The program management encompasses the regulations, procedures, policies, roles, and responsibilities that guide all program management activities and are used to monitor the program’s implementation. The Authority offers guidance for securing data and maintaining its accuracy, consistency, availability, and completeness. When programs evolve, they need a communication tool to provide a link between the business vision and the area of focus. It should also help guide the way to the desired outcomes over the duration of the program. On the other hand, the instrument must maintain the performance of the program at its potential to ensure that it delivers the declared value (Jaleel et al., 2019). In addition, other tools must supervise and manage the execution of the project. It should assist executives in evaluating the present state of the program and in correcting design and course of action as appropriate. These must also allow the leadership to better determine success to support orderliness with the evolving corporate business plan.
The maturity model is a model framework that implements a plan and design for achieving objectives and ensuring excellence in program management (PM). The model considers both tactical and strategic importance. Strategically, the model provides an objective and assesses goals and priorities, while tactically it leads and arranges enhancement efforts and announces progress. The model is subdivided under five different stages, which are considered the same for all industries (Kosieradzka, 2017). These five levels include crisis management, reactive leadership, program administration, data incorporation, and quality management, according to Gully.
Crisis leadership means that the organization recognizes the need for expertise in program management but does not understand what it entails. At this phase, there is no program control, and the activity involved is operationally separate because each institution or staff is trying to do it in its way. In addition, program management data is not gathered and analyzed on a regular basis. The second level, reactive administration, optionally, is the starting phase of the process in which informal tasks are delineated, and the common ground around program management is accomplished. A number of processes have already been established and the PM design has been created. There is still a hint of structural separation in each organization at this step (Galli, 2018). Similarly, the necessity for program administration data has been recognized, but the evidence is gathered in an informal way.
Level three, also called program management, is defined by official project scheduling and monitoring management. The institution has created processes and mechanisms in program management. There is a collaborative team approach in the deployment and performance of PM procedures. The top management has adopted the process as applicable to the acceptance and execution of PM decisions, and more specifically, the data is formally generated and transmitted (Joshi & Islam, 2018). Moreover, the fourth level implies the optimization of PM activities and information. Solutions are made at the portfolio or program stage to enable the institution to design and arrange a number of programs concurrently (Galli, 2018). In addition, data on program management processes are analyzed, evaluated, and saved quantitatively. Project management becomes part of the organization’s experience as its designs are integrated into the business process.
Thus, the accumulated information is extensively utilized to provide analysis and guide forward planning. The fifth level, which is also called excellence management, is described as having a comprehensive program management organization. The processes are totally elaborated and continuously upgraded. The organization is focused on projects, agile and innovative. Executive leaders prioritize improvements and resources. Enhancement drives are collaborative, and data is streamlined and preserved.
The Purpose of Program Governance Maturity Model in Enhancing the Performance of Administration Agencies
Program management maturity models have many advantages for state agencies. First and foremost, they include performance realms that empower rational decision-making. They also promote practices that support the full range of government programs. At the same time, they facilitate oversight and management of programs. Applications specify a collection of related plans, subprograms, and record actions conducted regularly to produce privileges that would not be possible if they were administered independently (Project Management Institute, 2017). Management consists of duties, structures, and methods that monitor, control, and maintain the program to achieve vital organizational and operational purposes (Project Management Institute, 2017). In general, program management guarantees that the demands of public agency stakeholders are distinguished and satisfied.
On the whole, the central authority runs the day-to-day processes necessary to provide a broad spectrum of public services, usually in remarkably intricate conditions (Marshall et al., 2015). Program management enables state entities to gain multiple privileges by providing the necessary techniques and operations used to identify, sanction, observe and maintain records. Ingenious structures based on maturity designs equip agencies with the most beneficial applications to make more vigorous settlements while guaranteeing conventional project administration.
In particular, the models execute steps that assure intentions are arranged with the organization’s strategic foresight, support availability, and operational inclinations. They guarantee that authority structures follow control and accountability methods and maintain approval, permission, and initiation of applications. Moreover, program management grounded on maturity model proposals allows public institutions to build dismissed concessions regarding the individuals who will oversee the application and levels of independence (Project Management Institute, 2013). Tactics increase stakeholder commitment because they set clear expectations for all synergies within the program (Project Management Institute, 2013). They encourage an atmosphere in which stakeholders have open discussions and deal with the hazards and contingencies of the program as they occur during it. They produce a structure that joins well with corporate governance strategies and the methods used to evaluate programs for acquiescence.
They also enable government agencies to take a thorough approach to various agencies’ program management policy construction and overlooking. They assist agency administration methods to program management while determining precise positions for agency leaders and stakeholders (Marshall et al. 2015). Another benefit is ensuring effective organizational governance that encompasses multiple business purposes.
Public agencies should guarantee that program management constructions are composed to interconnect the various project goals for the most reliable outcomes. This method will permit businesses to optimize the achievement of various project upshots (Smith, 2013). This strategy will guarantee that public companies operate following the regulations set by the program administration authority (Program Management, Section 7, Slide 1). Eventually, program management policies permit public agencies to achieve organizational purposes and aspirations.
