IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jjrfmx/v16y2023i2p121-d1068545.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessment of Project Management Maturity Models Strengths and Weaknesses

Author

Listed:
  • Valentin Nikolaenko

    (Department of Data Processing Automation, Tomsk State University of Control Systems and Radioelectronics, 634050 Tomsk, Russia)

  • Anatoly Sidorov

    (Department of Data Processing Automation, Tomsk State University of Control Systems and Radioelectronics, 634050 Tomsk, Russia)

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to analyze the most popular maturity models in order to identify their strengths and weaknesses. Research conducted by international project management communities such as Software Engineering Institute (SEI), Project Management Institute (PMI), International Project Management Association (IPMA), Office of Government Commerce (OGC) and International Organization for Standardization (ISO) showed that organizations with high managerial maturity are more likely to achieve their planned project goals than those that do not identify and standardize their best management practices. This circumstance has encouraged scientists from all over the world to start developing various models that can measure and evaluate managerial maturity in projects. Nowadays, the variety of models created has led to considerable difficulty in understanding the strengths and weaknesses of each model. To solve this problem, the article authors conducted a critical analysis to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the most popular project management maturity models. The results obtained will be of interest to project managers, members of project teams, heads of organizations, project offices and everyone involved in the development of project activities. Based on the analysis, it was found that the most developed maturity models are based on international codes of knowledge of project management. Most maturity models ignore the presence of structural and infrastructural elements, such as a workplace, the necessary equipment and software, the availability of professional standards, instructions, regulations, etc. It was also revealed that there are no processes for assessing the effectiveness and efficiency of using the best practices in the maturity models.

Suggested Citation

  • Valentin Nikolaenko & Anatoly Sidorov, 2023. "Assessment of Project Management Maturity Models Strengths and Weaknesses," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 16(2), pages 1-19, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jjrfmx:v:16:y:2023:i:2:p:121-:d:1068545
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1911-8074/16/2/121/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1911-8074/16/2/121/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Valentin Nikolaenko & Anatoly Sidorov, 2023. "Analysis of 105 IT Project Risks," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 16(1), pages 1-20, January.
    2. Anatoly Sidorov & Pavel Senchenko, 2020. "Regional Digital Economy: Assessment of Development Levels," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-23, December.
    3. Dan Ofori & Eric Worlanyo Deffor, 2013. "Assessing Project Management Maturity in Africa: A Ghanaian Perspective," International Journal of Business Administration, International Journal of Business Administration, Sciedu Press, vol. 4(6), pages 41-61, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Valentin Nikolaenko & Anatoly Sidorov, 2023. "Assessing the Maturity Level of Risk Management in IT Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-19, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Guangdi Zhang & Yaojun Ye & Mengya Sun, 2023. "Assessing the Static and Dynamic Efficiency of Digital Economy in China: Three Stage DEA–Malmquist Index Based Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-17, March.
    2. Olga Chereshnia, 2023. "Spatial Assessment of the Digital Economy at the National and Sub-National Level," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-15, August.
    3. Daniel Seelhofer & Christian Olivier Graf, 2018. "National Project Management Maturity: A Conceptual Framework," Central European Business Review, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2018(2), pages 1-20.
    4. Viktoria V. Akberdina & Ilya V. Naumov & Sergey S. Krasnykh, 2023. "Digital Space of Regions: Assessment of Development Factors and Influence on Socio-Economic Growth," Journal of Applied Economic Research, Graduate School of Economics and Management, Ural Federal University, vol. 22(2), pages 294-322.
    5. Liang, Lin & Li, Yan, 2023. "How does government support promote digital economy development in China? The mediating role of regional innovation ecosystem resilience," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    6. Ivy Hawah Taana & Valliappan Raju, 2020. "Preliminary Investigations into the Factors Affecting Successful Implementation of Project Management Frameworks and its Effects on Project Success: Evidence from Ghana," International Journal of Business and Administrative Studies, Professor Dr. Bahaudin G. Mujtaba, vol. 6(5), pages 247-264.
    7. Valentin Nikolaenko & Anatoly Sidorov, 2023. "Analysis of 105 IT Project Risks," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 16(1), pages 1-20, January.
    8. Ivy Hawah Taana & Valliappan Raju, 2020. "Determinants of project management methodologies and its effects on project success in Ghana–A conceptual paper," Journal of Administrative and Business Studies, Professor Dr. Usman Raja, vol. 6(3), pages 84-94.
    9. Iordanis Karavasilis & Vasiliki Vrana & George Karavasilis, 2024. "Forecasting the Evolution of the Digital Economy in the Industry of the European Union," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-16, September.
    10. Hao Zhou & Xinyi Li & Xiaoli Li, 2023. "Can the Digital Economy Improve the Level of High-Quality Financial Development? Evidence from China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-13, April.
    11. Ivy Hawah Taana, 2020. "A Conceptual Framework on The Successful Adoption of Project Management Methodologies in Ghana," Technium Social Sciences Journal, Technium Science, vol. 10(1), pages 409-422, August.
    12. Yihui Chen & Minjie Li, 2024. "How does the digital transformation of agriculture affect carbon emissions? Evidence from China’s provincial panel data," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-17, December.
    13. Liang, Shuang & Tan, Qingmei, 2024. "Can the digital economy accelerates China's export technology upgrading? Based on the perspective of export technology complexity," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    14. Juchun Lu & Siqun Zhou & Xiaohan Xiao & Meng Zhong & Yifan Zhao, 2023. "The Dynamic Evolution of the Digital Economy and Its Impact on the Urban Green Innovation Development from the Perspective of Driving Force—Taking China’s Yangtze River Economic Belt Cities as an Exam," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-21, April.
    15. Huwei Wen & Weitao Liang & Chien-Chiang Lee, 2024. "Input–output Efficiency of China’s Digital Economy: Statistical Measures, Regional Differences, and Dynamic Evolution," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 15(3), pages 10898-10923, September.
    16. Yuxia Guo & Huiying Mao & Heping Ding & Xue Wu & Yujia Liu & Hongjun Liu & Shuling Zhou, 2022. "Data-Driven Coordinated Development of the Digital Economy and Logistics Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-18, July.
    17. Ma, Dan & Zhu, Qing, 2022. "Innovation in emerging economies: Research on the digital economy driving high-quality green development," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 801-813.
    18. Valentin Nikolaenko & Anatoly Sidorov, 2023. "Assessing the Maturity Level of Risk Management in IT Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-19, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jjrfmx:v:16:y:2023:i:2:p:121-:d:1068545. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.