Project Management Maturity & Value Benchmark 2014 · 4 Project Management Maturity & Value...

Project Management Maturity & Value Benchmark

2014

RESEARCH REPORTIncludes complete

survey data

http://www.pmsolutions.com

2 Project Management Maturity & Value Benchmark 2014

© 2014 Project Management Solutions, Inc.

%32%

SmallRevenue

< US$100M

%30%

Mid-sizeRevenue

US$100M – $1B

%39% Large

Revenue > US$1B

RESPONDENTS BY TITLERESPONDENTS BY SIZE OF FIRM

Head of the PMO - 34%

Project/Program Manager - 22%

VP/Director Project/Program Management - 14%

PMO Staff Member - 12%

Chief Project Officer, CIO, or other C-Level - 6%

Other - 12%

RESPONDENTS BY INDUSTRY

NORTH AMERICA

EUROPE

ASIA &PACIFIC

MIDDLE EAST& AFRICA

CENTRAL & SOUTH AMERICA

%4%

%5%

%14%

70%

%7%

RESPONDENTS BY GEOGRAPHY

ORGANIZATIONSPARTICIPATING

293

IntroductionPM Solutions Research first surveyed organizations on the maturity of their project management practices in 2001. In our latest survey, we’ve taken another look at the capability of organizations to deliver projects successfully. This research will help us understand current project management practices as well as trends that will lead to improved project management success. You can also use this research to benchmark your organization against others as well as help you build your business case to justify the value of project management to senior management.

16%

15%

14%

13%

11%

7%

6%

5%

5%

Professional & Technical Services

Finance & Insurance

Manufacturing

Information

Healthcare

Energy

Public Admin

Pharma

Education

Project Management Maturity & Value Benchmark 2014 3


MORE MATURE FIRMS DELIVER MORE VALUE

COST SAVINGS PER PROJECT (%)Percentage saved per project, on average, based on firms improving their level of project management maturity

PROJECT MANAGEMENT MATURITY RATINGAverage level of project management maturity based on a scale of 1 (least mature) to 5 (most mature).

For well over a decade, PM Solutions has been actively gathering data on project management practices and trends, and we’ve seen a

steady climb in the prevalence and influence of project management in most organizations. This current research, a reprise of studies published in 2001 and 2006, confirms the hypothesis that when organizations improve their project management maturity, they experience corresponding gains in project management performance. More importantly, they also show improved organizational performance. The organizations identified as “high performing” in this study:

» Are much more mature in their project management practices than low performers (average level of maturity 3.4 vs. 1.7).

» Show substantially greater value in a variety of project management performance measures that matter most to executives, including the percentage of cost savings per project (26% vs. 6%).

Bottom line: More mature firms deliver more value. Project management continues to be an organizational practice that provides significant value to the business. By benchmarking the project management maturity of your organization to that of high-performing organizations you’ll have a guide to improving your project management and organizational success.

Project Management Maturity & Value

SUMMARY FINDINGS

» A majority of firms (91%) have project management processes in place.

» There is a direct and strong correlation between the project management maturity of a firm and its overall performance.

» High-performing firms are much more mature in their project management practices than low performers.

» There is a correlation between the length of time project management has been in place in a firm and its project management maturity and overall performance.

» Organizations have seen considerable value by increasing the level of their project management maturity.

» Most organizations (76%) have improved in PM maturity over the past five years with 33% moving from Level 1 to Level 2.

» Firms have steadily and consistently moved up in levels of project management maturity between 2001 and 2014.

PM Maturity Benchmark 2014 3

6%

26%

16%

1.7 2.5 3.4 LOW PERFORMERS ALL FIRMS HIGH PERFORMERS



1

2

3

Project Management ValueMaturity is not measured for the sake of a score, but to understand how to improve project management processes to better impact business outcomes. The connection between value delivered and process maturity is critical to organizations that rely on projects to achieve strategic goals.

» Organizations have seen considerable value by increasing the level of their project management maturity. They’ve shown a significant percentage of improvement in projects aligned with business objectives (37%), decrease in failed projects (29%), customer satisfaction (26%), projects delivered under budget (23%), and productivity (21%). See value chart below.

» Organizations at the highest levels of project management maturity (Levels 4-5) have seen the greatest value by increasing the level of their project management maturity, especially in improvements in aligning projects with business objectives (53%) and bringing products/services to market (45%).

» High performers show substantially greater value by increasing their level of project management maturity. They’ve shown the following improvements on average vs. low performers: decrease in failed projects (38% vs. 10%), cost savings per project (26% vs. 6%), projects delivered under budget (32% vs. 7%), projects delivered ahead of schedule (24% vs. 7%), productivity (34% vs. 8%), time to market (36% vs. 5%), customer satisfaction (40% vs. 19%), and alignment with business objectives (51% vs. 25%). High performers have also shown $125K cost savings per project vs. $8K for low performers. See chart on next page.

» Organizations have realized impressive results over the past 12 months. On a scale of 1-5 on the extent they’ve realized those results, they’ve excelled in particular at aligning their projects to the organization’s business strategy (3.2), satisfying customers (3.1) and project stakeholders (2.9), and realizing the benefits anticipated from projects (2.9).

PROJECT MANAGEMENT VALUE BENCHMARKSAverage value organizations have seen by increasing their level of project management maturity:

» Decrease in failed projects ............. 29% » Projects delivered ahead of schedule ...................... 16%

» Projects delivered under budget .... 23% » Improvement in projects aligned with objectives ..... 37%

» Improvement in productivity ........... 21% » Cost savings per project (% of total project cost) ..... 16%

» Increase in customer satisfaction ... 26% » Cost savings per project .................................. US $71K

PERFORMANCE DEFINEDHigh-performing organizations are defined by the extent they realize their organizational goals. Respondents rated their companies on a score from 1 to 5, where 1=to no extent and 5=to a very great extent on how well they met ten measures of organizational performance: strategy execution, stakeholder satisfaction, financial success, schedule/budget performance, customer satisfaction, resource allocation, strategic alignment, project prioritization, team satisfaction, benefit realization. High performers rank in the top 25% in overall performance. Low performers rank in the bottom 25%.



Project Management in Organizations» Most firms (91%) have project management processes in place, and

42% have had them in place more than five years.

» High performers are more likely to have project management processes established than low performers (95% vs 84%). High performers are also much more likely to have project management processes in place more than 5 years (49% vs. 24%).

» Most organizations (76%) have improved in project management maturity over the past five years, with the largest percentage (33%) moving from Level 1 to Level 2.

» Large organizations are significantly more likely to have project management processes in place (53%) than mid-size (34%) and small (35%) organizations.

» The length of time project management was in place in organizations was a significant factor in our results. Organizations with project management in place for more than five years were far more mature on average (2.9) vs. 2-5 years (2.3) and less than two years (2.0).

» High performers are more likely to be professional services (27%) and information (18%) organizations. Low performers are more likely to be finance & insurance (20%), manufacturing (16%), and healthcare organizations (16%).

» Healthcare organizations have shown the least amount of improvement in the higher levels of project management maturity over the past five years – only 26% improving to Level 3 and higher. The greatest improvement has been shown by information organizations – 59% have improved to Level 3 and higher.

