Project management maturity: a critical analysis of existing and emergent factors
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to report on the findings of a doctoral thesis examining the limitations of project management maturity and associated models. It examines the management of undefined projects where the definition, repeatability and predictability of processes cannot be reasonably expected. The challenge to project management maturity theorists is to recognize the possibility of project management maturity in an environment characterized by undefined project elements and the requirement for greater flexibility in their management. Design/methodology/approach This inquiry was supported by a multimethod (MXM) research design with two stages: a content/textual analysis of two different collections of maturity models, and an exploratory case study of two university sites. The analysis (supported by grounded theory techniques) contributed to the development of a 4‐node conceptual framework that was used as the primary data collection instrument at two Canadian university sites. Findings Results indicate that multiple non‐process factors can contribute to a mature project management capability. These can include context‐specific values, specialized bodies of knowledge (instructional design), customer involvement, third‐party influence, and tacit “human factors” such as trust and creativity. The demands of this inquiry also demonstrated the need for a new data collection sequence in multimethod research design theory. Practical implications Practitioners are encouraged to consider customer involvement, organizational dynamics and adaptable variables such as leadership (among other non‐process factors) in their assessment of the maturity of their project management capability, and designers of future models could explore a multi‐dimensional approach that includes context‐specific factors to assessing and defining project management maturity. Originality/value This research expands the conceptual view and practical assessment of project management maturity; offers new analysis of the current generation of project management maturity models; documents e‐Learning project management; and defines a new data collection sequencing model.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it