OPM3™ in a CMM world
EDS Ireland's (a CMM13 organisation) experience with OPM3™
Alan Coates, Project Manager, EDS
Stephen McGarry, Project Manager, EDS
Based on EDS Ireland's experience with the maturity models –Software Engineering Institute's Capability Maturity Model® for Software (SW-CMM®) and the Project Management Institute's Organisational Project Management Maturity Model (PMI® OPM3), the model frameworks and assessment methods of each are compared. The best practices of the OPM3 model are mapped against the key process areas of the repeatable and defined maturity levels of the CMM model. Based on the results of an OPM3 self-assessment, the company uses it's OPM3 – CMM mapping process to identify OPM3 best practices achieved that can be directly attributed to the company operating at CMM level 3. The paper predicts where a CMM L3 organisation should expect to reside on the overall OPM3 maturity continuum. Finally viewpoints are outlined of both models from the perspective of model framework, ease of use and selling factor.
The Random House Dictionary defines maturity as “full development or perfected condition”. The term can have either positive or negative connotations, but in the context of maturity models, it is always desirable. All maturity models describe a process whereby something desirable can be developed or achieved. A maturity model or road map describing targets for capability development and paths leading to one's target can be invaluable (Schlichter, 2002). Since the mid nineties there has been substantial work undertaken in the development of project management maturity models and their subsequent use to benchmark project management capability. This paper examines EDS Ireland's experiences with two maturity models - SEI CMM and Project Management Institute (PMI) OPM3. EDS Ireland is certified as operating at Software CMM level 3. Therefore, the focus of this paper is on the SEI Software CMM model. Other SEI maturity models – People CMM and Integrated CMM are not considered in this report. After briefly outlining the literature on maturity models, the frameworks and the assessment methods of the two standards are compared. The best practices of OPM3are then mapped to key process areas within CMM, and the level of influence that CMM level 3 certification has on achieving OPM3best practices is examined. The paper concludes with viewpoints on the models from the perspective of framework, ease of use, and selling factor.
The literature on Project Maturity Models
There is widespread concurrence that the concept of project management maturity models is based on the Software Engineering Institutes Software Capability Maturity Model (SEI -SW CMM) that was developed in 1993. (Pennypacker & Grant, 2003; Rosenstock, Johnston & Anderson: 2000, Skulmoski, 2001; Fincher, 1997; Hillson, 2001). Rosenstock et al, acknowledge that CMM has been reused for the development of many other maturity models in many fields including project management. To date there are estimated to be over 30 maturity models currently serving the market place (Cooke- Davies, Schlichter, & Bredillet, 2001). Rosenstock et al (2000) listed 23 capability maturity model resources that covered quality and project management. However project management has not yet settled on any one standard model, and despite the arrival of PMI OPM3, the future for an agreed standard is uncertain.
Project management maturity model frameworks
Peterson (2000) describes a project management maturity model as a logical framework that defines different levels of project management capability, which can be used to:
- Determine what capability an organization desires to achieve;
- Delve into the details to understand what must be accomplished to achieve given levels of capability;
- Establish goals, objectives and develop the implementation plan.
Hillson (2001) sees a project management maturity model's function as providing a structured route to excellence in project management and Kerzner (2001, p41) states the model should assist companies in performing strategic planning for projects. He notes that organizations tend to perform strategic planning for new products and services by laying out a well thought out plan and then executing the plan with the precision of a surgeon. Unfortunately, strategic planning for project management, if performed at all, is done on a trial-by-fire basis. Johnston (2003, p7-9) also notes that in a competitive landscape, firms are recognising the value of establishing measurements and indicators that provide a perspective on overall performance against strategic objectives. Project management maturity models provide an assessment framework that enables an organisation to compare its project delivery with best practice or against its competitors (Hillson, 2001).
