This article summarizes findings from a research study conducted by scholars at the University of California, Berkeley, with the support and sponsorship of the PMI Educational Foundation and the Northern California Chapter of PMI.
Abstract
The primary goal of the research was to assess the financial and organizational impact of project management practices on organizations. This article is one in a series summarizing key results from the study.
The research began with the development of a Project Management Process Maturity Model and a corresponding methodology for evaluating process maturity. This methodology—referred to as a benchmarking tool—comprises 148 multiple-choice questions covering the 8 PMBOK® Guide Knowledge Areas and 6 Project Phases. The model and methodology were applied in a benchmarking study of 38 companies and government agencies across four industries.
The average maturity score across all organizations was 3.26 on a five-point scale (1 = lowest, 5 = highest). Engineering and construction companies scored highest, while information systems organizations scored lowest. Despite the wide variation in scores across organizations, even top performers showed significant room for improvement. Risk management and execution phases were identified as areas of low maturity, whereas cost management and planning were generally strong.
The study concluded that this maturity assessment methodology offers a practical, data-driven framework for comparing project management practices across industries and identifying key areas for process improvement.
1. Introduction
1.1 Study Background
Many organizations rely on project-based approaches to structure operations, enabling better planning, execution, and control. This shift is largely due to growing pressure on managers to coordinate complex, time-sensitive initiatives.
Yet, despite its adoption, there remains confusion and inconsistent understanding of the current state of project management within organizations. Justifying investments in project management tools and practices can be particularly challenging due to the lack of standardized assessment methodologies.
Although PMBOK® is widely accepted as the authoritative reference on project management, it does not provide a framework for objectively assessing organizational maturity. As a result, companies often struggle with implementing or refining PM practices and justifying related expenditures.
Previous research has mostly focused on anecdotal or qualitative benefits of project management, often based on interviews or surveys of practitioners and theorists, rather than objective performance data. Moreover, these studies usually examine isolated aspects of PM rather than a comprehensive maturity landscape.
1.2 Study Objective
To address these shortcomings, the Berkeley research team set out to quantify the financial and organizational effects of project management. Their core objective was to design a robust, scalable methodology for evaluating PM maturity both within and across industries.
This methodology, grounded in quantitative analysis, was intended to guide managers in identifying effective PM practices and opportunities for improvement, ultimately contributing to the broader adoption and standardization of project management.
2. Research Methodology
2.1 Study Process
The research followed these steps:
- Reviewing existing literature and methodologies.
- Designing a 5-level Project Management Maturity Model (PM²).
- Creating a detailed assessment methodology based on PM².
- Selecting companies from four industries to participate.
- Conducting maturity and performance assessments using a three-part survey instrument.
- Analyzing results to identify strengths, weaknesses, and performance drivers.
- Estimating Project Management Return on Investment (PM/ROI).
- Recommending strategies for continuous PM improvement.
The methodology allowed for repeatable benchmarking, enabling organizations to track improvements over time.
2.2 PM² Maturity Assessment Model
The PM² model uses statistical analysis to evaluate organizational maturity in project management and to benchmark performance against peers. The model integrates maturity levels across 8 knowledge areas and 6 project phases and includes PM/ROI calculation procedures.
Table 1 in the original study outlines the key variables and characteristics of the model, which was built on a detailed questionnaire provided by Integrated Project Systems and customized by the Berkeley team.
2.3 Data Collection
Data collection posed a significant challenge due to the novelty of PM practices in many participating organizations. The research team conducted outreach through direct invitations, publications, and industry events. Participants were required to commit considerable time and resources.
To ensure objectivity, confidentiality agreements were signed, and all identifying information was anonymized. A pilot study validated the methodology before full-scale implementation.
3. Industry Participation and Limitations
3.1 Industry Breakdown
The study covered 38 organizations across four industries:
- Engineering and Construction (E&C)
- Information Management and Movement (IMM)
- Information Systems (IS)
- High-Tech Manufacturing (HTM)
Organizations were also classified by size and experience. About 61% had less than 10 years of PM experience, suggesting that project management was still maturing across sectors.
3.2 Cost of Project Management
The average cost of project management across all organizations was 6% of project budgets, with E&C firms reporting the highest costs (9.3%). Table 3 in the original study lists cost components such as salaries, training, consulting, and technology infrastructure.
3.3 Maturity Scores by Industry
The overall average maturity score was 3.26. E&C scored highest (3.36) while IS scored lowest (3.06). Table 5 and Table 6 present detailed statistics, showing a clear need for further improvement across all sectors.
4. Analysis of Maturity by Knowledge Area and Phase
4.1 By Knowledge Area
Among the 8 knowledge areas, cost management had the highest maturity (3.48), while risk management was lowest (2.85). IS organizations consistently underperformed across areas, while E&C and HTM were top performers.
4.2 By Project Phase
Planning was the most mature phase (3.53), followed by control and initiation. Execution and closure phases lagged, especially in the IS sector.
The “project-oriented environment” phase—measuring infrastructure support for PM such as training and career development—was the least mature overall, with the lowest variability, indicating consistent challenges across industries.
5. Case Studies and Interviews
To complement the quantitative data, the researchers conducted in-depth interviews with project management leaders from selected organizations. Key insights include:
- E&C-1: High maturity but dismissive of formal certification, raising concerns about insularity.
- E&C-2: Strong PM philosophy but late assignment of project managers created early-stage challenges.
- IMM-6: Struggling to formalize PM practices; risk management mostly reactive.
- IMM-10: Operates a PM Center of Excellence with mentorship and performance tracking.
- HTM-3: Strong cost control culture, but lacks advanced PM training and centralized PM functions.
6. Conclusions and Recommendations
This research represents an important step in building a quantitative foundation for project management. Key contributions include:
- A structured PM² Maturity Assessment Model suitable for benchmarking across and within industries.
- Objective identification of strengths, weaknesses, and areas for targeted improvement.
- Tools for organizations to quantify PM effectiveness and support process enhancement.
- Insights into varying levels of PM maturity and investment across sectors.
Further studies and periodic updates to the assessment tool are recommended to keep pace with evolving best practices. Organizations should consider adopting such benchmarking frameworks to support continuous development and professionalization of project management practices.
Acknowledgments
This research was sponsored by the PMI Educational Foundation (PMI/EF) and the PMI Northern California Chapter (PMI/NCC). The authors thank Dan Ono, Jim McFarlin, Mike McCauley, Paul Nelson, Bill Ruggles, Ahmet Taspinar, Bob Thompson, and Cathy Tonne, as well as the 38 organizations who contributed data to this study.
