaire.
From the options analyzed, ProjectFRAMEWORK was one of the most compact,
being able to be formatted in 11 questions, one per PMBOK knowledge area and
one for overall maturity.

3.4.1.2. Contingency
The situational variables, selected according to the literature and existing research, are
related to the project type, more specifically their novelty, pace, complexity and use of
technology (Shenhar & Dvir, 2007); industry (Cooke-Davies & Arzymanow, 2003;
Shenhar & Dvir, 2007); uncertainty and adequacy of information (Pich & Loch, 2002;
Turner & Cochrane, 1993); the goal of the project in the organization (Shenhar & Dvir,
2007; Thomas & Mullaly, 2008); and the strategic importance and application area
(Mller & Turner, 2007; Shenhar & Dvir, 2007).
The operationalization of the constructs is described in Table 8.

Table 8 Project Contingency Constructs
Construct Operationalization Source
Industry Industry name Shenhar & Dvir (2007)
Novelty Derivative, Platform, New to the
Market, New to the World
Technological Uncertainty Low-Tech, Medium-Tech,
High-Tech, Super High-Tech
Complexity Component/Material, Assembly,
System, Array
Pace Regular, Fast/Competitive,
Time-critical, Blitz
Business Goal Operational or Strategic
Customer External or Internal
Strategic Goal Money-Making Project, Money-
Saving Project,
Utility/Infrastructure,
Maintenance/Keep the Lights
On Project, Building the Future,
Exploring new ideas, Problem
Solving Project
Uncertainty of Goals Goals were well understood /
goals were not well understood
Turner & Cochrane (1993)

Uncertainty of Methods Methods were well understood /
Methods were not well
understood

3.4.1.3. Performance
For this thesis, performance is being measured in two units of analysis: the performance
of the project and the performance of the organization.
The instrument to measure performance of the organization was created based on
dimensions used in existing literature researching the impact of different strategies on
organizational performance (Bisbe & Otley, 2004; Denison & Mishra, 1995; Gupta &
Govindarajan, 1984; W. R. King & Teo, 2000; Nahm et al., 2003; Tracey et al., 1999;
Ward & Duray, 2000; Yazici, 2009b). The dimensions are divided in those related to a
financial perspective: growth rate of sales, profitability; and non-financial: customer
satisfaction, market share, internal efficiency, and overall business performance.
The instrument selected to measure project performance is the one from Shenhar & Dvir
(2007). There are other models in the literature that measure performance from the point
of view of many stakeholders using multiple timescales, such as the model defined by
Mller & Turner (2007) and Turner & Zolin (2012) as an opportunity for future
research, the impact of maturity in performance can be investigated using a combination
of those or more models to triangulate the results.

Table 9 Project Performance Questionnaire, adapted from Shenhar & Dvir (2007)
Construct Question
Project Efficiency The project was completed on time or earlier.
The project was completed within or below budget.
The project had only minor changes.
Impact on Customer The project improved the customers performance.
The customer was satisfied.
The project met the customer requirements.
The customer is using the project result.
The customer will come back for future work.
Impact on the Team The project team was highly motivated and satisfied.
The team was highly loyal to the project.
The project team had high morale and energy.
The team felt that working on this project was fun.
Team members experienced personal growth.
Team members wanted to stay in the organization.
Business and Direct Organization Success The project was an economic business success.
The project increased the organizations profitability.
The project has a positive return on investment.
The project increased the organization's market share.
The project contributed to stakeholder value.
The project contributed to the organization's direct performance.
Preparation for the Future The project outcome will contribute to future projects.
The project will lead to additional new products.
The project will help create new markets.
The project created new technologies for future use.
The project contributed to new business processes.
The project developed better managerial capabilities.

Table 10 Organizational Performance Constructs
Construct Question Source
Sales growth, market share
growth, profitability
The rate of sales growth of my organization
improved as a result of its projects
Gupta & Govindarajan,
1984
Tracey, Vonderembse,
& Lim, 1999
Denison & Mishra, 1995
The profitability of my organization improved as
a result of its projects
The market share of my organization improved
as a result of its projects
Overall business performance The overall business performance of my
organization improved as a result of its projects
Denison & Mishra, 1995
Internal efficiency, customer
satisfaction
The internal efficiency of my organization
King & Teo, 2000
The customer satisfaction with my organization

The scale for the performance questions was a five-point Likert scale: 1- Strongly Agree,
2- Disagree, 3-Agree, 4-Strongly Agree, 5- N/A. The N/A option is important to allow
answers when the respondent cannot emit an opinion on the question, either because it
does not apply to that particular case or because the respondent does not know (Shao et
al., 2012). This case is treated as missing data, as explained in Chapter 4.

3.4.2. Pilot
A pilot of the questionnaire was conducted with five project managers during one week.
The feedback collected from the pilot led to changes in the questionnaire, which are
summarized below.
In the maturity questionnaire, there is one question to measure the global
organizational maturity of the organization, which more than one pilot respondent
said was the most difficult question. For the final version, the question was moved
to the end of the maturity section, as at that stage the respondent is more familiar
with the structure of the maturity questions.
There are two versions of the ProjectFRAMEWORK maturity questionnaire, one
with 11 questions related to the knowledge areas, and one with 26 questions
related with the best practices. One respondent answered the 26 question version;
the other four responded using the 11 question version. All respondents gave the
feedback that generally the questionnaire was quite long, but the respondent of the
26 questions version claimed it was longer than acceptable for an online survey.
Therefore it confirmed our decision to use the 11-question version, and they were
shortened further with a review by the original author of the model, with care to
keep the original concepts.
The question about the project duration did not have the time unit specified. The
question was changed to make it clear it should be answered in months.

3.4.3. Ethical Considerations
The researcher must take in consideration ethical aspects for the study, most importantly
issues of informed consent and protection of confidentiality (Czaja & Blair, 2005). Those
were addressed by informing the participants in the survey introduction text that their
participation was voluntary, and all information provided was confidential. The survey is
presented in Appendix A.

3.5. Sampling
There are two main techniques to select the sample of the survey: probability and non-
probability sampling. In the probability sampling, the probability of each case being
selected in the population is known, even if it is not necessarily equal (Remenyi et al.,
1998). However, in business research this is often not possible, which is due to limited
resources or the inability to specify the sampling frame or population for that case, there
are techniques that are called non-probability sampling (Saunders et al., 2009). This will
be the case for this research.
In non-probability sampling, the technique used for this research was the snowball
sampling, in which some cases in the population are contacted, and they are asked to
identify additional cases and so on.

3.6. Data Analysis
The starting point of the analysis is a study of a regression, which can be stated in the
form of

where x is the independent variable, and predictor of the dependent variable y, according
to the coefficient b
1
.
The moderator variable influences the regression, and it can be classified into pure
moderator or quasi moderator (Sharma et al., 1981).
Pure moderators influence the regression but are not related to the independent variable,
as expressed by the variable z in the equation below

Whereas quasi-moderators not only influence the regression but are also related to the
independent variable, as shown in variable z in the equation below

To study the moderators of the model, considering all cases above, moderated hierarchical
regression analysis was used. The method has been used extensively in the study of
moderating factors and its impact on performance (Carson, Madhok, Varman, & John,
2003; Tatikonda & Rosenthal, 2000; Zhu & Sarkis, 2004). There is one caveat in this
approach that is the multicollinearity between the terms and their cross products, in this
example, between x, z and xz, which may underestimate the effect of the moderator in the
regression to tackle this problem, the predictor and independent variables will be
standardized, as suggested by Dunlap & Kemery (1987).

3.7. Data Check
The data collected was screened to check against problems that could affect the analysis.
They could either inflate or deflate correlations, which would incur in type-1 or type-2
errors in the analysis (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). A list of those pre-tests is shown
below:
Missing values: missing data points are a common problem in any research. In the
case of this thesis, respondents skipping questions or answering N/A could
cause missing data points. The data were checked for missing data, and depending
on the severity and on the distribution of the missing data, different strategies were
used, including the imputation of those missing values by the means of the
variable, or by estimation of the missing value using existing values (Tabachnick
& Fidell, 2007), or even dropping the variable if no other approach is possible.
Normality: for regression analysis, it is assumed the variables follow a normal
distribution. There are two ways a variable can deviate from normality, either
lacking symmetry (called skewness) and pointiness (called kurtosis). Skewed
distributions are not symmetrical and have the majority of the cases clustered in
one side of the scale. The kurtosis measures the degree to which the scores cluster
at the tails of the distribution. The standard tests for normality gives numbers for
the skewness, and if its above zero its called a positive skewed distribution, with
most of the cases in the left of a histogram, and if its below zero its a negatively
skewed distribution, with most of the cases to the right. The limit of tolerance used
here is plus or minus 1.96 for skewness. The test also give a number for the
kurtosis, and a positive number represents a pointy distribution, with most cases
concentrated around the mean, and a negative kurtosis indicates a flat distribution.
The limit for kurtosis is plus or minus 3.2. All variables were checked for their
skewness and kurtosis, and if they were above the limit of +/-1.96 or +/-3.2
respectively (Field, 2005), some transformations were necessary in order to bring
the variable to normality without affecting the regressions.
Univariate outliers: an univariable outlier is a case of an extreme value that
distorts the statistics for a variable (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007), in some cases
affecting the normality of the distribution. The data were checked for those cases,
and if outliers are found, transformations may be required to minimize the impact
of the outlier on the series.

There were also post-checks performed in the regressions, to verify the quality of the data
and the adequacy of the model. They were:

Multivariate outliers: multivariate outliers are cases in which the dependent
variable differs considerably from the predicted value of the regression equation
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). They could be caused by misinterpretation or errors
while filling the questionnaire, or by valid cases in which a regression equation
cannot predict the outcome. All multivariate outliers had their influence in the
model checked, using their Malahanobis and Cooks distance, their leverage
values and covariance ratios. As no case exceeded the recommended value of one
for Cooks distance, all cases were kept.
Multicollinearity: is the case where the independent variables of the regression are
highly correlated. If the correlation is too high the regression equation cannot be
properly calculated and the results are unreliable (Field, 2005). All regressions
were checked using the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF), which was around one for
all cases and therefore all cases were acceptable (Field, 2005).
Homoscedasticity: Another assumption of regression analysis is that the variables
are homoscedastic or that its variance is constant (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). In
order to verify the homoscedasticity, the residuals of the regressions were plotted
against the predicted values. Although all regressions were checked, for the
regressions resulting in significant relationships, the plots with the residuals are in
Appendix B.
Independent errors: this assumption is that any two observations, the residual
terms must be independent or uncorrelated (Field, 2005). The test for this
condition is the Durbin-Watson test, and all regressions were around the
acceptable value of two.

3.8. Summary
In this chapter the research design for this thesis was described. It started from the
philosophical choices of the study, in particular the critical realist standpoint, with the
considerations and implications for theory building. The method chosen for the research,
purely quantitative, was justified based on prior work and stage of development of the
concepts under study, namely contingency theory and project management maturity.

The research question is then defined based on the all that has been discussed thus far and
can be phrased as What are the factors that influence the impact of project management
maturity on performance?

The research model uses maturity as independent variable, and the dependent variables
are project and organizational performance. The moderating variables are project novelty,
technology, complexity, pace, and the knowledge of project goals and methods. The
analysis of the data will be carried on using moderated hierarchical regression analysis, as
discussed in the next chapter.


Chapter 4 Data Analysis

In this chapter the results of the analysis of the data collected are reported.
The descriptive statistics are presented. The independent variable, performance, is
grouped using factor analysis, which enable us to refine the main hypotheses defined in
Chapter 3. The research model and the refined hypotheses are then tested using moderated
hierarchical regression analysis.

4.1. The Sample
The responses were collected via a web survey from October 4
th
to November 25
th
, 2013.
The invitations were sent by email to personal contacts from the researcher, posted to
newsgroups and communities related to project management, sent to PMI chapter officers
to be forwarded to their members and to the researchers alumni network.
The response is shown in Table 11, including incomplete responses.

Table 11 Sources and the number of responses

From the 279 responses, 70 did not complete the questionnaire. An analysis of those 70
revealed that two participants were very close to completion: One case had no missing
data, so probably the tool did not recognize the finalization of the survey for some reason.
One other case did not complete the business performance questions, but completed all
other questions up to the project performance questionnaire. For that reason they were
included in the analysis, resulting in 211 valid responses. Missing data for all cases will
be treated further in the analysis.

Source Group size Responses
Newsgroups (Yahoo groups, Google Groups, LinkedIn communities, all
project management related)
N/A Public access 21
Alumni network 64 24
PMI Chapters Sent to members of 25 PMI
chapters
28
Personal contacts 623 203
Other social networks (Facebook, twitter, tumblr) N/A Public access 3
Total 279
Responses
The survey was published on the SurveyMonkey
1
platform, which offers a number of
features for tracking the responses, such as separate links for each group and charts.
Because of the nature of the snowball technique, estimating the response rate or the
sampling frame is not possible. The definition of the sample size has to be done based on
the research question and data analysis technique (Saunders et al., 2009).

For the analysis there must be a minimum of five observations per independent variable
(Bryant & Yarnold, 1995), but the recommended number for generalizability is 15 to 20
observations per independent variable (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998). In our
model, there are nine contingency variables and one for maturity. Therefore, 150 to 200
responses would be necessary. As there were 211 valid responses, they meet the
requirements for generalizability and regression analysis.

The organizations represented in the responses were from many countries as presented in
Table 12. There is a concentration of responses in Brazil, the researchers home country,
and Switzerland, where the researcher resides.

Table 12 Country distribution
What is the country of origin of your organization?
Brazil 54 25.6%
United States 33 15.6%
Switzerland 32 15.2%
France 20 9.5%
United Kingdom 8 3.8%
Canada 7 3.3%
China 7 3.3%
Germany 7 3.3%
Turkey 5 2.4%
Sweden 3 1.4%
United Arab Emirates 3 1.4%
Australia 2 0.9%
Denmark 2 0.9%
Italy 2 0.9%
Korea South 2 0.9%
Norway 2 0.9%
South Africa 2 0.9%
Ukraine 2 0.9%
Argentina 1 0.5%
Austria 1 0.5%
Belgium 1 0.5%
Cambodia 1 0.5%

1
http://www.surveymonkey.com
Chile 1 0.5%
Croatia 1 0.5%
Indonesia 1 0.5%
Iran 1 0.5%
Israel 1 0.5%
Japan 1 0.5%
Kuwait 1 0.5%
Latvia 1 0.5%
Lebanon 1 0.5%
Mexico 1 0.5%
Netherlands 1 0.5%
Portugal 1 0.5%
Romania 1 0.5%
Did not answer 1 0.5%
Total 211

Analyzing the role of respondents, a large number of respondents (45, or 23.1%) had
answered as other and entered the textual description of the role. The questionnaire
contained the following pre-defined roles: Project Team Member, Project Manager,
Project Director, Program Manager, Program Director, Sponsor, Line/Department
Manager, CEO/COO, Other. Upon examination of the roles entered as other, new roles
were used in the coding when their roles were not exactly a good match to any of the
previous options, and some roles were recoded using existing ones (such as software
developer, which can be recoded as project team member).

The full distribution of roles is in Table 13. A large number of respondents had the role of
project team members (107, or 50.7%), which is compatible with the general distribution
of roles in the project since the survey was not targeted at any specific project role.

Table 13 Role of respondent distribution
What was your role in the project?
Project Team Member 107 50.7%
Project Manager 32 15.2%
Line/Department Manager 15 7.1%
External Consultant 10 4.7%
CEO/COO 7 3.3%
Program Manager 7 3.3%
Program Director 5 2.4%
Product Owner 4 1.9%
Project Director 4 1.9%
Project Controller 3 1.4%
Other 2 0.9%
Product Manager 2 0.9%
Team Leader 2 0.9%
Account Executive 1 0.5%
Certified Scrum Master 1 0.5%
Construction Manager 1 0.5%
Project Coordinator 1 0.5%
Project Manager Assistant 1 0.5%
Project Planner 1 0.5%
Purchasing Manager 1 0.5%
QA 1 0.5%
Release Manager 1 0.5%
Risk Manager 1 0.5%
Sponsor 1 0.5%
Total 211

In the following sections the independent variables will be checked for normality and
adequacy for the multiple regression analysis.

4.2. Project Management Maturity
The data for project management maturity was collected using a questionnaire derived
from the ProjectFRAMEWORK model (Levin et al., 2013c). The questionnaire offers
maturity levels for the 10 PMBOK knowledge areas, and one additional question
addresses the global maturity in order to complement and triangulate the expected
maturity level of the organization.
The descriptive statistics for the maturity data is presented in Table 14.

Table 14 Descriptive Statistics for Project Management Maturity
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Skewness Kurtosis
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic Std. Error
Scope 201 1 3 2.06 .719 -.089 .172 -1.049 .341
Time 203 1 3 2.02 .767 -.042 .171 -1.294 .340
Cost 195 1 3 2.07 .770 -.124 .174 -1.299 .346
Quality 204 1 3 2.16 .691 -.217 .170 -.897 .339
HR 193 1 4 2.45 1.089 .225 .175 -1.254 .348
Communication 206 1 3 1.90 .784 .173 .169 -1.352 .337
Stakeholder 200 1 3 1.92 .715 .111 .172 -1.031 .342
Risk 202 1 4 2.23 .961 .379 .171 -.778 .341
Procurement 165 1 4 1.70 .775 .651 .189 -.776 .376
Integration 186 1 4 2.16 1.000 .456 .178 -.847 .355
Overall maturity 208 1 5 2.47 1.304 .735 .169 -.582 .336
Valid N (listwise) 144

The values for kurtosis and skewness are under the limit of +/-3.2 and +/-1.96 (Field,
2005), demonstrating normality as required for the regression analysis.
The apparent problem is the quantity of missing values, with the option of I have no
experience in this area present in the scale. Particularly, in the case of the variables
Procurement and Integration, the number of missing values is of 22% and 11%,
respectively.

