Received: 03/06/24 Reviewed: 30/09/2024 Accepted: 16/10/2024

Introduction

In academia, the concept of project maturity refers to the ability of an organization to evaluate and recognize itself autonomously, identifying its usual practices in comparison with an established standard. This organizational maturity is also linked to the capacity of the economic entity to evolve, improving its practices, processes and protocols in order to advance in the selected maturity scale (Solarte and Sanchez, 2014, cited in Higuera, 2019, p. 13).

According to Aguiar, Pereira, Vasconcelos and Bianchi (2018), a maturity model presents a sequence of levels applicable to a category of elements, which represents an anticipated or desired evolution of these objects in well-defined stages.

 Project maturity in an organization can be understood as its ability to advance in both strategic and operational project management competencies. Wojciechowska (2023) defines project maturity as the ability of an organization to effectively select and manage a portfolio of projects, aligned with its strategy and objectives, and apply management methodologies that facilitate successful execution.

In this context, maturity models also serve as tools that foster common understanding and consensus among the organization's managers. Klimko (2002) and Paulk (cited in Solarte and Sanchez, 2014, in Higuera, 2019) explain that, although ISO 9000 standards establish minimum criteria for quality management, maturity models provide a complete view of the continuous improvement process.

Bartolome (2022) argues that maturity models are concepts that allow organizations to structure their processes and areas, progressing in maturity levels that reflect improvements in efficiency and organizational success. In addition, Garcia-Mireles, Moraga and Garcia (2019) describe a process maturity model as a structured set of elements that characterizes efficient and effective processes at different stages of development, providing an evolutionary path that guides the organization towards higher quality products and services.

Atoum and Ayyagari (2019) indicate that CMMI is a reference model in software process improvement, which increases efficiency and productivity in organizational projects, although it leaves room for each organization to implement its own development methods.

The Capability Maturity Model (CMM) was developed in 1987 by the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) at the Carnegie-Mellon University Research Center (USA), in response to the need of the U.S. military and government structures to assess the capability of contractors in software development. Later, in 2000, this model evolved into the Capability Maturity Model Integrated (CMMI®), which allows to evaluate not only the maturity in development processes, but also in organizational processes, such as procurement and material support. Since 2006, CMMI® has been divided into three specific models (Nikolaenko and Sidorov, 2023, p. 3).

Woźniak and Sliż (2023) note that most project maturity models focus exclusively on project management processes. However, Kerzner's PMMM model offers a more comprehensive perspective by incorporating elements of the EFQM excellence model, which allows for a more complete organizational assessment in terms of project management. According to Kerzner, project maturity involves the development of repetitive systems and processes, which, although they do not guarantee success, increase its probability.

Khan and Mansur (2013) explain that project management maturity models (PMMMs) are fundamentally divided into two categories: one based on a staged representation of maturity, as in the case of CMMI, which follows the incremental maturity approach proposed by Watts Humphrey, and one based on a non-staggered representation, as in the OPM3 model. The CMMI staged structure has been widely accepted among academics and organizations, and has influenced most of today's maturity models, with a few exceptions such as OPM3.

According to Piña Ararat and Bazurto Roldán (2022), the project management maturity model is defined as a structured set of elements, such as best practices, measurement tools and analysis criteria, that allow evaluating project management capabilities in an organization, identifying areas for improvement and promoting continuous improvement processes. In this sense, the OPM3 model offers a structure for organizations to assess their level of project management maturity and draw up an improvement plan, promoting a culture of project management and return on investment.

For its part, the P3M3 model (Portfolio, Programme, and Project Management Maturity Model), according to AXELOS (2019), is composed of three specific models covering project management (PjM3), programs (PgM3) and portfolios (PfM3). This facilitates an integral improvement in each of these areas of organizational management, allowing the model to be adapted to the specific needs of each organization and its different contexts.

In the field of social impact assessment, the Social Impact Assessment (SIA) approach of the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) promotes the integration of social issues in the planning and implementation of projects, which improves their quality and sustainability (Kvam, 2018; Inter-American Development Bank (IDB)). 

Although the smart city maturity model developed by MDPI is not specifically oriented to social development projects, Aljowder et al. (2023) note that it offers a framework for assessing performance in functional areas, including social, providing a comprehensive view of strengths and weaknesses.

