Article
Statistical Predictors of Project Management Maturity
Helder Jose Celani de Souza 1 , Valerio Antonio Pamplona Salomon 1, *
Citation: Celani de Souza, H.J.;
Salomon, V.A.P.; Sanches da Silva,
C.E. Statistical Predictors of Project
Management Maturity. Stats 2023, 6,
868–888. https://doi.org/10.3390/
stats6030054
Academic Editor: Wei Zhu
Received: 6 June 2023
Revised: 31 July 2023
Accepted: 8 August 2023
Published: 15 August 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Stats 2023, 6, 868–888. https://doi.org/10.3390/stats6030054
and Carlos Eduardo Sanches da Silva 2
1 Department of Production, Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP–Sao Paulo State University),
Guaratingueta 12516-410, Brazil
2 Institute of Industrial Engineering and Management, Federal University of Itajuba, Itajuba 37500-903, Brazil
* Correspondence: valerio.salomon@unesp.br; Tel.: +55-12-3123-2232
Abstract: Global scenarios of organizations show investments wasted in projects with poor per-
formances in more than 11 percent of cases, according to the Project Management Institute. This
research aims to guide organizations in assertively investing in the right pertinent factors to improve
project success rates and speed up project management maturity at a higher accuracy level using
statistical predictions. Challenging existing drivers for project management maturity models and
expanding their current practical view will be the result of a quantitative methodology based on a
survey supported by data collection targeting the project management community in Brazil. The
originality and value of this research are in contributing to the development of new project maturity
models statistically supported by the increasing rate of maturity accuracy, which can be continually
improved by confident data input into the model. The results show a high correlation between the
performance measurement system and the project success rate associated with project management
maturity. In addition, this research contemplates the relationship between organizational culture,
business type, and project management office and project management maturity.
Keywords: partial least squares regression; performance measurement; project management
1. Introduction
With the radical changes in the global scenario for organizations driven by new
technologies and professional skills, investments wasted on poor project performance have
corresponded to an average of 11.4 percent, based on recent surveys. The beginning of a
new decade is ushering in a world full of complex issues that require organizational leaders
to reimagine not just the nature of work, but how it is completed [1]. According to the
Project Management Institute (PMI), executive leaders have identified the most important
factors for achieving project success in the future, including organizational agility (35%),
choosing the right technologies to invest in (32%), and securing relevant skills (31%).
Global economic scenarios and competitive challenges are forcing organizations to ac-
complish projects with higher success rates as a result of process effectiveness, technologies,
policies, standards, educational programs, knowledge management, and more predictable
environments. Although the theory of project management (PM) offers resources for this
target, concepts and definitions of project success vary greatly and are usually beyond
known boundaries within the literature while evidencing a wide diversity of opinions and
approaches [2,3].
Since 2013, the PMI has intensified the research to improve the definition of success
and the impact factors compatible with the complex business world. In 2018, the PMI
performed a global survey with 5702 respondents: 4455 PM practitioners, 447 senior
executives, and 800 PM officers. The industries included construction, energy, government,
healthcare, information technology (IT), manufacturing, and telecommunications. The
respondents spanned North America, Asia Pacific, Europe, Middle East and Africa, Latin
America, and the Caribbean. The survey revealed the three main top drivers for project
success that should be considered by organizations: investing in actively engaged executive
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/stats
Stats 2023, 6 869

sponsors; avoiding scope creep or uncontrollable changes to a project’s scope; and maturing
value delivery capabilities, all of which focus on organizational agility. Furthermore, 26% of
all respondents reported that inadequate sponsor support is the primary cause of failed
projects [4]. This factor had not been considered as the main dimension in the project
management maturity models (PMMMs) reported in the literature. The other factors have
been covered indirectly or with different denominations [5]. Another survey carried out in
2017 by the PMI showed that organizations wasted an average of BRL 97 million out of every
BRL 1 billion invested due to poor project performance, representing a 20-percent decline
compared to 2016. This annual survey of PM practitioners and leaders, compounded with
the global feedback of 3234 professionals of different levels within organizations from a
variety of industries, strives to advance the conversation around the value of PM, and the
findings’ links with lessons learned and the improvement benefit from PMM in the proven
project, program, or portfolio management practices [6].
The concept of project success has different approaches and understandings in the
literature. Sometimes, it is difficult to tell it from project failure. It can be seen as a
multidimensional construct: management, business objective achievements, and strategic
oriented, or simply defined as what the project should deliver. Furthermore, a project’s
success within organizations depends intensively on the availability of high-performing
individuals [3,7,8].
Maturity in PM is an organizational condition associated with successful projects:
it allows for success to be repeated [9–11]. The PMM of organizations attains favorable
conditions that will help projects succeed by using models. PMMMs have been developed
since the 1980s to provide appropriate approaches to continuous improvement, similar
to total quality management [12]. The first PMMM was the Capability Maturity Model
Integration (CMMI) developed at Carnegie Mellon University, from 1986 to 1993. The ma-
jority of concepts was based on questionnaires and several dimensions under analysis
to perform assessments. A survey performed by 86 project professionals from various
service and manufacturing organizations revealed that performance measurement systems
(PMSs) and project management maturity (PMM) are significantly correlated with business
performance and project success. With all relevant facts confirmed in the literature and
surveys, this research focuses on the direct relationship that PMM and PM have to project
success concepts [13].
This paper arose from the evidence of PMM’s poor benchmark statistics of 60% in
immaturity experienced by several companies [4,5]. Another strong motivation for this
study is the correlation between PMM and PMS [11,13].
Figure 1 presents the most frequent dimensions considered by PMMM.

Figure 1. Dimension of project management maturity models.

Stats 2023, 6 870

This paper also describes the behavior of PMM and project success in manufacturing
and service organizations, represented by the organization operation type (OOT) variable,
in terms of the existence of a project management office (PMO) and a defined organizational
structure (OS), which bring additional scientific contributions to rigorous statistical criteria.
This paper contemplates analysis based on PMI annual surveys but adds new surveys
in the 2020s. The paper is organized as follows: The Introduction is presented in Section 1,
also including the motivation of this study. The Background is presented in Section 2, the
Methodology in Section 3, the Results and Discussions in Section 4, and the Conclusion
and Recommendations in Section 5.

2. Background
This section presents a literature review covering concepts and theoretical foundations
of project management maturity models.

2.1. Project Management Maturity

Organizations have been challenged by growing competition to innovate processes,
products, and services, as well as reach faster responses to the market and customers. They
have responded to these challenges with management flexibility and strategic choices for
their projects [14]. PM and PMM are properly inserted in this present scenario when the
effects of a company’s project management system and management’s ability to execute
successful projects are recognized in practice and the concept of “maturity” in PM might
vary from one author to another [10].
In general, PMM is an organizational condition that facilitates the success of projects
and is measured by using models based on PM areas of knowledge and several distinct
organizational dimensions. A PMM assessment should enable an organization to identify
key opportunities for PM improvements, thereby increasing its number of successful
projects [15,16].

