Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

International Journal of Project Management 29 (2011) 834 – 845

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

Program management organization maturity integrated model for mega

construction programs in China
Guangshe Jia, Yuting Chen ⁎, Xiangdong Xue, Jianguo Chen, Jiming Cao, Kewei Tang
Schools of Economics and Management, Tongji University, Siping Road 1239, Shanghai 200092, China

Received 16 March 2011; accepted 22 March 2011

Abstract

Maturity models can improve the effectiveness and capability of the organizations. However, the existing maturity models are only for one
single organization and cannot deal with the specific problems of mega construction programs (MCPs) in China. The program management
subjects of MCPs in China consist of the owner, the general design contractor, and the general construction contractor, which are not mature in the
organizational management and process management. This paper presents a program management organization maturity integrated model for
MCPs (PMOMIM-MCPs) in China, which integrates the program management subjects of MCPs and can improve the capability of them. Two
submodels of PMOMIM-MCPs—Organizational Management Submodel (OMS) and Process Management Submodel (PMS) are given. In the
end, a case study is given to justify and optimize the model.
© 2011 Elsevier Ltd. and IPMA. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Maturity model; Mega construction programs; Program management

1. Introduction The program management organizations of MCPs in China are

In recent years, mega construction programs (MCPs) are
more and more in China, such as Shanghai Hongqiao Integrated
Transportation Hub (SHITH), 2010 Shanghai Expo venues, etc.
“Mega” here means “much larger”. In China, MCPs are usually
public works which are mainly invested by the government.
They are multifunctional, colossal in size and scope, with a long
life time, high invested, and considerably uncertain (Bruzelius
et al., 2002; Priemus et al., 2008).They are political tasks and
play substantially strategic role of the state and the local
government. The construction of MCPs involves many stake-
holders such as the government, numbers of investment com-
panies, the residents, etc. In the construction process of MCPs,
there exist many problems regarding investment, management
and construction interfaces between different single projects.
All the characteristics of MCPs above make the program
management organizations of MCPs in China very complicated.
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 2165983384.
E-mail address: yutingchen2012@gmail.com (Y. Chen).
0263-7863/$ - see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. and IPMA. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.03.003
mainly constituted by the Construction Headquarters, the main
investment company, the main project management companies,
the general design contractor, and the general construction
contractor. All the management subjects constitute a temporary
program management team. This unique management mode
and organizational structure is quite different from those in
other countries.
As the size and complexity of MCPs gradually increases,
program management organizations face more and more chal-
lenges. At the same time, there exist many problems of program
management organizations e.g. the investment subjects lack the
experience of managing MCPs. Therefore, improving the capa-
bility of the program management organizations of MCPs has
become the problem which needs to be solved urgently.
Maturity models in particular have become an essential tool
in assessing organizations' current capabilities and helping
them to implement change and improvement in a structured
way. In recent two decades, there have appeared many project
management maturity models, such as Capability Maturity
Model (CMM), Organizational Project Management Maturity
 G. Jia et al. / International Journal of Project Management 29 (2011) 834–845
Model (OPM3), etc. However, the construction industry is
different from other industries. Further, MCPs are quite
different from single projects. And all of the existing models
are only for one single project management organization. For
the program management team of MCPs, the existing maturity
models cannot provide effective guidance to it.
This paper aims to conceptualize and develop a framework
for program management organization maturity integrated
model for MCPs (PMOMIM-MCPs), which integrates the
management of the program management subjects of MCPs and
can improve the capabilities of them. The model has two
submodels: Organizational Management Submodel (OMS) and
Process Management Submodel (PMS). OMS is to solve the
organizational management problems of the program manage-
ment subjects of MCPs. It can assess the maturity of the
organizational management from organizational structure,
organizational culture, technology reserve, and human resource.
PMS is to solve the process management problems, which can
assess the maturity from either of life cycle process groups and
knowledge areas. In the end, a case study is given to justify and
optimize the model.
2. Current status of program management for MCPs
in China
The construction of MCPs involves the transportation,
municipal engineering, telecommunications, the residents, etc.
There exists complicated interest relationship between the
stakeholders, making China form its own unique program
management mode.
In general, at the beginning of MCPs, the government
establishes a main investment company which is the main
subject of the development and investment, and the legal person
of MCPs. The company is responsible for the housebreaking,
land reserve, financing, etc. The government firstly gives the
company some fund as the capital of the company operation.
Then the company starts to finance according to the schedule
plan of MCPs. All of the construction fund will be obtained
through financing in capital market. According to different
facility, there will be diverse investment subjects. For example,
the main investment company of SHITH is SRTC Company.
And other investment subjects include Metro Company,
Maglev Company, the railway departments, etc. Every
investment subject is responsible for the projects of its own
field facility, e.g. Metro Company is only responsible for the
construction of metro.
Actually, there is much interest conflict between investment
subjects for the existence of investment and management
interfaces. In this case, the investment subjects first solve
problems through coordination and communication themselves.
However, there are always some problems which cannot be
solved by investment subjects. To avoid this, the government
establishes construction headquarters which coordinate all the
investment subjects and assume the total management of MCPs.
Construction headquarters is guided by the related government
departments. Further, the main investment company is the
office of construction headquarters. Construction headquarters
835
and the main investment company are fully responsible for the
construction of MCPs together.
In the management process, the main investment company
usually commissions professional project management compa-
nies to implement construction management and it mainly
assumes the responsibility of supervising. The project manage-
ment companies are responsible for the total management of the
MCPs construction and in effect play the role of owner project
management. They select the general design contractor and the
general construction contractor through public bidding and
tendering. The former is not only responsible for the design
management, but also often undertakes part of design tasks.
And the latter doesn't undertake the detailed project construc-
tion task. The general construction contractor mainly assumes
management and supervision to subcontractors, the safety of the
construction, the control of the master schedule, etc.
Considering the above mentioned, the construction head-
quarters, the main investment company, the main project
management companies, the general design contractor and the
general construction contractor are dominant among all the
management subjects of MCPs. The authors only choose them
as the research objects for it is impossible to study all the
management subjects. As a matter of fact, the construction
headquarters, the main investment company, and the main
project management companies function as the owner of MCPs.
Hence, the program management subjects of MCPs in China,
the research objects in this paper, can be divided into three
parts: the owner, the general design contractor, and the general
construction contractor, all of which assume the task of
program management of MCPs. The organizational structure of
program management subjects of MCPs in China can be seen in
Fig. 1.
However, the program management subjects of MCPs in
China are not mature. In recent 10 years, the scholars have
conducted extensive study on MCPs in China, and have argued
that there exist many problems in program management of
MCPs. The problems mainly lie in two aspects: Organizational
management and Process management, as noted in Table 1.
The problems in organizational management mainly involve
the following aspects. Firstly, the investment subjects and
project management companies lack the experience in manag-
ing MCPs. And there are no regulations and standards to abide
by. Secondly, there is no effective communication mechanism,
which leads to the conflict between the management subjects.
Besides, some organizations often deviate from the functions
which they should undertake. For example, the main investment
company may pay too much attention to the detailed project
management process, e.g. the cost, schedule, etc., rather than
the total regulation, control and investment management. In
addition, as newly setup organizations, the organizational
structure and culture of the investment companies are not
mature. In the meantime, the project management companies
are usually delegated insufficiently by the owner.
Table 1 has listed several problems in the process man-
agement of MCPs. To begin with, the owner doesn't value the
development process of the MCPs enough, e.g. early decisions
and feasibility study are not scientific and rational. Secondly,
836 G. Jia et al. / International Journal of Project Management 29 (2011) 834–845

