Projektna mreža Slovenije            junij  20
1. Introduction
Many organisations now recognise project management as key to their business operations (see for example Beer et al, 1990; Packendorff, 
1995; Hodgson, 2002 or Crawford, 2005). As Morris et al. 
(2006) show, a wide range of industry sectors now make 
use of projects and see the effective delivery of projects 
as a key driver in their organisational performance. This 
rise of ‘projectification’ has encouraged practitioners and 
researchers to investigate all aspects of the knowledge 
domain we call project management and considerable 
effort has been devoted to understanding the role of the 
Project manager (Globerson and Zwikael, 2002), the skills 
(El-Sabaa, 2001) and competences (e.g. Crawford, 2005). 
Some Firms have gone so far as to adapt their operational 
structure to allow them to deliver their output to their 
clients exclusively by project (Hodgson and Cicmil, 2006), 
thus project management has become an organizational 
process, as well as an individual skill.
Claims have been made that delivery by projects is 
likely to become the dominant mode of business in our 
times (e.g. Wiig, 1997; Davenport and Prusak, 1998 and 
DeFillippi, 2001) if it is not already accepted as such. 
Frame (1999) sees this as due to competitive pressures. 
One of the major factors in this pressure is the need 
for consistent delivery of successful projects and so 
organisations are now turning their attention from 
looking at the performance of single projects to how 
they manage the complete range of their projects. So the 
emphasis has shifted; performance of individual project 
managers remains important but project management is 
becoming seen more as an organizational process.
Traditionally, one of the approaches to consistent 
delivery has been the application of quality management 
systems to the transformations that the organisation 
undertakes. Modern quality management has its origins 
in the emergence of modern engineering and mass 
production when methods to control manufacturing 
output as the advantages of product accuracy became 
apparent. The significance of this was recognised in the 
19th century: one instance is the example of the Springfield 
rifle during the American Civil War where accuracy 
of subcontracted manufacture ensured that the Union 
was able to maintain critical supplies of weapons from 
dispersed manufacturing plants. A counter example was 
the inaccuracy of component manufacture for the Wolseley 
sheep shearing machines which were sent to Australia 
for assembly; the parts were so poor that the machines 
frequently failed. More recently, the application of 
statistical process control, better manufacturing tolerances 
and reduction in human errors have contributed to massive 
improvements in the output of the manufacturing sector. 
These and other quality techniques are readily applied to 
the output of projects but it has proved more difficult to 
bring such measures to bear on service ‘processes’ such 
as the management of projects. This difficulty is noted 
by Tenner and De Toro (1992) who demonstrate that the 
major differences between manufacturing companies and 
service industry include the issues of defining ownership 
(and hence of understanding expectations), problems of 
quantification of process output and the relatively less 
well established nature of management compared to the 
better understood nature of manufacture. In the case of 
project management, we can add issues related to the 
less tangible nature of the process and lack of repetitive 
tasks to measure. Thus we find that the process of project 
management is notoriously difficult to measure (Cooke-
Davies, 2004). 
Another aspect of the highly competitive nature of 
business is that firms can no longer just do what they 
always have done in the past. To stand still is to move 
backwards in relation to their competitors. Thus senior 
management must be concerned with improving their 
Maturity, Excellence and Other Silver Bullets
Miles Shepherd
Visiting Fellow, The Business School, Bournemouth University, 121 Harnham Road, Salisbury, Wiltshire, SP2 8JT
United Kingdom
e-mail: miles.shepherd@msp-ltd.co.uk
Abstract
In recent years, project management has built up a reputation for effective delivery of business results. It’s value as an effective 
tool has grown over the past 10 to 20 years and it is seen currently as both a critical skill for individuals and key organizational 
process. As its importance has grown, so too has the need for businesses to ensure their competitive edge. This need has caused 
many organisations to examine their project management methods. This paper examines some of the methods available to 
organisations to evaluate the effectiveness of organizational project management and notes some of the issues associated with 
the different approaches.
