How does organizational culture affect project management

methodology implementation?

Overview on Project management and organizational culture

According to PMBOK Guide (2008, p.5), presenting a global standard of project

management, "A project is a temporary endeavor undertaken to create a unique product,

service or result", while "Project management is the application of knowledge, skills, tools,

and techniques to project activities to meet the project requirements" (PMBOK Guide 2008,

p.6). The above description provides a possibility to differentiate a project from operational

work. Project management seems to be a relatively young area of knowledge, though its

roots are go far into ancient ages, when management of unique activities happened, e.g.

construction of pyramids (Cicmil 2009, p.79). Nevertheless, the modern PM appeared with

formation of the society of large-scale projects, standardization and bureaucracy (Cicmil

2009, p.79).

Besides project management, there are also higher levels of control – program and portfolio

management. The complexity increases from project to program and then – to portfolio

management (PMBOK Guide 2008, p.7).

There is a number of reports describing importance of project management for

organizations in terms of increase in resources control and transparency, decrease in risk

(Cicmil 2009, p.80), (Cervone 2006). But these are qualitative descriptions that are always

subjective and raise additional concerns. There are also quantitative measures of project

management efficacy established in construction business: "a 10% reduction in the schedule

for a typical project should result in a 3% cost saving to the owner of the project" (Modern

management systems 1992, p.11).

Though having a positive influence on organization performance, implementation of a new

PM methodology may face serious roadblocks. Nguyen (2007, p.1) mentions the following

barriers for successful projects executions in developing countries: slow adaptation to

project management techniques, political and social systems, cultural blocks and lack of

financial support. Poor project performance is explained in the first place by lack of effective

project management training for project managers (Nguyen 2007, p.1). The other serious

obstacle for successful project management systems implementation is lack of senior

management support due to fear to loose their control over projects, and their concept of

"inapplicability" of the project management methodology, that is related to transparency

and accountability aspects of managing projects. Besides, the following areas appeared to be

important obstacles: lack of team work, ineffective management of subcontractors, rigid

vertical organization structures (Nguyen 2007, p.2). Most of the obstacles listed have origin

in organizational culture.

Implementation of a new methodology is an example of change management (Change

management 2010). And as Graham wrote, success in implementation of organizational

changes rests mostly on people's cost\benefit analysis: people accept changes easily in case

they see some personal benefits and they reject it if they don't (Graham, 1989, p.209). This

should lead us to a conclusion that organizational culture is the main factor, influencing

project management methodology implementation, especially considering another "project"

definition that includes people – "A project is a set of people and other resources

temporarily assembled to reach a specified objective, normally with a fixed budget and

within a fixed time period." (Graham 1989, p.1).

It is obvious, that a project manager cannot be the only responsible for success or failure of

projects and PM methodology implementation. Each project is influenced by a wide number

of factors including: project manager, project team, stakeholders, objectives and scope,

communication, risks… (Carmichael 2003, p.7). In fact, PM methodology implementation is

strongly affected by organizational culture (Mochal 2003). For example, employees may feel

free to avoid following standard project processes and fail to do thing in time without any

fear to be punished. This illustrates that training project managers within organization is

only one example of culture influence, others are: process orientation, governance (how

employees follow processes), roles and responsibilities of employees, company structure

(Mochal 2003). Harold Kerzner even proposed an idea that "project management is a

culture, not policies and procedures" (2004, p. 366). In this regard Andersen conclude that

"the project manager must quickly develop a suitable organizational culture within the

project" (2001, p.1). It is also important that the project manager takes into account culture

of different organizations and even sub-cultures of the departments involved into the

project (Elmes & Wilemon, cited in Andersen 2001, p.1). In Graham's opinion project

management in mainly about managing people, rather than processes (Graham, 1989,

p.viii). Moreover, the author wrote that project managers can only be successful, if they are

able to motivate people and coordinate project activities with people's values, so that

projects help achieve personal goals. In this regard teamwork gains the most attention.

Kerzner supports this opinion defining that successful project management is not about

creating paperwork, but about executing the methodology by the corporate culture, which

transforms into cooperative culture in a company excellent in project management (2001,

p.81). Though Kerzner points out that cooperative cultures require effective management

support at all levels (2004, p. 77).

