Keywords

1 Introduction

The dynamic nature of the socio-economic transformations in the market environment generates a state, in which contemporary organizations focus their activities on attempts to find highly flexible systemic management formulas that enable flexible responses to external (from the environment) and internal (from within the organization) factors. This first of all implies the need to monitor the expectations, needs and satisfaction levels of customers [26], identified as the main accelerators of change in organizations [28]. Moreover, the realities of organizational functioning in the knowledge and information age are shaped by a dynamically expanding set of determinants, which include: the implementation of modern technologies, the expansion of the current set of organization’s main resources (human, financial and physical resources) with knowledge [21], the generation of huge volumes of data on the organization's functioning and its environment and feasibility of collecting and exploring thereof [20], the emergence of the opportunities resulting from the process of financial, market, competition, lifestyle, culture, technology, research and knowledge, and legal regulation globalization [30], the ethical significance of business choices [37], as well as the emphasis on the aspect of social responsibility of contemporary organizations and the customers’ focus on the ethical dimension of production process implementation [3]. These factors do not constitute a closed catalog but imply a continuous search for and generation of new solutions that eliminate the current state dysfunctions and limits identified so far, simultaneously giving rise to new, hitherto unknown, problems, which creates an impetus for a dynamic search for integrated system formulas within the sphere of organizational management, enabling solving thereof [31]. One solution to the problem, consisting in a search for highly flexible system formulas, entails integration of selected process and project management methods, additionally adopting the assumptions of the ambidexterity concept, identified as the balancing of exploitation and exploration activities [17]. The main operational categories materializing the integration of process and project management on the grounds of ambidexterity entail adoption of such operational categories as: exploitative processes (exploitation) as well as explorative processes and projects (exploration) [4, 31].

The theoretical study revealed a knowledge deficiency primarily associated with the need to integrate business process management (BPM) and project management methods. A cognitive gap, consisting in a deficit of research on simultaneous assessment of the process and project maturity levels in an organization, was also identified. Consequently, the research problem was delineated around the following research question: What process-project organization assumptions should be taken into account in order to assess the level of process-project maturity? Such formulated research problem determined the structure of the main objective. The paper aims to present the essence and assumptions of process-project organization functioning as well as demonstrate a method of process-project maturity measurement. The empirical proceeding to assess the level of process-project maturity was carried out on a non-probabilistically selected sample of 90 large organizations in Poland. To implement the tasks formulated, an opinion poll method was used. Computer-assisted web interviewing (CAWI) research technique was used in the proceedings. The research tool used in the study was survey-type questionnaires.

2 Theoretical Background – At the Level of Process and Project Management Permeability

The theoretical research carried out for the purpose of this publication has led an outline of the rationale supporting the possibility and above all the need, from the perspective of business practice representatives, to conceptualize organizations in process-project terms. The following have been considered as such rationales: the fact that business processes and projects occur in every organization [23], the external and internal customer orientation, in both process [11] and project orientation [36] as well as the fact that project management can be viewed as a process [16], the consideration of effective project management as one of the eight success factors of process management implementation in an organization [2, 7], the applicability of common methodologies, techniques and tools used in both discussed concepts [11] and the complementary nature of the process and project approaches [1].

Based on the literature review, barriers, identified as limiting factors (inhibitors) in business process and project management integration, have also been indicated, i.e.: the lack of convergent process and project classification schemes [12], the clear differences between both process and project organizational structures [11], the gaps in the theoretical and practical knowledge on the issues of integrated system formulas [4], the fact that integration of process and project management is achievable at an appropriate level of development dynamics and activity standardization [1], as well as the lack of a concept of process and project maturity assessment models integration; and the deficiencies in the integration of process and project management with such collaborating disciplines as knowledge management, change management or communication management (Cf. [31]).

In the context of the search for an integration plane for the two operational categories described, it is important to highlight the common formal attributes thereof, i.e., purpose, inputs, outputs, allocated resources and customers [24]. Implementation of activities, both in business processes and projects, is oriented on the result generated, desirable from an external and internal customer perspective [5, 24]. Generation of results requires resource use and sharing, with clear emphasis on the knowledge resource, which is used to coordinate the two categories discussed [4]. The clear differences between the operational categories discussed, on the other hand, include the genesis of processes and projects organizations, assuming that processes constitute natural elements of any organization, while projects are brought to life by management, depending on the organization’s needs [24]. The essence of the difference between a process and a project entails the nature of the activities performed, which in the case of processes are repetitive, whereas projects involve one-time (unique) activities. This determines the sequence of the activities, which in a business process, as opposed to a project, is continuous in nature. Focusing on the effects generated in both categories, it is worth emphasizing that in processes, they are the same or similar, whereas in projects, they are of diversified character, which results from the nature of the activities performed. Such differences between processes and projects do not prevent a holistic view on the integration of the two categories but delineate the horizon for an individual perspective and a search for management concepts and methods that enable achievement of synergies, from the perspective of the results and the opportunities generated through both.

