International Journal of Project Management 21 (2003) 457–461

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

Project maturity in organisations

Erling S. Andersen*, Svein Arne Jessen
Norwegian School of Management BI, PO Box 580, N-1302 Sandvika, Norway

Received 22 January 2002; received in revised form 20 September 2002; accepted 19 November 2002

Abstract
The paper presents research on project maturity in organisations. The purpose is to develop an understanding of what project
maturity is and to investigate the level of project maturity in organisations today. The hypothesis is that project maturity develops
through a maturity ladder where the ladder steps are proposed to be project management, program management, and portfolio
management. Maturity itself is measured along three dimensions. They are knowledge (capability to carry out different tasks),
attitudes (willingness to carry them out), and actions (actually doing them). The different dimensions of maturity are further divided
into sub-concepts, which should provide a good understanding of the project maturity of an organisation. A questionnaire is
developed based on this understanding of project maturity, and an initial survey has been conducted. The survey gives some sup-
port to the ladder construct, and shows that attitudes and knowledge are stronger than the actions taken. Further work on the
questionnaire and surveys are proposed.
# 2003 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Project maturity; Maturity ladder; Knowledge; Attitude; Action

1. Introduction intention the categorization of the actual behaviour of

The field of project management has extended its
focus from study of a single project to the way a com-
pany or organisation is using projects to achieve its
goals. Gareis [1] has long ago coined the concept of the
Project-Oriented Organisation (POO). The specific fea-
ture of such an organisation is that of the management
of single projects, the management of network of inter-
nal and external projects, and the relationships between
the company and the single projects are considered.
Today projects are seen as far more than solving of
technical problems; they are also venues for mastering
business and change. The term project maturity might be
used as an indication of or a measurement of the organi-
sation’s ability to use projects for different purposes.
As shown by PMI [2], many maturity models exist.
These models will illustrate that there are differences
among companies in their actual use of projects as a
mean to achieve objectives. However, many of these
models are rather limited in scope, having as their sole
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: erling.s.andersen@bi.no (E.S. Andersen), svein.
a.jessen@bi.no (S.A. Jessen).
0263-7863/03/$30.00 # 2003 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0263-7863(02)00088-1
the organisation.
Our research agenda is to create a deeper under-
standing of project maturity within organisations. We
will suggest a broader theoretical framework for
describing and understanding project maturity and
conduct an empirical validation of our approach.
2. The concept of maturity
Webster [3, p. 617] defines ‘‘mature’’ as being ripe or
having reached the state of full natural or maximum
development. Maturity is the quality or state of being
mature. If we apply the concept of maturity to an
organisation it might refer to a state where the organi-
sation is in a perfect condition to achieve its objectives.
Project maturity would then mean that the organisation
is perfectly conditioned to deal with its projects.
In the real world we will not find the fully matured
organisation; no one has reached the stage of maximum
development and no one will. Therefore it makes sense
to talk about a certain degree of maturity and make an
effort to measure or characterise the maturity of the
organisation.
458 E.S. Andersen, S.A. Jessen / International Journal of Project Management 21 (2003) 457–461
Measuring maturity will perhaps always be more
subjective than objective. Some of the most important
works on project maturity seems to focus primarily on
what organisations and project people are doing oper-
ationally [4,5]. To us this appears as a rather narrow
interpretation of what maturity should mean.
Skulmoski [6] however, refers to Isabelle Saures, who
explains organisational project maturity as the organi-
sation’s receptivity to project management. This view
extends ‘‘project maturity’’ from focusing pre-
dominantly on action. Building on this proposition,
Skulmoski advocates a framework where competence
and maturity are knitted together in order to increase
project success. Competence is considered to be a com-
bination of related knowledge, skills, and attitudes that
influences performances.
We adopt a broad definition of maturity, including
