Pm Maturity

Five relevant peer-reviewed PM journals were reviewed using the three keywords project management, project performance, and project success. The review was restricted to the past five years (2010 to present) for the recent developments. The Australian Institute of Project Management (www.aipm.com.au) maintains the list of the most relevant academic and industry journals on PM. The five academic journals reviewed include the International Journal of Project Management (IJPM), Project Management Journal (PMJ), International Journal of Managing Projects in Business (IJMPB), International Journal of Information Technology Project Management (IJITPM), and Journal of Project, Program & Portfolio Management (JPPPM). Article titles, abstracts, and keywords were systematically reviewed and analyzed to gauge the different factors that have been associated with project management, project performance, and project success as presented in Table 1. Of the 32 factors under PM performance, IJMP = 23, PMJ = 5, IJMPB = 1, IJITPM = 2, and JPPPM = 1. Of the 40 factors under PM success, IJMP = 20, PMJ = 13, IJMPB = 5, IJITPM = 1, and JPPPM = 1. As such, while five PM journals have been reviewed, IJPM and JPM have contributed the major part of the findings. The foregoing is attributable to the subject areas and frequency of publications of the different PM journals.

4. Discussions

As can be gathered from Table 1, PM performance is heavily dependent on the internal factors, which could be at the individual or firm levels. On the other hand, PM success is externally driven and depends on the other stakeholder involvement. Following, the framework in Figure 2 has been developed and comprises of three chronological phases as follow. Phase 1, which includes competence and skills to meet the agreed key performance indicators (KPIs), determines a performing or a non-performing project. Phase 2, which includes sustained good performance and crisis project recovery in the case of non-performance, determines a successful or a failed project delivery. And Phase 3, which includes post-delivery performance and project reputation/value, ultimately, determines a successful or a failed project. With respect to Figure 2, Phase 1 subscribes to the notion of competence and its skillful application to achieve agreed KPIs, which can be or be beyond the triple constraint depending on the stakeholders’ expectation. Phase 2 deals builds on Phase 1 by aiming to sustain the good performance or salvaging a crisis situation such as in the case of crisis project recovery (CPR) to ensure a successful project delivery (PD). Phase 3 transcends CPR and PD to encompasses the post-delivery assessment (PDA), which determines the eventual project success (PS) that meets both the stakeholders’ satisfaction as well as serve as serve as good project reputation (PR), serving as a form of meta-competence, premised on past performance, in