How does organizational culture affect project management methodology implementation?

Overview on Project management and organizational culture

According to PMBOK Guide (2008, p.5), presenting a global standard of project management, “A project is a temporary endeavor undertaken to create a unique product, service or result”, while “Project management is the application of knowledge, skills, tools, and techniques to project activities to meet the project requirements” (PMBOK Guide 2008, p.6). The above description provides a possibility to differentiate a project from operational work. Project management seems to be a relatively young area of knowledge, though its roots are go far into ancient ages, when management of unique activities happened, e.g. construction of pyramids (Cicmil 2009, p.79). Nevertheless, the modern PM appeared with formation of the society of large-scale projects, standardization and bureaucracy (Cicmil 2009, p.79).

Besides project management, there are also higher levels of control – program and portfolio management. The complexity increases from project to program and then – to portfolio management (PMBOK Guide 2008, p.7).

There is a number of reports describing importance of project management for organizations in terms of increase in resources control and transparency, decrease in risk (Cicmil 2009, p.80), (Cervone 2006). But these are qualitative descriptions that are always subjective and raise additional concerns. There are also quantitative measures of project management efficacy established in construction business: “a 10% reduction in the schedule for a typical project should result in a 3% cost saving to the owner of the project” (Modern management systems 1992, p.11).

Though having a positive influence on organization performance, implementation of a new PM methodology may face serious roadblocks. Nguyen (2007, p.1) mentions the following barriers for successful projects executions in developing countries: slow adaptation to project management techniques, political and social systems, cultural blocks and lack of financial support. Poor project performance is explained in the first place by lack of effective project management training for project managers (Nguyen 2007, p.1). The other serious obstacle for successful project management systems implementation is lack of senior management support due to fear to loose their control over projects, and their concept of “inapplicability” of the project management methodology, that is related to transparency and accountability aspects of managing projects. Besides, the following areas appeared to be important obstacles: lack of team work, ineffective management of subcontractors, rigid vertical organization structures (Nguyen 2007, p.2). Most of the obstacles listed have origin in organizational culture.

Implementation of a new methodology is an example of change management (Change management 2010). And as Graham wrote, success in implementation of organizational changes rests mostly on people’s costbenefit analysis: people accept changes easily in case they see some personal benefits and they reject it if they don’t (Graham, 1989, p.209). This should lead us to a conclusion that organizational culture is the main factor, influencing project management methodology implementation, especially considering another “project” definition that includes people – “A project is a set of people and other resources temporarily assembled to reach a specified objective, normally with a fixed budget and within a fixed time period.” (Graham 1989, p.1).

It is obvious, that a project manager cannot be the only responsible for success or failure of projects and PM methodology implementation. Each project is influenced by a wide number of factors including: project manager, project team, stakeholders, objectives and scope, communication, risks… (Carmichael 2003, p.7). In fact, PM methodology implementation is strongly affected by organizational culture (Mochal 2003). For example, employees may feel free to avoid following standard project processes and fail to do thing in time without any fear to be punished. This illustrates that training project managers within organization is only one example of culture influence, others are: process orientation, governance (how employees follow processes), roles and responsibilities of employees, company structure (Mochal 2003). Harold Kerzner even proposed an idea that “project management is a culture, not policies and procedures” (2004, p. 366). In this regard Andersen conclude that “the project manager must quickly develop a suitable organizational culture within the project” (2001, p.1). It is also important that the project manager takes into account culture of different organizations and even sub-cultures of the departments involved into the project (Elmes & Wilemon, cited in Andersen 2001, p.1). In Graham’s opinion project management in mainly about managing people, rather than processes (Graham, 1989, p.viii). Moreover, the author wrote that project managers can only be successful, if they are able to motivate people and coordinate project activities with people’s values, so that projects help achieve personal goals. In this regard teamwork gains the most attention. Kerzner supports this opinion defining that successful project management is not about creating paperwork, but about executing the methodology by the corporate culture, which transforms into cooperative culture in a company excellent in project management (2001, p.81). Though Kerzner points out that cooperative cultures require effective management support at all levels (2004, p. 77).