Construction The research objects

Headquarters

Main
investment
company
Other investment Other investment
company 1 company n
Main project
management
companies All the three parts
function as the owner

General design General construction

contractor contractor

Design Design Design Construction Construction Construction

contractor 1 contractor 2 contractor n contractor 1 contractor 2 contractor n

Fig. 1. Organizational structure of program management subjects of MCPs in China.

there is a lack of complete and mature program management
plan and the plan can't be executed adequately. Furthermore,
there exist interface management problems between different
projects of MCPs, which may be the prominent problems. For
example, in the construction process of SHITH, if the high
Table 1
Summary of existing problems of management subjects for MCPs.
Category Existing problems
Organizational 1. The investment subjects lack the experience of managing MCPs
management 2. Lack of perfect communication mechanism and effective
communication channel for management subjects
3. The confusion of the actual functions of the management
subjects (Hong, 2009; Han, 2009)
4. Organizational structure of the main project investment
companies is not mature
5. Management mechanism of the main project investment
companies is not perfect (Yan et al., 2009; Zhou and Zhang,
2009)
6. Organizational culture of the main project investment
companies is not mature
7. Poor quality of the staff in project management companies
8. Insufficient delegation to project management companies
9. Poor performance of project management companies
Process 1. Lack of scientific and rational early decision-making
management 2. Poor feasibility study
3. Lack of scientific and reasonable program management plan
4. The program management plan is not executed adequately
5. There exist interface management problems between different
projects of MCPs
6. Violating capital construction procedure (Hu and Li, 2010)
7. Irregular tendering and bidding (Hu and Li, 2010)
8. Poor cost control
9. Lack of Post-Evaluation (Han, 2009; Wang et al., 2009)
speed railway hasn't been approved, then the metro cannot start
construction. Besides, the capital construction procedure is
violated. In the meantime, irregular tendering and bidding be-
havior happens occasionally. For example, for projects that
require public bidding, the owner appoints specific contractors
before the bidding. Moreover, cost overrun has always been a
serious problem, which also relates to the irregular bidding and
tendering behavior of the contractors. Some contractors will
bid with a very low price in order to be awarded. Later they will
make claims for change, which makes cost overrun. Finally, the
management subjects pay little attention to the Post-Evaluation.
The problems are the reasons for the low effectiveness and
efficiency of program management subjects and will affect the
normal construction of MCPs. Therefore, finding a reasonable
and effective tool to improve the maturity of the program
management subjects is urgently.
3. Literature review
Maturity models are an essential tool in assessing organiza-
tions' current capabilities and helping them to implement
change and improvements in a structured way (OGC, 2006). In
recent two decades, there have appeared many project man-
agement maturity models. In 1993, CMM (Paulk et al., 1993)
which is the earliest maturity model was introduced by the
Software Engineering Institute (Carnegie Mellon University).
CMM provides software organizations with guidance on how to
gain control of their processes for developing and maintaining
software and how to achieve successful outcomes through
continuous improvement. Since then, more and more maturity
models have appeared to help organizations to evolve toward
a culture of software engineering and management excellence.
 G. Jia et al. / International Journal of Project Management 29 (2011) 834–845
Simultaneously, maturity is gradually used beyond software
engineering domain and is broadly used in other industries and
specific areas. The existing maturity models, by and large, can
be grouped into four categories.
3.1. Maturity models which are generally applicable
Based on CMM, Capability Maturity Model Integration
(CMMI) (CMMI Product Team, 2001) is developed to provide
guidance for improving the organization's processes and the
ability to manage the development, acquisition, and mainte-
nance of products or services. Kwak and Ibbs (2002) gave a
more comprehensive project management process maturity
(PM)2 model to determine and benchmark an organization's
relative project management level with other organizations.
Gareis (2002) presented a spite web maturity model which was
based on process of project-oriented companies (POCs) and
assessed the competences of POCs using an IT questionnaire.
Then OPM3 (Project Management Institute, 2008) which is to
help organizations to translate strategy into successful outcomes
was announced by PMI. In order to develop an understanding of
what project maturity is and to investigate the level of project
maturity in organizations today, Andersen and Jessen (2003)
argued that project maturity develops through a maturity ladder
where the ladder steps are proposed to be project management,
program management, and portfolio management. Besides, they
noted that maturity itself is measured along three dimensions—
knowledge, attitudes, and actions.
More recently, OGC (2006) published Portfolio, Programme
and Project Management Maturity Model, which can increase
quality and efficiency in the delivery of products and services
across the public and private sectors and gave a second version
in 2009.
3.2. Maturity models which can only be employed in specific
industry
CMM is proposed to improve the effectiveness of the
software development process in the software industry. Niazi et
al. (2003) presented a software process improvement (SPI)
implementation maturity model which is extracted from CMMI
to help companies assess and improve their SPI implementation
processes. Zhou (2003) integrated CMM and Taiji model in
China and developed a CMM-Taiji model to improve the
effectiveness of software development process. Buglione et al.
(2009) proposed to take care of legal assurance process as an
additional process area within a maturity model, which
provided a suitable instrument for the management of inherent
legal risks to any information systems project.
3.3. Maturity models which are applied in certain areas
3.3.1. Technology area
Hinks et al. (1997) proposed technology maturity model
scenarios which explain the incremental use of information
technology in the engineering and construction industry.
837
3.3.2. System safety
Gunderson (2005) established a mature analytical framework
follow with the CMMI model as a template for system safety
analysis maturity levels.
3.3.3. Knowledge management
Isaai (2006) introduced an integrated framework which
covers three aspects—evaluation, maturity level and imple-
mentation road map to assess and promote the knowledge
management maturity level in enterprises.
3.3.4. Risk management
Hillson (1997) gave a risk management maturity model for
the projects. Further, Yeo and Ren (2009) developed a Risk
Management Capability Maturity Model (RM-CMM), specif-
ically for Complex Product Systems (CoPS) projects.
3.4. Others
Ibbs and Kwak (2000a, 2000b) proposed a project
management (PM) return on investment calculation methodol-
ogy by analyzing the relationships between PM maturity and
project performance in various organizations, aiming to deter-
mine the financial and organizational impacts of project man-
