People often ask me how I came up with the idea for creating a project management maturity model (PMMM). In 1996, the International Institute for Learning (IIL) partnered with Microsoft and Nortel to sponsor a global videoconference where I discussed some of the project management best practices that companies were using. After the broadcast, I was flooded with questions, with conference participants asking me how “quickly” their company could implement some of these best practices and become good at project management. I responded to the participants that maturity and excellence in project management cannot be achieved easily or quickly without some type of strategic direction focusing on project management maturity. The direction soon became the PMMM.

In 1997, when I first prepared the foundation for the PMMM, there were very few maturity models in the marketplace. Today, there are more than 30. Every model has its pros and cons. Some models take a great deal of time to do the assessments, whereas others are fairly quick and cost-effective to use. Some models are more applicable to specific industries, such as construction or IT, whereas other models are more generic.

The PMMM was created to prepare companies for the future rather than the present. To understand this, you must first recognize what makes project management work well. Having an enterprise project management methodology does not necessarily lead to maturity. Having policies and procedures embedded throughout the methodology is also no guarantee that maturity will be forthcoming. Even following the PMBOK^® Guide exactly cannot guarantee maturity.¹

Before you start sending me nasty e-mails, let me state my position on the previous paragraph. Project management methodologies based on rather rigid policies and procedures were created because management wanted standardization in the way that projects were planned, scheduled, and controlled. This was a necessity because executives had concerns about the ability of their project managers to make the correct decisions. Some people have argued that these rigid approaches mandated “obedience to regulations” and limited the freedom that most project managers need. The problem with standardization is that it often pulls people out of their comfort zones, and they must work differently when assigned to projects. People who are asked to work outside of their comfort zone often dislike working on project teams and may look forward to the end of the project so they can return to their previous assignment. What I have observed in the past five decades is that project management excellence comes from four critical components:

• Effective communications
• Effective cooperation
• Effective teamwork
• Trust

With this in mind, the PMMM is significantly more behavioral than quantitative. People manage projects; methodologies function as supporting tools. You can have the greatest methodology in the world and still not reach a level of maturity, because the correct human behavior is not in place. Maturity in project management occurs when people work together correctly. The PMMM assessments focus on people interacting with other people rather than just tools.

Over the years, executives have seen the benefits of using project management correctly. As executives demonstrate more trust in project managers’ capabilities, rigid methodologies are being replaced with forms, guidelines, templates, and checklists. Today, at the beginning of a project, the project manager will walk through the “cafeteria” and select from the shelves only those forms, guidelines, templates, and checklists that are appropriate for that project and that client. We now have flexible methodologies, or frameworks. If the project manager believes that this project is a very low risk, then the project manager may not want to follow or even use the “Risk Management” section of the PMBOK^® Guide. Project managers are now being given more freedom over how to apply project management practices to satisfy the customer's needs. This leads to customer satisfaction and repeat business.

But even with this new freedom, project managers must still recognize the importance of the behavioral assessments in the PMMM, which focus on effective communication, cooperation, teamwork, and trust. Behavioral assessments indicate whether people believe that they are working within their comfort zone. If continuous improvements are made correctly (i.e., Level 5 of the PMMM) and people are happy with their comfort zone, some degree of project management maturity can be achieved quickly. The focus in the PMMM is that people manage projects; people manage tools; tools by themselves manage neither people nor projects. As a former Air Force lieutenant general stated, “You must never allow the tool to control the hand that's holding it.” Maturity models should certainly include an assessment of whether the organization has the right tools and practices in place. But in my opinion, there should be an equal or possibly heavier emphasis on the necessary human behavior.

A few years ago, I was interviewed for an article on maturity models with an emphasis on the PMMM. Following are some of the questions I was asked.