Organizational culture is defined more or less as environment of interaction between different people – rules, norms, leadership, structures, routines that “guide and constrain behavior” (Schein 2004, p. 1). Hofstede described culture as “software of the mind” – “patterns of thinking, feeling and acting mental programs” (2005, p. 3). Organizational culture provides “internal” and “external integration” helping employees to deal with each other and the organization – with the external environment (Daft 2006, p. 424). Daft mentioned that organizations seriously face culture when they try to implement new strategies or programs that interfere with their basic norms and values (2006, p. 423). Organizational culture types and dimensions were thoroughly discussed in the works of Hofstede, Deal and Kennedy, Handy, Schein, Carmazzi (Organizational culture 2009).

Schein defined organizational culture as follows: “culture is a way in which a group of people solves problems and reconciles dilemmas” (cited in Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner 1998, p.6). By Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner “culture comes in layers, like an onion” and cultural “norms and beliefs sink down into semi-awareness” (1998, p.6). The core of the onion is unquestioned reality, what is taken for granted (1998, p.7).

Johnson and Scholes proposed a structured model for description of organizational culture that gave a possibility to explore it from different perspectives, so that ways to effectively influence it can be developed (Johnson & Scholes 1992, cited in The Cultural Web 2010).

The cultural web by Johnson & Scholes

Picture 1. The Cultural Web (Johnson & Scholes 1992, cited in The Cultural Web 2010).

The six elements presented on the picture above (Picture 1) provide grounds for influencing the cultural paradigm.

“The six elements are:

1. Stories – The past events and people talked about inside and outside the company. Who and what the company chooses to immortalize says a great deal about what it values, and perceives as great behavior.

2 Rituals and Routines – The daily behavior and actions of people that signal acceptable .behavior. This determines what is expected to happen in given situations, and what is valued by management.

3. Symbols – The visual representations of the company including logos, how plush the offices are, and the formal or informal dress codes.

4. Organizational Structure – This includes both the structure defined by the organization chart, and the unwritten lines of power and influence that indicate whose contributions are most valued.

5. Control Systems – The ways that the organization is controlled. These include financial systems, quality systems, and rewards (including the way they are measured and distributed within the organization.)

6. Power Structures – The pockets of real power in the company. This may involve one or two key senior executives, a whole group of executives, or even a department. The key is that these people have the greatest amount of influence on decisions, operations, and strategic direction.” (Johnson & Scholes 1992, cited in The Cultural Web 2010)

Asking questions to yourself, the employees, company partners and customers about the above six elements of the Paradigm helps to build a complete picture of the current organizational structure (Johnson & Scholes 1992, cited in The Cultural Web 2010). Further on this picture is used in order to organize change management initiative, correcting the strategic direction of the organization. Change management tools were also described in detail by Johnson and Scholes (Johnson & Scholes 1999, p.2).

Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner examine culture within three categories and seven dimensions (1998, pp.8-10).

1. Relationships with people

o Universalism versus particularism

o Individualism versus communitarianism

o Neutral versus emotional

o Specific versus diffuse

o Achievement versus ascription

2. Attitudes to time

o Attitudes to time

3. Attitudes to the environment

o Attitudes to the environment

The four types of organizational culture can be described as follows (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner 1998, p.158).

1. The family

2. The Eiffel Tower

3. The guided missile

4. The incubator

These four cultures are best understood on the Picture 2 below (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner 1998, p.159).

Four types of organizational culture by Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner

Picture 2. Four types of organizational culture (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner 1998, p.159).

“Three aspects of organizational structure are especially important in determining corporate culture (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner 1998, p.157).

1. The general relationship between employees and their organization.

2. The vertical or hierarchical system of authority defining superiors and subordinates.

3. The general views of employees about the organization’s destiny, purpose and goals and their places in this.”

The four culture types appear on a kind of cultural “plane” based on egalitarian – hierarchical and person – task oppositions. Family culture represents close “family” relationships between employees, but it is also highly hierarchical, where power is accumulated in hands of “fathers” (managers or owners). A lot of information is taken for granted and “father” “elders” always dominate the opinion. The Eiffel tower culture is impersonal. It is much about clear roles, rules and bureaucracy. It can be compared with military organization. The guided missile culture is also impersonal and task oriented like the Eiffel tower. But it is egalitarian at the same time, which means that roles do not mean much. People change roles and do whatever and how they like in order to reach the goal. Means are less important. So, this culture tends to motivation and enthusiasm. The incubator culture is “self-fulfillment” and “self-expression”. It frees employees from routine and aims on creativity at work. Emotions and spontaneous ideas are norms for such a culture. The incubator is a personal and egalitarian culture that focuses on innovation (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner 1998, p.158-177).

