Comparison of Maturity Models
Mohammad Khoshgoftar1, Omar Osman2
School of Housing, Building and Planning,
Universiti Sains Malaysia,
Pulau Pinang, Malaysia
(izadkh@yahoo.com) 1, (omar_o@usm.my) 2
Abstract— Maturity models are one of the widespread areas in
the field of improving organizational performance. They
identify organizational strengths and weaknesses as well as
providing benchmarking information. There are many
maturity models like OPM3, CMMI, P3M3, PRINCE, BPMM,
and Kerzner’s Project Management Maturity Model etc.
These models are different from each other in terms of their
factors and characteristics and also there is no standard
related to these models. Therefore, it is important for
organizations to be able to assess their situation by a
comprehensive and useful model. Accordingly, the aim of this
study is to compare the models and to find a suitable maturity
model. This study compares recent maturity models in terms of
selected variables. The result shows that OPM3 is a more
suitable model than others.
Keywords Maturity Model, OPM3, Project ManagementMaturity
Model
II. INTRODUCTION
Project management maturity models, as a subset of
strategic planning for project management provide a means
of identifying key steps, the tasks that need to accomplish,
and the sequence of events needed to realize meaningful and
measurable results. Basically, the purpose of the maturity
model is to provide a framework for improving an
organization’s business result by assessing the
organization’s project management strengths and
weaknesses, enabling comparisons with similar
organizations, and a measure of the correlation between an
organization’s project management level and actual project
performance [3, 11, 12].
The number of Maturity models for organizations are
increasing both directly and indirectly in order to assess how
mature an organization is [5]. Therefore, it should be
possible to assess how mature a project-based organization
is by considering a combination of various aspects of project
performance or project management practices for measuring,
and to find out what the results of these measurements turn
out to be [5].
In a paper in 2002, Jugdev and Thomas [16] mention that
over the past decades, maturity models appeared in the
literature as real, tangible ways of assessing aspects of
_____________________________
978-1-4244-4520-2/09/$25.00 ©2009 IEEE
project management maturity of a company. According to
the Thomas et al. [23] project management maturity models
are important assessment tools for the profession. Maturity
models identify organizational strengths and weakness in
addition to providing benchmarking information [16]. In
this regards, Supic [22] indicate that project management
maturity models are a new concept and are a part of the
project management development process and they are used
to assess and strategically plan the project management
development and required resources in an organization. He
indicated that other benefit of the maturity models is the
ability to use them as a performance benchmark among
different organizations and industries.
It has been argued forcefully and cogently that the absence
of global standards works to the detriment of the practice of
managing projects in multi-national or global organizations
[6, 7, 8, 14, 15]. Precisely the same argument applies to
maturity models -- the absence of a generally accepted
definition of what is involved inevitably inhibits the value
of any maturity model to the whole of an organization [5]. A
number of concerns have been expressed about this
proliferation of project management maturity models, for
example: “Unfortunately, there is no consensus as to the
contents of an organizational project management maturity
model, or even the principles on which such a standard is
constructed” [4]. Therefore, Identification of the best
maturity model among existing ones in terms of project
management components, skills and special characteristics
of construction projects is important. This not only will help
organizations assess themselves by the same model but also
they can compare themselves with their competitors.
III. OBJECTIVE
Many maturity models exist in the world. Generally,
companies utilize these models in terms of their goals and
objectives. Maturity models are different from each other in
terms of their specific characteristics, factors and ways that
consider for reaching their purpose and also as mentioned
earlier, there is no standard related to the maturity models.
Accordingly, there is an important issue; that organizations
can assess their organizational performance by a
comprehensive and useful model. This can help them

compare their situation with other companies by using the
same model. Therefore, the aims of this study are to
compare maturity models with each other and to find the
suitable model among them.
IV. MATURITY
According to Cook-Davies [5] there is no common fixed
definition of what a “mature project-based organization”
looks like. Different “maturity models” show different
concepts and suggestions as they move toward maturity [4].
Paulk [18] define maturity as a specific process of explicitly
defining, managing, measuring and controlling the
evolutionary growth of an entity. They indicate that maturity
not only implies a potential for growth in capability, but
also focuses on richness and consistency with regard to
execution. In this regard Andersen and Jessen [1] define
maturity as the quality or state of being mature. The
maturity concept must be related to a state in which
organizations are in perfect conditions to achieve their goals
[2]. They indicate that project maturity means that the
organizations are completely ready to work their projects.