Once the maturity models have been analyzed and their similarities and differences have been highlighted, it can be inferred that there are sufficient inputs to propose the design of a new maturity model focused on development and social impact projects. To this end, it is also necessary, from a methodological point of view, to select a best practices guide or appropriate methodology for the management of these projects, in order to achieve a precise and effective approach in the new model to be designed. This is precisely what this article will work on, developing an effective conceptual and methodological framework to address the specific challenges of development and social impact projects.

Method

In order to select the most appropriate project management methodology for the design of the proposed project maturity model, it is crucial to perform an exhaustive analysis of 9 project management methodologies and best practices. This analysis will be based on ten essential elements for the management of development and social impact projects: 1) legal and policy framework, 2) social context assessment, 3) stakeholder analysis and meaningful participation, 4) identification of benefits and opportunities, 5) identification of risks, 6) definition of indicators, baseline and data collection methodology, 7) reflection of social aspects in project design and implementation, 8) incorporation of social aspects in the project management system, 9) production and dissemination of reports and plans, and 10) monitoring, adaptive management and evaluation. Elements as proposed by (Kvam, 2018) (Inter-American Development Bank (IDB)).

Using an inductive categorization approach (Pantoja Vallejo, 2015, p. 306), the analysis of the information sources was carried out in order to answer the research questions: what is the most appropriate project management methodology to propose a maturity model design for development and social impact projects? How are the methodologies studied classified and how was the most appropriate one selected?

In order to carry out this analysis, the methodologies and/or best practices identified in PMBOK, PRINCE2, P2M, ITIL, SCRUM, PM4R, PMDPRO, ICB IPMA and ISO 21500 were evaluated. Each methodology is weighted according to how well it meets the ten key elements of social impact assessment, which are described below:

1. Legal and Regulatory Framework

The methodology must be able to integrate with local and international legal and regulatory frameworks. PMBOK and PRINCE2 are known for their adaptability to different regulatory contexts, providing a solid basis for compliance with legal and regulatory requirements. PM4R is also aligned with regulatory frameworks, especially in the context of projects financed by the World Bank, Inter-American Development Bank and other development entities.

2. Evaluation of the Social Context

 For development and social impact projects, the evaluation of the social context is fundamental. PMDPRO and PM4R are specifically designed for development projects and excel in social environment assessment. PM4R provides specific tools and methods to understand and address the social and economic needs of the beneficiary communities.

3. Stakeholder Analysis and Meaningful Participation 

Stakeholder management is crucial to the success of social development projects. PMBOK and PRINCE2 include robust processes for stakeholder analysis and management. However, PM4R and PMDPRO focus on meaningful stakeholder participation, which is essential to ensure community buy-in and support.

4. Identification of Benefits and Opportunities

Evaluating and maximizing benefits is essential. PRINCE2 focuses on continuous business justification and benefits realization. PM4R, on the other hand, focuses on specific results and tangible benefits for development projects, which makes it highly suitable for social impact projects.

5. Risk Identification 

Risk management is a key component in all methodologies. PMBOK is particularly strong in this area with well-defined processes for risk identification and management. PM4R also includes sound risk management adapted to development projects, considering social, economic and environmental factors.

6. Definition of Indicators, Baseline and Data Collection Methodology

 PMBOK and PRINCE2 provide solid frameworks for defining indicators and data management, essential for establishing baselines and measuring project success. PM4R excels in this aspect, offering specific tools for data collection and impact measurement in development projects.

7. Reflection of Social Aspects in Project Design and Implementation

PMDPRO and PM4R stand out in the integration of social aspects in all phases of the project, from design to execution. PM4R, in particular, incorporates social and economic development elements into its approach, ensuring that projects are inclusive and sustainable.

8. Incorporation of Social Aspects into the Project Management System

ISO 21500 are methodologies that allow the incorporation of social aspects within a project management system, promoting holistic management. PM4R, with its focus on results and development, also effectively integrates social aspects into project management.

9. Production and Dissemination of Reports and Plans

PRINCE2 and PMBOK have detailed structures for the production and disclosure of reports, ensuring transparency and effective communication with all stakeholders. PM4R emphasizes the importance of accountability and transparency in development projects, providing clear guidelines for reporting and planning.

10. Monitoring, Adaptive Management and Evaluation 

SCRUM, with its agile and iterative approach, is effective for monitoring and adaptive management. However, PM4R and PMDPRO provide a more specific and results-oriented framework for ongoing and adaptive evaluation, which is crucial for development and social impact projects.