agement. Dooley et al. (2001) applied maturity beyond software
engineering domain and discussed the impact of the maturity
on project management in new product development. Cooke-
Davies and Arzymanowc (2003) presented the results of an
investigation into the nature and extent of variations between
project management practices in six industries (Petrochemical,
Defense, Pharmaceutical R&D, Construction, Telecommunica-
tions, Financial Services). The most highly developed project
management models were found in the Petrochemical and
Defense industries. Similarly, Grant and Pennypacke (2006)
compared project management maturity between four major
industries (professional, scientific and technical services; infor-
mation; finance and insurance; and manufacturing), though no
significant difference in project management maturity between
industries is found.
The review of the literature above presents that the existing
maturity models have not addressed directly and specifically the
problems unique to the program management subjects of MCPs.
The shortcomings of the existing models are:
• They are only for one organization, which cannot solve the
problems of the program management subjects of MCPs.
• They lack a clear and deep understanding of the uncertain
nature and high risk in MCPs, let alone the complexity of
program management subjects of MCPs.
• They are too generic which are applicable for all the orga-
nizations or too narrow which is only employed in certain
industry or areas. As a result, they cannot provide explicit
guidance for MCPs.
• They are to improve the capability of the whole organization
rather than a detailed project, not to mention any process
group in the life cycle of the project.
838 G. Jia et al. / International Journal of Project Management 29 (2011) 834–845
• They can only help the organization to have better per-
formance in the future for the projects to be built rather than
the projects being built.
4. Method
In the process of building the model, this paper applies
the following research steps. Firstly, the authors have a rich
experience of program management for MCPs in China, and
have contributed many MCPs in China, such as Guangzhou's
Baiyun International Airport, SHITH, Shanghai Pudong Airport
expansion projects, etc. The authors find that there exist many
problems of program management subjects of MCPs in China
after years of engineering practice. Meanwhile, in recent
10 years, the research results of Chinese scholars further proved
the existence of those problems. Secondly, based on the existing
maturity model, especially by taking a reference from OPM3,
combining the characteristics of MCPs and unique feature of the
management subjects in China, the model is built. Finally,
through applying the model to SHITH and Shanghai Pudong
Airport expansion projects (Phase II), the authors get useful
information to further optimize the model.
5. PMOMIM-MCPs
The purpose of PMOMIM-MCPs is to provide a framework
to help the program management subjects of MCPs—the
owner, the general design contractor, and the general construc-
tion contractor, which is a temporary team, to improve their
capabilities and management effectiveness. PMOMIM-MCPs
integrates the management of the three different management
subjects and allows every management subject to assess their
current maturity level, identify realistic targets for improve-
ment, and develop action plans for increasing their maturity.
The architecture of PMOMIM-MCPs can be seen in Fig. 2. The
model consists of two dimensions: Organization management
and Process management. Organization management dimension
can improve the capability of organizational management of the
program management subjects. Process management dimension
Fig. 2. PMOMIM-MCPs architecture.
aims to improve the capabilities of the program management
subjects in the life cycle of MCPs. The life cycle of MCPs in-
cludes Pre-MCP Preparations, MCP Initiation, MCP Setup,
Delivery of MCP benefits, and MCP Closure., which will be
discussed in detail later. In order to better understand the model,
Organizational Management Submodel (OMS) and Process
Management Submodel (PMS) are given. Based on different
management subjects, PMS can be divided into three submodels:
Owner submodel, General Design Contractor submodel, and
General Construction Contractor submodel. Although different
management subjects have different management functions, all
the management function of the three subjects are based on
the same project management theory. For this reason, the three
submodels have the same three dimension architecture.
5.1. OMS
OMS is to improve the capability of the whole temporary
program management team. As shown in Fig. 3, there are two
dimensions in OMS: SMCIs and key Capability areas. Here
SMCIs (Standardize, Measure, Control, and continuously
Improve) coming from OPM3 are best practices helping the
organizations to achieve their objectives. They are measures in
four different aspects which ensure the effective implementation
of the program management process. The key Capability areas
mean that the program management subjects should improve
their organizational management capability from Organization-
al structure, Organizational culture, Technology reserve, and
Human resource, according to the problems of Organizational
management of MCPs in China.
5.1.1. SMCIs
5.1.1.1. Standardize. The program management team is stable
and has standardized organizational components regarding
organizational structure, organizational culture, technology
reserve, and human resource.
 G. Jia et al. / International Journal of Project Management 29 (2011) 834–845
Fig. 3. OMS architecture.
5.1.1.2. Measure. The program management team can
measure the performance of organizational management.
There are indicators for performance appraisal. And there is
operational mechanism of the measurement plan. After the
measurement, the program management team can answer the
following four questions.
• Is the organizational structure stable?
• Has the program management culture been established?
• Are the staff in the team qualified?
• Has the information management mechanism been
established?
5.1.1.3. Control. Based on the results of the measurement, the
program management team can take actions to monitor and
adjust the current status much more effectively. Thus, the whole
team is controlled effectively and the team is in a more stable
state.
5.1.1.4. Continuously improve. The program management
team can identify and solve the existing problems concerning
with organizational structure, organizational culture, technolo-
gy reserve, and human resource. At the same time, the program
management team finds improvement methods to achieve
continuous improvement.
5.1.2. Key capability areas
5.1.2.1. Organizational structure. The investment subjects
and management subjects of MCPs are usually the govern-
ment departments. As a result, MCPs are easily impacted by
administrative intervention. Hence, the program management
team should have a relatively stable organizational structure
but flexible if needed. In addition, the division of the tasks
should be clear. Program manager and project manager
should better play their role. On the other hand, it is crucial to
establish an efficient and effective communication channel to
deal with the emergencies for MCPs in changing circum-
stances. Communication needs of program management
839
subjects are best served by a mixture of formal and informal
communication, and of written and verbal communication
(Turner and Müllera, 2004).
5.1.2.2. Organizational culture. Different management sub-
jects have different organizational culture and working mode. In
