A Conceptual Project Management Maturity Model for the South African Power Sector

Abstract

The study proposes a conceptual model for measuring project management maturity (PMM) in the SA’s power sector. While generic models are available this paper aims to bridge the gap and develop one for the power sector. The research question this paper is trying to answer is: “What are the parameters that make up the conceptual model for PMM in the SA power sector?” The study is based on a literature review. The authors reviewed the relevant journals to search for key parameters for measuring PMM. The study proposes a conceptual model for measuring PMM in the SA’s power sector. The focus of this paper was limited to the peer reviewed articles and journals.

1. Introduction

History indicates that modern project management (PM) developed in the Second World War and have developed in some engineering industries. Later year’s PM has been adapted in research and development and pharmaceutical industries. Cooke-Davies and Arzymanow [1] found that “industries of origin” have developed more advanced in PM than disciplines that have started later. Knowledge and processes are important contributors to PM capability but are not the only important elements to assess an organisations project management maturity (PMM) [2]. A total approach of what organisational PMM needs to be applied in organisations. Research conducted by Skulmoski [3] affirm there is a lack of research on the competencies most important for certain types of projects. Cooke-Davies and Arzymanow [1] study confirms that the maturity of PM across different industries indicates that a single model cannot be applied in all cases. Jugdev and Thomas [4] states that maturity models are not difficult to imitate and do not lead to sustained competitive advantage; however, they do lead to temporary competitive advantage for some firms and competitive parity for most. Jugdev and Thomas [4] also comment that most maturity models are not firm specific and can be duplicated. Competitors can replicate maturity models because they lack some of the durability characteristics. Killen and Hunt [5] suggest that project and portfolio capabilities must be tailored to the environment and implemented and adjusted over time and that best practice studies indicate correlations between practices and outcomes.

One way the effectiveness of the PM capability in the power sector can be assessed is through the PMM models. This paper presents the key factors that contribute to PMM in the SA power sector. While generic models are available, this paper aims to bridge this gap that exists in literature and develop a conceptual model for the SA’s power sector.

The following is a summary of gaps that exist on PMM in current literature review:

• Organisational culture was largely under examined in PM research [6].

• Further empirical studies should build for the mechanisms by which superior PM practices can be developed over time [1]. The authors focused on how PM have developed differently when it was fostered and formed in different environments.

• Barber [7] indicate that the internally generated risks seem to relate inversely to PMM and that an opportunity exists of internally generated risks would be used to drive organisational development.

• Crawford [8] studies on the relationship between PM standards and effective workplace performance find that there is no empirical research that supports or indeed questions the assumptions which is inherent in the way standards have been developed by expert practitioner.

• Studies by De Bruin et al. [9] and Hulya [6] suggest that further research in PMM and how the relation to project performance need to be investigated.

• Killen and Hunt [5] suggest that project and portfolio capabilities must be tailored to the environment and implemented and adjusted over time and that best practice studies indicate correlations between practices and outcomes.

• A single model cannot be applied in all cases across different industries [1].

• Viana et al. [10] indicate in their research that organizational project management maturity models (PMMMs) have been criticized as being ineffective as firms continue to face difficulties in improving their PM practices.

• Alam et al. [11] indicate that there was a lack of organisational factors in PMMM, and the social-cultural skills required by project managers managing projects successfully are under examined.

• The authors Mahasneh and Thabet [12] in their study indicate that there is a social cultural skills gap among construction school graduates indicating that the gap is a result of various factors such as lack of consensus, clear vision, standardization and common language on the social cultural skills gap between industry and academia.

• Marando [13] suggest in their studies that many project managers are not able to successfully lead projects due to a deficiency of the necessary social cultural skills, interpersonal skills include leadership, communication, negotiation, expectations management, influencing, problem-solving, and decision-making.

Considering the following gaps that exist in PMMM it is therefore relevant to form a conceptual model for SA’s power sector. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to perform an extensive literature review to determine the key parameters that contribute to PMM in the SA power sector. The research objectives include the following:

• Determine the gaps that is existing in current literature on PMM.

• Determine the key parameters important for PMM.

• Propose a conceptual model for PMM in the SA power sector.