Further analysis in Figure 10 shows that 69% of the cases have no data missing, and 93%
of the data points are present.

Figure 10 Missing data analysis for maturity
One important test for missing values is the Littles Missing Completely At Random
(MCAR) test in order to check if the missing values occur at random (Field, 2005). The
result is in Table 15.

Table 15 EM Means for Project Management Maturity
Scope Time Cost Quality HR Communication Stakeholder Risk Procurement Integration Overall Maturity
2.06 2.02 2.07 2.16 2.43 1.91 1.92 2.22 1.68 2.19 2.47
a. Little's MCAR test: Chi-Square = 342.775, DF = 288, Sig. = .015

What this test shows is that the null hypothesis that the missing data is random cannot be
rejected, which is due to the low significance (.015). In this situation, removing the cases
which contain missing values or replacing them with means can introduce bias and
invalidate the results of the analysis (Field, 2005).

Even though any strategy to deal with missing data will deliver results that are worse than
using the real data, some methods can still deliver useful information (Tabachnick &
Fidell, 2007). As the missing data points are relatively low (6.7%), the existing methods
will provide similar results (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).

For this dataset, we used SPSS to estimate the missing values using the expectation-
maximization (EM) method. The descriptive statistics for the dataset after estimation is
shown in Table 16

Table 16 Descriptive statistics for maturity variables after filling missing data
Scope 211 1 3 2.06 .704 -.075 .167 -.977 .333
Time 211 1 3 2.02 .758 -.025 .167 -1.269 .333
Cost 211 1 3 2.07 .753 -.114 .167 -1.252 .333
Quality 211 1 3 2.16 .685 -.241 .167 -.864 .333
HR 211 1 4 2.43 1.061 .268 .167 -1.181 .333
Communication 211 1 3 1.91 .780 .155 .167 -1.349 .333
Stakeholder 211 1 3 1.92 .702 .136 .167 -.967 .333
Risk 211 1 4 2.22 .952 .391 .167 -.764 .333
Procurement 211 1 4 1.69 .699 .750 .167 -.300 .333
Integration 211 1 4 2.17 .971 .420 .167 -.804 .333
Overall maturity 211 1 5 2.47 1.296 .738 .167 -.559 .333

4.2.1. Reliability of the Scale
Testing the maturity variables for reliability of the scale shows a high Cronbach alpha of
0.891. The item-total statistics are presented in Table 17.

Table 17 Reliability analysis for maturity variables
Scale Mean if Item
Deleted
Scale Variance if Item
Deleted
Corrected Item-Total
Correlation
Cronbach's Alpha if Item
Deleted
Scope 21.34 38.758 .601 .883
Time 21.42 38.720 .559 .885
Cost 21.33 37.874 .672 .879
Quality 21.26 39.003 .621 .882
HR 21.05 36.047 .580 .885
Communication 21.49 37.468 .696 .877
Stakeholder 21.54 38.949 .600 .883
Risk 21.24 36.419 .669 .878
Procurement 21.75 40.762 .344 .895
Integration 21.17 34.802 .746 .872
Overall
maturity
20.92 31.707 .769 .873

The variables are also highly correlated, with most correlation indexes between 0.3 and
0.4, as shown in Table 18.

Table 18 Pearson correlation indexes for maturity variables
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. Scope 1 .457
**
.393
**
.561
**
.412
**
.489
**
.394
**
.376
**
.258
**
.470
**
.446
**

2.Time .457
**
1 .489
**
.437
**
.333
**
.464
**
.392
**
.371
**
.239
**
.422
**
.407
**

3.Cost .393
**
.489
**
1 .426
**
.433
**
.459
**
.347
**
.413
**
.347
**
.482
**
.534
**

4.Quality .561
**
.437
**
.426
**
1 .361
**
.493
**
.428
**
.415
**
.225
**
.541
**
.495
**

5.HR .412
**
.333
**
.433
**
.361
**
1 .422
**
.418
**
.383
**
.142
*
.466
**
.466
**

6.Communication .489
**
.464
**
.459
**
.493
**
.422
**
1 .410
**
.513
**
.310
**
.579
**
.549
**

7.Stakeholder .394
**
.392
**
.347
**
.428
**
.418
**
.410
**
1 .441
**
.318
**
.409
**
.438
**

8.Risk .376
**
.371
**
.413
**
.415
**
.383
**
.513
**
.441
**
1 .263
**
.563
**
.569
**

9.Procurement .258
**
.239
**
.347
**
.225
**
.142
*
.310
**
.318
**
.263
**
1 .391
**
.236
**

10.Integration .470
**
.422
**
.482
**
.541
**
.466
**
.579
**
.409
**
.563
**
.391
**
1 .679
**

11.Overall maturity .446
**
.407
**
.534
**
.495
**
.466
**
.549
**
.438
**
.569
**
.236
**
.679
**
1
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

For the regression, the independent variable used was a global organizational maturity
indicator calculated as a sum of all 11 indexes.

4.3. Project Context
Descriptive statistics for the context variables are shown in Table 19.

Table 19 Descriptive Statistics for Context Variables
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std.
Error
Statistic Std.
Error
Project duration
(months)
211 0 96 17.74 16.520 2.314 .167 7.269 .333
Project budget (USD) 86 0 2000000000 81761548.85 260957446.512 5.518 .260 36.100 .514
Age of organization
(years)
203 1 205 33.85 39.663 2.026 .171 4.186 .340
Novelty 211 1 4 2.06 .967 .547 .167 -.690 .333
Technology 211 1 4 2.29 .730 .076 .167 -.288 .333
Complexity 211 1 4 2.94 .781 -.799 .167 .724 .333
Pace 211 1 4 2.17 .820 -.107 .167 -1.096 .333
Goals 211 1.00 2.00 1.7725 .42021 -1.309 .167 -.288 .333
Methods 211 1.00 2.00 1.6256 .48512 -.523 .167 -1.743 .333

The project budget variable seems to have too many missing values only 86 valid
responses from the 211 cases, or only 40% valid responses. For that reason the variable
will not be considered. It can be explained by most of the respondents having no
information on the budget of the project, as their role in the project did not have access to
these data.

The other ratio variables, age of organization and project duration, have problems in the
normality, showing skewness of 2.02 and 2.31 respectively, beyond the limit of 1.96
(Field, 2005). The kurtosis of 4.19 and 7.27 are also beyond the limit of 3.2 (Field, 2005).

Those variables can be transformed by recoding them in categories. The categories were
defined using +/- 1 and +/- 3 standard deviations, resulting in six categories, and the
missing variables were replaced with the mean of the series. The descriptive statistics
after transformations are shown in Table 20, and the tests for normality are now
acceptable.

Table 20 Descriptive Statistics For Ratio Variables After Transformation
Project duration (recoded) 211 2 6 3.55 .846 .882 .167 .364 .333
Age of organization (recoded) 211 3.0 6.0 3.483 .7581 1.416 .167 .937 .333

The other variables for project context are nominal: they are project customer (internal
and external), industry of the project and strategic goal. Their frequencies are in the tables
below.

Table 21 Frequencies For Project Customer
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
External (external contract or consumers) 140 66.4 66.4 66.4
Internal (internal user or another department) 71 33.6 33.6 100.0
Total 211 100.0 100.0

Table 22 Frequencies for Project Strategic Goal
Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative Percent
Building the Future (R&D, Technology Development,
Exploring new ideas No specific customer in mind)
39 18.5 18.5 18.5
Maintenance/Keep the Lights On Project (Routine
maintenance, fixing regular problems)
6 2.8 2.8 21.3
Money-Making Project (selling a product or service to clients) 94 44.5 44.5 65.9
Money-Saving Project (Internal effort of cost reduction) 13 6.2 6.2 72.0
Problem Solving Project (Project focused on a unique narrow
problem)
17 8.1 8.1 80.1
Utility/Infrastructure (Acquiring and installing new equipment
or software, implementing new methods or new processes)
42 19.9 19.9 100.0
Total 211 100.0 100.0

The projects analyzed were from different industries, with a major concentration in
information technology, software and telecommunications, as the network of the
researcher is strongly linked to those businesses. The full list and their frequencies are in
Table 23.

Table 23 Frequencies for Project Industry
What was the principal industry of the project?
Advertising & Marketing 3 1.4%
Agriculture 1 .5%
Airlines & Aerospace (including Defense) 6 2.8%
Automotive 2 .9%
Business Support & Logistics 3 1.4%
Construction, Machinery, and Homes 11 5.2%
Consulting 9 4.3%
Consumer Electronics 10 4.7%
E-Commerce 3 1.4%
Education 7 3.3%
Energy 7 3.3%
Entertainment & Leisure 1 .5%
Finance & Financial Services 19 9.0%
Food & Beverage 4 1.9%
Government 13 6.2%
Healthcare 6 2.8%
Information Technology 33 15.6%
Insurance 5 2.4%
Manufacturing 7 3.3%
Nonprofit 2 .9%
Pharmaceuticals 4 1.9%
Real Estate 1 .5%
Retail & Consumer Durables 6 2.8%
Software 18 8.5%
Telecommunications 24 11.4%
Utilities, Energy, and Extraction 6 2.8%
Total 211 100.0%

4.4. Performance
Descriptive statistics are in Table 68, in Appendix B. The first point to address is the
quantity of missing data, due to the option N/A present in the questionnaire. From the
descriptive statistics, only 88 cases out of 211 (41%) have no variable missing for
performance.

A detailed analysis using SPSS shows that, even if the percentage of cases and variables
with missing data is high, the number of values missing is low only 11% as shown in
Figure 11.

Figure 11 Missing value analysis for performance variables
The Missing Completely at Random test resulted in

Littles MCAR test: Chi-square = 3090.867, DF = 3027, Sig. = .181

With a significance value of .181, it is possible to assume the values are missing
completely at random and replace them with the variable means. The full descriptive
statistics after replacement is presented in Table 69 in Appendix B.

The test for normality shows that one variable The project contributed to stakeholder
value has Kurtosis beyond the acceptable value of +/-3.2. Upon examination, the
question contains three outliers, as shown in the box plot at Figure 12.

Figure 12 Boxplot for Stakeholder Value
Upon examining the cases, the reason is that those three cases refer to projects that had
little or no stakeholder value, which is theoretically possible and relevant for the analysis.
In this case it is necessary to perform a transformation of the variable to minimize the
impact of the outliers and bring the variable closer to the normal distribution (Tabachnick
& Fidell, 2007).

The transformation used was a reflected square root of the variable, adequate for this
situation (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). The variable was then re-reflected, in order to
maintain the direction for future interpretation.

Table 24 Descriptive Statistics to The Project Contributed to Stakeholder Value
Before Transformation After Transformation
N
Valid 211 211
Missing 0 0
Mean 3.21 1.9187
Std. Deviation .591 .21818
Skewness -1.073 -.177
Std. Error of Skewness .167 .167
Kurtosis 4.827 1.266
Std. Error of Kurtosis .333 .333

4.4.1. Factor Analysis
In order to have a successful factor analysis uncovering underlying scales in the data, the
variables must have some degree of correlation between themselves. The correlation for
the performance variables is above .3 for 30% of the pairs, indicating a good fit for factor
analysis.

The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test is in Table 25, showing a value of 0.863, above the
0.6 required for factor analysis (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007), and the Bartletts test shows
significance below 0.001, also appropriate for factor analysis.

Table 25 KMO and Bartlet's test for Performance Variables
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .863
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
Approx. Chi-Square 3410.625
df 528
Sig. .000

The diagonals of the anti-image correlation matrix all show values above 0.5 (Table 70,
on Appendix B).
Table 26 Rotated Component Matrix for Performance (coefficients above 0.5)
Component
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Eingenvalue 9.160 3.089 2.494 2.041 1.580 1.400 1.123 1.007
% of Variance 27.756 9.361 7.559 6.184 4.789 4.243 3.404 3.05
Cumulative % 27.756 37.117 44.676 50.86 55.649 59.892 63.296 66.346
The project was completed on time or earlier. .542
The project was completed within or below budget. .651
The project had only minor changes. .735
The project improved the customers performance. .583
The customer was satisfied. .650
The project met the customer requirements. .705
The customer is using the project result. .701
The customer will come back for future work. .657
The project team was highly motivated and satisfied. .804
The team was highly loyal to the project. .785
The project team had high morale and energy. .867
The team felt that working on this project was fun. .812
Team members experienced personal growth. .657
Team members wanted to stay in the organization. .648
The project was an economic business success. .709
The project increased the organizations profitability. .804
The project has a positive return on investment. .795
The project increased the organization's market share. .662
The project contributed to stakeholder value. .666
The project contributed to the organization's direct
performance.
.584
The project outcome will contribute to future
projects.
.522
The project will lead to additional new products. .790
The project will help create new markets. .757
The project created new technologies for future use. .635
The project contributed to new business processes. .542 .579
The project developed better managerial capabilities. .749
Overall, the project was a success.
.795
The profitability of my organization improved as a
result of its projects
.769
The customer satisfaction with my organization
.692
The market share of my organization improved as a
.771
The internal efficiency of my organization improved
as a result of its projects
.640
The overall business performance of my organization
.651
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 8 iterations.

Factor analysis with varimax rotation was run in the variables for performance. Eight
factors with Eingeinvalue above 1.0 were extracted as seen in Table 26.

The extraction of eight values is justified by its Engeinvalue and the scree plot presented
in Figure 13, where there is a visible drop between factors eight and nine, before the chart
stabilizes (Field, 2005).

Figure 13 Scree Plot of Performance Factors

The interpretation of the factors are rather straightforward, even if they do not follow
strictly the groupings from the project success model from Shenhar & Dvir (2007) from
which most of the questionnaire was used. All but one of the questions added to reflect
organizational performance were grouped in the second factor. The factors were tested for
reliability using Cronbach alpha, and the summarized results are in Table 27.
Table 27 Reliability Tests for Performance Factors
Factor Cronbach Alpha
1. Impact on team 0.889
2. Organizational performance 0.868
3. Impact on customer 0.794
4. Project financial results 0.878
5. Preparing for the future 0.737
6. Project impact on business 0.793
7. Project efficiency 0.660
8. Internal efficiency 0.653

Detailed reliability tests for the factors can be found in the Appendix B. All factors but
two have the general Cronbach alpha above 0.7, showing good reliability. Two factors
(project efficiency and internal efficiency) have general Cronbach alpha between 0.6 and
0.7, which is not ideal but still acceptable (Field, 2005).

4.5. Review of Research Model and Hypotheses Definition
At this point the research model can be refined to accommodate the operationalization of
the constructs, and allow us to define the hypotheses to be tested in the study.

Organizational
Project
Management
Maturity
Project Context
Novelty, Complexity,
Technology, Pace
Goals and Methods
Customer of the project

Project Performance
a: Impact on team
b: Organizational Performance
c: Impact on Customer
d: Project Financial Results
e: Preparing for the future
f: Project impact on business
g: Project Efficiency
h: Internal Efficiency
i: Overall Performance
H1
H2
Strategic Goal
Building the future,
maintenance, money
saving, money making,
problem solving,
H3
Industry
H4

The hypotheses are
performance. The sub-hypotheses are defined for each aspect of performance:
H1a: Impact on team
H1b: Organizational performance
H1c: Impact on customer
H1d: Project financial results
H1e: Preparing for the future
H1f: Project impact on business
H1g: Project efficiency
H1h: Internal efficiency
H1i: Overall performance

The other hypotheses refer to the moderating variables impacting the relationship
hypothesized in H1. They are:
related to performance.
is related to performance
H4: Industry of the project affects how organizational project management

For each of the hypotheses H2, H3 and H4 it will be tested the sub-hypotheses a..i for
each of the performance factor as described for H1.

4.6. Regression Analysis
The hypotheses H1, H2, H3 and H4 were tested using multiple hierarchical regression
analysis. The variables were all tested for normality, as shown previously in this chapter.
The recommended number of cases for this analysis is above 50 + 8m, where m is the
number of independent variables (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). There are 211 cases, which
is above 150 (50 + 10 * 10).

The regressions will be performed for all performance factors which resulted from the
factor analysis (see Table 27). The regression analysis was done on SPSS, using the
performance factors as dependent variables. The independent variables were added in
steps: in the first step, maturity was added as the main predictor; in the second step,
contingency factors were added; in the third and last step, interaction factors of maturity
and contingency were added. The results are shown in the following sections.

4.6.1. Impact on Team
The first performance factor to be analyzed is the impact on team and project context. The
results are in Table 28.

Table 28 Regression for impact on team
Variable Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
Main effect Maturity .233**** .057 .071
Moderators Age of Organization -.073 -.084
Project Duration -.091 -.044
Customer .097 .098
Methods .166** .150*
Goals .159** .110
Pace .028 .042
Complexity .006 .006
Technology .229*** .236**
Novelty .081 .063
Interaction Terms Maturity * Age .115
Maturity * Project Duration -.059
Maturity * Customer -.050
Maturity * Methods -.062
Maturity * Goals -.167**
Maturity * Pace -.037
Maturity * Complexity -.004
Maturity * Technology .038
Maturity * Novelty -.111
F Change 10.958**** 2.987*** 1.391
F Regression 10.958**** 3.878**** 2.736****
R
2
.050 .162 .214
*.p<=0.10; **.p<=0.05; ***.p<=0.01; ****.p<=0.001

Maturity is a predictor of the performance factor, impact on team, with p < 0.001, as
shown in the first step of the regression. This result supports the hypothesis H1a. In the
second step, some contingency factors appear as independent variables influencing the
impact on team performance factor. They are methods, goals and technology.