reality, many projects failed because of culture conflict and poor
teamwork. In order to avoid this, to begin with, all the
management subjects of MCPs should have a deep awareness of
the objectives of MCPs. Also, they should have a common
understanding of the success criteria of the project before the
project started (Wateridge, 1995).
Secondly, the common program management culture
should be developed. The program management culture
should be recognized by the management subjects and
should conform to the strategic objectives of MCPs. And the
culture should be objective-oriented and a learning culture.
Simultaneously, the project manager should be empowered
for a successful project and perhaps different project type
should be matched with different leadership of program
manager and project manager (Turner, 2004; Müller and
Turner, 2007).
5.1.2.3. Technology reserve. Scientific and reasonable pro-
gram management system, program management process, and
information management system are also vital, which the
management subjects have to go by to achieve expected results.
Also, these rules can restrict the improper behavior of the
management subjects. Information management has become
necessary means for management subjects. It can improve work
efficiency. Furthermore, management process and information
management system should be optimized according to the
characteristics of MCPs and the process group of the life cycle
in which the MCPs are.
5.1.2.4. Human-resource. Human Resource Management
(HRM) is of strategic importance in all organizations
(Huemann et al., 2007). In most cases, the performance of
the people is the key factor influencing project success. The
program management team for MCPs has its own features and
specific requirements about HRM. In reality, the owner of the
MCPs in China is government. However, the government
personnel have little professional project management
knowledge. And there is always personnel redundancy.
Accordingly, the program management team should staff
proper people, both in size and in quality, and need to liberate
energies and capabilities greater than that of the sum of the
individual members by supporting new ideas (Veil and
Turner, 2002). Furthermore, the performance evaluation
mechanism should be established to inspire the personnel to
work harder. It is important that the performance evaluation
mechanism is fair, open. In the end, the training mechanism
should be developed to share the program management
knowledge and experience. At the same time, HRM should
play an employee support role, caring for the well-being of
employees and providing employees with career development
(Turner et al., 2008).
840 G. Jia et al. / International Journal of Project Management 29 (2011) 834–845
Fig. 4. PMS architecture.
5.2. PMS
As shown in Fig. 4, there are three dimensions of PMS:
SMCIs, Life cycle processes groups, and Knowledge areas.
PMS can assess the maturity level of the program management
subjects of MCPs in every knowledge area and every process
group. In every knowledge area and every process, the detailed
management content of the owner, the general design
contractor, and the general construction contractor is very
different.
5.2.1. SMCIs
5.2.1.1. Standardize. The program management team has
established the standardized program management process,
which facilitates the implementation of program management.
5.2.1.2. Measure. The program management team makes
quantitative analysis to program management performance and
establishes measurement standard and indicators. These actions
can effectively measure the implementation status of Process
Management of MCPs and provide data for the next two stages—
Control and Continuously Improve.
5.2.1.3. Control. Based on the result of the “Measure” stage,
the program management team develops controlling mechanism
of program management processes, which makes the program
management stably implemented.
5.2.1.4. Continuously Improve. Through controlling the
program management processes, the program management
team solves the existing problems in program management
process. At the same time, the program management team finds
improvement methods to achieve continuous improvement.
5.2.2. Life cycle process groups
In this paper, the life cycle of MCPs can be divided into five
process groups: Pre-MCP Preparations, MCP Initiation, MCP
Setup, Delivery of MCP benefits, and MCP Closure. It is worth
noting that there is no absolute time boundary between these
processes, often they are overlapping. And the durations of these
processes will vary depending on unique program requirements.
The range of activities of each process is as follows:
(1) Pre-MCP Preparations
• Focus on the work to be completed,
• Carry out business justification,
• Evaluate and screen alternatives,
• Define the program objectives and their alignment with
the organizations' strategies,
• Complete underground work before the program
initiation.
In this process, the program management subjects should make
scientific and reasonable Early Decision. Firstly, MCPs which are
to realize the development strategy of the county or a region should
conform to the city development strategy. Secondly, the investment
companies, especially the related government departments should
initiate MCPs from the economic, political, cultural development
requirements of the region, instead of the “image” and “vanity
projects”. Consequently, elaborate opportunity study is highly
important and necessary. Moreover, detailed site investigation is
also vital for scientific and reasonable early decision which is vital
for cost controlling.
(2) MCP Initiation
• Develop in great detail how the MCPs can be structured
and managed to deliver the desired outcomes,
• Complete feasibility study report,
• Identify the investment subjects of MCP.
It is important to reinforce the feasibility study in this
process. Feasibility study contains comprehensive demonstra-
tion and analysis of the economic, technical, and environmental
aspects of MCPs. It helps the investment companies decide
whether to invest or not and how to invest. At the same time,
based on the comparison of several programs, the optimum
 G. Jia et al. / International Journal of Project Management 29 (2011) 834–845
program is determined, which can avoid time delay and
enormous waste of human, material and financial resources due
to both the internal and external change.
(3) MCP Setup
• Develop regulatory detailed planning and other plans
of program management of MCPs,
• Identify key resources (the human, material and capital)
needed by program management of MCPs.
The result of this process is establishing an appointed and
executable program management plan for MCPs, which is also
a basis of delivering MCP benefits. In this process, firstly, the
program management subjects should make scientific and
reasonable Program Management Plan (PMP). PMP is not
only the guidance for the future program management work,
but also the controlling standards for the implementation of
MCPs. It involves making many detailed plans, e.g. investment
subjects management plan. PMP should consider all the
stakeholders, political, economic, and environmental cultural
factors, select the general construction contractor, make the
quality standard and establish the information management
system, communication management mechanism, etc. In
addition, PMP for MCPs is more complex than that of a
single project. And the lower the management levels are, the
more detailed the management plan should be. Besides, PMP
should be carried out strictly. Secondly, tendering and bidding
behavior should be regularized. The owner should carry out