This paper is divided into five sections. Section one provided the gaps that exist on PMM in current literature and section two provides the literature review. The research methodology is provided in section three. The analysis and discussion are provided in section four and the conclusion is provided in section five.

2. Literature review: parameters that affect PMM

To understand the concept of project maturity further, several definitions of the concept will be investigated as followers:

• Hartman and Skulmoski [14] discuss that the maturity of PM tackles the following issues: The competence of the practitioner tries to measure it on a generalised scale and to understand the working environment of the practitioner assesses the business for which the project is being done.

• Schlichter [15] use the word maturity to imply that capabilities must be grown to produce repeatable success in PM.

• According to Andersen and Jessen [16] project maturity indicate that the organisation is perfectly conditioned to deal with its projects and can be used as an indication of or a measurement of the organisation’s ability to use projects for different purposes.

• Ibbs and Kwak [17] define PM maturity as a level of sophistication that indicates organisation’s current PM practices, processes, and performances.

• There are also links in literature that suggest maturity models also reflect and increasing desire to link PM competence to corporate achievement [4].

Gareeb and Rwelamila [18] paper reveals that most of the models assess PM capability against bodies of knowledge and indicates that there was no model that could be used for the SA power sector. A total approach of what organisational PM maturity will be applied in this research.

Improving the maturity of an organisation was found to be extremely correlated with project success [19]. Earlier research focuses narrowly on the definition of project success as project cost, time, and quality but current literature has adapted this definition to include other factors. There is limited research on the strength of the relationship between the critical factors and success criteria, and even less analysis of the causal effect between these factors and the performance of projects [20]. Han et al. [21] address the distinction between success factors and success criteria and state the following: “Success factors are factors that influence, constitute as well as determine the success of a project.” Earlier authors suggest that the success factors (critical success factors/project success factors) are defined as those few key factors necessary to reach goals [22]. Whereas success criteria are more related to the perceived performance based on the formal iron triangle such as time, cost, quality. Although the success criteria are difficult to define because many authors add other dimensions to the success criteria which include customer satisfaction as a success dimension or other dimensions. Two important aspects of project success are related to the technical side of the project and the second aspect relates to the “soft skill “henceforth referred to as social-cultural skills. Crawford and Pollack [23] comment that defining the technical and the social-cultural factors is not always clear. The social-cultural issues have been identified as the key success factors in PM and can have a high impact on the project [24]. Azim et al. [25] focus on the cause(s) of complexity in projects which lists three factors and includes process, product, and people. The author’s results indicate the underline importance of “people” not only as factor attributing to project complexity, but also as a key element to project success, thus also highlighting the benefits of social-cultural skills in effective PM. Mishra et al. [26] confirm that despite large work in this area no definite set of factors have been agreed upon that may be due to the organisational or cultural differences through-out the world. Ofori [27] state that generally, critical success factors are a set of project variables or factors that strongly correlate to project success, and whose maximisation or minimisation, depending on whether they are favourable or unfavourable, will lead to project success. Ofori [27] reveals that there is no consensus on what social-cultural factors contribute to project success and indicate that organisational and social-cultural aspects do influence project success because in different project environments different factors are more critical.

The need for developing a conceptual model for the PMMM can have the following benefits:

• Langston and Ghanbaripour [28] indicate that any PM environment needs to support the business for successful project, program and/or portfolio delivery. The author indicates that the basis for achieving consistent excellence in PM is assisted by mature organisational systems and processes.

• Viana et al. [10] point out that PMMMs have significantly contributed to the field of PM as they heighten awareness of competence to assess organizational PM maturity and that an essential input to support organizational development.

• Jugdev and Thomas [4] indicate that PMMM capture the codified knowledge but does not include the intangible assets and if they were included could lead to the competitive advantage of a firm or organisation. Thus, incorporating the correct social cultural factors could add to the competitive advantage of a PMMM.

• Zuo et al. [29] results indicated that social cultural skills of project managers significantly contributed to project success factors and hence the project success. Therefore, if these factors are not included in the PMMM a significant aspect is not included in PMMM assessments and measurement.

• Studies by Campana [30] indicates there is a large shift to recognize the importance of social cultural skills and indicates the critical importance of social cultural skills in PM.