In the last step of the regression, the interaction term maturity and goals show significance
with p < 0.05, however the F change of the step (1.391) is not significant, with p > 0.1. If
the interaction term is significant, the low F change of the step could be a result of the
high number of variables in the regression. Running the regression with only goals as
contingency factors, the results are different, as seen in Table 29.

Table 29 Regression for impact on team with reduced terms
Main effect Maturity .223**** .182*** .186***
Moderators Goals .164** .114
Interaction Terms Maturity * Goals -.149**
F Change 10.958**** 5.643** 4.539**
F Regression 10.958**** 8.422**** 7.223****
R
2
.050 .075 .095
*.p<=0.10; **.p<=0.05; ***.p<=0.01; ****.p<=0.001

In this case, the F change for step three is higher (4.539) and significant with p < 0.05,
thus supporting hypothesis H2a.

Goals appear to have a significant relation with impact on team performance factor both
as an independent variable and in the interaction term. When a variable acts as an
independent and a moderator variable simultaneously, it is called a quasi-moderator in the
typology of Sharma et al. (1981).

The coefficient for maturity is positive, whereas the coefficient for the interaction term is
negative. The variable for goals was coded for the regression as:
1 the goals for the project are not well defined, and
2 the goals for the project are well defined

Therefore the coefficient can be interpreted as: in projects whose goals are well defined,
the influence of maturity in the performance factor impact on team is stronger than in
projects whose goals are not well defined.
The regression was tested for homoscedasticity, and the scatterplot is in Figure 26 in
Appendix B.

The same test was performed for H3a. As strategic goal is a categorical variable, the
regression analysis used dummy variables. The variable strategic goal of the project was
recoded in six dummy variables, using the value one if the case belongs to that category
or zero otherwise.

To avoid problems with the perfect multicollinearity of such strategy, the variable for
money-making was removed, as it was the most frequent case, according to the
frequencies presented in Table 22 therefore it is treated as baseline group (Field, 2005).
The results are in Table 30.
Table 30 Regression for impact on team and project strategic goal
Main effect Maturity .223**** .233**** .209**
Moderators Building the Future .111* .087
Maintenance -.121* -.128*
Money-Saving -.092 -.092
Problem Solving -.005 .009
Utility / Infrastructure -.043 -.033
Interaction Terms Maturity * Building the Future -.103
Maturity * Maintenance .102
Maturity * Money-Saving .004
Maturity * Problem Solving .062
Maturity * Utility / Infrastructure .057
F Change 11.010**** 1.672 1.205
F for Regression 11.010**** 3.258*** 2.334***
R
2
.050 .087 .114
*.p<=0.10; **.p<=0.05; ***.p<=0.01; ****.p<=0.001

The F change of step 3 is not significant; therefore the project strategic goal is not a
moderating factor for maturity and performance factor impact on team and does not
support hypothesis H3a. To test hypothesis H4a, using industry of the project, the same
procedure can be applied. Dummy variables were created for industries whose
representation in the sample was above 4%, as anything below that would be difficult to
demonstrate statistical significance. The results are presented in Table 31
Table 31 Regression for impact on team and project industry
Main effect Maturity .223**** .223*** .192*
Moderators Telecommunication -.069 -.071
Software .041 .011
Information Technology .012 .010
Government -.025 -.033
Finance -.032 -.020
Consumer Electronics -.004 .043
Construction .048 .071
Consulting -.025 -.027
Interaction Terms Maturity * Telecommunication .062
Maturity * Software -.099
Maturity * Information Technology .000
Maturity * Government -.031
Maturity * Finance .086
Maturity * Consumer Electronics .171**
Maturity * Construction -.070
Maturity * Consulting .008
F Change 10.958**** .323 1.399
F for Regression 10.958**** 1.473 1.450
R
2
.050 .062 .113
*.p<=0.10; **.p<=0.05; ***.p<=0.01; ****.p<=0.001
The moderating factor of industry consumer electronics is significant, even though the F
change for the third step is not. If the regression is performed isolating the variable, the
results change and the F change is significant, as shown in Table 33.

Table 32 Regression for impact on team and project industry
Main effect Maturity .223**** .223*** .197*
Moderators Consumer Electronics .000 .047
Interaction Terms Maturity * Consumer Electronics .170**
F Change 10.958**** .000 5.825**
F for Regression 10.958**** 5.453*** 5.661****
R
2
.050 .050 .076
*.p<=0.10; **.p<=0.05; ***.p<=0.01; ****.p<=0.001

The interpretation is that in projects from the consumer electronics industry, the positive
relationship of maturity and performance factor impact on team is stronger than other
industries. The scatterplot of the regression is in Figure 27 in Appendix B. Hypothesis
H4a is supported, having project industry consumer electronic as moderating factor.

4.6.2. Organizational performance
The results of the regression analysis using the performance factor organizational
performance as the dependent variable are shown in Table 33.

Table 33 Regression for organizational performance
Main effect Maturity .212*** .169** .182**
Customer -.012 .000
Methods -.010 -.006
Goals .089 .130
Pace .040 .040
Complexity -.033 -.035
Technology .199** .176**
Novelty -.081 -.068
Interaction Terms Maturity * Age -.033
Maturity * Project Duration .009
Maturity * Customer .098
Maturity * Methods .039
Maturity * Goals .155*
Maturity * Complexity .002
Maturity * Technology -.011
Maturity * Novelty .037
F Change 9.796*** 1.279 .563
F for Regression 9.796*** 2.143** 1.388
R
2
.045 .097 .121
*.p<=0.10; **.p<=0.05; ***.p<=0.01; ****.p<=0.001
Maturity has a positive and significant relationship with organizational performance,
supporting hypothesis H1b. However, no interaction terms have shown significant
relationships, neither the F change of the third step of the regression. However, goals
seem to have a significant relationship, with p < 0.1.

A second regression, with only goals as an interaction term, is shown in Table 34.

Table 34 Regression for organizational performance, with goals as interaction term
Main effect Maturity .212*** .192*** .188***
Moderators Goals .078 .120
Interaction Terms Maturity * Goals .125*
F Change 9.796*** 1.259 3.069*
F Regression 9.796*** 5.534*** 4.749***
R
2
.045 .051 .064
*.p<=0.10; **.p<=0.05; ***.p<=0.01; ****.p<=0.001

The relationship is not significant, with p = .081. The results do not support the
hypothesis (H2b), but they could be interesting for future research. The results for project
strategic goal, using the variable coded as dummy variables, are in Table 35

Table 35 Regression for organizational performance and project strategic goal
Main effect Maturity .212*** .208*** .133
Moderators Building the Future -.048 -.059
Maintenance -.045 -.044
Money-Saving .077 .090
Problem Solving -.028 .000
Utility / Infrastructure .040 .066
Maturity * Maintenance -.010
Maturity * Money-Saving -.070
Maturity * Problem Solving .132*
Maturity * Utility / Infrastructure .152*
F Change 9.842*** .550 1.687
F for Regression 9.842*** 2.081* 1.921**
R
2
.045 .057 .096
*.p<=0.10; **.p<=0.05; ***.p<=0.01; ****.p<=0.001

The strategic goal of problem solving and utility infrastructure as an interaction term
shows a p-value of .78 and .57, respectively, which indicates a possible statistical
significance.

By running the regression with those terms only, we have the results shown in Table 36.
Table 36 Regression for organizational performance and project strategic goal
Main effect Maturity .212*** .213*** .111
Moderators Problem Solving -.027 .000
Interaction Terms Maturity * Problem Solving .138*
Maturity * Utility / Infrastructure .162**
F Change 9.842*** .265 3.615**
F for Regression 9.842*** 3.434** 3.558***
R
2
.045 .047 .079
*.p<=0.10; **.p<=0.05; ***.p<=0.01; ****.p<=0.001

In this case, the value of F for the change of the third step is significant, as the interaction
term utility / infrastructure, thus supporting hypothesis H3b. It can be interpreted as: in
projects in which the strategic goal is utility or infrastructure, the impact of maturity in
organizational performance is stronger than projects with other strategic goals. Problem
solving did not have a statistically significant coefficient, however this could be explained
by the low number of problem-solving projects in the sample only 17, or 8.1% of the
sample.

The procedure is now repeated for the industry of the project as interaction term, and the
results are in Table 37

Table 37 Regression for organizational performance and project industry
Main effect Maturity .212*** .194*** .213**
Software -.086 -.108
Finance -.198*** -.198***
Consumer Electronics -.072 -.077
Construction -.110 -.111
Consulting -.019 -.008
Interaction Terms Maturity * Telecommunication -.067
Maturity * Information Technology -.016
Maturity * Government .144*
Maturity * Finance -.009
Maturity * Consumer Electronics -.021
Maturity * Consulting -.024
F Change 9.796*** 1.638 .898
F for Regression 9.796*** 2.571*** 1.778**
R
2
.045 .063 .059
*.p<=0.10; **.p<=0.05; ***.p<=0.01; ****.p<=0.001

For the industry of the project, there is significance at p < 0.1 level. Running the
regression again, separating government projects from other industries, we have the
results presented in Table 38.

Table 38 Regression for organizational performance and government projects
Main effect Maturity .212*** .206*** .166**
Moderators Government -.094 -.065
Interaction Terms Maturity * Government .157**
F Change 9.796*** 1.925 4.908**
F for Regression 9.796*** 5.882*** 5.631****
R
2
.045 .054 .075
*.p<=0.10; **.p<=0.05; ***.p<=0.01; ****.p<=0.001

In this case, the F change in the third step is significant. It can be interpreted as: in
projects that are in the government, the positive relationship between maturity and
organizational performance is stronger than in projects from other industries. This result
supports hypothesis H4b. The scatterplot of the regression is in Figure 28 in Appendix B.

4.6.3. Impact on customer
Table 39 below presents the results of the regression analysis using performance factor
project impact on the customer as the dependent variable.

Table 39 Regression for impact on customer
Main effect Maturity .141** .084 .109
Moderators Age of Organization .012 -.005
Customer -.047 -.062
Methods .061 -.076
Goals .081 .131
Pace -.009 .000
Technology -.033 .006
Novelty .064 .035
Maturity * Methods -.290****
Maturity * Goals .065
Maturity * Pace .101
Maturity * Novelty .215***
F Change 4.244** .563 2.404**
F for Regression 4.244** .951 1.671**
R
2
.020 .045 .143
*.p<=0.10; **.p<=0.05; ***.p<=0.01; ****.p<=0.001

Maturity has a significant positive relationship with the performance factor impact on the
customer, supporting hypothesis H1c.

The interaction terms with contingency factors methods and novelty show significant
relationship with impact on the customer, however the F change of the third step of the
regression is not significant. A second regression with only these two terms is presented
in Table 40 below.

Table 40 Regression for impact on customer with reduced terms
Moderators Methods .096 .001
Novelty .041 .055
Interaction Terms Maturity * Methods -.240****
Maturity * Novelty .213***
F Change 4.244** .903 8.514****
F Regression 4.244** 2.015 4.702****
R
2
.020 .028 .103
*.p<=0.10; **.p<=0.05; ***.p<=0.01; ****.p<=0.001

In the second regression, the F change of the third step is significant with p < 0.001,
supporting the hypothesis H2c.
The coefficient for the interaction term of methods with maturity is negative, while the
coefficient for maturity alone is positive. Similar to the variable goals, the coding for
methods are the following:
1 the methods for the project are not well defined, and
2 the methods for the project are well defined.

The negative coefficient means that in projects where the methods are well defined, the
positive relationship of maturity in the projects impact on customer is weaker than in
projects where the methods are not well defined. The coefficient for novelty is positive. It
means, the higher the novelty of the project, the stronger the positive relationship between
maturity and the projects impact on the customer. The regression was tested for
homoscedasticity and the scatterplot is in Figure 29 in Appendix B.

Testing for the impact of the project strategic goals, the regression results are in Table 41
below.
Table 41 Regression for impact on customer and project strategic goal
Main effect Maturity .141** .141** .214**
Maintenance .016 .020
Problem Solving .127* .106
Interaction Terms Maturity * Building the Future .000
Maturity * Problem Solving -.104
Maturity * Utility / Infrastructure -.056
F Change 4.264** 1.694 .605
F for Regression 4.264** 2.134** 1.428
R
2
.020 .059 .073
*.p<=0.10; **.p<=0.05; ***.p<=0.01; ****.p<=0.001

For project strategic goals, the third step F change is not statistically significant, neither
are any of the coefficients of the interaction terms, therefore it can be concluded that the
projects strategic goal does not moderate the influence of maturity in impact on customer
performance factor, and H3c is not supported.

The results for project industry are shown below in Table 42 below.

Table 42 Regression for impact on customer and project industry
Moderators Telecommunication .134* .136*
Software .095 .051
Information Technology .195*** .201***
Finance .063 .053
Consumer Electronics .058 .093
Consulting .067 .110
Maturity * Software -.178**
Maturity * Consumer Electronics .107
Maturity * Consulting -.090
F Change 4.244** 1.218 1.454
F for Regression 4.244** 1.558 1.524*
R
2
.020 .065 .118
*.p<=0.10; **.p<=0.05; ***.p<=0.01; ****.p<=0.001

The results show statistical significance for projects in the software industry, even if the F
change in step three is not significant.

Running the regression analysis testing for software as the only interaction term shows the
results from Table 43 below.

Table 43 Regression for impact on customer and project industry
Moderators Software .036 -.008
Interaction Terms Maturity * Software -.170***
F Change 4.244** .280 5.541**
F for Regression 4.244** 2.255 3.383**
R
2
.020 .021 .047
*.p<=0.10; **.p<=0.05; ***.p<=0.01; ****.p<=0.001

Those results show statistical significance for the value of F change in the third step,
supporting hypothesis H4c with the software project industry as a moderating factor. The
coefficient in this case is negative, which leads to the interpretation: in projects whose
industry is software, the positive relationship between maturity and the impact on
customer is weaker than in other industries. The full discussion of this result is in the next
chapter. The regression was tested for homoscedasticity, and the scatterplot is in Figure
30 in Appendix B.

4.6.4. Project Financial Results
Table 44 below presents the results of the regression analysis using the performance
factor project financial results as the dependent variable.


Table 44 Regression for project financial results
Moderators Age of Organization .017 .027
Customer -.015 .019
Methods -.023 -.055
Goals -.054 -.009
Pace -.019 -.006
Technology -.001 .015
Novelty -.077 -.063
Maturity * Pace .001
Maturity * Complexity .177**
Maturity * Technology -.153*
F Change 4.958** .314 1.214
F for Regression 4.958** .764 .981
R
2
.023 .037 .089
*.p<=0.10; **.p<=0.05; ***.p<=0.01; ****.p<=0.001

Maturity has a significant positive relationship with the projects financial results,
supporting hypothesis H1d. The F change of third step is not significant, even though one
contingency factor, complexity, was significant at p < 0.05, and technology was very
close to being at the same level, with p = 0.059.

A new regression is presented, with only complexity and technology as contingency
factors in Table 45 below.

Table 45 Regression for project financial results using reduced interaction terms
Moderators Complexity -.057 -.034
Technology -.032 -.013
Interaction Terms Maturity * Complexity .163**
Maturity * Technology -.141**
F Change 4.958** .485 3.512**
F for Regression 4.958** 1.968 2.614**
R
2
.023 .028 .060
*.p<=0.10; **.p<=0.05; ***.p<=0.01; ****.p<=0.001

The F change of the third step is significant, supporting hypothesis H2d. The coefficient
for the interaction term of complexity and maturity is positive, which means the higher
the complexity of the project, the stronger the positive relationship between maturity and
the projects financial results. However, the coefficient for technology is negative,
meaning that the higher the technology of the project, the weaker the positive relationship
between maturity and the projects financial results. The scatterplot of residuals show no
problem of homoscedasticity, as shown in Figure 31 in Appendix B.

The regression using project strategic goal as interaction term is shown in Table 46 below.

Table 46 Regression for project financial results and project strategic goal
Main effect Maturity .152*** .149** .092
Problem Solving -.041 -.009
F Change 4.982** .739 1.512
F for Regression 4.982** 1.441 1.483
R
2
.023 .040 .075
*.p<=0.10; **.p<=0.05; ***.p<=0.01; ****.p<=0.001

The strategic goal with problem solving, as an interaction term has a significance of p =
0.54. A second regression, using only problem solving as the interaction term, is shown
below in Table 47 below.

Table 47 Regression for project financial results and project strategic goal
Main effect Maturity .152** .149** .113
Moderators Problem Solving -.041 -.009
Interaction Terms Maturity * Problem Solving .138*
F Change 4.982** .359 3.577*
F for Regression 4.982** 2.662* 2.989**
R
2
.023 .025 .041
*.p<=0.10; **.p<=0.05; ***.p<=0.01; ****.p<=0.001

In the second regression with only with problem solving as interaction term, the
significance of the F change has p = 0.60, which is not significant enough to reject the
null hypothesis. It could be caused by the low number of projects in the sample whose
strategic target was problem solving only 17 projects, or 8.1% of the full sample.
Hypothesis H3d is not supported.

Using industry of the project as interaction term for project financial results, we have the
regression coefficients presented in Table 48 below.

Table 48 Regression for project financial results and industry of the project
Moderators Telecommunication .054 .051
Software .054 .053
Finance .091 .093
Consumer Electronics .029 .009
Interaction Terms Maturity * Telecommunication .163**
Maturity * Software .013
Maturity * Government .045
Maturity * Finance .042
Maturity * Consumer Electronics -.057
Maturity * Construction .011
F Change 4.958** .812 .857
F for Regression 4.958** 1.268 1.071
R
2
.023 .054 .086
*.p<=0.10; **.p<=0.05; ***.p<=0.01; ****.p<=0.001

Telecommunication as an interaction term is statistically significant. As was done in the
other factors, a regression analysis is performed only with telecommunication as
interaction term to verify the significance of F change in the third step as shown in Table
49 below.