Levin, et al (1999, p9) states that organisations improve business and technical performance by analysing three interrelated components- people, processes and technology. Detailed models help identify performance characteristics of these components at various stages of growth and provide an integrated approach to manage these three components throughout the organisation. Suares (1998) is of the view that maturity can be analysed and measured, with a good place to start being a model. A model, as a representation of a process, makes the latter easier to grasp and manipulate by reducing it to its essential elements. According to Suares a good maturity model serves to assess organisations in their current state of project management maturity, as well as to delineate the path of improvement and establish a mechanism for reassessment. Against this background, project management sophistication and maturity is expanding at a fast pace and now maturity models are assisting in performing strategic planning. Recognition of the importance of maturity models has been the six-year work of the Project Management Insititute, which has culminated in the development of the OPM3model.
OPM3 and CMM
Although the goals of SEI CMM is software process improvement, inherent in the improvement process is increasing project management capability. The maturity levels of repeatable (level 2) and defined (level 3) focus on increasing project management maturity. Thus we can say that both models have a common goal of project management improvement. However their approach towards achieving increased project management maturity is fundamentally different.
CMM – A series of evolutionary steps within levels
The CMM model views a software process as a set of activities, methods, practices and transformations that people employ to develop and maintain software and the associated products. For CMM continuous process improvement is based on many small, evolutionary steps rather than revolutionary innovation, and thus the model provides a framework for organising these evolutionary steps into five maturity levels that lay successive foundations for continuous improvement. (Paulk et al, 1995, p15). This five level approach is the key structure of the CMM model, with the key advantage put forward being that it helps an organisation prioritise its improvement efforts.
The five levels of CMM are initial, repeatable, defined, managed and optimising. The model offers a singular sequential view of maturity progression (Exhibit 1). Excluding level 1, each level is decomposed into a number of key process areas. A key process area (KPA) identifies the issues that must be addressed to achieve a maturity level. Each KPA is made up of a cluster of related activities, that when performed collectively, achieve a set of goals considered important for enhancing process capability. To ‘achieve’ a key process area, all goals of the process area must be achieved and to ‘achieve’ a maturity level, all key process areas for the maturity level must be achieved. The model views a predecessor level as a foundation block for it's successor level, and declares that trying to skip levels are almost always counterproductive (Paulk, et al, 1995, p20).
OPM3 – A multidimensional approach
The best practices and capabilities of the OPM3 model are categorised against two key factors- domain and stage. Domain refers to the three domains of project management – project, programme and portfolio. Each best practice and capability is identified with one or more of these domains. The model introduces the concept of process improvement by following Deming's and Shewert's sequential stages of process improvement – standardise, measure, control and continuously improve. The model also includes the further categorisation of the five project management process groups – initiation, planning, executing, controlling, and closing. The result is a multi composite model consisting of organisational domains, process improvement stages and project management processes (Exhibit 2). In its approach to ‘maturity improvement’ the OPM3 model rejects the contemporary view of an overall system of ‘levels’ of maturity. It declares that the progression of increasing maturity designed into OPM3 consists of several dimensions, or different ways of looking at an organisation's maturity. (OPM3, 2003, p6). Increasing Maturity can be looked upon as:
- The progression of incremental capabilities leading to a best practice;
- The progression of best practices in terms of their association with sequential stages of process improvement;
- The progression of best practices against the domains of project, programme and finally portfolio management;
- The progression of capabilities against the five project management process groups (initiation, planning, executing, controlling and closedown).
Exhibit 1- The CMM Maturity levels
The standard itself declares that, taken as a whole, the dimensions constitute valuable reference points when an organisation assesses it's maturity in organisational project management and considers possible plans for improvement (OPM3, 2003, p6). OPM3 lists the advantages of the multidimensional approach to maturity as:
- Flexibility in applying the model to the unique needs of an organisation.
- Provision of a more robust body of information than is possible with a simpler linear system of levels, which in turn provides the organisation with greater detail in support of decision making and plans for improvement .
Schlicter (2002, p19) likens the model to a globe made up of varied organisational project management terrain and routes leading to possible destinations. This framework facilitates the travel by organisations to specific project management destinations, without (in Schlicter's words) having to traverse the entire globe or visit every possible destination.
