What I suspect they mean by a "need for project management" is the desire to be free of the problems associated with delivering projects in their current environment.
When I introduce Critical Chain Project Management to an organization, the first step, which you've probably done to death in your six-month survey, is to canvass management for the things that they would like to go away. These undesirable effects of the current situation are linked to erroneous assumptions and perceptions, which then define what the new process should not be based on.
Obviously, I'm coming to the organization with basic processes in mind -- Critical Chain and Synchronized Multi-Project Management -- so I'm not creating brand new meta-processes. However, there is no such thing as a canned solution, in as much as every organization has different things that need to be addressed if the processes are to work. No new management process can be expected to work if the surrounding "culture" is permeated with conflicting or non-supportive policies, practices, and measurements. It's this "cusomization" that takes a bit of work to implement the otherwise straightforward, uncomplicated, common sense processes.
Even if an organization has no experience with "project management," the member of that organization do have a lot of intuition about their environment and common sense to assess proposals of change. People don't necessarily resist change; the more often resist poor presentation of change. You don't need to build everything from scratch. Use the help of someone who can present the change in a way that does not engender resistance, but rather engenders enthusiasm for moving forward.
Otherwise, in another six months, you'll still be interviewing, analyzing, and researching and your projects will still be suffering from ad hoc management.