both behaviour and competence. Our view is that
maturity within the business community is best
explained as the sum of action (ability to act and
decide), attitude (willingness to be involved), and
knowledge (an understanding of the impact of will-
ingness and action). The triangle (action, attitude,
knowledge) is originally based on research in consumer
behaviour [7], later enhanced by Williamson [8] and
March [9] and empirically debated by Helgesen [10].
The basic assumption is that modern societies are
typified by their change ability and their willingness to
change. And change generates needs. Needs are in turn
the prerequisite for development. Most individuals in
modern societies are in situations were they con-
tinuously experience needs. The result is that they have
to prioritise, and thus decide. In reality the modern
citizen is in a continuous decision process. Even not to
decide, is a decision, the ‘‘zero-alternative’’.
In many of these decision settings, knowledge will be
the decisive parameter. But knowledge alone is not
enough. We also need to have an attitude to the prob-
lem, and to the way the problem is supposed to be
solved. Generally attitude is defined as a person’s stable
value-orientation, opinions or views in relation to the
surrounding, or him or herself. But today one has
observed that often people act based on what they
believe is true, rather than what fact actually reveals
about the truth. The true relationship between action,
attitude and knowledge is therefore debated today [11].
The principle that belief is stronger than fact, so-called
‘‘perceived influence’’, is also strongly reflected in the
System Dynamics modelling introduced by Forrester
[12] when investigating the behaviour of social and
business-oriented decision systems.
The traditional view was that knowledge comes first,
then attitude, and finally action. But there is today clear
evidence that many people in the market place start
with action, for instance buying shares in the stock
market, then become interested in shares, and then in
time accumulate knowledge of how the stock market
behave. And a third variant known from the open mar-
ket place, is that attitude comes first, followed by
knowledge, and where the later action is just mechanical
follow ups, for instance in household shopping [10].
Transformed to testing project maturity, the idea is to
ask questions about project management knowledge,
project management attitude, and actual project prac-
tice. The purpose of the questions is to investigate whe-
ther there are differences among central project
stakeholders on the willingness, the knowledge, and the
actual use of projects at their level in the organisation.
In this way a more complete picture of the way project
management is adopted in organisations could come
forth. This way of investigating a phenomenon complies
also with the way ‘‘corporate identity’’ is measured, in
the sense that such identity, according to studies made,
can only be understood as a mix of communicated
symbolism, behaviour and action [13].
3. The attitude, knowledge and action dimensions
We will investigate in more depth the three different
dimensions of maturity: attitude, knowledge and action.
An attitude is the mental position of an individual or
a group of people. We need concepts to characterise the
different positions. We rely on the work of Hofstede
[14]. He has developed concepts, which are extremely
useful in understanding national cultures, and his four
cultural dimensions can very well be used to describe
attitudes towards project work too:
1. Attitudes towards risk and insecurity (‘‘uncer-
tainty avoidance’’).
2. Attitudes towards power and responsibility
sharing (‘‘power distance’’).
3. Attitudes towards hard and soft values (‘‘mas-
culinity and femininity’’).
4. Attitudes towards co-operation (‘‘individualism
and collectivism’’).
We use the concepts to study the attitudes towards
project and phrase our questions in such a way that if
given a high score, one would assume this to be a result
of a high degree of project maturity in the organisation.
Positive attitudes towards risk and uncertainty, power
sharing and responsibility, combining hard and soft
values and co-operation are taken as indications of
mental willingness to undertake project work.
We might regard a project as a production process.
Based on certain resources (the inputs), certain ways of
working (the work processes), results (the outputs) are
created. A project-oriented organisation should have
knowledge of each of the elements of the production
model as well as an understanding of the whole picture.
 E.S. Andersen, S.A. Jessen / International Journal of Project Management 21 (2003) 457–461
That this model seems to fit the project management
approach well is positively confirmed [15]. Our model
studies four categories of knowledge:
1. Knowledge about suppositions (‘‘the inputs’’).