Andersen and Jessen [1] point out that concept of maturity
to an organization it might refer to a state where the
organization is in a perfect condition to achieve its
objectives.
According to Cooke-Davies [5] the definition of maturity in
the capability-maturity family of models leads to the clear
conclusion that more mature organizations measure
different things than immature ones, and can also expect the
measures to show improving results as the organization
increases in maturity. The definition of maturity in many of
the more popular project management maturity models,
however, does not make this distinction. The same things
are measured at all levels of maturity; it is simply the results
that improve with maturity [5].
V. MATURITY MODEL
One of the models which have gained a lot of attention in
the project management community is maturity models and
almost every larger project management organization has
published some kind of a maturity model. Maturity models
are formed based on different issues like the premise that
improving business processes and staff capability will
improve an organizations’ productivity. According to the
Jugdev and Thomas [16] maturity models identify project or
organizational strengths and weaknesses and benchmarking
information. A maturity model is a structured collection of
elements that describe the characteristics of effective
processes or products [17].
In general, maturity models have the following properties
[13, 24]:
• The development of a single entity is simplified
and described with a limited number of maturity
levels (usually four to six);

• Levels are characterized by certain requirements,
which the entity has to achieve on that level;
• Levels are ordered sequentially, from an initial
level up to an ending level (the latter is the level
of perfection);
VI. SIGNIFICANCE of MATURITY MODELS
Significance of Maturity Models
Over the last twenty years, such pressures have led to the
widespread use of metrics, benchmarks, benchmarking, and
now, maturity models, as a means to identify best practice
and to compare methods of working and the quality of
outputs or outcomes [10].
Furthermore, a variety of claims have been made related to
the benefits that organizations have obtained from using
particular maturity models e.g. [19, 20, 21]. The
implications are that mature organizations are up to:
• Manage all the projects undertaken by an
organization effectively
• Improve continually the performance of all projects
undertaken by an organization
• Improve dialogue between the project management
community and organizational top management
VII. SHORTCOMING of MATURITY MODELS
Jugdev and Thomas [16] examine maturity models from
four different resource-based models perspectives in order
to assess whether having a higher maturity level in project
management bring competitive advantage to an organization
or not. Their article concludes that maturity models have
some characteristics but not all of a strategic asset, thus
cannot present competitive advantage. This conclusion
based on their observation that although “maturity models
are a component of project management [but] they are not a
holistic representation of the discipline.”
The maturity models also have some limitations from a
theoretical perspective. They are based on software maturity
models that lack a theoretical basis [16]. According to what
was mentioned above it can be concluded that there is no
global standard for maturity models which is one of its
shortcomings and this is because maturity models are a new
concept and need further considerations and clarifications
by both researchers and companies.
VIII. METHODOLOGY
One of the aims of this study is to compare the different
maturity models. There are two steps; the first is to
select some models for comparison. In this regards we have
decided to focus on the recent maturity models. The second
step is to find the variables for comparing maturity models
with each other. The selected variables were adopted from
Hakamian’s [9] unpublished thesis. Table 1 shows
comparison of models according to the selected variables. 16- Quantitative Results: Showing the quantitative
The following variables were selected. results
1- Publisher: The reliable publisher 17- Tangible of Results: Identifying of the results
2- Scope: The cover of the area of model clearly
3- Number of Maturity Level: The quantity of 18- Identifying weakness and strong points: Indicating
maturity level of model weaknesses and strongest of organization
4- Discrete and Continues: Consisting of the maturity 19- Continuous Assessment: Considering continues
level assessment
5- Details: The amount of the considered factors 20- Training Difficulty: The extent of difficulties in
6- Date of Issue: The publications from 2000 to 2007 training of the model for staff and assessors
will be taken in to consideration in the study 21- Commitment for Continuous Improvement:
7- Refer to Standard: Based on which standard the Considering continues improvement