public tendering on grounds of justice and openness, make
scientific and reasonable bid assessment principles, and select
appropriate evaluation experts. In fact, the tendering and biding
work of MCPs is done by the project management companies
which should fulfill their tasks. The general design contractor
and the general construction contractor should win the bid
through fair means such as optimum program, better personnel
allocation, etc.
(4) Delivery of MCP benefits
• Initiate projects in order to meet MCPs objectives,
• The owner, designer and the construction contractor
managing MCPs in a coordinated way to ensure com-
ponent deliverables meet the requirement.
In this process, to begin with, construction should be in
accordance with capital construction procedure. In practice, in
order to get funds for construction as soon as possible, some
organizations violate capital construction procedure. For
example, the project has been being constructed, while the
design has not been completed. Violation of capital construc-
tion procedure results in many design changes in the con-
struction phase, which leads to much loss. At the same time, it
is hard to ensure the quality of the project and the time may
be delayed. Thereby, the construction must follow capital
construction procedure. Secondly, Cost should be controlled
well in construction phase. Excess budget is a serious problem
for MCPs in China. The project management companies should
fulfill their tasks to monitor the behavior of the contractors to
prevent them from proposing design change arbitrarily. Then
the management of the material and the equipment should be
841
strengthened, because the cost of the material and the equip-
ment accounts for 60%–70% of the total cost.
(5) MCP Closure
• All component work is completed and MCPs step into
final completion acceptance phase,
• Transfer the real assets,
• Deal with related contracts,
• Disband the program team and ensure arrangements
are in place for appropriate redeployment of all human
resources,
• Dismantle the infrastructure and ensure arrangements
are in place for appropriate redeployment of all physi-
cal resources (e.g., facilities, equipment, etc.).
• The MCP enters into trial operation phase.
In this process, Post-Evaluation should be taken. Post-
Evaluation of MCPs refers to a concluding retrospective as-
sessment after the MCPs have been completed and put into
operation for some time. It aims to evaluate the actual state of
the program operation and determine whether the expected
outcomes have been achieved (Wang, 2001). Currently, there
is no proper Post-Evaluation method for MCPs. And Post-
Evaluation staff is not sufficiently qualified. Moreover, the
results of Post-Evaluation are usually under-utilized. In order
to solve these problems, the program management team,
especially the owner, should improve the quality of the Post-
Evaluation staff, select the appropriate Post-Evaluation meth-
od, and better use the results of Post-Evaluation. Better use the
results of Post-Evaluation means using the results to improve
the programs which have been built, guiding the programs
which are being built, and improving the programs which are to
be built. Besides, the results of Post-Evaluation can forecast the
future development and sustainability of programs (Yi, 2009).
5.2.3. Knowledge areas
Program management of MCPs focuses on the overall
coordination and management, as well as the supervision and
control of the entire MCPs. The knowledge areas of program
management for MCPs can be divided into the following ten areas.
5.2.3.1. Integration management. Integration management
includes the processes and activities needed to identify, define,
combine, unify, and coordinate multiple components within the
MCPs as well as coordinate the various processes and program
management activities within the program management process
groups. Integration includes managing the investment subjects
expectations and interest, making trade-offs among different
projects within MCPs, and delivering MCP benefits. Integration
requires making choices about where to concentrate resources
and effort, anticipating issues and dealing with them before they
become critical, and coordinating work for the overall success
of the program. Integration management of MCPs is mainly
implemented by the owner. The success of MCPs relies on
integrating effective program management strategies with
proper utilization of program management techniques.
842 G. Jia et al. / International Journal of Project Management 29 (2011) 834–845
5.2.3.2. Scope management. Scope management is the
process that ensures all the factors and variables for defining
and controlling the MCPs included. Scope management is the
work throughout the life cycle of MCPs. It identifies the goals
and objectives of MCPs, making clear what is to be delivered.
It gives the program breakdown structure, work breakdown
structure of MCPs, which identify the interrelationships be-
tween all of the MCPs components. At the same time, scope
management manages interfaces between the program compo-
nents, e.g. the construction interfaces between different projects
and the management interfaces of different investment subjects.
Scope management ensures the MCPs' scope is controlled to
meet the agreed-upon goals and realize the agreed program
objectives and benefits identified.
5.2.3.3. Time management. Time management ensures com-
pleting the MCPs on time. It includes determining the order in
which the individual components are executed, the critical path
for the MCPs, and the milestones to be measured to keep the
overall MCPs on track and within the defined constraints. An
important work of time management is the schedule coordina-
tion of the relevant projects within the MCPs. For example, in
the construction process of SHITH, there are some common
parts of the high speed rail and the underground, e.g. the piles.
Hence, the schedule of the high speed rail and the underground
must be coordinated for the strong relation between the two.
MCPs are considerably uncertain and high risk. Hence, time
management is a great challenge for the program management
subjects. MCPs in China are often political task, which are the
focus of all the management subjects, especially the Chinese
government. In addition, time here means the master schedule
of MCPs, which is consisted of the key schedule nodes. In the
construction process of SHITH, Shanghai Pudong Airport
Expansion Projects (Phase II), etc., the master schedule plan has
played important role.
5.2.3.4. Quality and safety management. MCPs consist of
large number of projects and involve many stakeholders.
Therefore, any quality problem and potential safety hazard will
lead to great loss. Quality and safety management is mainly to
ensure civilized construction on site and ensure all people and
assets safe. It is mainly implemented by the project management
companies and the general construction contractor. Sound reg-
ulation is the premise of quality and safety management. There
exist many construction interfaces in MCPs, where quality
accidents are easy to occur. Hence, the construction interface
management is very important. And the quality indicators of
MCP must be met.
5.2.3.5. Investment management. Investment Management of
MCPs includes all of the processes involved in identifying the
MCPs' financial sources and resources, integrating the budgets
of the individual projects, developing the overall budget for the
MCPs, and controlling costs throughout the life cycle of both
the projects and program. Since MCPs are typically very high in