2.2. Project Management Maturity Models

The concepts of PMM assessment models originated from the fundamentals of total
quality due to their direct relation to continuous improvement culture and the involve-
ment of senior management [12,17]. Since the 1990s, several maturity models have been
developed, and one of the first on the market was the Capability Maturity Model for soft-
ware project application, developed at Carnegie Mellon University. This model has been
continuously improved upon and updated and is now referred to as Capability Maturity
Model Integration (CMMI). Similar to the majority of PMMM, CMMI consists of five levels,
sequentially nominated as Initial, Repeatable, Defined, Managed, and Optimizing [18].
The Berkeley Model is based on the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK),
the PMI’s best practices guide, and considers five levels of maturity: Ad Hoc, Defined,
Managed, Integrated, and Sustained. An assessment based on this model focuses on
financial and organizational effectiveness, project performance, commitment to continuous
improvement, and evaluating maturity by processes and project phases [19].
The Organizational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3) from PMI became
a globally recognized model and the best-practice standard for assessing and developing
capabilities in portfolio management, program management, and project management.
The OPM3 helps organizations develop a road map to improve performance and covers
the domains of organizational PM, the systematic management of projects, programs,
and portfolios aligned with the achievement of strategic goals. This model offers the
key to organizational project management with three interlocking elements: Knowledge,
Assessment, and Improvement, and it has four levels of maturity: Standardize, Measure,
Control, and Continuously Improve [20].
PMI’s former president, Kent Crawford founded PM Solutions, a PM consultant
company, in late 1996. PM Solutions Maturity Model considers five levels of maturity: Initial
Stats 2023, 6 871

Process, Structured Process and Standard, Organizational Standard and Institutionalized

Process, Managed Process, and Optimizing Process [21].
Projects in Controlled Environments (PRINCE2) is a structured method for PM [22].
The PRINCE2 Maturity Model (P2MM) is another framework in which organizations can
create improvement plans oriented by measurable outcomes and the industry’s best prac-
tices. The P2MM is evolving into the Portfolio, Program, and Project Management Maturity
Model (P3M3), both standards owned by the United Kingdom’s Office of Government
Commerce. The P2MM has five maturity levels: Awareness of the Process, Repeatable
Process, Defined Process, Managed Process, and Optimized Process [22].
The Kerzner Project Management Maturity Model (KPMMM) is also based on the
PMBOK’s knowledge areas and the five phases of a project’s life cycle, which contemplates
five levels of maturity: Embryonic, Executive Management Acceptance, Line Management
Acceptance, Growth, and Maturity [10,11].
From the literature researched, most of the PMMM contemplates the concepts of
PMBOK’s knowledge areas, project life cycle phases, and behavioral dimensions. One
common weak point of the models is the fact that there is no solid statistical basis to sustain
the concept of the model and the accuracy throughout its use.
Table 1 summarizes the PMMM presented in this section.

Table 1. Project management maturity models.

Model Proposal Maturity Levels

Berkeley William Ibbs and Young Kwak, 2000 5
CMMI Carnegie Mellon University, 1984 5
KPMMM Harold Kerzner, 2001 5
OPM3 Project Management Institute, 2003 4
PM Solutions Kent Crawford, 2002 5
P2MM United Kingdom government, 1989 5

Most PMMMs are five-level models, except for the four-level OPM3. The models have
slight differences in conceptualization, such as the delineation of the PMM framework,
the definition of maturity, the coverage of PM knowledge areas, and their scope. In addition,
only 20% of the PMMM considers a performance measurement system (PMS), the existence
of a project management office (PMO), and the organization operation type (OOT) as
drivers for project success, and it is only improved upon when organizations perceive the
driving forces [5,21,23,24].

2.3. Example of Project Management Maturity Model Application

Maturity models (MMs) are applied in different sectors. However, the experience from
practical applications of MMs are scarcely described [25]. MMs enable organizations to ele-
vate and benchmark performance across a range of critical business capabilities, including
product development, service excellence, supplier management, and cybersecurity.
Table 2 presents data for two companies assessed by CMMI and certified as levels 1
and 2 and level 5 of PMM [26].

Table 2. PMM assessment regarding CMMI [26].

Company Appraisal ID Expiration Maturity Level

IBM 57090 29 June 2025 5
McKinsey 63183 29 November 2025 1 and 2
Stats 2023, 6 872

The process starts with defining a team composed of one sponsor, one appraisal
leader, and internal stakeholders to be interviewed or to answer questionnaires. Initially,
the CMMI model is explained to the team and made clear that it contains a view specifically
for services and offers new features, including an online model viewer for accelerated
adoption. The next step is to gauge the organization by using an appraisal, which is an
activity to identify strengths and weaknesses of the organization’s processes and to examine
how closely the processes relate to CMMI best practices. The final result will reveal the
maturity level and the process gaps compared with the CMMI’s model. An action plan is
developed by the organization to improve the process and reach an upper maturity level.
In the case of IBM, level 5 of PMM means that the organization has reached the
benchmarking level where continuous improvement is the current practice to keep this
level and improve more and more. At this level, a common language is achieved within
the organization, a process is in place and documented for following, a PM methodology is
institutionalized and consistent for the entire organization, and a continuous improvement
and benchmark cycle is underway. The main benefits of this effort are to gain customer
loyalty, develop resiliency, increase time to market, improve quality, and reduce costs.
In the case of McKinsey, levels 1 and 2 mean the company is still investing to have
a common language and process in place, but a single PM methodology is not avail-
able within the organization. Another interesting CMMI case is the company Cognizant,
a leading provider of information technology (IT), which is also at level 5 maturity and
has been showing lots of strengths. Cognizant has decided to focus its strategy on cost
reduction, operational efficiencies, IT alignment to the business, and business transfor-
mation and innovation. The company monitors its performance based on the following
practices: proactively measuring performance against goals on an ongoing basis; using pre-
diction models to ensure proactive achievement of business objectives; conducting audits
to enable business assurance and disseminating best practices; implementing a structured
framework/platform support to inculcate a culture of best-practice adoption across the
organization; and applying process automation tools and training. Sustaining a CMMI
maturity rating of level 5 has strengthened employee confidence. Specifically, the best prac-
tices that have been built within the organization through a robust process and platform
capabilities have helped employees consistently exceed meeting customer demands.
Depending on the PMMM, the number of levels may vary from 4 to 5, and each
level has a specific description of the organization’s condition to characterize it. The
following sections explain the main PMMMs available and show how the evaluation of
maturity level is obtained. Most of them are not statistically based and originate from
practical experience and observations. This article brings the necessary statistical basis
from consistent assessments.