Key words: Organizational Competence, Maturity, Project Excellence, Performance Model
Projektna mreža Slovenije            junij  21
processes. As Thurlow (1999) explains, ‘great companies 
compete against themselves. They may be the best 
but they are never good enough’. How then can senior 
management have confidence that the key processes of 
their business are not just operating effectively but also 
improving? This paper examines competing models used 
to evaluated project management processes and highlights 
some of the limitations of these models 
2. Assessment and Improvement
2.1 Quality Management Approaches
In the post 2nd World War global economy, the 
requirement for companies to compete fuelled the quality 
movement where repeatability of output and conformance 
to requirements is enshrined in internationally agreed 
standards (e.g. ISO, 2000). Those companies with ISO 
9001 certificated management systems are required to 
have documented systems that demonstrate compliance 
with the standard. It is usual for them to have quality 
manuals that set out procedures and work practices 
showing how major activities may be carried out. The 
system is specific to the company and is adapted to 
the business so that business outputs that conform to 
requirements are described in terms that allow direct 
comparison with some norm. In some sectors, there are 
subsidiary standards (e.g ISO Aero Space series) that set 
out specific components or additional requirements for 
the system. At present there are no standards that provide 
definitive guidance on project management; the nearest is 
ISO 10006:2003 but this only provides high level, generic 
guidance.
Compliance with standards is demonstrated by 
auditing. While auditing is a useful way to demonstrate 
compliance, it is no guarantee of effective delivery since 
all that is required is to show that work has been done 
in accordance with the procedures.  Many workers have 
negative views of audits since the output, in terms or 
‘non-compliance’ statements have power connotations. 
Similarly, the person carrying out the audit is ‘independent’ 
and so may be considered an outsider who may not have 
a good contextual understanding of the project. There 
is the feeling that the auditor is looking for fault, rarely 
praising innovative approaches or good work. So for 
many, auditing projects is a negative experience and is 
not a fruitful way of meeting the other critical aspect of 
ISO 9001, that of ‘continual improvement’ (ISO, 2000). It 
is seen as doing the things right as opposed to doing the 
right things, or  better, doing the right things right.
2.2 Benchmarking
In order to meet some of the criticisms of ‘standards’, other 
approaches to developing quality in companies have been 
tried. These all depend on the concept of benchmarking. 
The underlying principle of benchmarking is the process 
of comparison of one system against another. The 
comparator can be either an idealised system or another 
organisation. Idealised systems are usually industry sector 
specific, say software development or construction, and 
are based on ‘best practice’ in that industry. Comparisons 
with other organisations may be done directly, where 
teams from the participating organisations observe each 
other or use case studies. 
Benchmarking can be performed in a number of 
different ways: exploratory, external and competitive. The 
simplest form, exploratory benchmarking, is usually done 
as an internal assessment against some form of idealised 
model. The internal team may operate independently 
or may perhaps be assisted by a facilitator. External 
benchmarking is a comparison by an internal team 
assessing performance against the example of another 
organisation. The comparator need not be in the same 
industry sector. Finally, organisations with well established 
systems sometimes use competitive benchmarking (see 
Table 1) to establish their reputation for quality. Examples 
of quality awards and their date of origin are show in 
Table 1 overleaf. These awards introduce a different 
approach since they recognise ‘excellence’: in the case of 
the Malcolm Baldridge award, it is ‘excellence in quality 
management’ and the EFQA it is excellence in TQM 
achievement.
Table 1: Quality Awards 
Benchmarking activities can be based on competitive 
environments such as those listed in Table 1 but are 
more normally performed in other situations. Many 
benchmarking activities are carried out as in-house 
assessments of the organisation or a function. This 
has a number of advantages, notably reduced cost, that 
make it attractive and may satisfy senior management 
requirements.  The actual benchmarking can be undertaken 
as an award simulation or can assess a component of the 
business which makes it well suited to examination of 
project or programme management.
Benchmarking is seen in a more positive light than 
auditing since most models seek areas of strength as well 
as areas that require improvement. While an audit looks 
for evidence based on past experience, benchmarking 
also uses forward looking prospects and aims to be 
empowering for those involved. By basing the assessment 
on the stakeholder’s definition of quality, benchmarking 
claims to address the twin issues of doing the right things 
and doing them right.
                      Projektna mreža Slovenije            junij  22
3. Improvement Models
3.1 Process Maturity
Cooke Davies and Arzymanow (2003) point out that 
the concept of process maturity emerged from the TQM 
movement. This approach is exemplified by Capability 
Maturity Model (CMM) developed in 1986 by the 
Software Engineering Institute, part of Carnegie Mellon 
University. This model was partly funded by the US 
Department of Defence (DoD) to provide an approach to 
evaluating contractor software development capabilities. 
The concept evolved from traditional process maturity, 
where a process matures as it becomes more familiar in 
use, to ‘organizational’ maturity where the firm moves 
through several stages of increasing maturity. CMM has 5 
levels of maturity and recognise initial, repeatable, defined, 
managed and optimized levels.  This provides a framework 
for action since specific plans can be developed to address 
particular deficiencies and priorities can be assigned. 