model is designed 22- Suggestion of alternative for improvement: To find
8- Definition of Maturity: Definition of maturity out the solutions
9- Organization Strategic: Considering the 23- Priority of Improvement: Determining priority of
organization strategic improvement in organization
10- Project Management Process: The covering project 24- Support by Publisher: Support by publisher
management process 25- New Edition: compatibility with new conditions
11- Program Management Process: The covering 26- Easy for Execution: Execution of model easily
program management process 27- Simple and Understandable: Simple and
12- Portfolio Management Process: The covering understandable
portfolio management process
13- Coverage Assessment: Identifying the coverage of TABLE I. COMPARISON OF MATURITY MODELS
the model
14- Assessment Difficulty: The extent of difficulties
15- Assessment Cost: Expenditure of assessment
Sub-Criterion OPM3 P3M3 Prince Kerzner Barkeley Anderson CMMI BPMM FAA-
CMM
Publisher PMI OGC OGC ILL Ibbs SEI OMG SEI
Scope PM PM PM PM PM PM Software Business
Maturity Level ------ 1-5 1-3 1-5 1-5 ----------- 1-5 1-5 1-5
Discrete and Continues Discrete Discrete Discrete Discrete Continues Discrete Discrete Discrete
Continues
Details Extremely High Medium High High Low High High High
High
Date of Issue 2003 2006 2004 2005 2000 2003 2001 2007 2001
Refer to Standard PMBOK MSP Prince PMBOK PMBOK
Definition of Yes Yes Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Yes Medium
Maturity
Organization Yes Yes Medium Yes Medium Yes Yes Medium Medium
Strategic
Project Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Management
Process
Program Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Management
Process
Portfolio Yes Yes No No No Yes No No No
Management
Process
Coverage Medium Low Low High Medium Low Medium Medium Medium
Assessment
Assessment Low High High Low Medium Unknown High High Hihj
Difficulty
Assessment Cost Low High High Low High Unknown Medium Medium Medium
Quantitative Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Unknown Unknown Unknow
Results n
Tangible of Yes Unknow Unknow Yes Yes Yes Yes Unknown Unknow
Results n n n


 Identifying Yes Unknow Unknow Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
weakness and n n
strengths
Continuous Yes Unknow Unknow Medium Yes No Yes Yes Yes
Assessment n n
Training Difficulty Low High High Medium High Extremely High High High
High
Commitment for Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Continuous
Improvement
Suggestion of Yes Yes Yes Yes Unknown No Yes Yes Yes
Alternative for
Improvement
Priority of Medium Low Low Medium Unknown No Medium Medium Medium
Improvement
Support by High High High High Low No High Medium Medium
Publisher
New Edition Yes Yes Yes Yes Unknown No Yes Yes Yes
Easy for Execution Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes
Simple and Yes Medium Medium Yes No Medium Medium Medium Medium
Understandable

maturity model. Therefore, the aims of this research were

IX. RESULT of the COMPARISON
The table 1 shows that OPM3 is the more suitable maturity
model than others in terms of the selected variables. The
reasons can be summarized as follow:
1- Referring to the PMBOK as acceptable standard
2- considering strategic management
3- Considering portfolio management, program
management and project management.
4- Having continues approach while most of the other
models have five maturity level and are discrete
5- Having 586 best practice and 2400 capability that
show more details for this model
6- Date of issue that indicate this model is not old
7- Publisher that is PMI, the most popular institute in
the project management
8- Having the assessment tools, this model use special
software for analyzing collected data
9- Attention to the improvement
10- Suggesting alternative for improvement
11- Identifying the weakness and strong points by
model
12- Supporting by PMI
13- Emphasis to continuous improvement and priority
of improvement
14- Simple and understandable for user
15- Using this model is not costly
16- Executing of the model is easy
17- this model is not related to the special industry
IV. CONCLUSION
Maturity models are new concept in the field of project
management. They are not under a standard and they have
different frameworks. Organizations utilize these models for
reaching their goals and objectives. Comparing the models
can help the organizations in selecting and utilizing suitable
comparison of maturity models and find the suitable model.
The recent maturity models selected among existing ones.
Thirty three variables selected for the comparison of the
models with each other. These variables were general and
common among models. This research concluded that
OPM3 is the suitable models among others in terms of
selected variables. It does not mean that OPM3 is the best
one in the world and in all situations because this needs
further research.
REFERENCES
[1] E.S. Anderson and S.A. Jessen, “Project maturity in organizations,”
International Journal of Project Management Accounting, vol. 21, pp.