2.4. Kerzner Project Management Maturity Model

KPMMM was selected for this research due to its reputation, consolidation, and practi-
cal application. This model consists of five levels, sequentially nominated and represented
by a staircase, where each step represents a level of the PMM. Most of the PMM models
use questionnaires for assessments. KPMMM has a total of 181 questions to measure the
PMM. KPMMM’s common statement for all questions is: “Does my company recognize
the need for project management?” and the respondent must choose an answer according
to the following scale: −3 for “strongly disagree”, −2 for “disagree”, −1 for “slightly
disagree”, 0 for “no opinion”, +1 for “slightly agree”, +2 for “agree”, and +3 for “strongly
agree”. Considering the −3 to +3 scores for each of the questions of the correspondent level,
the maximum score per level of PMM can reach +12. The level requirements are completed
when at least a +6 score is reached per level [11,27].
Stats 2023, 6 873

The reason KPMMM’s original scale is from −3 to +3 is not explained, unlike the
conventional and consolidated scales, such as the Likert scale or the Saaty scale [28]. It
is also subjective to consider all requirements accomplished for the maturity level when
the obtained result for the level is greater than or equal to +6. KPMMM’s users report
overlaps between maturity levels, which may cause a lack of accuracy in defining the level
completed by the organization. To mitigate this model’s issue and bring a more scientific
contribution to the PM community, fuzzy logic was applied to PMM-level decisions to
augment the accuracy of this model [29].

Example of KPMMM in Practice

KPMMM’s questionnaire has twenty questions, with four questions assigned to each
of the five maturity levels [11]. Since the original scale of KPMMM ranges from −3 to +3,
the maximum score for a single level is equal to 12. Table 3 presents an example of a real
application of KPMMM.

Table 3. Example of KPMMM application.

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

Embryonic Executive Line Management Growth Maturity
+8 +10 +10 +3 −4

In the example presented in Table 3, the three first levels of KPMMM are satisfied with
scores greater than +6. The organization is on the road to achieving level 4. Level 3 is the
higher level with a score equal to or greater than +6, and the application of KPMMM results
in the identification of “Line Management” as the maturity level for this organization.
According to KPMMM theory, the company may need up to two more years to increase its
maturity level [10].

2.5. Organization Performance Measurement

Organization performance measurement is a continuous process of defining baselines,
targets, sets of indicators, and dashboards that can rapidly diagnose the organization and
allow for fast actions. Table 4 presents different definitions for PMS, in chronological order.

Table 4. Definitions for performance measurement systems.

Author
John Schermerhorn, 1984 [30]
R. Kaplan and D. Norton, 1996 [31]
Alaa Ghalayini et al., 1997 [32]
Andy Nelly et al., 1997 [33]
M. Figueiredo et al., 2005 [34]
Y. Zhang and S. Li, 2009 [35]
Laura Ricci, 2016 [36]
Definition
An assessment and evaluation process for the efficiency and effectiveness of people,
resources, and technology.
A metric system used to quantify the efficiency and effectiveness of an action.
A way for organizations to control process improvements to achieve their goals.
Allow decisions and actions to be performed based on information (data collection, data
analysis, interpretation, and dissemination of the results) and quantify process efficiency and
the effectiveness of past actions.
A set of people, methods, tools, and indicators structured to collect, describe, and represent
data, the main goal of which is to generate information.
A systematic analysis and objective evaluation of the management of projects completed.
Interrelated and independent performance management elements that influence one another
to increase employee and organizational performance to ultimately enhance
organizational effectiveness.
Stats 2023, 6 874

The purpose of a PMS is to measure improvements and failures, analyze human behav-
ior for training needs, validate rewards, and career development. The PMS is considered
the heart of any organizational performance management and is a main variable to be
researched in this study due to its impact on project success [29]. A survey with 86 PM pro-
fessionals from various North American service and manufacturing organizations revealed
that project success and PMM are significantly related to business performance [13]. This in-
formation concerns multiple dimensions of performance for distinct users at a hierarchical
level, which allows managers to evaluate their teams’ performance, activities, and or-
ganizational processes. The definition of PMS also varies in the literature and its usual
characteristics can be grouped into four categories: purpose of the system, performance
measures, activities, and structural characteristics.
OOT, OS, and PMO are three influential factors in project success. However, they are
not the main focus of this study since PMS brings a contribution with more impact on the
PM community.
PMO is an organizational entity responsible for coordinating and centralizing PM ac-
tivities. It is also responsible for generally supporting PM methodologies and leveraging the
PM culture across the organization, and is always supported by the top management [37].
Unfortunately, little research has been conducted on the relationship between PMO and
an organization’s PMS, or their influence on PMM, a fact that brings more value to this
research. Despite the time necessary to move from one maturity level to another, PMM
models associated with the business cycle model have practical and useful constructs to
help the PMO stay aligned with business needs and, as a consequence, accelerate the
organization’s PMM [38].
OS is an environmental factor in organizations and affects the culture, resource avail-
ability, and project team development. OS can be classified as “functional”, “matrix”,
or “project-based” [37]. It is widely recognized that organizational culture has an impact
on organizational and project performance [39]. OS also influences PMO deployments and
consolidation in PMM as a consequence [14,40,41].
Organizations can be divided into two broad categories: manufacturing and services,
posing unique challenges for the operation’s function. OOT is a variable that represents
these categories, consisting of a hypothesis of its correlation with PMM and project success,
and is yet to be tested. The literature reveals that it is rarely explored. The services
sector is expanding very rapidly, and the challenges for effective management differ from
the challenges manufacturing faces. The usual tools and techniques in manufacturing
organizations are suggested to be applied to those that are in the service sector [41].

2.6. Figueiredo Performance Measurement Model

The Figueiredo Performance Measurement Model (FPMM) was developed based on
11 desired attributes (DAs) and 63 observed variables (OVs) [34]. The FPMM was chosen
by the contemporaneous concepts contemplated in the model structure. Table 5 presents
FPMM’s DAs, OVs, and some concepts according to the PM’s literature. These attributes
are all measurable in practice and can be statistically treated.
This article brings an approach and a novel for future PMMM development once these
dimensions can be added and analyzed, enhancing the model and avoiding observations
or personal feelings of the influencing factors.
Stats 2023, 6 875

Table 5. Figueiredo Performance Measurement Model.

Attribute OV Concepts
Information supply capability to contribute to knowledge and organizational behavior
Learning 7
management [31,32,34,42].
Information supply capability for a global performance evaluation to identify issues and
Evaluation 7
solutions [43,44].
Information supply capability according to different performance dimensions to allow a
Balancing 5
multidimensional perception of organizational behavior [31,34,45].
Information supply capability to use user-friendly indicators for all distinct users in different
Clarity 10
hierarchy levels for reliable decision making [40,45].
PMS capability to continuously monitor the external and internal organization environments for rapid
Agility 4
decision making [32,43].
Flexibility 6 PMS capability to adapt quickly to organizational changes [32,43].
PMS capability to monitor external and internal organization environments for detecting issues and
Monitoring 3
potential issues [32,43].
PMS capability to interact with the entire organization’s KPI, aligned with the strategies, tactics,
Integration 4
and operational targets [32,43].
PMS capability to use KPIs aligned to the organization’s strategy and process to have a clear
Alignment 7
perception of global performance [31,32,43,45].
Participation 5 PMS capability to allow stakeholders active participation in all project life cycles [32,34,46–48].
PMS capability to allow inter-relationships among all KPIs to facilitate understanding strategies to
Causal relationship 5
ramp up the expected business results [31,44,45].