Justification for the Selection of Methodologies 

The selection of the nine project management methodologies is based on their ability to address the unique requirements of development and social impact projects, with an emphasis on adaptability to different contexts and applicability in diverse regulatory frameworks. Each methodology was carefully evaluated in relation to the ten key management elements, through a process of analysis that made it possible to identify and classify its strengths and limitations. This comparative approach seeks to establish a solid basis for the design of the proposed maturity model, ensuring that it incorporates practices that optimize social impact and promote efficient and adaptive management.

Results

The analysis revealed that the PM4R (Project Management for Results) methodology stood out as the most appropriate due to its strong alignment with development and social impact objectives. PM4R provides specific tools for social context assessment and stakeholder management, integrating social aspects in all project phases. It also emphasizes the importance of accountability and transparency, which is crucial for development projects (World Bank, 2021).

PMDPRO (Project Management for Development Professionals) also scored highly, being particularly strong in the evaluation of social context and stakeholder involvement. It is specifically designed for development projects, which makes it well suited for these types of initiatives (PM4NGOs, 2017).

ISO 21500 provides guidelines that can be aligned with international standards and allows the incorporation of social aspects within a project management system. Its flexibility and focus on quality make it suitable for development and social impact projects (ISO, 2012).

PRINCE2 stands out for its continuous business justification and benefits realization, in addition to its robust processes for stakeholder analysis and management. Its detailed structure for the production and disclosure of reports ensures transparency and effective communication (Axelos, 2017).

PMBOK (Project Management Body of Knowledge) is strong in risk management and in the definition of indicators and data collection methodologies. Although not specifically designed for development projects, its adaptability and robust structure make it a viable option (Project Management Institute, 2021).

ICB IPMA (International Competence Baseline for Project, Programme & Portfolio Management) offers a comprehensive approach to project, program and portfolio management, but does not focus specifically on social development projects (International Project Management Association, 2015).

P2M (Project and Program Management for Enterprise Innovation) provides a good framework for project and program management, but does not focus specifically on social development, which limits its suitability for these types of projects (P2M Consortium, 2017).

SCRUM, with its agile and iterative approach, is effective for monitoring and adaptive management. However, its lack of specificity in social and normative aspects makes it less suitable for social development projects (Schwaber & Sutherland, 2020).

ITIL (Information Technology Infrastructure Library) is primarily a methodology for IT service management and, although it has some elements applicable to project management, it is not well suited to the specific requirements of development and social impact projects (AXELOS, 2019).

Results of the Analysis

The analysis of the nine project management methodologies under the ten essential elements yielded the following results, ordered from the most appropriate to the least appropriate to be considered as a standard methodological line to design a maturity model for development and social impact projects:

1. PM4R (Project Management for Results)
2. PMDPRO (Project Management for Development Professionals)
3. ISO 21500
4. PRINCE2
5. PMBOK (Project Management Body of Knowledge)
6. ICB IPMA (International Competence Baseline for Project, Programme & Portfolio Management)
7. P2M (Project and Program Management for Enterprise Innovation)
8. SCRUM
9. ITIL (Information Technology Infrastructure Library).

After a detailed analysis of the aforementioned methodologies, the result is that PM4R is the most appropriate methodology for the management of development and social impact projects. Its focus on specific results, integration of social aspects, and specific tools for social context assessment and stakeholder management make it highly effective for these types of projects. In addition, PM4R's flexibility to adapt to regulatory frameworks and its emphasis on accountability and transparency make it a robust option for designing a maturity model for development and social impact projects.

The following is a weighting matrix that evaluates the suitability of each methodology in terms of the ten elements mentioned above:

Table 1

Weighting of project management methodologies with respect to the 10 elements (SIA)[1]