Exhibit 2 – OPM3 Model
CMM Key practices and OPM3 Best practices
CMM states that key practices describe the activities and infrastructure that contribute most to the effective implementation and institutionalisation of the key process area (KPA) to which they belong. The OPM3 glossary defines a best practice as an optimal way, currently recognised by industry to achieve a stated goal or objective. Since a KPA is a cluster of related activities performed collectively to achieve a set of goals, the key practices of CMM can be viewed as activities or an ‘optimal way’ to achieve stated goals. However the context in which OPM3 best practices and CMM key practices are placed within their respective maturity models is very different (Exhibit 3).
- - In OPM3 a best practice is placed in a domain, stage or process, while in CMM the key practice is placed within a KPA linked to a specific maturity level.
- - OPM3 has a distinct best practice for each of the stages of process improvement. CMM on the other hand, categorises its key practices against five common features - commitment to perform, ability to perform, activities performed, measurement and analysis, verifying implementation.
Exhibit 3- Practice Context
OPM3 and CMM assessment tools
This paper contends that current CMM assessment methods have an advantage over the new OPM3 assessment method, by nature of the fact that the Standard has had many years to refine and enhance it's assessment methods. However the authors suggest that the OPM3 standard should reflect the direction the CMM assessment techniques have taken. Initially, like the new OPM3 standard, CMM relied on a self- assessment questionnaire to measure process maturity. This proved inadequate for assessing organisations and was replaced by accredited assessment teams. These teams may be internal or external to the organisation and conduct a comprehensive analysis of selected projects within an organisation, to verify the organisation is operating to a CMM maturity level. (Appendix A details the various types of CMM assessments). The fact that, in the preface of their standard book, OPM3 encourages practitioners and consultants to explore further possibilities for assessment and for managing organisational changes that are implied by the assessment, seems to indicate an expectation that more comprehensive and objective assessment methods will be developed to support the initial self assessment questionnaire.
EDS Ireland's experience with CMM and OPM3
CMM – A continuous improvement journey.
EDS Ireland's journey to maturity was a gradual process. Initially the company developed a local quality management system that formed the framework for gaining ISO 9001 certification in 1995. The company continued to use the local quality management system in the quest for CMM level 2 certification that began in February 1997, and was gained in July 1998.
Following the successful CMM level 2 assessment, EDS Ireland set a business goal to achieve CMM level 3 using EDS global tools and processes. In March 2001, the company gained CMM level 3 certification. Key success factors in gaining level 3 certification were:
- Implementation of comprehensive organisational methodologies and processes to drive EDS Ireland's quality and project management goals;
- A dedicated process improvement team;
- Ensuring EDS tools and processes became part of the EDS Ireland culture
- Providing intensive training;
- The ability to ‘tailor’ the organisational process set for each project's specific needs.
Since 2001, EDS Ireland has continued to enhance their project management methodologies and processes. The company was re-certified at CMM level 3 in March 2003.
Assessing EDS Ireland's maturity using OPM3
In their approach to using the OPM3 assessment tool, the authors selected nine members of the EDS Ireland team to complete the self-assessment questionnaire. The nine members covered the following functional area's – senior management, project management, delivery leaders, team leaders and productivity & process improvement. The selected group ensured that a broad sweep of EDS Ireland functional areas were included in the review.
For the nine respondents, statistical MODE was used to select the Yes/No answer for each of the 151 Questions. To measure the consistency of responses the report used Correlation Coefficient. A Correlation Coefficient is a number between -1 and 1, which measures the degree to which two variables are linearly related. If there is perfect linear relationship with positive slope between the two variables, we have a correlation coefficient of 1; if there is positive correlation, whenever one variable has a high (low) value, so does the other. If there is a perfect linear relationship with negative slope between the two variables, we have a correlation coefficient of -1; if there is negative correlation, whenever one variable has a high (low) value, the other has a low (high) value. A correlation coefficient of 0 means that there is no linear relationship between the variables. Correlation tests were taken of the replies between various respondents. The average result was 0.55, which indicates a positive correlation. Exhibit 4 also shows the high level of consistency in the responses of the nine people surveyed
Exhibit 4 - Consistency of assessment responses
The following is a summary of the assessment.