3. Materials and Method

An exploratory and descriptive web-based survey was performed in two phases to
assure a higher response rate and to raise the credibility of the data [49]. Additionally,
leveraging the influence of the PMI Sao Paulo Chapter, in Brazil, a relevant number of
complimentary messages to the PM community was also sent. The first phase of the survey
was carried out using KPMMM for PMM measurement, and the second phase used FPMM
for PMS. For additional investigation, specific questions about PMO, OS, and OOT were
also included. Figure 2 presents the methodological workflow.
A total of 101 valid responses were obtained out of more than 250; thus, this sample
size may be considered acceptable, according to the theory of Multivariate Analysis [50].
This survey was performed in 2010, but the results from later surveys were also used in
this paper to ensure the consistency of the statistical data while providing a baseline for
new and future PMM model proposals.
Partial least squares (PLS) is the statistical method used for regression and dimension-
ality reduction chosen to be applied in this research. It is often compared to other similar
statistical tools such as Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and multiple linear regression
(MLR). Principal Component Analysis (PCA) is primarily used for dimensionality reduction
and data exploration, which identifies linear combinations of variables (principal compo-
nents) that capture the maximum variance in the data. PCA is an unsupervised method and
does not consider the relationship between predictor variables and the response variable,
but it is useful for reducing multicollinearity, identifying important variables, and visualiz-
ing high-dimensional data. On the other hand, MLR is a widely used method for predicting
a continuous response variable based on multiple predictor variables and assumes a linear
relationship between the predictors and the response. MLR estimates the coefficients of the
predictor variables to minimize the sum of squared differences between the observed and
predicted responses. It is a supervised method and requires a clear distinction between
predictor and response variables. PLS combines elements of both PCA and MLR. It is useful
when dealing with high-dimensional datasets, multicollinearity, and situations where the
Stats 2023, 6 876

number of predictors is larger than the number of observations. PLS also identifies a set of
latent variables (components) that capture the maximum covariance between the predictor
variables and response. Unlike PCA, PLS considers the relationship between the predictors
and responses, making it suitable for both regression and classification tasks. In addition,
PLS can handle situations with collinear predictors and works well when predictors have
complex interactions. In summary, PLS can handle multicollinearity, identify important
predictors, and model the relationship between the predictors and responses, making it a
versatile tool in various statistical analyses [51].

Figure 2. Methodological workflow.

Predictive accuracy is a measure used to evaluate the performance of a predictive

model in estimating or forecasting outcomes. It assesses how well the model predicts the
values of the response variable for new, unseen data. There are several commonly used
metrics to measure predictive accuracy, as shown in Table 6.
It is important to note that the choice of the appropriate predictive accuracy metric
depends on the specific context, the type of problem (regression or classification), and the
evaluation criteria that are most relevant to the application. Evaluating predictive accuracy
using multiple metrics can provide a more comprehensive understanding of the model’s
performance. Additionally, it is crucial to consider other factors such as the nature of the
data, the specific objectives of the analysis, and the limitations of the chosen model [50,51].
As this paper will be the basis of the novel in terms of the project maturity model, one of
these prediction metrics will be used to bring robustness to the future model and paper.
For this paper, only comparisons with the PMM results from consolidated models in the
literature, like the Kerzner model, were considered.
Version 17 of Software Minitab [52] was used for all statistical data handling, pro-
cessing, and the final results obtained. The survey was web-based with data treatment
conducted using electronic spreadsheets.
Stats 2023, 6 877

Table 6. Predictive accuracy metrics.

Metric
Mean Squared Error (MSE)
Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE)
Mean Absolute Error (MAE)
R-squared (coefficient of determination)
Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE)
Accuracy, Precision, Recall, F1-score (for classification problems)
Description
It calculates the average squared difference between the
predicted values and the actual values of the response variable.
It provides a measure of the average prediction error,
with smaller values indicating better predictive accuracy.
It is the square root of the MSE. It provides a measure of the
average prediction error in the original units of the response
variable, which can be more interpretable than MSE.
It calculates the average absolute difference between the
predicted values and the actual values. It measures the
average magnitude of the prediction errors without
considering their direction. Smaller MAE values indicate
better predictive accuracy.
It measures the proportion of the variance in the response
variable, which is explained by the predictor variables. In the
context of predictive accuracy, it indicates how much of the
variation in the response variable is captured by the model’s
predictions. Higher R-squared values indicate better
predictive accuracy.
It calculates the average percentage difference between the
predicted values and the actual values. It provides a measure
of the average relative prediction error. MAPE is commonly
used when the magnitude of the errors is important
to consider.
These metrics are used to evaluate the performance of
classification models. Accuracy measures the proportion of
correctly classified instances, precision quantifies the
proportion of correctly predicted positive instances among all
predicted positive instances, recall calculates the proportion of
correctly predicted positive instances among all actual positive
instances, and the F1-score is the harmonic mean of precision
and recall. Higher values for these metrics indicate better
predictive accuracy in classification tasks.

4. Results and Discussion

Based on the survey results, a quantitative analysis was performed. This analysis is on
101 Brazilian companies and includes correlations, regressions, and predictions.

4.1. Respondents Profile

Figure 3 presents the organization operation type (OOT) and the demographics of
the respondents. Most respondents are from Brazilian services companies with 100 or
more employees.

Figure 3. Organization operation type and demographics of survey’s respondents.

Stats 2023, 6 878

Figure 4 presents the line of business of the respondents. Information technology and
telecommunications are the leading lines, with almost 50%.

Figure 4. Line of business of survey’s respondents.

Most of the respondents had one to five years of experience in PM: 56%. Additionally,
24% of respondents had 6 to 10 years of experience, 15% had 11 to 20 years of experience,
and only 5% had more than 20 years of experience. The survey also investigated the
number of companies with existing and operating PMO, resulting in 52% positive, despite
92% of them being incipient, with less than five years of implementation. In terms of the
OS, the survey revealed 46% as functional; 23% in the weak matrix (without PMO); 21%
in the strong matrix (with PMO); and only 10% were project-based. Of the respondents’
occupations, 51% were project or functional managers, 21% were project coordinators or
leaders, 7% were operation directors, and there were 21% in other occupations.

4.2. Results of the Project Management Maturity Assessment

The survey based on KPMMM resulted that the PMM of 53% of the companies were
Embryonic (Level 1), 7% were in Line Management Acceptance (Level 2), 10% in Executive
Management Acceptance (Level 3), 8% in Growth (Level 4), and 22% had Maturity (Level
5). This reflects that 60% of the organizations had no single language, no single process,
and no singular PM methodology in place in 2010. The PM maturity percentage obtained
in Brazil was considered high in 2010 and was explained by the profile of respondents,
and the survey was focused on the PM community [5]. Furthermore, recent assessments
performed by the PMI in 2019 showed that only 13% of the companies were evaluated
highly in the maturity level at a global level [53].
Agility is a relevant driver for PMM [22] and also for organizational performance [32,34].
The strength of Multivariate Analysis is a way of ordering a large number of alternatives
and finding those that have statistical significance, being essential for considering practical
interpretations [50].
The PLS regression, basic statistical tools, and computer programs are used in this
paper to perform a Residual Analysis and verify whether the data on Maturity and PMS
are within the acceptable limits from the set of responses obtained. This analysis is the
basis for structuring an innovative model and must be based on the lowest number of
questions for the evaluation questionnaire without missing meaning and a practical sense
of relevance. The results are within the allowable limits, as presented in Figure 5 using four
principal components.
Stats 2023, 6 879

Figure 5. Data Residual Analysis (Software Minitab Version 17) .

Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was also performed, resulting in an explanation

rate of 82% and an eigenvalue equal to 0.88. With all this conducted, PLS was applied to
the database obtained from the survey, and the results are presented in Figure 6.

Figure 6. Key predictors (Software Minitab Version 17).

The standardized coefficients represent the standardized effect of each predictor

variable in this regression model. They allow for comparing the magnitude of the effects of
different predictors, as they are expressed in terms of standard deviations. These coefficients
were derived based on the three principal components, which ensure an explanation rate
of 82% and an eigenvalue of 0.88. Principal components aim to reduce the dimensionality
of the dataset. An explanation rate of 82% suggests that the three principal components
Stats 2023, 6 880

explain 82% of the total variance in the data. An eigenvalue of 0.88 is associated with
one of the principal components and indicates the amount of conflict explained by that
component. A higher eigenvalue suggests a more significant contribution to the overall
conflict [54].
The resulting plot shown in Figure 6 visually represents the PLS coefficients for each
predictor variable, allowing for a quick comparison of their magnitudes. It can be further
customized by adjusting the labeling and colors or adding additional visual elements
based on the requirements. The standard coefficients correspond to the intensity and
influence of the respective predictor on PMM and project success. It can be observed that
the predictor OOT is negative and appears to be negligible and could be eliminated when
measuring PMM.
To achieve more robustness for OOT predictor elimination, the authors decided do use
dendrograms. They are hierarchical-tree-like structures commonly used in data analysis
and visualization to show the clustering relationships among objects or variables. They
have practical applications in various fields, as shown in Table 7.

Table 7. Dendrogram best practices.

Practice
Hierarchical clustering
Visualization of clustering relationships
Distance or similarity measures
Cut-off threshold
Interpretation and analysis
Can be customized based on the specific needs and characteristics of the data. Various
visualization techniques, such as circular dendrograms or interactive dendrograms, can
Variations and customization
Description
Often constructed using hierarchical clustering algorithms, which iteratively merge or
split clusters based on similarity or dissimilarity measures. Hierarchical clustering can
be agglomerative (bottom–up) or divisive (top–down).
Provide a visual representation of the clustering relationships among objects or
variables. Objects or variables are represented as leaves in the dendrogram,
and branches indicate the merging or splitting of clusters at different levels of similarity
or dissimilarity. The height or length of the branches in the dendrogram represents the
magnitude of the dissimilarity or distance between the clusters being merged or split.
A distance or similarity measure is calculated to quantify the dissimilarity or similarity
between objects or variables. Common distance measures include Euclidean distance,
Manhattan distance, or correlation-based distances. Similarity measures can be based
on cosine similarity, Pearson correlation coefficient, or other similarity metrics,
depending on the type of data and the research question.
Allows flexibility in choosing the desired number of clusters or groups by setting a
cut-off threshold. The cut-off threshold determines at which dissimilarity or distance
level the dendrogram is pruned, resulting in a specific number of clusters. Different
cut-off thresholds can lead to different numbers of clusters and, therefore, different
interpretations of the data.
Provide insights into the inherent structure and relationships in the data. They can aid
in identifying clusters or groups of similar objects or variables, detecting outliers,
and assessing the stability of the clustering results. Dendrograms can also be used as a
basis for further analysis, such as identifying characteristics or patterns within specific
clusters or comparing clusters across different datasets.
be employed to enhance the representation and interpretation of the clustering
relationships. Additionally, color coding, labeling, and annotation can be used to
provide additional information or context within the dendrogram.

Dendrograms are powerful tools for exploring and visualizing clustering relationships
in data. They assist in understanding the hierarchical structure, identifying groups or
clusters, and guiding further analysis and interpretation in various domains. Figure 7
shows the dendrogram for PMM’s predictors.
Stats 2023, 6 881

Figure 7. Dendrogram for PMS, PMO, OS, and OOT Similarity Analysis (Software Minitab Ver-
sion 17).

In a dendrogram, the clustering and proximity of two similar variables can provide
insights into their relationship and similarity. When two similar variables are grouped
together in a dendrogram, this indicates that they have similar patterns or characteristics
based on the chosen distance or similarity measure [55].
The OS of manufacturing and services companies can have some similarities, as both
aim to efficiently manage resources, coordinate activities, and achieve organizational goals,
for instance, Functional Departments, Hierarchical Levels, Production or Service Delivery
Units, Cross-Functional Teams, Support Functions, Communication and Reporting Chan-
nels, and Decision-Making Authority. It is important to note that each organization may
have its unique structure based on its specific industry, size, culture, and strategic objectives.
The organizational structure should align with the company’s goals and operational needs,
and the external environment it operates [56].
Clustering is a popular unsupervised learning technique used to group similar data
points into clusters based on their characteristics or similarities. Various clustering methods
are available, each with strengths, weaknesses, and suitable use cases. Table 8 shows
common clustering methods and makes a comparison between them to justify the currently
chosen one.
If the number of clusters is known and the data have well-separated clusters, K-Means
is efficient and can be a good choice. If there is no prior knowledge of the number of
clusters and one wants to visualize the clustering process, hierarchical clustering might
be suitable. DBSCAN is useful when dealing with noisy data and clusters with arbitrary
shapes, but parameter tuning can be challenging. GMM is helpful when the data can be
modeled as a mixture of Gaussian distributions and soft clustering is desired. Mean shift is
useful when the number of clusters is not known beforehand and the data have irregular
shapes. Ultimately, the choice of the clustering method depends on the nature of your data,
the number of clusters you want to identify, and the specific requirements of your problem.
It is often a good idea to try multiple methods and compare their results to find the best fit
for your particular use case [57].
Stats 2023, 6 882

Table 8. Clustering methods.