• Assists to spot business or personal opportunities, and it gives advanced warning of significant threats [31].

• It aids in the investigation of the barriers and opportunities in sector and provides several obstacles to effective and efficient commerce [32].

• It reveals the direction of change within the business environment and thus assists shape change rather than work against it [31].

• It provides a framework for the correlation with the production technologies to determine the strengths and weakness of different production pathways. [33]

• Aids in avoidance of starting projects that are likely to fail [31].

• Assistance with assumptions when one enters a new country, region, or market, because it helps develop an objective view of this new environment [31].

2.1 Technical parameter required for success

The most traditional way to establish project success is measured by the technically which include time, cost, and quality [34]. Portny [35] define a project has been successful when it has produced the desired results within the established timeframe with the allotted resources and state that the following three factors are essential to create the greatest chances for successfully completing a project: a clear and specific agreed-upon statement of the desired outcomes, comprehensive lists of all people who are interested in (needed to support, and/or effected by your project) and a complete and detailed listing of all required project work. Browne and O’Donnabhain [36] identifies key issues and concepts relevant to client-project manager relationship using customer service, service quality and customer satisfaction. Hartman and Skulmoski [37] suggest that there are parallels between business and PM research and topics such as leadership, communication, teamwork, success and examining risks alignment. Although the focus of this section is to find technical factors affecting PM the social-cultural factors based on different studies are ranked high. Studies by Nguyen et al. [38] depict the ranking of twenty success factors and the critical success factors indicate that competent project manager, adequate funding throughout the project, multidisciplinary/competent project team commitment to the project, and the availability of resources are ranked extremely high. Again, the social-cultural aspects of the projects are also indicated in the study reveals that commitment to the project, top management support and continuous involvement of stakeholder do rank high as well. Research conducted by Yong and Mustaffa [39] indicates that two of the four factors identify category namely, effective allocation of manpower; urgency in meeting project deadline are of higher importance. The research indicates that financial problem such as delayed payments and financial difficulties are seen to be a major factor that causes delay in the construction project. Table 1 represents the summary of the literature review that identifies the technical factors required for project success. With a list of several factors of understanding PM standards, risk methodology, documentation control management, understanding how to take make changes in the schedule as well considering the impact of the changes, performance and quality management, contract, legal aspects, top management support and financial management are important for a project manager from a technical side.

Technical factors	Reference
Project management standards and methodology; *Technical specifications and performance; **Tools and technique	Lam et al. [40]*; Mishra et al. [26]**
Risk assessments methodology	Chen [41]; Besner and Hobbs [42]
Documentation management (keeping proper records); *Adequacy of design details	Nguyen et al. [38]; Yong and Mustaffa [39]*
Scope and schedule management. Change control aspects and management; *Control of contractor; Schedule; **Project progress and plans in place; ***Project planning	Chen [41]; Yong and Mustaffa [39]*; Yong and Mustaffa [39]**; Griffith [43]***; Zwikael and Globerson [44]***; Lam et al. [40]; Mishra et al. [26]
Performance and quality requirements; **Quality; **Adequacy of design specification	Zwikael and Globerson [44]; Schein [45]; Yong and Mustaffa [39]**; Lam et al. [40]*; Roberts et al. [46]; Chen [41]*; Browne and O’Donnabhain [36]; Leveson et al. [47]
Contract and legal management must be in place by the organisation	Ahsan [48]
Top management support; *Aligned with the business/project objects thus obtaining top management support	Albu and Panzar [49]; Selders and Ma¨rkle [50]*; Mishra et al. [26]; Ofori’s [27]
Financial implications/funding and profitability for the organisation; *Adequate Funding throughout the project; **Financial capability of the client profitability	Nguyen et al. [38]*; Yong and Mustaffa [39]**; Lam et al. [40]

Table 1.

Summary of the technical parameter for project success.

The *, **, *** on each factor/theme corresponds to the reference for each.

2.2 Social-cultural parameter required for success

Social-cultural issues include factors such as benefits, stakeholders, value management, and communications [51]. Studies by Mishra et al. [26] indicate that proper communication has been found a critical success factor in the success of a team. Vance’s [52] study consisting of 1800+ system integrators list in Control Engineering’s Automation Integrator Guide were asked to share their top tips for ensuring success of an automation project. This study indicated as much as 80% of the project’s problems were due to lack of proper communication between the client and the integrator. Mishra et al. [26] study indicates that clearly goals and objectives were the number one ranking in their empirical study on project performance. Ofori [27] study indicate experience and competence of project personnel as ranked number four in their top factors for critical success. Kadefors [53] highlights the importance of trust and project success. Karlsen et al. [54] argue that trust is being particularly important in both organisations and projects, since it is viewed as an essential for stable relationships, vital for the maintenance of cooperation, fundamental for any exchange and necessary for even the most routine of everyday interactions. Pinto and Slevin [55] study also indicate that understanding the mission and goals to measure the outcome as an important success factor. Hartman and Skulmoski [37] depict that multi PM must include inter-project communication, priority setting, planning that align projects with and support corporate strategy. Thus, ensuring outcomes to be understood by the project team members and the criteria for measurement.

Table 2 represents the literature review that identifies the social-cultural factors related to project success. Within a list of several factors for project success are communication and understanding outcomes. Studies on project success identifies success factors, which include communication, clearly defined roles and responsibilities, project team competency and availability of resources, trust and understanding outcomes.

Social-cultural factors	Reference
Communication; *Clear; Communication between client and contractor; **Effective team members play a role in communication.; ***Strong project commitment; ****Communicating effectively on multicultural projects*	Mishra et al. [26]; Vance [52]*; Michalski [56]*; den Otter and Emmitt [57]**; Johannessen and Olsen [58]; Adenfelt [59]; Andersen et al. [60]***; Ochieng and Price [61]****; Zwikael and Globerson [44]; Chen [41]; Yong and Mustaffa [39]
Clearly defined roles and responsibilities	Portny [35]; Mishra et al. [26]
Project team; Competencies and availability of resources; *Availability of resources	Cooke-Davies [62]; Cooke-Davies and Arzymanow [1]; Ofori [27]; Thia and Swierczek [20]; Nguyen et al. [38]*; Yong and Mustaffa [39]*
Trust; *Between the client and contractor; **Stable pool of project team members	Webber and Klimoski [63]*; Pinto et al. [64]; Kadefors [53]; Maurer [65]*; Karlsen [54]
Understanding outcomes: of the project and each team member; *Statement of outcomes and deliverables with key measurable criteria; **Clear goals and objectives	Portny [35]*; Pinto and Slevin [55]; Hartman and Skulmoski [37]; Mishra et al. [26]**

Table 2.

Summary of the social-cultural parameter for project success.

2.3 Organisational competencies

Zwikael [66] comments that different industries face different challenges while managing projects. The author refers to some examples like the software development organisations that must deal with high-technology uncertainty, while construction organisations that are usually more troubled with engineering and financial problems. Crawford [8] indicate that the competence of project personnel is important as they are having major impact on project performances and ultimately also impact the business performance. De Oliveria et al. [67] indicates that agility and flexibility represent the way to achieve organisational performance and that maximum project performance is accomplished when efforts are tied together to improve leadership factors and organisational factors. An important organisational success measure is the respondents perceived rate of project success of their organisations compared with competitors organisations in the same sector of activity [68]. Gareis and Huemann [69] indicates that PM competencies must describe, assess, and further develop for the organisation, teams, and individuals in the organisation. Brush et al. [70] describe the resource pyramid of value creation and indicate that firms can have a unique advantage when assets become valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable. Hartman and Skulmoski [14] state that elements that affect maturity will include technical, business, and social issues.

2.3.1 Strategic organisational PM

Albu and Panzar [49] state that maturity alignment is a concept referring to the extent to which the organisational components (strategy, structure, systems, processes, etc.) reflect similar or close maturity levels, acting in synergy towards the achievement of organisational objectives. Christenson and Walker [71] study concludes that project vision is a critical project success factor. The more immediate contribution remains demonstrating a protocol for getting project teams to focus on the project vision and the likely impact upon that for PM success. Fitsilis et al. [72] suggests that programmes and projects are recognised as one of the most important means of achieving organisations strategic plans. To become durably successful, an organisation should realise its maturity alignment [73]. PMM level cannot be attained or sustained if a certain level of organisational maturity is not reached [74]. Cooke-Davies et al. [75] argue that strategic drivers influence the nature of value expected from PM, and a PM system should be adapted to the specific strategic positioning of each organisation to deliver maximum value. Studies by Andersen et al. [76] found support for the proposition that there is a relationship between project perspectives applied in PM and formal organisational rationality. Table 3 summaries the Strategic organisational factors.

Strategic Organisational PM	References
Aligning project objective with business objective; *Scorecards; **Project vision	Albu and Panzar [49]; Selders and Ma¨rkle [50]*; Christenson and Walker [71]**; Fitsilis et al. [72]; Meyer [73]; Andersen et al. [76]
Sustainability of the organisation and best practices; *Strategic drivers	[74]; Gareis and Huemann [69]; Cooke-Davies et al. [75]; Crawford [8]

Table 3.

Summary of strategic organisational PM.

2.3.2 Organisational culture

Cooke-Davies and Arzymanow [1] definition of organisational culture as: “Refers to the underlying beliefs, values and principles that serve as a foundation for an organisations management practices and behaviour that both exemplify and reinforce those basic principles.” Based on the literature review by Cooke-Davies and Arzymanow [1] two important factors on organisational culture is if the culture is unhelpful then it is important to change it and secondly, that irrespective of whether culture helps or hinders the effects of culture must be considered throughout the project. Cooke-Davies and Arzymanow [1] also suggest that the leadership style of a project manager needs to be adapted to the organisational culture and confirm through their literature review that there is a clear correlation between high trust and low cost, and between low trust and high cost. Thamhain [77] results shows that despite cultural differences among organisations a general agreement exists on the factors that drive team performance, one of the most striking finding is the large number of performance factors that is derived from the human side where organisational components that satisfy personal and professional needs seem to have a strong effect on cooperation, commitment, risk management, and ultimately drive overall team performance. Diallo and Thuillier [78] mentions that project success and success dimensions depend on project type and sector. Performance problems on technology-intensive projects involve largely management, behavioural and organisational issues, rather than technical complications [79, 80]. Dvir et al. [81] suggest that project success factors are not common for all projects; different types of projects are affected by different sets of success factors. Therefore, a project-specific approach is appropriate for following studies into the practice and theory of PM [82]. Table 4 summaries the themes from literature for organisational culture.

Organisational Culture	References
Organisational culture that supports project management process	Cooke-Davies and Arzymanow [1]; Diallo and Thuillier [78]; Killen and Hunt [5]; Mishra et al. [26]; Roberts et al. [46]; Crawford [8]
Support employees to understand cultural diversity	Thamhain [77]; *Belassi and Tukel [79]; *Hartman and Ashrafi [80]; **Branson [83]; Andersen et al. [76]; Deal and Kennedy [84]; Diallo and Thuillier [78]
Organisational structures that support project	*Dvir et al. [81]; **Hyväri [82]; Mishra et al. [26]
Top management support for organisational project culture	Killen and Hunt [5]; Zwikael [66]; *Simons [85]; **Cooke-Davies and Arzymanow [1];

Table 4.

Summary of organisational culture.

2.4 Country specific factors

A PESTLE is a tool used for macro environmental scanning [86]. Environmental scanning can be defined as the study and interpretation of the political, economic, social, technological, legal, and environ-mental events and trends which influence a business, an industry or even the total market [86]. A PESTLE analysis was conducted by Gareeb and Rwelamila [18] on the SA’s macro environment and the full analysis is present in Gareeb and Rwelamila [18]. Table 5 summarizes the SA specific issues that should be considered when entering the SA environment which is an extraction from the PESTLE analysis. This analysis will be used in this paper to build the PMMM.

PESTLE	Analysis of SA’s macro environment
Political	Baker [87] suggests that institutionally, the 2006 Electricity Regulation Act should govern the main activities of the electricity sector. However, influence on energy policy and planning is also exerted by SA’s Power Sector Parastatal, Treasury, SA’s Department of Public Enterprises, metropolitan and municipal governments, and the Inter Ministerial Committee on energy [87]. Besides these entities reducing the effect of the SA’s Department of Energy and its regulator (NERSA), the influence of heavy private users (Energy Intensive User’s Group) and coal suppliers cannot be ignored [87]. This describes a mix of highly influential political landscape in favour of specific entities that reduce the effect of proper regulation and create numerous policy uncertainties and delays remain. This does not allow for progress, including from energy independent power producers (IPPs) waiting to construct and connect their projects to the country’s electric grid. Specific interference by political organisations to suppliers of energy have also been documented [87] and [88].
Economic	The economic policy on supply and demand of electricity falls within the ambit of the SA’s Department of Energy and is well documented to be a major driver of growth, reducing poverty, and ensuring social well-being, even of industry [89]. However, lack of cohesive ownership and policy seems to be detracting from the major objectives of various stakeholders, resulting in lack of commitment [87].
Social	Skills remains a critical downfall of the planning, design, supply, and distribution of electricity, as cited by Baker [87] and the SA’s Department of Energy [90]. Further, social development along empowerment of independent suppliers can only be addressed through policy.
Technological	SA’s Power Sector Parastatal currently generates 95% of the country’s electricity [87]. SA’s Department of Energy [89] suggests that up to 30% of the country’s generation is to come from IPPs, but Baker [87] suggests that the appropriate legislation was never enacted, and no private generation was incorporated to the grid. Most of the country’s electricity originates from coal fired power plants in the northeast, many immediately adjacent to privately owned coal mines. The remaining generation comes from pumped storage and imported hydroelectricity, the Koeberg nuclear power station, four gas fuelled turbine stations, and one wind energy power station [87]. In 2005 SA’s Electricity Parastatal initiated its expansion programme which includes the construction of two major power plants, the return to service of mothballed coal fired power stations and energy efficiency investments [87].
Legal/regulatory	The Energy Regulator defined by the Electricity Regulation Act 4 of 2006 mandated to ensure adequate supply, distribution, and electrification of all users in a fair and equitable manner. This includes empowering entities to get access to specific sectors and population groups, ensure clarity in policy to operate and integrate to the grid and stipulate environmental and social targets. The cohesiveness of such policy is questioned by policy makers and industry commentators [87]. This together with a lack of governance on managing progress creates a vacuum between planning parties and those organisations charged with delivery. Finally, the scope of legislation for local empowerment and public accountability extends to the regulated energy market and plays a key role to ensure governance and accountability.
Environmental	South Africa pledged to reduce the country’s greenhouse gas emissions by 34% by 2020 and 42% by 2025 [91]. Baker [87] suggests that despite the absence of national expertise, South Africa also has an enormous potential for several different renewable energy technologies including: wind, solar water heaters, concentrated solar power, solar photovoltaics, and biomass. SA’s Power Sector Parastatal has thus far secured investment in a renewable component consisting only of the 100 MW wind farm now funded by the World Bank [87]. Lack of policy on carbon emission and empowerment of local suppliers to augment the grid is hampering progress.

Table 5.

PESTLE analysis based on South African macro environment.

Source: Gareeb and Rwelamila [18].

2.5 Sector specific factors

The sector specific by Gareeb and Rwelamila [18], include: high-risk environment, organisational safety culture, sustainability, environmental impact, compliance with SA’s governing regulations and reliable technologies. Table 6 summarizes the characteristics of the power sector from Gareeb and Rwelamila [18] been important consideration for the SA’s power sector. This analysis will be used in this paper to build the PMMM.

No.	Characteristics	Reference
P.S 1	High risk environment	OSHA [92]; Grant and Hinze [93],
P.S.2	Organisational safety culture	McCaffrey [94]; Taylor [95]; Fitsilis et al. [72]; OSHA [92]; NERSA [96]; Li and Poon [97]; Weil [98]; Taylor [95];
P.S.3	Sustainability	Oricha and Taiwo [99]; Chambers et al. [100]; Goodland [101]; Suberu et al. [102]; Silvius and Schipper [103]; Alzahrani [104]; Păunescu and Acatrinei [105]
P.S.4	Environment impact	Chen et al. [106]; Blaabjerg et al. [107]; Massetti et al. [108]; Silvius and Schipper [103]; Alzahrani [104]; Bai et al. [109]
P.S.5	Compliant with SA’s regulations	SA’s Department of Energy [90]; NERSA [96]; Karekezi and Kimani [110]; Li et al. [111]
P.S.6	Process capability effectives//high end technology—reliable, sustainable, and environmental effectiveness	Panda and Ramanathan [112]; Oseni [113]; Oseni [114]; Pauschert [115]; Dabre et al. [116]

Table 6.

Summary of factors related to the power sector industry.

Source: Gareeb and Rwelamila [18].

3. Research methodology

This study is classified as a literature review [117]. The literature search in Gareeb and Rwelamila [18] categorised over a 19-year period and using 28 databases indicate that the current models are not completely suitable for SA’s power sector (the models tend to be generalizable, and some models are developed for specific countries and areas that are not suitable to the SA environment).

This study proposes a conceptual model for measuring PMM in the SA’s power sector. To achieve the goals of this paper a grounded approach was used to develop a conceptual model. First, past and current studies relating to PM success factors for PMM were studied to get a comprehensive understanding of the topic. The next steps included studies that entailed gaps that existed in current PMM literature so that this could be addressed in this study. The literature search continued until saturation of the data occurred. A literature review was used to find the key success factors for PMM as well as gaps that exist in current PMM literature. The data source was the analysis of books, published papers, conference papers, white papers, and specialized material from the relevant institutions.

Finally, the findings and analysis are provided together with the concluding remarks showing the contributions of this study in the PM field. The proposed model will be tested with the relevant case study organisations to determine the validity of the proposed conceptual model.

4. The conceptual model for PMM in the SA power sector

This paper presents a conceptual model for projects taking place in SA’s power sector. Section two provided the gaps that existed in current literature on PMM. Organisations are complex environments. It is impossible for researchers to put forward a full detailed picture of these phenomena therefore, a way of representing a simplified version is through a model [118].

To understand the concept of a model, Team [119] defines “model” as: “A model is a simplified representation of the world.” KPMG [120] state that models have benefits such as: set process improvement objectives and priorities; improve processes and provide guidance; acts as a guide for improvement of organisational processes and define a starting point; enable the benefits of a community’s prior experiences to be shared; create a common language and share a vision. A concept is a bundle of meanings or characteristics associated with certain events, objects, or conditions and used for representation, identification, communication, or understanding [121].

Lilien [122] lists the characteristics of conceptual model as:

• Often a flowchart or simple relationship (graph to indicate the nature of the relationship).

• Generally, of more use to the model builder than the model user (if the user and the builder are not the same).

• Helpful in thinking about reality than in actual decision—making.

This paper presents a conceptual model for projects taking place in SA’s power sector.

Section two provided the gaps that existed in current literature on PMM. The proposed PMM model addresses the requirements and complexities identified within the PM environment in a more holistic way (represented in Figure 1) for the SA power sector.

Figure 1.

Conceptual model for PMM for SA’s power sector.

Figure 1 indicates the content that exists in literature and highlighted in red indicates what was lacking in current PMM. Figure 1 presents the requirements of what the key factors for PMM in the SA Power

Sector should entail. The concept PM maturity was discussed. Diallo and Thuillier [78] mentions that project success and success dimensions depend on project type and sector. Dvir et al. [81] suggests that project success factors are not common for all projects and different types of projects are affected by different sets of success factors. Therefore, a project specific approach is appropriate for following studies into the practice and theory of PM [82].

Studies reveal that project performance is linked to project maturity. Therefore, extensive literature review has been conducted on what constitutes project performance/project success. Empirical correlations of all the factors that affect project success were reviewed. Two important factors were identified that affect project success, namely the technical and the social-cultural factors. This study identifies the critical success factors for successful projects that have an impact on the project maturity

Not only does project performance has links to project maturity but the organisational play a part. There is extensive literature available on the concepts that exist between PM maturity and organisational maturity. Without some degree of organisational maturity, PM maturity would not last or continue.