Organizational culture is defined more or less as environment of interaction between

different people – rules, norms, leadership, structures, routines that "guide and constrain

behavior" (Schein 2004, p. 1). Hofstede described culture as "software of the mind" –

"patterns of thinking, feeling and acting mental programs" (2005, p. 3). Organizational

culture provides "internal" and "external integration" helping employees to deal with each

other and the organization – with the external environment (Daft 2006, p. 424). Daft

mentioned that organizations seriously face culture when they try to implement new

strategies or programs that interfere with their basic norms and values (2006, p. 423).

Organizational culture types and dimensions were thoroughly discussed in the works of

Hofstede, Deal and Kennedy, Handy, Schein, Carmazzi (Organizational culture 2009).

Schein defined organizational culture as follows: "culture is a way in which a group of

people solves problems and reconciles dilemmas" (cited in Trompenaars & Hampden-

Turner 1998, p.6). By Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner "culture comes in layers, like an

onion" and cultural "norms and beliefs sink down into semi-awareness" (1998, p.6). The

core of the onion is unquestioned reality, what is taken for granted (1998, p.7).

Johnson and Scholes proposed a structured model for description of organizational culture

that gave a possibility to explore it from different perspectives, so that ways to effectively

influence it can be developed (Johnson & Scholes 1992, cited in The Cultural Web 2010).

Picture 1. The Cultural Web (Johnson & Scholes 1992, cited in The Cultural Web 2010).

The six elements presented on the picture above (Picture 1) provide grounds for influencing

the cultural paradigm.

"The six elements are:

1. Stories - The past events and people talked about inside and outside the company.

Who and what the company chooses to immortalize says a great deal about what it

values, and perceives as great behavior.

2. Rituals and Routines - The daily behavior and actions of people that signal

acceptable .behavior. This determines what is expected to happen in given situations,

and what is valued by management.

3. Symbols - The visual representations of the company including logos, how plush the

offices are, and the formal or informal dress codes.

4. Organizational Structure - This includes both the structure defined by the

organization chart, and the unwritten lines of power and influence that indicate

whose contributions are most valued.

5. Control Systems - The ways that the organization is controlled. These include

financial systems, quality systems, and rewards (including the way they are

measured and distributed within the organization.)

6. Power Structures - The pockets of real power in the company. This may involve one

or two key senior executives, a whole group of executives, or even a department. The

key is that these people have the greatest amount of influence on decisions,

operations, and strategic direction." (Johnson & Scholes 1992, cited in The Cultural

Web 2010)

Asking questions to yourself, the employees, company partners and customers about the

above six elements of the Paradigm helps to build a complete picture of the current

organizational structure (Johnson & Scholes 1992, cited in The Cultural Web 2010). Further

on this picture is used in order to organize change management initiative, correcting the

strategic direction of the organization. Change management tools were also described in

detail by Johnson and Scholes (Johnson & Scholes 1999, p.2).

Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner examine culture within three categories and seven

dimensions (1998, pp.8-10).

1. Relationships with people

• Universalism versus particularism

• Individualism versus communitarianism

• Neutral versus emotional

• Specific versus diffuse

• Achievement versus ascription

2. Attitudes to time

• Attitudes to time

3. Attitudes to the environment

• Attitudes to the environment

The four types of organizational culture can be described as follows (Trompenaars &

Hampden-Turner 1998, p.158).

1. The family

2. The Eiffel Tower

3. The guided missile

4. The incubator

These four cultures are best understood on the Picture 2 below (Trompenaars & Hampden-

Turner 1998, p.159).

Picture 2. Four types of organizational culture (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner 1998,

p.159).

"Three aspects of organizational structure are especially important in determining corporate

culture (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner 1998, p.157).

1. The general relationship between employees and their organization.

2. The vertical or hierarchical system of authority defining superiors and subordinates.

3. The general views of employees about the organization's destiny, purpose and goals

and their places in this."

The four culture types appear on a kind of cultural "plane" based on egalitarian –

hierarchical and person – task oppositions. Family culture represents close "family"

relationships between employees, but it is also highly hierarchical, where power is

accumulated in hands of "fathers" (managers or owners). A lot of information is taken for

granted and "father" \ "elders" always dominate the opinion. The Eiffel tower culture is

impersonal. It is much about clear roles, rules and bureaucracy. It can be compared with

military organization. The guided missile culture is also impersonal and task oriented like

the Eiffel tower. But it is egalitarian at the same time, which means that roles do not mean

much. People change roles and do whatever and how they like in order to reach the goal.

