Insights and Trends: Current Portfolio, Programme, and Project Management Practices

www.pwc.com

Insights and Trends:
Current Portfolio,
Programme, and Project
Management Practices
The third global survey on
the current state of project
management

Contents
Executive Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Special Thanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Survey Participants’ Profiles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Project Management Maturity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Project Management Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Appendix. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Contact Details. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36


1

2


Executive Summary

“CEOs in industries in the
throes of disruptive change
require radical innovation; if
their business cannot quickly
create new products or
services that customers will
buy, they will not survive.
However, innovation does
not just mean end product or
service changes – it
sometimes now includes
taking costs out of processes
or forming strategic
alliances to collaborate.”
- PwC 15th Annual Global CEO Survey 2012:
Delivering Results, Growth,
and Value in a Volatile World

In today’s difficult economic times,
organisations are constantly faced
with the challenges of fiercely
competitive and changing environments
driven by regulatory modification
and organisational restructuring.
Environmental forces - competitive,
economic, technological, political,
legal, demographic, and cultural create challenges and opportunities for
organisations. They must, therefore,
continuously adapt to the environment
if they are to survive and prosper. Top
management are thus confronted with the
critical task of analysing and improving
the ability of an organisation to change,
survive, and grow in this complex and
changing global economy and volatile
world. In order to stay competitive,
today’s organisations have been moving
from operations and business as usual,
to project management as part of their
competitive advantage strategy.
The ability to successfully execute projects
is what drives the realisation of intended
benefits and the achievement of business
objectives. Organisations that execute
projects successfully employ effective
Project Management (PM) practices as a
tool to drive change. Given the strategic
impact that projects have on business,
organisations must follow effective PM
processes that capitalize on innovation;
measure progress, value, and risks;
and confirm that the right projects
can be delivered in alignment with
organisational strategy.

In 2004, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
(PwC) invited senior executives and
practitioners to participate in our first
Global PM survey. The survey’s main
objective was to investigate whether a
higher maturity level would go hand-inhand with a higher project performance
level. In 2007, PwC conducted a similar
survey to determine the current state of
PM maturity in organisations across the
world. The survey’s main objective was
to identify current trends in PM, and
pinpoint the characteristics of PM that are
applied on higher-performing projects.
Beginning with the first survey in 2004,
PwC sought to find the leading practices
of successful companies, followed by the
2007 survey that validated three points:
• There is a link between higher
maturity levels and high project
performance.
• Senior management that supports PMdriven key initiatives achieves stronger
business results.
• Effective PM is vital to many
organisations.


3

Now, with increased scrutiny over budgets
and “doing more with less,” efficiency and
effectiveness are key factors of successful
organisations. We have reviewed the data
from the 2012 third edition of the survey
to help identify correlations between PM
and organisational success within our five
key performance indicators (delivering
projects on time, within budget, to
scope, to quality standards, and with
the intended business benefits). In the
2012 survey, we continued our analysis
to determine the current state of PM
maturity and the characteristics of higherperforming projects. The survey also set
out to find out more about current trends
and best practices in PM. We evaluated
what was working well, and where areas
for improvement were needed within
the PM discipline. We also observed
the following trends and common
practices, based on the survey results and
subsequent detailed analysis:
• As many as 97% of respondents
agreed that PM is critical to business
performance and organisational
success, and 94% agreed that PM
enables business growth.
• We found that although PM
maturity levels are on the rise,
most organisations desire a higher
maturity level. Approximately 32.1%
of organisations are continually
striving to reach higher maturity levels
by seeking to strengthen effective
team-building and skill development
activities to improve team performance
and promote high productivity, work
quality, and good morale. However,
most organisations also require
improvement in organisational
structure, human resource
management, and quality assurance.
Nearly 30.7% of respondents
believe their organisations do not
have suitable succession plans and
contingency plans in place for key
project resources. We also found
that higher maturity yielded higher
performance within the five key
performance indicators.

4

• Employing an organisation’s
typical PM approach leads to
accomplishments in achieving project
scope, quality, and business benefits;
however, lower performance levels
were noted in meeting schedule and
budget objectives. Survey data showed
that organisations employing their
typical PM approach would meet
or exceed the organisation’s quality
standards 93% of the time; deliver
within the project’s scope 92% of
the time; and result in meeting or
exceeding the projected business
benefits of the project 89% of the time.
While these results are encouraging,
the data also showed lower
performance levels in the project’s
schedule and budget. In these areas,
we find you would miss your project’s
schedule and budget objectives
approximately 30% of the time.
• Poor estimation during the planning
phase continues to be the largest
(32%) contributor to project failures.
• The percent of organisations that
use established PM methodologies is
stable, and employees are obtaining
the applicable certifications. Using
these methodologies increases success
in the key performance indicators
of quality, scope, budget, time, and
business benefits.
• Private sector organisations with
certified Agile practitioners are
leading the current adoption and use
of Agile PM methodologies. However,
organisations have not yet achieved a
high level of maturity in implementing
Agile values and principles. We
found that 34% of respondents
use an Agile PM methodology
within their organisations. Most
organisations which employ an Agile
PM methodology contribute the use of
Agile toward project success (59%),
project efficiency (59%), and enabling
business performance goals (49%).


• The adoption of Portfolio Management
(PfM) has not increased amongst
organisations, but its use leads to
increases in the five key performance
indicators of quality, scope, budget,
time, and business benefits. When
implementing PfM, we have found
that the three largest ways to be
more successful include aligning
the portfolio with the organisation’s
strategy; using an enterprise Project
Management Office (PMO) to manage
the portfolio; and conducting monthly
reviews. Organisations employing
these approaches should expect to see
an increased likelihood of portfolios
that meet schedule, scope, quality,
budget, time, and business benefits.
• Leveraging efficient and effective
communication methodologies
positively impacted a project’s quality,
scope, and business benefits, but
showed a negative correlation with
budget and schedule. This is the same
trend noted in the use of employing an
organisation’s “typical” PM approach.
Data further suggests that Executive
Management agrees that the use
of communication methods have a
higher positive effect on success of
projects than the other respondents
within the survey population. Based
on their responses, there was a 7%
increase in delivering of scope, 4%
increase in meeting quality standards,
4% increase in delivering intended
business benefits, and 8% increase
in finishing within or ahead of
schedule. The largest increase (17%)
in the use of effective communication
methodologies was found in finishing
within budget.
• A combined total of 65% of our
respondents reported international
and national level involvement in their
project which echoes the importance
of organisational inclusion and
collaboration, spanning departmental
and geographical boundaries. More
than 80% of respondents reported that
senior management supports their
respective project; however, lack of
executive sponsorship was the second
largest factor that contributed to poor
project performance. While a majority
of the projects are supported by senior
management, it appears that executive
sponsorship should be improved in
order to help projects achieve success.

• 70% of respondents agreed that
suitable project organisational
structures exist on their projects,
which clearly outlines the project team
and reporting relationships. For those
who disagreed to the same question,
survey data reveals an undeniable
positive correlation between
organisations that do not have a
suitable organisation structure in
place and those without appropriately
defined and documented roles and
responsibilities within the governance
structure. Since organisational
structure provides the foundation
for roles and positions, hierarchical
levels and spans of responsibility, it is
not surprising to see such a positive
correlation between these elements.
Poor organisational design and
structure can result in unnecessary
role and responsibility ambiguity and
confusion, a lack of accountability, and
less coordination among functions.
• There is evidence of alignments
between project scope, project
portfolio, and organisational business
strategy. Approximately 80% of
respondents agreed that there was
a strong correlation between their
organisation’s strategy and the project
portfolio. Approximately 70% of
respondents also indicated there was
no conflict between project scope and
overall business strategy, which may
prove to impact the performance and
achievement of project goals. With
increased alignment of projects with
business strategy, organisations can
expect greater project portfolio impact
on business success.
• Quality Management Systems may be
a worthwhile investment for vendors.
Respondents who strongly agreed that
their organisation requires all vendors
to have Quality Management Systems
had more projects (90% or greater),
meet their organisations quality
standards versus those organisations
that do not have this requirement in
place.

• Established PMOs result in projects
with higher quality and business
benefits. Respondent feedback
indicates a positive relationship
between the length of time a PMO
has been established and successful
project performance. In comparison to
organisations which said they do not
use a PMO, or have had a PMO in place
for less than six years, organisations
who establish a PMO for six years or
longer reported higher performance
in delivering high quality (74%) and
achieving the intended business
benefits (62%).
• Engaged, experienced, key staff leads
to project success. Approximately 80%,
of respondents agreed that project
managers, business unit managers,
quality managers, and budget
managers have the relevant and
suitable experience to lead a project to
successful completion.

• Earned Value Management (EVM) is
more heavily relied upon and useful
in the United States (U.S.), but has
yet to gain popularity or use due to a
lack of EVM expertise and experience
in the remainder of the world. Most
organisations that utilize EVM,
contribute its use towards project
success (62%); as a useful tool to
predict project success (73%); and
enabling leaders to use EVM metrics to
assess project status (51%).
We hope that this report provides you, the
global PM community, with a thorough
view of PM trends, including: successful
practices, tools, certifications, and
training. Additionally, we encourage you
to share this report with your colleagues
to help identify best practices across
your organisation and to promote PM
and its positive influence on business
performance.

• Training and staff development in the
field of PM has grown drastically, in
a variety of forums. Approximately
76% of survey respondents indicated
PM training and development
opportunities were available, up 32%
from 2007. Our survey noted 67%
of participants believe PM training
contributes to business performance.
Survey data also showed that a
majority of projects performed higher
in three of the five key performance
indicators - scope, quality, and
business benefits.
• The use of commercially available
PfM software drives higher levels of
portfolio performance and greater
satisfaction with an organisation’s PM
practices. The majority of the increase
in performance and satisfaction is
obtained by deploying specialized
PfM software. Customization of
Commercial off-the Shelf (COTS)
packages actually led to slightly lower
levels of performance and satisfaction.
• The Scrum process is the predominant
Agile PM methodology in use, with
approximately 43% of respondents
leveraging this methodology. At a
distant second was the Lean and
Test-Driven Development (TDD)
methodology (11%).


5

Special Thanks

PwC would like to thank the PM community, and
the 1,524 respondents from 38 countries and
within 34 industries who shared their insights
with us. The success of the PwC Global PM
Survey is directly attributable to the candid
participation of these individuals around the
world. The demands on their time are many and
varied, and we greatly appreciate their
involvement.
PwC would like to extend special thanks to the
Project Management Institute (PMI) for their
support of our Global PM Survey. PMI conducted
critical reviews of the survey questions and
report. Additionally, PMI shared the survey with
their membership base, providing invaluable
input into the survey.

6


Introduction

Increasingly, successful organisations
employ PM to drive change and
achieve their business objectives. Policy
implementation, along with systems
development and implementation are
some of the initiatives being managed as
projects in today’s dynamic world.
As one of the leading professional
services firms, PwC has worked with
numerous organisations of various sizes,
industries, and sectors within the field
of PM. Some organisations delivered
projects consistently better than others
across what we have called the five key
performance indicators (delivering
projects on time, within budget, to
scope, to quality standards, and with
the intended business benefits). Our
observations have been that organisations
that have projects with higher
performance allow the organisation as a
whole to perform better.

One of the many questions companies
ask us is: Do organisations with a higher
level of PM maturity achieve better project
results? In 2004, we conducted our first
study on this topic, and indeed found
a link between higher maturity levels
and high project performance. In this
year’s survey, we continued this analysis
to determine the current state of PM
maturity and its linkages to project
success, business performance, and
organisational success.
The other main goal of the survey was
to find out more about current trends
and best practices in PM. We assessed
whether leading projects scored high
in terms of our five key performance
indicators. By looking at these key
performance indicators, we can help
organisations determine areas for growth
and development, or areas of high
performance to help drive business and
organisational success through the PM
discipline. As we evaluated organisations’
PM performance, there are four core
elements that we have taken into account:
processes, organisational structure,
people, and systems and tools.


7

Organisation’s Core
Elements Evaluation

Processes
A systematic and organised set of
processes brings order and efficiency
to PM. Therefore, the existence of
well-defined repeatable PM processes often grouped into a PM methodology
- differentiates those companies that are
able to consistently deliver high project
results from those that do not.
Aspects considered in this area include:
standardisation and institutionalisation
of PM processes; prioritisation of
projects and application of a standard
project life cycle; utilisation of project
portfolio techniques; utilisation of
PM methodologies; and leveraging
communication management best
practices.

Organisational
structure
The way an organisation is structured is
fundamental to the outcome of their PM
performance. If organisational alignment
is underestimated or completely ignored
by management, it can lead to lower
project performance.
resource ownership; definition of clear
roles and responsibilities; support
and involvement of senior and top
management; and usage of a PMO.

People
Theoretically, finding a good candidate
to fill a position should now be a very
straightforward exercise. There have
never been as many educated people in
the world, nor has it ever been as simple
for employers to tap this vast pool online.
The reality is far different. High jobless
rates persist in the U.S. and Europe,
disproportionately among the young,
even as businesses fret that they cannot
attract the digitally adept ‘Millennial’
generation to pursue careers in their
industries. Too many well-educated
citizens of the Middle East and elsewhere
are not in the workforce at all. This is
the talent crunch. It is a complex and
frustrating challenge and it is being
felt worldwide. There are challenges in
hiring across most industries, as well as in
retention in some markets and industries,
as businesses compete for highly talented
people.
Teamwork is an integral component of
PM; therefore, the ability to manage
people is an essential skill for project
managers. When it comes to project
success, project or programme managers
carry a great deal of the responsibility,
but success is also dependent on the
performance of others who are in
key project roles (e.g., project team
members, project sponsors, customers,
and stakeholders). Therefore, well
developed people management skills are
fundamental to a high PM maturity level.
project staff skills and experience;
development and training programme;
and an emphasis on PM certifications.

Systems and tools
Organisations purchase and create
systems and tools to automate and
support their PM processes. Oftentimes,
a great deal of money is spent on systems
that are subsequently not used.
the use and benefits of leveraging
software (PM, PfM, and Agile); and the
benefits and use of earned EVM.

8


Methodology
We conducted our third survey to identify leading PM practices and trends,
and to determine the correlation between PM, business performance, and
organisational success. The focus of our third survey was to continue analyzing
the use and impact of PM activities in successful organisations.
The survey was organised in three main sections. Section 1.0 of the survey
focused on the background of survey respondents’ organisations. Section 2.0
of the survey focused on the management of a specific project, and included
the following areas: Project Background, Factors Impacting Project Success,
Governance, Scope Management, Risk Management, Benefits Realisation
Management, Human Resource Management, Cost Management, Quality
Management, and Change Control Management. Section 3.0 of the survey
focused on the following areas: Project Portfolio Management, PMOs, PM
Training, EVM, and Agile PM.
From December 2011 through January 2012, 1,524 participants responded to
the survey from 34 industries, across 38 countries. The data was gathered via a
web-based quantitative survey, which consisted of 146 close-end questions. The
survey gives us insights into the collective opinions of these groups of people
on a wide range of topics (project types, success factors, tools, and people
aspects) and ‘best practices’ (organisational structure, maturity level, and project
performance). In addition to group opinions and key trends, we calculated two
essential indices that have been used for the analysis: maturity level and PM
performance. Maturity level has been calculated by combining the answers to
73 of the survey questions within the areas of Governance, Scope Management,
Risk Management, Benefits Realisation Management, Human Resource
Management, Cost Management, Quality Management, and Change Control
Management. The PM performance was computed by aggregating elements of
individual performance measured as a percentage of projects that meet our five
key performance indicators - delivered on schedule, within budget, to scope,
meeting quality standards, and that deliver business benefits. As we evaluated
organisations’ PM performance, there are four core elements that we have taken
into account: processes, organisational structure, people, and systems and tools.
This year’s survey consisted of similar questions to our prior surveys. However, in
order to stay current with the PM discipline, some questions have been modified
and/or added to draw more insight. In those instances where questions were
the same or similar to prior surveys, we drew comparisons in order to show the
trends from prior years.

Survey Participants’
Profiles
Thirty-eight (38) countries are represented in the survey results:

Figure 1: Survey Participants

10


The largest participating industry was
Information Technology (IT) at 22.4%.
Consulting was the second largest
participating industry at 11.7%. Other*
industries included those sectors where
<1% of the survey respondents were
represented. Please refer to Figure 2 for
the complete breakdown of industry
representation. We also noted that 67%
of participants reported working in the
private sector and 33% in the public
sector.

Figure 2: Survey Respondents Industries

Figure 3: Survey Respondents Positions

Survey results showed relatively balanced representation from all organisation levels.
The majority of the participants were Project Managers, Programme Managers, or
Executive Managers. Refer to Figure 3 for the complete breakdown of participant
positions.


11

Project Management
Maturity
One of the key findings from the 2004
survey was the correlation between
strong PM performance and maturity
of PM practices in an organisation.
Generally, a higher maturity level was
linked to sustainable project delivery.
The 2004 survey also found that: “Those
few cases where a higher maturity level
does not represent high performance

are mainly due to the fact that the
organisational structure neither is suited
to, nor supports the capacity of projects
required by the company’s business.
And, therefore, the organisation is not
aligned and does not fulfil its project
requirements, and hence is unable to
maximise its performance.” To determine
the current level of PM practices, we

used the PwC maturity model used in
our 2004 survey to maintain consistency
with our previous survey. We chose 2004
as the base year to reflect on our first
comprehensive study linking PM maturity
and performance. It consists of the
following five levels:

gain a comprehensive perspective on
the assessment, we also considered our
previous research on PM theories and
economic studies, complemented by our
Firm’s extensive experience in project and
programme management activities.

majority of organisations were operating
projects within Level 1, 2, or 3. In 2012,
the majority (62%) of organisations are
operating projects within the Level 4 or
5 of maturity. This indicates a significant
rise in PM maturity over the last eight
years. Figure 5 shows a comparative study
of the PM maturity between 2004 and
2012 respondents. As previously stated,
the current survey showed a greater
percentage of organisations at a higher
level of PM maturity from previous
surveys.

Figure 4: PwC’s PM Maturity Model

Key Finding: PM Maturity
Levels are on the Rise.
The PM Maturity Level has been
calculated by analysing the answers
to survey questions within the areas
of governance, scope, risk, benefits
realisation, human resources, cost,
quality, and change control management.
We compared this information against
organisations that report varying levels
of project success within our five key
performance indicators. In order to

We continued the research in our 2012
survey and found that 19.5 % of the
respondent organisations are at the
Level 5-Optimize, and 42.5% are at
Level 4-Monitor, compared to 12.7% and
9.2% respectively in 2004. In 2004, the

12 Insights and Trends: Current Portfolio, Programme, and Project Management Practices

Key Finding: Most
organisations desire a higher
maturity level, but require
improvement in organisational
structure, human resource
management, and quality
assurance.

Figure 5: Survey Respondents PM Maturity Model

More organisations are implementing
PM tools in the four core elements of
people, and systems and tools. In
the current economic times, growth
and process improvements are key
factors contributing to the success
of organisations, and PM enables
this growth. As these elements are
incorporated into an organisation’s PM
resources, they are adapted to meet the
particular needs of an organisation.
Organisations have found that they
still require the greatest need for
improvement in organisational structure,
human resource management, and
quality assurance.

Key Finding: Advancements in
PM methodologies leading to
greater organisational maturity
have raised the bar for standards
in project maturity.
As maturity levels indicate, there
have been significant increases in
organisational maturity since our 2004
report. In this competitive business
environment, businesses focus on
maximizing resources, efficiency, and
effectiveness through PM. Effective tools,
along with innovation, aid organisations
to measure progress, increase value,
minimize risks, reduce costs, and promote
the on-time delivery of projects. Not
only have organisations raised the bar in

order to stay competitive in the turbulent
business environment, but PM standards
have also significantly increased.
Processes, organisational structure,
systems and tools have all been enhanced
to better meet business objectives.
PM takes costs out of processes and
allows organisations to focus on
performance. PM practitioners look
to performance indicators to define
areas where PM methodologies can be
maximized. Approximately 76% of survey
respondents reported PM training and
development opportunities available
within their organisation, and more
practitioners are becoming certified in PM
with an increased adaptation of Agile PM
and EVM. Organisations are enhancing
their portfolio management systems as
organisations grow and mature, and are
seeing increased success within the five
key performance indicators.
Effective PM tools create strategic
alliances with vendors as well as other
businesses as more tools are utilized and
tasks can be outsourced. With the use of
external tools, resources, and channels,
organisations not only look internally to
see where PM and process improvement
can be adapted, but also look externally to
their vendors to utilize PM methodology.
Organisations that require vendors to
have Quality Management Systems
report 90% or more of their projects meet
quality standards.

The targeted maturity level is the level
that the respondents agree best fits
their organisation according to the PM
requirements of their business. Almost
50% of the respondents in the current
survey indicated that their organisations
are striving for continuous improvement
in PM practices. Survey data indicated
that organisations are seeking to
standardize and enhance processes and
tools, and thereby trying to achieve
higher levels of PM maturity. However,
the survey shows that more than half
of the companies are not satisfied with
their current maturity level. As discussed,
organisations must seek to grow in line
with enhancements in PM methodology
as external factors create an increasing
demand for efficiency and effectiveness.
In an ever-changing competitive
environment, a surprising 25% of the
respondents were neutral to establishing
sustainable PM improvements. However,
the survey data shows 32.1% of
organisations are continually striving to
reach higher maturity levels by seeking
to strengthen effective team-building and
skill development activities to improve
team performance, and stimulate high
productivity, work quality, and good
morale. Approximately 70% of survey
respondents agree that a suitable
project organisation structure exists
that clearly outlines the project team
structure and reporting relationships.
Effective communication methodologies
enable project teams and organisations
to increase quality, scope, and business
benefits success.
While seeking to enhance organisational
PM maturity, it is important to create
an alignment between the project
scope, portfolio, and the organisation
business strategy. If properly aligned,
the organisational structure is suited to
support the capacity of projects required
by the company’s business. Therefore, the
organisation can fulfil its requirements
and maximize performance.


13

Organisations additionally seek
improvements in human resource
management. Human resource
management and succession planning
remains an area to be developed as 30.7%
of respondents believe their organisations
do not have suitable succession plans and
contingency plans in place for key project
resources. Less than half of respondents
agreed that the approach to quality
assurance is risk-based, and is consistent
with organisational standards.
“Poor estimates during project planning”
is the largest contributor to project
failure. Furthermore, less than half
(46.5%) of survey respondents agree
that an effective, formal process is in
place to manage changes to baseline
plans. This statistic indicates that
organisations may underestimate
project requirements and have difficulty
efficiently and effectively adapting to
changes throughout the project lifecycle.
Changes in scope may have ramifications
in each performance indicator and PM
people, and systems and tools must be in
place in order to adapt to these changes.
Without the implementation of these
core elements, projects run the risk of not
meeting schedule, scope, budget, quality,
and business benefits.
Performance indicators allow
organisations to track and record project
success. As PM tools are adapted,
organisations can better track these core
elements.

Key Finding: Higher maturity
yields higher performance.
Over 62% of organisations are in the
Level 4 or 5 of PM maturity and have
increased standards for PM. We analyzed
the data to determine if organisations
and their leadership are putting emphasis
on sustainable project and programme
management processes, and aiming for
higher levels of maturity to realise higher
performance and other benefits.
As project maturity strives to produce
sustained outcomes in a predictable,
controllable, and reliable manner, it
is essential for most organisations to
establish formal, effective processes to
promote high performance through the
project lifecycle. High maturity identifies

14

best practices for the implementation of
organisational strategy through successful
projects. Our analysis showed that as
respondents are demonstrating higher
PM maturity, the three main areas where
organisations have formalized processes
in place to manage performance are the
following:
• Scope Management - The largest
percentage of survey respondents
indicated formal processes in place
for Scope Management. This statistic
is a clear indicator of high maturity as
organisations have grown to anticipate
needed changes throughout the
project lifecycle, supporting changes
within a project, and promoting
traceability. As projects anticipate
changes within the project lifecycle,
they are better prepared to deliver on
time, within scope, and within budget
without hindrance.
–– 66.6% of participants agree that
additional change control processes
and deliverable controls are in place
throughout the project lifecycle to
assure quality of project delivery.
• Quality Management - Survey
responses indicate that organisations
have established organisational
enablers for developing capabilities to
aggregate best practices, and methods
for evaluating best practices and
capabilities. These practices monitor,
track, and record quality throughout
the project lifecycle to indicate
where the project is successful, and
where the project seeks to improve.
This measurement allows the
organisation to pinpoint areas to focus
on, encouraging a higher quality of
performance.
–– 62% of participants agree that
adoption of quality assurance
strategy effectively addresses scope
of testing, timing, responsibility,
approach, pass/fail criteria,
corrective action processes, and
sign-off.
–– 62.9% agree that document control
processes are in place, including
appropriate identifiers (naming
conventions), version control,
audit trails, reviews, approvals,
referencing, and confidentiality
labels/controls.


• Cost Management - As budget
assumptions and financial
performance are leading indicators
of project success, organisations seek
to establish formalized processes to
manage project costs.
–– 54.9% of respondents agree that
the underlying budget assumptions
have been clearly documented and
assessed, and these are considered
to be reasonable.
–– 57.5% of respondents agree that
funds are appropriately allocated
to the project, consistent with the
project stage, and are only released
when board approval has been
given.
Organisations are focusing on quality
and cost while managing the scope of
the engagement in order to reach higher
levels of performance. Internal controls
and processes allow organisations to
better respond to changing project
demands, decreasing the time spent
adapting to change, and increasing
project success.

Key Finding: Organisation
maturity is directly correlated
with organisational success.
Organisations that operate at higher
levels of maturity are on average more
successful than those operating at lower
maturity levels. Organisations that are
able to implement and optimize effective
PM tools will receive greater benefits
realisation. When an organisation, which
has a methodology in place to improve
project performance and management
and focuses on continuous improvement,
it will have a competitive advantage
strategy in place to remain successful in
the marketplace. Successful organisations
identify the four core elements
(processes, organisational structure,
people, systems and tools) needed to
achieve benefits realisation. Elements are
in place to adapt to performance needs
in the areas of schedule, scope, budget,
quality, and business benefits. These
organisations will be better suited to
meet changing environmental factors and
business needs, as well as to cut costs and
maximize efficiency and effectiveness.

Project Management
Performance
Figure 6: Average Size of Projects in U.S. $

Figure 7: Number of Projects in the Respondent Organisations’ Portfolio

Figure 8: Drivers for Establishing Projects within Respondents’ Organisations

Survey respondents were asked a series
of questions related to the projects in
their organisational portfolio. Over 67%
of the projects within the organisation’s
portfolio were valued at less than U.S.
$10M. The majority (42%) of portfolios
were comprised of greater than 100
projects, whilst 25% of the users have
less than 20 projects within their
organisations’ portfolios. Time spent on
projects and the amount of staff appears
to not be affected if an organisation has
few or many projects. The majority of
projects were less than three years in
duration (90%) and required fewer than
50 staff (87%). Only 3% of respondents
have an average project team size of more
the 200 staff.
We also asked respondents to provide the
primary reason why a project is initiated.
Of the organisations that responded, the
main drivers for establishing a project
is for business imperatives (40.2%)
and to generate revenue (30.1%).
Due to current economic climate, it is
reasonable that an organisation would
have a sizeable amount of their projects
focused on generating revenue. The
remaining three reasons to establish
a project, each representing less than
10% of the population polled, included
reducing costs, implement changes due to
regulatory requirements, and refreshing
obsolete technology.
Now that we have established that
projects are being managed at a higher
level of maturity, we wanted to evaluate
how project management performance
scored high in terms of our five key
performance indicators. Organisational
project management performance
includes four core elements: processes,
organisational structure, people,
and systems and tools. Therefore, we
categorized our findings within these four
core elements.


15

Processes
As previously noted, a systematic and
organised set of processes brings order
and efficiency to project management.
Therefore, the existence of well-defined
project management processes - often
grouped into a project management
methodology - differentiates those
companies that are able to consistently
deliver high project results from those
that do not. Our key findings in this

area include the following: standardisation and institutionalisation of
project management processes; prioritisation of projects and application
of a standard project life cycle; utilisation of project portfolio techniques;
utilisation of methodologies in project management, portfolio management
and Agile project management; leveraging communication management best
practices; and emphasis on project management certifications.

Figure 9: Key Performance Indicators for a Project Implementing the Typical Organisations
Approach to PM

Key Finding: Employing an organisation’s typical PM
approach leads to accomplishments in achieving project scope,
quality, and business benefits; however, lower performance
levels were noted in meeting schedule and budget objectives.
While not all organisations approach project management in the same way, they
do apply certain principles of project management when managing their projects.
The global project management survey provides insight into the state of today’s
organisational approach to PM. Not surprisingly, an organisation’s approach to
project management directly affects the outcome of project’s key performance
indicators.
Survey respondents were asked to rate a project that best represents their
organisation’s approach to project management. Of the projects that met the
five key performance indicators, if an organisation was to employ their “typical”
approach to a project, it would meet or exceed the organisation’s quality
standards 93% of the time; deliver within the project’s scope 92% of the time;
and result in meeting or exceeding the projected business benefits of the project
89% of the time. While these results are encouraging, the data also showed lower
performance levels in the project’s schedule and budget. In these areas, we find
you would meet your project’s schedule and budget objectives approximately
70% of the time.

16


Key Finding: Poor estimation during the planning phase
continues to be the largest contributor to project failures.
In order to determine what is contributing to poor project performance, we examined
the reasons organisations were failing to meet their desired outcomes. Figure 10
provides some insight into the current contributors to lower performance levels when
implementing an organisation’s approach to project management. Poor estimates, lack
of executive sponsorship, and poorly defined goals and objectives make up the top
three contributors to a project’s underperformance. These three factors account for
53% of poor project performance. The top six contributed to 78% of poor performance
when implementing an organisation’s approach to project management.
Poor estimates in the planning phase continue to be the single largest cause for poor
performance in projects and the single largest worsening trend. For instance, in our
2004 survey, participants contributed project underperformance 17% of the time to
poor estimates and missed deadlines, whereas today that number has increased to
32%. Improvements in any of the key factors found in Figure 10 will lead toward better
implementation of an organisation’s approach to project management and, in turn,
improve project scope, schedule, budget, quality, and business benefits performance.
The remainder of this report provides insight into both positive and negative factors
influencing project performance as an organisation implements its approach to project
management.

Figure 10: Factors contributing to poor project performance when implementing an organisation’s
approach to PM


17

Key Finding: Reported use of established PM methodologies is
stable and employees are obtaining applicable certifications.
Respondents reported using a wide variety of methodologies, as illustrated in Figure
11. The most prevalent methodology was Project Management Institutes (PMI) Project
Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK)® or modifications thereof, with 41% of
responses. A variety of Information Technology (IT) methodologies were reported,
with Agile and waterfall being the most prevalent. Many other methodologies were
listed, although some would not strictly be considered PM methodologies. A significant
number of respondents reported using combinations of multiple methodologies;
the most common methodologies included in these combinations were PMBOK®,
PRINCE2®, and IT methodologies.
The data related to use of established methodologies is predominantly consistent
with PwC’s 2007 PM survey. Of note, adoption of industry-standard PMBOK ® and
PRINCE2® methodologies has increased slightly (38% in 2007 vs. 44% currently).
Focusing on these two methodologies, the regions with the highest reported use of
PRINCE2® relative to PMBOK ® are Australia, Europe, and South Africa, as shown in
Figure 12.
Employee certification is a common theme among companies that reported using a
PM methodology. 90% of respondents from organisations reporting the use of project
management methodologies indicated their organisations have individuals certified
in the preferred methodology. This indicates general acceptance that individuals must
be trained in PM methodologies in order to capture their benefits. Cost performance is
an example of the positive impact of individual certifications, especially in light of the
budget performance challenges documented through this survey. 38% of organisations
with individuals certified in their preferred PM methodology reported successful
budget performance, 6% higher than for organisations without certified individuals.

Figure 11: Reported use of PM methodologies

Figure 12: Comparison of reported use of PMBOK® and Prince2® methodologies
in different regions

18


Key Finding: Using
Established PM Methodologies
increases success in the key
performance indicators of
quality, scope, budget, schedule,
and business benefits.
For each of the five performance
indicators, survey data indicate that
using a preferred PM methodology
increases the chance of organisations
meeting project objectives. As shown in
Figure 13, the percent of organisations
that are successful in each dimension
is higher for organisations that use
methodologies than those that do not.
The increase in performance is between
5% and 9%, with scope performance
being the most improved. Similarly,
organisations that meet objectives for
a key performance dimension less that
25% of the time are more likely to not
use project management methodologies,
with performance spreads between 3%
and 9% between those that do and do
not use methodologies. Response data
indicate that organisations with the
highest project success rates use inhouse methodologies or combinations
of methodologies. This result indicates
these organisations may have a greater
investment in PM methodologies that
meet their unique situations.

Figure 13: Percent of Respondents that Reported their Organisations are Successful in the Five
Performance Indicators, for Organisations that do and do not Use PM Methodologies

Key Finding: Private sector organisations with certified Agile
practitioners are leading the current adoption and use of Agile PM
methodologies. However, organisations have not yet achieved a
high level of maturity in implementing Agile values and principles.
A growing project management area is the adoption of an Agile PM methodology. Agile
methods emphasize incremental delivery of working products, focused on maximizing
customer value. Through establishing a cycle for intermittent product delivery, Agile
PM assumes that changes and improvements will be incorporated throughout the
product development life cycle. Change is viewed as a welcome opportunity to improve
the product and make it a better fit to the business. We found that 34% of respondents
use an Agile PM methodology within their organisations. A majority of these are in the
information technology industry (71%), and have certified Agile practitioners (62%).
Most organisations which employ an Agile PM methodology contribute the use
of agile towards project success (59%), project efficiency (59%), and enabling
business performance goals (49%). Approximately 17% of projects using an Agile
PM methodology meet the five key performance indicators. Whilst this is lower than
the overall key performance indicators, it is reflective of organisations continuing to
understand and refine the use and application of Agile PM methodologies within the
context of their organisational culture and projects.
As shown in Figure 14, the project manager currently serves as a traditional phasebased project manager on the majority
Figure 14: Project Manager Role on
(67%) of agile projects. In this scenario,
Agile Projects
the project manager and other team
members have specified and distinct
functions, which often leads to
independent efforts within the project
team. As organisations continue to
mature their understanding of Agile
PM methodologies, the role of the
project manager should also evolve
and align with key agile concepts of
integrated, self-directing teams in which
team members take responsibility for
managing their tasks and commitments.


19

Key Finding: The adoption of PfM has not increased amongst
organisations, but its use leads to increases in the key performance
indicators of quality, scope, budget, schedule, and business benefits.
The 2004 survey report addressed portfolio performance as a secondary effect of
enhanced PM capabilities. One of the primary conclusions drawn from the survey was
that maturity levels did matter and that they improved not just project performance,
but that of the portfolio of all projects. The 2007 survey results pointedly defined the
emerging practice and stressed that its purpose was to promote the achievement of
strategic business objectives. The report highlighted the increase in organisational
adoption of PfM (53%, a 7% increase from 2004), and drew attention to the degree
to which respondents leveraged various PfM capabilities, with Project Selection being
the most common. In 2012, the survey results do not show an increase in adoption
(remained at 53%), but they do provide a much more robust look at the effects of PfM
and the tools that are available to support it. Since the adoption rate has not increased,
we wanted to show where PfM is being used by depicting which industries and sectors
are using PfM in Figure 15 below.

Figure 15: Adoption of Portfolio Management by Industry

The data analysed make a compelling case for the benefits that can be achieved with
an effective deployment of PfM processes and dedicated software.


Benefits of Adopting PfM
• Adoption of PfM has positive effects on both project performance and
performance of the overall portfolio at all portfolio scales (portfolios with
project investments valued at <US$100M to those of >US$60B).
• Combining portfolio scale with the dimensions of average project duration
(ranging from < 1 year up to 6-10 years), the number of projects managed
in the portfolio (<20 to 100+) and the number of people involved in the
average project (teams of 10 or less to 200 or more), we investigated the
effect of PfM at varying levels of portfolio complexity; the gains of adopting
PfM hold at all levels of complexity.
• Users of PfM agreed that their organisation’s project management
capabilities were effective and efficient at much higher levels than those that
did not use PfM.
• The benefits of deploying PfM are compelling for organisations at the
margins of performance. Nearly two thirds of respondents that employ PfM
reported that more than 90% of their organisation’s projects perform to
expectations on the five key performance indicators. In contrast, seven out
of ten organisations that do not employ PfM reported that less than 10% of
their projects met the key performance indicators. This phenomenon was
even starker for highly complex portfolios.

Key Finding: When implementing PfM, we have found that the three largest ways to be more
successful include aligning the portfolio with the organisation’s strategy; using an enterprise PMO to
manage the portfolio; and conducting monthly reviews.
The most important factor in the success
of PfM is alignment of managing the
portfolio with the organisation strategy.
The positive effects of strategic alignment
lead to higher levels of portfolio
performance, and increases stakeholder
satisfaction with their organisation’s
project management practices at all
levels of portfolio scale and complexity.
Respondents were asked to judge the
statement “There is a strong correlation
between my organisation’s strategy and
our project portfolio.” Respondents who
gave a positive response reported higher
rates of portfolio performance on the
five key performance indicators. The
effect was particularly strong for within
budget, where organisations with a high
correlation between the portfolio and
strategy were twice as likely to report
more than 75% of their projects met

budget targets, and 40% as likely to
report that less than 25% of their projects
did. Respondents were also asked “Are
portfolio priorities aligned with the
organisation’s overall strategy?” Those
who gave a positive response also were
more likely to report high rates of projects
meeting the key performance indicators.
In all five indicators, respondents with
a positive perception of alignment
were twice as likely to report more
than 75% of their projects meeting the
performance targets and less than half
as likely to report less than 25% meeting
targets. Organisations that align their
organisation’s overall strategies with their
project portfolios and prioritise their
portfolios’ priorities with the strategy are
more likely to have portfolios that meet
schedule, scope, quality, budget, and
business benefits requirements.

Globally, nearly 70% of respondents who
reported using PfM also reported that
their Enterprise PMO was responsible
for the effort. Results varied by sector
and region with private enterprises
deploying PfM through their Enterprise
PMO at a slightly higher rate than their
public sector counterparts, and Europe
having the lowest level of Enterprise
PMO involvement among the regions
of the world. With the exception of the
smallest scale portfolios, the portfolio
performance levels of respondents
whose PfM programs are managed by
an Enterprise PMO are consistently
higher than those whose portfolios are
managed by other groups or individuals,
resulting in an increased likelihood of
portfolios that meet schedule, scope,
quality, budget, and business benefits
requirements.


21

More than half of all respondents reported that they reviewed their portfolio on a
monthly basis. 20% reported more frequent reviews. Only 4% reported reviewing
their portfolio less than quarterly. Respondents with monthly review cycles reported
significantly higher rates of performance on scope, quality and business benefits.
Satisfaction with budget and schedule performance did not vary as much with
changes in review frequency. Quarterly portfolio reviews and reviews less frequent
than quarterly are associated with a decline in the benefits of PfM. The risk of reduced
performance increased in all five performance indicators for organisations with a low
review frequency.

Figure 16: Distribution of portfolio management responsibility.


Key Finding: Leveraging
efficient and effective
communication methodologies
positively affected projects’
quality, scope, and business
benefits performance levels;
however, lower performance
levels were noted in meeting
schedule and budget objectives.
We looked at survey questions related
to the use of communication in a
project to understand its effect on
organisational success through the
five key performance areas of budget,
scope, quality, business benefits,
and schedule. In the review of three
uses of communication management
methodologies, (transparency in projects,
status reporting at all project levels, and
visibility of governance and leadership
to the project team and stakeholders),
a majority of respondents agreed
communication management is in use
in their organisation. Sixty-two percent
(62%) of respondents agreed there was
transparency and clear communication
around key decisions and actions; 66% of
respondents agreed that status reporting
at all levels is effective and includes
relevant, timely, verified and reliable
information in the appropriate format,
and 59% of respondents agreed that
governance and leadership are clearly
visible to the project and stakeholders.

We further examined the respondents that agreed that these types of communication
were evident on their projects, and found that projects that employed effective and
efficient communication methods were performing better in the areas of delivering
project scope (68%), meeting quality standards (66%) and delivering intended
business benefits (58%). While these results are encouraging, the data also showed
that projects employing effective communication mechanisms are only finishing
within budget 37% of the time and finishing on schedule only 27% of the time. This
is the same trend noted in the use of employing an organisation’s “typical” project
management approach. As mentioned earlier, respondents indicated that the number
one reason for project failure is poor estimates in the planning phase. Effective
communication may not alleviate project failures due to budget and scope estimating.
Figure 17: Use of Effective Communication and its Impact on Key Performance Indicators
(All Respondents)

To provide a deeper understanding of the use of communication methods, the
Executive Management level responses to the questions related to employing effective
and efficient communication methods were examined. Based on their responses, the
five key performance indicators improved. There was a 7% increase in delivering of
scope, 4% increase in meeting quality standards, 4% increase in delivering intended
business benefits, and 8% increase in finishing within or ahead of schedule. The largest
increase in the use of effective communication methodologies was found in finishing
within budget, which increased by 17%. This suggests that Executive Management
agrees that the use of communication methods have a higher positive effect on success
and failure of projects than the others groups within the survey population.
Figure 18: Use of Effective Communication and its Impact on Five Key Performance Indicators
(Executive Management Responses)

Insights and Trends: Current Portfolio, Programme, and Project Management Practices 23

Organisational Structure
As noted previously, the way an organisation is structured is fundamental to the
outcome of their project management performance. If organisational alignment is
underestimated or completely ignored by management, it can lead to lower project
performance. Our key findings in this area include the following aspects: resource
ownership; definition of clear roles and responsibilities; support and involvement of
senior and top management; and usage of a PMO.

Key Finding: PM was reported to be critical to business
performance and organisational success and enables business
growth.
For this year’s survey, we asked participants if project management is critical to
business performance and organisational success. As many as 97% of respondents
agreed that project management is critical to business performance and organisational
success and 94% agreed that project management enables business growth. In close
association, revenue generation was determined to be one of the top scoring drivers for
establishing a project which further demonstrates the critical role that effective project
management and execution plays in achieving intended results for the project and the
broader organisation. We further probed this area and asked respondents to estimate
the percentage of their projects that deliver required business results. Results further
validate the declining rate of project failures whereby nearly 58% of the respondents
reported that their projects deliver required projected business benefits greater than
76% of the time.

Key Finding: The majority of organisations are involved at the
national and international levels and the majority of respondents
agree that projects are supported by senior management.
Globalisation and the economic crisis have forced many organisations to rethink
their strategies and change the way they do business in order to thrive in uncertain
economic times. PM is no different and is evidenced in our finding, which suggests that
organisations are expanding their sphere of involvement from an internally focused
and driven project to a much broader and global approach to accomplishing project
and programme goals. For example, as noted in Figure 19, a combined total of 64%
of our respondents reported international and national level involvement in their
project which echoes the importance of organisational inclusion and collaboration thus
spanning departmental and geographical boundaries. Furthermore, approximately
84% of respondents reported that senior management supports their respective project
which may be a contributing factor to project success especially for projects that are
expanding from departmental to national and international levels. The appropriate
level of organisational involvement and stakeholder buy-in and support are important
elements of any programme and should not be underestimated and/or overlooked
especially given the unique complexities of global and multi-national faceted programs.

Figure 19: Levels of Organisational Involvement


Key Finding: Projects with
suitable project organisational
structures were also found to
have appropriately defined and
documented roles and
responsibilities within the
governance structure.
All too often, organisations under
estimate the impact poorly designed
organisational structures can have on
programme effectiveness. In our 2007
Global PM survey, we explored the
importance and influence of organisation
structure and overall project performance
which revealed the higher the alignment
between organisational and business
needs, the higher overall project
performance. We revisited the premise in
our 2012 survey. We asked respondents if
suitable project organisational structures
exist on their project(s) that clearly
outlines the project team and reporting
relationships. It was interesting to see
such favourable responses where more
than 70% of respondents reported the
presence of a suitable organisation
structure.
For those who responded unfavourably
to the same question, we conducted cross
comparisons to assess the relationship
between organisational structure and
appropriately defined and documented
roles and responsibilities within the
governance structure. Survey data
reveals an undeniable positive correlation
between organisations that do not have
a suitable organisation structure in
place and those without appropriately
defined and documented roles and
responsibilities within the governance
structure. Since organisational structure
provides the foundation for roles and
positions, hierarchical levels and spans
of responsibility, it is not surprising to see
such a positive correlation between these
elements. Poor organisational design
and structure can result in unnecessary
role and responsibility ambiguity and
confusion, a lack of accountability and
less coordination among functions.

Key Finding: There is evidence
of alignment between both
project scope and portfolio and
organisational business strategy.

Key Finding: Quality
Management Systems may be a
worthwhile investment for
vendors.

Organisational business strategy is
intended to drive all decisions within
an organisation. It provides a direction,
a rallying point, and basis for decision
making. Hence, it only stands to reason
that organisational business strategy
should form the basis and drive project
portfolio and scope. Effective portfolio
management should map well to
organisational strategy and business
goals. Misalignments and conflicts in
these areas can threaten the success of
a programme with the most effective
project manager and staff - this can
make or break a programme. We
asked respondents two questions.
First, to respond to the statement:
There is a strong correlation between
my organisation’s strategy and our
project portfolio. Approximately 80%
of respondents provided a favourable
response. Similarly, we asked respondents
to respond to the statement: There is no
conflict between the project scope and my
organisation’s overall business strategy.
Results suggest that approximately 70%
of respondents perceived there was
no conflict between project scope and
overall business strategy, which may
prove to be impacting the performance
and achievement of project goals. With
increased alignment of projects with
business strategy, organisations can
expect greater project portfolio impact on
business success.

Quality Management Systems establish
a framework for how organisations
manage key processes and are creating
the next wave of thinking about the
management of projects and potential
benefits that can be realised. They can
also help new projects start off on the
right foot by ensuring processes meet
recognised standards, clarify business and
project objectives and avoiding expensive
implementation mistakes which can put
project and business outcomes at risk.
Within the 2012 survey, we examined
the extent to which organisations are
requiring vendors to have Quality
Management Systems and its impact on
the achievement of quality objectives in
projects. There appears to be a positive
correlation between organisations
that require vendors to have a Quality
Management System and their projects’
ability to meet the organisation’s quality
standards. While only 35% of our
respondents reported a requirement
to have all vendors to have a Quality
Management System, respondents who
strongly agreed that their organisation
requires all vendors to have Quality
Management Systems had more
projects (90% or greater) meet their
organisations quality standards versus
those organisations that do not have this
requirement in place.


Key Finding: Established
project management offices
result in projects with higher
quality and business benefits.
Respondent feedback indicates a positive
relationship between the length of time a
PMO has been established and successful
project performance. In comparison to
organisations which said they do not use
a PMO, or have had a PMO in place for
less than six years, organisations who
establish a PMO for six years or longer
reported higher performance in two of
the performance indicators, as shown
in Figure 20. Survey data indicates that
using an established PMO will result in
projects delivering high quality (74%)
and achieving the intended business
benefits (62%).
Employing a PMO is one of many
methods to institute standardized project
management processes and project
controls in an organisation. Although the
majority of organisations (66%) currently
use a PMO, this is a decline from 2007,
when 80% of organisations reported
having a PMO. However, organisations
which do not use a PMO reported similar
success rates in the key performance
indicators with organisations than had
a PMO for six years or longer, indicating
that other types of project organisational
structures or methodologies are being
employed. This is evidenced by the data,
which reports that 23% of organisations
not using a PMO structure use an agile
methodology.
Organisations which continue the use of
a PMO for longer timeframes benefit from
greater familiarity and adoption of project
processes throughout the organisation,
translating into better project
performance. Organisations with a PMO
implemented for six years or longer
have successfully communicated PMO
standards across the organisation at a
significantly higher rate (66%) than those
with a shorter term project management
office (47%).

Figure 20: Comparison of Project Success Rates Based on Length of Time Using a PMO

Key Finding: A majority of organisations do not conduct regular
evaluations of their PMO and also do not consistently measure
benefits or returns from the PMO.
As noted in earlier, using a PMO contributes to improved project performance;
however, organisations currently do not consistently evaluate and measure the
success or returns on investment (ROI) of the PMO. As shown in Figure 21, 29% of
organisations never evaluate their PMO and 30% conduct evaluations on an annual
basis. However, the 14% of organisations which evaluate their PMO on a monthly
basis also measure their PMO for ROI (65% of the time). Those organisations that
never evaluate their PMO measure their ROI only 9% of the time. Organisations can
benefit from finding similar positive correlations between using a PMO and project
performance, through conducting more regular evaluations of their PMO, as well as,
measuring for ROI.

Figure 21: Rate of Measuring for PMO ROI Based on Frequency of Evaluating
PMO Success Factors


People
Despite the challenges facing organisations in hiring highly talented people, it is vital to
project success to have a project management team that has the right skill sets,
experience and training to enable project success. Our key findings in this area consider
the following: project staff skills and experience; and development and training
programmes.

“Talent shortages and
mismatches are impacting
profitability now. One in
four CEOs said they were
unable to pursue a market
opportunity, or have had
to cancel or delay a
strategic initiative because
of talent. One in three is
concerned that skills
shortages impacted their
company’s ability to
innovate effectively.”

Key Finding: Engaged, experienced key staff leads to project
success.
The project manager is a critical component of meeting the key performance
indicators. 87% of respondents reported successful project budget management within
their organisation also reported that their project managers have the relevant and
suitable experience managing projects similar in industry, project size, and business
area. In contrast, only 15% of respondents who reported their organisations did not
have project managers with relevant and suitable experience reported that their
organisations have successful business unit managers. The data suggests that trained
project and business unit managers increases project budget success.
Survey data also indicated that engaged business unit managers have the highest
correlation with project success. Other key staff types that contribute to project success
include dedicated and skilled quality managers, and trained and skilled quality review
staff. Approximately 80% of responses to questions regarding these four staff profiles
(See Figure 22) agreed that staff from their organisation meet these success profiles.
With these skilled professionals in place, the data suggests that an organisation may
avoid poor project performance.

- PwC 15th Annual Global CEO Survey 2012:
Delivering Results, Growth,
and Value in a Volatile World

Figure 22: Percentage of Respondents that Agree Staff Meets the Success Profiles


Key Finding: Training and staff development in the field of
project management has grown drastically, in a variety of forums.
We asked survey participants whether
their organisation utilize some form of
project management staff development.
Approximately 76% indicated
opportunities were available to obtain
training, up 32% from 2007. Respondents
were then asked the question: “Which
medium does your company utilize
to have project management training
delivered?” As shown in Figure 23,
classroom settings and online selfstudies were the top two training options
being used in organisations today.
The breakdown of training options
organisations are using is depicted in
Figure 23.

Figure 23: The Breakdown of Training Options Organisations are Using

Over half the participants agreed that
ample time and adequate technology
was provided for PM training and
development. Survey data also showed
that 55% of respondents felt training was
continuously improving from lessons
learned and new information. Since
these numbers are just slightly over half,
organisations may benefit from improving
in these areas. The survey also showed
that 67% of participants agreed that
project management training contributes
to business performance.
As noted in Figure 24, of the respondents
that indicated training was available,
survey data showed that a majority
of their projects performed higher
in three of the five key performance
indicators - scope (70%), quality (69%)
and business benefits (59%). However,
respondents that indicated training was
available also reported lower project
performance within the budget (39%)
and schedule (29%) key performance
areas. This statistic isn’t surprising since
respondents indicated that the number
one reason for project failure is poor
estimates in the planning phase. Current
training programs may not include
budget and schedule estimating in the
planning phase. Survey data suggests
that organisations may benefit from
developing robust training programs
around the area of estimating.

Figure 24: Trainings Impact on Business Performance


Systems and Tools
As noted previously, organisations purchase and create systems and tools to automate and support their project management
processes. But oftentimes, a great deal of money is spent on systems that are subsequently not used. The key findings in this area
consider the following: the use and benefits of leveraging software (project management, portfolio management, and Agile); and
the benefits and use of earned value management.

Figure 25: Types of PfM Software in Use

Key Finding: The use of commercially available PfM software
drives higher levels of portfolio performance and greater
satisfaction with an organisation’s project management practices.
Commercial off-the Shelf packaged software has grown in sophistication since the last
survey and in this edition we asked about PfM software adoption for the first time.
56% percent of respondents who reported using PfM also reported using software,
with 21% using Commercial off-the Shelf packages, 19% using Commercial off-the
Shelf packages with customization, and 17% reporting use of internally developed
software.
The majority of the increase in performance and satisfaction is obtained by deploying
specialized PfM software. Customization of Commercial off-the Shelf packages
actually led to slightly lower levels of performance and satisfaction. Internal
development of tailored applications offered mixed results with portfolios at the
smaller end of the scale seeing improvements in performance but less consistent gains
for mid to large scale portfolios.

Key Finding: The Scrum process is the predominant Agile PM
methodology in use.
Most organisations which are using an Agile PM methodology employ the Scrum
process, as shown in Figure 26, and the second most common is Lean and Test-driven
Development (TDD). Data indicates that Scrum practices are the most well-known
and/or most frequently used Agile PM methodology.

Figure 26: Projects Using Agile Tools/Processes


Key Finding: Earned Value Management (EVM) is more heavily
relied upon in the United States and is found as a useful tool, but
has yet to gain popularity or use due to a lack of EVM expertise and
experience.
In the 2007 Global PM Survey, the top
three reasons identified by respondents
for project failure were bad estimates/
missed deadlines (schedule), scope
changes (scope) and insufficient
resources (costs) which are all internal
project factors. These factors, commonly
referred to as the ‘triple constraint’ in
the project management framework,
are combined and measured under

Figure 27: Reasons for Not Using EVM in Organisations

As shown in Figure 28, the main
practitioners of EVM within organisations
are project managers who are primarily
responsible for the project’s scope,
schedule and resources, followed by
programme managers that manage a
portfolio of projects.

under EVM. EVM is a management
methodology through the integration
of scope, schedule and costs used to
objectively measure project performance.
The third survey takes a closer look at the
use of Earned Value Management and its
correlation to the success of projects in
organisations.
The survey showed that 40% of
participants use EVM in their
organisations with the United States
having the most respondents that always
use the methodology, followed by
Australia and Canada. The main reason
respondents cited for rarely or never using
EVM in their organisation is due to a lack
of EVM expertise and experience. This
is consistent with the organisations that
do not have certified EVM professionals,
which were 68% of the respondents.
The survey results indicated that project
management training contributes to high
performance across the key indicators;
therefore more training on EVM may
be needed within organisations. Other
reasons identified for rarely or not using
EVM are listed in Figure 27 where the high
cost/time commitment, and tedious data
collection and reporting procedure were
the next main areas.

Figure 28: Main Practitioners of EVM by Organisational Role


The top three industries that reported their organisations always or usually use EVM
in their organisations were Information Technology (42%), Consulting (26%) and
Telecommunications (21%) as shown in Figure 29.

Figure 29: Main Practitioners of EVM by Industry

EVM has been used by half of the survey
respondents for over five years to track
projects, with the Defense, Energy and
Information Technology industries
using the methodology for over ten
(10) years. The survey data showed
that EVM is a requirement for 32% of
organisations with projects within US$1
million to US$5 million and 40% for
ones that are more than US$5 million.
In the Information Technology industry,
it is a requirement for projects (21%)
in excess of US$10 million to use EVM.
The majority (54%) of the Public Sector
required EVM for projects valued at less
than US$5M. The Public Sector also
required EVM (23%) for projects valued
at US$20M or more.
Most organisations that utilize EVM
attribute the use of EVM towards
project success (62%); as a useful
tool to predict project success (73%);
and enabling leaders to use EVM
metrics to assess project status (51%).
Organisations that are using EVM have
projects that successfully met three
of the key performance indicators: to
scope (82%), meeting quality standards
(84%) and delivering business benefits
(80%). However, the data showed that
organisations using EVM did not show a
majority of projects being complete on
time (35%) or within budget (45%). This
is consistent with the survey findings on
project management training, where the
results indicated more robust training
programs are required in the areas of
budget and schedule. While EVM is a
preferred methodology for organisations
to manage their projects’ scope, cost and
schedule, qualified or knowledgeable
staff is needed to validate and interpret
the data; while proactive project
management and risk mitigation is
needed to effectively use the information
to execute corrective actions to get the
project back on track. Having experienced
and engaged EVM staff leads to project
success.


31

Appendix
Portfolio Management and Software – The European Perspective
The purpose of the European Appendix is to see if there was a greater adoption rate and any further insights into Portfolio
Management and Software in Europe.
Summary
133 respondents within Europe provided information about their PfM practices. Adoption in Europe is 54% which is in line with
the global benchmark of previous years and is slightly higher than the 53% adoption rate from this year’s global survey. Themes
which emerged in Europe echoed the Global picture. What was striking amongst European respondents was how critical the role of
prioritisation criteria played.

Key Finding: Organisations
that adopt portfolio
management can experience
greater satisfaction in their
project performance.
The positive effects of PfM can be seen
in user satisfaction with each of five
key indicators of performance and on
additional characteristics of project
management (Governance, Risk
Management, Resource Management,
and Change Control). Overall portfolio
management leads to overall higher
satisfaction with project performance;
however, the European data showed
different aspects of improved satisfaction
in project performance in portfolios of
different sizes of value:

Figure 30: Adoption of Portfolio Management by Industry

• Less than $1M: projects performed
better on delivering project quality
when using PfM. However, for smaller
portfolios (less than 20 projects) the
results were more marked where, the
use of PfM can improve satisfaction
with project performance to deliver
on schedule and realizing business
benefits.
• Between $1M and $10M: (or
portfolios of between 20 and 100
projects) PfM can improve satisfaction
on project performance on schedule,
and on budget.
• Greater than $10M: there was
improved performance on budget, on
delivery of scope and quality when
using PfM.


Key Finding: Align your portfolio with the organisation strategy
to improve satisfaction of project performance around budget,
scope, and quality and benefits realisation.
Responses in Europe strongly echoed the global picture in that the most important
factor in the success of PfM is alignment of the means of managing the portfolio with
the organisation strategy. The positive effects of strategic alignment lead to the higher
levels of stakeholder satisfaction with project performance around budget, scope,
quality and benefits.

Key Finding: Apply Prioritization Criteria to improve benefits
realization, quality and budget management.
Agreed criteria from which to prioritise the portfolio of projects has been a critical
factor to be considered within portfolio management. Agreeing criteria improves
satisfaction on project performance indicators. In particular it improves satisfaction in
the delivery of scope, quality and benefits realization.

Key Finding: Conduct Monthly Portfolio Reviews to improve
satisfaction with project performance to meet quality standards,
deliver to scope and benefits.
Performance of the portfolio should be reviewed by all stakeholders to ensure it meets
their needs. For respondents who say the performance of their portfolio is reviewed
by all stakeholders monthly, there was a positive correlation in regards to the number
of projects meeting quality standards, delivering within scope and realising benefits.
Where the portfolio is reviewed more frequently than just monthly, each of the five key
performance indicators has a positive correlation. This remains consistent with this
year’s global survey data.

Key Finding: Use Portfolio Management Software and an
Enterprise PMO to manage your Portfolio to improve your
satisfaction with project performance.
Within Europe the use of PfM Software is regarded as a key enabler of Project Portfolio
Management. The research concluded that software makes a positive impact on
satisfaction regarding project performance, in particular around: budget, scope,
quality and benefits realisation.
Globally, nearly 70% of respondents who reported using PfM also reported that their
Enterprise PMO was responsible for the effort. Results varied by region and sector with
private enterprises deploying PfM through their Enterprise PMO at a slightly higher
rate and Europe having the lowest level of Enterprise PMO involvement. The portfolio
performance levels of respondents whose PfM programs are managed by an Enterprise
PMO are consistently twice as high as those whose portfolios are managed by other
groups or individuals. This holds true for all indicators of performance.


Acknowledgements
PwC would also like to thank the
following individuals for their
contribution in preparing this
year’s report.

Matthew Liberty
Public Sector Marketing Director
Randy Loyer
Director
Shobha Mahabir
Senior Associate
Douglas McNaught
Senior Consultant
Peggy Sue McNulty
Senior Associate
John R Merrick
Experienced Associate
Gavin Mitchell
Senior Associate

Jeffrey Anthony
Benchmarking & Survey
Services Manager

Jason Dolfi
Manager of Organisation Products
Project Management Institute (PMI)

Melanie Avery
Senior Associate

Kimberly Easterling
Manager

Robin L Myers
Senior Associate

Kaushiki M Bagchi
Manager

Shannon Espersen
Manager

Eliza Nagle
Director

Kenneth Barr
Manager

Scott G Fass
Managing Director

Mary Beth Papadakis
Senior Associate

Laura Beet
Associate

Steve Genn
Director

Jonathan Pollock
Associate

Rob Blumor
Partner

Christian Germain
Director

John Ready
Director

Alexandra K Bono

Sandie Grimshaw
Partner

Sae Ro
Senior Associate

Scott Bryce
Senior Manager

Michael Hall
Senior Associate

Carly Rockstroh
Senior Associate

Hannah Chung
Manager

Joigie S Hayes
Manager

Anoop Shroof
Director

Heather Collins
Manager

Lauren M Hernandez
Senior Associate

Myrna Snider
Manager

Stephen Crane
Consultant

Ime Husken
Strategy and Operations Analyst

Roland Springer
Manager

Daniel Cusimano
Director

Sun H. Hwang

Harry Stefanou
Project Management Institute (PMI)

Angela D’Agostino
Graphic Design Manager

Irene John

Carol Tansley
Director

Lauren D’Amato
Senior Graphic Designer

Adil Khan
Manager

Christina Vanecek
Public Sector Marketing Manager

Kathryn Dame
Senior Associate

Anh-Tuan Le
Senior Associate

Martijn van Zomeren
Assistant Manager

Amanda Dick

Stephen Leftwich
Senior Associate

Kim Wolkins
Joint Business Relationship Coordinator

Nannette L Mitchell
Senior Associate


Contact Details
Amanda Clack
United Kingdom
amanda.clack@uk.pwc.com
+44 (0)20 7804 6930
Scott Fass
United States
scott.g.fass@us.pwc.com
+1 (703) 918 1254
Marla Graeber
United States
marla.a.graeber@us.pwc.com
+1 (267) 330 2517
Darren Honan
Australia
darren.honan@au.pwc.com
+61 (3) 8603 3104
John Ready
United States
john.ready@us.pwc.com
+1 (703) 918 1641


www.pwc.com
PwC firms help organisations and individuals create the value they’re looking for. We’re a network of firms in 158 countries with close to 169,000 people who are committed to
delivering quality in assurance, tax and advisory services. Tell us what matters to you and find out more by visiting us at www.pwc.com.
© 2012 PricewaterhouseCoopers. All rights reserved. PwC refers to the PwC network and/or one or more of its member firms, each of which is a separate legal entity. Please see
www.pwc.com/structure for further details. This content is for general information purposes only, and should not be used as a substitute for consultation with professional advisors.

Insights and Trends: Current Portfolio, Programme, and Project Management Practices

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Insights and Trends: Current Portfolio, Programme, and Project Management Practices (20)

More from CollectiveKnowledge (18)

Recently uploaded (20)

Insights and Trends: Current Portfolio, Programme, and Project Management Practices