One of the main buzzwords during last 20 years is “maturity model” (MM), moving from the original Crosby’s idea. A plenty of MMs was created also in Project Management with OPM3, PM2 and PMMM just to name a few. Even if most of such models have been discussed, there is room for new issues to observe (e.g. those MMs are proposed in a staged and not continuous representation, and there are no enough mappings available). The paper focuses on the way to achieve improvements in organizational as well as process maturity with a 360° view, using jointly “horizontal” MMs (models containing all the processes to be sequentially executed in a value chain, as CMMI) and “vertical” MMs (models deepening a group of processes within the organization’s BPM, as PMI’s OPM3). The paper will discuss the way to combine assessment results using more MMs on the two dimensions, with a general-domain approach as well as examples from the Software/Systems Engineering domain, optimizing the effort for conducting those appraisals in an organization, as well as how to use them in the context of the IPMA Competency Baseline v3.0 and PMI Project Management Competency Development Framework v2.0.

1. 22° IPMA World Congress
“Project Management to Run”
Achieving Higher Maturity & Capability Levels
Crossing Horizontal and Vertical Maturity
Models
Luigi Buglione, PhD - ISIPM
9-11 November 2008, Roma, Italy

2. IPMA2008 22° World Congress
www.isipm.org
Agenda
– Introduction
– An evolutionary view on Maturity Models (MM)
MM
• A brief history
• MM representations & main elements
• MM in the Project Management domain (PM-MM)
– MM orthogonality
• Classifying MM by ‘directionality’
• MM Scope & Application
– Combining Horizontal & Vertical MMs
– Conclusions & Prospects
2

3. IPMA2008 22° World Congress
www.isipm.org
Introduction
Source: Standish Group, CHAOS Chronicles, 2004
3

4. IPMA2008 22° World Congress
www.isipm.org
Introduction
– Q: how to improve such results?
– Q: is there a well established path
towards improvement?
– A: Maturity Models
4

5. IPMA2008 22° World Congress
www.isipm.org
Agenda
– Introduction
– An evolutionary view on Maturity Models (MM)
MM
• A brief history
• MM representations & main elements
• MM in the Project Management domain (PM-MM)
– MM orthogonality
• Classifying MM by ‘directionality’
• MM Scope & Application
– Combining Horizontal & Vertical MMs
– Conclusions & Prospects
5

6. IPMA2008 22° World Congress
www.isipm.org
An Evolutionary view on MM
A brief MM history
6

7. IPMA2008 22° World Congress
www.isipm.org
An Evolutionary view on MM
MM representations & main elements
Maturity Model (MM): “model that contains the essential elements of
effective processes for one or more disciplines and describes an
evolutionary improvement path from ad hoc, immature processes to
disciplined, mature processes with improved quality and effectiveness ”
A MM is composed by two main parts:
– PRM (Process Reference Model)
– PAM (Process Assessment Model)
A PRM can be represented and assessed in two possible ways:
– Staged  evaluating an organizational unit by Maturity
Level (ML) according to a well-established path;
– Continuous  evaluating a single process by Capability
Level (CL) choosing the desired processes by the whole PRM
schema; by an equivalent staging, a ML can be derived.
7

8. IPMA2008 22° World Congress
www.isipm.org
An Evolutionary view on MM
MM in the Project Mgmt domain
From the ’90s, a series of MM for Project Management (PM-MM) has
been proposed. Among others:
With 5 ML: With 3 ML:
ML
• PMMM • P2MM
• OPM3 (based on PMI’s PMBOK v3) • ESPM3
• PM2 • …
• P2MM (based on OGC’s Prince2)
– Note: according CBP, c.a.
• P3M3 90% of organization using PMMM
are rated at ML1/2
• ProjectFramework
• …
Suggestions:
–Use the Continuous Representation
–Integrate a PM-MM in a BSC-like
manner, drawing a strategic map
8

9. IPMA2008 22° World Congress
www.isipm.org
Agenda
– Introduction
– An evolutionary view on Maturity Models (MM)
MM
• A brief history
• MM representations & main elements
• MM in the Project Management domain (PM-MM)
– MM orthogonality
• Classifying MM by ‘directionality’
• MM Scope & Application
– Combining Horizontal & Vertical MMs
– Conclusions & Prospects
9