- EDS Ireland's overall maturity continuum was assessed at 69%.
- For the project domain EDS Ireland was assessed at achieving 98% of all OPM3 project best practices.
- For the programme domain EDS Ireland was assessed at achieving 87% of all OPM3 programme best practices.
- For the portfolio domain EDS Ireland was assessed at achieving 36% of all OPM3 portfolio best practices
- EDS Ireland was assessed at achieving 78% of the OPM3 standardise best practices
- EDS Ireland was assessed at achieving 63% of the OPM3 measure best practices
- EDS Ireland was assessed at achieving 64% of the OPM3 control best practices
- EDS Ireland was assessed at achieving 65% of the OPM3 improve best practices
The assessment indicated that EDS Ireland achieved 394 of the OPM3 best practices. Exhibit 5 illustrates the high level breakdown of best practices achieved across domains and stages. It also details the number of ‘achieved’ mapped KPA's within each domain and stage.
Exhibit 5 - Best practices achieved breakdown
Mapping OPM3 assessment to CMM
A central aim of this paper is to explore how the OPM3 standard relates to CMM and to establish what best practices achieved in the OPM3 assessment can be attributed to the organisation being certified at a CMM maturity level. To understand the relationship, the following analysis was conducted.
- CMM Mapping
The 394 best practices that were identified as existing in the organisation were mapped to a CMM Key Process Area. As EDS Ireland is certified at CMM Level 3, the mapping concentrated on the 13 key process areas that are associated with the repeatable (level 2) and defined (level 3) maturity levels. Exhibit 6 shows a snapshot of the mapping. The mapping exercise mapped
- 113 best practices to CMM level 2 key process areas.
- 262 best practices to CMM level 3 key process areas.
However 19 best practices were identified that could not be mapped to any level 2 or 3 CMM key process area. (Appendix B provides details of these 19 practices). Of these 19 practices
- 6 practices were identified that could possibly be mapped to key process areas within the managed and optimising levels of the CMM model.
- 13 practices had no identifiable relationship with any CMM key process area.
The 19 ‘unmapped ‘ practices, which the OPM3 assessment indicated as being achieved in EDS Ireland, were reviewed to ascertain if these practices actually existed in the organisation. The individual capabilities and outputs for each of the 19 best practices were studied and by general consensus amongst the authors it was established that 7 of the best practises identified by the OPM3 assessment tool as being achieved, were not evident in the organisation. These 7 practices were labelled ‘false positives’ for this reason.
- Cross Check
For the 7 ‘ false positive’ best practices, the specific assessment tool question that related to each of these best practices were assessed. On review, four of the questions related to multiple best practices. The authors therefore concluded that linking a question to multiple best practices could cause the assessment tool to indicate that an organisation has achieved best practices that in reality, it does not have.
Mapping exercise conclusions
It is important to make the following points regarding the mapping exercise.
- The exercise concentrated only on best practices identified as being achieved. It did not focus on best practices that were identified by the OPM3 assessment tool as not being present in the organisation. To balance the mapping, analysis needs to be done on these best practices.
- The exercise only concentrated on mapping OPM3 best practices to CMM level 2 and 3 key process areas.
- The exercise mapped OPM3 best practices to higher-level CMM key process areas. A more comprehensive mapping would be to map OPM3 best practices to CMM key practices. However mapping OPM3 best practices to CMM key process areas does not negate the findings of this study because the prescriptive nature of CMM, states that all key practices must be achieved within a key process area, if the organisation is recognised to having achieved that key process area.
Based on the exercise of mapping the best practices identified as being achieved by the OPM3 Assessment tool to the CMM model the authors established the following conclusions
- Organisations operating to level 3 maturity of the CMM standard, should expect to reach over 60% on the OPM3 maturity continuum scale. During the mapping exercise, EDS Ireland could attribute 375 of the 394 best practices it achieved to CMM level 2 and level 3 key process areas. This gives the authors a high degree of confidence that other CMM level 3 organisation should score a similar maturity continuum percentage as EDS.
