The objective of this chapter is to study the impact of organisational project management (OPM3) on the project performance (PP). PP performed by the organisations was assessed, based on interviews with project managers. Currently, little evidence is found in the academic literature regarding the impacts of the maturity models (MM) on the PP. The results show that the OPM3 provided a positive contribution to PP. Some of the interviewees stated that the adoption of OPM3 brought improvements at the process level, which made it possible to define in a more appropriate way, the scope, schedule, costs, and goals to perform improvements in the stakeholder's communication.
TopIntroduction
In nowadays, there is a need to work with faster and more flexible organisational structures, which force companies to operate through projects which usually help them to successfully achieve their objectives. Furthermore, in an increasingly competitive business environment, it is necessary to ensure that the successful results of one project can be extended to future initiatives and investments, using standardised procedures (Gomes & Romão, 2014).
Projects are discrete but multidimensional activities that serve as vehicles of change, promoting investments made by the organisations with the goal of obtaining internal process enhancements and business benefits (Bannerman, 2008). In fact, projects are unique and designed to deliver beneficial change, so managing project goals and business benefits underpins all aspects of successful projects (Gomes & Romão, 2015). Projects are temporary endeavors undertaken to create a product, service, or result (PMI, 2016).
Project success means different things to different stakeholders. A project that seems successfully for customers could be a completely failed experience for contractors or to the end-users (Toor & Ogunlana, 2008). Stakeholders have distinct interests in different projects and therefore the perception of success vary differently across the various stakeholders (Bryde & Brown, 2005).
The definition of project success is not consensual and several authors agree that success can be achieved by the action of the project manager (Baccarini, 1999; Pinto & Slevin, 1988; Ika, 2009; McLeod et al., 2012). The iron triangle, the classic criterion is a measure of the immediate PP against the main design parameters - schedule (time), budget (cost) and technical requirements (quality) (Bannerman, 2008).
The iron triangle criteria were the very first approach of PM success (De Wit, 1988), which has later proven to be only a part of overall project success. Project manager is not responsible only for time, cost and quality management, but also to other factors, such as, integration, scope, human resource, communication, risk, procurement and stakeholder’s management (PMI (2013a).
Maturity models have become an essential tool for assessing organisations' current capabilities and helping them to implement change and improvement in a structured way (Jia et al., 2011). Maturity model is a set of characteristics, attributes, indicators, or patterns that represent progression and achievement in a specific domain or discipline (Caralli et al., 2012). Maturity is often associated with step stages schema, presented in the organisational management practices that make it possible to achieve project success (Besner, & Hobbs, 2013). Not surprisingly, the concept of maturity was also diffused to the project management field. Different views exist regarding maturity in relation to project management. A significant number of competing perspectives attempt to describe mature project management practices (Cooke-Davies & Arzymanow, 2003; Hillson, 2003; Ibbs & Kwak, 2000; Jachimowicz, 2003; Mullaly, 2006; PMI, 2013a; Sawaya & Trapanese, 2004; Skulmoski, 2001). These approaches assume that increasing maturity of project management will lead to improvements in performance and results of more consistent and successful projects.