With its origin in software development, which is 
usually done by project, it is not surprising that CMM 
should migrate to project management. There are many 
CMM based project management improvement models 
available, ranging from Kerzner’s PMMM (Kerzner, 
2001) through the IPS model (Ibbs and Kwak, 2002) to 
the ESI/George Washington University model, all of 
which make use of PMI’s PMBOK©. A recent internal 
report from APM (2006b) noted more than 20 project and 
programme organisational maturity models.  Several have 
been produced for consulting houses and others have 
been designed to support specific project approaches. It 
is far from clear how many of these models are used in 
practice.
3.2 Excellence Models
Excellence models make use of the benchmarking 
approach and invoke a general framework against 
which the organisation can rate its performance. One 
of the best known of these models is the European 
Quality Association’s Business Excellence Model (BEM), 
illustrated in Figure 1 below. Like all benchmarking 
approaches, the BEM looks at historic performance to 
provide evidence of achievements as well as plans and 
detailed process planning to identify areas of strength and 
areas for improvement. It relies on building a history of 
activity and thus single assessments are of limited value. 
Excellence models are specifically designed as process 
improvement tools. They seek to identify interfaces 
where problems arise. Processes have often developed in a 
piecemeal fashion, with little thought given to their design 
from end-to-end and so few people in the organisation 
understand how the whole process works and so process 
performance is often inadequately measured. While 
Functions or departments can optimise their part of 
the process, this sometimes comes at the expense of 
the overall process and those working “in the process” 
often do not understand their full role or the impact of 
their actions. Assessment using an Excellence Model is 
claimed to identify such issues and allows a holistic view 
of improvement action to be established.
Despite these claims, there seem to be fewer Excellence 
Models available compared to Maturity Models. The 
APM (2006b) report identified only two related to 
project management: the IPMA Excellence Award (see 
http://www.ipma.ch/awards/projexcellence/Pages/
ProjectExcellenceModel) which was instituted in 1997 
and one theoretical approach (Westerveld, 2003).
4. Issues in Use
4.1 Project Excellence Models
As Westerveld (2003) reminds us, project organisations 
differ significantly from traditional, functionally based 
organisations. The unique nature of projects and their 
clearly defined end dates indicate that they are temporary 
structures (Packendorf, 1995) while traditional companies 
are enduring, semi permanent structures which tend 
to achieve efficiency through routine processes. These 
differences make it difficult to use tools developed for 
traditional organisations in project environments.  So at 
first sight, maturity models, which were based on project 
based structures appear to be better suited to improvement 
of project processes.
The BEM is designed to address what the organisation 
has achieved (WHAT or the Results area in the model), 
and the management of the organisation (the HOW 
or the Enablers). The project management literature 
concentrates on the HOW aspects, exemplified by the 
various Bodies of Knowledge (APM 2006a, PMI 2004). 
Pannenbacker (1995) modifies the original BEM as shown 
in Figure 2 below.
Figure 1: Business excellence model
Figure 2: IPMA’s Project Excellence Model
While this differs from Westerveld’s model, both relate 
project success criteria with the Results area of the model 
Projektna mreža Slovenije            junij  23
and critical success factors to the Organisational area.
The main issue for Project Excellence models is the 
problem of evaluating success. While the simple view 
of success, based on the so called ‘iron triangle’ of time, 
cost and quality provides a straightforward set of criteria, 
there are competing views. The iron triangle approach 
was challenged inter alia by Belassi and Turkel (1996) 
while Atkinson (1999) notes that this view is inadequate 
and that a broader range of stakeholder judgements 
needs to be taken into account. The recent literature on 
success in projects confirms this view (see for example 
Cooke - Davies, 2004). For the model, it is important to 
understand not just how success is to be judged but the 
criteria that will be used to determine whether the project 
achieves success.
It must be said, however, that most of the research on 
project success has focussed on single projects and little 
has been said on judging success in the organisational 
context. The other, but related issue, is that it is almost 
impossible to evaluate project success across organisations. 
Where companies perform most of their business, it is 
difficult to determine whether project success is due to 
the project manager or to the organisational processes 
involved (Munns and Bjeirmi, 1996). Other factors that 
must be taken into consideration are whether the results 
are typical, representing the true output of the processes 
involved or whether there are other, possibly project 
specific, factors that distort the outcome.