cost compared to single projects, investment management is
concerned with the overall MCPs rather than managing
individual projects.
There are many investment subjects for MCPs in China.
Investment management of MCPs includes the management of
the investment subjects. The structure of the investment subjects
and the investment division should be identified.
5.2.3.6. Information management. Information management
is to deal with the enormous amounts of information of MCPs.
The information relates to diverse aspects, such as the infor-
mation of MCPs themselves and the information of manage-
ment subjects. The aim of information management is to save
important information, such as the project archive. On the other
hand, through establishing information platform, the informa-
tion can be shared by the designers, the construction con-
tractors, etc., even management subjects of other MCPs.
5.2.3.7. Procurement management. Procurement manage-
ment ensures that goods and services from outside performing
as the way organizations are acquired. It is critical in ensuring
the success of MCPs. Through careful analysis and planning,
economies of scale can be obtained in procurement for the
components of the program. Additionally, careful planning and
analysis ensures overall quality and integration of components
and activities throughout the program. Procurement manage-
ment determines what and when to procure, and develop
procurement strategies. For these reasons, well-documented and
designed procurement processes are required.
5.2.3.8. Coordination management. Coordination manage-
ment here includes not only the management of the stake-
holders, but also the governance of MCPs. The construction
headquarters assume the coordination management of different
stakeholders, such as the government, the investment subjects,
and the residents. At the same time, the construction head-
quarters and the main investment company are responsible the
total management of MCPs. Further, coordination management
also refers to the positive coordination and communication be-
tween the investment subjects. In this case, effective commu-
nication mechanism is necessary.
5.2.3.9. Risk management. Risk management identifies,
analyzes, and responds to MCP risk. MCP risk categories in-
clude environment-level risks, program-level risks, and project
risks. It includes defining, identifying, and quantifying risk;
formulating risk mitigation strategies; and developing appro-
priate risk response and control processes. All the management
subjects should place importance on it. It is necessary to employ
professional risk management agencies for MCPs and establish
effective promotion mechanism of risk management .e.g. regu-
lar report of risk management.
5.2.3.10. Environmental management. MCPs have great
effect on the environment. For example, the airport will produce
a lot of noise which will affect the life of the residents. The
environmental problem is the long-term chronic illness of China
construction industry. It hasn't been solved for a long time
 G. Jia et al. / International Journal of Project Management 29 (2011) 834–845
for lack of awareness of environmental protection, the limits
of construction technology, etc. Currently, the mechanism of
environmental management in China is relatively incomplete.
Environmental management aims to protect the natural en-
vironment and the living environment from contamination as
far as possible. With complete regulations and legal system,
environment protection consciousness is necessary.
6. Case study
In order to justify and optimize the model, PMOMIM-MCPs is
applied to SHITH. Here part of the assessment result of SHITH is
given. SHITH is a major urban infrastructure during the “Eleventh
Five-Year” period in Shanghai. It consists of Hongqiao airport
expansion projects, Traffic center and Comprehensive affiliation,
which are really very sophisticated MCPs. And each of the three
parts includes many construction programs, e.g. Traffic center
includes east and west squares, east and west metro stations, etc.
There are many investment subjects of SHITH, such as
SRTC Company which is the main investment company, SAA
Company, SSMG Company, etc. In order to coordinate so many
investment companies, the government established SHITH
construction headquarters, whose office is SRTC. SRTC is
responsible for financing, loan, etc. The program management
of the hub is commissioned to two project management
companies: SA Construction Headquarters and SCM Company.
The former is mainly responsible for the Traffic center, while
the latter assumes the Comprehensive affiliation. General
design management mode is employed to the design manage-
ment of SHITH. SME Design Institute undertakes the design
management of the entire region, while HD Design and
Research Institute is responsible for the Traffic center. There
is no unified construction management subject for the
construction management of the hub due to its complexity.
Yet, for Traffic center, general construction management mode
is applied, and SCG Company is responsible for the construc-
SHITH Construction Headquarters
Construction Headquarters Office(SRTC)
Municipal City
Electricity SAA
Investment
Power Company
Company
Company
... ... SA Construction
Headquarters
HD Design and
SCG Company
Research Institute
Fig. 5. Organizational structure of the program management subjects of SHITH.
843
tion management of it. Fig. 5 is part of the organizational
structure of the program management subjects of SHITH.
In this case, the authors choose SHITH construction
headquarters as the assessment objects. People assessed are
the heads of all departments, including Engineering Manage-
ment Department, Plan Finance Department, and Chief
Engineer Office, etc. The authors have designed the maturity
questionnaires of OMS and PMS. All the people assessed were
told to complete the questionnaires. Each question is assigned a
certain score or score range. Then the assessment results were
obtained through averaging. Tables 2 and 3 are part of the
assessment result.
Table 2 describes the Organizational Management maturity
level of the construction headquarters. As shown in Table 2, for
Organizational structure, the temporary program management
team has reached “Standardize” level, “Measure” level, and
“Control” level, but hasn't reached “Continuously Improve”
level. However, for the last three key capability areas, the
temporary team hasn't reached any maturity level. That means,
the temporary program management team of SHITH hasn't
reached the “Standardize” level and its maturity level is very
low. The main reason for the low maturity is that the program
management team is a temporary team, many subjects of which
were established specifically for SHITH. Moreover, the
assessment time is in the early stage, a period full of conflict,
of the hub, which is also part reason of the low maturity level.
Table 3 is the distribution of the knowledge area maturity
score of the construction headquarters of SHITH. For each row
in Table 3, the maturity score of SMCIs in every knowledge
area is given. For example, for Scope management area, its
maturity score of SMCIs are 50%, 38%, 38%, and 75%. At the
bottom row of Table 3, the total maturity scores of the
“Standardize” level, the “Measure” level, the “Control” level,
and the “Continuously Improve” level are 69%, 56%, 62%, and
87%, respectively. As can be seen, the “Control” level and
“Continuously Improve” level are high, while the “Measure”
BS Express
SRTC Metro
Railway …
Company Group Co
Limited
... ...
SCM Company
SME Design Institute
844 G. Jia et al. / International Journal of Project Management 29 (2011) 834–845