2. Knowledge about ways of working (‘‘the work
processes’’).
3. Knowledge about desirable results (‘‘the out-
puts’’).
4. Knowledge about totality (‘‘the holism’’).
The purpose of the questions are the same as for atti-
tudes above, in the sense that if all four kinds of
dimensions are given high score, one would assume this
to be a result of a high degree of project maturity in the
organisation.
The action dimension was investigated by using the
traditional hierarchical model for organisational sys-
tems [16], later revised [17] for corporate decision-mak-
ing. Four dimensions are used:
1. Action taken at strategic level (top management
level, CEO level).
2. Action taken at tactical level (line management,
program management, portfolio management).
3. Action taken at administrative level (adminis-
trative support functions).
4. Action taken at operational level (project man-
agement, project participants).
Again, a high score is taken as a verification of a high
degree of project maturity.
4. The ladder of maturity
The concept of maturity indicates that there might be
a development from one level of capability to a higher
one. The notion of a ladder of stages follows the logic
that maturity develops in time, and that it also can be
recognised through certain steps or stages. The ladder
construction is also used in other maturity models, for
instance in the maturity model at Software Engineering
Institute Capability Maturity Model for Software and
IPMA Competency Baseline (for references to their
Web pages, see [2]). Our research has such a ladder of
project maturity as its starting-point.
This is, however, not the only way to present different
stages of maturity. Gareis and Hueman [18] reject the
notion of a ladder: the argument being that a ladder
model might be too rigid. Instead they go for a spider
web presentation to allow for more differentiation in
describing the needed competencies in handling the
specific processes of the project-oriented organisation.
Even if we accept the notion of a ladder of stages, the
different stages might be expressed in several ways. We
459
can have a division into stages without aiming at any
characterisations of the stages (stage 1, stage 2, . . .). We
can apply a rather general division without any specific
references to the subject of project management. Crosby
[19] presents a quality management maturity grid with
five stages (uncertainty, awakening, enlightenment, wis-
dom, certainty). We choose to have a ladder of stages
with special reference to the handling of projects within
organisations.
Our ladder of maturity consists of three steps. The
basic ‘‘layer’’, or level, is Project Management, or the
management of individual projects. At this level project
managers can concentrate on individual team efforts in
order to achieve predefined project goals with pre-
determined constraints to time and resources.
The next level is Program Management. The most
common and cogent definition is that a program is a
collection of projects related to some extent to a com-
mon objective (APM [20]). A program could be a new
product development, an organisational restructuring of
the company or the implementation of an advanced
software package in different departments of the com-
pany. Program management is the effective manage-
ment of all the projects under the umbrella of the
program.
At the third level, Portfolio Management, is the man-
agement of a number of projects and programs that do
not necessarily share a common objective. The issue is
to undertake these simultaneously [21]. Only by relating
the total effort to an overall strategy can this level be
mastered professionally. At this level the managerial
approach must be wider, and include a balanced view
on how to distribute scarce resources between compet-
ing desires.
The ladder proposition does not mean that all com-
panies have a distinct opinion about step differences. In
most companies projects may be used for operational,
tactical and strategic purposes at the same time. This
does not prevent a ladder concept in the sense that some
companies may be more developed (action-, knowledge-
and attitude-wise) than other companies on advanced
use of projects.
We will hypothesise that an organisation in general is
weaker—or less capable—on a higher stage of the lad-
der than a lower. An organisation should be more cap-
able on project management than program
management. Further it should be more capable on
program management than portfolio management.
5. The questionnaire and the initial survey
The questionnaire worked out based on the theore-
tical framework outlined above has 36 questions. All
questions, or statements, are assumed to have the same
weight. A scale of six choices, ranging from ‘‘disagree
460 E.S. Andersen, S.A. Jessen / International Journal of Project Management 21 (2003) 457–461