• Q1: How much project management maturity does a company really need?
• The amount of maturity a company needs is quite often customer driven rather than internally driven. Whenever a contractor allows its customer to become more mature than it is, very unfavorable results can occur. Among them, (1) the customer tells the contractor how the work should be done, (2) the customer may perform the work by themselves, and (3) the customer may seek out a more mature contractor during competitive bidding. Therefore, companies that rely heavily on external customers for their revenue stream, such as project-driven companies, must never allow their customers to achieve a greater degree of maturity than theirs. For these companies, project management maturity is a necessity for survival, and the frequent use of a maturity model should be mandatory.
• Companies today should be willing to perform a frequent self-assessment to make sure that the firm is continuously improving and reaching some level of maturity. During competitive bidding activities, customers are now asking contractors to show how mature their organization is with regard to project management. Maturity assessments could be the difference between winning and losing a potential contract.
• Q2: Which industries are making the greatest strides toward maturity?
• First of all, it is questionable if maturity can ever be accurately defined or measured because saying that you are mature in project management might imply that there is no further room for improvement. This can lead to complacency and a loss of competitiveness. But if I were asked which industries appear to be more mature than others, I would begin with project-driven companies that rely on competitive bidding for their revenue stream and must sell their delivery system as well as the expected project outcomes. They have come to the realization that they must try to remain more mature in project management than their customers simply to stay in business. As companies become more mature, tremendous pressure is exerted on their supplier base to improve in project management, and organizational maturity assessment information is appearing as a requirement in the RFP. In fact, reaching certain maturity levels in project management has now become a competitive weapon during competitive bidding activities. In general, organizations where projects have profit expectations and the project manager is responsible for generating the profits appear to mature faster than organizations where there are no profit margins assigned to projects.
• Q3: What can companies just starting out on the maturity process learn from those leading the pack?
• It is always better to learn from the mistakes of others rather than from your own mistakes. Several lessons can be learned. First, strategic planning for project management maturity is essential, even a necessity. Without guidance from some sort of project management maturity (strategic planning) model, achieving maturity could take decades as you learn from your own mistakes. All project management maturity models, in my opinion, are a form of strategic planning. Second, there must be a corporate commitment (especially at the executive levels) for maturity to occur, and the executives must see the value in achieving a defined level of maturity in a reasonable time frame. There are assessment questions on this in the PMMM. Third, there must exist a dedicated organization that drives the maturity process, and this normally becomes the responsibility of the project management office (PMO). Companies where PMOs take the lead in the assessment and continuous improvement processes generally reach levels of maturity more quickly than those that do not have any involvement by the PMO.
• Q4: Should every company be pursuing maturity? What keeps some companies back?
• Given the fact that many executives today view their company as being a stream of projects, the project management approach permeates the entire organization, mandating that maturity is necessary. Only those companies that want to stay in business and remain competitive should pursue maturity. The alternative is rather unpleasant.
• Pursuing and even obtaining some degree of maturity does not guarantee that business will improve. The company must still make realistic and practical business decisions, and executives must visibility promote the continuation of project management excellence.
• Q5: What would prevent a company from achieving the height of maturity?
• Other than the behavioral issues I discussed before, several factors prevent companies from achieving maturity. These include: (1) executives not seeing the value in project management or in project management maturity; (2) executives not recognizing that project management maturity is now a competitive weapon; (3) executives not realizing the importance of project management maturity to customers and competitors; (4) executives not willing to establish a PMO to guide the maturity process; and (5) executives not willing to commit sufficient resources to achieving maturity. Obviously, there is a common theme in these five factors: executives. Hence, executive education has been a priority in recent years. Executives must see the return on investment as a result of using assessment instruments such as the PMMM. There are assessment questions on executive expectations and involvement in the PMMM. And once again, this emphasizes the importance of behavioral assessment.
• Q6: There are a number of available maturity models in the marketplace. How does a company choose the maturity model that's right for its needs?
• There are several PM maturity models in the marketplace. And while they all have a different approach, they all have the same ultimate objective: maturity! The decision of which model is best for a given company might be based on the time frame allotted, number of resources available for implementing changes that are needed, pressure from customers, maturity level of competitors, and whether the company is project- or non-project-driven.
• Today, there are numerous papers published as well as master's degree and Ph.D. theses that benchmark the various models. Even though I am somewhat partial to the PMMM, there are other models for maturity assessments that are equally as good or better for certain applications. What should be important is not necessarily what model you select but the fact that you are doing an assessment. In my opinion, all of the models in the marketplace provide some type of value if used properly.
• Q7: What components differentiate the best models from the pack?
• I think that two primary components must be considered: simplicity and assessment capability. Published articles on maturity model benchmarking may have dozens of components, many of which are industry specific. I prefer just these two components as starters. The prospect of using a complex maturity model may very likely scare away senior management because they may not be able to determine time frames or resources needed to achieve maturity. With maturity models, complexity breeds avoidance. With regard to capability, assessment instruments are needed to identify areas of improvement and show that progress is being made and that continuous improvements in project management are adding value to the business.
• Q8: What are the advantages and disadvantages of adopting a model using levels of maturity versus one that does not?
• Using a maturity model without levels is like managing a five-year project without life-cycle phases. There is often a lack of structure and discipline, possibly a lack of metrics, and no well-established decision points for corrective action. I certainly would not like to manage a project without these elements in place.
• Q9: How can a company maintain momentum after reaching a plateau?
• The answer to this question is simple: executive support, executive support, and executive support. Need I say more?
• Q10: How long and how much money does it typically take companies to reach the higher levels of maturity? Is it worth the investment in time and money? Can you prove it?
• It has been my experience that the single most important force for achieving higher levels of maturity (other than continuous executive support) is the early-on establishment of a PMO. The PMO becomes the major driver for the maturity process. Without a PMO, it may take three to five years to reach certain initial levels of maturity. With early establishment of a PMO, however, and the right people assigned to the PMO, it may take only two years or less. The problem with deciding upon a time frame for maturity is heavily based on someone's definition of maturity, the speed with which tools are either purchased or developed, and the commitment to the right levels of project management education. Any organization can develop all the tools necessary to achieve maturity. But if the organization does not understand the benefits and value of project management or the use of the tools, what has it really accomplished? Maturity is not just the development of tools or processes. Maturity is the effective use of these instruments, and continuous improvement in the use of these instruments using captured best practices. Whenever companies ask me whether the investment of time and money to obtain maturity is worth it, my response is simple. You know the amount of money needed to achieve a certain level of maturity. But what is the cost or opportunity loss of not achieving it? Is it possible for the opportunity loss to be at least an order of magnitude greater than the cost of achieving maturity? You bet!