Means are less important. So, this culture tends to motivation and enthusiasm. The

incubator culture is "self-fulfillment" and "self-expression". It frees employees from routine

and aims on creativity at work. Emotions and spontaneous ideas are norms for such a

culture. The incubator is a personal and egalitarian culture that focuses on innovation

(Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner 1998, p.158-177).

Harrison and Handy (cited in Andersen, 2001, p.2) developed a quite similar to

Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner typology of cultures: power, role, task, person. Power

culture can be closely compared to the Family, Role culture to the Eiffel tower, Task culture

– to the Guided missile and Person culture – to the Incubator (Andersen, 2001, p.2).

The plane of organizational culture is also presented in a work of William Schneider (cited

in Suda, 2007, p.4). His plane is based on axes of oppositions actuality – possibility (what

content organization prefers) and personal – impersonal (process of making decisions by an

organization), which results in four core culture types: cultivation, competence, control and

collaboration.

These four core cultures by Schneider are not too far from Trompenaars & Hampden-

Turner and Harrison and Handy models described above:

• Control – Eiffel tower \ Role,

• Competence – Guided missile \ Task,

• Cultivation – Incubator \ Person,

• Collaboration – Family \ Power.

Though being characterized by open and direct communications Collaboration

culture differs clearly from Family and Power culture models, which have strong

vertical power axis supporting "fathers" or "elders" (Suda, 2007, p.6).

The models by Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner and Harrison and Handy overlap with the

Culture Paradigm by Johnson and Scholes on the elements of Control Systems,

Organizational and Power structures, which makes possible to use both models for

triangulation purposes. But such elements as Stories, Rituals and routines and Symbols

remain unique and can be figured out only with the use of the Paradigm model (The cultural

web 2010). Still these elements can play its role in project management. As an example,

Craig gives a recommendation "Ritualize your job life" (2005). Craig mentions that rituals

should be followed by the project manager rather than fought against. The idea by Craig

refers to the nature of the project manager's job, which supposed leadership. But to lead

means to understand people's mind and emotions, while usage of established rituals provide

such tools (Craig 2005).

Though organizational culture got a lot of attention in management and academic literature,

Burchell and Gilden noticed (Burchell & Gilden 2008, p.1052) that project management

literature paid little attention to cross-cultural aspects. There is also no consensus yet about

project management culture (PMC) definition and assessment tools (Du Plessis, Hoole

2006, p.44). Project management is considered mostly processes rather than people

oriented, so that cultural issues and social activities necessary for successful projects

implementation are ignored (Burchell & Gilden 2008, p.1053). Moreover authors of an

article in PM Network postulated that "project management methodologies neutralize

cultural differences and promotes one standard everyone can model" (No boarders 2005,

p.35).

Du Plessis & Hoole proposed the following dimensions for project management culture

assessment: project process, people in project, project systems and structure, project

environment. The authors based their concept on a basic definition of organizational

culture, proposed by Deal and Kennedy: "the way we do things around here" (Du Plessis,

Hoole 2006, p.44).

Burchell and Gilden discussed an issue of interaction between western project managers

and their Asian project team. In their work they chose a cultural model proposed by Kets

and Vries (Kets & Vries, cited in Burchell & Gilden 2008, p.1055) that consisted of 9

dimensions and 18 continua: environment, action orientation, emotion, language, space,

relationships, power, thinking, and time. The highest gaps in cultural dimensions between

western project managers and their Asian team members were associated with power, time,

emotion, and thinking (Burchell & Gilden 2008, p.1062). The authors concluded that the

"Wheel of cultures" model by Kets and Vries could be used for further cross-cultural studies

in project management (Burchell & Gilden 2008, p.1063).

PM methodology implementation is tightly connected to project management maturity

(PMM) – a measure for companies' status and progress in project management

implementation. It was proposed by Harold Kerzner (2001) and gained substantial interest,

so that more 35 PMM assessment models were created (Warrilow 2009). Increase in PMM

is claimed to "establish sustainable PMC" (Advancing Project Management Maturity

Results in Improved Organizational Performance 2006).