Clustering Method Description

K-Means Clustering
Hierarchical Clustering
Density-Based Spatial Clustering of Applications with Noise
(DBSCAN)
Gaussian Mixture Model (GMM)
Mean Shift Clustering
It is a simple and widely used clustering algorithm. It partitions
the data into K clusters, where K is a user-defined parameter.
Each data point belongs to the cluster whose mean (centroid) is
nearest to it.
Strengths : Fast convergence, scalable, works well with large
datasets and well-separated clusters.
Weaknesses: Sensitive to initial cluster centers, does not handle
non-spherical clusters well.
It builds a tree-like structure of nested clusters. It can be
agglomerative (bottom–up) or divisive (top–down) in nature.
Strengths: No need to specify the number of clusters
beforehand, can handle non-spherical clusters, and provides a
dendrogram for visualization.
Weaknesses: Computationally expensive for large datasets,
difficult to interpret for very large datasets.
It groups together data points based on density and identifies
noise points as outliers. It requires two parameters: the radius, ε,
and the minimum number of points within ε to form a cluster.
Strengths: Robust to outliers, can discover clusters of arbitrary
shapes, no need to specify the number of clusters, and efficient
for large datasets.
Weaknesses: Sensitivity to the choice of parameters, does not
perform well for datasets with varying density.
GMM is a probabilistic model that represents data points as a
mixture of several Gaussian distributions. It estimates the
parameters of these distributions to fit the data.
Strengths: Can handle clusters with different shapes, provides
probabilistic cluster assignments, and allows soft clustering.
Weaknesses: Sensitive to the initialization of parameters, can
converge to local optima, and can be
computationally expensive.
It is an iterative algorithm that shifts data points toward the
mode of data distribution. It is non-parametric and can
automatically determine the number of clusters.
Strengths: Works well with non-spherical clusters, does not
require specifying the number of clusters, and robust to outliers.
Weaknesses: Computationally expensive, sensitivity to kernel
bandwidth (a parameter), and might converge to local optima.

Aggregation and hierarchical clustering are two distinct approaches in data analysis
and pattern recognition. Aggregation involves combining individual data points based on
specific rules or criteria to create a simplified representation of the data. It is commonly
used in data mining, machine learning, and statistical analysis to reveal overall patterns or
trends. Aggregated data are useful for gaining insights into general trends. On the other
hand, hierarchical clustering builds a tree-like representation (dendrogram) of data points
based on their similarity. It creates a hierarchical structure of clusters, combining smaller
clusters into larger ones until all data points form a single cluster. The dendrogram allows
users to determine the appropriate number of clusters by cutting the tree at a specific level,
providing a more detailed understanding of the data’s hierarchical structure.
In summary, aggregation summarizes data points into a simplified representation,
while hierarchical clustering groups data points into nested clusters, revealing a more
detailed structure. The choice between these methods depends on the specific goals of
the analysis and the level of detail required to understand the underlying patterns in the
data [58].
Stats 2023, 6 883

The results of the negative magnitude of PLS predictor OOT standard coefficients
shown in Figure 6, the similarity with the predictor OS shown in Figure 7, and the practical
contextualization of OOT in PMM allow us to arrive at a conclusion to safely eliminate the
predictor OOT without any damage to the structure of any future PMM model.
With this decision, a new Residual Analysis was carried out to certify that the results
remained within acceptable limits, as presented in Figure 8.

Figure 8. Residual Data Analysis after OOT removal (Software Minitab Version 17).

Obtaining a p-value of 0.001 ensures a statistical significance level or confidence level

of 95%, while a Pearson’s coefficient of 0.412 indicates a positive correlation, maintaining
an explanation rate of 82%.
Figure 9 presents the Standard Coefficient Plot obtained with Software Minitab regard-
ing the three principal components and the elimination of the predictor OOT.
PMS, PMO, and OS significantly impact PMM and project success. The dendrogram, as
shown in Figure 7, assures the predictor OOT can be eliminated due to the 61.40% similarity
with OS, which will correspond to a simpler questionnaire to measure PMM. A component
analysis working with three principal components provides an explanation rate of 72%,
an eigenvalue equal to 0.95, and a p-value of 0.001, ensuring a statistical significance level
of 95% and a positive correlation with a Pearson’s coefficient equal to 0.412. This represents
a positive contribution and an accelerated impact on the PMM process evolution leveraged
by PMS, PMO, and OS.
The results confirm that PMS is still predominant with a high correlation between
PMM and project success. The other factors (PMO and OS) are also important but are not
the target of this research, even though this statistically proven finding can contribute to
future research as a consideration for PMM drivers and project success.
Stats 2023, 6 884

Figure 9. Key predictors after OOT elimination (Software Minitab Version 17).

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

The recent PMI surveys show that the PM environment will change drastically and
rapidly over the next five years, guided by technology, change management, agile method-
ologies, design thinking, DevOps, and hybrid PM, which connect the importance of PMS
in project success [1]. In addition, the PMI 2021 survey describes the significant changes in
the business ecosystem over the past 12 months compared to the 12 months prior in certain
areas that have a direct impact on project success, as presented in Figure 10 [59].

Figure 10. Significant changes in the new organizational ecosystem.

Despite the pandemic, this survey reveals an advance in PMM from 41% to 57% in
companies that combine traditional and new approaches to working by proposing all
possible methods to solve current problems, including methods that were effective in the
Stats 2023, 6 885

past, recently called gymnastic enterprise. Furthermore, despite the capital project cuts
during this adverse period, the original goals and business intentions were accomplished
due to the increase in project success rates. The drivers researched by PMI have shown that
companies are empowering their people to work smarter by mastering different ways of
working, such as agile, predictive, or hybrid approaches, or using a range of technologies.
The consequence is an increase in employee skills, which requires more investments in
leadership, communication, and business acumen competencies to sustain PMM and
project success rates.
It is statistically proven by the survey’s results that organizations from the services
and manufacturing sectors must invest in PMS to improve PMM and project success rates
not only in engineering projects but all kinds of projects.
The greater an organization’s PMM, the greater the positive impact on the project’s
overall performance and success [60]. This is positive, but this is not compatible with the
current and existing models in the literature. This suggests that models must change to suit
the reality of PM. For this purpose, it is strongly recommended that PMS be definitively
included as a dimension in PMM models [61].
PMS can still be divided into eleven dimensions and sixty-three observed variables,
allowing for another survey to be composed and to determine the individual influence
of each factor in PMM and project success, as well as defining new drivers for a future
revolutionary PMM model, carrying along with it a strong scientific contribution to the
PM community and the literature [34]. Agility is the watchword all over the world at the
moment, and it is one relevant dimension of the Figueiredo model. The question that will
soon come up is how can organizations progress in PMM or project success without an
active PMS in place? The present reality brings agility and high performance as key drivers
to propel project success in organizations, despite the fact that PMO and OS have also been
considered relevant factors to speed up PMM and project success.
PMMM reveals a lot of distinct conceptual bases, and most of them have no statistical
foundation. With new upcoming innovation fronts and enterprise ecosystems, PMMM is
being overlapped and rapidly discontinued unless the way of structuring them changes
immediately. In the literature, hybrid methodologies can be seen emerging soon, crossing
agile and waterfall approaches, which creates a real revolution in the project management
scenario. The authors’ survey results demonstrated a positive correlation with a p-value
range from 0.001 to 0.05 and correspondent high-intensity influence among Performance
Measurement Systems (PMSs), Project Management Offices (PMOs), and Organizational
Structures (OSs) as predictors for PMM and project success. As OOT was statistically
eliminated in this study, it adds a valuable piece of additional knowledge to the literature
and project management practices. The benefit of this point is the reduction in the number
of questions for future PMM models.
The PM world is changing so fast, and many different approaches are to come as arti-
ficial intelligence influences PM control and actions. Hybrid methodologies and several
lean initiatives are what leverage companies. The impact of technologies like artificial
intelligence will be high and in many ways, organizations will make changes to PM con-
cerning the variety of titles, executed through a variety of approaches, and unwaveringly
focused on delivering financial and societal value. This is the future, nominated “The
Project Economy”.
This research is limited to Brazilian companies and cannot be generalized for PM
programs and portfolio management. For future research related to PMM, it is recom-
mended to apply the Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis methodology to define the best
model for improving project success [28]. Finally, as suggested by one of the anonymous
reviewers, the authors began a new survey on PMM. Nevertheless, this will be the subject
of future work.
Stats 2023, 6 886