Program superintendence performs an essential function because it ensures that stakeholders have their needs recognized and met by the appropriate administrative agencies. Sufficient public program control warrants that managers investigate all alternatives when setting equitable and generally accepted goals (Thiry, 2016). Maturity models produce powerful decision-making and prioritization methods, which increase the weight of program administration.
Obstacles with the program governance maturity pattern
Notwithstanding the hopeful benefit of the program management maturity model, it faces numerous hurdles. Prime is the organizational setting in which program governance is created. Program administration does not occur in a space, so it is influenced by technology, vendors, personalities, organizational construction, and different organizational determinants (Görög, 2016). Consequently, it is necessary to adapt the model to meet the organization’s demands. For example, a highly mature program administration approach may not produce results in an industry requiring organizational advancement (Ten Six Consulting). Program management must be observed in the organization’s context to resolve this challenge. It must match seamlessly with the organization’s experience and possible sources. In addition, this model raises the problem of discerning clients (Fabbro & Tonchia, 2021). Stakeholders and customers are not engaged with the precise specifications of departmental services. Nevertheless, the different section leaders have service renovation concepts to enhance the client’s background (Ten Six Consulting). The hurdle is consolidating these concepts and generating a practical formation that operates for everyone.
The program maturity model has powers, vulnerabilities, possibilities, and intimidations for applicants.
Strength:This pattern provides the synthesis of project management and precise administration of the range element simultaneously. A different powerful part of this model is active time superintendence, which benefits user industries (Bourne, 2016). The precise application can additionally assist in managing value quality and individual sources in a scheme. The administration specialties in the design can enable government agencies to make decision-making more efficient.
Weaknesses:The pattern does not mechanically accommodate the organization’s demands, so misalignment with purposes can drive inefficient projects (Fesenko et al., 2022). Furthermore, a shortage of uninterrupted resource availability can cause the model’s incapacity to handle the project process’s implementation object.
Opportunity:Adjusting the scheme of the program management model with government area aims can be a great possibility to optimize multiple successes (Kerzner, 2019). Precise arrangement with organizational culture can also provide more responsible program management in public area institutions.
Threats:Tier 1 and Tier 2 organizations have intimidation to the project administration maturity pattern. Reduced infrastructure to realize the design can complicate a plan and even cause malfunction (Fabbro & Tonchia, 2021). Collapse to preserve consistency within the services of separate units can cause the model’s effectiveness to be brittle.
The methodology for this research document involves gathering and investigating information to examine program management methods in state agencies and covering program benefits.
Information acquisition methods fall into pair groups: quantitative and qualitative. This study document applied qualitative data by questioning three people from three distinct organizations: Roads and Transportation Authority (RTA), Dubai Electricity and Water Authority (DEWA), and ADNOC
It can be concluded from the evidence accumulated at the RTA that the RTA has been well managed because they have successful outreach programs, and they adhere to policies of governance, outlook, and best practices. In the words of Mr. Mohammad Abouhirra, the program and project officer, the RTA includes four control fields: coordination, communication, productivity, and danger, and it evaluates them through the screening process and the execution of the project administration strategies (Langston & Ghanbaripour, 2016). In addition, he referred to the fact that concerning advanced management procedures. They encompass change control of the program, benefit criterion, problem and threat assessment management, and other things. Furthermore, the RTA evaluates leadership ripeness periodically to increase the level of sophistication, allowing for adjustment to developments that emerge in the sphere of management. RTA is trying to reconcile its organizational philosophy with goals to reinforce the concept of the model, which in turn can enable them to provide a better way to manage different projects. RTA effectively controls the performance and risk domains to provide first-class community services. The risk agility management model is used to recognize and remove potential hazards in projects to eliminate disruptions in the work. In addition, effective management in RTA is the outcome of proper coordination with project and enterprise goals, which keeps from diverging operations from the general purpose.
According to the data gathered by DEWA, the organization’s project programs rigorously follow good policies and procedures. From the interview respondent, the interviewee’s ripeness template is appropriately used to assess DEWA’s abilities and capabilities to establish resilient foodservice improvement pathways (Tonelli et al., 2017). The supervisor noted that they regularly align their actions with the state’s project execution criteria to ensure that the level of project management maturity is adaptable to the project’s day-to-day operations. On the other hand, DEWA uses a well-developed maturity model framework to make more informed decisions and simultaneously control the project criteria.
This approach allows DEWA to use an integrated project management approach to track execution at the agency level. At the same time, the management project model also provides a clear and concise allocation of roles in the project. DEWA reinforces organizational management with a program management model as it controls the various functions and operations of the organization. Utilizing program management has permitted DEWA to guarantee that stakeholders prioritize their needs by integrating them into the organization’s program goals.