457-461, 2003.
[2] F.T. Berssaneti, M.M.D. Carvalho, F.B. Lopes and A.R.N. Muscat,
“Maturity and performance in project management: A survey of
information technology professionals,” POMS 19th Annual
Conference, California, U.S.A, La Jolla 2008.
[3] M. Combe, “Standards committee tackles project management
maturity models,” PM NETWORK. Vol.12, 1998
[4] T. J. Cooke-Davies, F.J. Schlichter, and C. Bredillet,“Beyond the
PMBOK Guide,” Proc the 32nd Annual project Management Institute
2001 Seminars and Symposium Philadelphia. Philadelphia 2001
[5] T. J. Cooke-Davies, “Project management maturity models,” Wiley,
Handbook of Managing Projects. New York, 2004.
[6] L. Crawford, “Standards for a global profession - project
management,” Proc of the 29th Annual project Management Institute
1998 Seminars and Symposium. Sylva. Sylva, NC, Project
Management Institute, Construction Industry 1998.
[7] L. Crawford, “Project management competence: The value of
standards,” Henley Management College,” 2001
[8] L. Crawford, “Developing project management competence for
global enterprise,” Proc ProMAC 2002 Conference. Singapore:
Nanyung Technical University, 2002.
[9] H. Hakamiyan, “Assessing the role of OPM3 in petrochemical
industrial,” Unpublished, 2005.
[10] A. Harpham, “The APM Group's assessment model for portfolio,
program and project management, its PRINCE2 maturity model and
their benefits to organizations,” [online] Available from
http://www.apmgroup.co.uk/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.a
sp? lID=576&sID=102 [assessed December 27, 2006]


[11] F. Hartman, “Trends and improvements: Looking beyond modern
project management,” The 28th Annual Project Management Institute
1997 Seminars & Symposium. Chicago, Project Management
Institute, 1977.
[12] W. Ibbs and Y.H. Kwak, “Assessing project management maturity,”
Project Management Journal, vol. 31, pp. 32-43. 2000
[13] G. Klimko, “Knowledge management and maturity models: Building
common understanding,” Proc. of the 2nd European Conference on
Knowledge Management. 2001
[14] P. W. G. Morris, “Updating the project management bodies of
knowledge,” Project Management Journal, vol. 32, pp.21-30. 2001
[15] P. W. G. Morris, “The irrelevance of project management as a
professional discipline,” 17th World Congress on Project
Management Moscow: IPMA. 2003
[16] K. Judev and J. Thomas, “Project management maturity models: The
milver bullets of competitive advantage?” Project Management
Journal, vol. 33, 2002
[17] OPM3, “Organizational project management maturity model,”
Newtown Square, Pennsylvania USA, Project Management Institute.
2003
[18] M. Paulk, B. Curtis, M. Chrissis and C. Weber, “Capability maturity
model for software,” Version 1.1.CMU/SEI-93-TR-24. Pittsburg,
Pennsylvania, USA, Carnegie Mellon University.1993.
[19] A.S. Peterson, “The impact of PM maturity on integrated PM
processes,” Proc. 31st Annual project Management Institute 2000
Seminars and Symposium Philadelphia. Philadelphia. 2000
[20] C. Rosenstock, R.S. Johnston and L.M. Anderson, “Maturity model
implementation and use: a case study,” Proc. 31st Annual project
Management Institute 2000 Seminars and Symposium Philadelphia.
Philadelphia, Project Management Institute. 2000.
[21] I. Suares, “A real world look at achieving project management
maturity,” Proceedings of the 29th Annual project Management
Institute 1998 Seminars and Symposium Philadelphia. Philadelphia,
Project Management Institute, Construction Industry. 1998.
[22] H. Supic ,“Project management maturity of selected organizations in
Croatia,” 8th International Conference on Telecommunications -
ConTEL 2005. Zagreb, Croatia, ISBN: 953-184-081-4, 2005
[23] J. Thomas, D.L. Connie, K. Judev, and P. Buckle, “Selling project
management to senior executives: The case for avoiding crisis sales,”
Project Management Journal. Vol. 33, pp.19-29, 2002
[24] R. Weerdmeester, C. Pocaterra and M. Hefke, “VISION Next-
Generation knowledge management,” Information Societies
Technology (IST) Programme. 2003