Abstract
Different stakeholders view the maturity of an organization from different perspectives. Those focusing on “quality” refer to the Capability Maturity Model (CMM), others, focusing on “process” refer to the Process Maturity Model (PMM), last, but not the least, the project community proposes both the Project Management Maturity Model (PMMM) and the Organizational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3™). To this day, all approaches fail to provide an acceptable shared definition of maturity; and literature is yet to propose a comprehensive approach, which is much needed for practical applications at strategic organizational levels. The object of this research is threefold. First, it reviews the literature to find synergies amongst different organizational maturity models in order to propose a common definition. A second goal is to use the common key concepts to formulate a uniform standard of organizational maturity. The longer-term goal is to alleviate the theoretical shortcomings that have prevented the development of a more generally accepted organizational maturity model.
Introduction
Ludden, P., (2004) quotes the definition of maturity from Random House Dictionary as “full development or perfected condition”. When somebody is not fully developed or in perfect condition, anything which can be achieved seems like increased maturity and we tend to gauge various levels of maturity with different methods. An organization is a living entity like a human being. It has a lifespan, and it must grow over a period of time. It has to learn from its mistakes or it seeks lessons from other's mistakes or best practices. All organizations are at some stage of maturity striving to attain perfection. So considering their present state of maturity we can say their journey forward to perfection is a step further towards achieving maturity. We usually forget that there must have been some limit to maturity. There must be an optimum level for an organization beyond which it cannot grow anymore and thus cannot mature any further, or it will fall like an over-ripe fruit. This is discussed briefly towards the end of this paper and gives us all a food for thought to put some limits to an un-ending enthusiasm towards maturity.
Whenever maturity of an organization is under discussion, different people view it from different points of view. Where people inclined towards quality will refer to Capability Maturity Model (CMM), people focused on process will be talking about Process Maturity Model (PMM), and yet project managers look at it from Project Management Maturity Model (PMMM) and Organization Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3™) perspective. All of these people are talking about a maturity model but none have formulated a universally acceptable definition of maturity as such. From strategic point of view, if we can combine all these viewpoints and try to find how an organization really matures, we probably will be able to find the most appropriate maturity model. The object of this paper is not to propose yet another maturity model but to find synergies amongst several viewpoints on organizational maturity and to answer the question “HOW DOES AN ORGANIZATION MATURE AND WHY?” If this question is well-responded after this study, we can start working towards the next question “HOW CAN WE FIND A COMMON STANDARD FOR ORGANIZATIONAL MATURITY?” Future direction from this study would be to formulate a universally accepted ORGANZATIONAL MATURITY MODEL.
Plethora of Maturity Models
CMM: From where it all started
CMM was the pioneer of Maturity Models developed by SEI for software engineering (Paulk M. C., 1995). Later SEI came up with CMMI (Capability Maturity Model Integrated) and P-CMM (People Capability Maturity Model). CMM model is only concerned about the software processes and tries to develop mechanism to bring perfection to these processes. It has five levels namely initial, repeatable, defined, managed and optimizing, each level having its own key process areas (KPAs) identifying issues that must be addressed to achieve a maturity level. (Ludden, P., 2004) CMM levels are broadly accepted in software industry and almost all maturity models are trying to copy the same levelling mechanism in one way or the other. It is clearly imminent by the wide use and success of CMM in software industry that it does serve to improve quality but the problem is, that the base on which it was designed came from software industry and it hinges only on software processes. Just as CMM was becoming so popular and whole industry was eyeing software industry with anguish for having CMM, SEI released a generalized version namely CMMI. Though the levels are the same, but the processes have been slightly amended to remove the bias on software processes. It still serves to improve the quality, which though is extremely useful, but misses the point to having Organizational Maturity because quality or processes are not the only ingredients contributing towards an organization's maturity. Later P-CMM was introduced which was more oriented towards Human Resource capability improvement and thus was again addressing a specific view. Similarly a plethora of maturity models were released most of which were software specific.