Table 49 Regression for project financial results and industry of the project
Moderators Telecommunication .018 .017
Interaction Terms Maturity * Telecommunication .157**
F Change 4.958** .069 4.826**
F for Regression 4.958** 2.502* 3.308**
R
2
.023 .023 .046
*.p<=0.10; **.p<=0.05; ***.p<=0.01; ****.p<=0.001

In this case, telecommunication is statistically significant as an interaction term, therefore
supporting hypothesis H4d. The coefficient is positive, consequently the result can be
interpreted as: in projects whose industry is telecommunication, the positive link between
maturity and project financial results is stronger than in other industries. The scatterplot is
in the Figure 32 in Appendix B.

4.6.5. Preparing for the future
Table 50 below presents the results of the regression using the performance factor
preparing for the future as the dependent variable.

Table 50 Regression for preparing for the future
Main effect Maturity -.030 -.049 -.014
Customer .037 .051
Methods -.075 -.051
Goals -.090 -.079
Pace .095 .125*
Complexity .173** .138*
Technology .139* .110
Novelty .202*** .184**
Interaction Terms Maturity * Age .168**
Maturity * Novelty -.125*
F Change .194 3.835**** 1.931**
F for Regression .194 3.473**** 2.819****
R
2
-.003 .109 .119
*.p<=0.10; **.p<=0.05; ***.p<=0.01; ****.p<=0.001

From these results there are no significant relationships between maturity and the project
capability to prepare the organization for the future, therefore the hypotheses H1e and
H2e cannot be supported. However it is interesting to see that the second and third step of
the regression present a significant F change. This could be explained by maturity acting
as a moderator of other significant direct relationships present in the second step of the
regression. This could be investigated in future research, and it is not the purpose of this
thesis; therefore no further analysis will be made.


4.6.6. Project impact on business
Below in Table 51 below are the results of the regression using the performance factor
project impact on business as the dependent variable.

Table 51 Regression for project impact on business
Main effect Maturity .001 -.043 -.049
Project Duration .038 .039
Methods -.045 -.011
Goals .002 -.023
Pace .057 .044
Technology .147* .130
Novelty .107 .128
Maturity * Goals -.028
F Change .000 1.567 .371
F for Regression .000 1.410 .897
R
2
-.005 .019 -.009
*.p<=0.10; **.p<=0.05; ***.p<=0.01; ****.p<=0.001

In this regression analysis, maturity has no significant relationship with the project impact
on business; therefore there is no support for hypothesis H1f, H2f, H3f or H4f.

4.6.7. Project efficiency
Below in Table 52 below are the results of the regression using the performance factor
project efficiency as the dependent variable.


Table 52 Regression for project efficiency
Project Duration -.183*** -.178**
Methods .077 .064
Goals .168** .215***
Pace -.051 -.047
Technology .015 .031
Novelty -.062 -.063
F Change 4.769** 2.754*** .477
F for Regression 4.769** 2.732*** 1.649**
R
2
.018 .087 .065
*.p<=0.10; **.p<=0.05; ***.p<=0.01; ****.p<=0.001

Maturity is significantly related to project efficiency, supporting hypothesis H1g.
However none of the interaction terms or the F change is significant, so hypothesis H2g is
not supported.

The regression for project strategic goal is shown below in Table 53 below.

Table 53 Regression for project efficiency and project strategic goal
Main effect Maturity .149** .157** .190*
Problem Solving .108 .101
F Change 4.792** .630 .370
F for Regression 4.792** 1.317 .876
R
2
.022 .037 .046
*.p<=0.10; **.p<=0.05; ***.p<=0.01; ****.p<=0.001

The interaction with project strategic goal showed no statistically significant relationship,
therefore, it does not support hypothesis H3g.

Considering industry of the project as interaction term, we have the regression
coefficients presented in Table 54 below.

Table 54 Regression for project efficiency and industry of the project
Software .063 .048
Information Technology -.003 .002
Government .044 .039
Finance -.076 -.087
Consumer Electronics .004 -.026
Construction -.061 -.049
Maturity * Consumer Electronics -.125*
F Change 4.769** .764 .814
F for Regression 4.769** 1.204 1.016
R
2
.022 .051 .082
*.p<=0.10; **.p<=0.05; ***.p<=0.01; ****.p<=0.001
Industry also did not have any statistically significant relationship, thus hypothesis H4g is
also not supported.

4.6.8. Internal Efficiency
Below in Table 55 are the results of the regression using the performance factor internal
efficiency as the dependent variable.


Table 55 Regression for internal efficiency
Main effect Maturity .323**** .360**** .350****
Project Duration .078 .061
Customer .204*** .192**
Methods -.007 .015
Goals .019 .015
Pace .002 -.011
Complexity .002 -.025
Technology -.029 -.017
Novelty -.024 -.017
Interaction Terms Maturity * Age -.129*
F Change 24.289**** 1.161 .869
F for Regression 24.289**** 3.491**** 2.238***
R
2
.104 .149 .182
*.p<=0.10; **.p<=0.05; ***.p<=0.01; ****.p<=0.001

Maturity is significantly related to internal efficiency, supporting hypothesis H1h.
The interaction term, company age, presents a slight significance with p < 0.1. Below in
Table 56 is the regression using only company age as a contingency factor.

Table 56 Regression for internal efficiency using company age as interaction term
Moderators Age of Organization -.007 .022
Interaction Terms Maturity * Age -.157**
F Change 24.289**** .012 5.642**
F for Regression 24.289**** 12.093**** 10.123****
R
2
.104 .104 .128
*.p<=0.10; **.p<=0.05; ***.p<=0.01; ****.p<=0.001

In the regression using company age, the F change of the third step is significant with p <
0.05, supporting hypothesis H2h. The coefficient for the interaction term is negative,
which leads us to the interpretation: the younger the organization, the stronger the positive
relationship between maturity and the project impact on internal efficiency of the
organization. The regression was tested for homoscedasticity, and the scatterplot is in the
Appendix B, in Figure 33.

The regression for project strategic goal as moderating factor is shown below in Table 57.

Table 57 Regression for internal efficiency and project strategic goal
Main effect Maturity .323**** .332**** .264***
Utility / Infrastructure .105 .113*
F Change 24.405**** .777 .658
F for Regression 24.405**** 4.694**** 2.838***
R
2
.104 .121 .135
*.p<=0.10; **.p<=0.05; ***.p<=0.01; ****.p<=0.001

The F change for the third step is not statistically significant, nor are any of the interaction
terms, therefore there is no support for project strategic goal being a moderator for
internal efficiency, the hypothesis H3h.

The same analysis performed for industry of the project provides the results presented in
Table 58.

Table 58 Regression for internal efficiency and industry of the project
Main effect Maturity .323**** .312**** .255**
Moderators Telecommunication -.185*** -.187**
Software -.115* -.117*
Government .052 .052
Finance .053 .034
Consumer Electronics -.019 -.010
Consulting .055 -.064
Maturity * Software .012
Maturity * Construction .034
Maturity * Consulting .228***
F Change 24.289**** 1.915* 1.502
F for Regression 24.289**** 4.496**** 3.134****
R
2
.104 .168 .216
*.p<=0.10; **.p<=0.05; ***.p<=0.01; ****.p<=0.001

In this case, consulting as the project industry has a significant relationship as a
moderating variable. To test the significance of the F change, we run the regression
analysis only with the consulting industry. The results are in Table 59.
Table 59 Regression for internal efficiency and industry of the project with reduced terms
Moderators Consulting .066 -.051
Interaction Terms Maturity * Consulting .223***
F Change 24.289**** .990 8.186***
F for Regression 24.289**** 12.639**** 11.445****
R
2
.104 .108 .142
*.p<=0.10; **.p<=0.05; ***.p<=0.01; ****.p<=0.001

The value of F change is significant, supporting hypothesis H4h for consulting as the
project industry. The coefficient is positive, so the result can be interpreted as: in
consulting projects, the positive relationship between maturity and performance factor
internal efficiency is stronger than in other industries. The regression was tested for
homoscedasticity, and the scatterplot is in Figure 34 in Appendix B.

4.6.9. Overall Performance
Below in Table 60 are the results of the regression using overall project performance as
the dependent variable. Overall performance is a variable calculated with a sum of all
other performance factors.
Table 60 Regression for overall performance
Project Duration -.138*** -.130*
Customer .058 .076
Methods .051 .011
Goals .132* .174**
Pace .050 .066
Technology .235**** .243****
Novelty .074 .071
F Change 43.167**** 2.618*** .661
F for Regression 43.167**** 6.974**** 3.928****
R
2
.171 .259 .281
*.p<=0.10; **.p<=0.05; ***.p<=0.01; ****.p<=0.001

Using the overall performance as dependent variable, maturity has a significant positive
relationship, supporting hypothesis H1i. The interaction terms show no significant
relationship with performance, not supporting hypothesis H2i.

Below in Table 61 are the results of the regression for project strategic goal as moderating
factor.
Table 61 Regression for overall performance and project strategic goal
Moderators Building the Future .000 -.014
Maintenance -.128** -.134**
F Change 43.373**** .932 1.273
F for Regression 43.373**** 7.994**** 4.968***
R
2
.171 .190 .215
*.p<=0.10; **.p<=0.05; ***.p<=0.01; ****.p<=0.001

Here again the strategic goal problem solving has an indication of being statistically
significant. A regression with only problem solving as moderating factor is presented
below in Table 62.

Table 62 Regression for overall performance and project strategic goal
Moderators Problem Solving .024 .049
Interaction Terms Maturity * Problem Solving .108
F Change 43.373**** .146 2.556
F for Regression 43.373**** 21.671**** 15.407****
R
2
.171 .172 .182
*.p<=0.10; **.p<=0.05; ***.p<=0.01; ****.p<=0.001

Problem solving as a moderating factor is not significant, having p = 0.111, therefore
there is no support for hypothesis H3i.

Looking at project industry as an interaction term, the regression analysis resulted in the
coefficients presented in Table 63.

Table 63 Regression for overall performance and industry of the project
Software .002 -.051
Information Technology .130* .130*
Finance -.099 -.108
Consumer Electronics -.018 .010
Construction -.004 .001
Maturity * Software -.201***
Maturity * Consulting .131*
F Change 43.167**** 1.715* 2.147**
F for Regression 43.167**** 6.452**** 4.582****
R
2
.171 .224 .288
*.p<=0.10; **.p<=0.05; ***.p<=0.01; ****.p<=0.001

From the results of the regression, software projects appeared again as a strong
moderating factor, in this case also the value of F change is significant, supporting
hypothesis H4i. The negative coefficient means this result can be interpreted as: in
software projects, the positive relationship between maturity and overall project
performance is weaker than in other industries. This result will be discussed in the next
chapter.

4.6.10. Summary of Results
In Table 64, a summary of the results is presented.

Table 64 Summary of results
Performance Factor Hypothesis Supported Contingency Factors Coefficient R
2

Impact on team H1a Maturity as main factor Yes - .223**** .050
H2a Maturity and project
context
Yes Goals -.149** .095
H3a Maturity and strategic
goal
No -
H4a Maturity and industry of
the project
Yes Consumer
Electronics
.170** .076
Organizational
Performance
H1b Maturity as main factor Yes - .212*** .045
H2b Maturity and project
context
No -
H3b Maturity and strategic Yes Infrastructure .162** .079
goal
H4b Maturity and industry of
the project
Yes Government .157** .075
Impact on Customer H1c Maturity as main factor Yes .141** .020
H2c Maturity and project
context
Yes Methods
Novelty
-.240****
.213***
.103
H3c Maturity and strategic
goal
No
H4c Maturity and industry of
the project
Yes Software -.170*** .047
Project Financial
Results
H1d Maturity as main factor Yes .152** .023
H2d Maturity and project
context
Yes Complexity
Technology
.163**
-.141**
.060
H3d Maturity and strategic
goal
No
H4d Maturity and industry of
the project
Yes Telecommunications .157** .046
Preparing for the future H1e Maturity as main factor No
H2e Maturity and project
context
No
H3e Maturity and strategic
goal
No
H4e Maturity and industry of
the project
No
Project impact on
business
H1f Maturity as main factor No
H2f Maturity and project
context
No
H3f Maturity and strategic goal No
H4f Maturity and industry of
the project
No
Project Efficiency H1g Maturity as main factor Yes .149** .018
H2g Maturity and project
context
No
H3g Maturity and strategic
goal
No
H4g Maturity and industry of
the project
No
Internal Efficiency H1h Maturity as main factor Yes .323**** .104
H2h Maturity and project
context
Yes Age of organization -.157** .128
H3h Maturity and strategic
goal
No
H4h Maturity and industry of
the project
Yes Consulting .223*** .142
Overall Performance H1i Maturity as main factor Yes .414**** .171
H2i Maturity and project
context
No
H3i Maturity and strategic goal No
H4i Maturity and industry of
the project
Yes Software -.201*** .288
*.p<=0.10; **.p<=0.05; ***.p<=0.01; ****.p<=0.001

Looking at H1, the hypothesis that maturity impacts performance positively, seven of the
nine sub-hypotheses were supported, including the overall performance sub-hypotheses.
Regarding H2, the hypothesis that contingency factors moderate the positive relationship
described in H1, six of the nine sub-hypothesis were supported. Full discussions of the
implications of these results are in Chapter 5.

4.7. Summary
This chapter presented the analysis of the collected data and its results. It began with the
data preparation and the descriptive statistics for all variables. Factor analysis was
performed over the performance variables, to search for underlying groupings of the
variables and to reduce the dimensions of the model. With the results, the research model
was refined, and sub-hypotheses were created. The reliability of the scales was checked
using Cronbach alpha, and finally the hypotheses were tested using multiple hierarchical
regression analysis. In the next chapter, the results of the analysis will be discussed
together with its implications for theory and practice. The limitations of the research will
be discussed, and suggestions for future research will be presented.

Chapter 5 Discussions and Conclusions

This chapter contains the conclusion of the thesis. The results from the data analysis are
evaluated and explained, with a discussion of the contribution for theory and for
practitioners. The limitations of the research are presented, and topics for future research
are suggested.

5.1. Project management maturity
The concept of maturity, despite having a clear lineage coming from the early work of
Humphrey (1989), is today fragmented with many different models and interpretations of
what maturity in fact is (De Bruin et al., 2005). The landscape for project management
maturity models is not better, being also fragmented and sometimes lacking theoretical
background or purpose (Cooke-Davies, 2007).

This thesis attempted to advance the theory in the topic, first by going to the literature to
understand the origins of the concept of maturity and then by looking at the existing
models with their particularities and benefits. By applying the chosen model in an
empirical study, important insights were uncovered to advance our knowledge of project
management maturity.

5.2. Contingency applied to project management
The study of contingency in organizational theory presents a diverse set of environments,
which interacts with organizational structures to predict high or low performance. As seen
in the literature review, those environments include the rate of change (Burns & Stalker,
1961), use of technology (Woodward, 1958), uncertainty and complexity (Lawrence &
Lorsch, 1967).

Similar factors are used in the study of contingency theory applied to project
management, as seen in the models proposed by Shenhar & Dvir (2007) and by Turner &
Cochrane (1993). Both models were used in this thesis, and which were proven to interact
with organizational structure (in this case, organizational project management maturity) to
predict performance.

In the case of the goals-and-methods matrix, the results show that in projects where the
goals are not well known, the project team increases satisfaction with higher maturity,
which does not happen in projects where the goals are not well known. Also, in projects
where the methods are not well defined, the customer satisfaction increases with project
management maturity, which does not happen when the methods are well defined.

The NTCP matrix has also shown that it moderates the impact of maturity in performance,
in the case of novelty, technology and complexity but not pace. The impact was
statistically significant for the impact on customer and project financial results.

These results support the use of these contingency models to advance the theory of project
management, using them as an explanatory tool to investigate the effect of project context
in performance.

5.3. Impact of maturity on performance
One clear outcome of this research is the positive link between project management
maturity and performance. Of the nine performance dimensions, seven had a significant
positive relationship, as seen in the data analysis and summarized in Table 65.

Table 65 Performance factors and link to maturity
Performance Factor Significantly
related to maturity
R
2
for regression
Impact on Team Yes .05
Organizational Performance Yes .045
Impact on Customer Yes .020
Project Financial Results Yes .023
Preparing for the Future No -
Project Impact on Business No -
Project Efficiency Yes .018
Internal Efficiency Yes .104
Overall Performance Yes .171

Although this finding merely supports many others found in the literature, and despite it
being an assumption for the main research topic of this thesis, the link between maturity
and performance is not really a consensus, being more an elusive one. Most of the early
research in the topic focused only on project efficiency, and even there the link was not
always obvious. Flowe & Thordahl (1994) found a link between maturity and CPI/SPI,
but only for certain maturity levels and project sizes. Herblseb et al. (1997) found, in
general, a link between maturity and several dimensions of performance, but customer
satisfaction, in certain cases, actually dropped when maturity increased which also was
the result in another study done by Gibson et al (2006). Ibbs et al. (Ibbs & Kwak, 2000;
Ibbs et al., 2004) found a link between maturity and variation in CPI/SPI, but a very weak
link between maturity and the CPI/SPI. Thomas & Mullally (2008) only found a link
between maturity and intangible measures of value, but none for tangible measures. One
explanation for those different results is that the link, found in this thesis, does not explain
a lot of the variation with R
2
ranging from 0.17 to 0.02. Combined with the fact that
there are several moderating factors at play, also found in the results of this thesis,
different samples could provide different results. The results of this thesis have a
relatively large sample, of 211 respondents, compared the other mentioned studies
(Thomas & Mullaly (2008) used a sample of 50 projects), and also used a more diverse
set of measurements for performance than CPI/SPI, therefore the results could be
considered at least as important as the previous findings to increase our knowledge of this
link.