Table 2
Organizational management maturity level of SHITH.
SMCIs Key capability areas Maturity level
Organizational structure Organizational culture Technology reserve Human resource
Standardize Yes No No No Not reached the Standardize level
Measure Yes No No No
Control Yes No No No
Continuously Improve No No No No

level is low. The reason is that the program management the government and the government has high demand about the
subjects in China have strong willingness to control and time target, quality and safety. In other words, administrative
improve the construction of MCPs, and regard “control” and pressure of the government plays a part in the good performance
“improve” as important program management work. However, of time, quality and safety.
in the “control” and “improve” process, the management In general, the assessed results agree with the reality in
subjects are always too blind, and pay little attention to the China. That means the model is feasible in practice.
“measure” process. For the extreme right column, the “Total”
column, the total maturity score of every knowledge area is
given. As noted in the “Total” column, the maturity scores of 7. Conclusion
Scope management and Environmental management are 50%
and 54%, which are the lowest among all the knowledge areas. PMOMIM-MCPs can improve the capability of all the main
Coordination management maturity score is 63% which is also management subjects—the owner, the general design contrac-
very low. For scope management and coordination manage- tor, and the general construction contractor, which is a
ment, the construction headquarters cannot play its role well for temporary program management team of MCPs in China. It is
the complex structure and management interfaces of MCPs, and to improve the capability of the temporary program manage-
lack of management experience. MCPs have great effect on the ment team in the life cycle of MCPs. It integrates the orga-
environment. And the environmental problem is the long-term nizational management and process management of MCPs.
chronic illness of China Construction industry. It hasn't been PMOMIM-MCPs has two submodels: OMS and PMS. This
solved for a long time because of lack of awareness of integrated model can improve the maturity level of the program
environmental protection, the limits of construction technology, management team from different aspects, such as the knowl-
etc. Time management maturity score is 88%, which is the edge areas, the process groups, etc.
highest. The second highest is Quality and safety management, However, PMOMIM-MCPs needs further improvement and
whose score is 81%. The reason is that MCPs are invested by evaluation in order to be applied in other countries. An expert
panel review will be conducted in order to get feedback from
different practitioners.
Table 3
The knowledge area maturity of the construction headquarters of SHITH. Acknowledgments
Knowledge area SMCIs Total
Standardize Measure Control Continuously Our acknowledgements go to all practitioners who accepted
Improve our interview. This work is also supported by National Natural
Integration 67% 63% 67% 83% 70% Science Foundation of China (project NO.70472062) and
management Project Management Institute (PMI).
Scope 50% 38% 38% 75% 50%
management
Time management 100% 75% 75% 100% 88% References
Quality and safety 75% 75% 75% 100% 81%
management
Andersen, E.S., Jessen, S.A., 2003. Project maturity in organizations.
Investment – – – – –
International Journal of Project Management 21 (6), 457-461.
management
Bruzelius, N., Flyvbjerg, B., Rothengatter, W., 2002. Big decisions, big risks,
Information – – – – –
improving accountability in mega projects. Transport Policy 9 (2), 143–154.
management
Buglione, L., Rejas-Muslera, R.J., Cuadrado Gallego, Juan José, 2009.
Procurement – – – – –
Strengthening maturity levels by a legal assurance process. Software
management
Process Improvement and Practice 14 (6), 305–314.
Coordination 50% 38% 75% 88% 63%
CMMI Product Team, 2001. Capability Maturity Model® Integration (CMMISM),
management
Version 1.1. Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University.
Risk management 75% 63% 63% 88% 72%
Cooke-Davies, T.J., Arzymanowc, A., 2003. The maturity of project man-
Environmental 63% 38% 38% 75% 54%
agement in different industries: an investigation into variations between
management
project management models. International Journal of Project Management
Total 69% 56% 62% 87% 68%
21 (6), 471–478.
 G. Jia et al. / International Journal of Project Management 29 (2011) 834–845
Dooley, K., Subra, A., Anderson, J., 2001. Maturity and its impact on new
product development project performance. Research in Engineering Design
13 (1), 23–29.
Gareis, R., 2002. A process-based maturity model for the assessment of
the competences of project-oriented companies. 2nd SENET Conference,