GUIDELINES FOR ADVANCING PROJECT MANAGEMENT MATURITYAn assessment should be aimed at providing a path forward for the organization by improving its project management capabilities. Here are tips from PM Solutions’ expert consultants on what to do after you’ve assessed your project management maturity:

» Engage employees and begin cultural change based on the clear path the assessment reveals.

» Use the assessment as a baseline to show the value of future investments in process improvement.

» The assessment will reveal the actions necessary to ensure success in the next step of PMO implementation.

» Repeat assessments can be used to track progress against the project management deployment plan.

» Use assessments to communicate successes and milestone achievements to executives and management.

» Use assessments to identify specific areas for improvement and target 6-month improvement goals.

» Establish an incremental improvement program with specific focus and measurable goals.

» Maintain project management maturity in synch with other corporate process maturity areas.

» Set an appropriate maturity goal — not every organization needs to reach Level 5 to reap important benefits.

» Focus on continuous improvement. Revisit your project management processes every 6 to 12 months.

» Get outside help, especially to help navigate the organization’s political climate to get progress in motion.

High performers Low performers

HIGH PERFORMERS DELIVER MUCH GREATER VALUE THAN LOW PERFORMERSImprovements firms have shown by increasing their level of project management maturity

Cost savings per project

Time to market

Projects delivered under budget

Productivity

Projects delivered ahead of schedule

$125K$8K

36%5%

32%7%

34%8%

24%7%



» Organizations have steadily and consistently moved up in levels of project management maturity between 2001 and 2014. In 2001, 89% of organizations were at Level 1 maturity; only 30% are at Level 1 in 2014. In 2001, only 5% of organizations were at Level 3 maturity or higher; in 2014, 33% of organizations are at Level 3 maturity or higher.

» Organizations rate at a level 2.5 (on a scale of 1-5) in project management maturity on average. They are most mature in project integration management (2.7) and least mature in risk management (2.3).

» High performers are much more mature in their project management practices than low performers (3.4 vs 1.7). An exceptionally higher percentage of high performers were at Level 3 or above in project management maturity (76%) vs. low performers (4%).

» Large organizations rate at a slightly higher maturity level (2.6) than mid-size (2.4) or small (2.5) organizations. And fewer of them are at Level 1 maturity (24%) vs. mid-size (34%) or small (30%) organizations.

» The most mature organizations are found in the information industry. They are particularly mature in project integration management (3.1), time management (3.0), and communications management (3.0).The least mature organizations are in the healthcare industry. They rank lowest in project quality management (1.8) and risk management (1.9). And far more information organizations are at Levels 4-5 maturity (35%), vs. professional services (21%), manufacturing (9%), healthcare (7%), or finance & insurance (3%) organizations.

» Organizations are fairly consistent in their maturity in the components of the ten knowledge areas. They’re consistently weakest in risk management, in particular quantitative risk analysis (2.1), risk response planning (2.3), and risk control (2.3).

» Organizations at project management maturity Levels 4 and 5 were most likely to have project management in place five years or more (87%). And the percentage of organizations with project management in place two years or less were most likely Level 1 maturity organizations (59%).

PM Maturity Benchmark

PROJECT MANAGEMENT MATURITY IN INDUSTRIESAverage level of project management maturity in five highest represented

industries based on a scale of 1 (least mature) to 5 (most mature).

2.9 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.1 INFORMATION PROF. SERVICES FINANCE MANUFACTURING HEALTHCARE

Percentage of firms at each level of project management maturity

Average organizational performance level

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Levels 4 & 5

30%

28%

22%

11%

HIGHER MATURITY =STRONGER PERFORMANCE

3.9

3.3

2.8

2.3



PM Solutions’ Project Management Maturity Model (PMMMSM) describes

how organizations mature as they improve their project management

processes. The model is based on the PMBOK® Guide’s ten knowledge

areas with five distinct levels of maturity. Each level represents a discrete

organizational capability based on the organization’s maturity in each of the

knowledge area components listed. The five levels of maturity are as follows:

Level 1: Initial Process

» Ad hoc processes

» Management awareness

Level 2: Structured Process and Standards

» Basic processes; not standard on all projects; used on large, highly vis-

ible projects

» Management supports and encourages use

» Mix of intermediate and summary-level information

» Estimates and schedules based on expert knowledge and generic tools

» Project-centric focus

Level 3: Organizational Standards and Institutionalized Process

» All processes standard for all projects and repeatable

» Management has institutionalized processes

» Summary and detailed information

» Baseline and informal collection of actual data

» Estimates and schedules may be based on industry standards and

organizational specifics

» Organizational focus

» Informal analysis of project performance

Level 4: Managed Process

» Processes integrated with corporate processes

» Management mandates compliance

» Management takes organizational entity view

» Solid analysis of project performance

» Estimates and schedules normally based on organization specifics

» Management uses data to make decisions

Level 5: Optimizing Process

» Processes to measure project effectiveness and efficiency

» Processes in place to improve project performance

» Management focuses on continuous improvement

Project Management Maturity Model

AREAS MEASUREDProject management maturity is measured in ten knowledge areas as well as three areas that exert significant influence on the adoption of project management practices.

KNOWLEDGE AREAS

» Project Integration Management

» Scope Management

» Time Management

» Project Cost Management

» Project Quality Management

» Human Resources Management

» Communications Management

» Risk Management

» Project Procurement and Vendor Management

» Project Stakeholder Management

INFLUENCE AREAS

» Project Management Office

» Management Oversight

» Professional Development Management

For more detailed information, check out PM Solutions’ comprehensive maturity model, available on Amazon.com and at other retail locations.

“PMBOK” is a registered mark of the Project Management Institute, Inc.

http://www.amazon.com/Project-Management-Maturity-Solutions-Research/dp/1482255448/





Respondent Profile

Percentage of respondents with the following role

» Head of the PMO (Director, Manager, etc.) 34%

» Project/Program Manager 22%

» VP or Director-Level Project/Program Management 14%

» PMO Staff Member 12%

» Chief Project Officer, CIO, or other C-Level 6%

» VP or Director-Level Business Management 2%

» Other 10%

Percentage of respondents whose organizations have the following annual sales (US$)

» Less than $100 million 32%

» $100 million to $1 billion 30%

» Greater than $1 billion 39%

Percentage of respondents in the following industries

» Professional & Technical Services 16%

» Finance & Insurance 15%

» Manufacturing 14%

» Information 13%

» Healthcare & Social Services 11%

» Energy 7%

» Public Administration 6%

» Pharmaceutical & Biotechnology 5%

» Education 5%

» Retail 2%

» Other 7%

Geographic region company’s headquarters is located

» North America 70%

» Europe 14%

» Central/South America 7%

» Middle East/Africa 5%

» Asia/Pacific 4%

Summary Results



Project Management in Organizations

Service span of project management reported in this survey

» Enterprise 46%

» Business unit (LOB) 30%

» IT 23%

» Other 3%

Percentage of firms with project management processes 91%

Percentage of firms without project management processes that plan to implement them within the next year 77%

Length of time project management process has been in place

» More than 5 years 42%

» 2 to 5 years 32%

» 6 months to 2 years 22%

» Less than 6 months 4%

SUMMARY RESULTS



SUMMARY RESULTS

Project Management Maturity Benchmark

OVERALL PROJECT MANAGEMENT MATURITY 2.5

Organization’s average level of project management maturity in the ten knowledge areas(Average of project management maturity levels from 1 to 5)