completely’’ (1) to ‘‘agree completely’’ (6), was adopted Table 2

to measure the responses. Dimensions of maturity
The questionnaire has been tested on 59 middle man- Mean S.D. Minimum Maximum Cronbach
agers and project managers attending the Master of alpha
Management program in Project Management at the
Attitude 4.07 0.80 2.33 5.83 0.8644
Norwegian School of Management BI. No specific Knowledge 3.98 0.84 1.75 5.75 0.8947
actions were taken to secure a random sample of Nor- Action 3.82 0.97 1.50 5.33 0.8709
wegian companies. The purpose of this initial survey
was primarily to test the questionnaire and the concepts.
Table 3
However, the informants represent a generous cross-
Dimensions of attitudes, knowledge and action
section of both small and large companies, based in
different locations, and from a wide range of industries. Mean S.D. Minimum Maximum Cronbach
alpha

Attitudes towards
6. Results and discussions Risk and insecurity 4.19 0.93 1.67 5.67 0.6964
Power and responsibility 4.06 1.03 1.33 6.00 0.5301
Table 1 shows the project maturity of the companies sharing
Hard and soft values 3.85 1.01 2.00 6.00 0.7737
surveyed. The results of Table 1 give indications of a Co-operation 4.18 0.83 2.00 6.00 0.5618
ladder structure with higher requirements as we move
upward. However, the differences between the means Knowledge about
are not statistically significant. Paired samples test for Suppositions 3.80 0.92 1.00 5.67 0.6535
difference in mean between project management and Ways of working 3.98 0.96 2.00 6.00 0.6438
Desirable results 3.98 0.87 1.33 5.67 0.5551
portfolio management gives t=1.462 and sig. 0.149, Totality 4.16 0.93 2.00 6.00 0.6224
which means that we do not have a statistically sig-
nificant difference. Action taken at
The three concepts of maturity levels have high inter- Strategic level 4.09 1.21 1.00 6.00 0.4969
nal consistency as shown by the help of Cronbach Tactical level 3.89 0.96 1.50 5.67 0.7049
Administrative level 3.81 1.09 1.33 5.67 0.4886
alpha. The problem is a very high correlation between Operational level 3.52 1.21 1.33 5.67 0.7245
the three concepts: all correlation coefficients are sig-
nificant at the 0.01 level. The correlation coefficient
between project management and program management behind. This is what might be expected in a relatively
is for example 0.785. The number of observations is too new field like project work. There exist statistically sig-
low to conduct a factor analysis to identify the variables nificant differences between means of attitude and
that explain the pattern of correlation. action (t=2.686, sig. 0.009) and between means of
Our conclusion is that more work is needed to see if knowledge and action (t=2.081, sig. 0.042).
we can measure more precisely the three maturity levels. Table 3 studies the different dimensions of maturity,
We have to study our questionnaire in order to develop broken down into attitude, knowledge and action. We
a sharper distinction between the different levels. On the observe large differences between organisations as they
other hand, there will always be a strong correlation are expressed through large values for standard devia-
between the three levels for the more advanced organi- tions and considerable differences between minimum
sations since the capability measured at a lower level and maximum values. In this sense the questionnaire is
will still be relevant for a higher stage. able to distinguish between the situations of the differ-
Table 2 shows the empirical results for the three ent companies and might be used by an organisation to
dimensions of maturity. Our results show the will- measure its own performance. Some of the concepts
ingness or the ambitions as we have measured them are have a low Cronbach alpha and need to be looked into.
greater than the knowledge needed and that the actual
action or implementation of the project are lagging
7. Conclusions and further work
Table 1
Project maturity Our preliminary findings serve at this point in time
only as recommendations. But that some ladder struc-
Mean S.D. Minimum Maximum Cronbach
alpha ture in respect of project maturity exists in organisations
that use the project approach seems imminent. The
Project management 4.01 0.79 2.33 5.67 0.8769 findings also point to the possibility that project usage is
Program management 3.93 0.91 1.57 5.67 0.8869
less than the knowledge and ambition to use the project