Project management maturity models are instruments to appraise ability of organizations to

successfully manage projects (Harrison, M et al. 2003, p.1). There are six levels of maturity:

Level 0 – No process, Level 1 – Awareness process, Level 2 – Repeatable process, Level 3 –

Defined process, Level 4 – Managed process, Level 5 – Optimized process (Warrilow 2009),

(OGC 2008). Though PMMM gives a useful quantitative tool, it should not supersede

behavioral component of PM implementation, which is usually done by senior managers

(Kerzner 2004, p.367). Project management maturity is also sometimes confused with

project management culture. Scott (2009, p. 9) writes that "OPM3®[1] is a foil for clarifying

what the Project Management culture is and how this culture can contribute to the business

bottomline". At the same time, PM maturity is more about processes rather than culture.

There is also another example of substitution project culture by project processes. Palmer et

al. (2002) described establishing of project culture by modeling good project practices

including such standards as project initiation, definition, analysis of issues, etc… At the

same time, even though this approach corresponds to such representations of culture as

regulations, norms and structures, this doesn't correspond to wider definition of culture by

Hofstede - "patterns of thinking, feeling and acting mental programs" (Hofstede 2005, p.3).

Considering influence of cross-cultural specific behavior on projects realization, Gregory,

Prifling and Beck discussed emergence of "negotiated culture" that "can be defined as the

sum of compromises and innovations that are negotiated around those differences in

behaviors and expectations that are problematic in a given cross-cultural setting" (2008,

p.224). In short, this means formation of a subculture within a group of natives and

foreigners, which gives them a possibility to communicate effectively. The authors refer to a

concept of cultural intelligence or CQ (Gregory, Prifling & Beck 2008, p.225) that describes

"person's capability to adapt effectively to new cultural contexts" (Earley, cited in Gregory,

Prifling & Beck 2008, p.225). Or by another definition CQ is "a capability to interact

effectively with others from different cultural backgrounds, or the outcome of these

interactions" (Ang & Van Dyne 2008, p.109).

The cultural intelligence model consists of three dimensions: cognitive, motivational and

behavioral. The first dimension illustrates "person's understanding of culture-specific

behavior" and includes learning of the foreign culture principles. The second one represents

motivation factors and attitude of individuals towards cross-cultural interaction. It can be

also presented as curiosity towards a new culture. The behavioral dimension defines

behavioral patterns adopted by an individual in order to effectively participate in cross-

cultural communications (Gregory, Prifling & Beck 2008, p.226). Cultural intelligence can

be measured with the use of Cultural intelligence scale developed by Cultural Intelligence

Center (Cultural Intelligence Center 2005). Although the concept of cultural intelligence

was developed and used for study of cross-cultural interactions, it seems logical that it can

be used to study project management culture, which can be considered "foreign" in this

context. So, that "project culture intelligence" model is introduced.

Project culture intelligence should be distinguished from Project Intelligence, which is

understood as project analysis using Business Intelligence techniques. Special software is

developed for Project intelligence purposes (Ou 2007, p.267). For example, such software

provides tools for tracking bug fixing, feature requests, provision of project status, etc…

So far, the author was unable to find any mentions of Project cultural intelligence (PCQ) in

the literature. This means that the term is first time introduced in the current study.

Intelligence is a complex term covering a set of mind's abilities and skills like learning,

abstract thought, communication and understanding people, managing body muscles,

comprehending ideas… There are several definitions of Intelligence. One of them is the

following:

"A very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason,

plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn

from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking

smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our

surroundings — "catching on", "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do."

(Mainstream Science on Intelligence 1994, cited in Wikipedia 2010)

Mike Fleetham (2006, p.16) quotes a range of definitions of Intelligence given by scientists,

advisors, writers and psychologists, all different from each other. Among these definitions

one state that "Intelligence is what intelligence tests test" (Fleetham 2006, p.17), showing

how narrow understanding of this phenomenon can be.

Howard Gardner in his work "Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences" (1983,

cited in Wikipedia 2010 a) proposed a so called Multiple Intelligence theory. This theory

claims that there are several types of intelligence covering different types of human mind

abilities. These intelligences are: logical \ mathematical, verbal \ linguistic, visual \ spatial,

musical \ rhythmic, kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, naturalist. Besides, existential

intelligence was added by Gardner later on (Fleetham 2006, pp.25-32).

Along with the "classical" intelligences a number of other types developed during the last

decades – social, cultural, emotional intelligences. Earley and Ang (2003, p.xii) clarify that

these are about understanding interpersonal interactions.

"Cultural intelligence, cultural quotient or CQ, is a theory within management and

organizational psychology, … measuring an individual's ability to engage successfully in any

environment or social setting." (Wikipedia 2010 b). Taking this as a basis one could define

Project Culture Intelligence as "a theory measuring an individual's ability to engage

successfully in any project environment or setting".