- A CMM level 3 organisation should expect to achieve over 90% of the OPM3 best practices associated with the project domain. Exhibit 5 shows that EDS Ireland achieved 205 out of a total 206 project domain best practices
- It is not possible to exclusively associate best practices within an OPM3 domain, with a specific CMM maturity level. The study found that many of the best practices in the project domain were linked to Key processes areas of the Defined maturity level. (See Exhibit 5) Therefore an organisation should not assume, that operating to CMM level 2 would ensure achieving all best practices within the OPM3 project domain. There is definitely not a direct mapping of
- Best practices in the OPM3 project domain to the 6 key process areas in CMM level 2-Repeatable
- Best practices in the OPM3 programme domain to the 7 key process areas in CMM level 3-Defined
Exhibit 6 - CMM Mapping to OPM3
Viewpoints on the models
Based on their experiences with applying both model standards within their organisation, the authors have developed a number of viewpoints and critiques of the models. These are now outlined under the headings of frameworks, ease of use, and selling factor.
Framework of the models
Lubianker (2000) views the CMM model and those that imitate it as closed, in that they provide structured objective criteria that must be met at certain levels of maturity based on achieving specific goals. He states that this closed approach or framework
- Causes inflexibility,
- Does not allow for the continuous changes in project management structure that occur throughout an organisations existence,
His main criticism of CMM is that the categorisation of maturity into initial, repeatable, defined managed and optimising is for too crude of a measuring stick. Farrelly in his interview with Cabanis (1998) backs up the crudity of the measure. This report, while supporting Lubianker's view of a ‘closed’ approach, argues that maturity levels are a very effective method to improve maturity, in that they provide a clear and concise roadmap for a company to follow and help focus the improvement energies of the company. From their experience of using CMM, the authors concur with Remy's (1997) view that a five level-phased roadmap to improvement, removes confusion and also underscores Deming's contention that process improvement is a journey not an event.
PMI, in it's drive to distance itself from the maturity level approach, has developed a multi-dimensional model with an abundance of best practices. It suggests that the ‘array ‘ of maturity dimensions gives the model flexibility and also accommodates the uniqueness of each organisation. However this approach, makes the model very complex, and in this study's view, very difficult for an organisation with a low level of PM maturity to apply. In fact the authors contend that a prerequisite of using the model is a thorough understanding of PMI's Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide). The complexity of the model framework is further complicated, by the outputs of the assessment tool. Providing an organisation with a long list of best practices that they do not have is very daunting to that organisation, if the list is not accompanied by a structured road map for improvement. The approach offered by OPM3 - sorting the best practice directory, by domain and stage, to prioritise best practices to start implementing – is not sufficient method to plan for improvement. The authors suggest a more structured approach that incorporates the concept of ‘levels of maturity’. A proposed roadmap is outlined in the following section.
An OPM3 roadmap proposal
One idea for a structured approach to PM improvement is to use the SMCI levels to affect groupings in the three domains of project, programme, and portfolio to create a progressive roadmap. The idea would be for an organisation to concentrate in the project domain initially based on the premise that there is no point in an organisation trying to control it's programmes until it is properly controlling it's projects. The maturity levels of the structured improvement roadmap would be
Level 1 – Project Control: The organisation implements all the standardise best practices in the project domain to allow it build to the measure best practices and then to the control best practices of the project domain. Once the control best practices have been implemented the organisation can be said to have reached the first major maturity level milestone - Project Control.
Level 2 – Programme Control: After achieving project control, the organisation can then (and only then) proceed to implement in turn the standardise, measurement and control best practices of the programme domain, in order to reach the second major maturity level milestone -Programme Control.
Level 3 – Portfolio Control: Once programme control is reached the organisation can then proceed to implement in turn the standardise, measurement and control best practices of the portfolio domain in order to reach the third major maturity level milestone - Portfolio control.
The project control milestone is a prerequisite to achieving the programme control milestone and both the project control milestone and the programme control milestone are prerequisites to achieving the portfolio control milestone.