Harrison and Handy (cited in Andersen, 2001, p.2) developed a quite similar to Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner typology of cultures: power, role, task, person. Power culture can be closely compared to the Family, Role culture to the Eiffel tower, Task culture – to the Guided missile and Person culture – to the Incubator (Andersen, 2001, p.2).

The plane of organizational culture is also presented in a work of William Schneider (cited in Suda, 2007, p.4). His plane is based on axes of oppositions actuality – possibility (what content organization prefers) and personal – impersonal (process of making decisions by an organization), which results in four core culture types: cultivation, competence, control and collaboration.

These four core cultures by Schneider are not too far from Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner and Harrison and Handy models described above: Control – Eiffel tower Role, Competence – Guided missile Task, Cultivation – Incubator Person, Collaboration – Family Power. Though being characterized by open and direct communications Collaboration culture differs clearly from Family and Power culture models, which have strong vertical power axis supporting “fathers” or “elders” (Suda, 2007, p.6).

The models by Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner and Harrison and Handy overlap with the Culture Paradigm by Johnson and Scholes on the elements of Control Systems, Organizational and Power structures, which makes possible to use both models for triangulation purposes. But such elements as Stories, Rituals and routines and Symbols remain unique and can be figured out only with the use of the Paradigm model (The cultural web 2010). Still these elements can play its role in project management. As an example, Craig gives a recommendation “Ritualize your job life” (2005). Craig mentions that rituals should be followed by the project manager rather than fought against. The idea by Craig refers to the nature of the project manager’s job, which supposed leadership. But to lead means to understand people’s mind and emotions, while usage of established rituals provide such tools (Craig 2005).

Though organizational culture got a lot of attention in management and academic literature, Burchell and Gilden noticed (Burchell & Gilden 2008, p.1052) that project management literature paid little attention to cross-cultural aspects. There is also no consensus yet about project management culture (PMC) definition and assessment tools (Du Plessis, Hoole 2006, p.44). Project management is considered mostly processes rather than people oriented, so that cultural issues and social activities necessary for successful projects implementation are ignored (Burchell & Gilden 2008, p.1053). Moreover authors of an article in PM Network postulated that “project management methodologies neutralize cultural differences and promotes one standard everyone can model” (No boarders 2005, p.35).

Du Plessis & Hoole proposed the following dimensions for project management culture assessment: project process, people in project, project systems and structure, project environment. The authors based their concept on a basic definition of organizational culture, proposed by Deal and Kennedy: “the way we do things around here” (Du Plessis, Hoole 2006, p.44).

Burchell and Gilden discussed an issue of interaction between western project managers and their Asian project team. In their work they chose a cultural model proposed by Kets and Vries (Kets & Vries, cited in Burchell & Gilden 2008, p.1055) that consisted of 9 dimensions and 18 continua: environment, action orientation, emotion, language, space, relationships, power, thinking, and time. The highest gaps in cultural dimensions between western project managers and their Asian team members were associated with power, time, emotion, and thinking (Burchell & Gilden 2008, p.1062). The authors concluded that the “Wheel of cultures” model by Kets and Vries could be used for further cross-cultural studies in project management (Burchell & Gilden 2008, p.1063).

PM methodology implementation is tightly connected to project management maturity (PMM) – a measure for companies’ status and progress in project management implementation. It was proposed by Harold Kerzner (2001) and gained substantial interest, so that more 35 PMM assessment models were created (Warrilow 2009). Increase in PMM is claimed to “establish sustainable PMC” (Advancing Project Management Maturity Results in Improved Organizational Performance 2006).

Project management maturity models are instruments to appraise ability of organizations to successfully manage projects (Harrison, M et al. 2003, p.1). There are six levels of maturity: Level 0 – No process, Level 1 – Awareness process, Level 2 – Repeatable process, Level 3 – Defined process, Level 4 – Managed process, Level 5 – Optimized process (Warrilow 2009), (OGC 2008). Though PMMM gives a useful quantitative tool, it should not supersede behavioral component of PM implementation, which is usually done by senior managers (Kerzner 2004, p.367). Project management maturity is also sometimes confused with project management culture. Scott (2009, p. 9) writes that “OPM3®[1] is a foil for clarifying what the Project Management culture is and how this culture can contribute to the business bottomline”. At the same time, PM maturity is more about processes rather than culture.