Project management maturity models

Maturity models are tools describing organization's effectiveness at performing certain

tasks, particularly at the Software industry (Crawford 2002, p.1).

The widely used Project management maturity models are – Project management maturity

model introduces by OGC, which assesses processes derived from PRINCE2 methodology

(OGC 2008, p.129) and Project management maturity model, which assesses knowledge

areas obtained from PMBOK Guide (Crawford 2002, p.4). The maturity concept is used not

only for project management assessment, but also broadened to program and portfolio

areas in the multiple standards set by OGC (2010 b).

The level of maturity of processes or knowledge areas may be graded with the use of

Software Engineering Institute's 5 levels of maturity scale (Crawford 2002, p.4) or four

stages of Process improvement – "standardizing, measuring, controlling, continuously

improving" (Frahrenkrog et al. n.d., p.6).

In its Project management maturity models description (P3M3 Maturity Models n.d., p.2)

OGC notes that organizations can bring poor and perfect results even having low level of

Project management maturity. But in such a case they are highly dependent on certain

people or groups that realize these projects. Increase in maturity level is a way to mitigate

project risks and make project success a routine rather than luck.

The OGC's Project management maturity model (PjM3) is built upon seven process

perspectives taken from PRINCE2 methodology.

- Management Control – assesses how well the organization maintains control

of its projects.

- Benefits Management – assesses how well the organization defines, tracks

and ensures that investment leads to improvements in performance.

- Financial Management – assesses how well the organization manages and

controls the investment through budgetary control.

- Stakeholder Management – assesses how well the relation with project

stakeholders' are managed.

- Organizational Governance – assesses how well the organization controls the

alignment of its projects with the corporate strategy.

- Risk Management – assesses how well the organization defines and deals

with the impact of threats and opportunities.

- Resource Management – assesses how well the organization utilizes and

develops the opportunities from the supply chain (P3M3 Maturity Models

n.d., p.3).

It's obvious that PjM3 model is focused more on integration between project and

organizational goals rather than on project processes.

The model described by Crawford (and developed by PM Solutions) is build upon nine

PMBOK's knowledge areas (Crawford 2002, p.4).

- Project integration management – is about identifying, defining, combining,

unifying and coordinating the various processes and project management

activities.

- Project scope management

- Project time management

- Project cost management

- Project quality management

- Project human resource management

- Project communications management

- Project risk management

- Project procurement management (PMBOK Guide 2008, p.43)

The PM Solution's model is focused on the project itself and less on its embedment into

general organizational structure. Though there is another representation of this model

(Organizational Project management maturity model, or OPM3) that concentrates on

assessment of PMBOK's process groups – Initiating, Planning, Executing, Controlling,

Closing (Fahrenkrog et al. n.d., p.5). In the current research OPM3 model in Fahrenkrog's

definition will not be considered further on due to difficulty of its practical application.

PM Solutions' PM3 originated from SEI Capability Maturity Model Integration (Crawford

2002, p.5), which is widely used nowadays in order to improve organizational performance

and its business processes (SEI n.d.a). CMMI is a collection of models for different business

areas – CMMI for Services, CMMI for Acquisitions, CMMI for Development. Besides

proposing methods for maturity assessments, CMMI presents techniques to audit maturity

appraisals (SEI n.d.b). "The system assists the SEI Appraisal Program in its three functions:

appraisal quality control; training, authorizing, and providing resources for Lead

Appraisers; and monitoring and reporting appraisal results." (SEI n.d.c)

Tarne (2007) also referred to an overview of the PM Solutions model supplying it with

recommendations on how to improve project management maturity level. He proposed

three steps of the improvement:

1. Determine the ideal maturity level for the organization,

2. Assess the current level of maturity,

• Conducting interviews with key project resources and project managers,

• Reviewing project documentation,

• Completing thorough surveys to assess the degree to which the processes are defined

and followed,

3. Create an Improvement Plan.

Determination of the ideal maturity level for the organization is an important decision,

because each level increase is resource consumable in terms of time, effort and even budget.

The organization should balance costs and benefits. For example, transition from the level 3

to 4 needs integration of the project management practices with corporate systems (Tarne

2007).

As showed by the Center for Business Practices (CBP), increase in the project management

maturity level by one point results in performance benefits, customer satisfaction, schedule

performance, cost performance, project quality and many other areas (Tarne 2007).