As a whole, the results of this thesis strongly reinforce the positive relationship between
maturity and performance, and it supports future research interested in further exploring
the dynamics of this relationship.

5.4. Industry of the project
One finding of this thesis is that the industry of the project affects the relationship
between maturity and performance in many different aspects of performance. This finding
deserves a special discussion.

Firstly, to evaluate the generalizability of the results it must be taken into account the fact
that the spread of industries in the sample was considerably high, meaning that any
particular industry had a small representation in the full sample in the regressions, the
industries used ranged from 4.3% to 15.6% of the sample (9 and 33 cases, respectively).
This is a common problem of including industry in contingency studies (Serrador, 2012).
Nevertheless, the fact that different industries have different approaches and extract
different benefits of project management maturity is recognized in the literature (Cooke-
Davies & Arzymanow, 2003; Cooke-Davies, 2004; Grant & Pennypacker, 2006). The
results of this thesis can be used in further research replicating the research of impact of
maturity in performance for different industries.

5.5. Project management maturity, context and performance
The most important findings of the research are related to the moderating factors of the
link between maturity and performance. The research question this thesis set out to
answer was What are the factors that influence the impact of project management
maturity on performance? and it was answered according to the results presented here.
First, the factors are not the same depending on the performance dimension.

Table 66 Significant contingency factors
Performance Factor Contingency Factors
Impact on team Goals
Industry
Organizational Performance Project Strategic Goals
Industry
Impact on customer Methods
Novelty
Industry
Project financial results Complexity
Technology
Industry
Internal efficiency Age of organization
Industry
Overall performance Industry

Therefore the analysis must be made for each performance factor. They are discussed
below.

5.5.1. Impact on team
The impact on team performance factor covers many aspects of the team satisfaction with
the project outcome, such as learning, high morale and motivation to work in the project.
Maturity has a positive relationship with the impact on the team; therefore teams seem to
be more motivated to work on projects in high maturity organizations. However
knowledge of project goals as an interaction term has a negative influence, meaning that
in projects where the goals are well defined, the maturity does not influence the impact on
team to a significant degree. The two regression lines can be seen in Figure 14, where the
steeper blue line represents the regression of maturity and team satisfaction on projects
where the goals are not well defined, and the green line, which is more flat, for the
regressions for projects where they are well defined.

Figure 14 Regression line for impact on team

The results imply that organizational maturity help teams cope with the uncertainty of
project goals, at least from the perspective of the team members own satisfaction with the
project.
Industry was also a moderating factor, more specifically consumer electronics. The
positive coefficient represents a stronger relationship between maturity and impact on
team for the consumer electronic industry, as shown in the regression lines in Figure 15.


Figure 15 Regression line for impact on team, project industry

5.5.2. Organizational Performance
The factor organizational performance is related to aspects of the performance of the
organization owner of the project, and not performance of the project itself therefore is a
secondary unit of analysis. It contains measures of sales growth, profitability and market
share. Maturity is correlated with organizational performance, although it is always
important to remember that correlation does not necessarily mean causation (Field, 2005),
and the link between organizational performance and project management maturity is not
supported by the literature as strongly as the link with project performance is, as seen in
the literature review.

The moderating factor found is the projects strategic goal, particularly the goal utility /
infrastructure. This goal is described in the questionnaire as Acquiring and installing new
equipment or software, implementing new methods or new processes.
According to the results, projects with the goal described as utility / infrastructure has a
stronger link between maturity and organizational performance, as shown in the
regression lines in Figure 16.


Figure 16 Regression line for organizational performance and project strategic goals

Industry is also a moderating factor for organizational performance, particularly for
government projects. The results have shown that in government projects the positive
relationship between maturity and organizational performance is stronger than in other
industries, as indicated in the regression lines (see Figure 17).

Figure 17 Regression lines for organizational performance and industry of the project

5.5.3. Impact on Customer
The performance factor impact on the customer is related to the satisfaction of the project
customer, be it internal or external to the organization, with the outcomes of the project.
In this case, the moderating factor discovered was the knowledge of the methods to
achieve the project goals. Similar to the previous case of project goals, the coefficient of
the interaction term with project methods is negative, meaning that when methods are
well defined, the impact of maturity on customer satisfaction is weaker. The regression
lines can be seen in Figure 18.

As maturity is essentially the standardization of methods to manage the projects (Cooke-
Davies et al., 2001), it is natural that for projects in which the methods are not well
known, a high maturity environment can better support the team with the necessary tools
to accomplish the project goals. What the results here imply is that the customer of the
project is sensitive to this support and sees the benefit of maturity in these projects.

Figure 18 Regression line for impact on customer and goals

The second moderating factor is novelty, which measures how new is the project to the
organization, as opposed to projects that deliver small increments to existing products or
services. There are four levels of novelty, they are:
1. Derivative (Improvement)
2. Platform (A new generation in an existing product line e.g., new car model)
3. New to the Market (Adopting an existing product to a different market e.g., first
Personal Computer)
4. New to the World (Product never existed before)

The impact is positive, which in fact is a very interesting finding. It means that the
relationship of maturity and customer satisfaction with the project is stronger in high
novelty projects than in incremental ones. The regression lines can be seen in Figure 19.

Figure 19 Regression line for impact on customer and novelty

The result is interesting because it contrasts with the view that high maturity
organizations, similar to the mechanistic structure, cannot cope well with changing
environments, and are more likely to succeed in mass-production, slow changing
environments (Burns & Stalker, 1961; Woodward, 1958). In this case, higher maturity
acts as an enabler for high novelty projects. One possible explanation for this result is the
concept of liability of newness, which suggests that in extremely turbulent
environments, such as emergent economic sectors, organizations with a higher degree of
formalization and specialization, or more mechanistic structures, perform better than
organic ones (Sine et al., 2006; Stinchcombe, 1965). The results are also aligned with the
information from the CMMI, which states that higher maturity gives the stability to the
organization to cope with change (CMMI Product Team, 2010).

The projects industry, more importantly the software industry, also demonstrated a
significant moderating relationship between maturity and impact on customer. In this case
the coefficient was negative, meaning that in software projects the impact of maturity in
customer satisfaction is weaker than in other industries. The moderating effect can be
seen in the regression lines in Figure 20.


Figure 20 Regression line for impact on customer and industry of the project

In fact, the impact is quite strong, which leads the line to revert the slope. It means that in
the analyzed sample, for software projects an increase in maturity actually decreases
customer satisfaction, being the reverse of hypothesis H1. This result is not completely
unknown in the literature, and some studies have revealed similar results (Gibson et al.,
2006), i.e. customer satisfaction decreasing as an effect of an increase in maturity (see
also section 5.4 for a discussion on the generalizability of these results).

5.5.4. Project Financial Results
The performance factor, financial results, are the aspects related to the return on
investment of the project, and if the project was a financial success. The moderating
factors found were complexity of the project and technology.
Complexity is measured by the interactions present in the project. It is measured in four
levels:
1. Component/Material (An element or material in a subsystem)
2. Assembly (A subsystem Performing a single function)
3. System (A collection of subsystems Performing multiple functions)
4. Array (System of systems. A widely dispersed collection of systems serving a
common mission)
5.
The interaction is positive, which means in complex projects the relationship of maturity
and performance is stronger than in less complex projects. To illustrate the moderating
influence, the two regression lines are shown in Figure 21.

Figure 21 Regression line for project financial results and complexity

This finding supports the view that complexity in project environments requires more
formalism to the procedures to manage the project (Shenhar & Dvir, 2007; Shenhar,
2001). According to this view, formalism, structure and bureaucracy ensure proper
integration of the different parts of the project complex environment. This formalism and
structure is provided in high maturity organizations.
The second moderating factor is technology. It is measured by the degree of use of new
technology in the project, using the scale:
1. Low-Tech (No new technology)
2. Medium-Tech (Some new technology)
3. High-Tech (All or mostly new but existing technology)
4. Super-High-Tech (Project will use non-existing technologies at project initiation)

The impact for technology, different from complexity, is negative. The regression line is
shown in Figure 22.

Figure 22 Regression line for project financial results and technology

This finding is consistent with the general view of contingency theory, in which high
technology require structures closer to the organic profile preferring informal
communications and procedures and providing more autonomy to the technical personnel
(Burns & Stalker, 1961; Mintzberg, 1979; Shenhar & Dvir, 2007), which is not the
environment provided by high maturity organizations.

The industry of the project, particularly telecommunications, also presented a significant
moderating relationship with a positive coefficient, meaning that in telecommunication
projects the impact of maturity in terms of the financial results is stronger than in other
industries. The regression lines show the moderating effect in Figure 23.

Figure 23 Regression lines for project financial results and industry of the project


5.5.5. Internal Efficiency
This performance factor is related to the improvements in the internal efficiency of the
organization caused by the project, together with the development of new managerial
capabilities and the creation of new business processes.

The contingency factor found to be significant for internal efficiency was the age of the
organization, and the coefficient is negative. This can be interpreted as in younger
organizations the relationship between maturity and increases in internal efficiency is
stronger than in older organizations. The two regression lines are shown in Figure 24.

Figure 24 Internal efficiency and age of organization
This result could be also attributed to the liability of newness (Stinchcombe, 1965) in
which it is suggested that new ventures perform better using formal structures than
informal ones (Sine et al., 2006).

5.5.6. Overall Performance
This factor is a sum of all performance factors. The regression has shown that industry
plays the role of moderating variable, with a statistically significant relationship for the
software industry. The coefficient is negative, similar to the results found for the
performance factor, impact on customer. The impact can be analyzed in the plot of the
regression lines in Figure 25.


Figure 25 Regression lines for overall performance and industry of the project
Once more, as similarly to the performance factor impact on customer, the software
projects have a downward regression line, whereas the other industries have a regression
line with a positive slope. It means that in software projects, the overall performance
diminishes as the maturity increases. This finding has no support in the literature
reviewed, and it could be a result of the small number of software projects present in the
global sample (18 projects, or 8.5% of the sample). Nevertheless, there is a significant
relationship in this sample the regression analysis using the subsample of 18 projects,
with overall performance as independent variable, presents a negative coefficient for
maturity of -.472, R
2
of .222 and p-value of .048. This warrants further analysis, which
can be performed in a future study of the cases present in this sample. Also, see additional
comments on generalizability of these results in section 5.4.

5.5.7. Variance
It is important to notice in the plots for the regression lines that the variance is normally
higher in the left side of the charts for all performance factors. The result is consistent
with previous studies in which maturity correlated with the standard variation of
performance measures (Ibbs et al., 2004), and with the CMMI assumption that low
maturity organizations can have successful projects, but they depend on heroic efforts of
individuals and not on the sustainable capability of the organization to manage successful
projects (CMMI Product Team, 2010). Additionally, the foundation of the CMM was
Shewharts work on process control and the search for process capability, in terms of
higher predictability of the process outcomes (CMMI Product Team, 2010; Humphrey,
1989) therefore is natural to assume that higher maturity levels will have more
predictable outcomes, with a smaller variation of the process.

5.5.8. Discussion on Counterbalancing Contingency Factors
Although the results, when analyzed individually, are plausible and possibly actionable,
when they are analyzed as a group they may seem contradictory and difficult to be used in
practice. It may seem that for projects with high degree of novelty and technology
simultaneously, the impact of maturity in performance will be the result of the
competition between both factors at play.

This finding, however, is not completely new to studies of contingency theory the
balance of needs for formal and informal structures was recognized in early studies of
contingency, such as the work of Lawrence & Lorsch (1967) who proposed the
segmentation of the organization in subsystems to cope with those different environments,
to more recent studies suggesting the need to balance flexibility and firmness (Tatikonda
& Rosenthal, 2000). Shenhar & Dvir (2007) also explored the need to balance firmness
and flexibility in a project with high-tech/high-complexity contexts, while another study
has shown how projects can fail if this balance is not achieved (Sauser et al., 2009).

5.6. Contributions to Theory
This thesis set out to investigate the relationship between maturity and performance and
look for moderating factors to this relationship using a contingency view. As stated in the
literature review, there is a gap in current knowledge of the dynamics of maturity and
performance in different contexts.

The thesis reduced the gap, by presenting evidence that there are factors that moderate the
relationship. This evidence contributes toward further application of contingency theory
to project management in which different organizational structures are adequate for
different project contexts, in this case, adding project management maturity as an aspect
of organizational structure.

Also, this thesis has presented empirical evidence that the construct of project
management maturity can be compared to the continuum of mechanistic and organic
structures defined by Burns & Stalker (1961), as high maturity organizations share
similarities with mechanistic structures.

As for the contingency factors, this thesis also reinforced the value of using of
contingency models such as the NTCP (Shenhar & Dvir, 2007) and the goals-and-
methods matrix (Turner & Cochrane, 1993) in more studies of project management, as
they are a good representation of different project contexts.

5.7. Contributions to Practice
For practitioners who are in the process of evaluating, assessing or planning initiatives to
adopt project management maturity models, the results here presented can be useful to
recognize the value of maturity in the context of the projects of the organization.
Furthermore, it can guide the initiative in customizing the implementation of maturity
models depending on the context of the projects. Looking at the medium and long term,
new maturity models or improved versions of the current ones could make the evaluation
of project contexts and the tailoring to the organization context as a core part of the
model.

5.8. Limitations of the Research
Any research has its limitations. They are important, as they limit the generalizability of
the results, but they also serve to indicate areas for future research. All the results
presented in this thesis must be considered together with the limitations presented here.

First, all problems related to self reported data are relevant to the results reported here. As
described in the methodology chapter, the most common problems are: common method
variance, consistency motif and social desirability (see 3.4.1). Also, despite the efforts to
make the questionnaire simple, some respondents may not have all the necessary
knowledge or information to answer the questions correctly particularly since many
respondents were team members of the project, and not full-time project managers.
However, as also explained in the methodology chapter, the benefits of self-reported
questionnaires outweigh the mentioned problems; therefore they do not invalidate the
results.

One other limitation was that, in the case of some nominal variables used in the analysis
such as industry and project strategic goal, the cases were too spread among different
values therefore there were few cases for each value. Having a low number of cases can
influence the regression on both sides either inflating the statistical significance or
deflating them. It is a limitation of the research and to the generalizability of the results
using those variables, which future studies can address.

One other limitation is the relatively low numbers for the regressions R
2
values. The range
was between .171 and .02. However, regressions with low p values for significance are
relevant even if they present low coefficients for R
2
(Cooper & Schindler, 2006). In
addition, the topic of project performance is extremely complex (Jugdev & Mller, 2005;
Shenhar et al., 1997), and hardly any factor would alone account for a an excessive part of
the variability, giving the amount of research existing on project success factors (Cooke-
Davies, 2002).

Finally, the quantity of missing values are also a limitation of the research, in the sense
that the way they were handled could affect the correlations, either inflating or deflating
them (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). As explained in the data analysis, the percentage of
missing values was low, however this information must be considered when analyzing the
results.

5.9. Opportunities for Future Research
As for future research that can be conducted based on the results of this thesis, one could,
for instance can enlarge this study and use other contingency factors as moderating
variables. Some variables that were not possible to be analyzed in this study are project
budget, country, region, autonomy of the organization and any other aspect used in
contingency studies, in order to understand more the impact of context in maturity.

Also, future studies can investigate further the role of the industry of the project and the
strategic goal of the project, as in this thesis there not a high enough number of cases for
each industry or strategic goal.

Another possibility would be to perform similar investigations using other maturity
models, for instance, more comprehensive models, such as OPM3 (PMI, 2013b), to verify
if different approaches to maturity can provide different results. Also, other frameworks
for project performance can be used, such as the project success framework from Turner
& Zolin (2012). The use of other measures would allow a data triangulation of the results
in order to investigate the generalizability of the findings (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998).

For the success factor preparation for the future, the correlation with maturity was not
found to be statistically significant. However there was a significant relationship with the
interaction term maturity with age of the organization and maturity with novelty. This
could be investigated further, to understand what variables are acting as moderators and
main factors, possibly with a qualitative analysis.

As this study was purely cross-sectional, a similar longitudinal study can yield interesting
results. The concept of fit, or the congruence between structure-context predicting
performance, is not a static but a dynamic and always changing one (Mullaly & Thomas,
2009), therefore the study of fit between maturity and context during a period of time as
an organization starts to adopt a maturity model can provide important results.

5.10. Summary
In this chapter, the results from the data analysis were discussed and explained according
to the theory and literature. The limitations of the research were presented, and topics for
future research were suggested.

The research question this thesis set out to answer was What are the factors that
influence the impact of project management maturity on performance?
The answer, according to the results, is that different factors influence different
performance dimensions.


Table 67 Factors influencing the impact of project management maturity on performance
Performance Factor Positively impacted by Project
Management Maturity
Contingency Factors
Impact on team Yes Goals
Industry
Organizational performance Yes Project Strategic Goals
Industry
Impact on customer Yes Methods
Novelty
Industry
Project financial results Yes Complexity
Technology
Industry
Preparing for the future No
Project impact on business No
Project efficiency Yes No moderating factor
Internal efficiency Yes Age of organization
Industry
Overall performance Yes Industry

The factors are listed in Table 67, which also shows performance dimensions that are not
influenced by maturity and performance dimensions that do influence maturity but are not
moderated by any factor answering the research question and hopefully advancing
knowledge in this important area of project management theory.