Therefore, organisations need to have an alignment between the organisational and PM maturity. The project objectives need to be linked into the overall business objects and organisational strategy. This model from a broader perspective takes into account sector specific and country specific factors that have not been established yet.

The proposed PMM model addresses the requirements and complexities identified within the PM environment in a more holistic way (represented in Figure 1) for the SA power sector. Figure 1 indicates the content that exists in literature and highlighted in red indicates what was lacking in current PMM. The framework takes into account what was lacking in current literature on PMM for the SA power sector. Figure 1 presents the requirements of what the key factors for PMM in the SA power sector should entail.

The conceptual model introduces country specific factors for the SA’s environment and sector specific factor for the power sector. If the country specific factors are relaxed and a PESTLE analysis is carried out in the country where projects is taking place, therefore this framework can be adapted to different countries. The success components address the requirements and complexities identified with PM in the more holistic way to the SA power sector.

The proposed conceptual model addresses issues encountered as followers:

• Hulya [6] claims that organisational culture was largely under examined in PM research. This paper considers the organisational culture and the need for the organisational culture to support PM therefore an enabler for PMM eventually. This can be found in Table 4.

• Cooke-Davies and Arzymanow [1] state that further empirical studies need to be built for superior PM practices. This study focused on the latest empirical literature.

• Özturan et al. [123] comment that earlier models are a relatively a new proposal and therefore lacks empirical support for determining which competencies contribute most success. Figure 1 was linked to empirical data. This can be found in the literature review Section 2 of this paper.

• This paper focuses on the country specific factors, sector specific factors and the project specific factors that affect PMM therefore provides a holistic approach for the context of this study. This can be found in Table 5 where a summarized PESTLE analysis was conducted to determine these components.

• Ibbs and Kwak [124] comment that as new PM knowledge and practice becomes available the models need to be continuously developed and adapted. This study focused on the latest research and Figure 1 address the gaps that is lacking in current literature on considering the PMM requirements for the SA’s power sector.

• Organisational development for PMM have been identified in this paper and have addressed the challenges.

5. Conclusion

The crucial factors that underpin the success of the projects are due to social-cultural factors [125]. This paper presents the key factors that contribute to PMM in the SA pwer sector. Section 4 presents the framework for developing a PMM model for the SA power sector. Diallo and Thuillier [78] mentions that project success and success dimensions depend on project type and sector. Dvir et al. [81] suggests that project success factors are not common for all projects and different types of projects are affected by different sets of success factors. Therefore, a project specific approach is appropriate for following studies into the practice and theory of PM [82]. Studies reveal that project performance is linked to project maturity. Therefore, extensive literature review has been conducted on what constitutes project performance/project success. Empirical correlations of all the factors that affect project success were reviewed. Two important factors were identified that effect project success, namely the technical and the social-cultural factors. This study identifies the critical success factors for successful projects that have an impact on the project maturity. Not only the project performance has links to project maturity but the organisational plays a role. There is extensive literature available on the concepts that exist between PMM and organisational maturity. Without some degree of organisational maturity, PMM would not last or continue. Therefore, organisations need to have an alignment between the organisational and PMM. The project objectives need to be linked into the overall business objects and organisational strategy. The contribution for this study provides the conceptual framework from a broader perspective for the SA power sector.

The following was achieved during the research and the following objectives met:

• Firstly, gaps that existed in current PMM were identified and are listed in section two as the starting point of the study.

• Secondly the gaps were addressed through an extensive literature review on PMM and is listed in section four.

• The key parameters that contribute to SA PMM were determined and consist of social-cultural, technical, organisational, sector and country specific and is listed in section two. Figure 1 provides the conceptual framework for PMM in the SA power sector.

Research limitations—The focus of this paper was limited to the peer reviewed articles and journals on PMM.

Future research—The current research provides the conceptual model for the SA power sector. The next steps are to test the conceptual model with the relevant organisations.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to acknowledge that this paper is part of a doctoral thesis. The author of the thesis is Dr Natisha Gareeb (2018) and is entitled “An Appropriate Project Management Maturity Model for the Power Sector – the Case of South Africa”, UNISA, South Africa, Pretoria. The authors would also like to thank our statistician, Juliana van Staden from the University of Witwatersrand.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.