Existing Maturity Models
Ludden, P., (2004) opines that CMM has been reused for the development of many other maturity models in many fields including project management. According to Cooke et al, (2001), to date there are estimated to be over 30 maturity models currently serving the market place. Rosenstock et al (2000) listed 23 capability maturity model resources that covered quality and project management. Currently there are approximately 40 different Maturity Models in circulation and each address a specific aspect of the organization. The list has been taken from Copeland (2003) and has since been updated to specially highlight nine maturity models related to project management. It follows:
1. Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI)
2. Capability Maturity Model for Software (SW-CMM)
3. People Capability Maturity Model (P-CMM)
4. Software Acquisition Capability Maturity Model (SA-CMM)
5. Software Engineering Capability Maturity Model (SE-CMM)
6. Integrated Product Development Capability Maturity Model (IPD-CMM)
7. IT Service Capability Maturity Model (IT Service CMM)
8. Organizational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3™ )
9. Project Management Maturity Model (PMMM) by Harold Kerzner
10. Project Management Maturity Model (PMMM) by Jim K. Crawford
11. Cultural Project Management Effectiveness Model (CPMEM) by PMGS
12. PM2 Maturity Model
13. Project Management Process Maturity Model (PM)2M
14. Programme Management Maturity Model
15. Project Risk Maturity Model (RMM)
16. Earned Value Management Maturity Model (EVM3)
17. Broccoli Maturity Model
18. Services Maturity Model
19. Self-Assessment Maturity Model (SAMM)
20. Testing Maturity Model (TMM)
21. Web Services Maturity Model
22. Security Maturity Model (SMM)
23. Operations Maturity Model
24. e-Learning Maturity Model
25. eGovernment Maturity Model
26. Outsourcing Management Maturity Model
27. Change Proficiency Maturity Model
28. Performance Engineering Maturity Model
29. IT Architecture Maturity Model
30. Information Process Maturity Model
31. Learning Management Maturity Model (LM3)
32. Automated Software Testing Maturity Model
33. Website Maturity Model
34. Internet Maturity Model
35. Usability Maturity Model
36. Software Reliability Engineering Maturity Model
37. System Security Engineering Capability Maturity Model
38. Configuration Management Maturity Model
Project Management maturity models
With the strong realization of the budding discipline of Project Management, a new understanding was developed which was establishing a linkage between strategies of an organization to its projects. This was very romantic in the sense that all changes in an organization can actually be brought either through strategy or projects. CMMI was addressing only processes without specifying whether the processes are operational or project related. Generally it was assumed that it applies to all processes. But the interesting point here is that an operational process tested for maturity, if needs improvement, must go through a change process, which leads to a project. Quality has an equally important role in project management and even CMMI can very smoothly apply to it but there was a need for some further deliberation. With opening of this new line of thinking, a number of project management maturity models were suggested, used, and tested but it opened up another unending list of maturity models, this time related to project management. Project Management has its own level of development in an organization like projects, programs and portfolios, which also are indicative of some level of maturity.
Where Peterson (2000) sees project management maturity model as a logical framework that defines different levels of project management capability, Hillson (2001), being a Risk Management expert, views it as providing a structured route to excellence in project management. Kerzner (2001, p41), who is more into strategic planning and its relation with project management, states the model should assist companies in performing strategic planning for projects. Johnston (2003) also supports the Kerzner's view of strategic planning by highlighting that firms are recognizing the value of establishing measurements and indicators that provide a perspective on overall performance against strategic objectives. It is generally agreed that Project management maturity models must provide an assessment framework that enables an organization to compare its project delivery with best practice or against its competitors (Hillson, 2001). Project Management Institute's (PMI®) OPM3™ (Organizational Project Management Maturity Model) is the latest addition to the list of maturity models and it is much more attractive as it starts with addressing the organization and not the projects. Moreover its maturity model is also very interesting as it is not in conventional layers but in a three-dimensional model. The three dimensions are processes, domains and stages where processes include all the five process groups of project management i.e., initiating, planning, execution, controlling and closing. Domains are projects, programs and portfolios and Stages are standardize, measure, control and continuously improve. OPM3™ is a major leap in project management maturity models but it makes the whole thing way too complex and Kerzner's PMMM seems comparatively simpler to implement. Again the focus is on the domains which are all project related.
Organizational Maturity
Strategic View
Looking at the progress made so far on the various maturity models and specially those related to project management, it is observed that there always was an awareness of the organizational strategy in all the models so far evolved, but due to the inclination of these well-noted and respected authors towards project management, they have dragged everything to the sphere of project management and organizational maturity is still not the main focus. OPM3™ is probably the only model which starts addressing the organizational aspects but it still remains predominantly project oriented. All maturity models look at the organization from their window of choice and pamper their own area of interest more than any other, gradually building a strategic justification for their respective maturity model. It is agreed that, whether the focus is on quality, people, or projects, it is definitely going to contribute positively to overall maturity of the organization. It is also agreed that if all these maturity models are analyzed and somehow tailored together, it will still be a positive contribution. But the question is, have organizational maturity even been considered in isolation? The maturity of an organization is a very broad issue and must be addressed top-down rather than evolving it in bottom-up fashion. Bottom-up will definitely miss out some very important strategic ingredients, which will let this never-ending evolution continue forever.
From Learning Organization to Learning Maturity
Learning Organizations
To find a solution to this problem, we have to take a unified strategic view of organizational maturity. This probably will not be possible without an intimate knowledge of organizational behaviour, which to some extent has already been taken care of, in developing several of these maturity models. Senge, P (1990, 1994) introduced five learning disciplines at the core of Learning Organization namely, Personal Mastery, Mental Models, Shared Vision, Team Learning and Systems Thinking. It has also been repeatedly reported that organizations seriously committed to quality management are uniquely prepared to study the “learning disciplines” (Senge, P., 1994, 10). Strategic thinking starts with reflection on the deepest nature of an undertaking and on the central challenges it poses.
Projects and Strategy
Project management has an edge here as project management becomes the way to implement corporate strategy (Turner, 1993; Frame, 1994). Projects, being the catalyst for change, are instrumental in realizing the strategic objectives of an organization. “Projects are undertaken to add value to the sponsoring organization. In the private sector this ultimately means increasing the value of shares to the holders of equity in the company.” But performance also comes from the maturity of an organization to deal with projects, especially through the aspects of learning. (Bredillet, C. 2003). He proposes a method in his design for a lifelong learning model, in which he discusses two dimensions, individual/organizational dimension and synchronic/diachronic dimension. Some development including knowledge management and measurement of performance is based on Bontis (1999) as shown in Exhibit I.
Exhibit 1 – Four Fields of Knowledge Management in Two Dimensions
(Bredillet, C., 2003; Bontis, N, 1999)
Exhibit I serves to portray that highest level of input at organizational level is organizational learning where maturity models are placed at a lower tier with more orientation towards diachronic dimension. As we are discussing organizational maturity here, we will not focus on the individual dimension, but the organizational dimension alone. OPM3™ bases its three-dimensional model more on the best practices and thus performance is measured in relation to the model evolved from these best practices. We can see that Best Practices lie more on Synchronic dimension and are at much lower tier on organizational hierarchy. The second dimension of OPM3™ catering Projects, Programs and Portfolios, does show an inclination towards organizational learning but this aspect is not very well emphasized. The next revision of OPM3™ scheduled to be released in 2007 is expected to further improve the model and make it more organizational.
Learning Maturity
Learning maturity is applicable when subjects use external structures (i.e., technologies) in new and novel ways to perform behaviours that were previously unattainable. (Templeton, G. F., 2004). Organizations, as explained earlier, are living organisms, and like IQ and EQ in human beings, Templeton G. F., (2004) proposes a model (Exhibit 2) of effective intelligence for learning organizations, which is a summation of technological intelligence and natural intelligence. Learning maturity, according to him, contributes directly to technological intelligence.
Exhibit 2 – Proposed Model of Effective Intelligence
(Templeton, G. F., 2004)
An organization needs to accumulate use-development experience and have access to technology to learn maturity, thus increasing it technological intelligence and subsequently effective intelligence. This contribution to the learning organization may not be apparently visible as the maturity is diachronic and will yield results in long run. Only if organizations can focus on the learning processes, can they actually work towards their maturity. All maturity models can only serve to provide them a mean for measurement of their performance. Even after understanding the importance of having a unified strategic view of organizational maturity, the learning organization, and learning maturity, we have only reached a state of common understanding that none of the existing maturity models serve the organizational maturity as a whole.
How much Maturity?
Coming back to the very important question of how much maturity is required. This is something we forget to understand when we start growing up, we do not estimate how much we want to grow and how much maturity is suitable for us. Will it be fine for a child to be as mature as an adult? Definitely a child does not need to be as mature as an adult and, thus, the level of maturity is less. Similarly if an organization has limited strategic objectives and needs not to grow more than a specific limit, will any of these maturity models serve it well? It may improve its processes, its quality, its human resources, and even its project management skills, but for how long and how much? The size of organization plays an important role in its maturity and therefore a model, which can adjust itself to the needs of an organization, must be developed.
Moreover, we need to understand that all organizations and businesses have a definite span of life and like humans and projects they have to die one day. Continuous improvement is good motivator, but an organization has to understand that improvement beyond its life span or beyond its strategic objectives is not desired. There is a need to explore this new area of research and find a well-suited organizational maturity model, which can answer all these open question.
Conclusion
This paper has highlighted and indicated a very important and missing research area, which can change the shape of maturity models for the times to come. The need for bringing all the maturity models to the drawing board and consolidating their results to form an organizational maturity model may even not be enough and some creative and fresh thinking is required to identify all ingredients of Organizational Maturity. This also brings us to the realization that various organizations may have different maturity requirements and, therefore, the new organizational maturity model must address it appropriately. Currently a lot of useful research is going on in the field of Organizational Maturity, but the irony is that most of it is specific to a certain area and the spirit of organizational maturity is not being addressed as such.