» Project integration management 2.7

» Scope management 2.5

» Time management 2.5

» Project cost management 2.5

» Communications management 2.5

» Project stakeholder management 2.5

» Project quality management 2.4

» Human resources management 2.4

» Project procurement and vendor management 2.4

» Risk management 2.3

Percentage of organizations at each level of maturity

» Level 1 30%

» Level 2 38%

» Level 3 22%

» Levels 4-5 11%

Organization’s average level of project management maturity in the components of the ten knowledge areas

Project Integration Management Maturity

» Project Charter Development 2.8

» Project Execution 2.8

» Monitoring and Controlling Project Work 2.8

» Project Management Plan Development 2.7

» Project or Phase Closure 2.6

» Integrated Change Control 2.5

» OVERALL 2.7



SUMMARY RESULTS

Scope Management

» Scope Definition 2.7

» Scope Management Planning 2.6

» Requirements Collection 2.6

» Work Breakdown Structure 2.5

» Scope Validation 2.4

» Scope Change Control 2.4

» OVERALL 2.5

Time Management

» Time Management Planning 2.6

» Schedule Development 2.6

» Activity Definition 2.5

» Activity Sequencing 2.5

» Schedule Control 2.5

» Activity Resource Estimating 2.4

» Activity Duration Estimating 2.4

» Schedule Integration 2.3

» OVERALL 2.5

Project Cost Management

» Cost Management Planning 2.5

» Budget Determination 2.5

» Cost Control 2.5

» Cost Estimating 2.4

» OVERALL 2.5

Project Quality Management

» Quality Management Planning 2.4

» Quality Assurance 2.4

» Quality Control 2.4

» OVERALL 2.4

Human Resources Management

» Project Team Management 2.5

» Project Team Acquisition 2.4

» Human Resource Management Planning 2.3

» Project Team Development 2.3

» OVERALL 2.4



SUMMARY RESULTS

Communications Management

» Communications Management (Information Distribution) 2.6

» Issues Tracking and Management 2.6

» Communications Management Planning 2.5

» Communications Control 2.4

» OVERALL 2.5

Risk Management

» Risk Identification 2.5

» Risk Management Planning 2.4

» Qualitative Risk Analysis 2.3

» Risk Response Planning 2.3

» Risk Documentation 2.3

» Risk Control 2.2

» Quantitative Risk Analysis 2.1

» OVERALL 2.3

Project Procurement and Vendor Management

» Procurement Requisition and Solicitation 2.5

» Procurement Control and Vendor Management 2.5

» Procurement Management Planning 2.4

» Procurement Closure 2.3

» OVERALL 2.4

Project Stakeholder Management

» Stakeholder Identification 2.7

» Managing Stakeholder Engagement 2.5

» Stakeholder Management Planning 2.4

» Controlling Stakeholder Engagement 2.4

» OVERALL 2.5



SUMMARY RESULTS

Organization’s average level of maturity in three components that influence the adoption of project management practices

Project Management Office

» Processes and Standards 2.9

» Project Support 2.8

» Project Management 2.8

» Project Management Software Tools 2.7

» Consulting and Mentoring 2.6

» Training 2.5

» OVERALL 2.7

Management Oversight

» Awareness and Support 2.7

» Involvement 2.6

» OVERALL 2.7

Professional Development Management

» Individual Project Management Knowledge 2.5

» Individual Project Management Experience and Competence 2.5

» Corporate Initiative for Project Management Development 2.4

» OVERALL 2.4

Project Management Improvement Amount organization has improved its level of project management maturity over the past 5 years

» No improvement 21%

» From Level 1 to Level 2 33%







PMO Components Defined

» Project Support – PMO supports teams in managing projects.

» Consulting and Mentoring – PMO has internal PM consultants.

» Processes and Standards – PMO develops and promulgates common PM methodologies and standards.

» Training – PMO trains project managers, team members, and clients on PM principles, tools, and techniques.

» Project Management – PMO has professional project managers who are assigned to carry out projects.

» Project Management Software Tools – PMO is the focal point for PM software tools.

Management Oversight Components Defined

» Awareness and Support – Management is cognizant of the importance of PM activities, has a high-level understanding of PM processes, and advocates organization-wide implementation of PM processes and standards.

» Involvement – Management participates and is included in PM activities, processes, and standards.)

Professional Development Management Components Defined

» Individual Project Management Knowledge – A process is in place to improve staff members’ knowledge of PM.

» Individual Project Management Experience and Competence – The organization maintains a plan to achieve continuous improvement of the ability of individuals to attain experience and improve competency in PM.

» Corporate Initiative for Project Management Development – A process has been designed for ongoing improvement of the organization’s ability to enhance the PM professional track and opportunities.



SUMMARY RESULTS

* Outliers were removed from the data set

Project Management Value Value seen by increasing the level of project management maturity (percentage improvement on average)

» Percentage improvement in projects aligned with business objectives 37%

» Percentage decrease in failed projects 29%

» Percentage improvement in customer satisfaction 26%

» Percentage of projects delivered under budget 23%

» Percentage improvement in productivity 21%

» Percentage improvement in time to market 18%

» Percentage cost savings per project (percent of total project cost) 16%

» Percentage of projects delivered ahead of schedule 16%

» Cost savings per project (in US Dollars)* $71K

Organizational Performance Extent organization realized the following results in the 12 months (average rating of score from1 to 5, where 1=to no extent, 5=to a very great extent)

» Projects are aligned to the organization’s business strategy 3.2

» Project customers are satisfied 3.1

» The organization’s project stakeholders are satisfied 2.9

» The organization is realizes the benefits anticipated from projects 2.9

» The organization’s strategies are executed according to plan 2.8

» Project team members are satisfied 2.8

» The organization has shown increased profitability 2.7

» Projects are completed on schedule and on budget 2.7

» The organization prioritizes projects effectively 2.7

» Project resources are allocated optimally 2.5

AVERAGE ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE RATING 2.8



SUMMARY RESULTS



CROSS TABULATION

By Company Size

SMALL MID-SIZE LARGE <$100M $100M-$1B >$1B

Respondent Profile


» Chief Project Officer, CIO, or other C-Level 16% 1% 2%

» VP or Director-Level Business Management 6% 0% 2%

» VP or Director-Level Project/Program Management 6% 21% 17%

» Head of the PMO (Director, Manager, etc.) 22% 39% 40%

» PMO Staff Member 10% 16% 11%

» Project/Program Manager 32% 15% 19%

» Other 9% 10% 10%


» Finance & Insurance 7% 21% 16%

» Information 18% 11% 10%

» Manufacturing 4% 11% 25%

» Professional & Technical Services 33% 14% 5%

» Pharmaceutical & Biotechnology 1% 1% 9%

» Public Administration 7% 5% 5%

» Healthcare & Social Services 10% 13% 11%

» Education 8% 4% 3%

» Energy 4% 11% 6%

» Retail 1% 1% 3%

» Other 7% 7% 7%


» North America 66% 69^ 74%

» Europe 11% 12% 19%

» Asia/Pacific 6% 6% 2%

» Central/South America 11% 11% 2%

» Middle East/Africa 7% 2% 4%





» Enterprise 49% 56% 36%

» Business unit (LOB) 24% 21% 37%

» IT 20% 20% 26%

» Other 6% 2% 1%

Percentage of firms with project management processes 86% 92% 95%

Percentage of firms without project management processes that plan to implement them within the next year 85% 71% 67%