There is also another example of substitution project culture by project processes. Palmer et al. (2002) described establishing of project culture by modeling good project practices including such standards as project initiation, definition, analysis of issues, etc… At the same time, even though this approach corresponds to such representations of culture as regulations, norms and structures, this doesn’t correspond to wider definition of culture by Hofstede – “patterns of thinking, feeling and acting mental programs” (Hofstede 2005, p.3).

Considering influence of cross-cultural specific behavior on projects realization, Gregory, Prifling and Beck discussed emergence of “negotiated culture” that “can be defined as the sum of compromises and innovations that are negotiated around those differences in behaviors and expectations that are problematic in a given cross-cultural setting” (2008, p.224). In short, this means formation of a subculture within a group of natives and foreigners, which gives them a possibility to communicate effectively. The authors refer to a concept of cultural intelligence or CQ (Gregory, Prifling & Beck 2008, p.225) that describes “person’s capability to adapt effectively to new cultural contexts” (Earley, cited in Gregory, Prifling & Beck 2008, p.225). Or by another definition CQ is “a capability to interact effectively with others from different cultural backgrounds, or the outcome of these interactions” (Ang & Van Dyne 2008, p.109).

The cultural intelligence model consists of three dimensions: cognitive, motivational and behavioral. The first dimension illustrates “person’s understanding of culture-specific behavior” and includes learning of the foreign culture principles. The second one represents motivation factors and attitude of individuals towards cross-cultural interaction. It can be also presented as curiosity towards a new culture. The behavioral dimension defines behavioral patterns adopted by an individual in order to effectively participate in cross-cultural communications (Gregory, Prifling & Beck 2008, p.226). Cultural intelligence can be measured with the use of Cultural intelligence scale developed by Cultural Intelligence Center (Cultural Intelligence Center 2005). Although the concept of cultural intelligence was developed and used for study of cross-cultural interactions, it seems logical that it can be used to study project management culture, which can be considered “foreign” in this context. So, that “project culture intelligence” model is introduced.

Project culture intelligence should be distinguished from Project Intelligence, which is understood as project analysis using Business Intelligence techniques. Special software is developed for Project intelligence purposes (Ou 2007, p.267). For example, such software provides tools for tracking bug fixing, feature requests, provision of project status, etc…

So far, the author was unable to find any mentions of Project cultural intelligence (PCQ) in the literature. This means that the term is first time introduced in the current study.

Intelligence is a complex term covering a set of mind’s abilities and skills like learning, abstract thought, communication and understanding people, managing body muscles, comprehending ideas… There are several definitions of Intelligence. One of them is the following:

“A very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings — “catching on”, “making sense” of things, or “figuring out” what to do.” (Mainstream Science on Intelligence 1994, cited in Wikipedia 2010)

Mike Fleetham (2006, p.16) quotes a range of definitions of Intelligence given by scientists, advisors, writers and psychologists, all different from each other. Among these definitions one state that “Intelligence is what intelligence tests test” (Fleetham 2006, p.17), showing how narrow understanding of this phenomenon can be.

Howard Gardner in his work “Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences” (1983, cited in Wikipedia 2010 a) proposed a so called Multiple Intelligence theory. This theory claims that there are several types of intelligence covering different types of human mind abilities. These intelligences are: logical mathematical, verbal linguistic, visual spatial, musical rhythmic, kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, naturalist. Besides, existential intelligence was added by Gardner later on (Fleetham 2006, pp.25-32).

Along with the “classical” intelligences a number of other types developed during the last decades – social, cultural, emotional intelligences. Earley and Ang (2003, p.xii) clarify that these are about understanding interpersonal interactions.

“Cultural intelligence, cultural quotient or CQ, is a theory within management and organizational psychology, … measuring an individual’s ability to engage successfully in any environment or social setting.” (Wikipedia 2010 b). Taking this as a basis one could define Project Culture Intelligence as “a theory measuring an individual’s ability to engage successfully in any project environment or setting”.