Perhaps a more significant issue is the purpose of the 
modelling activity: typically, it will be to identify areas 
require improvement but the opportunity to improve 
project processes may not be amenable to improvement 
activity. Improvement activity usually takes the form of 
one or more of the following aspects:
■ Effectiveness – improving the ability of a process to 
deliver output that meets customer requirements.
■ Efficiency – reducing the amount of resources 
consumed or required to operate a process
■ Cycle Time – reducing the elapsed time required to 
convert the input into the output
■ Flexibility – improving the ability of a process to cope 
with different or fluctuating demands
■ Capacity – increasing the throughput capacity of a 
process
It seems unlikely that improvements to cycle time and 
capacity are relevant to project management.
Finally, there is the question of how well gradual 
process improvement maps onto project management. 
Cooke – Davies and Arzymanow (2003) note that process 
improvement does not map well to the way individuals 
acquire skills. Citing Dreyfus and Dreyfus (1986), he 
notes that they identify 5 stages in skill acquisition and 
that experts and proficient performers, while familiar 
with rules and good practices, do not select or follow 
rules. Instead they perform ‘smoothly, effortlessly and 
subconsciously.
Project Excellence models offer the possibility of 
process improvement but their application to single 
projects seems unlikely to yield results that will meet the 
original objective of improving the detailed process.
4.2 Maturity Models
As remarked earlier, maturity models are based on ‘best 
practices’. In the case of PMI’s Organisational Project 
Management Maturity Model (OPM3®) the ‘best practices’ 
are formulated into on some 600 elements mapped onto 
capabilities, outcomes and key performance indicators. 
With all such models, the first consideration is how these 
factors are identified as ‘best practices’. Who is entitled 
to call any practice better than another? Ackoff (1993) 
describes an assembly of ‘best’ elements from famous 
makes of car and then putting them all together in a 
single ‘best of the best’ combination. The result, he claims, 
would not resemble a motor car, let alone a viable model 
as the parts would simply not fit. His contention is that 
practices selected by benchmarking seldom take into 
account the interactions between the parts. Most of the 
Maturity Models identified by APM (2006b) are based, 
like OPM3® on the knowledge and process categories of 
their PMBoK Guide (PMI, 2004). This volume is widely 
recognised as a basis for certification but there is some 
challenge as to the validity of the processes (see for 
example Morris et al., 2006, Shepherd and Johns, 2006) 
which some (see inter alia Hodgson and Cicmil, 2006) see 
as incomplete and unrepresentative of the complexity of 
project management.
Setting aside challenges to the validity of the 
underlying process base, there are also practical issues 
to consider. In addition to the issues raised by Ackoff, 
Hoffherr (1993)notes that the ‘costs of adapting an existing 
[benchmarking] solution to a seemingly similar problem 
can cost two or three times as much as starting from 
scratch. Because every problem is unique, every problem 
deserves a unique solution’. This seems to be more in tune 
with the nature of projects as temporary organisations 
tackling unique tasks.
5. Conclusions
Project management has become recognised as a business 
critical activity for many organisations. Senior management 
is interested in methods that allow their business critical 
activities to improve over time, or to mature. This desire 
has lead to an increasing interest in measuring this 
‘maturity’. Models based on CMM and on excellence have 
emerged in recent years to assist in assessing the state of 
organizational project management but the competing 
approaches have drawbacks. The theoretical basis for the 
more well known maturity models has been challenged 
and there are cost implications in implementing such 
regimes.
Excellence models are seen as less confrontational than 
auditing for conformance to standards, most of which are 
not assessable. These models are specifically designed 
for use in improving processes and so seem more useful 
than simply measuring maturity. However, the process of 
improvement requires multiple assessments over time to 
show commitment, progress and to reinforce success. 
Both approaches have strengths but there are 
weaknesses, too. Hence care is needed in selecting an 
                      Projektna mreža Slovenije            junij  24
approach and in applying it if such use is not to be seen as 
simply another management fad.
6. References
Ackoff, R. L. (1993): ‘Benchmarking’ Systems Practice, 
Vol 6., No 6, pp. 581.
Atkinson, R. (1999): ‘Project Management: Cost, Time 
and Quality, Two Best Guesses and a Phenomenon; It’s 
time to accept other success criteria’ International Journal 
of Project Management, Vol. 17, No. 6, pp. 337-342.
Association for Project Management (2006a): APM 
Body of Knowledge, 5th Edition, APM, High Wycombe, 
UK.
Association for Project Management (2006b): Project 
Management improvement models and related tools. 
Internal Report to Council.
Beer, M. R., Eisenstat, R. and Spectre, B. (1990): The 
Critical Path to Corporate Renewal. Harvard Business 
School Press, Boston.