» More than 5 years 35% 34% 53%

» 2 to 5 years 30% 42% 26%

» 6 months to 2 years 31% 21% 17%

» Less than 6 months 4% 4% 4%

Project Management Maturity

OVERALL PROJECT MANAGEMENT MATURITY 2.5 2.4 2.6

Organization’s average level of project management maturity in the ten knowledge areas (Average of project management maturity levels from 1 to 5)

» Project integration management 2.7 2.6 2.8

» Scope management 2.6 2.4 2.5

» Time management 2.5 2.4 2.5

» Project cost management 2.6 2.4 2.4

» Project quality management 2.4 2.3 2.5

» Human resources management 2.4 2.2 2.4

» Communications management 2.5 2.4 2.6

» Risk management 2.2 2.1 2.4

» Project procurement and vendor management 2.4 2.4 2.5

» Project stakeholder management 2.5 2.3 2.6

CROSS TABULATION: BY COMPANY SIZE





» Level 1 30% 34% 24%

» Level 2 36% 38% 39%

» Level 3 22% 22% 22%

» Levels 4-5 12% 7% 15%



» Project Charter Development 2.7 2.7 3.0

» Project Management Plan Development 2.8 2.6 2.8

» Project Execution 2.9 2.7 2.8

» Monitoring and Controlling Project Work 2.9 2.7 2.8

» Integrated Change Control 2.5 2.3 2.7

» Project or Phase Closure 2.6 2.5 2.7

» OVERALL 2.7 2.6 2.8

Scope Management

» Scope Management Planning 2.7 2.4 2.6

» Requirements Collection 2.8 2.4 2.6

» Scope Definition 2.7` 2.5 2.7

» Work Breakdown Structure 2.6 2.3 2.5

» Scope Validation 2.4 2.3 2.5

» Scope Change Control 2.5 2.4 2.4

» OVERALL 2.6 2.4 2.5

Time Management

» Time Management Planning 2.8 2.4 2.5

» Activity Definition 2.7 2.4 2.5

» Activity Sequencing 2.7 2.3 2.6

» Activity Resource Estimating 2.5 2.3 2.3

» Activity Duration Estimating 2.5 2.3 2.4

» Schedule Development 2.7 2.5 2.6

» Schedule Control 2.6 2.4 2.5

» Schedule Integration 2.5 2.2 2.3

» OVERALL 2.6 2.4 2.5






» Cost Management Planning 2.6 2.4 2.5

» Cost Estimating 2.6 2.4 2.3

» Budget Determination 2.6 2.5 2.5

» Cost Control 2.6 2.4 2.5

» OVERALL 2.6 2.4 2.4


» Quality Management Planning 2.4 2.2 2.4

» Quality Assurance 2.4 2.2 2.5

» Quality Control 2.4 2.3 2.5

» OVERALL 2.4 2.3 2.5


» Human Resource Management Planning 2.4 2.3 2.3

» Project Team Acquisition 2.4 2.3 2.4

» Project Team Development 2.4 2.1 2.4

» Project Team Management 2.6 2.2 2.5

» OVERALL 2.4 2.2 2.4


» Communications Management Planning 2.5 2.4 2.6

» Communications Management (Information Distribution) 2.5 2.5 2.7

» Communications Control 2.4 2.3 2.5

» Issues Tracking and Management 2.6 2.5 2.8

» OVERALL 2.5 2.4 2.6

Risk Management

» Risk Management Planning 2.3 2.2 2.5

» Risk Identification 2.4 2.3 2.6

» Qualitative Risk Analysis 2.2 2.0 2.4

» Quantitative Risk Analysis 2.1 1.9 2.2

» Risk Response Planning 2.2 2.2 2.4

» Risk Control 2.2 2.0 2.3

» Risk Documentation 2.2 2.1 2.4

» OVERALL 2.2 2.1 2.4






» Procurement Management Planning 2.4 2.4 2.5

» Procurement Requisition and Solicitation 2.4 2.5 2.6

» Procurement Control and Vendor Management 2.5 2.3 2.5

» Procurement Closure 2.3 2.3 2.5

» OVERALL 2.4 2.4 2.5


» Stakeholder Identification 2.8 2.5 2.7

» Stakeholder Management Planning 2.5 2.2 2.6

» Managing Stakeholder Engagement 2.5 2.3 2.6

» Controlling Stakeholder Engagement 2.4 2.2 2.4

» OVERALL 2.5 2.3 2.6



» Project Support 2.7 2.8 2.9

» Consulting and Mentoring 2.4 2.6 2.6

» Processes and Standards 2.6 3.0 3.0

» Training 2.3 2.6 2.7

» Project Management 2.6 2.9 2.9

» Project Management Software Tools 2.5 2.8 2.8

» OVERALL 2.5 2.8 2.8


» Awareness and Support 2.6 2.7 2.7

» Involvement 2.6 2.6 2.6

» OVERALL 2.6 2.7 2.7


» Individual Project Management Knowledge 2.5 2.4 2.6

» Individual Project Management Experience and Competence 2.5 2.4 2.5

» Corporate Initiative for Project Management Development 2.4 2.2 2.4

» OVERALL 2.5 2.3 2.5






» No improvement 25% 21% 18%

» From Level 1 to Level 2 32% 37% 31%








» Percentage decrease in failed projects 32% 38% 29%

» Percentage cost savings per project (percent of total project cost) 19% 15% 14%

» Percentage of projects delivered under budget 28% 23% 17%

» Percentage of projects delivered ahead of schedule 21% 18% 11%

» Percentage improvement in productivity 23% 22% 21%

» Percentage improvement in time to market 24% 22% 11%

» Percentage improvement in customer satisfaction 27% 30% 23%

» Percentage improvement in projects aligned with business objectives 43% 37% 32%

» Cost savings per project (in US Dollars, median) $67K $134K $42K

Organizational Performance Extent organization realized the following results in the 12 months (average rating from 1 to 5, where 1=to no extent, 5=to a very great extent)

» The organization’s strategies are executed according to plan 2.9 2.7 2.9

» The organization’s project stakeholders are satisfied 2.9 3.0 2.9

» The organization has shown increased profitability 2.6 2.7 2.7

» Projects are completed on schedule and on budget 2.6 2.7 2.7

» Project customers are satisfied 3.0 3.1 3.1

» Project team members are satisfied 2.8 2.7 2.7

» Project resources are allocated optimally 2.7 2.5 2.5

» Projects are aligned to the organization’s business strategy 3.2 3.2 3.4

» The organization prioritizes projects effectively 2.8 2.5 2.8

» The organization is realizes the benefits anticipated from projects 2.9 3.0 3.0

AVERAGE ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE RATING 2.8 2.8 2.9





FIN

AN

CE

INFO

RM

ATIO

N

MA

NU

FAC

TUR

ING

PR

OF.