Portfolio management 3.90 0.91 1.50 5.58 0.8393
approach. One reason for this could be that the teaching
 E.S. Andersen, S.A. Jessen / International Journal of Project Management 21 (2003) 457–461
and theoretical training in project management already
is well introduced in the Norwegian society, through
both formal and informal training programs, while one
is hesitating when it comes to the practical implemen-
tation. Which again can be explained by the fact that
the failure rate in running modern projects successfully
is quite high, as documented through numerous well-
known cases.
Each organisation has therefore to look at its own
results and find out where the organisation has a great
deal to gain in increased project maturity. The tables
above identify areas for general improvements. Projects
need more focus on the simultaneous thinking of hard
and soft issues. The organisations need more knowledge
and better understanding of the starting-point of the
project. The project practice seems to be at its weakest
at the operational level.
Further work might be of value to improve the ques-
tionnaire. The ladder of maturity might be subject to
more analysis. We might claim that the types of projects
the organisation is handling are of importance in deter-
mining the level of maturity. Projects, which have as
their objective to create fundamental changes within the
organisation, might be much more difficult to carry out
than for instance construction projects.
The analysis could also be extended to cover a study
of which factors explain the level of maturity. We might
hypothesise that attitudes, knowledge and action con-
cerning change in general are the overall prerequisites
for developing a project mature organisation.
References
[1] Gareis R. Management by projects: the management approach
for the future. International Journal of Project Management
1989;7(4):243–9.
[2] Project Management Institute (PMI). Extant maturity models
Available from: http://opm3.pmi.org/models.htm. 2002a.
461
[3] Webster. The new lexicon Webster’s dictionary of the English
language 1988 Edition. NY: Lexicon Publications; 1988.
[4] Ibbs CW, Kwak YH. Assessing project management maturity.
Project Management Journal 2000;31(1):32–43.
[5] Project Management Institute (PMI). Organizational project
management maturity model (OPM3) Available from: http://
opm3.pmi.org/models.htm, 2002b.
[6] Skulmoski G. Project maturity and competence interface. Cost
Engineering 2001;43(6):11–18.
[7] Simon HA. A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly
Journal of Economics 1955;69(1):99–118.
[8] Williamson OE. The economic institutions of capitalism. NY:
Free Press; 1985.
[9] March JG. Introduction: a chronicle of speculations about deci-
sion-making in organizations. In: March JG, editor. Decisions
and organizations. Oxford and NY: Basil Blackwood; 1989.
[10] Helgesen T. The rationality of advertising decisions—conceptual
issues. Journal of Advertising Research 1992;32(6):22–30.
[11] Bronczek RH, Holsapple CW, Whinston AB. The evolving roles
of models in decision support systems. Decision Sciences 1980;
11(2):337.
[12] Forrester JW. Principles of systems. Cambridge, MA: Wright-
Allen Press; 1968.
[13] Birkigt K, Stadler MM. Corporate identity: Grundlagen, Funk-
tionen und Beispilen. Landsberg an Lech: Verlag Moderne
Industrie; 1986.
[14] Hofstede G. Culture’s consequences. International differences in
work-related values. Newbury Park: Sage Publication; 1982.
[15] Antilla V, Artto K, Wallèn G. Project management by results.
Project Management: Professional Magazine of the Project
Management Association Finland 1998;4(1):40–5.
[16] Boulding K. General systems theory: the selection of science.
General Systems, Yearbook of the Society for the Advancements
of General Systems Theory 1956;1:11–17.
[17] Mintzberg H. Structures in five: designing effective organizations.
NJ: Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs; 1983.
[18] Gareis R, Hueman M. Project managemnt competences in the
project-oriented organization. In: Turner JR, Sinister SJ, editors.
Gower handbook of project management. Aldershot: Gower;
2000.
[19] Crosby PB. Quality is free. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 1979.
[20] Association for Project Management (APM). The body of
knowledge. Buckinghamshire, UK: Association for Project Man-
agement; 2000.
[21] Buttrick R. The interactive project workout. UK: Financial
Times-Prentice Hall; 2000.