10. IPMA2008 22° World Congress
www.isipm.org
MM Orthogonality
Classifying MM by ‘directionality’
It is possible to classify MMs by ‘directionality’:
– Horizontal: MMs going
through the whole supply
chain
• SwEng:ISO/IEC 15504
(SPICE), CMMI, FAA i-CMM, …
– Vertical: MMs focusing
on a single
perspective/group of
processes
• Test Mgmt: TMM, TPI, …
• Project Mgmt: the PM-MM
previous listed
10

11. IPMA2008 22° World Congress
www.isipm.org
MM Orthogonality
MM Scope & Application
Each MM has a well-established scope:
– Horizontal MM: cover the whole lifecycle
– Vertical MM: cover in detail only its own process group scope
– Q: what does it happen if we’d like to use
more MM at the same time?
– Q: could it be better to separately manage
more improvement initiatives or joint them into
a unique one? Eventually, how?
11

12. IPMA2008 22° World Congress
www.isipm.org
Agenda
– Introduction
– An evolutionary view on Maturity Models (MM)
MM
• A brief history
• MM representations & main elements
• MM in the Project Management domain (PM-MM)
– MM orthogonality
• Classifying MM by ‘directionality’
• MM Scope & Application
– Combining Horizontal & Vertical MMs
– Conclusions & Prospects
12

13. IPMA2008 22° World Congress
www.isipm.org
Combining Horizontal & Vertical MM
“5W’s + H” rule
A general rule of thumb from journalism is the “5W’s+H” rule:
Why
Who
What
Where
When
How
Here 4 out of 6 criteria can be used for discussion:
– Why, Who, What & How
– Where, When: strictly depending from the Organizational Unit
(OU) where improvement actions will take place when planned.
OU
13

14. IPMA2008 22° World Congress
www.isipm.org
Combining Horizontal & Vertical MM
1. Why?
Each MM returns a possible view on the OU by its assessment results.
Main Goals (and related effects):
– Technical viewpoint: importing the ‘best of best practices’ into
our own Quality Management System (QMS) / Business Process
Model (BPM)
– Social viewpoint: less sources to access, know & apply for
users
– Economic viewpoint: less effort/costs and higher performance
Somelevels :
tips
– Bird’s eye view  help in observing where and how to
intervene for improvement actions
– Causal relationships  help in understanding how balancing
effects and counter-effects planning a certain
(corrective/improvement) action
14

15. IPMA2008 22° World Congress
www.isipm.org
Combining Horizontal & Vertical MM
2. What?
Two main ingredients for this recipe:
– a Horizontal MM typical to the application domain;
– 1+ Vertical MM per each process group of interest (i.e. PM,
Testing, Measurement, etc.)
An example for an ICT organization:
– Goal: to improve results for the ‘Project Mgmt’ process
category
– Ingredients:
• Horizontal MM: CMMI-DEV v1.2
– 7 ‘project’ category processes: ML2 (3 processes); ML3 (3); ML4 (1)
• Vertical MM: OPM3 (program issues); P3M3 (portfolio issues)
15

16. IPMA2008 22° World Congress
www.isipm.org
Combining Horizontal & Vertical MM
3. How?
About PRM:
• G1: increase the scope of the selected horizontal MM with the same
level of depth in the process description. Two possibilities:
– Insert ad-hoc processes into the BPM from the Vertical MM, re-describing it with
the horizontal MM architecture. An example:
• P3M3 Business Case Model process is a missing issue in CMMI, but relevant
• Few actions:
– (i) position the new process in the proper process category (project)
– (ii) position the new process in the proper ML (Level 2)
– (iii) re-write the BCM process in a CMMI process style (with SG/SP/GP/…)
– Retrieve process architectural elements from other MM, in order to obtain its own
‘target’ model. An example:
• P3M3 v1.0 has a KPA feature called ‘Perception’ about the stakeholders’ families to take
into account from their own perspective, that’s a bit different from CMMI GP2.7
(Identify and Involve Relevant Stakeholders)
• It can be used as an addition to GP2.7 as well as an additional GP2.x in a tailored CMMI
PAM schema.
16