SER

VIC

ES

HEA

LTH

CA

RE

CROSS TABULATION

By Industry

Respondent Profile


» Chief Project Officer, CIO, or other C-Level 2% 11% 0% 19% 6%

» VP or Director-Level Business Management 0% 0% 5% 9% 0%

» VP or Director-Level Project/Program Management 28% 6% 7% 15% 15%

» Head of the PMO (Director, Manager, etc.) 40% 39% 29% 26% 39%

» PMO Staff Member 12% 14% 12% 11% 12%

» Project/Program Manager 16% 19% 36% 13% 27%

» Other 2% 11% 12% 9% 0%


» Less than $100 million 14% 44% 10% 63% 28%

» $100 million to $1 billion 43% 24% 22% 25% 34%

» Greater than $1 billion 43% 31% 68% 13% 38%


» North America 72% 65% 62% 69% 94%

» Europe 9% 19% 31% 13% 3%

» Asia/Pacific 2% 3% 5% 4% 3%

» Central/South America 9% 8% 2% 10% 0%

» Middle East/Africa 7% 4% 0% 4% 0%



» Enterprise 63% 65% 17% 60% 56%

» Business unit (LOB) 23% 8% 57% 21% 9%

» IT 12% 24% 24% 13% 31%

» Other 2% 3% 2% 6% 3%

Percentage of firms with project management processes 93% 92% 93% 92% 94%

Percentage of firms without project management processes that plan to implement them within the next year 100% 100% 67% 75% 100%



FIN

AN

CE

INFO

.

MFG

.

PR

O. S

VCS

HEA

LTH


» More than 5 years 40% 50% 49% 32% 48%

» 2 to 5 years 33% 27% 31% 39% 23%

» 6 months to 2 years 20% 24% 15% 27% 26%

» Less than 6 months 8% 0% 5% 2% 3%


OVERALL PROJECT MANAGEMENT MATURITY 2.5 2.9 2.3 2.7 2.1

Organization’s average level of project management maturity in the ten knowledge areas(Average of project management maturity levels from 1 to 5)

» Project integration management 2.8 3.1 2.4 2.8 2.4

» Scope management 2.6 2.8 2.3 2.8 2.1

» Time management 2.5 3.0 2.3 2.7 2.0

» Project cost management 2.4 2.8 2.4 2.9 2.0

» Project quality management 2.5 2.9 2.3 2.5 1.8

» Human resources management 2.4 2.7 2.2 2.7 2.0

» Communications management 2.6 3.0 2.3 2.8 2.3

» Risk management 2.3 2.7 2.3 2.5 1.9

» Project procurement and vendor management 2.5 2.9 2.5 2.4 2.0

» Project stakeholder management 2.6 2.9 2.2 2.8 2.3


» Level 1 23% 14% 27% 21% 48%

» Level 2 45% 35% 46% 33% 31%

» Level 3 30% 17% 18% 26% 21%

» Levels 4-5 3% 35% 9% 21% 7%

CROSS TABULATION: BY INDUSTRY



FIN

AN

CE

INFO

.

MFG

.

PR

O. S

VCS

HEA

LTH



» Project Charter Development 3.0 3.2 2.7 2.8 2.8

» Project Management Plan Development 2.8 3.3 2.5 3.0 2.4

» Project Execution 2.9 3.0 2.6 3.1 2.6

» Monitoring and Controlling Project Work 2.8 3.2 2.4 3.0 2.6

» Integrated Change Control 2.7 3.0 2.2 2.4 2.2

» Project or Phase Closure 2.6 3.0 2.3 2.8 2.2

» OVERALL 2.8 3.1 2.4 2.8 2.4

Scope Management

» Scope Management Planning 2.7 2.8 2.5 3.0 2.2

» Requirements Collection 2.5 3.1 2.3 2.9 2.1

» Scope Definition 2.6 3.0 2.5 3.0 2.3

» Work Breakdown Structure 2.4 2.9 2.2 2.9 2.1

» Scope Validation 2.6 2.7 2.2 2.6 2.1

» Scope Change Control 2.7 2.6 2.2 2.7 2.0

» OVERALL 2.6 2.8 2.3 2.8 2.1

Time Management

» Time Management Planning 2.6 3.1 2.3 2.9 2.0

» Activity Definition 2.6 3.1 2.4 2.8 2.1

» Activity Sequencing 2.5 3.0 2.5 2.8 2.1

» Activity Resource Estimating 2.4 2.9 2.1 2.6 1.9

» Activity Duration Estimating 2.4 2.9 2.3 2.6 1.9

» Schedule Development 2.6 3.1 2.5 2.7 2.1

» Schedule Control 2.5 3.1 2.3 2.7 2.0

» Schedule Integration 2.3 3.0 2.1 2.6 1.8

» OVERALL 2.5 3.0 2.3 2.7 2.0


» Cost Management Planning 2.5 2.8 2.3 2.9 1.9

» Cost Estimating 2.3 2.9 2.3 2.8 1.9

» Budget Determination 2.5 2.9 2.5 2.9 2.0

» Cost Control 2.5 2.8 2.3 2.8 2.0

» OVERALL 2.4 2.8 2.4 2.9 2.0





» Quality Management Planning 2.5 2.8 2.2 2.6 1.8

» Quality Assurance 2.5 3.0 2.3 2.5 1.8

» Quality Control 2.6 2.9 2.3 2.5 1.9

» OVERALL 2.5 2.9 2.3 2.5 1.8


» Human Resource Management Planning 2.4 2.5 2.2 2.7 2.0

» Project Team Acquisition 2.5 2.7 2.3 2.6 2.0

» Project Team Development 2.2 2.6 2.1 2.7 1.8

» Project Team Management 2.5 2.8 2.4 2.7 2.1

» OVERALL 2.4 2.7 2.2 2.7 2.0


» Communications Management Planning 2.6 2.8 2.2 2.8 2.2

» Communications Management (Information Distribution) 2.7 3.0 2.4 2.8 2.4

» Communications Control 2.5 2.8 2.2 2.7 2.2

» Issues Tracking and Management 2.7 3.1 2.4 2.8 2.5

» OVERALL 2.6 3.0 2.3 2.8 2.3

Risk Management

» Risk Management Planning 2.4 2.7 2.3 2.5 2.0

» Risk Identification 2.4 2.9 2.5 2.6 2.1

» Qualitative Risk Analysis 2.2 2.7 2.4 2.4 1.7

» Quantitative Risk Analysis 2.1 2.5 2.2 2.4 1.7

» Risk Response Planning 2.4 2.6 2.3 2.5 1.9

» Risk Control 2.3 2.6 2.1 2.5 1.8

» Risk Documentation 2.3 2.7 2.2 2.4 2.0

» OVERALL 2.3 2.7 2.3 2.5 1.9


» Procurement Management Planning 2.5 2.9 2.4 2.4 2.0

» Procurement Requisition and Solicitation 2.6 2.9 2.7 2.4 2.0

» Procurement Control and Vendor Management 2.3 2.9 2.5 2.5 2.0

» Procurement Closure 2.4 2.7 2.4 2.4 1.9

» OVERALL 2.5 2.9 2.5 2.4 2.0


FIN

AN

CE

INFO

.

MFG

.