Element	PMBOK	PRINCE2	P2M	ITIL	SCRUM	PM4R	PMDPRO	ICB IPMA	ISO 21500
Legal and regulatory framework	8	8	7	6	6	8	7	7	8
Evaluation of the social context	6	6	6	5	5	9	9	6	7
Stakeholder analysis and meaningful participation	8	8	7	6	6	9	9	7	7
Identification of benefits and opportunities	7	9	7	6	6	9	8	7	8
Risk identification	9	8	7	6	6	8	7	7	8
Definition of indicators, baseline and data collection methodology	8	8	7	6	6	9	8	7	8
Reflection of social aspects in project design and implementation	7	6	7	5	5	9	9	6	7
Incorporation of social aspects into the project management system	7	7	7	6	6	9	8	7	8
Production and dissemination of reports and plans	8	9	7	6	6	9	8	7	8
Monitoring, adaptive management and evaluation	7	7	7	6	8	9	8	7	8
Total weighting	75	76	69	58	60	88	81	68	77

Once the analyses, which were categorized inductively, were carried out, the results demonstrate the need to use the PM4R methodology and, together with the 10 elements considered by the Social Impact Assessment (SIA) approach, as fundamental tools for the design of the Maturity Model for development and social impact projects.

Design of the Maturity Model for Development and Social Impact Projects

Based on a review of the specialized literature on maturity models, we propose a maturity model design for development and social impact projects based on the PM4R (Project Management for Results) methodology and the 10 elements considered by the Social Impact Assessment (SIA) approach. This maturity model design aims to provide a clear and effective structure for assessing and improving the capabilities of organizations in the management of social development projects. The design of the model is structured in five levels, following the trend of most of the existing maturity models:

Level 1: Initial (Ad hoc)

At this level, project management is informal and reactive. There are no standard processes and projects are managed on an ad hoc basis. Practices are inconsistent and depend on the individual skills of project managers.

• Legal and regulatory framework: The organization lacks defined processes to comply with legal and regulatory requirements.
• Evaluation of the social context: There is no formal evaluation of the social context.
• Stakeholder analysis and meaningful participation: Stakeholder identification and management is limited and not systematic.
• Identification of benefits and opportunities: Benefits and opportunities are not formally identified.
• Risk identification: Risk management is reactive and not systematic.
• Definition of indicators, baseline and data collection methodology: There are no formal indicators or methodologies for data collection.
• Reflection of social aspects in project design and execution: Social aspects are inconsistently considered.
• Incorporation of social aspects in the project management system: Social aspects are not formally integrated into project management.
• Production and dissemination of reports and plans: The preparation of reports and plans is informal and not systematic.
• Monitoring, adaptive management and evaluation: Monitoring and evaluation are carried out on an ad hoc basis.

Level 2: Managed

At this level, basic processes and standard practices for project management begin to be established. The organization has some repetitive processes and there are attempts at formalization.

• Legal and regulatory framework: Basic procedures are established to comply with legal and regulatory requirements.
• Evaluation of the social context: Initial assessments of the social context are conducted.
• Stakeholder analysis and meaningful participation: Stakeholders are beginning to be identified and managed more systematically.
• Identification of benefits and opportunities: Benefits and opportunities are identified in a more structured way.
• Risk identification: Basic risk management processes are implemented.
• Definition of indicators, baseline and data collection methodology: Initial indicators and basic methodologies for data collection are established.
• Reflection of social aspects in project design and implementation: Social aspects are considered more consistently.
• Incorporation of social aspects in the project management system: Social aspects are beginning to be integrated into project management.
• Production and dissemination of reports and plans: The production and dissemination of reports and plans is formalized.
• Monitoring, adaptive management and evaluation: Basic monitoring and evaluation processes are implemented.

Level 3: Defined

At this level, project management processes are well defined and documented. The organization follows a standard approach for all projects and ensures consistency in the application of management practices.

• Legal and regulatory framework: Procedures to comply with legal and regulatory requirements are well defined and documented.
• Evaluation of the social context: Social context assessments are conducted in a systematic and documented manner.
• Stakeholder analysis and meaningful participation: Systematic and documented processes for stakeholder identification and management are implemented.
• Identification of benefits and opportunities: Benefits and opportunities are systematically identified and documented.
• Risk identification: Risk management is carried out in a systematic and documented manner.
• Definition of indicators, baseline and data collection methodology: Well-defined indicators and documented methodologies for data collection are established.
• Reflection of social aspects in project design and implementation: Social aspects are consistently integrated into project design and execution.
• Incorporation of social aspects in the project management system: Social aspects are formally integrated into the project management system.
• Production and dissemination of reports and plans: The production and dissemination of reports and plans is carried out in a systematic and documented manner.
• Monitoring, adaptive management and evaluation: Monitoring and evaluation processes are well defined and documented.

