For purposes of the survey, the authors adopted the PwC five-level maturity structure consisting of:
- Unreliable processes
- Informal processes
- Standardized processes
- Monitored processes
- Optimized processes
For purposes of project performance, the authors examined four core elements, namely:
The set of systematic and organized processes that are grouped into a project management methodology and whose attributes include: standardization and institutionalization; integration with corporate processes; project prioritization; standardized project life span; use of project portfolio techniques; and a continuous improvement mentality.
- Organizational structure
The way the organization is structured to accomplish its project management performance. Attributes included: resource ownership, i.e. staff and budgets; definition of clear roles and responsibilities; top management support; and the existence of a project support office.
The people management and team working skills throughout the hierarchy from the team member through the project manager to the project sponsor. Attributes included: project manager skills; the existence of development and training programs; a favorable organizational culture; motivation and incentives; and career opportunities.
- Automated systems and tools
The extent to which the organization uses systems and tools to automate part of their project management processes in support of project manager activities on the one hand and top management decision making on the other. Attributes included: Availability of company-wide software; the software actually use; areas reported on such as program and project management, capacity management, cost tracking, and benefit realization.
From the data collected, two essential indexes were calculated for purposes of the analysis: Maturity level and project management performance. Maturity level was calculated by combining the answers to thirty-three of the survey questions. However, project management performance was computed by aggregating elements of individual performance measured as a percentage of projects delivered on time, within budget, to scope and that delivered business benefits. Presumably the issue of quality of the products was factored into the business benefits. Even so, business benefits are not always immediately measurable, may be subject to optimistic forecasting, and seem to have been treated lightly.
To aggregate these indices by industry sector, the authors chose the following groupings:
- Consumer and Industrial Products and Service (CIPS) which includes: Automotive, Energy, Manufacturing, Retail and Professional Services and represented by 53% of those surveyed.
- Financial Services (FS) representing 17%
- Technology, Information, Communication and Entertainment representing 16%
- Public Sector (PS) representing 8%, and
- Pharmaceuticals (Pharma) representing 6%
The criteria for these groupings are not reported and one should certainly look for similarities in the work involved. On this basis the inclusion of professional services in CIPS comes as a surprise when FS would appear more akin. Indeed, some of the findings reported suggest that it is misplaced in that the degree of projectization of these companies was much higher than the remainder.
2. For a brief description of each level, see the
PwC Report, p6