Continuous improvement: The authors view the improvement best practices as being “decoupled” from the strict sequential maturity level progression criteria that standardise, measure and control best practices must adhere to. In the roadmap, it is possible to proceed to the standardise best practices of the programme control level before achieving the improvement best practices of the project control level. However proceeding to the improvement best practices of the programme level is impossible without achieving project improvement best practices. The same logic holds for the portfolio level and programme improvement best practices. Exhibit 7 illustrates the roadmap.
Exhibit 7 - Proposed OPM3 Maturity levels
Ease of Use
The CMM model is in existence for many years, and as stated already, organisations have developed very strong practices to apply the model. Therefore, in assessing ease of use, this paper concentrates on the functionality of the new OPM3 model. Apart from the problems associated with the model's complexity, which are discussed in the previous paragraph, the authors find that
- The assessment questionnaire is tedious. The practice of asking the same repetitive questions for each domain, and for each stage within each domain, is very pedantic and off -putting.
- While acknowledging the need to protect against copyright infringement, the authors found that restriction of the OPM3 CD to a single PC, proved extremely limiting. In a large organisation, it will be very difficult to apply the tool, if distribution of assessment results is so restrictive.
- In order to maintain complete flexibility, the OPM3 has a separate best practice for each process improvement stage (SMCI). While one can accept that the improvement stage warrants a standalone best practice, the authors suggest that the other stages (SMC) could be rolled into one. It is rare that you would introduce a best practice standard effectively without measuring and controlling the best practice in parallel. This would greatly reduce the number of best practices and make the model easier to use.
Thomas, et al (2001) argue that to sell project management to executives, the ‘sellers’ must move away from selling specific features (tools & methods) and learn to reframe information in terms of benefits or values relative to the executives' priorities. This argument also applies to project management maturity models. In Thomas's word the values proposition must be stated in a context that executives will relate to. There must be a tight correlation between business goals and project management. Within OPM3 the domain of portfolio management is definitely of value to executives in that it supports strategic planning and ensures that selected projects are aligned to a company's strategic business goals. However the ‘bedrock’ of strong project and programme management must be in place before portfolio management can be effectively utilised by an organisation. Thus to sell the ‘immediate’ benefits of portfolio management, resulting from the adoption of OPM3, to the executives of a ‘low’ maturity organisation, is taking a considerable risk.
Bounds, in his interview with Canbanis (1998), makes the point that projects rarely worry about maturity, but organisations do. Organisations view maturity levels as a means to measure (and benchmark), and look at moving up levels in terms of what it is worth and business investment. It is the authors' view that the business value resulting from achieving a maturity level is the key driver for executives accepting the cost and effort of implementing a project maturity standard. The fact that OPM3 lacks clear and identifiable maturity levels will make it difficult to sell to organisations. Although maturity level framework model's have their weaknesses
- - Tonne (Cabanis, 1998), warns of the over focus on what level an organisation is at, and the dangers that companies may lose sight of the real purpose of the model – business improvement.
- - Koch (2004) highlights abuses of the model in the IT sector resulting from an over focus on levels.
the success of the CMM model supports the view that a levelled model and the accompanying certification process are easier to sell to senior executives than an open framework.
Using maturity models will help organisations improve their project management capabilities. Over the last 10 year the SEI-CMM standard has provided an extremely effective process improvement roadmap for the software industry. OPM3 is aiming to provide an equally effective improvement process for project management. This report has examined the oldest and the newest maturity model and found that they meet many of the traits and attributes of the frameworks advocated by Hillson, Suares, Peterson et al. The report does not favour one model over the other. It sees both as capable of adding value to an organisation's project management capability. By mapping the two models a CMM organisation can utilise the OPM3 standard to further improve its PM capabilities, particularly in the domain of programme and portfolio management.
There is still room for improvement. There is little focus in the models on people, culture and diversity, yet a clear understanding and correct inclusion of these factors in an organisation's project management improvement strategy is essential. Organisations must consider the role of politics and not overlook the influence of people (Pinto, 2000). Finally we must remember where project management and project management maturity models fit in the ‘big picture’ of the organisation. Crosby (Cabanis 1997) best sums it up in stating
“Project management is like quality management, its both more and less what it's cracked up to be… The real work happens outside the system …. the system is just the entertainments
Cabanis J. (1997, June). I'm the guru who was Wrong, PM Network, 1997, 11(6), 19.