References
Andersen, E. S., & Jessen, S. A. (2003). Project maturity in organisations. International
Journal of Project Management, 21(6), 457461.
Artto, K., Martinsuo, M., Dietrich, P., & Kujala, J. (2008). Project strategy: strategy types
and their contents in innovation projects. International Journal of Managing Projects
in Business, 1(1), 4970.
Bahli, B., Sidenko, S., & Borgman, H. (2011). Can project management maturity endure
project risk? A strategic perspective of IS project success. In ICIS 2011 Proceedings
(pp. 19). Shangai.
Becker, J., Knackstedt, R., & Pppelbu, J. (2009). Developing maturity models for IT
management. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 1(3), 213222.
Betts, S. (2011). Contingency theory: science or technology? Journal of Business &
Economics Research, 1(8), 123130.
Bisbe, J., & Otley, D. (2004). The effects of the interactive use of management control
systems on product innovation. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29(8), 709
737.
Bollinger, T., & McGowan, C. (1991). A critical look at software capability e valuations.
IEEE Software, 8(4), 2541.
Bollinger, T., & McGowan, C. (2009). A critical look at software capability evaluations:
an update. IEEE Software, 26(5), 8083.
Bredillet, C. (2008). Exploring research in project management: Nine schools of project
management research (part 5). Project Management Journal, 39(2), 24.
Bredillet, C., Anbari, F. T., & Turner, J. R. (2008). Perspectives on research in project
management. In Academy of Management Conference 2008. Anaheim, CA.
Bryant, F. B., & Yarnold, P. R. (1995). Principal-components analysis and exploratory
and confirmatory factor analysis. In L. G. Grimm & P. R. Yarnold (Eds.), Reading
and understanding multivariate statistics (1st ed., pp. 99136). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. London, England:
Tavistock.
Camp, R. C. (1989). Benchmarking: The search for industry best practices that lead to
superior performance. Milwaukee, Wisconsin: ASQC Quality Press.
Camp, R. C. (1995). Business process benchmarking (1st ed.). Milwaukee, Wisconsin:
ASQC Quality Press.
Carson, S., Madhok, A., Varman, R., & John, G. (2003). Information processing
moderators of the effectiveness of trust based governance of interfirm R&D
collaboration. Organization Science, 14(1).
Chenhall, R. H., & Langfield-Smith, K. (2007). Multiple perspectives of performance
measures. European Management Journal, 25(4), 266282.
Cheung, Y., Zolin, R., Turner, J. R., & Remington, K. (2010). Agree or disagree? Level
of alignment between project manager and stakeholders on performance indicators.
In Proceedings of the 7th Annual Project Management Australia Conference, 23-26
August 2010, Brisbane Convention & Exhibition Centre. Queensland, Australia.
Cleland, D. I., & Ireland, L. R. (2006). Project management maturity. In Project
Management: Strategic Design and Implementation (5th ed., pp. 243261). New
York City: McGraw-Hill Osborne Media.
CMMI Product Team. (2000). CMMI-SE/SW/IPPD, V1.02, Staged. Software Engineering
Institute, Carnegie Mellon University.
CMMI Product Team. (2010). CMMI for development, version 1.3. Software
Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University. Retrieved from
http://www.sei.cmu.edu/library/abstracts/reports/10tr033.cfm
Conway, J. M., & Lance, C. E. (2010). What reviewers should expect from authors
regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 25(3), 325334.
Cooke-Davies, T. J. (2002). The real success factors on projects. International Journal
of Project Management, 20(3), 185190.
Cooke-Davies, T. J. (2004). Measurement of organizational maturity. Innovations -
Project Management Research 2004, 119.
Cooke-Davies, T. J. (2005). The executive sponsor the hinge upon which organisational
project management maturity turns? In PMI Global Congress Proceedings.
Edinburgh, Scotland.
Cooke-Davies, T. J. (2007). Project management maturity models. In J. K. Pinto & P. W.
G. Morris (Eds.), The Wiley Guide to Project Organization & Project Management
Competencies (pp. 290311). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Cooke-Davies, T. J., & Arzymanow, A. (2003). The maturity of project management in
different industries. International Journal of Project Management, 21(6), 471478.
Cooke-Davies, T. J., Schlichter, J., & Bredillet, C. (2001). Beyond the PMBOK guide. In
Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Project Management Institute 2001 Seminars and
Symposium, Nashville, TN. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2006). Business research methods (9th ed.). New York,
New York, USA: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Crawford, J. K. (2006). The project management maturity model. Information Systems
Management, 23(4), 5058.
Crawford, J. K. (2007). Project management maturity model (2nd ed.). Boca Raton, FL:
Auerbach Publications.
Crosby, P. B. (1979). Quality is free: The art of making quality certain (1st ed.). New
York City: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Crosby, P. B. (1996). Quality is still free. New York City: McGraw-Hill.
Curtis, B., Miller, S. A., & Hefley, W. E. (2001). People Capability Maturity Model (P-
CMM) Version 2.0 (CMU/SEI-2001-MM-001). Software Engineering Institute,
Carnegie Mellon University.
Czaja, R., & Blair, J. (2005). Designing surveys (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Davila, T. (2000). An empirical study on the drivers of management control systems
design in new product development. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 25(4-5),
383409.
De Bruin, T., Freeze, R., Kaulkarni, U., & Rosemann, M. (2005). Understanding the main
phases of developing a maturity assessment model. In Australasian Conference on
Information Systems. Sidney, Australia.
DeMarco, T., & Lister, T. (1999). Peopleware!: productive projects and teams (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Dorset House Publishing.
Deming, W. E. (1982). Out of the crisis. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT, Center for
Advanced Educational Services.
Denison, D. R., & Mishra, A. K. (1995). Toward a theory of organizational culture and
effectiveness. Organization Science, 6(2), 204223.
Dooley, K., Subra, A., & Anderson, J. (2001). Maturity and its Impact on new product
development project performance. Research in Engineering Design, 13, 2329.
Drazin, R., & Ven, A. Van de. (1985). Alternative forms of fit in contingency theory.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 30(4), 514539.
Dunlap, W. P., & Kemery, E. R. (1987). Failure to detect moderating effects: Is
multicollinearity the problem? Psychological Bulletin, 102(3), 418420.
Edmondson, A. C., & Mcmanus, S. E. (2007). Methodological fit in management field
research. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 11551179.
Electronic Industries Alliance. (2002). Systems Engineering Capability Model (EIA/IS-
731.1) (Vol. 1). Washington, DC.
Fayol, H. (1919). General and industrial management. London: Pitman.
Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Flowe, R., & Thordahl, J. (1994). A correlational study of the SEIs capability maturity
model and software development performance in DoD contracts. Air Force Institute
of Technology, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH.
Fraser, P., Moultrie, J., & Gregory, M. (2002). The use of maturity models/grids as a tool
in assessing product development capability. In IEEE International Engineering
Management Conference (Vol. 1, pp. 244249). IEEE.
Friedrich, R., Schlichter, J., & Haechk, B. (2003). The History of OPM3. In PMI Global
Congress EMEA Proceedings. Newtown Square, Pennsylvania: Project Management
Institute.
Fssinger, E. (2006). Maturities of project-oriented companies of about 15 project-
oriented nations. In ICEC-IPMA 2006 (pp. 17). Retrieved from
http://www.wu.ac.at/strategy/institutes/pmg/fs/pub/ef-ipma-2005.pdf
Galbraith, J. R. (1973). Designing complex organizations (1st ed.). Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Galbraith, J. R. (1977). Organization design. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing
Company.
Galin, D., & Avrahami, M. (2006). Are CMM program investments beneficial? Analyzing
past studies. IEEE Software, 23(6), 8187.
Gareis, R. (2004). Management of the project-oriented company. In P. Morris & J. Pinto
(Eds.), The Wiley guide to managing projects (pp. 123143). Hoboken, New Jersey:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Gareis, R., & Fssinger, E. (2007). Final report: Analysis and benchmarking of the
maturities of project-oriented nations. Vienna, Austria: PROJEKTMANAGEMENT
Group, Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration.
Gibson, C. F., & Nolan, R. L. (1974). Managing the four stages of EDP growth. Harvard
Business Review, 52(1), 7688.
Gibson, D. L., Goldenson, D. R., & Kost, K. (2006). Performance results of CMMI-based
process improvement. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Software Engineering Institute.
Grant, K. P., & Pennypacker, J. S. (2006). Project management maturity: an assessment of
project management capabilities among and between selected industries. IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management, 53(1), 5968.
Greiner, L. E. (1972). Evolution and revolution as organizations grow. Harvard Business
Review, 50(4), 3746.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In
Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 105117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. (1984). Business unit strategy, managerial
characteristics, and business unit effectiveness at strategy implementation. Academy
of Management Journal, 27(1), 2541.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate Data
Analysis (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Hanisch, B., & Wald, A. (2012). A bibliometric view on the use of contingency theory in
project management research. Project Management Journal, 43(3), 423.
Harter, D., & Krishnan, M. (2000). Effects of process maturity on quality, cycle time, and
effort in software product development. Management Science, 46(4).
Hartman, F., & Skulmoski, G. (1998). Project management maturity. Project
Management, 7478.
Henderson, R. M., & Clark, K. B. (1990). Architectural innovation: the reconfiguration of
existing product technologies and the failure of established firm. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 35(1), 930.
Herbsleb, J., Zubrow, D., Goldenson, D., Hayes, W., & Paulk, M. C. (1997). Software
quality and the capability maturity model. Communications of the ACM, 40(6), 30
40.
Hillson, D. (1997). Towards a risk maturity model. International Journal of Project and
Business Risk Management, 1(1), 3545.
Hillson, D. (2003). Assessing organisational project management capability. Journal of
Facilities Management, 2(3), 298311.
Humphrey, W. S. (1988). Characterizing the software process: A maturity framework.
IEEE Software, 5(2), 7379.
Humphrey, W. S. (1989). Managing the software process. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania:
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Humphrey, W. S., & Curtis, B. (1991). Comments on A critical look. IEEE Software,
8(4), 4246.
Humphrey, W. S., Sweet, W. L., Edwards, R. K., LaCroix, G. R., Owens, M. F., & Shulz,
H. P. (1987). A method for assessing the software engineering capability of
contractors. Software Engineering Institute. Retrieved from
http://www.sei.cmu.edu/reports/87tr023.pdf
Ibbs, C. W., & Kwak, Y. H. (2000). Assessing project management maturity. Project
Management Journal, 31(1), 3243.
Ibbs, C. W., Reginato, J., & Kwak, Y. H. (2004). Developing project management
capability: Benchmarking, maturity, modeling, gap analyses, and ROI studies. In P.
Morris & J. Pinto (Eds.), The Wiley guide to managing projects (pp. 12141233).
Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Iqbal, S. (2012). Organizational maturity: Managing programs better. In G. Levin (Ed.),
Program management: a Life cycle approach (pp. 457492). Boca Raton, FL:
Auerbach Pub.
Jiang, J. J., Klein, G., Hwang, H.-G., Huang, J., & Hung, S.-Y. (2004). An exploration of
the relationship between software development process maturity and project
performance. Information & Management, 41(3), 279288.
Jochem, R., Geers, D., & Heinze, P. (2011). Maturity measurement of knowledge-
intensive business processes. The TQM Journal, 23(4), 377387.
Jugdev, K., & Mathur, G. (2012). Classifying project management resources by
complexity and leverage. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business,
5(1), 105124.
Jugdev, K., & Mller, R. (2005). A retrospective look at our evolving understanding of
project success. Project Management Journal, 36(4), 1931.
Jugdev, K., & Thomas, J. L. (2002a). Blueprint for value creation: Developing and
sustaining a project management competitive advantage through the resource based
view. In Proceedings of the 2nd PMI Research Conference 2002, Seattle, WA.
Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
Jugdev, K., & Thomas, J. L. (2002b). Project management maturity models: The silver
bullets of competitive advantage. Project Management Journal, 33(4), 414.
Jung, H.-W., & Goldenson, D. R. (2009). Evaluating the relationship between process
improvement and schedule deviation in software maintenance. Information and
Software Technology, 51(2), 351361.
Kaplan, R., & Norton, D. (1996). The balanced scorecard. Boston: Harvard Business
School Press.
Kerzner, H. (2005). Using the project management maturity model: Strategic planning for
project management (2nd ed.). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
King, J. L., & Kraemer, K. L. (1984). Evolution and organizational information systems:
an assessment of Nolans stage model. Communications of the ACM, 27(5), 466
475.
King, W. R., & Teo, T. S. H. (1997). Integration between business planning and
information systems planning: Validating a stage hypothesis. Decision Sciences,
28(2), 279308.
King, W. R., & Teo, T. S. H. (2000). Assessing the impact of proactive versus reactive
modes of strategic information systems planning. Omega, 28(6), 667679.
Kujala, J., & Artto, K. (2000). Criteria for project performance in business context.
Project Management, 6(7), 4653.
Kwak, Y. H., & Ibbs, C. W. (1998). Benchmarking project management organizations.
PM Network, (February), 4953.
Kwak, Y. H., & Ibbs, C. W. (2002). Project management process maturity model. Journal
of Management in Engineering, 18(3), 150155.
Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Differentiation and integration in complex
organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12(1), 147.
Lee, L. S., & Anderson, R. M. (2006). An exploratory investigation of the antecedents of
the IT project management capability. E-Service Journal, 5(1), 2742.
Levin, G., Artl, M., & Ward, J. L. (2010a). PortfolioFRAMEWORK. Arlington, VA:
ESI International.
Levin, G., Artl, M., & Ward, J. L. (2010b). ProgramFramework. Arlington, VA: ESI
International.
Levin, G., Artl, M., & Ward, J. L. (2013a). PortfolioFRAMEWORK. Arlington, VA:
ESI International.
Levin, G., Artl, M., & Ward, J. L. (2013b). ProgramFRAMEWORK. Arlington, VA:
ESI International.
Levin, G., Artl, M., & Ward, J. L. (2013c). ProjectFRAMEWORK. Arlington, VA: ESI
International.
Levin, G., Hill, G., Defilippis, P., Ward, J. L., & Shaltry, P. (1999).
ProjectFRAMEWORK. Arlington, VA: ESI International.
Lubianiker, S., & Levin, G. (2001). Using the web for next generation project
management assessments. In Proceedings of the Project Management Institute
Annual Seminars & Symposium. Nashville, Tenn.: Project Management Institute.
Mature. (2013). Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved June 10, 2013, from
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mature
Mettler, T., & Rohner, P. (2009). Situational maturity models as instrumental artifacts for
organizational design. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Design
Science Research in Information Systems and Technology - DESRIST 09 (p. 1).
New York, New York, USA: ACM Press.
Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall, Inc.
Morris, P. (2000). Researching the unanswered questions of project management. In
Proceedings of PMI Research Conference (pp. 87101). Newtown Square, PA:
Project Management Institute.
Mullaly, M. (2006). Longitudinal analysis of project management maturity. Project
Mullaly, M., & Thomas, J. L. (2009). Exploring the dynamics of value and fit: Insights
from project management. Project Management Journal, 40(1), 124135.
Mullaly, M., & Thomas, J. L. (2014). The value of project management: Rethinking
project management maturity and fit. In J. R. Turner (Ed.), Gower Handbook of
Project Management (5th ed.). Aldershot, England: Gower Publishing Limited.
Mller, R., & Turner, J. R. (2007). Matching the project managers leadership style to
project type. International Journal of Project Management, 25(1), 2132.
Nahm, A. Y., Vonderembse, M. A., & Koufteros, X. A. (2003). The impact of
organizational structure on time-based manufacturing and plant performance.
Journal of Operations Management, 21, 281306.
OHara, S., & Levin, G. (2000). Using metrics to demonstrate the value of project
management. In Proceedings of the Project Management Institute Annual Seminars
& Symposium. Houston, Texas: Project Management Institute.
Ofner, M. H., Huener, K. M., & Otto, B. (2009). Dealing with complexity: A method to
adapt and implement a maturity model for corporate data quality management. In
AMCIS 2009 Proceedings (p. 491). Retrieved from
http://works.bepress.com/boris_otto/6/
OGC. (2009). Managing successful projects with PRINCE2. London, England.
OGC. (2010a). Portfolio, programme and project management maturity model (Version
2.1). Buckinghamshire, UK: Office of Government Commerce. Retrieved from
http://www.p3m3-officialsite.com/P3M3Model/Model_mhtry.aspx
OGC. (2010b). PRINCE2 maturity model (Version 2.1). Buckinghamshire, UK: Office of
Government Commerce. Retrieved from http://www.p3m3-
officialsite.com/P3M3Model/Model_mhtry.aspx
Pasian, B. L. (2011). Project management maturity: a critical analysis of existing and
emergent contributing factors. Retrieved from
http://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/dspace/handle/2100/1258
Pasian, B. L., Sankaran, S., & Boydell, S. (2011). Factors for designing a second
generation of project management maturity models. In Proceedings of the Project
Management Institute Global Congress. Dallas. Retrieved from
http://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/research/handle/10453/19344
Pasian, B. L., Sankaran, S., & Boydell, S. (2012). Project management maturity: a critical
analysis of existing and emergent factors. International Journal of Managing
Projects in Business, 5(1), 146157.
Paulk, M. C., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M. B., & Weber, C. V. (1991). Capability maturity
model for software. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Software Engineering Institute.
Paulk, M. C., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M. B., & Weber, C. V. (1993). Capability maturity
model for software version 1.1. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Software Engineering
Institute.
Pennypacker, J. S. (2005). Project portfolio management maturity model. Havertown,
Pennsylvania: Center for Business Practices.
Pennypacker, J. S. (2006). Project management maturity - A benchmark of current best
practices. Havertown, Pennsylvania: Center for Business Practices.
Pennypacker, J. S., & Grant, K. P. (2003). Project management maturity: An industry
benchmark. Project Management Journal, 34(1), 411.
Perrow, C. (1967). A framework for the comparative analysis of organizations. American
Sociological Review, 32(2), 194208.
Pich, M., & Loch, C. (2002). On uncertainty, ambiguity, and complexity in project
management. Management Science, 48(8), 10081023.
Piney, C. K. (2004). Project management maturity case study: What you can do before
OPM3
TM
. In Proceedings of the PMI Global Congress 2004. Newtown Square, PA:
Project Management Institute.
Pinto, J., & Slevin, D. (1988). Project success: definitions and measurement techniques.
Project Management Journal, 19(1), 6772.
PMI. (2008). Organizational project management maturity model: Knowledge foundation
(2nd ed.). Newtown Square, Pennsylvania: Project Management Institute.
PMI. (2013a). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (5th ed.). Newtown
Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
PMI. (2013b). Organizational project management maturity model: Knowledge
foundation (3rd ed.). Newtown Square, Pennsylvania: Project Management Institute.
Podsakoff, P., & Organ, D. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and
prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531544.
Pppelbu, J., & Rglinger, M. (2011). What makes a useful maturity model? A
framework of general design principles for maturity models and its demonstration in
business process management. In ECIS 2011 Proceedings.
Prado, D. (2008). Maturidade em gerenciamento de projetos. Nova Lima: INDG.
Prananto, A., McKay, J., & Marshall, P. (2003). A study of the progression of e-business
maturity in Australian SMEs: some evidence of the applicability of the stages of
growth for e-business model. In PACIS 2003 Proceedings (pp. 6880).
Radice, R. A., Harding, J. T., Munnis, P. E., & Phillips, R. W. (1985). A programming
process study. IBM Systems Journal, 24(2), 91101.
Remenyi, D., Williams, B., Money, A., & Swartz, E. (1998). Doing research in business
and management. London, England: SAGE Publications.
Rglinger, M., Pppelbu, J., & Becker, J. (2012). Maturity models in business process
management. Business Process Management Journal, 18(2), 328346.
Rousseau, D. M., Manning, J., & Denyer, D. (2008). Chapter 11: Evidence in
management and organizational science: Assembling the fields full weight of
scientific knowledge through syntheses. The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1),
475515.
Rudestam, K. E., & Newton, R. R. (2007). Surviving your dissertation (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Saunders, D. R. (1956). Moderator Variables in Prediction. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 16(2), 209222.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business sudents
(5th ed.). Essex, England: Pearson Education Limited.
Sauser, B. J., Reilly, R. R., & Shenhar, A. J. (2009). Why projects fail? How contingency
theory can provide new insights A comparative analysis of NASAs Mars Climate
Orbiter loss. International Journal of Project Management, 27(7), 665679.
Schlichter, J. (2001). PMIs organizational project management maturity model:
Emerging standards. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Project Management
Institute 2001 Seminars and Symposium, Nashville, TN.
Schlichter, J., McEver, J., & Hayes, R. E. (2010). Maturity frameworks for enterprise
agility in the 21st century. In PMI Global Congress Proceedings. Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania: Project Management Institute.
Scott, W. R. (2004). Reflections on a half-century of organizational sociology. Annual
Review of Sociology, 30(1), 121.
Serrador, P. (2012). The planning phase impact on project success. Skema Business
School.
Shao, J., Mller, R., & Turner, J. R. (2012). Measuring program success. Project
Sharma, S., Durand, R., & Gur-Arie, O. (1981). Identification and analysis of moderator
variables. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 291300.
Shenhar, A. J. (2001). One size does not fit all projects: Exploring classical contingency
domains. Management Science, 47(3), 394414.
Shenhar, A. J., & Dvir, D. (2007). Reinventing project management: the diamond
approach to successful growth and innovation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Shenhar, A. J., Levy, O., & Dvir, D. (1997). Mapping the dimensions of project success.
Project Management Journal, 28(2), 513.
Shenhar, A. J., & Stefanovic, J. (2006). Operational excellence wont do ittoward a new
project management maturity model. In PMI Research Conference 2006
Proceedings (pp. 1619). Montreal, Canada.
Shewhart, W. A. (1939). Statistical method from the viewpoint of quality control.
Washington, DC: Graduate School of the Department of Agriculture.
Sine, W. D., Mitsuhashi, H., & Kirsch, D. a. (2006). Revisiting Burns and Stalker: Formal
structure and new venture performance in emerging economic sectors. Academy of
Skulmoski, G. (2001). Project maturity and competence interface. Cost Engineering,
43(6), 1118.
Smith, H., & Fingar, P. (2004). The third wave - process management maturity models.
Business Process Trends, (7). Retrieved from
http://www.bptrends.com/publicationfiles/07-04 COL Maturity Models- Smith-
Fingar.pdf
Stinchcombe, A. (1965). Social structure and organizations. In J. March (Ed.), Handbook
of organizations (pp. 142193). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Suares, I. (1998). A real world look at achieving project management maturity. In
Proceedings of the 29th Annual Project Management Institute 1998 Seminars and
Symposium. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
Subramanian, G. H., Jiang, J. J., & Klein, G. (2007). Software quality and IS project
performance improvements from software development process maturity and IS
implementation strategies. Journal of Systems and Software, 80(4), 616627.
Tabachnick, B. B., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivatiate statistics (5th ed.). Boston,
MA: Pearson Education.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology - combining qualitative and
quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Tatikonda, M. V, & Rosenthal, S. R. (2000). Successful execution of product
development projects: Balancing firmness and flexibility in the innovation process.
Journal of Operations Management, 18(4), 401425.
Taylor, F. J. (1911). The principles of scientific management. New York: Harper.
Teague, J. A., & Cooke-Davies, T. J. (2007). Developing organizational capability:
Pointers and pitfalls. In PMI Global Congress EMEA Proceedings. Budapest,
Hungary: Project Management Institute.
Thomas, J. L., & Mullaly, M. (2008). Researching the value of project management.
Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York, New York, USA: McGraw-
Hill.
Tracey, M., Vonderembse, M. A., & Lim, J.-S. (1999). Manufacturing technology and
strategy formulation: keys to enhancing competitiveness and improving
performance. Journal of Operations Management, 17(4), 411428.
Turner, J. R., Anbari, F. T., & Bredillet, C. (2013). Perspectives on research in project
management: the nine schools. Global Business Perspectives, 1(1), 328. Retrieved
from http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40196-012-0001-4
Turner, J. R., & Cochrane, R. A. (1993). Goals-and-methods matrix: coping with projects
with ill defined goals and/or methods of achieving them. International Journal of
Project Management, 11(2), 93102.
Turner, J. R., & Zolin, R. (2012). Forecasting success on large projects: Developing
reliable scales to predict multiple perspectives by multiple stakeholders over multiple
time frames. Project Management Journal, 43(5), 8799.
Turner, J. R., Zolin, R., & Remington, K. (2009). Monitoring the performance of complex
projects from multiple perspectives over multiple time frames. In Proceedings of the
9th International Research Network of Project Management Conference (pp. 1113).
Berlin: IRNOP.
Venkatraman, N. (1989). The concept of fit in strategy research: Toward verbal and
statistical correspondence. Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 423444.
Venkatraman, N., & Ramanujam, V. (1986). Measurement of business performance in
strategy research: a comparison of approaches. Academy of Management Review,
11(4), 801814.
Ward, P. T., & Duray, R. (2000). Manufacturing strategy in context: environment,
competitive strategy and manufacturing strategy. Journal of Operations
Management, 18(2), 123138.
Weber, M. (1968). Economy and society, an outline of interpretive sociology. (G. Roth &
C. Wittich, Eds.). New York: Bedminster.
Woodward, J. (1958). Management and technology. London: Her Majestys Stationary
Office.
Yazici, H. (2009a). Does project maturity matter for organizational success? In Industrial
Engineering Research Conference (pp. 356361).
Yazici, H. (2009b). The role of project management maturity and organizational culture in
perceived performance. Project Management Journal, 40(3), 1433.
Zhu, Q., & Sarkis, J. (2004). Relationships between operational practices and
performance among early adopters of green supply chain management practices in
Chinese manufacturing enterprises. Journal of Operations Management, 22(3), 265
289.