From the data received from ADNOC, the R&D program management at ADNOC is administration and monitoring of the program efficiently. A well-defined program management model with identified roles and liabilities for individual team members has been developed. ADNOC’s program management maturity model allows the company to keep its strategic aim of generating sustainable improvements for the ADNOC group (Sanchez et al., 2019). In order to maximize recovery of hydrocarbons from reservoirs, address problematic aspects related to assets, and decrease operational expenses while developing an Emirati strong R&D workforce. The ADNOC R&D effort establishes a business five-step approach using all ADNOC R&D decision-making and consultative agencies to guide the development workflow of technologies (Ifenthaler & Egloffstein, 2020). With the goal of standardizing R&D administration in ADNOC R&D, R&D controls aim to incorporate a “technology readiness level” (TRL) scale into ADNOC R&D to define the ripeness of each new technology.
Conclusion and Recommendation
This research has considered the program management maturity pattern to determine whether it can be a resolution or a query for application management in state agencies. After a comprehensive review and investigation of the data obtained, it can be reasoned that the program administration capability pattern is a resolution in itself and is extremely beneficial for regulation offices to enhance their production. Applying the design promotes decision-making in general and enables state agencies to synchronize the activities of separate agencies to direct them to a shared minimum object. DEWA and RTA are two UAE state agencies surveyed about practicing their organization’s program management and maturity pattern. Judging by the responses, they both explained this as a preceding answer to accomplishing programs in day-to-day actions.
To make application of the program management maturity model, more conventional state agencies can do the following to use it as a resolution rather than difficulty,
- To begin operating applications, the focus should be on demand for the precise arrangement with organizational objects.
- Duties and structures should be completely furnished to observe and guide the administration of imperative organizational intentions.
- State agencies should concentrate on creating a well-designed maturity model structure in accordance with organizational inclinations to get sustainable help in reaching knowledgeable judgments.
- Program administration must be cultivated in the organizational setting to keep alignment with the culture and possible means to guarantee high-grade governance through adopting the maturity pattern framework.
The maturity pattern has some preliminary limitations that can challenge the process of being the resolution for state agencies. For example, a highly mature application approach may not be useful for an organization that already lacks maturity at such a low level that the program management model cannot provide. At the same time, the organizational experience must encourage open conversation and information distribution, or the core means of the maturity model will break in program management because of the lack of data and integration for judgment making (Hopkinson, 2017). The matrix structure of the organization and the authoritarian administration style can also be a limitation for program management, as there will be problems with consolidating approaches to develop a practical operations construction.
Bourne, L. (2016). Stakeholder relationship management: A maturity model for organisational implementation.CRC Press.
Fabbro, E., & Tonchia, S. (2021). Project management maturity models: Literature review and new developments. The Journal of Modern Project Management, 8(3), 1-13.
Fesenko, G., Fesenko, T., Fesenko, H., Shakhov, A., Yakunin, A., & Korzhenko, V. (2021). Developing e-maturity model for municipal project and program management system. Eastern-European Journal of Enterprise Technologies, 1(3), 109.
Galli, B. (2018). Project management maturity models: An overview of the common models and a proposed uniform model. International Journal of Applied Logistics (IJAL), 8(2), 19-38.
Görög, M. (2016). A broader approach to organisational project management maturity assessment. International Journal of Project Management, 34(8), 1658-1669.
Hopkinson, M. (2017). The project risk maturity model: Measuring and improving risk management capability. Routledge.
Ifenthaler, D., & Egloffstein, M. (2020). Development and implementation of a maturity model of digital transformation. TechTrends, 64(2), 302-309.
Jaleel, F., Daim, T., & Giadedi, A. (2019). Exploring the impact of knowledge management (KM) best practices for project management maturity models on the project management capability of organizations. International Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management, 14(1), 47-52.
Joshi, P. R., & Islam, S. (2018). E-government maturity model for sustainable e-government services from the perspective of developing countries. Sustainability, 10(6), 1882.
Kerzner, H. (2019). Using the project management maturity model: Strategic planning for project management.John Wiley & Sons.
Kosieradzka, A. (2017). Maturity model for production management. Procedia Engineering, 182, 342-349.
Langston, C., & Ghanbaripour, A. N. (2016). A Management Maturity Model (MMM) for project-based organisational performance assessment. Construction Economics and Building, 16(4), 68-85.
Marshall, P., Chenok, D. & Wholey, J. (2015). Improving program management in the federal government. National Academy of Public Administration, 1(1), pp. 1-32.
Project Management Institute., 2013. The standard for Program Management. 3 ed. Pennsylvania: Project Management Institute.
Project Management Institute., 2017. The standard for program management. 4 ed. Pennsylvania: Global Standard.
Sanchez, F., Micaelli, J. P., Bonjour, E., & Monticolo, D. (2019). A step for improving the transition between traditional project management to agile project management using a project management maturity model. The Journal of Modern Project Management, 7(1), 1-10.
Smith, J. A. (2013). A plan for implementing program management in an information technology organization. University of Pennsylvania Scholarly Commons, 1(1), pp. 1-139.
“Ten Six Consulting.” Tensix.Com, 2018, Web.
Thiry, M. (2016). Program management. Routledge.
Tonelli, A. O., de Souza Bermejo, P. H., Dos Santos, P. A., Zuppo, L., & Zambalde, A. L. (2017). It governance in the public sector: A conceptual model. Information Systems Frontiers, 19(3), 593-610.