Project management maturity models

Maturity models are tools describing organization’s effectiveness at performing certain tasks, particularly at the Software industry (Crawford 2002, p.1).

The widely used Project management maturity models are – Project management maturity model introduces by OGC, which assesses processes derived from PRINCE2 methodology (OGC 2008, p.129) and Project management maturity model, which assesses knowledge areas obtained from PMBOK Guide (Crawford 2002, p.4). The maturity concept is used not only for project management assessment, but also broadened to program and portfolio areas in the multiple standards set by OGC (2010 b).

The level of maturity of processes or knowledge areas may be graded with the use of Software Engineering Institute’s 5 levels of maturity scale (Crawford 2002, p.4) or four stages of Process improvement – “standardizing, measuring, controlling, continuously improving” (Frahrenkrog et al. n.d., p.6).

In its Project management maturity models description (P3M3 Maturity Models n.d., p.2) OGC notes that organizations can bring poor and perfect results even having low level of Project management maturity. But in such a case they are highly dependent on certain people or groups that realize these projects. Increase in maturity level is a way to mitigate project risks and make project success a routine rather than luck.

The OGC’s Project management maturity model (PjM3) is built upon seven process perspectives taken from PRINCE2 methodology.

– Management Control – assesses how well the organization maintains control of its projects.

– Benefits Management – assesses how well the organization defines, tracks and ensures that investment leads to improvements in performance.

– Financial Management – assesses how well the organization manages and controls the investment through budgetary control.

– Stakeholder Management – assesses how well the relation with project stakeholders’ are managed.

– Organizational Governance – assesses how well the organization controls the alignment of its projects with the corporate strategy.

– Risk Management – assesses how well the organization defines and deals with the impact of threats and opportunities.

– Resource Management – assesses how well the organization utilizes and develops the opportunities from the supply chain (P3M3 Maturity Models n.d., p.3).

It’s obvious that PjM3 model is focused more on integration between project and organizational goals rather than on project processes.

The model described by Crawford (and developed by PM Solutions) is build upon nine PMBOK’s knowledge areas (Crawford 2002, p.4).

– Project integration management – is about identifying, defining, combining, unifying and coordinating the various processes and project management activities.

– Project scope management

– Project time management

– Project cost management

– Project quality management

– Project human resource management

– Project communications management

– Project risk management

– Project procurement management (PMBOK Guide 2008, p.43)

The PM Solution’s model is focused on the project itself and less on its embedment into general organizational structure. Though there is another representation of this model (Organizational Project management maturity model, or OPM3) that concentrates on assessment of PMBOK’s process groups – Initiating, Planning, Executing, Controlling, Closing (Fahrenkrog et al. n.d., p.5). In the current research OPM3 model in Fahrenkrog’s definition will not be considered further on due to difficulty of its practical application.

PM Solutions’ PM3 originated from SEI Capability Maturity Model Integration (Crawford 2002, p.5), which is widely used nowadays in order to improve organizational performance and its business processes (SEI n.d.a). CMMI is a collection of models for different business areas – CMMI for Services, CMMI for Acquisitions, CMMI for Development. Besides proposing methods for maturity assessments, CMMI presents techniques to audit maturity appraisals (SEI n.d.b). “The system assists the SEI Appraisal Program in its three functions: appraisal quality control; training, authorizing, and providing resources for Lead Appraisers; and monitoring and reporting appraisal results.” (SEI n.d.c)

Tarne (2007) also referred to an overview of the PM Solutions model supplying it with recommendations on how to improve project management maturity level. He proposed three steps of the improvement:

  1. Determine the ideal maturity level for the organization,
  2. Assess the current level of maturity,
    • Conducting interviews with key project resources and project managers,
    • Reviewing project documentation,
    • Completing thorough surveys to assess the degree to which the processes are defined and followed,
  3. Create an Improvement Plan.

Determination of the ideal maturity level for the organization is an important decision, because each level increase is resource consumable in terms of time, effort and even budget. The organization should balance costs and benefits. For example, transition from the level 3 to 4 needs integration of the project management practices with corporate systems (Tarne 2007).

As showed by the Center for Business Practices (CBP), increase in the project management maturity level by one point results in performance benefits, customer satisfaction, schedule performance, cost performance, project quality and many other areas (Tarne 2007).