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, H.J.C.d.S.; methodology, H.J.C.d.S., V.A.P.S. and C.E.S.d.S.;

software, H.J.C.d.S.; validation, H.J.C.d.S., V.A.P.S. and C.E.S.d.S.; formal analysis, H.J.C.d.S., V.A.P.S.
and C.E.S.d.S.; investigation, H.J.C.d.S.; resources, H.J.C.d.S., V.A.P.S. and C.E.S.d.S.; data cura-
tion, H.J.C.d.S., V.A.P.S. and C.E.S.d.S.; writing—original draft preparation, H.J.C.d.S. and V.A.P.S.;
writing—review and editing, H.J.C.d.S., V.A.P.S. and C.E.S.d.S.; visualization, H.J.C.d.S., V.A.P.S.
and C.E.S.d.S.; supervision, V.A.P.S. and C.E.S.d.S.; project administration, H.J.C.d.S., V.A.P.S. and
C.E.S.d.S.; funding acquisition, not applicable. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of this manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Original data may be provided by the corresponding author upon request.
Acknowledgments: We gratefully acknowledge PMI Chapter Sao Paulo and PMI, and the anony-
mous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:

CMMI Capability Maturity Model Integration

DA Desirable Attribute
DBSCAN Density-Based Spatial Clustering of Applications with Noise
FPMM Figueiredo Performance Measurement Model
GMM Gaussian Mixture Model
IT Information Technology
KPMMM Kerzner Project Management Maturity Model
MSE Mean Square Error
OLS Ordinary Least Squares
OOT Organization Operation Type
OPM3 Organizational Project Management Maturity Model
OS Organizational Structure
OV Observed Variable
P2MM PRINCE2 Maturity Model
P3M3 Portfolio, Program, and Project Management Maturity Model
PCR Principal Component Regression
PLS Partial Least Squares
PM Project Management
PMBOK Project Management Body of Knowledge
PMI Project Management Institute
PMM Project Management Maturity
PMMM Project Management Maturity Model
PMO Project Management Office
PMS Performance Management System
PRINCE2 Projects in Controlled Environments
RR Ridge Regression

References
1. Future-Focused Culture. 2020. Available online: https://www.pmi.org/learning/thought-leadership/pulse/pulse-of-the-
profession-2020# (accessed on 5 February 2023).
2. McLeod, L.; Doolin, B.; MacDonnell, S.G. Perspective-based understanding of project success. Proj. Manag. J. 2012, 43, 68–86.
[CrossRef]
3. Ika, L.A. Project success as a topic in project management journals. Proj. Manag. J. 2011, 40, 16–19. [CrossRef]
4. PMI’s Pulse of the Profession. 2018. Available online: https://www.pmi.org/-/media/pmi/documents/public/pdf/learning/
thought-leadership/pulse/pulse-of-the-profession-2018.pdf (accessed on 5 February 2023).
Stats 2023, 6 887

5. Celani de Souza, H.J. Sistema de avaliação de Maturidade em Gerenciamento de Projetos Fundamentado em Pesquisa Quantitativa.
Ph.D. Thesis, Universidade Estadual Paulista, Guaratingueta, Brazil, 2011. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/11449/103058
(accessed on 5 February 2023).
6. PMI’s Pulse of the Profession. 2017. Available online: https://www.pmi.org/-/media/pmi/documents/public/pdf/learning/
thought-leadership/pulse/pulse-of-the-profession-2017.pdf (accessed on 5 February 2023).
7. Shao, J.M.R.; Turner, J.R. Measuring program success. Proj. Manag. J. 2012, 43, 37–49. [CrossRef]
8. Shenhar, A.J.; Dvir, D.; Levy, O.; Maltz, A.C. Project success: A multidimensional strategic concept. Long Range Plann. 2001, 34,
699–725. [CrossRef]
9. Andersen, E.S.; Jessen, S.A. Project maturity in organisations. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2003, 21, 457–461. [CrossRef]
10. Kerzner, H. Project Management Best Practices, 4th ed.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2018.
11. Kerzner, H. Project Management: A System Approach to Planning, Scheduling and Controlling, 13th ed.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ,
USA, 2022.
12. Cooke-Davies, T.J.; Arzymanow, A. The maturity of project management in different industries: An investigation into variations
between project management models. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2003, 21, 471–478. [CrossRef]
13. Yazici, H.J. The role of project management maturity and organizational culture in perceived performance. Proj. Manag. J. 2011,
40, 14–33. [CrossRef]
14. Aubry, M.; Hobbs, B.; Thuillier, D. The contribution of the project management office to organisational performance. Int. J. Manag.
Proj. Bus. 2009, 2, 141–148. [CrossRef]
15. Ibbs, C.W.; Kwak, Y.H. Assessing project management maturity. Proj. Manag. J. 2000, 31, 32–43. [CrossRef]
16. Jiang, J.J.; Gary Klein, G.; Hwang, H.; Huang, J.; Hung, S. Assessing project management maturity. Inf. Manag. 2004, 41, 279–288.
[CrossRef]
17. Pasian, B.; Sankaran, S.; Boydell, S. Project management maturity: A critical analysis of existing and emergent factors. Int. J.
Manag. Proj. Bus. 2012, 5, 146–157. [CrossRef]
18. Paulk, M.C. A history of the capability maturity model for software. Softw. Qual. Prof. 2009, 12, 5–19.
19. Kwak, Y.H.; Ibbs, C.W. Project management process maturity (PM)2 model. J. Manag. Eng. 2002, 18, 150–155. [CrossRef]
20. The Pathway to OPM3. 2004. Available online: https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/pathway-organizational-project-
management-maturity-8221 (accessed on 5 February 2023).
21. Crawford, J.K. Project Management Maturity Model, 4th ed.; CRC: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2021.
22. P3M3 | Portfolio, Programme, and Project Management Maturity Model | Axelos. 2004. Available online: https://www.axelos.
com/for-organizations/p3m3 (accessed on 5 February 2023).
23. Brookes, N.; Clark, R. Using maturity models to improve project management practice. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual
Conference of the Production and Operations Management Society, Orlando, FL, USA, 1–4 May 2009. Available online: https:
//www.pomsmeetings.org/ConfProceedings/011/FullPapers/011-0288.pdf (accessed on 5 February 2023).
24. Celani de Souza, H.J.; Salomon, V.A.P.; Sanches da Silva, C.E.; Aguiar, D.C. Project management maturity: An analysis with fuzzy
expert systems. Braz. J. Prod. Oper. Manag. 2012, 9, 29–41. [CrossRef]
25. Burmann, A.; Meister, S. Practical application of maturity models in healthcare: Findings from multiple digitalization case studies.
In Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Biomedical Engineering Systems and Technologies, Online, 11–13
February 2021. Available online: https://www.scitepress.org/PublishedPapers/2021/102286/pdf/index.html (accessed on
5 February 2023).
26. CMMI Institute. Available online: https://cmmiinstitute.com/pars (accessed on 28 March 2023).
27. Kerzner, H. Using the Project Management Maturity Model: Strategic Planning for Project Management, 3rd ed.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ,
USA, 2019.
28. Ortiz-Barrios, M.; Miranda-De la Hoz, C.; López-Meza, P.; Petrillo, A.; De Felice, F. A case of food supply chain management with
AHP, DEMATEL, and TOPSIS. J. Multi-Criteria Decis. Anal. 2019, 27, 104–128. [CrossRef]
29. Kumar, P.; Nirmala, R.; Mekoth, N. Relationship between performance management and organizational performance. Acme
Intellects Int. J. Res. Manag. Soc. Sci. Technol. 2015, 9, 1–13.
30. Schermerhorn, J.J.R.; Bachrach, D.G. Management, 14th ed.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2020.
31. Kaplan, R.S.; Norton, D.P. The balanced scorecard–Measures that drive performance. Harv. Bus. Rev. 1992, 70, 71–79. Available
online: https://hbr.org/1992/01/the-balanced-scorecard-measures-that-drive-performance-2 (accessed on 5 February 2023).
32. Ghalayini, A.M.; Noble, J.S.; Crowe, T.J. An integrated dynamic performance measurement system for improving manufacturing
competitiveness. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 1997, 48, 207–225. [CrossRef]
33. Nelly, A.; Richards, H.; Mills, J.; Platts, K.; Bourne, M. Designing performance measures: A structured approach. Int. J. Oper. Prod.
Man. 1997, 17, 1131–1152. [CrossRef]
34. Figueiredo, M.A.D.; Macedo-Soares, T.D.L.A.; Fuks, S.; Figueiredo, L.C. Definição de atributos desejáveis para auxiliar a
auto-avaliação dos novos sistemas de medição de desempenho organizacional. Gest. Prod. 2005, 12, 305–315. [CrossRef]
35. Zhang, Y.; Li, S. High performance work practices and firm performance: Evidence from the pharmaceutical industry in China.
Int. J. Hum. Resour. Man. 2009, 11, 2331–2348. [CrossRef]
36. Ricci, L. The Impact of Performance Management System Characteristics on Perceived Effectiveness of the System and Engage-
ment. Master’s Thesis, San Jose State University, San Jose, CA, USA, 2016. [CrossRef]
Stats 2023, 6 888