Appendix A Questionnaire

A contingency view on the effect of project management maturity on
perceived performance

This questionnaire is part of a research project to investigate the impact of project
management maturity in performance, situated in different contexts.

The questionnaire contains two parts. The first part measures the organizational maturity
of project management in your organization. The second part, the nature of the last
projects you participated and how successful the project was.

Information obtained from you will be held in strict confidence. No reference will be
made to specific individuals or names of organizations in future reports. Participation is
voluntarily. The overall summary of the results will be shared with you if you indicate so
in the questionnaire.

It contains 27 questions. Please answer them to the best of your knowledge of your
organization and your last completed project.

Thank you for your time

Luciano Torres, PhD candidate
Skema Business School

Part 1 Maturity

Q1.1. Which of the following best describes your view of your organization project scope
management?

1. Projects may or may not end up meeting customer needs. Many projects originate
because individuals just decide to do them; other projects begin when dictated by
management.. A requirements management plan, scope management plan, and a
scope statement are not prepared. Many project managers do not prepare work
breakdown structures (WBSs). Scope creep is a problem in project execution.
Scope verification is limited. Formal project acceptance may not be sought.

2. Organization is working to ensure that because all projects are based on needs and
requirements, the requirements are specified accurately. There is a focus on
establishing and maintaining agreement among the project team, including the
customer and suppliers, with respect to the requirements. Problems in meeting
commitments are identified when they arise. Requirements are baselined, and the
content is controlled.

3. A requirements management plan and a requirements traceability matrix are
developed as part of collect requirements. A written scope statement, WBS, scope
and a scope management plan are prepared. A scope validation process ensures
deliverables are accepted by the customer and fulfills project objectives, bringing
value to the business. A scope change control system is implemented.

4. I have not been exposed to this/or I do not have experience in this area.

Q1.2. Which of the following best describes your view of your organization project time
management?

1. Project management software is just beginning to be implemented in the
organization and is used to list specific tasks to be performed. Resource planning
is ad hoc. Generally, project schedules are developed based on end dates imposed
by customers or project sponsors. A schedule baseline is not established, and a
schedule management plan is not part of the overall project management plan.

2. Organization is committed to project time management. A project schedule is
prepared, issued, and baselined. Changes to the schedule that affect commitments
by stakeholders are resolved. Schedule control involves monitoring performance
regularly to detect deviations from the plan. The organization has adopted
standard project management software that is used for schedule development and
tracking. Project managers and team members receive training in the use of this
software.

3. The project schedule is approved according to the project management
methodology and serves as a baseline for use in measuring and reporting schedule
performance. Crashing, fast-tracking, and leveling techniques are used as required.
A schedule management plan is prepared and followed.


Q1.3. Which of the following best describes your view of your organization project cost
management?

1. The focus of project management is on the project schedule, not costs. Costs are
not formally managed and tend to exceed available budget. Cost estimating is not
coordinated with activity resource estimating or activity duration estimating. Cost
reporting is also done in an ad hoc way. There is no formal project budget. A cost
management plan is not prepared.

2. Organization is committed to preparing and using cost estimates. Project costs are
tracked, and corrective actions are taken as required The WBS serves as the basis
for the cost estimate. A project budget is developed based on allocating elements
of the project cost estimate to individual work items. Cost control that is,
monitoring performance to detect variances from the plan is exercised.

3. Project cost management activities are planned, scheduling and cost estimating is
coordinated. The cost baseline serves as a time-phased budget to measure and
monitor project cost performance. Earned value analysis is used for performance
measurement and forecasting.


Q1.4. Which of the following best describes your view of your organization project
quality management?

1. Quality management planning is not accomplished at the project level. Quality
assurance programs and policies aimed at management by projects are virtually
nonexistent. Quality control is conducted on an ad hoc basis. Rework is expected
because project specifications often are poorly defined at the outset of a project.

2. The emphasis in quality management is on the product or service of the project
and not the process by which the project is executed. Quality is considered to be
inspected into the product or service rather than being designed in during the
planning phase. Quality control consists of inspection activities.

3. Project quality management addresses project management processes, as well as
the product or service delivered. The organization has a quality policy for project
management. The organization emphasizes the importance of quality
improvements. Tools and techniques for quality management planning are used
regularly. Quality assurance activities are performed routinely, with audits
providing a structured review to address lessons learned. Unanticipated rework is
minimal.


human resources management?

1. Project managers who are successful are heroes and are rewarded individually.
Project managers are assigned on an ad hoc basis. The project team is staffed
based on the availability of individuals. Project management is not a recognized
practice.

2. Organization is being structured for effective assignment of project team
members. It is using a project matrix organization, where project managers and
functional managers are working out respective roles and responsibilities. A
resource assignment matrix is prepared for each project. Management recognizes
the need to identify the training required for project members.

3. Team-building training emphasizes the temporary nature of project management,
the dual reporting that exists in the matrix structure, and the importance of
communication skills; team development occurs throughout each project.
Information is collected throughout the organization to determine a resource
productivity/utilization factor to support resource planning and the development of
future metrics.

4. Project management is established as a core professional competency. The
organization maintains a current inventory of project management knowledge,
skills, and competency profiles for project personnel. Personal development plans
are prepared for project team members.. Mentoring is considered essential to help
develop project managers.

communications management?

1. Project communication tends to be informal, unstructured, and limited. Project
performance reports are prepared, and project performance reviews are held, only
as needed or when requested by project sponsors, the contract, or customers.

2. Organization is committed to project communications management. The
organization has processes in place, as well as tools and techniques that facilitate
collecting and analyzing project data and preparing management reports. Project
information is recorded and distributed for individual projects.

3. Communication management activities are well defined and carried out by all
team members. Management reviews are held regularly on each project, and
standard performance reports are prepared. A project management information
system. Performance reports provide the level of detail required by stakeholders as
documented in the project communication plan.


stakeholder management?

1. Stakeholder identification is not performed so the interests and influence of the
project stakeholders are not known or documented. There is limited interest in
communicating or in working with stakeholders to anticipate their needs or to
address and respond to any issues they may have.

2. Organization is committed to project stakeholder management. The organization
has processes and procedures in place, as well as tools and techniques that
facilitate stakeholder engagement. Project teams consistently document the plan to
engage stakeholders as part of the project management plan. Stakeholders
expectations are managed ensuring they understand the project goals and risks and
that they are active supporters of the project.

3. Stakeholder engagement, including identification of stakeholders, are well defined
and carried out by all team members. Data are collected, and regular reviews are
held of our stakeholder engagement approaches in order that we can continue to
improve in this area.


Q1.8. Which of the following best describes your view of your organization project risk
management?

Appendix A No formal risk management process is in place. Risk identification, analysis,
response planning, and monitoring and controlling are not performed.

Appendix B Risks are identified and analyzed, and risk responses are planned. Risk
qualification and/or quantification is performed to evaluate risks and risk interactions,
to assess the range of possible project outcomes, and to determine which risk events
warrant response. The risk management process is continual throughout each project.

Appendix C Risk management is a continuous activity, with risk identification addressing
both threats and opportunities. A risk management plan is prepared, and the
organization begins to develop a risk management capability and culture of dealing
openly with risk. Risk communication is stressed. Contingency planning is an integral
part of risk management planning. Specific estimates are made of needed contingency
and management reserves.

Appendix D To make informed decisions, the organization promotes a risk management
culture that is characterized by direct and open communication with stakeholders
regarding project risks, their impact, and the inevitable trade-offs associated with
various risk responses. Risk management is such an integral part of project
management that they are not viewed as separate and distinct activities; rather, they
are viewed as one.

Appendix E I have not been exposed to this/or I do not have experience in this area.

procurement management?

1. Procurement is not considered part of project management; it is to be handled by
the procurement function in the organization. Accordingly, project procurement
planning is ad hoc.

2. Organization is implementing processes for project procurement management.
Procurement management plans are established. Projects use documented
processes to select sellers and to manage their contracts. Contract administration is
the responsibility of the project team under the overall guidance of the project
manager. Project teams track the performance of sellers. Ongoing communication
is maintained with sellers because they are considered members of the project
team. Commitments are agreed upon, and any changes are implemented according
to a contract change control procedure.

3. Project procurement activities are based on two perspectivesthat of the buyer
and that of the seller. Specific processes are in place for either perspective. Either
process requires that the project manager work in partnership with the
procurement or contracting department.


integration management?

1. The organization may provide forms or checklists for use on project activities but
offers little guidance or training in conducting those activities. A project schedule
is sometimes believed to constitute a project management plan. There is limited
emphasis on formal project initiation or closeout activities.

2. Organization has developed an essential project management methodology that
contains process for project management within a project management life cycle.
The methodology provides a structured, repeatable, customizable approach to
guide the project team, with standard practices, techniques, terminology and tools.
The planning and tracking of new projects are based on experience with similar
projects. The commitment to project management is further evidenced by the
identification of a function whose major purpose is the development, refinement,
and institutionalization of the project management methodology.

3. Organization applies its standard project management methodology for all projects
tailoring by criteria such as complexity of requirements, size and duration of work
effort, cost, risk, and strategic value. Project reviews are conducted at a frequency
that depends on the project classification. Each project has a governance board to
oversee its progress and to conduct stage gate reviews. Best practices are shared,
and a project management information system (PMIS) is established. Project
management plans are prepared regularly. Assumptions and constraints from
project management plans are documented. Change management is an integral
part of project management. An established change control process for scope, cost,
and schedule is developed. The baseline changes only intermittently and in
response to approved scope changes. Project management plans, though,
continually change and are reviewed regularly as more detail is available.
Planning for project closeout and transition to the customer begins during the
project planning phase. Project records are prepared for archiving lessons learned.