Cabanis J., (1998, September) “ Show me the money”: A panel of experts dissects popular notions of measuring project management maturity', PM Network 12(9), 53.
Cooke-Davies, T, J. Schlichter and C. Bredillet, (2001, November). Beyond the PMBOK® Guide, Proceedings of the Project Management Institute Annual Seminars & Symposium, 200, Nashville, TN,
Fincher, A., (1997), September), Project Management Maturity Model, Proceedings of the Project Management Institute Annual Seminars & Symposium, Chicago, Illinois, Sept 29- Oct 1, 1997.
Hillson, D., (2001), November), Benchmarking Organisational Project Management Capability, Proceedings of the Project Management Institute Annual Seminars & Symposium, Nashville, Tenn., Nov. 1-10,2001
Johnston, R. (2003, Jan), Organisational Process Improvement- Project and Programme Management Maturity, Insight, 2003, p 7-9.
Kerzner, H., (2001), Strategic planning for project management using a project management maturity model, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley
Koch, C, (2004, March). Bursting the CMM hype, CIO Magazine, March 1, 2004. Retrieved from, from www.cio.com/archive/030104/cmm.html
Levin, G., G. M. Hill, P. Defilippis, J. leRoy Ward, P. Shaltry and D. Richards (ed.), (1999), Project FRAMEWORK: A project management maturity model., Arlington, VA: ESI International.
Lubianiker, S., (2000, March). Opening the book on the open maturity model, PM Network 14(3), 30.
Paulk, MC., CV Weber, B Curtis, MB Chrissis (1995), The Capability Maturity Model: Guidelines for Improving the Software Process. Pittsburgh, PA :SEI, Addison Wesley Longman Inc., 1995
Pennypacker, J.S., and K.P. Grant, (2003, March), ‘Project Management Maturity: An Industry Benchmark’, Project Management Journal, 34(1), 4.
Peterson, A.S., (2000, September), The Impact of PM Maturity on Integrated PM processes Proceedings of the Project Management Institute Annual Seminars & Symposium, Houston, Texas, Sept. 7-16, 2000.
Pinto, J.K, (2000), Understanding the role of politics in successful project management, International Journal of Project Management, 18, 85-91.
PMI A Guide to the Project Management Body Of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide), 2000 edition, Newtown Square: Project Management Institute
PMI Organisational Project Management Maturity Model – Knowledge Foundation (OPM3), 2003 edition, Newtown Square: Project Management Institute
Remy, R., (1997, July), Adding focus to improvement efforts with PM3, PM Network, 11 (7), 43.
Rosenstock, C., R.S. Johnston and L.M. Anderson, (2000 September), Maturity Model Implementation and Use: A Case Study, Proceedings of the Project Management Institute Annual Seminars & Symposium, Houston, Texas, September 7-16, 2000.
Schlichter, J. (2002, June), Achieving Organisational Strategies through Projects: An Introduction to the emerging PMI Organisational Project Management Maturity Mode. Proceedings of the Project Management Institute PMI Europe conference, Cannes, France, June 19-20, 2002.
Skulmoski, G. (2001), Project maturity and cOPMetence interface, American Association of Cost Engineers, 43(6), 11-18.
Suares, I., (1998, October), A Real World Look at Achieving Project Management Maturity, Proceedings of the Project Management Institute Annual Seminars & Symposium, Long Beach, California, October 9-15, 1998.
Thomas, J., C.L. Delisle, K. Jugdev, and P. Buckle, (2001, January), ‘Mission Impossible: Selling Project Management to Senior Executives’, PM Network 15(1), 59.
Appendix A: Types of CMM Assessments
|Software Capability Evaluation|| |
|Mentored Self-assessment|| |
Appendix B –Un- mapped best practices
©2004, Padhraic Ludden, Alan Coates, Stephen McGarry
Originally published as a part of 2004 PMI Global Congress Proceedings - Prague