Another PMMM is described by Kerzner (2001). He gave one of the most comprehensive

methodology for project management maturity assessment. The proposed model includes

lists of questions on each of the maturity levels. Each question list in the Kerzner's model

contain up to 80 question blocks consisting of 5 bullet-points to choose. The core difference

of the PMMM proposed by Kerzner from the standard PMMM developed OGC (see above)

is the idea of overlap between maturity levels (Kerzner 2001, p.43). This leads to a

difference in project management maturity assessment. Kerzner proposes to appraise where

the company is positioned within each level of maturity starting from the Level 1. In case the

organization gathers enough points on the level 1, the level 2 positioning can be assessed

(Kerzner 2001, p.66). But it is still possible that all maturity levels are overlapped at the

company (2001, p.45). The levels 3, 4 and 5 form a continuous improvement cycle, so that

there is a feedback between them (see Picture 3). This gives a possibility for the company to

develop a distinctive approach for development on each maturity level rather than grow

sequentially from the level to level (2001, p.43). Kerzner notes that "the magnitude of the

overlap is based upon the amount of risk the organization is willing to tolerate" (2001,

p.43).

Picture 3. Overlapping levels and feedback among the five levels of project management

maturity (Kerzner 2001, p.44).

Along with the standardized Maturity models described above, there are analogues models

developed specifically for the certain conditions (Wazed and Ahmed 2009), though they are

not relevant for the current study.

Fusion of project management assessment models

As mentioned above, different project management maturity models describe project

management from different perspectives – processes and management. There were no

sources found in the literature, where these methods are used together in order to make a

comprehensive overview of the organizational project management levels. Cultural models

used by different authors can also describe only the organizational level of the culture. At

the same time, project management methodology implementation is an example of change

management, where the latter is defined as "a structured approach to transitioning

individuals, teams, and organizations from a current state to a desired future state"

(Wikipedia 2010 c). Graham mentioned that organizational change can be only successful

when people accept it (1989, p.209). And Heathfield wrote that the last and the most

difficult step of change management is shift in people's behavior (2010). This supposes that

project management implementation should take into account also behavior of the project

stakeholders. It is obvious that analysis on each separate level (organizational – managers

and processes – employees) cannot give a comprehensive view of the situation.

Organizational level analysis doesn't cover processes and behavior of individuals and cannot

lead to recommendations on making current success a repeatable story. Vice versa, the

analysis on processes and individuals' level doesn't show, if these processes lead to what the

organization considers a success.

To overcome the above issue, the author developed a model integrating project

management from both representations – organizational and processes. The model includes

assessment of the organizational culture, project culture intelligence, Project management

maturity on the organizational level, Project management maturity on the processes level.

Besides, customers' opinion is taken into account (Project management maturity on the

customers' level). The model is presented on the Picture 4.

Picture 4. Five Pillars of the Project Management Audit – "5PMA model" (© Pereverzev

M.O.).

This model is based on the axis of Culture-Processes, Employees-Organization, Customers

that represent the space, where project manager operates. Processes are the essence of the

project management. It is the employees who use the processes in their routine work, but in

order to support sustainable processes the employees should accept the correspondent

culture on personal level (project culture intelligence) and form a negotiated organizational

culture. At the same time, the project management methodology can be only of use in case it

is appreciated by the customers, which provide the goal to all the organization's work. The

author proposes a concept of the Project Management Space, or PMS©, in order to describe

unity of these five basic notions (Picture 5).

Picture 5. Project management space, PMS (©Pereverzev M.O.).

In order to conduct the study in accordance with the design, the author chose relevant

methods mentioned in the Literature review (Table 1).

Table 1. Origin of the assessment methods used in the research.

[1] OPM3 – organizational project management maturity model

The 5PMA model is based on the PMS concept and differs from other previously known

project management models giving a possibility to comprehensively assess the organization

from the top to the bottom based on the Project Management Space© axes: culture,

processes, employees, organization and customers. The 5PMA model is developed on the

basis of the previously known separate assessment models: Project management maturity,

Organizational and Project culture, Culture intelligence. The value of the 5PMA model was

proved during the study.

Michael Pereverzev - About the Author:

The author got PhD in Biophysics at the Moscow State University and MBA at Mirbis (Moscow) and London

Met Business Schools. He has seven years of experience in project management at national and

multinational farmaceutical and healthcare IT companies.