4. Organization recognizes and supports project management at all levels because
projects are viewed as essential to the growth of the organization. The PM
methodology is ingrained in the organization and used consistently. The PMOs
focus is on project management improvement. Best practices in project
management are established and followed Metrics are established that focus on
strategic alignment, monitoring and controlling risks and opportunities, and
ensuring the projects outcomes are as expected according to its business plan. In
addition, the organization has developed and uses integrated systems, available to
all project stakeholders. Partnering is fostered at all levels, both internally and
externally.


management maturity?

1. Projects are managed in an ad hoc fashion, and no formal project management
methodology exists. Performance is inconsistent. Organization may complete
projects successfully, but many are accomplished through the heroic efforts of a
few persons. Project cost overruns and schedule delays are common. People
working on projects either struggle with the organizations existing processes or
tend to invent a process as they work on the project.

2. Policies are established for project management processes, responsibilities are
identified for each process, resources are allocated and obtained to perform the
process, personnel performing specific roles are appropriately trained, and the
processes are documented. Processes are repeatable across projects. Management
reviews the status of each process and based on the results of the reviews, takes
corrective action as appropriate.

3. Organization is motivated to gain a competitive advantage through its
management of projects. The organization is able to improve its ability to predict
the performance of its projects and capitalizes on prior success by adapting and
enhancing its project management methodology for deployment throughout the
organization.

4. Project management is an integral part of each persons responsibilities. Practices
are well understood and followed, support for project management processes
exists throughout the organization, and project management teams and functional
organizations understand how projects relate to, and are integrated with, the
ongoing operations of the organization. Each project has a governance board to
ensure projects support and link to the organizations strategy.

5. Organizations project management methodology operates routinely, and projects
meet schedule, cost, technical, and quality requirements. Continuous project
management process improvement is established and maintained. A project
portfolio management system is used to ensure that projects are selected and
continued according to strategic organizational goals and objectives. Project team
performance incentives rewards both individual and team accomplishments.


Part 2 Contingency

Answer the following questions about your last completed project in our organization.

Q2.1. In regards to novelty, which of the following would best describe your project?

1. Derivative (Improvement)
2. Platform (A new generation in an existing product line e.g., new car model)
3. New to the Market (Adopting an existing product to a different market e.g., first
PC)
4. New to the World (Product never existed before)

Q2.2. In regards to technology uncertainty, which of the following would best describe
your project?

1. Low-Tech (No new technology)
2. Medium-Tech (Some new technology)
3. High-Tech (All or mostly new but existing technology)
4. Super-high-tech (Project will use non-existing technologies at project initiation)

Q2.3. In regards to complexity, which of the following would best describe your project?

1. Component/Material (An element or material in a subsystem)
2. Assembly (A subsystem Performing a single function)
3. System (A collection of subsystems Performing multiple functions)
4. Array (System of systems. A widely dispersed collection of systems serving a
common mission)

Q2.4. In regards to pace, which of the following would best describe your project?

1. Regular (Delays not critical)
2. Fast/competitive (Time to market is a competitive advantage)
3. Time-critical (Completion time is critical to success, window of opportunity)
4. Blitz (Crisis project)

Q2.5. In regards to the goals of the project, which of the following would best describe
your project?

1. The goals of the project are well defined
2. The goals of the project are not well defined

Q2.6. In regards to the methods to achieve the project goals, which of the following
would best describe your project?

1. The methods are well defined
2. The methods are not well defined

Part 3 Project classification

Q.3.1. What was your role in the project?

Project Team Member, Project Manager, Project Director, Program Manager, Program
Director, Sponsor, Line/Department Manager, CEO/COO, Other (please specify)

Q.3.2. What was the principal industry of the project?

Pharmaceuticals, Consumer Electronics, Telecommunications, Information Technology,
Financial Services, Automobile, Defense, Energy, Software, Manufacturing, Advertising,
Entertainment, Health Care, Insurance, Construction, Travel, Consulting, E-Commerce,
Other: ______

Q3.3. What was the customer of your project?

1. Internal (internal user or another department)
2. External (external contract or consumers)


Q3.4. What was the strategic goal of the project?

1. Money-Making Project (selling a product or service to clients)
2. Money-Saving Project (Internal effort of cost reduction)
3. Utility/Infrastructure (Acquiring and installing new equipment or software,
implementing new methods or new processes)
4. Maintenance/Keep the Lights On Project (Routine maintenance, fixing regular
problems)
5. Building the Future (R&D, Technology Development, Exploring new ideas No
specific customer in mind)
6. Problem Solving Project (Project focused on a unique narrow problem)

Q3.5. Project duration in months: ___

Q3.6. Project budget in dollars: ___

Q4. Project Performance

Please respond to each of the following statements about your last completed project.
Indicate to which degree do you agree or disagree with the statement by marking one
response for each item

S
t
r
o
n
g
l
y

D
i
s
a
g
r
e
e

D
i
s
a
g
r
e
e

A
g
r
e
e

S
t
r
o
n
g
l
y

A
g
r
e
e

N
/
A

The project was completed on time or
earlier.

The project was completed within or below
budget.

The project had only minor changes.
The project improved the customers
performance.

The customer was satisfied.
The project met the customer requirements.
The customer is using the project result.
The customer will come back for future
work.

The project team was highly motivated and
satisfied.

The team was highly loyal to the project.
The project team had high morale and
energy.

The team felt that working on this project
was fun.

Team members experienced personal
growth.

Team members wanted to stay in the
organization.

The project was an economic business
success.

The project increased the organizations
profitability.

The project has a positive return on
investment.

The project increased the organization's
market share.

The project contributed to stakeholder value.
The project contributed to the organization's
direct performance.

The project outcome will contribute to future
projects.

The project will lead to additional new
products.

The project will help create new markets.
The project created new technologies for
future use.

The project contributed to new business
processes.

The project developed better managerial
capabilities.

Overall, the project was a success.

Q5. Business Performance

Please respond to each of the following statements about your organization. Consider all
projects from your organization, not only the last one. Indicate to which degree do you
agree or disagree with the statement by marking one response for each item.

"
#
$
%
&
'
(
)

*
+
,
-
'
$
.
.

*
+
,
-
'
$
.
.

/
'
$
.
.

"
#
$
%
&
'
(
)

/
'
$
.
.

0
1
/


The profitability of my organization

The customer satisfaction with my
organization improved as a result of its
projects

The market share of my organization

The internal efficiency of my organization

The overall business performance of my
projects

Q6. How old is your organization, in years? __

Q7. What is the country of origin of your organization? __
Appendix B Additional analysis figures and charts

Table 68 Descriptive statistics for performance questions before treatment for missing values

N Minimum Maximum Mean
Std.
Deviation Skewness Kurtosis
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic
Std.
Error Statistic
Std.
Error
earlier.
208 1 4 2.77 .902 -.335 .169 -.629 .336
The project was completed within or
below budget.
187 1 4 2.87 .795 -.209 .178 -.524 .354
The project had only minor changes. 202 1 4 2.44 .851 -.090 .171 -.643 .341
performance.
194 1 4 3.29 .669 -.735 .175 .758 .347
The customer was satisfied. 197 2 4 3.30 .586 -.174 .173 -.581 .345
The project met the customer
requirements.
199 2 4 3.29 .563 -.044 .172 -.523 .343
The customer is using the project result. 195 2 4 3.42 .607 -.529 .174 -.612 .346
work.
174 1 4 3.41 .618 -.686 .184 .289 .366
The project team was highly motivated
and satisfied.
201 1 4 2.85 .865 -.550 .172 -.207 .341
The team was highly loyal to the
project.
205 1 4 3.08 .746 -.564 .170 .180 .338
energy.
203 1 4 2.94 .797 -.537 .171 .045 .340
The team felt that working on this
project was fun.
202 1 4 2.75 .829 -.292 .171 -.398 .341
growth.
201 1 4 3.14 .724 -.625 .172 .386 .341
organization.
198 1 4 3.01 .740 -.623 .173 .541 .344
success.
179 0 4 2.94 .747 -.725 .182 1.235 .361
The project increased the organizations
profitability.
173 0 4 3.01 .774 -.619 .185 .710 .367
investment.
166 0 4 3.02 .805 -.809 .188 .951 .375
market share.
152 0 4 2.88 .829 -.551 .197 .304 .391
The project contributed to stakeholder
value.
179 0 4 3.21 .642 -.989 .182 3.654 .361
The project contributed to the
organization's direct performance.
186 1 4 3.22 .679 -.609 .178 .514 .355
The project outcome will contribute to
future projects.
196 1 4 3.35 .651 -.730 .174 .518 .346
products.
183 1 4 2.98 .845 -.456 .180 -.450 .357
The project will help create new
markets.
176 0 4 2.70 .859 -.143 .183 -.371 .364
The project created new technologies
for future use.
185 0 4 2.72 .942 -.119 .179 -.778 .355
processes.
189 1 4 2.81 .866 -.215 .177 -.699 .352
capabilities.
190 0 4 2.73 .860 -.398 .176 -.149 .351
Overall, the project was a success. 202 1 4 3.14 .585 -.182 .171 .476 .341
The rate of sales growth of my
projects
162 1 4 2.91 .700 -.100 .191 -.403 .379
181 1 4 2.98 .683 -.078 .181 -.530 .359
projects
182 1 4 3.06 .614 -.323 .180 .746 .358
161 1 4 2.89 .704 -.068 .191 -.459 .380
The internal efficiency of my
projects
188 1 4 2.86 .735 -.093 .177 -.472 .353
projects
186 1 4 2.90 .675 .011 .178 -.533 .355

Table 69 Descriptive statistics for performance questions after treatment for missing values
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std.
Deviation
Skewness Kurtosis
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std.
Error
Statistic Std.
Error
earlier.
211 1 4 2.77 .895 -.338 .167 -.595 .333
The project was completed within or
below budget.
211 1 4 2.87 .749 -.222 .167 -.203 .333
The project had only minor changes. 211 1 4 2.44 .833 -.092 .167 -.536 .333
performance.
211 1 4 3.29 .641 -.766 .167 1.086 .333
The customer was satisfied. 211 2 4 3.30 .566 -.180 .167 -.407 .333
The project met the customer
requirements.
211 2 4 3.29 .546 -.045 .167 -.372 .333
The customer is using the project result. 211 2 4 3.42 .584 -.550 .167 -.414 .333
work.
211 1 4 3.41 .561 -.754 .167 .988 .333
The project team was highly motivated
and satisfied.
211 1 4 2.85 .844 -.563 .167 -.067 .333
The team was highly loyal to the project. 211 1 4 3.08 .735 -.573 .167 .273 .333
energy.
211 1 4 2.94 .781 -.548 .167 .165 .333
The team felt that working on this project
was fun.
211 1 4 2.75 .811 -.299 .167 -.281 .333
growth.
211 1 4 3.14 .706 -.640 .167 .555 .333
organization.
211 1 4 3.01 .717 -.642 .167 .773 .333
success.
211 0 4 2.94 .688 -.786 .167 1.988 .333
The project increased the organization?s
profitability.
211 0 4 3.01 .700 -.683 .167 1.522 .333
investment.
211 0 4 3.02 .714 -.910 .167 2.016 .333
market share.
211 0 4 2.88 .703 -.647 .167 1.584 .333
The project contributed to stakeholder
value.
211 0 4 3.21 .591 -1.073 .167 4.827 .333
organization's direct performance.
211 1 4 3.22 .638 -.648 .167 .985 .333
The project outcome will contribute to
future projects.
211 1 4 3.35 .628 -.757 .167 .787 .333
products.
211 1 4 2.98 .787 -.489 .167 -.056 .333
The project will help create new markets. 211 0 4 2.70 .784 -.156 .167 .156 .333
The project created new technologies for
future use.
211 0 4 2.72 .882 -.127 .167 -.461 .333
processes.
211 1 4 2.81 .820 -.227 .167 -.427 .333
capabilities.
211 0 4 2.73 .816 -.419 .167 .168 .333
Overall, the project was a success. 211 1 4 3.14 .573 -.186 .167 .630 .333
projects
211 1 4 2.91 .613 -.114 .167 .388 .333
211 1 4 2.98 .632 -.084 .167 -.117 .333
projects
211 1 4 3.06 .570 -.348 .167 1.341 .333
211 1 4 2.89 .614 -.077 .167 .336 .333
projects
211 1 4 2.86 .694 -.099 .167 -.160 .333
projects
211 1 4 2.90 .633 .012 .167 -.198 .333

Table 70 Performance questions anti-image correlation diagonals (Measure of Sample Adequacy)
Q4.1 .927a Q4.9 .921a Q4.17 .888a Q4.25 .657a
Q4.2 .843a Q4.10 .860a Q4.18 .818a Q4.26 .754a
Q4.3 .764a Q4.11 .850a Q4.19 .910a Q4.27 .943a
Q4.4 .917a Q4.12 .917a Q4.20 .898a Q5.1 .839a
Q4.5 .852a Q4.13 .883a Q4.21 .835a Q5.2 .883a
Q4.6 .832a Q4.14 .939a Q4.22 .715a Q5.3 .889a
Q4.7 .856a Q4.15 .894a Q4.23 .730a Q5.4 .803a
Q4.8 .851a Q4.16 .869a Q4.24 .761a Q5.5 .796a
Q5.6 .877a

Table 71 Reliability test for impact on team
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
Scale Variance if
Item Deleted
Corrected Item-
Total Correlation
Squared Multiple
Correlation
Cronbach's Alpha
if Item Deleted
The project team was highly
motivated and satisfied.
14.88 9.302 .782 .633 .857
The team was highly loyal
to the project.
14.65 10.217 .703 .565 .870
The project team had high
morale and energy.
14.81 9.490 .813 .712 .852
The team felt that working
on this project was fun.
15.00 9.720 .741 .581 .864
Team members experienced
personal growth.
14.60 11.015 .550 .324 .892
Team members wanted to
stay in the organization.
14.72 10.449 .646 .423 .879

Table 72 Reliability tests for organizational performance
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
Scale Variance
if Item Deleted
Corrected Item-
Total Correlation
Squared
Multiple
Correlation
Cronbach's Alpha
if Item Deleted
The overall business performance
of my organization improved as a
11.73 5.250 .634 .417 .854
organization improved as a result of
its projects
11.73 5.023 .706 .528 .836
11.68 4.958 .760 .589 .823
its projects
11.57 5.396 .669 .452 .846
The market share of my
its projects
11.73 5.066 .690 .481 .840

Table 73 Reliability tests for impact on customer
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
Scale Variance if
Item Deleted
Corrected Item-
Total Correlation
Squared Multiple
Correlation
Cronbach's Alpha
if Item Deleted
The project improved the
customers performance.
13.45 3.390 .555 .326 .762
The customer was satisfied. 13.46 3.403 .638 .506 .735
The project met the
customer requirements.
13.48 3.502 .645 .495 .735
The customer is using the
project result.
13.32 3.631 .493 .286 .781
The customer will come
back for future work.
13.34 3.490 .553 .335 .762

Table 74 Reliability tests for project financial results
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
Scale Variance if
Item Deleted
Corrected Item-
Total Correlation
Squared Multiple
Correlation
Cronbach's Alpha
if Item Deleted
The project was an
economic business success.
6.02 1.723 .676 .458 .840
The project increased the
organizations profitability.
5.96 1.604 .746 .569 .775
The project has a positive
return on investment.
5.95 1.565 .753 .578 .768

Table 75 Reliability tests for preparing for the future
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
Scale Variance if
Item Deleted
Corrected Item-
Total Correlation
Squared Multiple
Correlation
Cronbach's Alpha
if Item Deleted
The project will lead to
additional new products.
8.10 4.410 .565 .336 .658
The project will help create
new markets.
8.34 4.329 .560 .329 .660
The project created new
technologies for future use.
8.33 4.211 .525 .278 .681
The project contributed to
new business processes.
8.25 4.653 .470 .222 .710

Table 76 Reliability tests for project impact on business
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
Scale Variance
if Item Deleted
Corrected Item-
Total Correlation
Squared Multiple
Correlation
Cronbach's Alpha
if Item Deleted
The project increased the
organization's market share.
9.69 2.625 .617 .421 .741
The project contributed to
stakeholder value.
9.40 3.001 .658 .448 .718
organization's direct
performance.
9.36 3.006 .628 .398 .731
The project outcome will
contribute to future projects.
9.27 3.161 .530 .302 .777

Table 77 Reliability tests for project efficiency
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
Scale Variance if
Item Deleted
Corrected Item-
Total Correlation
Squared Multiple
Correlation
Cronbach's Alpha if
Item Deleted
The project was completed
on time or earlier.
5.33 1.815 .505 .297 .516
The project was completed
within or below budget.
5.26 1.964 .544 .317 .472
The project had only
minor changes.
5.66 2.137 .375 .143 .688

Table 78 Reliability tests for internal efficiency
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
Scale Variance
if Item Deleted
Corrected Item-
Total Correlation
Squared
Multiple
Correlation
Cronbach's Alpha
if Item Deleted
The project contributed to new
business processes.
5.56 1.717 .474 .264 .543
The project developed better
managerial capabilities.
5.67 1.668 .562 .321 .412
organization improved as a result
of its projects
5.54 2.249 .366 .148 .673

Figure 26 Scatterplot for impact on team regression

Figure 27 Scatterplot for impact on team and project industry

Figure 28 Scatterplot for organizational performance and project industry

Figure 29 Scatterplot for impact on customer regression

Figure 30 Scatterplot for impact on customer and project industry regression

Figure 31 Scatterplot for project financial results regression

Figure 32 Scatterplot for project financial results and project industry regression


Figure 33 Scatterplot for internal efficiency, using age of organization as moderator

Figure 34 Scatterplot for internal efficiency and industry of the project as moderator

A Contingency View On The Effect of Project Management Maturity On Perceived Performance

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

A Contingency View On The Effect of Project Management Maturity On Perceived Performance

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

A contingency view on the effect of project management

maturity on perceived performance

model also contains some concepts from the People CMM

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen