Journal of

Risk and Financial

Management

Article
Assessment of Project Management Maturity Models Strengths
and Weaknesses
Valentin Nikolaenko and Anatoly Sidorov *

Department of Data Processing Automation, Tomsk State University of Control Systems and Radioelectronics,
634050 Tomsk, Russia
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: The purpose of this article is to analyze the most popular maturity models in order to
identify their strengths and weaknesses. Research conducted by international project management
communities such as Software Engineering Institute (SEI), Project Management Institute (PMI),
International Project Management Association (IPMA), Office of Government Commerce (OGC) and
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) showed that organizations with high managerial
maturity are more likely to achieve their planned project goals than those that do not identify and
standardize their best management practices. This circumstance has encouraged scientists from
all over the world to start developing various models that can measure and evaluate managerial
maturity in projects. Nowadays, the variety of models created has led to considerable difficulty in
understanding the strengths and weaknesses of each model. To solve this problem, the article authors
conducted a critical analysis to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the most popular project
management maturity models. The results obtained will be of interest to project managers, members
of project teams, heads of organizations, project offices and everyone involved in the development of
project activities. Based on the analysis, it was found that the most developed maturity models are
based on international codes of knowledge of project management. Most maturity models ignore the
presence of structural and infrastructural elements, such as a workplace, the necessary equipment
and software, the availability of professional standards, instructions, regulations, etc. It was also
revealed that there are no processes for assessing the effectiveness and efficiency of using the best
practices in the maturity models.
Citation: Nikolaenko, Valentin, and
Anatoly Sidorov. 2023. Assessment
Keywords: project management maturity model; project; comparative analysis; project management;
of Project Management Maturity
management maturity level
Models Strengths and Weaknesses.
Journal of Risk and Financial
Management 16: 121. https://
doi.org/10.3390/jrfm16020121
1. Introduction
Academic Editor: Thanasis Stengos
Project Management Institute (PMI) defines project management as a body of knowl-
Received: 8 December 2022 edge, skills, tools and technologies that contribute to the full implementation of planned
Revised: 26 January 2023 requirements (PMBOK Guide® 2017). The main goal of project management is to success-
Accepted: 8 February 2023 fully achieve project objectives (scope, schedule, cost and quality) and meet all interested
Published: 14 February 2023 parties’ expectations (Sidorov and Senchenko 2020).
Project management is not a new type of activity for people. Over the centuries, many
major projects, such as the construction of the Giza Pyramid, the Great Wall of China, the
Taj Mahal, the Panama Canal and many others have been implemented. During this time,
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
knowledge of how to manage such projects so that the actual results fully coincide with the
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
planned ones has been accumulated. This knowledge was processed, systematized and
This article is an open access article
consolidated in the best project management practices around the world (PMBOK Guide®
distributed under the terms and
2017; ICB IPMA 2015; PRINCE2® 2017; ISO 2018).
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).

J. Risk Financial Manag. 2023, 16, 121. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm16020121 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/jrfm

J. Risk Financial Manag. 2023, 16, 121 2 of 19

However, it is worth noting that despite the significant development in the field of
project management, many projects are still exposed to numerous risks, the materialization
of which prevents their successful completion (The CHAOS Manifesto 2014). In particular,
the results of research conducted by V. S. Nikolaenko indicate that about 105 risks can
materialize in any IT project, namely, 5 commercial risks, 45 compliance risks and 55 project
risks. It is very important to emphasize that the average damage from one compliance risk
materialization costs $12,000 (Nikolaenko 2018; Nikolaenko 2022).
J. K. Crawford claims that frequent risks materialization is a natural indicator that clearly
demonstrates the immaturity of project teams and project managers (Crawford 2007).
To solve the problem of eliminating risks, many international project communities
(SEI, PMI, IPMA, OGC, ISO, etc.) and leading scientists recommend using project manage-
ment maturity levels and maturity models (Crawford 2007; Grant and Pennypacker 2006;
Backlund et al. 2014; Andersen and Jessen 2003; Meisner 2007; Jugdev and Thomas 2002;
Montero 2013). According to the hypothesis stated, in organizations with high managerial
maturity, dangerous risks materialize less often, which significantly increases the chances
to complete initiated projects successfully.
The revealed connection between project management maturity and the likelihood of
successful completion has led to the creation of numerous maturity models. In particular,
in their works, K. P. Grant and J. S. Pennypacker claim that about 30 maturity models
have already been developed (Grant and Pennypacker 2006). F. Backlund, D. Choronner,
E. Sundqvist et al. provide empirical evidence that organizations with a high level of
managerial maturity are less likely to materialize dangerous risks (Backlund et al. 2014;
Andersen and Jessen 2003; Meisner 2007; Jugdev and Thomas 2002; Montero 2013).
It should be noted that attempts to conduct a comparative analysis of the most popular
project management maturity models were made earlier (Khoshgoftar and Osman 2009;
Trocki and Bukłaha 2016). However, as the critical analysis has shown, previous studies
have focused mainly on superficial comparison and the search for conceptual differences
between models without specifying their strengths and weaknesses. In this regard, the
purpose of this article is to analyze the most popular maturity models, such as The Ca-
pability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI® ), The Organizational Project Management
Maturity Model (OPM3), The International Project Management Association Delta (IPMA
DELTA® ), The Portfolio, Program and Project Management Maturity Model (P3M3® ), The
Software Process Improvement and Capability Evaluation (SPICE), The Project Manage-
ment Process Maturity Model (PM2 ), The Kerzner Project Management Maturity Model
(PMMM), The Project Management Maturity Model (ProMMM) and The PM Solutions
Project Management Maturity Model (PMMMsm), in order to identify their strengths
and weaknesses.
The analysis of the maturity model’s strengths and weaknesses included the following
steps. First, the concept and methodology of applying maturity models were studied.
Second, the subject area of application was defined. Third, scientific papers describing the
testing of maturity models and presenting the results of implementation were analyzed.
Fourth, a comparative analysis to identify strengths and weaknesses for each maturity
model was conducted.

2. Conceptual Content of Project Management Maturity Models

2.1. The Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI® )
The Capability Maturity Model (CMM) was developed in 1987 as part of the Software
Engineering Institute (SEI) project at the Carnegie-Mellon University Research Center
(USA). The model was created because the US military and government structures needed
a method to evaluate contractors (performers, suppliers) in the field of software develop-
ment. In 2000, the model was transformed into an integrated Capability Maturity Model
Integration (CMMI® ) capability maturity model, which allows evaluating not only the
maturity of development processes, but also other organization-level processes, including
procurement, material support, etc. Since 2006, CMMI® has been separated for 3 models:
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 19

Integration (CMMI®) capability maturity model, which allows evaluating not only the ma-
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2023, 16, 121 3 of 19
turity of development processes, but also other organization-level processes, including
procurement, material support, etc. Since 2006, CMMI® has been separated for 3 models:
• CMMI for Development (CMMI-DEV)—the model is focused on organizations that
• develop
CMMI software.
for Development (CMMI-DEV)—the model is focused on organizations that
• CMMI forsoftware.
develop Services (CMMI-SVC)—the model is focused on organizations that pro-
• videCMMI for Services (CMMI-SVC)—the model is focused on organizations that pro-
services.
• vide services.
CMMI for Acquisition (CMMI-ACQ)—the model is focused on organizations that are
• engaged
CMMI for Acquisition (CMMI-ACQ)—the model is focused on organizations that are
in procurement and supply.
engaged in procurement and supply.
Version 1.3 (2010) decomposes all the activities of the organization into 22 processes,
Version 1.3 (2010) decomposes all the activities of the organization into 22 processes,
where these processes are divided into 4 groups—the process management group, the
where these processes are divided into 4 groups—the process management group, the
project management group, the engineering activity group and the support group.
project management group, the engineering activity group and the support group.
It is worth noting separately that CMMI ® offers two independent types of assess-
It is worth noting separately that CMMI® offers two independent types of assessment—
ment—a power-assessment of the individual processes and an assessment of the organi-
a power-assessment of the individual processes and an assessment of the organization
zation maturity in general.
maturity in general.
When assessing the individual processes power, a scale from 0 to 3 was used (Figure
When assessing the individual processes power, a scale from 0 to 3 was used (Figure 1).
1). In particular:
In particular:
•
• Level 0. Incomplete—the process is missing or only partially running.
Level 0. Incomplete—the process is missing or only partially running.
• • Level
Level 1.Performed—the
1. Performed—theprocess
processisisperformed
performedbut butnot
notstandardized.
standardized.
• • Level
Level 2. Managed—the process is carried out in accordancewith
2. Managed—the process is carried out in accordance with the
the plan
plan and
and regu-
regula-
lations, controlled and evaluated.
tions, controlled and evaluated.
• • Level
Level3.3.Defined—the
Defined—theprocess
processisisaligned
alignedwith
withother
otherprocesses
processesininthe
theorganization
organizationsoso
that a coherent set of processes can be created.
that a coherent set of processes can be created.

Defined Level 3

Managed Level 2

Performed Level 1

Incomplete Level 0

CMMI
Figure1.1.CMMI ® Process Maturity Levels.
Figure ® Process Maturity Levels.

When assessing the organization maturity in general, a scale from one to five was
When assessing the organization maturity in general, a scale from one to five was
used. The process areas that must be implemented by the organization were identified
used. The process areas that must be implemented by the organization were identified at
at each level (Figure 2). For example, to achieve Level 5 (Optimizing), an organization
each level (Figure 2). For example, to achieve Level 5 (Optimizing), an organization must im-
must implement two processes, such as Cause Analysis and Resolution and Organiza-
plement two processes, such as Cause Analysis and Resolution and Organizational Perfor-
tional Performance Management. The organization maturity model is represented by the
mance Management. The organization maturity model is represented by the following levels:
following levels:
•
• Level 1. Initial—processes are irregular, there is no systematic approach to software
Level 1. Initial—processes are irregular, there is no systematic approach to software
development.
development.
• • Level
Level2.2.Managed—the
Managed—theorganization
organizationuses
usesproject
projectmanagement
managementmethodologies.
methodologies.The The
processes
processes are well defined, but the maturity levels of the processescan
are well defined, but the maturity levels of the processes canvary
varygreatly
greatly
between
betweenprojects.
projects.
• • Level
Level 3. Defined—processesare
3. Defined—processes aredefined
definedwithin
withina acoherent,
coherent,consistent
consistentorganization’s
organization’s
process management system.
process management system.
• • Level
Level4.4.Quantitatively
Quantitatively Managed—processes
Managed—processes are aremeasured
measuredand and controlled
controlled quantita-
quantitatively.
• tively.
Level 5. Optimizing—the management focus is on innovation and continuous process
• Level 5. Optimizing—the management focus is on innovation and continuous pro-
improvement.
cess improvement.
J.J. Risk
Risk Financial
Financial Manag. 2023, 16, x121
FOR PEER REVIEW 4 4ofof 19
19

Optimizing Level 5

Quantitatively Managed Level 4

Defined Level 3

Managed Level 2

Initial Level 1

Figure
Figure 2.
2. Organization
Organization maturity
maturity levels according to CMMI®®..
levels according

Version 2.0
Version 2.0was
wasreleased in March
released 20182018
in March with significant changeschanges
with significant (O’Neill (O’Neill
2018). In particular:
2018). In
particular:
• ®
The division into three models has disappeared. The CMMI model has become single.
•• The
A structure of 4 three
division into layers has been
models introduced. The
has disappeared. Specifically, a category
CMMI® model layer (Doing,
has become single.
• Managing,
A structureEnabling
of 4 layersandhas
Improving), a categorized
been introduced. feature area
Specifically, layer, thelayer
a category best (Doing,
practice
area layer and
Managing, a feature
Enabling andlayer.
Improving), a categorized feature area layer, the best prac-
• tice
The area
specification
layer andhas becomelayer.
a feature closed and paid.
• The specification has become closed and paid.
2.2. The Organizational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3)
TheOrganizational
2.2. The Organizational Project
Project Management
Management Maturity
Maturity Model
Model (OPM3) development started
(OPM3)
in 1998 as part of a series of standards produced
The Organizational Project Management Maturity Model by the Project Management
(OPM3) Institute (PMI).
development
More than 800 volunteer project management practitioners from almost all
started in 1998 as part of a series of standards produced by the Project Management Insti- industries and
disciplines from 35 countries actively participated in the research
tute (PMI). More than 800 volunteer project management practitioners from almost all and development of
industries and disciplines from 35 countries actively participated in the research and de-a
OPM3. The first version of the standard was published in 2003, thereafter PMI received
large amount
velopment of of feedback
OPM3. The andfirstcomments,
version of resulting in the
the standard waspublication
publishedofinthe OPM3
2003, second
thereafter
edition in 2008.
PMI received a large amount of feedback and comments, resulting in the publication of
In 2013, the third edition of the standard was released. It was maximally brought into
the OPM3 second edition in 2008.
line with the latest editions of the PMBOK® Guide and other maturity models, such as
In 2013, the third edition of the standard was released. It was maximally brought into
CMMI (Organizational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3) 2013). The practical
line with the latest editions of the PMBOK® Guide and other maturity models, such as
value to the organization from using OPM3 was also better articulated. The “Use of the
CMMI (OPM3 2013). The practical value to the organization from using OPM3 was also
Model” section was updated to provide the practitioner with the knowledge necessary to
better articulated. The “Use of the Model” section was updated to provide the practitioner
assess the organization’s capabilities.
with the knowledge necessary to assess the organization’s capabilities.
OPM3 consists of three interrelated elements: knowledge, evaluation and improve-
OPM3 consists of three interrelated elements: knowledge, evaluation and improve-
ment. “Knowledge” informs the organization about the best practices and other compo-
ment. “Knowledge” informs the organization about the best practices and other compo-
nents of maturity. “Evaluation” provides an organization with an opportunity to assess its
nents of maturity. “Evaluation” provides an organization with an opportunity to assess
maturity. “Improvement” is the result of the assessment and allows choosing a strategy to
its maturity.
improve the “Improvement” is the resultmanagement.
maturity of organizational of the assessment and allows choosing a strategy
to improve the maturity of organizational
It is worth noting that OPM3 was designed management.
for continuous rather than level assessment
It is worth noting that OPM3 was
of maturity in two main dimensions. One dimension designed for iscontinuous
the domains:rather than program
project, level assess-
and
ment of maturity in two main dimensions. One dimension is the domains:
portfolio management and organizational arrangements. Another dimension is the stages project, pro-
gram and portfolio
of maturity: management
standardization, and organizational
measurement, arrangements.
management Anotherimprovement
and continuous dimension is
the stages of maturity: standardization, measurement, management and
(Figure 3). Ability improvement progress falls within these two dimensions. Capabilities continuous im-
provement (Figure 3). Ability improvement progress falls within these
are also categorized by their connection with the five project management process groups:two dimensions.
Capabilities are also categorized
initiating, planning, by their connection
executing, controlling with theThus,
and completing. five project management
the total number of
process
possiblegroups:
maturity initiating, planning,
measurements executing,
reaches four. controlling and completing. Thus, the total
number of possible maturity measurements reaches four.
J. Risk Financial
J. Risk Manag.
Financial 2023,
Manag. 16,16,
2023, 121x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 19
5 of 19

Current OPM Assessed Maturity Desired OPM Maturity

Portfolio
Management

Program
Management

Project
Management

Organizational
Enablers

Standardize Measure Control Continuously Standardize Measure Control Continuously

improve improve

Implemented Best Not Implemented Best

Practice Practice

Figure 3. Assessment of current and desired maturity level according to OPM3.

Figure 3. Assessment of current and desired maturity level according to OPM3.

2.3.The
TheInternational
International Project ®) ®
2.3. ProjectManagement
ManagementAssociation
AssociationDelta
Delta(IPMADELTA
(IPMADELTA )
The IPMA
The IPMA Delta
Delta®® Project
ProjectExcellence
ExcellenceModel
Modelwaswasdeveloped in 2009
developed by the
in 2009 by Interna-
the Interna-
tional Project Management Association (Bushuyev and Wagner 2014). The IPMA
tional Project Management Association (Bushuyev and Wagner 2014). The IPMA DELTA® DELTA ®

model is
model is based
based on
oninternational
internationalcompetency requirements
competency for specialists,
requirements projectsprojects
for specialists, and or- and
ganizations. To assess the level of maturity of project management, three modules
organizations. To assess the level of maturity of project management, three modules werewere
distinguished:
distinguished:
•• Module Individuals—I. Within the framework of this module, the competencies of
Module Individuals—I. Within the framework of this module, the competencies of
the key performers are assessed: project, program and portfolio managers, project
the key performers are assessed: project, program and portfolio managers, project
participants, stakeholders, administrators, etc. Both professional competencies and
participants, stakeholders, administrators, etc. Both professional competencies and
knowledge competencies are assessed. These competencies are assessed using the
knowledge competencies are assessed. These competencies are assessed using the
IPMA Individual Competence Baseline (ICB).
•
IPMA Individual Competence Baseline (ICB).
Module Projects—P. Within the framework of this module, project activities are directly
• Module
assessed.Projects—P.
The focus ofWithin the framework
the evaluation of this
is on results, module,
methods andproject activities
tools. The IPMAare directly
Project
assessed. The focus of the evaluation is on results, methods
Excellence Baseline (PEB) is used to assess project management competence.
® and tools. The IPMA
Project Excellence Baseline ® (PEB) is used to assess project management competence.
• Module Organization—O. Within the framework of this module, the competence of
• Module Organization—O.
project management Within
is assessed fromthethe
framework of this
perspective of themodule, the competence
organization, namely, of
project
how much the CEO is involved in project processes, what is the integral benefitnamely,
management is assessed from the perspective of the organization, of
how much the CEO
the organization fromisthe
involved
project’sinimplementation,
project processes, what
etc. To is the
assess theintegral benefit of
organization’s
the organization
competence, from the
the IPMA project’s implementation,
Organization Competence Baseline etc. (OCB)
To assess the
rules organization’s
are used.
competence, the IPMA Organization Competence
There are five levels of maturity in IPMA Delta® (Figure 4):Baseline (OCB) rules are used.
There ® (Figure 4):
• Level are five levels of
1. Initial—the maturity
level in IPMA Delta
is characterized by singular achievements in the field of
• project1.management.
Level Initial—the There is characterized
level is no single standard for the work
by singular of personnel,
achievements inwhich is of
the field
why some
project employees There
management. work efficiently, some
is no single work unsatisfactorily.
standard for the work of personnel, which is
• Level
why 2. Defined—the
some employees worklevel isefficiently,
characterized
somebywork
the presence of certain standards for
unsatisfactorily.
• managing projects, programs and project portfolios,
Level 2. Defined—the level is characterized by the presence of however, management struc- for
certain standards
tures and processes are used non-systemically.
managing projects, programs and project portfolios, however, management structures
• Level
and 3. Standardized—the
processes level is characterized by the incomplete and non-inte-
are used non-systemically.
• Level 3. Standardized—the level is processes,
grated application of management structures
characterized by the and standards.
incomplete and non-integrated
application of management processes, structures and standards.
• Level 4. Managed—the level is characterized by the full and integrated operation of
management-controlled standards, structures and processes of management.
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 19

J. Risk Financial Manag. 2023, 16, 121 6 of 19

• Level 4. Managed—the level is characterized by the full and integrated operation of

management-controlled standards, structures and processes of management.
•• Level5.5.Optimized—the
Level Optimized—the level
level is characterized
is characterized by full,
by the the full, controlled
controlled and constantly
and constantly im-
improving
proving functioning
functioning ofnecessary
of all all necessary standards,
standards, structures
structures andand management
management processes.
processes.

Optimized Level 5

Managed Level 4

Standardized Level 3

Defined Level 2

Initial Level 1

Figure 4. Maturity levels according to IPMA DELTA® .

Figure 4. Maturity levels according to IPMA DELTA®.
2.4. The Portfolio, Program and Project Management Maturity Model (P3M3® )
2.4. The Portfolio, Program and Project Management Maturity Model (P3M3®)
The OGC Portfolio, Program and Project Management Maturity Model (P3M3® ) was
The
developedOGC Portfolio,
in 2003 Program
by the Office ofand Project Management
Government Commerce Maturity Model
(OGC). P3M3 based )on
® is(P3M3 ® was
the
developed ®in 2003 by the Office of Government Commerce (OGC).
PRINCE2 project management methodology and includes (PRINCE2 2017): P3M3® ® is based on the

PRINCE2® project management methodology and includes (PRINCE2® 2017):

• Project Management Maturity Model (PfM3);
• • Project Management
Programme Maturity
Management ModelModel
Maturity (PfM3); (PgM3);
• • Programme Management
Project Management Maturity
Maturity ModelModel (PgM3);
(PjM3).
• Project Management®Maturity Model (PjM3).
Based on PRINCE2 , simplified P3M3® maturity models have also been developed:
Based on PRINCE2®, simplified P3M3® maturity models have also been developed:
• • PRINCE2
PRINCE2Maturity
MaturityModel
Model(P2MM);
(P2MM);
• • Project
ProjectManagement
ManagementMaturity
MaturityModel
Model(P1M3);
(P1M3);
• • Programme and Project Management
Programme and Project Management Maturity MaturityModel
Model(P2M3).
(P2M3).
TheP3M3 ®
P3M3® model
modelincludes
includesfive
fivelevels
levelsofofproject
projectmanagement
managementmaturity
maturity(Figure
(Figure5):
5):
The
•• Level1.
Level 1. Initial—projects
Initial—projects are
aremanaged
managed without standardized
without standardizedprocedures and control
procedures systems.
and control
• Level
systems.2. Repeatable—organization implements projects on its own resources. Minimal
• process
Level standardization is used. implements projects on its own resources. Mini-
2. Repeatable—organization
• mal
Level
process standardization ishas
3. Defined—organization its own project management processes that do not change.
used.
•
• Level 4. Managed—the organization has specific management metrics for all projects
Level 3. Defined—organization has its own project management processes that do
that are suitable for predicting the future state.
not
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2023, 16, x FOR PEER change.
REVIEW 7 of 19
• Level 5. Optimized—the organization is in a continuous process of improving project
• Level 4. Managed—the organization has specific management metrics for all projects
management using a proactive approach.
that are suitable for predicting the future state.
• Level 5. Optimized—the organization is in a continuous process of improving project
management using a proactive approach.
Optimized Level 5

Managed Level 4

Defined Level 3

Repeatable Level 2

Initial Level 1

Maturitylevels
levelsaccording
accordingtotoP3M3
P3M3 ®
Figure5.5.Maturity
Figure ®. .

2.5. The Software Process Improvement and Capability Evaluation (SPICE)

By the acronym SPICE, two different models for assessing and improving managerial
maturity are known. The first, Structured/Standardized Process Improvement for Con-
struction Enterprises, was created in the University of Salford with funding from the UK
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2023, 16, 121 7 of 19

2.5. The Software Process Improvement and Capability Evaluation (SPICE)

By the acronym SPICE, two different models for assessing and improving manage-
rial maturity are known. The first, Structured/Standardized Process Improvement for
Construction Enterprises, was created in the University of Salford with funding from the
UK Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions in 2000. It has gained some
notoriety in the construction and infrastructure management sectors of the organization.
However, the best-known model is SPICE, that created as a series of ISO/IEC 15504
and 330(XX) standards. At the time of creation, the abbreviation SPICE meant Software
Process Improvement and Capability Evaluation, but soon the name changed into Software
Process Improvement and Capability Etermination. The project was initiated in 1993 and
the first standard in the ISO/IEC 15504 series was published in 1998. The development of
SPICE was largely motivated by the success of CMM/CMMI, and both models evidently
influenced each other.
Similar to CMMI, ISO/IEC 15504 proposes assessing process capability (ISO 15504-2)
and organizational maturity (ISO 15504-7) separately. Specific processes are not introduced
in the standard; instead, reference is made to the ISO/IEC 12207 standard, which defines
life cycle processes. Process capabilities are rated on a scale of 0 to 5:
• Level 0. Incomplete—where the process is not implemented or could not reach its
destination.
• Level 1. Performed—where the process has somehow reached its destination.
• Level 2. Managed—where the process is managed (planned, regulated, monitored)
and its work products are properly installed, controlled and maintained.
• Level 3. Established—where the process is carried out using certain methods and
infrastructure that allow achieving the desired outputs.
• Level 4. Predictable—where quantitative goals for the implementation of the process
are set, the results of measuring the degree of goals achievement are collected and
analyzed.
• Level 5. Optimized—where the process is improved continuously to achieve relevant
current and planned business goals.
The ISO/IEC TR 15504-7 standard appeared in 2008. It set up six levels of organiza-
tional maturity:
• Level 0. Immature.
• Level 1. Basic.
• Level 2. Managed.
• Level 3. Established.
• Level 4. Predictable.
• Level 5. Innovating.
In 2009, it was decided to replace the ISO/IEC 15504 series of standards with the new
ISO/IEC 330(XX) series from 33001 to 33099. The first standard of the new series—ISO/IEC
TR 33014:2013—was released in 2013, and another six standards (33001, 33002, 33003, 33004,
33020, 33063) were released in 2015. The new series was a development of the previous one
and can be considered as a further definition of the SPICE model.
The new version introduced six levels of process abilities (Figure 6):
• Level 0. Incomplete—the process is not implemented or does not meet its goal.
• Level 1. Performed—the process achieves its goal.
• Level 2. Managed—the process is planned, monitored and corrected; the results of its
work are established, monitored and updated accordingly.
• Level 3. Established—the process is implemented on the base of methods and infras-
tructure; thus, it could bring appropriate results.
• Level 4. Predictable—the process is carried out in a predictable manner within speci-
fied limits in order to achieve the desired results. To achieve this goal, quantitative
control parameters are identified, measurement data is collected and analyzed in order
 • Level 1. Performed—the process achieves its goal.
• Level 2. Managed—the process is planned, monitored and corrected; the results of
its work are established, monitored and updated accordingly.
• Level 3. Established—the process is implemented on the base of methods and infra-
structure; thus, it could bring appropriate results.
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2023, 16, 121• Level 4. Predictable—the process is carried out in a predictable manner within spec- 8 of 19
ified limits in order to achieve the desired results. To achieve this goal, quantitative
control parameters are identified, measurement data is collected and analyzed in or-
der to identify
to identify andand explain
explain the causes
the causes of discrepancies,
of discrepancies, and corrective
and corrective actionsactions areto
are taken
taken
workto outwork out theof
the causes causes of discrepancies.
discrepancies.
•• Level
Level5.5.Innovating—the
Innovating—the process
processis continuously improved
is continuously to reflect
improved ongoing
to reflect changes
ongoing in
changes
accordance
in accordancewithwith
the the
organization’s
organization’sbusiness goals.
business goals.

Innovating Level 5

Predictable Level 4

Established Level 3

Managed Level 2

Performed Level 1

Incomplete Level 0

Maturitylevels
Figure6.6.Maturity
Figure levelsaccording
accordingtotoSPICE.
SPICE.

2.6. The Project Management Process Maturity Model (PM2 )

2.6. The Project Management Process Maturity Model (PM2) 2
The Project Management Process Maturity Model (PM ) was developed by Y. H. Kwak
The
and C. W. Project Management
Ibbs 1997 (Kwak andProcess Maturity
Ibbs 2002). Modelwas
The model (PM 2) was developed by Y. H.
revised and expanded in 2002.
Kwak
PM2 isand C. W.
based on Ibbs 1997 (Kwakset
the international andofIbbs
PMBOK2002). The model
® Guide projectwas revised and
management expanded
rules, namely
inthe
2002. PM 2 is based on the international set of PMBOK® Guide project management
areas of project management knowledge.
rules, The
namely theisareas
model of project
the basis management
for assessing knowledge.the current levels of maturity of
and determining
The model is the basis for assessing and determining
project management in the organization and illustrates steps the to
current
improvelevels
the of maturityof
efficiency
ofproject
projectmanagement
management in the
(Ibbs andorganization
Kwak 1997).and PMillustrates
2 separatessteps to improve
project the efficiency
management processes
ofand
project management
practices, allowing to (Ibbs and Kwak
identify 1997).
strengths andPM
2 separates project management pro-
weaknesses of project management and fo-
cesses
cus onand practices,toallowing
weaknesses achieve ato identify
higher strengths
maturity level.and
Theweaknesses
model providesof project manage-
a systematic and
ment and focus on weaknesses to achieve a higher maturity level. The model
step-by-step approach to increase the maturity of project management in an organization provides a
systematic and step-by-step
using five levels (Figure 7): approach to increase the maturity of project management in
an• organization
Level 1. Ad using five levels
hoc—main (Figure
project 7):
management processes.
• • Level
Level1.2.Ad hoc—main project management
Planned—individual processes.
project planning.
• • Level
Level2.3.Planned—individual project planning. planning and monitoring of the project.
Managed at Project Level—systematic
• • Level
Level3.4.Managed
ManagedatatProject Level—systematic
Corporate planning
Level—integrated multi and monitoring
project planning of themonitoring.
and project.
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2023, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 19
• • Level
Level4.5.Managed at Corporate
Continuous Level—integrated
Learning—continuous multi project of
improvement planning
projectand monitor-
management
ing.
processes.
• Level 5. Continuous Learning—continuous improvement of project management pro-
cesses.
Continuous Learning Level 5

Managed at Corporate
Level 4
Level

Managed at Project
Level 3
Level

Planned Level 2

Ad-hoc Level 1

Maturitylevels
levelsaccording
accordingtotoPM
PM 2
Figure7.7.Maturity
Figure 2. .

2.7. The Kerzner Project Management Maturity Model (PMMM)

The Kerzner Project Management Maturity Model (PMMM) was developed by H.
Kerzner (The Kerzner Approach®) in 2001 (Kerzner 2001). According to Kerzner, achiev-
ing exceptional project management results requires a certain level of maturity (Figure 8):
 Planned Level 2

Ad-hoc Level 1

J. Risk Financial Manag. 2023, 16, 121Figure 7. Maturity levels according to PM2. 9 of 19

2.7. The Kerzner Project Management Maturity Model (PMMM)

2.7. The KerznerProject
The Kerzner Project Management
Management Maturity
Maturity Model
Model (PMMM)(PMMM) was developed by H.
Kerzner (The Kerzner Approach®) in 2001 (Kerzner 2001). According to Kerzner, achiev-
The Kerzner Project Management Maturity Model (PMMM) was developed by H.
ing exceptional
Kerzner project Approach
(The Kerzner management
® ) inresults requires2001).
2001 (Kerzner a certain level of to
According maturity (Figure
Kerzner, 8):
achieving
• exceptional
Level 1. project
Common Language—the
management organization
results recognizes
requires a certain level the importance
of maturity of project
(Figure 8):
• management and the need to master the basic knowledge of project
Level 1. Common Language—the organization recognizes the importance of project man- management.
Employees
agement and of the
theneed
organization
to master learn the knowledge
the basic terminology and language
of project of project
management. man-
Employees
agement.
of the organization learn the terminology and language of project management.
• • Level
Level2.2.Common
CommonProcess—the
Process—theorganization
organizationrecognizes
recognizesthe theimportance
importanceofofdefining
defining
and
and developing common processes so that the success of one projectcan
developing common processes so that the success of one project canbebereplicated
replicated
by
byothers.
others.
• • Level
Level3.3.Singular
SingularMethodology—the
Methodology—theorganization
organizationrecognizes
recognizesthe theimportance
importanceofofsyn- syn-
ergy
ergy in bringing all the methodologies used in the corporation into onewhere
in bringing all the methodologies used in the corporation into one whereproject
project
management
managementgains gainscentral
centralsignificance.
significance.
• • Level
Level4.4.Benchmarking—there
Benchmarking—there is is an awareness that
an awareness thatititisisnecessary
necessarytotoimprove
improve corpo-
corporate
rate processes
processes if theif organization
the organizationwantswants to maintain
to maintain its position.
its position. Benchmarking
Benchmarking is
is carried
carried out continuously.
out continuously.
• • Level
Level5.5.Continuous
Continuous Improvement—at
Improvement—at thisthis
level, the the
level, organization
organization evaluates
evaluatesthe in-
the
formation obtained in the course of benchmarking and uses
information obtained in the course of benchmarking and uses this information tothis information to de-
velop a unified
develop a unifiedmethodology.
methodology.

Continuous
Level 5
Improvement

Benchmarking Level 4

Singular Methodology Level 3

Common Process Level 2

Common Language Level 1

Figure 8. Maturity levels according to PMMM.

Figure 8. Maturity levels according to PMMM.
2.8. The Project Management Maturity Model (ProMMM)
2.8. The Project Management Maturity Model (ProMMM)
The Project Management Maturity Model (ProMMM) was developed by D. Hilson in
The Project2003).
2003 (Hillson Management Maturity
The concept Model (ProMMM)
of a maturity was developed
model is based by D. Hilson
on benchmarking, i.e.,in
on
2003
the process of identifying and adapting existing examples of the effective functioning ofon
(Hillson 2003). The concept of a maturity model is based on benchmarking, i.e., an
organization. Benchmarking includes evaluation and comparison processes. The structure
of ProMMM was taken from such models as the Capability Maturity Model (CMM) and
Excellence Model from the European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM 1999).
The ProMMM model includes the following levels (Figure 9):
• Level 1. Naive—the organization does not know the cost of using the project activities.
There is no project management structure. Insufficient attention is paid to possible threats.
• Level 2. Novice—the organization begins to experiment with project management,
but the main processes are not formal, although the financial benefits of using project
activities are much greater than at Level 1.
• Level 3. Normalized—at this level, project activities directly affect the organization’s
business activities. All key management processes are formalized.
• Level 4. Natural—at this level, the organization has a developed corporate culture
based on the best practices.
 but the main processes are not formal, although the financial benefits of using project
activities are much greater than at Level 1.
• Level 3. Normalized—at this level, project activities directly affect the organization’s
business activities. All key management processes are formalized.
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2023, 16, 121• Level 4. Natural—at this level, the organization has a developed corporate culture 10 of 19
based on the best practices.

Natural Level 4

Normalized Level 3

Novice Level 2

Naive Level 1

Figure 9. Maturity levels according to ProMMM.

Figure 9. Maturity levels according to ProMMM.
2.9. The PM Solutions Project Management Maturity Model (PMMMsm)
2.9. The PM Solutions Project Management Maturity Model (PMMMsm)
The PM Solutions Project Management Maturity Model (PMMMsm) was developed
The PM Solutions
by PM Solution Project
and J. K. Management
Crawford Maturity Model
in 2007 (Crawford (PMMMsm)
2007). The PMMMsm was developed
model is based
byonPM
the international project management body of knowledge PMBOK Guide, inmodel
Solution and J. K. Crawford in 2007 (Crawford 2007). The PMMMsm
® is
particular
based on the international project management body of knowledge PMBOK
on project management knowledge areas. Through research, Crawford found that the best ® Guide, in

particular on project management

project management knowledge
practices described in theareas.
PMBOK ® Guide
Through research, Crawford
can be fully found
implemented
that
andthe bestproper
at the projectquality
management practices
level only described
by “heroic” projectinmanagers.
the PMBOK ® Guide can be fully
Among the main reasons
implemented and at the proper quality level only by “heroic” project managers. Among
Crawford identifies:
the
1. main reasons Crawford identifies:
Lack of management tools prioritization in the PMBOK® Guide. From each area of
1. Lack of management
expertise, tools prioritization
project managers in the PMBOK
are given multiple ® Guide. From each area of
approaches, methods and tools that
expertise,
blur theirproject
focus. managers are given multiple approaches, methods and tools that
2. blur ® Guide equally evaluates the importance of knowledge areas and their
their focus.
PMBOK
2. PMBOK information
® Guide content.
equally Crawford
evaluates subdivides knowledge
the importance areas intoareas
of knowledge core and
areastheir
(content
in-
management,
formation content.cost, schedule,
Crawford quality) that
subdivides make the
knowledge greatest
areas contribution
into core to the
areas (content
successful completion
management, of projects
cost, schedule, andthat
quality) auxiliary areas
make the (communications,
greatest contributionrisk, resource
to the suc-
management,
cessful completion etc.).of projects and auxiliary areas (communications, risk, resource
3. management,
New projectetc.). managers need at least 10–15 years of continuous practice to reach the
level of “heroic”
3. New project managers project managers.
need at least 10–15 years of continuous practice to reach the
level of “heroic”
On this base, theproject
concept managers.
of a gradual transition from “immature” management in
knowledge areasthe
On this base, to “mature”
concept ofmanagement was proposed
a gradual transition and divided
from “immature” into five levels
management in
(Figure 10):areas to “mature” management was proposed and divided into five levels
knowledge
•
(Figure 10): 1. Initial Process—there are no established standards in project management.
Level
• Project
Level 1. documents are drawn up
Initial Process—there arefreely and one-time-only.
no established standards Measuring
in projectthe effectiveness
management.
and efficiency of design work is carried out spontaneously. Each member
Project documents are drawn up freely and one-time-only. Measuring the effective- of the project
ness and efficiency of design work is carried out spontaneously. Each member of with
team can define the concept of “project”, but these definitions will not coincide the
each other.
• Level 2. Structured Process and Standards—management is based on the best practices,
but they are not fixed at the level of organization standards. The management of the
organization supports the development of project management but does not provide
consistent and systematic work in this regard. There are no people responsible for
improvements. Metrics have been developed to track project cost, schedule and labor
productivity, but the data is collected and processed manually.
• Level 3. Organizational Standards and Institutionalized Process—all project processes
are anchored in the internal standards of the organization. Clients and end users are
active and integral members of the project team. All projects use the same management
standards. The organization’s management regularly reviews proposals to improve
internal standards.
• Level 4. Managed Process—project management is based on the past experience and
lessons learned. Project information is integrated with the organization’s corporate
systems. The management of the organization is clearly aware of its role in the field
 • Level 3. Organizational Standards and Institutionalized Process—all project pro-
cesses are anchored in the internal standards of the organization. Clients and end
users are active and integral members of the project team. All projects use the same
management standards. The organization’s management regularly reviews pro-
posals to improve internal standards.
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2023, 16, 121 11 of 19
• Level 4. Managed Process—project management is based on the past experience and
lessons learned. Project information is integrated with the organization’s corporate
systems. The management of the organization is clearly aware of its role in the field
ofofproject
project management.
management. Internal
Internal standards
standards are differentiated
are differentiated by types,
by types, sizes
sizes and com-and
complexity of projects.
plexity of projects.
• • Level
Level5.5.Optimizing
OptimizingProcess—project
Process—project management
management activities
activities arecontinuously
are continuouslyim- im-
proving. Experience is drawn from each new situation and used to improve
proving. Experience is drawn from each new situation and used to improve project project
managementprocesses,
management processes,standards
standardsand
andproject
projectdocumentation.
documentation.

Optimizing Process Level 5

Managed Process Level 4

Organizational Standards and

Level 3
Institutionalized Process

Structured Process and

Level 2
Standards

Initial Process Level 1

Figure 10. Maturity levels according to PMMMsm.

Figure 10. Maturity levels according to PMMMsm.
3. Analysis of Strengths and Weaknesses of Maturity Models
3. Analysis of Strengths and Weaknesses of Maturity Models
The conducted research made it possible to critically examine the nine most popular
Themanagement
project conducted research
maturitymade it possible
models to critically
in the world. examinestrengths
The identified the nineand
most popular
weaknesses
project
of the management
most popular maturity models
modelsarein the world.inThe
presented identified
Table strengths
1. The results of a and weak-
comparative
nesses of the
analysis most
of the mostpopular
popularmaturity
maturitymodels
modelsarearepresented
presented inin Table 1. The
Appendix A. results of a
comparative
It shouldanalysis of the
be noted most
that the popular maturity
authors of models
this article are presented
conducted in Appendix
the research in termsA.of
identifying empirical evidence that clearly shows the positive effects for an organization
when moving from one level of maturity to another, in addition to a critical analysis of
strengths, weaknesses and a comparative analysis. In particular:
• A. F. Bay and M. Skitmore review the application of the PMMM model in Indonesia
(Bay and Skitmore 2006). Their research involved 143 respondents who believed that a
high level of maturity is necessary for suppliers and contractors (69%), business con-
sultants (57%), investment companies (72%), manufacturing (75%), service industries
(42%) and financial institutions (40%). Respondents note that if the maturity level of
organizations that are engaged in these sectors of the economy is low, then they will
be exposed to numerous risks.
• A.V. Polkovnikov and O. N. Ilina in their study use the PMMM model to determine
the maturity level in Russian organizations (Polkovnikov and Ilina 2014). The study
involved 140 organizations. According to the results, there are no level 4 and level 5
organizations among the respondents. The remaining organizations were distributed
in the following proportions: Level 1—58 organizations, Level 2—57 organizations,
Level 3—25 organizations.
• C. Demir and I. Kocabas describe the application of the PMMM model for educational
institutions in Turkey (Demir and Kocabaş 2010). According to the results of the study,
Level 4 and Level 5 are elusive goals for educational institutions. However, it should
be noted that these claims are not empirically supported.
• D. Ofori and E. W. Deffor reviewed the PMMM model in Ghana (Ofori and Deffor
2013). More than 200 respondents took part in the survey. Respondents believe
that a high maturity level is very important for private organizations, government
organizations and non-profit organizations. Research in Ghana has shown that the
majority of private and public organizations have an average maturity level (Level 2
and Level 3).
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2023, 16, 121 12 of 19

• K. P. Grant and J. S. Pennypacker use the PMMMsm model in their studies. The study
involved 126 respondents located in North America. According to the studies, Level 1
includes 13.7%, Level 2—53.2%, Level 3—19.4%, Level 4—7.3% and Level 5—6.5%.

Table 1. Strengths and weaknesses of maturity models.

Maturity
Strengths Weaknesses
Model Name

1. Large organizations combine all three models of

CMMI-DEV, CMMI-SVC and CMMI-ACQ.
Practice has shown that the division of CMMI®
into three models is redundant.
1. Recognition of CMMI® certifications by the 2. The US Department of Defense no longer
business community.
oversees CMMI® . CMMI® has lost support and
2. CMMI® is a universal maturity model, thus it
guidance from its original sponsor and customer.
could be used with various project management
3. Management activity in CMMI® is presented
CMMI® practices and methodologies (PMBOK® Guide,
non-systemically. For example, project
PRINCE2® , etc.).
management functions such as communication
3. Openness of the specification.
management or stakeholder management are
4. Long period of use and large community,
not identified.
providing organizations to share experience and
4. There is no evidence of an economic benefit from
determine answers to difficult questions.
using CMMI® .
5. CMMI® is difficult to integrate with Agile
methodologies. Such integration requires special
knowledge, skills, personnel and technologies.

1. Universality. The OPM3 model can be applied to

any company.
2. Complexity. Both a separate project/program and
a set of projects/programs that form a portfolio of
projects are evaluated.
3. Practical justification. The model is based on the
best practices; theoretical judgments are confirmed 1. Difficult to apply in practice, since a significant
by the experience of numerous organizations. part of the assessment methodology—maturity
4. Identification of potential. The OPM3 model can conditions—has not been published and
positively influence the formation of new abilities provided to specialists, thus it has led to serious
OPM3 to achieve the planned result. accusations against PMI.
5. Tools for quantitative justification of increasing the 2. Questionnaire assessment is controversial and
organization’s maturity. even misleading when compared to using
6. The OPM3 model is flexible, scalable and supports maturity conditions that are not available
organizations of different types, sizes, complexity currently.
and geographic locations.
7. A detailed description of a large number of elements
and processes involved in the model and influencing
it.
8. Detailed description of the elements and processes
of self-improvement.

1. Consistency with international standards ICB, PEB

1. There are no processes for evaluating the
and OCB.
effectiveness and efficiency of using the best
2. Allows measuring in three areas, in particular,
IPMA practices. The IPMA DELTA® model does not
from the position of the project manager’s
DELTA® provide the identification and implementation of
competencies, from the position of the
the best management practices, which, in turn,
organization’s competencies, from the position of
makes it much more difficult to move to a higher
the competencies of project activities.
level of maturity.
3. There is a systematic approach.
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2023, 16, 121 13 of 19

Table 1. Cont.

Maturity
Strengths Weaknesses
Model Name

1. Lack of a systematic approach. Each process is

considered as separate, i.e., not connected with
other processes.
2. There are no structural and infrastructural
elements by which the management of the
organization can influence the level of project
management maturity. The model assumes that
the transition to a new level of maturity is
possible only in cases where the management of
1. Consistency with the international PRINCE2®
the organization is directly involved in the
standard.
development of project management. However,
2. Maturity assessment of the key project
in the descriptive part of the P3M3® model, the
management processes. The P3M3® model activities and functions of the organization’s
considers the maturity of 32 processes such as management are not formalized.
P3M3® management control, benefit management, 3. There are no processes for evaluating the
financial management, stakeholder management, effectiveness and efficiency of using the best
risk management, organizational management, practices. The P3M3® model does not provide
resource management and others. for the identification and implementation of the
3. Measuring the maturity of project, program and best management practices, which, in turn,
portfolio management. makes it much more difficult to move to higher
levels of maturity.
4. There are no processes for the creation and
development of a project management culture.
The P3M3® model is based on the concept of
continuous improvement, but this process is
impossible without the formation and
development of an appropriate corporate culture
of project management in the organization.

1. Materials on the SPICE model are not freely

1. The SPICE model has the status of an international available.
standard; in many states it has been adapted and 2. The SPICE model itself does not contain a
adopted as a national standard. reference set of processes and must rely on
SPICE 2. The SPICE model is regularly updated and external reference models.
revised. 3. The SPICE model is heavily focused on assessing
3. There are adaptations of the SPICE model to the maturity of processes, there is no assessment
specific industries (automotive, medical, space). of the organization maturity level in the 330(XX)
series.

1. There are no structural and infrastructural

elements, which the management of the
organization can use to influence the maturity
level of project management.
1. Consistency with the international standard
2. There is no description of the improvement
PMBOK® Guide.
process at level 5.
2. Assessing the maturity of each area of knowledge.
3. There is insufficient completeness of the model
PM2 A differentiated approach allows visual evaluation
description. Internal and external factors
of the strengths and weaknesses in each area of
affecting the maturity of processes and project
knowledge.
management in general are not defined.
3. Systematic and incremental approach to increasing
4. No integration with industry standards. The
maturity.
PM2 model does not take into account the
impact of industry standards and other
regulations that can slow or even block the
transition to a higher level of management.
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2023, 16, 121 14 of 19

Table 1. Cont.

Maturity
Strengths Weaknesses
Model Name

1. Not aligned with international project

management standards.
2. Lack of a systematic approach. Kerzner
considers the maturity of project management
from the perspective of an organization, without
analyzing the activities and maturity of project
managers and other members of project teams.
3. There are no structural and infrastructural
elements by which the management of the
organization can influence the maturity level of
project management. The model assumes that
the transition to a new maturity level is possible
only in cases where the management of the
organization is directly involved in the
1. The possibility of self-assessment. In his writings, development of project management. However,
PMMM Kerzner offers a series of self-assessment questions in the descriptive part of the PMMM model, the
for each maturity level. activities and functions of the organization’s
management are not formalized.
4. There are no processes for evaluating the
effectiveness and efficiency of the best practices
use. The PMMM model does not provide
identification and use of the best management
practices, which, in turn, makes it much more
difficult to move to higher levels of maturity.
5. There are no processes for the creation and
development of a project management culture.
The PMMM model is based on the concept of
continuous improvement, but this process is
impossible without the formation and
development of an appropriate corporate culture
of project management in the organization.

1. The ProMMM model is not aligned with

international project management standards.
2. Lack of a systematic approach. Hilson considers
project management maturity from the
perspective of an organization, without taking
1. Corporate culture. In his writings, Hilson says that
into account the performance and maturity of
many organizations often make the same mistake:
project managers and other members of project
believing that employees will acquire career
teams.
development courses will increase the project
3. There are no structural and infrastructural
management maturity. According to Hilson, this
elements by which the management of the
process is useless if the organization does not have
organization can influence the project
ProMMM a mature corporate culture.
management maturity level. The model assumes
2. Management processes. According to Hilson,
that the transition to a new level of maturity is
processes that take place in the projects’ key
possible only in cases where the management of
criterion of maturity.
the organization is directly involved in the
3. Use of the best practices. The best practices are
development of project management.
based on the experience of predecessors, which,
4. There are no processes for evaluating the
according to Hilson, indicates a high level of
effectiveness and efficiency of using the best
maturity.
practices. The ProMMM model does not provide
the identification and use of the best
management practices, which, in turn, makes it
much more difficult to move to higher levels of
maturity.
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2023, 16, 121 15 of 19

Table 1. Cont.

Maturity
Strengths Weaknesses
Model Name

1. There are no structural and infrastructural

elements by which the management of the
organization can influence the maturity level of
project management. The model assumes that
the transition to a new maturity level is possible
only in cases where the management of the
organization is directly involved in the
development of project management. However,
in the descriptive part of the PMMM model, the
activities and functions of the organization’s
management are not formalized.
2. Level 5 is based on assumptions, not facts. It
involves the use of certain automation systems
and quantitative methods, which can be
controversial, since automation systems, perhaps
in a simplified form, can be used at previous
levels.
3. Conceptual similarity of Level 3 and Level 4.
1. Consistency with the international standard
The process of developing internal project
PMBOK® Guide.
management standards involves unified
PMMMsm 2. Assessing the maturity of each area of knowledge.
management in all projects of the organization
A differentiated approach allows visually
and, as a result, the creation of a unified
evaluating the strengths and weaknesses in each
management information system.
area of knowledge.
4. No integration with industry standards. The
PMMMsm model does not take into account the
impact of industry standards and other
regulations that can slow down or even block the
transition to a higher level of management.
5. Lack of a systematic approach. The proposed
components of each area of knowledge are
aimed at project managers but are not focused
on the management of the organization.
6. The level of maturity is determined by the least
mature area of knowledge. The concept of
measuring each area of knowledge suggests that
it is possible that the maturity of one area of
knowledge will be higher than another, and
therefore, it may be difficult to determine the
maturity level. To solve this problem, the
PMMMsm model determines the maturity level
for the least mature area of knowledge.

As the analysis has shown, in general, scientists refer only to the identification of
maturity levels in organizations and do not consider such important questions as: “Is there
an increase in profit when the level of maturity increases?”, “How does the likelihood of
project success changes with the maturity level increase?” and “What are the problems in
moving an organization from one level to another?”.

4. Conclusions
After a critical analysis of the most popular project management maturity models, the
authors of the article made the following conclusions:
1. The most developed models are based on international project management codes
of knowledge (ISO, PMBOK® Guide, PMCD, PRINCE2® , etc.), which is a signifi-
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2023, 16, 121 16 of 19

cant advantage for maturity models such as OPM3, IPMA DELTA® , P3M3® and
PMMMsm.
2. The majority of maturity models do not take into account the presence of structural
and infrastructural elements, such as a workplace, the necessary equipment and
software, the availability of professional standards, instructions, regulations, etc.
Project activities are often viewed from the perspective of an organization, but the
work of project managers, project participants teams and project business processes
are overlooked.
3. There are no processes for evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of using the
best practices. As a rule, maturity models are not aimed at identifying the best
management practices, which, generally, are developed by the organization in the
process of implementing projects and solving problems that arise in the process of
implementation.
4. The considered models do not take into account the influence of corporate culture
(except for the ProMMM model). It is worth noting that the corporate culture of an
organization can both stimulate the improvement of project management, and, on the
contrary, contribute to its deterioration.
5. The maturity models developers in sufficient depth and detail describe the processes,
technologies, competencies, documents, etc., that should be present at the lowest
maturity levels. However, as soon as it comes to a higher maturity level, the authors
tend to describe only the conceptual content. This may indicate that there is no
practical content for the upper levels.
6. Thus, based on the analysis of the nine most popular project management maturity
models, it can be concluded that contractors (performers, suppliers) with a high
level of project management maturity ensure the successful achievement of planned
goals due to the high maturity of employees, the availability of necessary processes,
quality documents, a developed corporate culture of project management based on
the best group and individual practices, as well as mechanisms that eliminate the
materialization of universal and special risks (Nikolaenko and Sidorov 2023). In this
regard, it is logical to assume that the project management maturity assessment is a
tool for identifying the best contractor (performer, supplier) who can guarantee the
creation of the desired product, successfully complete any project and faithfully fulfill
all obligations under the contract.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, V.N. and A.S.; methodology, V.N.; validation, V.N.; formal
analysis, V.N. and A.S.; investigation, V.N.; resources, V.N. and A.S.; data curation, V.N.; writing—
original draft preparation, V.N. and A.S.; writing—review and editing, V.N. and A.S.; visualization,
V.N.; supervision, A.S.; project administration, A.S.; funding acquisition, A.S. All authors have read
and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by Ministry of Science and Higher Education; project FEWM-
2023-0013.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2023, 16, 121 17 of 19

Appendix A

Table A1. Comparative analysis of the most popular maturity models.

Name of Project Management Maturity Model

Criterion
CMMI® OPM3 IPMA DELTA® P3M3® SPICE PM2 PMMM ProMMM PMMMsm
Kwak Y.H. и PM Solution
Developer SEI PMI IPMA OGC ISO Kerzner H. HilsonD.
Ibbs C.W. Crawford K.J.
Suitable for evaluation Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Suitable for analysis of
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
strengths and weaknesses
Suitable for project
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
management improvement
IT, auto, space,
Sector IT For all sectors For all sectors For all sectors For all sectors For all sectors For all sectors For all sectors
medicine
Yes, Yes,
Process reference model No No No No No No No
22 processes 32 processes
Yes,
Yes,
Knowledge domain ICB, contains 46 Yes, 9 fields of
No No No No No No 10 fields of
reference model elements of knowledge
knowledge
competence
Yes, 586 best practices and
Reference model for the best
No 2400 abilities for projects, No No No No No No No
management practices
programs and portfolios
0–1 (presence or lack of the
Number of maturity levels 1–3 1–5 1–5 0–5 1–5 1–5 1–4 1–5
best practice)
PMBOK® Guide
Based on a body of The Standard for Program ICB,
PMBOK®
knowledge of the project – Management, The OCB, PRINCE2® ISO standarts — — PMBOK® Guide
Guide
management best practices Standard for Portfolio PEB
Management, PMCD
Creation date of the first
2000 2003 ICB (1999) 2003 1998 1997 2001 2003 2007
version
ICB (2015),
Creation date of the latest
2018 2013 OCB (2016), 2006 2015 2002 — — 2015
version
PEB (2016)
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2023, 16, 121 18 of 19

Table A1. Cont.

Name of Project Management Maturity Model

Criterion
CMMI® OPM3 IPMA DELTA® P3M3® SPICE PM2 PMMM ProMMM PMMMsm
The process of determining
the maturity level of project Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
management is described
The process of determining
the maturity level of
No Yes No Yes No No No No No
program management is
described
The process of determining
the maturity level of
No Yes No Yes No No No No No
portfolio is described
management
Yes Yes
Certification Class A, B and No Level A, B, C Yes Yes No No No Yes
C and D
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2023, 16, 121 19 of 19

References
Andersen, Erling Sverdrup, and Svein Arne Jessen. 2003. Project maturity in organizations. International Journal of Project Management
Accounting 21: 457–61.
Backlund, Fredrick, Diana Chronéer, and Erik Sundqvist. 2014. Project management maturity models–A critical review: A case study
within Swedish engineering and construction organizations. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 119: 837–46. [CrossRef]
Bay, Achmad Fuad, and Martin Skitmore. 2006. Project Management Maturity: Some Results from Indonesia. Journal of Building and
Construction Management 10: 2–15.
Bushuyev, Sergey, and Reinhard Friedrich Wagner. 2014. IPMA Delta® and IPMA Organisational Competence Baseline (OCB): New
approaches in the field of project management maturity. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business 7: 302–10. [CrossRef]
Crawford, James Kent. 2007. Project Management Maturity Model. New York: Auerbach Publications.
Demir, Canan, and İbrahim Kocabaş. 2010. Project Management Maturity Model (PMMM) in educational organizations. Procedia Social
and Behavioral Sciences 9: 1641–45. [CrossRef]
EFQM. 1999. The EFQM Excellence Model. Brussels: European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM).
Grant, Kevin, and James Pennypacker. 2006. Project management maturity: An assessment of project management capabilities among
and between selected industries. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 53: 59–68. [CrossRef]
Hillson, David. 2003. Assessing organisational project management capability. Journal of Facilities Management 2: 298–311. [CrossRef]
Ibbs, William, and Young-Hoon Kwak. 1997. The Benefits of Project Management—Financial and Organizational Rewards to Corporations.
Newtown Square: Project Management Institute.
ICB IPMA. 2015. Individual Competence Baseline for Project, Programme & Portfolio Management (ICB IPMA). Version 4.0. Zurich:
International Project Management Association.
ISO. 2018. ISO 31000:2018 Risk Management—Guidelines. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
Jugdev, Kam, and Janice Thomas. 2002. Project Management Maturity Models: The Silver Bullets of Competitive Advantage? Project
Management Journal 33: 4–14. [CrossRef]
Kerzner, Harold. 2001. Strategic Planning for Project Management: Using a Project Management Maturity Model. Hoboken: John Wiley &
Sons.
Khoshgoftar, Mohammad, and Omar Osman. 2009. Comparison of Maturity Models. In Proceedings of the 2009 2nd IEEE International
Conference on Computer Science and Information Technology, Beijing, China, August 8–11; pp. 953–64.
Kwak, Young Hoon, and William Ibbs. 2002. Project Management Process Maturity (PM)2 Model. Journal of Management in Engineering
18: 150–55. [CrossRef]
Meisner, Remco. 2007. MINCE—A Framework for Organizational Maturity. Zaltbommel: Van Haren Publishing.
Montero, Guillermo. 2013. Analysis of Common Maturity Models Applied to Project Management. In Book of Proceedings of the 7th
International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Industrial Management XVII Congreso de Ingeniería de Organización. Valladolid:
Universidad de Valladolid, pp. 788–94.
Nikolaenko, Valentin. 2018. Negative and Positive Risks in IT-Projects. Moscow: Moscow University Bulletin, Series 21. Public
Administration; vol. 3, pp. 91–124.
Nikolaenko, Valentin. 2022. With the hope of taking a risk. A new approach to project management is proposed. Search 30–31: 4–5.
Nikolaenko, Valentin, and Anatoly Sidorov. 2023. Analysis of 105 IT Project Risks. Journal of Risk and Financial Management 16: 33.
[CrossRef]
O’Neill, D. 2018. The Way Forward: A Strategy for Harmonizing Agile and CMMI. Cross Talk. The Journal of Defense Software Engineering
29: 4–9.
Ofori, Dan, and Eric Worlanyo Deffor. 2013. Assessing Project Management Maturity in Africa: A Ghanaian Perspective. International
Journal of Business Administration 4: 41–61. [CrossRef]
Organizational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3). 2013. Knowledge Foundation. Newtown Square: Project Management Institute.
PMBOK Guide® . 2017. Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide® ). Guide 6th edition. Newtown Square: Project
Management Institute.
Polkovnikov, Alexei, and Olga Ilina. 2014. The Reality of Project Management Practice in Russia: Study Results. Procedia Social and
Behavioral Sciences 119: 805–10. [CrossRef]
PRINCE2® . 2017. Managing Successful Project with PRINCE2 (PRINCE2® ). London: The Stationery Office.
Sidorov, Anatoly, and Pavel Senchenko. 2020. Regional Digital Economy: Assessment of Development Levels. Mathematics 8: 2143.
[CrossRef]
The CHAOS Manifesto. 2014. The Standish Group. Boston: The CHAOS Manifesto.
Trocki, Michał, and Emil Bukłaha. 2016. Project Management—Challenges and Research Results. Warsaw: Warsaw Schools of Economics Press.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.