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.