PR

O. S

VCS

HEA

LTH




» Stakeholder Identification 2.9 3.0 2.4 3.0 2.5

» Stakeholder Management Planning 2.4 2.9 2.1 2.7 2.2

» Managing Stakeholder Engagement 2.5 2.9 2.2 2.8 2.2

» Controlling Stakeholder Engagement 2.5 2.9 2.1 2.7 2.1

» OVERALL 2.6 2.9 2.2 2.8 2.3



» Project Support 2.9 3.3 2.4 2.8 2.6

» Consulting and Mentoring 2.6 2.9 2.1 2.7 2.5

» Processes and Standards 2.9 3.3 2.9 2.8 2.6

» Training 2.5 3.0 2.3 2.4 2.3

» Project Management 3.0 3.1 2.6 2.6 2.8

» Project Management Software Tools 3.0 3.1 2.3 2.7 2.7

» OVERALL 2.8 3.1 2.4 2.7 2.6


» Awareness and Support 2.7 3.1 2.5 2.9 2.4

» Involvement 2.9 3.1 2.4 2.7 2.2

» OVERALL 2.8 3.1 2.5 2.8 2.3


» Individual Project Management Knowledge 2.3 2.9 2.3 2.5 2.3

» Individual Project Management Experience and Competence 2.3 3.0 2.4 2.7 2.2

» Corporate Initiative for Project Management Development 2.4 2.8 2.1 2.6 2.0

» OVERALL 2.4 2.9 2.3 2.6 2.2


FIN

AN

CE

INFO

.

MFG

.

PR

O. S

VCS

HEA

LTH




» No improvement 14% 9% 37% 18% 27%

» From Level 1 to Level 2 34% 25% 17% 37% 48%








» Percentage decrease in failed projects 31% 32% 32% 26% 22%

» Percentage cost savings per project (percent of total project cost) 23% 14% 12% 17% 6%

» Percentage of projects delivered under budget 21% 14% 9% 38% 8%

» Percentage of projects delivered ahead of schedule 21% 14% 9% 21% 4%

» Percentage improvement in productivity 25% 18% 21% 24% 17%

» Percentage improvement in time to market 16% 14% 21% 27% 0%

» Percentage improvement in customer satisfaction 38% 17% 21% 36% 29%

» Percentage improvement in projects aligned with business objectives 47% 30% 36% 41% 23%

» Cost savings per project (in US Dollars, median) $40K $48K $19K $123K n/a

Organizational Performance Extent organization realized the following results in the 12 months (average rating from1 to 5, where 1=to no extent, 5=to a very great extent)

» The organization’s strategies are executed according to plan 2.6 3.1 2.8 3.1 2.7

» The organization’s project stakeholders are satisfied 2.8 3.3 2.7 3.1 2.9

» The organization has shown increased profitability 2.7 2.7 3.0 2.9 2.3

» Projects are completed on schedule and on budget 2.6 2.8 2.6 2.9 2.4

» Project customers are satisfied 2.9 3.2 2.9 3.3 3.0

» Project team members are satisfied 2.6 3.1 2.7 2.9 2.7

» Project resources are allocated optimally 2.7 3.0 2.3 2.7 2.3

» Projects are aligned to the organization’s business strategy 3.2 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.0

» The organization prioritizes projects effectively 2.5 3.0 2.8 3.0 2.4

» The organization is realizes the benefits anticipated from projects 2.8 3.2 2.9 3.1 2.8

AVERAGE ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE RATING 2.8 3.1 2.8 3.0 2.6


FIN

AN

CE

INFO

.

MFG

.

PR

O. S

VCS

HEA

LTH



CROSS TABULATION

By PM Established vs. No PM Established

Respondent Profile


» Chief Project Officer, CIO, or other C-Level 6% 8%

» VP or Director-Level Business Management 3% 0%

» VP or Director-Level Project/Program Management 15% 12%

» Head of the PMO (Director, Manager, etc.) 36% 15%

» PMO Staff Member 12% 12%

» Project/Program Manager 21% 31%

» Other 8% 23%


» Less than $100 million 30% 50%

» $100 million to $1 billion 30% 37%

» Greater than $1 billion 40% 23%


» Finance & Insurance 15% 12%

» Information 13% 12%

» Manufacturing 15% 12%

» Professional & Technical Services 17% 15%

» Pharmaceutical & Biotechnology 5% 4%

» Public Administration 6% 4%

» Healthcare & Social Services 12% 8%

» Education 4% 12%

» Energy 6% 15%

» Retail 2% 4%

» Other 7% 4%


» North America 70% 65%

» Europe 15% 8%

» Asia/Pacific 4% 8%

» Central/South America 8% 4%

» Middle East/Africa 3% 15%

PROJECT NO PROJECT MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT ESTABLISHED ESTABLISHED





» Enterprise 47% 35%

» Business unit (LOB) 28% 39%

» IT 23% 19%

» Other 2% 8%

Organizational Performance Extent organization realized the following results in the 12 months (average rating from 1 to 5, where 1=to no extent, 5=to a very great extent)

» The organization’s strategies are executed according to plan 2.9 2.2

» The organization’s project stakeholders are satisfied 3.0 2.6

» The organization has shown increased profitability 2.6 2.8

» Projects are completed on schedule and on budget 2.7 2.2

» Project customers are satisfied 3.1 2.9

» Project team members are satisfied 2.8 2.3

» Project resources are allocated optimally 2.6 2.0

» Projects are aligned to the organization’s business strategy 3.3 2.9

» The organization prioritizes projects effectively 2.8 2.2

» The organization is realizes the benefits anticipated from projects 3.0 2.8

AVERAGE ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE RATING 2.9 2.5

CROSS TABULATION: BY PM ESTABLISHED VS. NO PM ESTABLISHED

PROJECT NO PROJECT MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT ESTABLISHED ESTABLISHED



ENTERPRISE LINE OF IT BUSINESS DIVISION

Respondent Profile








» Other 9% 11% 9%


» Less than $100 million 34% 27% 33%

» $100 million to $1 billion 37% 22% 26%

» Greater than $1 billion 29% 52% 41%










» Energy 5% 11% 7%

» Retail 1% 2% 4%

» Other 8% 5% 8%


» North America 71% 67% 71%

» Europe 14% 19% 9%




CROSS TABULATION

By Service Span




Percentage of firms with project management processes 93% 88% 91%

Percentage of firms without project management processes that plan to implement them within the next year 78% 60% 100%


» More than 5 years 44% 41% 41%

» 2 to 5 years 32% 34% 28%

» 6 months to 2 years 20% 23% 25%

» Less than 6 months 3% 3% 7%






















» OVERALL 2.8 2.6 2.8

CROSS TABULATION: BY SERVICE SPAN




Scope Management



» Scope Definition 2.7 2.6 2.7




» OVERALL 2.5 2.5 2.6

Time Management









» OVERALL 2.5 2.4 2.5






» OVERALL 2.5 2.4 2.4





» OVERALL 2.4 2.4 2.4










» OVERALL 2.4 2.3 2.3






» OVERALL 2.6 2.5 2.5

Risk Management








» OVERALL 2.3 2.3 2.1






» OVERALL 2.5 2.4 2.3






» OVERALL 2.5 2.4 2.6










» Training 2.8 2.3 2.4



» OVERALL 2.9 2.5 2.7




» OVERALL 2.8 2.5 2.5




» Corporate Initiative for Project Management Development 2.5 2.2 2.2

» OVERALL 2.6 2.3 2.4
























Organizational Performance Extent organization realized the following results in the 12 months (average rating of 1 to 5, where 1=to no extent, 5=to a very great extent)
