17. IPMA2008 22° World Congress
www.isipm.org
Combining Horizontal & Vertical MM
3. How?
• G2: increase the scope of the selected horizontal MM, by going into
more details of some processes or group of processes. Possible
ways:
Cross the H-model with 1+ V-model(s), strengthening the desired practices in
the processes of the main H-model. Main actions:
• (i) bi-directional mapping between/among chosen MM
• (ii) insertion of additional elements from the V-model(s) into the H-model.
Depending on their level of granularity, new practices will be defined as SP,
or sub/SP as well as details in the “Elaboration” section of a GP.
An example:
• P2MM: the typical 5 stages (Initiate  Closing) are defined at ML2 and some practices
could reinforce CMMI’s SP in ‘Project Mgmt’ group PA
• Project Brief Document from KPA#2.2 (Directing a project)  Project Planning (PP) in
SPs between SG1 and SG2 (a first draft of main elements for planning needed as inputs
for the plan)
• An additional element for the GP2.1 Elaboration could be the V&V about the planning of
this ‘project brief document’ and related authorizations
17

18. IPMA2008 22° World Congress
www.isipm.org
Combining Horizontal & Vertical MM
3. How?
About PAM:
– G1: apply the more detailed appraisal model, which allows
stressing the larger number of evidences as possible, as needed
input for undertaking any corrective/improvement action.
An example:
– Looking at main PM-MM, probably the level of detail in PAM is equivalent
with the H-model one (e.g. CMMI)
– Action Suggested: maintain CMMI’s PAM
18

19. IPMA2008 22° World Congress
www.isipm.org
Combining Horizontal & Vertical MM
4. Who?
– The profile of an EPG people should be a mix of soft and tech skills
– Assess competencies also using 6-scale Bloom’s taxonomy (see
SWEBOK experience)
– Further inputs for competence mgmt from People CMM (P-CMM)
IPMA ICB v3.0 PMI PMCDF v2.0 Cert-ISIPM v1.0
1.01 – Project Mgmt Success (integration). 9.1 – Takes a holistic view of project A.05 – System approach to management
Note: System Approach excluded in ICB v3.0
1.02 – Interested Parties 6.1 – Actively listens, understands, and responds to A.06 – Context & Stakeholders
stakeholders
1.05 – Quality 2.6 – Quality Management process established C.01 – Quality Management System
9.3 – Uses appropriate PM tools & techniques C.07 – Standards & Norms
1.08 – Problem Resolution 9.2 – Effectively resolves issues and solves problems D.04 – Problem Solving
10.1 – Resolves project problems
1.15 – Changes 2.8 – Integrated change control process defined C.05 – Change Management
4.2 – Project change is managed
10.3 – Changes at the required pace to meet project
needs
2.08 – Result Orientation 9.4 – Seeks opportunities to improve project outcome D.05 – Result Orientation
11.1 – Demonstrates commitment to the project
2.11 - Negotiation 6.4 – Tailors communication to audience D.02 – Negotiation
7.5 – Uses influencing skills when required
2.12 – Conflicts & Crisis 9.4 – Resolves conflicts involving project team or D.06 – Conflicts & Crisis
stakeholders
11.5 – Resolves individual-organizational issues with
objectivity
19

20. IPMA2008 22° World Congress
www.isipm.org
Agenda
– Introduction
– An evolutionary view on Maturity Models (MM)
MM
• A brief history
• MM representations & main elements
• MM in the Project Management domain (PM-MM)
– MM orthogonality
• Classifying MM by ‘directionality’
• MM Scope & Application
– Combining Horizontal & Vertical MMs
– Conclusions & Prospects
20

21. IPMA2008 22° World Congress
www.isipm.org
Conclusions & Prospects
– Increasing awareness in PM methods & tools, but a long run is on the way
 lower ML (ML1-2)
– Maturity models (MM) can be a way to help in evolving towards higher
maturity & capability levels  several MM for PM (PM-MM)
– According to their content and scope, MMs can be defined as horizontal or
vertical models while about their structure, each MM is composed by a
PRM (process model) and a PAM (assessment rules)
– When using/dealing with 2+ MMs the choice can between (i) parallel
implementations; (ii) unique implementation, integrating models
practices into the Organization’s QMS/BPM
– Our proposal fits with the second choice, with a process-view description
with examples about how to properly match 2+ MMs and profitably use
them for improving OU excellence.
– The precondition for any successful improvement action still remain a
central and main focus people
– Next work will be on a complete mapping between PM-MM and CMMI, for
its application in a case study
21

22. IPMA2008 22° World Congress
Q&A www.isipm.org
Grazie per l’attenzione!
l’attenzione
Thanks for your attention!
attention

23. 22° IPMA World Congress
“Project Management to Run”
Luigi Buglione, PhD
ISIPM – Istituto Italiano di Project Management
Tel: +39-335-1214813
Fax: +39-06-8307.4200
Email: buglione@isipm.org
9-11 November 2008, Roma, Italy