Belassi, W. and Tukel, O.I. (1996): ‘A New Framework 
for Determining Success/Failure Factors in Projects’ 
International Journal of Project Management, Vol.14, 
No.3, pp.141-151.
Cooke-Davies, T. J. and Arzymanow, A. (2003): The 
maturity of project management in different industries: and 
investigation into variations between project management 
models. International Journal of Project Management, 
Vol. 21(6), pp. 471-478.
Cooke-Davies, T. J. (2004): ‘Project Success’ in Wiley 
Guide to Managing Projects. Morris PWG and Pinto J.K 
eds. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey, USA.
Crawford, L. (2005): Senior management perceptions 
of project management competence. International Journal 
of Project Management, Vol. 23(1), pp. 7-16.
Davenport, T. H. and Prusak, L. (1998): Working 
Knowledge, Harvard Business School Press: Boston.
DeFillipi, R. (2001): ‘Project Based Learning, Reflective 
Practices and Learning Outcomes’. Management Learning, 
Vol. 32, No.1 (March), pp. 5-10.
Dreyfus, H. and Dreyfus, S (1986): Mind over Machine. 
MacMillan, The Free Press, New York USA.
El-Sabaa, S. (2001): ‘The skills and career path of an 
effective project manager’. International Journal of Project 
Management, Vol 19, No 1, pp. 1–7.
Frame, J. D. (1999): Project Management Competence: 
Building Key Skills for Individuals, Teams and 
Organisations, Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA.
Gale, A. (2004): “Competencies: Organizational and 
Personal” in The Wiley Guide to Managing Projects, 
Morris, P.W.G. and Pinto, J.K.(eds.) Hoboken, New Jersey: 
Wiley.
Globerson, S., and Zwikael, O.,(2002): The impact 
of the Project Manager on project planning processes. 
Project Management Journal, Vol 33, No 2.
Hodgson, D. E. (2002): Disciplining the Professional: 
the Case of Project Management. Journal of Management 
Studies, Issue 39, No. 7
Hodgson, D. and Cicmil, S., (2006): Making Projects 
Critical, Palgrave MacMillan.
Hoffherr, G. D., Moran, J. W. and Nadler, G. (1993): 
Breakthrough thinking in Total Quality Management. 
PTR Prentice Hall, USA
Ibbs, C. W. and Kwak Y. H. (2000): Assessing project 
management maturity. Project Management Journal, Vol 
31, No 1, pp. 32–43.
ISO 9001:2000 Quality Management Systems – 
Requirements. International Standards Organization, 
Geneva, Switzerland.
ISO 10006:2003 Quality Management – Guidelines for 
quality in project management. International Standards 
Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Kerzner, H. (2001): Strategic planning for project 
management using a maturity model. John Wiley and 
Sons, New York, USA.
Morris, P. W. G., Jamieson, A. and Shepherd, M. M. 
(2006): Research updating the APM Body of Knowledge 
4th Edition. International Journal of Project Management 
Vol 24, No 6, pp. 461–473.
Munns, A. K. and Bjeirmi, B. F. (1996): ‘The role 
of project management in achieving project success’, 
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 14, No. 
2, pp. 81-87.
Packendorff, J. (1995): Inquiring into the Temporary 
Organisation: New Directions for Project Management 
Research. Scandinavian Journal of Management, Vol.11, 
No.4, pp. 319-333.
Pannenbacker, O. (1995): Project Excellence – a model 
for improving project management practice. Unpublished 
dissertation.
Project Management Institute (2004): A Guide to the 
Project Management Body of Knowledge (Third Edition). 
Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
Shepherd, M. M and Johns, N. (2006): ‘Beyond 
Projektna mreža Slovenije            junij  25
Certification: educating the professional project manager’. 
Paper presented to 20th IPMA World Project Management 
Congress, Shangha.
Tenner, A. R. and De Toro, I. J. (1992): Total Quality 
Management – three steps to continuous improvement. 
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company Inc., Reading 
Massachusetts, USA.
Thurlow, L. C., 2000: Building wealth: the new rules 
for individuals, companies, and nations in the knowledge-
based economy. Harper Collins, New York, USA.
Westerveld, E (2006): The Project Excellence Model®: 
linking success criteria and critical success factors. 
International Journal of Project Management, Vol 21, No 
7, pp. 411-418.
Wiig, K. M. (1997): ‘Knowledge Management: An 
Introduction and Perspective’. Journal of Knowledge 
Management, Vol 1, No 1, pp. 6-14.