As Sergio has indicated, it is better to start with a well established maturity model rather than reinvent the wheel. CMMI is good if you are looking at technology contexts, but there are others which are more generally applicable.
I do like the CMMI approach of assessing maturity across different knowledge areas rather than coming up with a single "one size fits all" rating the way the old CMM did - this acknowledges the reality that it is perfectly fine for a team to NOT need to excel across all process areas to still deliver good value.
Define KPIs for project teams. They can be related to deliverables and other project indexes such as %completion, %completed deliverables, EV, ... Saving Changes...
Al TaylorI.T. Contractor| IndependentWaterloo, Ontario, Canada
great question! measurements...,maybe? Saving Changes...
Sergio Luis ConteHelping to create solutions for everyone| Worldwide based OrganizationsBuenos Aires, Argentina
After reading @Kiron´s comment above let me extent my first comment. We are using CMMi as a guide and we are using it for non-software projects. That´s not mean that my actual work place is CMMi certified or is in plan to. If you see the model you have project management items mainly in level 2 then in our case we are using the details as a guide. The same with PCMMi and PSP. Saving Changes...
In general, companies with low maturity tend to have financial criteria to evaluate performance, while companies with high maturity prefer a multidimensional set of criteria, for example: Organization and management, project definition, time, communication, perceived value, customer satisfaction, etc.
...
1 reply by Ravindra Gajendragadkar
Jan 22, 2019 10:58 AM
Ravindra Gajendragadkar
...
This makes sense. I experience similar things quite often.I guess this depends upon the measurements set by CXO teams irrespective of the team capability
Within an organization, required capabilities vary by project team. You could try to use a common criteria for assessing the overall capability of all teams. You could also have the individual teams show how they align to organizational and strategic goals, and then self-assess their existing capabilities compared to the key capabilities they believe are required.
The latter method not only helps to identify the strengths and gaps between the ideal state and the current state for the organization, but it also helps the teams build their own portrait of how they self-identify as a team. In that way it is a team building activity in addition to a team measuring activity. Saving Changes...
In general, companies with low maturity tend to have financial criteria to evaluate performance, while companies with high maturity prefer a multidimensional set of criteria, for example: Organization and management, project definition, time, communication, perceived value, customer satisfaction, etc.
This makes sense. I experience similar things quite often.I guess this depends upon the measurements set by CXO teams irrespective of the team capability Saving Changes...
Thanks for the Great insights ... Irrespective of well qualified team I observe that senior management's perception is quite different about team capability. Their measurement criteria appear to be more personlized rather than process driven.. How do we match this perspective at different levels of organization? Saving Changes...
MOHAMED ANSARI M AIndependent Consultant| FreelanceKozhikode, Kerala, India
Highly informative... thank u all Saving Changes...
