Page 89 - Rižnar, Igor, and Klemen Kavčič (ed.). 2017. Connecting Higher Education Institutions with Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises. Koper: University of Primorska Press
P. 89
The Maturity of Project Management in Slovenian Companies
dents are not known or because of language differences (Hillson 2003).
Jugdev and Thomas (2002) state that the model can easily become in-
flexible when an organisation requires a flexible model for managing
changes and improvements.
Methodology
By studying and examining the theoretical part, we have acquired in-
sights into project management and maturity models of it in organ-
isations. In this context, we have examined two known and widely
used maturity models of project management. Firstly, we introduced
the ‘Portfolio, Programme and Project Management Maturity Model
(p 3 m 3),’ which is dedicated for self-assessment of the maturity of
project management in each organisation. We have also focused on
the ‘Project Management Maturity Model (Prom m m),’ which enables
an assessment of the organisational abilities for managing projects.
Based on the two above-mentioned models, we have prepared a ques-
tionnaire that includes questions about two models and general ques-
tions about the organisation. Therefore, the questionnaire was in two
parts:
• The first questionnaire is based on self-assessment of the matu-
rity of project management. It consists of nine questions that are
mainly related to an organisation, as well as questions related to
monitoring management, the advantages of managing an organ-
isation, engaging stakeholders, risks management, organisation
management and sources management. Evaluation of responses
gave a clear picture of the maturity level of the organisation re-
garding project management.
• The second questionnaire was created for the evaluation or com-
parison of the processes of project management in an organisation
and was composed of seven questions. This questionnaire enabled
the identification of the current position of an organisation in re-
lation to project management.
The questionnaires were forwarded to different organisations and we
asked them to give only one answer to each question. At this point, we
had a time limit and collected data between 8 and 16 January 2016. In
the same way, we limited the survey questions to those in the question-
naires presented in the two models and to Slovenian organisations. We
received only 6 questionnaires that were completely answered.
87
dents are not known or because of language differences (Hillson 2003).
Jugdev and Thomas (2002) state that the model can easily become in-
flexible when an organisation requires a flexible model for managing
changes and improvements.
Methodology
By studying and examining the theoretical part, we have acquired in-
sights into project management and maturity models of it in organ-
isations. In this context, we have examined two known and widely
used maturity models of project management. Firstly, we introduced
the ‘Portfolio, Programme and Project Management Maturity Model
(p 3 m 3),’ which is dedicated for self-assessment of the maturity of
project management in each organisation. We have also focused on
the ‘Project Management Maturity Model (Prom m m),’ which enables
an assessment of the organisational abilities for managing projects.
Based on the two above-mentioned models, we have prepared a ques-
tionnaire that includes questions about two models and general ques-
tions about the organisation. Therefore, the questionnaire was in two
parts:
• The first questionnaire is based on self-assessment of the matu-
rity of project management. It consists of nine questions that are
mainly related to an organisation, as well as questions related to
monitoring management, the advantages of managing an organ-
isation, engaging stakeholders, risks management, organisation
management and sources management. Evaluation of responses
gave a clear picture of the maturity level of the organisation re-
garding project management.
• The second questionnaire was created for the evaluation or com-
parison of the processes of project management in an organisation
and was composed of seven questions. This questionnaire enabled
the identification of the current position of an organisation in re-
lation to project management.
The questionnaires were forwarded to different organisations and we
asked them to give only one answer to each question. At this point, we
had a time limit and collected data between 8 and 16 January 2016. In
the same way, we limited the survey questions to those in the question-
naires presented in the two models and to Slovenian organisations. We
received only 6 questionnaires that were completely answered.
87