CROSS TABULATION

By Time PM Has Been in Place

< 2 YRS 2-5 YRS > 5 YRS

Respondent Profile








» Other 6% 5% 13%














» Energy 4% 7% 6%

» Retail 3% 1% 2%

» Other 4% 10% 7%


» North America 79% 66% 68%

» Europe 4% 21% 18%








» Enterprise 41% 48% 49%

» Business unit (LOB) 27% 30% 27%

» IT 29% 19% 22%

» Other 3% 2% 2%















» Level 1 59% 25% 15%

» Level 2 27% 54% 32%

» Level 3 13% 18% 30%

» Levels 4-5 1% 4% 23%

CROSS TABULATION: BY TIME PROJECT MANAGEMENT HAS BEEN IN PLACE < 2 YRS 2-5 YRS > 5 YRS











» OVERALL 2.2 2.5 3.2

Scope Management



» Scope Definition 2.2 2.4 3.1




» OVERALL 2.1 2.3 3.0

Time Management









» OVERALL 2.0 2.3 2.9






» OVERALL 1.9 2.3 2.9








» OVERALL 1.7 2.3 2.9






» OVERALL 1.9 2.1 2.8






» OVERALL 2.0 2.3 3.1

Risk Management








» OVERALL 1.8 2.1 2.7






» OVERALL 1.9 2.3 3.0









» OVERALL 2.0 2.3 2.9






» Training 2.0 2.4 3.0



» OVERALL 2.2 2.5 3.2




» OVERALL 2.2 2.5 3.1




» Corporate Initiative for Project Management Development 2.0 2/2 2/8

» OVERALL 2.0 2.3 2.8




LEV

EL

1

LEV

EL

2

LEV

EL

3

LEV

ELS

4-5

CROSS TABULATION

By Project Management Maturity*

Respondent Profile


» Chief Project Officer, CIO, or other C-Level 1% 3% 7% 24%

» VP or Director-Level Business Management 3% 4% 2% 0%

» VP or Director-Level Project/Program Management 17% 18% 12% 3%

» Head of the PMO (Director, Manager, etc.) 42% 30% 42% 28%

» PMO Staff Member 10% 16% 7% 14%

» Project/Program Manager 25% 21% 18% 14%

» Other 3% 8% 12% 17%


» Less than $100 million 31% 29% 30% 30%

» $100 million to $1 billion 35% 30% 30% 17%

» Greater than $1 billion 34% 41% 40% 53%


» Finance & Insurance 12% 18% 21% 3%

» Information 8% 12% 10% 33%

» Manufacturing 14% 17% 14% 10%

» Professional & Technical Services 12% 16% 19% 27%

» Public Administration 1% 8% 3% 3%

» Pharmaceutical & Biotechnology 9% 3% 7% 3%

» Healthcare & Social Services 21% 9% 7% 7%

» Education 8% 3% 2% 0%

» Energy 5% 6% 7% 7%

» Retail 3% 2% 2% 0%

» Other 7% 6% 9% 7%


» North America 83% 67% 62% 63%

» Europe 4% 19% 19% 23%

» Asia/Pacific 5% 4% 2% 3%

» Central/South America 5% 8% 12% 3%

» Middle East/Africa 3% 2% 4% 7%

* Project management maturity levels defined on page 15



LEV

EL

1

LEV

EL

2

LEV

EL

3

LEV

ELS

4-5

CROSS TABULATION: BY PM MATURITY



» Enterprise 44% 46% 50% 50%

» Business unit (LOB) 27% 31% 26% 23%

» IT 28% 19% 21% 27%

» Other 0% 4% 3% 0%


» More than 5 years 22% 36% 59% 87%

» 2 to 5 years 27% 45% 26% 10%

» 6 months to 2 years 41% 18% 14% 3%

» Less than 6 months 11% 1% 2% 0%


» No improvement 35% 17% 16% 4%

» From Level 1 to Level 2 54% 43% 4% 0%









LEV

EL

1

LEV

EL

2

LEV

EL

3

LEV

ELS

4-5

CROSS TABULATION: BY PM MATURITY


» Percentage decrease in failed projects 18% 31% 30% 40%

» Percentage cost savings per project (percent of total project cost) 6% 15% 17% 29%

» Percentage of projects delivered under budget 8% 25% 27% 26%

» Percentage of projects delivered ahead of schedule 6% 17% 22% 17%

» Percentage improvement in productivity 11% 22% 21% 38%

» Percentage improvement in time to market 9% 16% 17% 45%

» Percentage improvement in customer satisfaction 18% 27% 24% 40%

» Percentage improvement in projects aligned with business objectives 42% 35% 27% 53%

» Cost savings per project (in US Dollars, median) $10K $43K $50K $325K


» The organization’s strategies are executed according to plan 2.4 2.7 3.3 4.0

» The organization’s project stakeholders are satisfied 2.4 2.8 3.5 4.0

» The organization has shown increased profitability 2.1 2.5 3.2 3.5

» Projects are completed on schedule and on budget 2.2 2.5 3.3 3.7

» Project customers are satisfied 2.6 3.0 3.6 4.0

» Project team members are satisfied 2.4 2.7 3.1 3.9

» Project resources are allocated optimally 2.0 2.4 3.1 3.8

» Projects are aligned to the organization’s business strategy 2.8 3.2 3.6 4.3

» The organization prioritizes projects effectively 2.0 2.7 3.2 3.9

» The organization is realizes the benefits anticipated from projects 2.4 2.9 3.4 4.0

AVERAGE ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE RATING 2.3 2.8 3.3 3.9



CROSS TABULATION

By Organizational Performance

HIGH LOW PERFORMERS PERFORMERS

Respondent Profile


» Chief Project Officer, CIO, or other C-Level 16% 6%

» VP or Director-Level Business Management 0% 4%

» VP or Director-Level Project/Program Management 16% 16%

» Head of the PMO (Director, Manager, etc.) 33% 24%

» PMO Staff Member 7% 16%

» Project/Program Manager 7% 26%

» Other 20% 9%


» Less than $100 million 39% 37%

» $100 million to $1 billion 26% 30%

» Greater than $1 billion 35% 33%


» Finance & Insurance 13% 20%

» Information 18% 6%

» Manufacturing 9% 16%

» Professional & Technical Services 27% 13%

» Pharmaceutical & Biotechnology 2% 4%

» Public Administration 5% 9%

» Healthcare & Social Services 9% 16%

» Education 4% 9%

» Energy 5% 2%

» Retail 2% 2%

» Other 7% 4%


» North America 73% 82%

» Europe 11% 4%

» Asia/Pacific 2% 6%

» Central/South America 9% 6%

» Middle East/Africa 5% 4%





» Enterprise 48% 36%

» Business unit (LOB) 29% 37%

» IT 20% 35%

» Other 4% 2%

Percentage of firms with project management processes 95% 84%

Percentage of firms without project management processes that plan to implement them within the next year 67% 78%