Another PMMM is described by Kerzner (2001). He gave one of the most comprehensive methodology for project management maturity assessment. The proposed model includes lists of questions on each of the maturity levels. Each question list in the Kerzner’s model contain up to 80 question blocks consisting of 5 bullet-points to choose. The core difference of the PMMM proposed by Kerzner from the standard PMMM developed OGC (see above) is the idea of overlap between maturity levels (Kerzner 2001, p.43). This leads to a difference in project management maturity assessment. Kerzner proposes to appraise where the company is positioned within each level of maturity starting from the Level 1. In case the organization gathers enough points on the level 1, the level 2 positioning can be assessed (Kerzner 2001, p.66). But it is still possible that all maturity levels are overlapped at the company (2001, p.45). The levels 3, 4 and 5 form a continuous improvement cycle, so that there is a feedback between them (see Picture 3). This gives a possibility for the company to develop a distinctive approach for development on each maturity level rather than grow sequentially from the level to level (2001, p.43). Kerzner notes that “the magnitude of the overlap is based upon the amount of risk the organization is willing to tolerate” (2001, p.43).

Project management maturity by Kerzner

Picture 3. Overlapping levels and feedback among the five levels of project management maturity (Kerzner 2001, p.44).

Along with the standardized Maturity models described above, there are analogues models developed specifically for the certain conditions (Wazed and Ahmed 2009), though they are not relevant for the current study.

Fusion of project management assessment models

As mentioned above, different project management maturity models describe project management from different perspectives – processes and management. There were no sources found in the literature, where these methods are used together in order to make a comprehensive overview of the organizational project management levels. Cultural models used by different authors can also describe only the organizational level of the culture. At the same time, project management methodology implementation is an example of change management, where the latter is defined as “a structured approach to transitioning individuals, teams, and organizations from a current state to a desired future state” (Wikipedia 2010 c). Graham mentioned that organizational change can be only successful when people accept it (1989, p.209). And Heathfield wrote that the last and the most difficult step of change management is shift in people’s behavior (2010). This supposes that project management implementation should take into account also behavior of the project stakeholders. It is obvious that analysis on each separate level (organizational – managers and processes – employees) cannot give a comprehensive view of the situation. Organizational level analysis doesn’t cover processes and behavior of individuals and cannot lead to recommendations on making current success a repeatable story. Vice versa, the analysis on processes and individuals’ level doesn’t show, if these processes lead to what the organization considers a success.

To overcome the above issue, the author developed a model integrating project management from both representations – organizational and processes. The model includes assessment of the organizational culture, project culture intelligence, Project management maturity on the organizational level, Project management maturity on the processes level. Besides, customers’ opinion is taken into account (Project management maturity on the customers’ level). The model is presented on the Picture 4.

5 pillars of the project management audit by Pereverzev

Picture 4. Five Pillars of the Project Management Audit – “5PMA model” (© Pereverzev M.O.).

This model is based on the axis of Culture-Processes, Employees-Organization, Customers that represent the space, where project manager operates. Processes are the essence of the project management. It is the employees who use the processes in their routine work, but in order to support sustainable processes the employees should accept the correspondent culture on personal level (project culture intelligence) and form a negotiated organizational culture. At the same time, the project management methodology can be only of use in case it is appreciated by the customers, which provide the goal to all the organization’s work. The author proposes a concept of the Project Management Space, or PMS©, in order to describe unity of these five basic notions (Picture 5).

Project management space by Pereverzev

Picture 5. Project management space, PMS (©Pereverzev M.O.).

In order to conduct the study in accordance with the design, the author chose relevant methods mentioned in the Literature review (Table 1).

Origin of the assessment methods proposed by Pereverzev

Table 1. Origin of the assessment methods used in the research.

[1] OPM3 – organizational project management maturity model

The 5PMA model is based on the PMS concept and differs from other previously known project management models giving a possibility to comprehensively assess the organization from the top to the bottom based on the Project Management Space© axes: culture, processes, employees, organization and customers. The 5PMA model is developed on the basis of the previously known separate assessment models: Project management maturity, Organizational and Project culture, Culture intelligence. The value of the 5PMA model was proved during the study.

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Linkedin
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit
Share On Stumbleupon
Loading Facebook Comments ...
0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *