ANALYZING THE TASK-MATURITY LEVEL. THE EXAMPLE OF A POLISH PRIVATE UNIVERSITY

The issue of management efficiency is an extremely important subject of theoretical considerations and a significant practical problem as well. It applies to enterprises, public institutions and non-governmental organizations. It is impossible to omit it in the context of the functioning of modern universities. There are a number of system solutions in the literature that are aimed at ensuring high efficiency. A number of process management concepts can be indicated, as well as project management methodologies. In fact, for many contemporary organizations both types of activity (project and process) are extremely important. This justifies the search for concepts combining both approaches.

The aim of the paper is to present a pilot study of the level of a task-oriented organization in one of the Polish private universities. It was assumed that the adoption of the presented approach serves to ensure high operational and strategic efficiency. To analyze the situation, the method of AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) was used. The task-orientated model, proposed by J. Strojny, was assessed by a group of internal experts. An assessment was made in two dimensions: the significance of the model elements and the level of maturity of the organization under study. Expert marks were agreed upon within a Focus Group Interview. Marks for criteria and a general mark on the level of maturity were aggregated using a weighted average. The results were analyzed in terms of cognitive, methodological and utilitarian aspects.

Full text (pdf)

1. Andersen E.S., Jessen S.A., Project maturity in organizations, “International Journal of Project Management”, 21(6), 2003, p. 457–461.
2. Baran M., Strojny J., Kompleksowe podejście do zarządzania projektami na przykładzie uczelni wyższej, „Przedsiębiorczość i Zarządzanie”, Wydawnictwo SAN, XIV.12.I, 2013,
   p. 247–262.
3. Brookes N., Clark R. Using Maturity Models to Improve Project Management Practice, 2009 [online:] Available at: http://pomsmeetings.org/ConfProceedings/011/FullPapers/
   011-0288.pdf [Assessed 18 September 2017].
4. Cooke-Davies T.J., Arzymanow A., The maturity of project management in different industries: An investigation into variations between project management models, “International Journal of Project Management” 21(6), 2003, p. 471–478.
5. Dodgson J.S., Spackman M., Pearman A., & Phillips L.D., Multi-criteria analysis:
   a manual, Department for Communities and Local Government, 2009.
6. Fuessinger E., Maturities of Project-Oriented Companies of About 15 Project-Oriented Nations, 2006 [online] Avaliable at: <http://www.icoste.org/Slovenia2006Papers/icecFina
   l00100.pdf> [Assessed 18 September 2017]
7. Gareis R., Happy Projects!, Manz, Vienna 2005.
8. Gasparski W., Prakseologia–wariacje na temat..., „Prakseologia” 150, 2010, p. 25–34.
9. Grant K.P, Pennypacker J.S., Project management maturity: An assessment of project management capabilities among and between selected industries, Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions, 53(1), 2006, p. 59–68.
10. Hammer M., Champy J., Reengineering w przedsiębiorstwie, Neumann Management
    Institute, Warszawa 1996.
11. International Project Management Association (IPMA), IPMA Organizational Competence Baseline – The standard for moving organizations forward, IPMA, Zurich, 2013.
12. Jackson T.L., Implementing a lean management system, CRC Press, Portland 1996.
13. Jackson M., Systems approaches to management, Springer Science & Business Media, New York 2007.
14. Kanji G.K., Total quality management: the second industrial revolution, “Total Quality Management”, 1(1), 1990, p. 3–12.
15. Kast F.E., Rosenzweig J.E., General systems theory: Applications for organization and management, “Academy of management journal”, 15(4), 1972, p. 447–465.
16. Kerzner H., Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling and Controlling. 11 Edition,John Wiley & Sons, Ohio 2013.
17. Kerzner H.R., Using the project management maturity model: strategic planning for project management, John Wiley & Sons, Ohio 2011.
18. Kolesar P.J., What Deming told the Japanese in 1950, “Quality Management Journal”, 2(1), 1994, p. 9–24.
19. Kotarbiński T., Traktat o dobrej robocie, Ossolineum, Wrocław–Warszawa–Kraków–Gdańsk 1973.
20. Kowal W., Skuteczność i efektywność–zróżnicowane aspekty interpretacji, „Organizacja
    i Kierowanie”, 157(4), 2013, p. 11–22.
21. Kwak Y.H, Ibbs C.W., Assessing project management maturity, “Project Management
    Journal” 31(1), 2000, p. 32–43.
22. Lampel J., Pushkar P.J., Models of project orientation in multiproject organizations [in:] P. Morris, Peter, J.K. Pinto (Ed.), The Wiley guide to managing projects, Hoboken, John Wiley & Sons, New York 2004, p. 223–236.
23. Lianyinga L., Jinga H., Xinxinga Z., The Project Management Maturity Model and Application Based on PRINCE2, Procedia Engineering, 29, 2012, p. 3691–3697.
24. Lisek-Michalska J., Daniłowicz P. (Ed.), Zogniskowany wywiad grupowy. Studia nad metodą, Wyd. Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, Łódź 2009.
25. Mazur M., Pojęcie systemu i rygory jego stosowania, „Postępy Cybernetyki” 10(2), 1987, p. 25–33.
26. Mazurkiewicz A., Sprawność działania – interpretacja teoretyczna pojęcia, Nierówności Społeczne a Wzrost Gospodarczy, (20), 2011, p. 47–57.
27. Midgley G. (Ed.)., Systems thinking, Sage, London 2003.
28. Munns A.K., Bjeirmi B.F., The role of project management in achieving project success, International, “Journal of Project Management”, 14(2), 1996, p. 81–87.
29. Mynarski S., Elementy teorii systemów i cybernetyki, Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Warszawa 1981.
30. Office of Government Commerce (OGC). Managing Successful Projects with PRINCE2^TM, TSO, London 2009.
31. Powell T.C., Total quality management as competitive advantage: a review and empirical study, “Strategic Management Journal”, 16(1), 1995, p. 15–37.
32. PMI – Project Management Institute, Organizational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3®) – Third Edition, PMI, Pennsylvania 2013.
33. PMI – Project Management Institute, A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide), 5th Edition. PMI, Pensylvania 2013.
34. Prusak A., Strojny J., Stefanów P., Analityczny Proces Hierarchiczny (AHP) na skróty – kluczowe pojęcia i literatura, „Humanities and Social Sciences”, 4/2014, p. 179–192.
35. Prusak A., Stefanów P., AHP – analityczny proces hierarchiczny, CH Beck, Warszawa 2014.
36. Pszczołowski T., Zasady sprawnego działania. Wstęp do prakseologii, Wiedza Powszechna, Warszawa 1982.
37. Quin A.J., Cybernetics in management, Systems Science, Springer US, 1993, p. 199–204.
38. Rodney T.J., Müller R., On the nature of the project as a temporary organization, “International Journal of Project Management”, 21(1), 2003, p. 1–8.
39. Saaty T.L., Fundamentals of decision making, RWS Publications, Pittsburgh 1994.
40. Saaty T.L., The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill, New York 1980.
41. Singh J., Singh H., Kaizen philosophy: a review of literature, “IUP Journal of Operations Management”, 8(2), 2009, p. 51–72.
42. Strojny J., Task-Oriented Organization Model – documentation, unpublished materials, Rzeszów 2015.
43. Strojny J., Organizacyjne i proceduralne uwarunkowania zarządzania projektami w jednostce samorządu terytorialnego, „Modern Management Review”, 19.21(2), 2014,
    p. 49–160.
44. Trzaskalik T., Wielokryterialne wspomaganie decyzji. Przegląd metod i zastosowań, Zeszyty Naukowe Politechniki Śląskiej, OiZ, 74, 2014, p. 239–263.