Cavtat, Vienna, Austria.
Grant, K.P., Pennypacke, J.S., 2006. Project management maturity: an
assessment of project management capabilities among and between selected
industries. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 53 (1), 59–68.
Gunderson, S., 2005. A review of organizational factors and maturity measures
for system safety analysis. Systems Engineering 8 (3), 234–244.
Han, W., 2009. Improve the supervision of government investment projects.
Public Finance Research (7), 61–62.
Hillson, D.A., 1997. Towards a risk maturity model. The International Journal
of Project & Business Management 1 (1), 35–45.
Hinks, J., Aouad, G., Cooper, R., Sheath, D., Kagioglou, M., Sexton, M., 1997.
IT and the design and construction process: a conceptual model of
co-maturation. International Journal of Construction Information Technology
5 (1), 1–25.
Hong, J., 2009. Some reflections about establishing the permanence evaluation
system of government-invested projects. Chinese Public Administration (5),
111–112.
Hu, X.B., Li, X.M., 2010. Study of problems of government-invested
projects and supervision measures. Macroeconomic Management (2),
52–53.
Huemann, M., Keegan, A., Turner, J.R., 2007. Human resource management
in the project-oriented company: a review. International Journal of Project
Management 25 (3), 315–323.
Ibbs, C.W., Kwak, Y.H., 2000a. Assessing project management maturity.
Project Management Journal 31 (1), 32–43.
Ibbs, C.W., Kwak, Y.H., 2000b. Calculating project management's return on
investment. Project Management Journal 31 (2), 38–47.
Isaai, M.T., 2006. A framework to the assessment and promotion of knowledge
management maturity level in enterprise: modeling and case study. IEEE
International Conference on Management of Innovation and Technology
(1), 163–165.
Kwak, Y.H., Ibbs, C.W., 2002. Project Management Process Maturity (PM)2
Model. Journal of Management in Engineering. 18 (3), 150–155.
Müller, R., Turner, J.R., 2007. Matching the project manager's leadership style
to project type. International Journal of Project Management 25 (1), 21–32.
Niazi, M., Wilson, D., Zowghi, D., 2003. A maturity model for the
implementation of software process improvement: an empirical study. The
Journal of Systems and Software 74 (2), 155–172.
845
OGC, 2006. Portfolio, Programme and Project Management Maturity Model.
http://www.ogc.gov.uk/.
Paulk, M.C., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M.B., Weber, C.V., 1993. Technical Report
Capability Maturity ModelSM for Software, Version 1.1. Software
Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University.
Priemus, H., Flyvbjerg, B., Van Wee, B., 2008. Decision-making on Mega-
projects Cost–benefit Analysis, Planning and Innovation. Edward Elgar
Publishing, Inc., Northampton, Massachusetts.
Project Management Institute, 2008. Organizational Project Management
Maturity Model (OPM3R) Second Edition. Project Management Institute,
Inc., Newtown Square, PA.
Turner, J.R., 2004. Five necessary conditions for project success. International
Journal of Project Management 22 (5), 349–350.
Turner, J.R., Müllera, R., 2004. Communication and co-operation on projects
between the project owner as principal and the project manager as agent.
European Management Journal 22 (3), 327–336.
Turner, R., Huemann, M., Keegan, A., 2008. Human resource management in
the project-oriented organization: employee well-being and ethical treat-
ment. International Journal of Project Management 26 (5), 577–585.
Veil, C., Turner, J.R., 2002. Group efficiency improvement: how to liberate
energy in project groups. International Journal of Project Management
20 (2), 137–142.
Wang, T.Z., 2001. Carry out Post-Evaluation of major projects. Macroeconomic
Management (6), 44–45.
Wang, X.J., Wang, M.J., Chen, H.H., 2009. Analysis of decision-making system
and decision-making mechanism of government-invested projects. Science
and Technology Management Research (7), 107–109.
Wateridge, J., 1995. IT projects: a basis for success. International Journal of Project
Management 13 (3), 169–172.
Yan, M., Yan, L., Yin, L.L., 2009. Research on the present situation and
problems of agent construction system for government investment projects
based on project critical governance factors. Shanghai Journal of Economics
(8), 33–41.
Yeo, K.T., Ren, Y.T., 2009. Risk management capability maturity model for
Complex Product Systems (CoPS) projects. Systems Engineering 12 (4),
275–294.
Yi, J., 2009. On the post-evaluation problems of construction project. Forestry
Economics (4), 70–72.
Zhou, Z.Y., 2003. CMM in uncertain environments. Communications of the
ACM 46 (8), 115–119.
Zhou, X.H., Zhang, X.L., 2009. Research on the role of Agent construction
system in government-invested projects and the matters needing attention.
Leadership Science (3), 35–37.