» More than 5 years 49% 24%

» 2 to 5 years 30% 28%

» 6 months to 2 years 21% 33%

» Less than 6 months 0% 15%


OVERALL PROJECT MANAGEMENT MATURITY 3.4 1.7


» Project integration management 3.6 1.9

» Scope management 3.5 1.8

» Time management 3.3 1.7

» Project cost management 3.4 1.6

» Project quality management 3.4 1.5

» Human resources management 3.3 1.6

» Communications management 3.4 1.7

» Risk management 3.2 1.5

» Project procurement and vendor management 3.3 1.8

» Project stakeholder management 3.6 1.6


» Level 1 6% 61%

» Level 2 19% 35%

» Level 3 42% 4%

» Levels 4-5 34% 0%

CROSS TABULATION: BY ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE HIGH LOW PERFORMERS PERFORMERS





» Project Charter Development 3.6 2.0

» Project Management Plan Development 3.7 2.0

» Project Execution 3.7 2.0

» Monitoring and Controlling Project Work 3.6 2.0

» Integrated Change Control 3.4 1.8

» Project or Phase Closure 3.6 1.7

» OVERALL 3.6 1.9

Scope Management

» Scope Management Planning 3.5 1.8

» Requirements Collection 3.5 1.8

» Scope Definition 3.6 1.9

» Work Breakdown Structure 3.3 1.7

» Scope Validation 3.4 1.7

» Scope Change Control 3.4 1.7

» OVERALL 3.5 1.8

Time Management

» Time Management Planning 3.3 1.8

» Activity Definition 3.4 1.8

» Activity Sequencing 3.4 1.9

» Activity Resource Estimating 3.2 1.6

» Activity Duration Estimating 3.2 1.6

» Schedule Development 3.3 1.8

» Schedule Control 3.3 1.7

» Schedule Integration 3.1 1.6

» OVERALL 3.3 1.7


» Cost Management Planning 3.3 1.6

» Cost Estimating 3.3 1.6

» Budget Determination 3.5 1.7

» Cost Control 3.4 1.6

» OVERALL 3.4 1.6





» Quality Management Planning 3.4 1.5

» Quality Assurance 3.5 1.6

» Quality Control 3.4 1.6

» OVERALL 3.4 1.5


» Human Resource Management Planning 3.2 1.5

» Project Team Acquisition 3.2 1.6

» Project Team Development 3.3 1.5

» Project Team Management 3.4 1.7

» OVERALL 3.3 1.6


» Communications Management Planning 3.4 1.7

» Communications Management (Information Distribution) 3.5 1.8

» Communications Control 3.3 1.6

» Issues Tracking and Management 3.6 1.9

» OVERALL 3.4 1.7

Risk Management

» Risk Management Planning 3.3 1.6

» Risk Identification 3.3 1.6

» Qualitative Risk Analysis 3.1 1.4

» Quantitative Risk Analysis 3.0 1.3

» Risk Response Planning 3.2 1.4

» Risk Control 3.2 1.4

» Risk Documentation 3.2 1.4

» OVERALL 3.2 1.5


» Procurement Management Planning 3.3 1.7

» Procurement Requisition and Solicitation 3.3 1.8

» Procurement Control and Vendor Management 3.3 1.7

» Procurement Closure 3.2 1.7

» OVERALL 3.3 1.8





» Stakeholder Identification 3.6 1.8

» Stakeholder Management Planning 3.5 1.5

» Managing Stakeholder Engagement 3.6 1.6

» Controlling Stakeholder Engagement 3.6 1.5

» OVERALL 3.6 1.6



» Project Support 3.7 2.0

» Consulting and Mentoring 3.5 1.7

» Processes and Standards 3.7 2.2

» Training 3.4 1.8

» Project Management 3.5 2.0

» Project Management Software Tools 3.5 2.0

» OVERALL 3.6 1.9


» Awareness and Support 3.7 2.0

» Involvement 3.7 1.9

» OVERALL 3.7 1.9


» Individual Project Management Knowledge 3.5 1.7

» Individual Project Management Experience and Competence 3.5 1.7

» Corporate Initiative for Project Management Development 3.5 1.6

» OVERALL 3.5 1.6





» No improvement 9% 48%

» From Level 1 to Level 2 15% 35%








» Percentage decrease in failed projects 38% 10%

» Percentage cost savings per project (percent of total project cost) 26% 6%

» Percentage of projects delivered under budget 32% 7%

» Percentage of projects delivered ahead of schedule 24% 7%

» Percentage improvement in productivity 34% 8%

» Percentage improvement in time to market 36% 5%

» Percentage improvement in customer satisfaction 40% 19%

» Percentage improvement in projects aligned with business objectives 51% 25%

» Cost savings per project (in US Dollars, median) $125K $8K


» The organization’s strategies are executed according to plan 4.0 1.8

» The organization’s project stakeholders are satisfied 4.1 1.7

» The organization has shown increased profitability 3.7 1.7

» Projects are completed on schedule and on budget 3.8 1.7

» Project customers are satisfied 4.1 1.9

» Project team members are satisfied 3.8 1.8

» Project resources are allocated optimally 3.6 1.7

» Projects are aligned to the organization’s business strategy 4.3 2.2

» The organization prioritizes projects effectively 3.9 1.7

» The organization is realizes the benefits anticipated from projects 4.1 1.7

AVERAGE ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE RATING 3.8 1.8




2014 2006 2001 RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS

Respondent Profile






» PMO Staff Member 12% n/a n/a


» Other 10% 10% 6%











» Pharmaceutical & Biotechnology 5% n/a n/a



» Energy 7% n/a n/a

» Retail 2% 0% 2%

» Other 7% 25% 25%

CROSS TABULATION

2014 Results vs. 2006 vs. 2001 Results















» Project stakeholder management 2.5 n/a n/a


» Level 1 30% 68% 89%

» Level 2 38% 21% 6%

» Level 3 22% 6% 3%

» Levels 4-5 11% 5% 2%

Project Management Improvement Amount organization has improved its level of project management maturity

» No improvement 21% 33% n/a

» From Level 1 to Level 2 33% 34% n/a



» From Level 2 to Level 4 3% n/a n/a




CROSS TABULATION: 2014 RESULTS vs. 2006 RESULTS

2014 2006 2001 RESULTS RESULTS RESULTS

M e d i a P a r t n e rM e d i a P a r t n e rFor More Information PM Solutions1788 Wilmington PikeGlen Mills, PA 19342 USAPhone: +1-484-450-0100www.pmsolutions.com

“PMI”, “PMP”, and “PMBOK” are registered marks of the Project Management Institute, Inc.

PM Solutions’ Maturity Advancement ServicesLike any cultural change within an organization, maturity advancement often means carefully navigating the political climate of the organization to get progress in motion. Leveraging neutral, third-party consultants that specialize in effective approaches to assessing maturity and mapping a realistic plan for advancement can help ensure progress more quickly than going it alone. Especially if internal resources are constrained.

Using PM Solutions’ highly acclaimed Project Management Maturity Model (PMMMSM), we work with our clients to assess the current level of maturity, develop an achievable improvement plan, and help keep the momentum going by supporting the execution and measurement of the recommended improvements.

Because we have our own training division, the PM College, we incorporate training, professional development, mentoring, and coaching, which are integral parts of making project management practices “stick” and providing value back to the business.

PM Solutions is a project management services firm helping organizations apply project management and PMO practices to improve business performance. We are the leader in applying project and portfolio management processes and practices to drive operational efficiency for our clients. Founded in 1996 by J. Kent Crawford, PMP, the former president and chair of the Project Management Institute (PMI®), PM Solutions delivers expert project management solutions and services to help organizations and their people perform to maximum potential. Comprehensive offerings include:

» PMO transformation

» Project and portfolio management capability improvement

» Program and project management resources

» Corporate training and competency development delivered through our training division, PM College®

About PM Solutions



Project Management Maturity & Value Benchmark 2014 · 4 Project Management Maturity & Value...

Documents

Transcript of Project Management Maturity & Value Benchmark 2014 · 4 Project Management Maturity & Value...