37. Project Management Institute, Inc. A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide), 7th ed.; PMI: Newton
Township, PA, USA, 2021.
38. Kim, H.; Choi, I.; Lim, J.; Sung, S. Business Process-Organizational Structure (BP-OS) Performance measurement model and
problem-solving guidelines for efficient organizational management in an ontact work environment. Sustainability 2022, 14, 14574.
[CrossRef]
39. Brown, C.J. A comprehensive organizational model for the effective management of project management. S. Afr. J. Bus. Manag.
2008, 39, 1–10. [CrossRef]
40. Perry, M.P. Business Driven PMO Setup; J. Ross Publishing: Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA, 2009.
41. Gupta, D.A.K. Growth and challenges in service sector: Literature review, classification and directions for future research. Int. J.
Manag. Bus. Stud. 2012, 2, 55–58. Available online: http://www.ijmbs.com/22/akgupta.pdf (accessed on 5 February 2023).
42. Garvin, D.A. Building a learning organization. Harv. Bus. Rev. 1993, 71, 78–91. Available online: https://hbr.org/1993/07/
building-a-learning-organization (accessed on 5 February 2023). [PubMed]
43. Bititci, U.S.; Turner, U.; Begemann, C. Dynamics of performance measurement systems Int. J. Oper. Prod. Man. 2000, 20, 692–704.
[CrossRef]
44. Neely, A.; Mills, J.; Platts, K.; Richards, H. Performance measurement system design: Developing and testing a process-based
approach. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Man. 2000, 20, 1119–1145. [CrossRef]
45. Neely, A.; Adams, C.; Kennerley, M. The Performance Prism: The Scorecard for Measuring and Managing Business Success; Prentice
Hall: London, UK, 2002.
46. Dixon, J.R.; Nanni, J.A.J.; Vollmann, T.E. The New Performance Challenge: Measuring Operations for World-Class Competition; Dow
Jones–Irwin: Homewood, IL, USA, 1990.
47. Christopher, W.F.; Thor, C.G. Handbook for Productivity Measurement and Improvement; Productivity: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1993.
48. Thor, C.G. Ten rules for building a measurement system. Qual. Product. Manag. 1993, 9, 7–10.
49. Forza, C. Survey research in operations management: A process-based perspective. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Man. 2002, 22, 152–194.
[CrossRef]
50. Hair, J.J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis, 8th ed.; Cengage: Andover, UK, 2019.
51. Yeniay, O.; Goktas, A. A comparison of partial least squares regression with other prediction methods. Hacet. J. Math. Stat. 2002,
31, 99–111.
52. Data Analysis, Statistical & Process Improvement Tools. 2023. Available online: https://www.minitab.com/en-us/ (accessed on
5 February 2023).
53. The Future of Work. 2019. Available online: https://www.pmi.org/-/media/pmi/documents/public/pdf/learning/thought-
leadership/pulse/pulse-of-the-profession-2019.pdf (accessed on 5 February 2023).
54. Miao, J.; Forget, B.; Smith, K. Analysis of correlations and their impact on convergence rates in Monte Carlo eigenvalue simulations.
Ann. Nucl. Energy 2016, 92, 81–95. [CrossRef]
55. Everitt, B.S.; Dunn, G. Applied Multivariate Data Analysis; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1991.
56. Ulaga, W.; Reinartz, W.J. Hybrid offerings: How manufacturing firms combine goods and services successfully. J. Market. 2011,
75, 5–23. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41406856. [CrossRef]
57. Dudoit, S.; Fridlyand, J. Bagging to improve the accuracy of a clustering procedure. Bioinformatics 2003 19, 1090–1099. [CrossRef]
58. Gelbard, R.; Goldman, O.; Israel Spiegler, I. Investigating diversity of clustering methods: An empirical comparison. Data Knowl.
Eng. 2007, 63, 155–166. [CrossRef]
59. Beyond Agility. 2021. Available online: https://www.pmi.org/learning/thought-leadership/pulse/pulse-of-the-profession-2021
(accessed on 5 February 2023).
60. Berssaneti, F.T.; Carvalho, M.M. Identification of variables that impact project success in Brazilian companies. Int. J. Proj. Manag.
2015, 33, 638–649. [CrossRef]
61. Success in Disruptive Times. 2021. Available online: https://www.pmi.org/-/media/pmi/documents/public/pdf/learning/
thought-leadership/pulse/pulse-of-the-profession-2018.pdf (accessed on 5 February 2023).

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.