Turning to the results of the subsequent stage of the theoretical study, the similarities and differences between business process management (BPM) and project management have been outlined. The set of similarities encompasses: the common methodological basis [4, 23] the fact that both process and project management objectives are derived from the organization’s strategy [23], the occurrence of processes in project management (executive, auxiliary and managerial) [34], the perception of knowledge as a key resource in an organization [4], the improvement of the processes in projects by application of process management principles and tools [18], and that the fact that projects and processes are defined by managerial standards (ISO 10006, DIN 69 901, BS 6079) [39].

Summing up, the following have been qualified as the key common planes supporting process and project integration, identified as the catalysts enabling process-project organization modeling: the complementary nature of both concepts and management methods [4, 24], the shared customer orientation on the customer, both in external and internal terms [5], the interdisciplinary character of employee teams (process and project teams [5], as well as the focus on high employee empowerment [6], the similarity [31] of the process governance [19] and project governance [1, 35] assumptions; the high utility of the process and project approaches in developing an organization's ability to introduce changes (adaptive and innovative) [25], the strengthening of cross-functional processes [24], the shared methodological layer and the availability of the same techniques and tools in both discussed concepts [11], as well as the fact that integration of the process and project management concepts can serve as a starting point for development of much more elaborate conceptions that are based on e.g., process-project-product [27] or process-project-knowledge triads [4]. Considering organizations in process-project terms, potential threats, identified as inhibitors of process and project management integration, should be indicated, which include: the diverse objectives of business processes and projects, the diverse methodologies for recording the course of business process and project activities, the occurrence of intra-group conflicts in both process and project teams, but also intergroup conflicts between process and project teams [31]. The literature addresses and discusses such issues as: the increase in the costs associated with organization functioning under process and project management concept integration and coordination; the disruptions in the diffusion of knowledge between process and project teams, resulting from a functional organization division [24], i.e., functioning within the sphere of processes, projects and functions [23], the need to distribute the resources between the areas of process and project activity; the difficulty of designing a coherent system consolidating the behavior of the employees working within the process and project sphere; the intra-organizational problems at the interface of business processes and projects and the lack of studies on process-project organization management [24], the lack of unified methodology for organization maturity assessment from the perspective of integrated process-project orientation implementation assessment; as well as the cost of and the time needed for information system and communication tool unification in an organization [31].

Based on the subject literature, an assumption was adopted, to be empirically verified, supporting the recognition of business process management as a basis for organization modeling within a process-project dimension. The following premises were considered: an enterprise entails a set of processes [5] occurring in any organization, which, as objects of an organization’s structure [22], can coexist with such categories as projects (development of a common ground for project management) [23], procedures (within the dimension of process stiffening factor reduction or increase) and functions (coexistence of functional and process management), processes are at the center of today's and tomorrow's competition [38], processes are identified as critical organizational resources [29], which are mainly meant to generate added value for the customers [13], different criteria can be used for process typology (e.g., auxiliary and supporting processes) [33], processes, just like process organizations, can be evaluated from the perspective of various measures, i.e., maturity [10] or efficiency [8, 9].

An organization, in process-project view, entails such a state of the system, in which the benefits resulting from process and project solution implementation, as well as from the integration, assuming ambidexterity, of the concepts and methods of such category management, are discounted consciously. It is thus a complex system that is based on a business process and project symbiosis in exploitation and exploration activities, to achieve a synergy effect (Cf. [31]). A catalog of factors was adopted as essential constituents shaping process-project organizations. Operation based on the ambidexterity concept assumptions and extension of the process typology to include exploitative and explorative processes are the first two of those determinants. Focus on designing interdisciplinary process and project teams is another. The set also includes provision of an environment conductive to, as per contextual ambidexterity, the employees’ execution of both exploitation and exploration activities. This, however, primarily requires implementation of a competence market within the organization, to acquire information on the competences needed for process and project execution already at the stage of process design or project planning. Furthermore, it is essential for the management to create an environment enabling emergence of employee initiatives within the organization. Such initiatives improve the processes involving reconfiguration of the project management methodology towards authorial solutions adapted to the specificity of a given organization. It is also imperative that the management implements a process-project organizational structure developed on the assumptions of a matrix, in which the auxiliary processes are in the vertical layer, while the basic and project processes are in the horizontal layer. The essence of this assumption is based on a mechanism in which auxiliary process managers are expected to provide, on market terms, the intangible and material resources necessary for implementation of the effects generated in the main processes and projects. The process owners and project managers, in the horizontal layer, are in turn responsible for generating effects consistent with the customer needs and expectations [31]. A conceptual diagram of a company organizational structure from a process-project perspective is shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.
figure 1

Conceptual diagram of organizational structure in the company examined. Source: Own elaboration based on the assumptions presented in: [31].

Full size image

The basis for a structure outlined as such entails implementation of market principles into the organization, which constitutes an important determinant of a process-project organization [31].

3 Methods and Models

3.1 Study Scope and Characteristics of the Organizations Included in the Empirical Investigation

The scope of the empirical investigation conducted should be allocated within the field of three approaches: object-oriented, subject-oriented, spatial and temporal. Within the object scope of the study, four problem groups intersect, i.e., identification of the levels of process and project maturity, using the MMPM and PMMM models, and the resultant identification of the level of process-project maturity. Due to the limitations of this work, the characteristics of the two models have been presented in detail in the publications: [14, 15, 31, 32].

The object scope of the empirical study entails public and private sector large organizations (more than 250 employees). The entities surveyed were selected according to a territorial criterion, the sector, the dominant type of activity (production, trade or services) and the range of operation (local, national or international). The temporal scope allowed inclusion of organizations, regardless of the period of their functioning on the market.

The empirical investigation was carried out using non-probabilistic (non-random) sampling with purposive selection. The selection criteria involved operating on the territory of Poland, organization size (large organizations), activity range (local, national and international), the dominant type of activity, according to the Polish Classification of Activities. Organizations operating in all sectors of the economy were included in the survey. As a result, 90 organizations were surveyed using an opinion poll method incorporating the CAWI technique. The response rate was 29.20%.

3.2 Research Proceedings

The research was divided into five stages, which are characterized in Table 1.

Table 1. Characteristics of research proceedings
Full size table

The survey was conducted in Poland, in 2021–2022, using the CAWI technique. The survey questionnaire was delivered to the respondents via Google Forms.

3.3 Assumptions of the Integrated Process-Project Maturity Assessment Model

Efforts to increase the level of process-project maturity should be focused on integrating the process and project architecture in response to the turbulent nature of the business environment. Dedicated or integrated (process and project) maturity models are used to determine the level of process-project maturity.

Process-project maturity occurs in an organization when the management consciously discounts the benefits resulting from the implementation and integration of process and project solutions at levels of the functioning system and the organizational structure. Maturity model integration, in turn, is defined as consolidation (integration) of the maturity assessment areas (shared areas), in order to obtain a complex diagnosis of the phenomenon analyzed. In the subject area discussed, maturity model integration is understood as planned activities involving consolidation of two or more maturity models (process and project) into a whole, allowing assessment of the degree of process management and project management element implementation. Such consolidation, in this sense, also involves elimination of repetitive (duplicated) assessment areas (defined as shared areas). Organizational structures, maturity models, and excellence models may constitute the subject of consolidation [31].

Process-project maturity is gradual in nature and can be described by five maturity levels (Table 2).

Table 2. Characteristics of process-project maturity levels
Full size table

It should be emphasized here that an organization can qualify for a higher level of process-project maturity, if it meets the lower-level evaluation criteria (e.g., for an organization to qualify as level three, it must achieve a minimum of level two process and project maturity). Assessment of the level of process-project maturity is based on the results of sub-assessments from the MMPM and PMMM models.

Table 3, in turn, presents the extremes of a process and project organization, defining the characteristics indicating its immaturity and maturity.

Table 3. Immaturity and maturity characteristics of a process-project organization
Full size table

Summing up, the path to process-project maturity, especially for organizations managed according to a functional system formula, should be defined as transformation towards simultaneous implementation of solutions that increase the level of process and project maturity in the organization, in combination with deployment of operational categories within the exploitation and exploration layers and implementation of activities that are aimed at integration thereof within a single organization. Such activities should be carried out in an evolutionary manner, choosing a strategy that enables planning and gradual implementation of various process and project components.

Table 4 outlines the nine steps in the design of the integrated process-project maturity assessment model used in the implementation of the empirical investigation presented in this publication.

Table 4. Design stages of an integrated process-project maturity assessment model
Full size table

Contemporary organizations, in order to achieve supremacy on the market, should focus on both business processes and projects. As a result, efforts should be made in the sphere of organizational management, to integrate business process and project management methods. In order to assess the degree to which the assumptions of both methods are implemented, an integrated model is needed. A proposal of such a model is presented in this paper, based on two empirically verified maturity models MPMM [32] and PMMM [14, 15].

4 Results

4.1 Process-Project Maturity Level Assessment in the Surveyed Group of Large Organizations Operating in Poland

Initially, an attempt was made to assess the level of process-project maturity in the surveyed entities operating in Poland. The primary research objective was to identify the degree of process and project management element implementation, using an integrated model of process-project maturity assessment consisting of two components: the multicriteria model of process maturity (MMPM) model [32] and the project management maturity model (PMMM) [14, 15]. Detailed model assumptions have been presented in the publications characterizing the two concepts [15, 32] Aggregate results of the process and project maturity assessment are shown in Table 5.

Table 5. Process and project maturity assessments (N = 90)
Full size table

As the data in Table 5 shows, the vast majority of organizations (21), examined on the basis of the assumptions of the MMPM and PPMM maturity models, using the available research questionnaires and the assumptions presented in Tables 2 and 3 of the process-project maturity model, were classified as level 1 organizations. It is worth noting that only 13 organizations in the entire sample were identified as a process-project organization.

The results show that despite the optimistic opinions regarding the rise of interest in process and project management, voiced by researchers, the practical dimension of management concept and method implementation is at a relatively low level of maturity in the research streams described. It is worth emphasizing here that the results presented in Table 5 are in line with the conclusions arising from other empirical investigations concerning the low level of process and project maturity in Polish organizations. Undoubtedly, the research results presented broaden this research field and set directions for further studies on identifying the factors supporting and limiting implementation of process and project orientation.

4.2 Research Hypothesis Verification

Further in the study, an attempt was made to verify the research hypothesis formulated. The aim of the statistical analysis was to verify the relationship between the levels of process and project maturity. The hypothesis was verified using the Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient, for which a null hypothesis of no correlation between the variables under examination was formulated. The p-value was 0.003, which allows the null hypothesis rejection in favor of an alternative hypothesis about the variables’ correlation. Based on the results of the statistical analysis, a conclusion was made that the hypothesis is true – a statistically significant positive, but low, Spearman's rank correlation = 0.41 (p < 0.05) occurs, indicating a clear positive relationship between the variables of process maturity level and project maturity level. This indicates that, in the analyzed group of organizations, an increase in the level of process maturity positively affects an increase in the level of project maturity, which is consistent with the formulated presumption that the basis for a process-project organization entails implementation of BPM assumptions.

5 Conclusion

The main axis of this paper fits the need to fill the cognitive gap associated with the small number of publications addressing, on the theoretical and empirical grounds, the issue of process and project management method integration and organizational process-project maturity level assessment. The study conducted fills this gap, even if partially, by propounding an integration of two models of process (MMPM) and project (PMMM) maturity, as a result of which the category of process-project maturity has been presented and defined.

As with any research of this type, this study, too, is burdened with limitations, consisting of non-probabilistic sampling technique, thus limited the conclusions to the group of organizations under examination only. Moreover, it should be emphasized that the assumptions of a process and project organization do not constitute a closed catalog but form a basis for a broader discussion on the integration of selected process and project management concepts and methods, with particular emphasis on agile methodologies. This provides a basis for further research and qualitative proceedings. As a result of the survey, an additional gap was identified, consisting in the small number of publications addressing the category of exploration processes and the concept of explorative BPM. The direction of further research has been determined. Another goal set by the Author is to assess the relationship between the levels of process and project maturity assessment and the level of selected ICT technology implementation in an organization. This direction, in exploratory layer context, seems cognitively interesting, as it will identify which ICT technologies (e.g., artificial intelligence, Internet of Things or cloud computing) can be of potential support in the achievement of higher levels of maturity. The author also aims to seek solutions to exemplify process and project oriented organizations (organizations at high levels of process and project maturity).