Level 4: Quantitatively Managed

At this level, the organization uses metrics and quantitative data to manage and control project management processes. Advanced tools are used to measure project performance and effectiveness.

• Legal and regulatory framework: Metrics are used to ensure compliance with legal and regulatory requirements.
• Evaluation of the social context: Social context assessments are conducted using quantitative data and metrics.
• Stakeholder analysis and meaningful participation: Metrics are used to measure stakeholder participation and impact.
• Identification of benefits and opportunities: Benefits and opportunities are quantified and metrics are used to measure their impact.
• Risk identification: Metrics are used to assess and manage risks in a quantitative manner.
• Definition of indicators, baseline and data collection methodology: Advanced methodologies and metrics are used for data collection and analysis.
• Reflection of social aspects in project design and implementation: Social aspects are integrated using quantitative data and metrics.
• Incorporation of social aspects in the project management system: Metrics are used to evaluate the integration of social aspects in project management.
• Production and dissemination of reports and plans: Reports and plans are produced using quantitative data and metrics.
• Monitoring, adaptive management and evaluation: Advanced tools and metrics are used for project monitoring and evaluation.

Level 5: Optimized

At this level, the organization seeks continuous improvement and innovation in project management. Advanced practices are implemented and a culture of learning and adaptation is fostered.

• Legal and regulatory framework: Advanced practices are implemented to ensure continuous compliance and improvement of legal and regulatory processes.
• Evaluation of the social context: Innovative approaches are used and continuous improvement is sought in the evaluation of the social context.
• Stakeholder analysis and meaningful participation: Advanced practices for meaningful engagement and stakeholder management are implemented.
• Identification of benefits and opportunities: New opportunities are continuously sought and project benefits are optimized.
• Risk identification: Advanced approaches are used for proactive risk management.
• Definition of indicators, baseline and data collection methodology: Advanced practices are implemented for indicator definition and data collection.
• Reflection of social aspects in project design and implementation: New ways of integrating social aspects into projects are continually sought.
• Incorporation of social aspects in the project management system: Processes are continuously optimized to integrate social aspects into project management.
• Production and dissemination of reports and plans: Advanced practices are implemented for the production and dissemination of reports and plans.
• Monitoring, adaptive management and evaluation: A culture of continuous improvement is fostered and advanced practices for project monitoring and evaluation are implemented.

The design of the maturity model for development and social impact projects, based on the PM4R methodology and the 10 elements of the Social Impact Assessment (SIA) approach, provides a clear and effective structure for assessing and improving the capabilities of organizations in the management of social development projects. This five-level model allows organizations to progress from initial and ad hoc practices to optimized and advanced practices, ensuring the integration of social aspects and the fulfillment of sustainable development objectives.

Figure 1

Proposed maturity levels for development and social impact projects

The image illustrates a maturity model of development and social impact projects through five levels, each represented by a bar of different height and color. The levels are ordered from lowest to highest, indicating upward progress in project management capability and sophistication. The arrows between the bars suggest a continuous transition and evolution between each level. This type of visual representation helps to understand how an organization can progress from initial, ad hoc practices to an optimized level, where continuous improvement and full integration of social aspects in project management is sought.

Interpretation of findings and comparison with previous studies

The findings highlight PM4R as the most appropriate methodology for development and social impact projects, due to its focus on the integration of social aspects, accountability and adaptation to regulatory frameworks, in line with studies by the World Bank (2021). In comparison, PMDPRO also shows high adequacy in managing social context and stakeholder engagement, as highlighted by studies by PM4NGOs (2017).

ISO 21500, although flexible and aligned with international standards (ISO, 2012), is less specific on social development issues compared to PM4R. On the other hand, PRINCE2 and PMBOK provide robustness in business justification, risk management and reporting, but with less focus on social impact (Axelos, 2017; PMI, 2021).

Taken together, this analysis and previous literature reinforce the relevance of PM4R for social projects, given its alignment with the ten elements of Social Impact Assessment (SIA). PM4R provides an ideal framework for building a maturity model that maximizes impact and sustainability in social development, an approach endorsed by Kvam (2018) and the IDB in moving towards the Sustainable Development Goals.

[1] Social Impact Assessment (SIA) approach

Discussion and Conclusions

The qualitative analysis conducted identified and adapted the key features of the most recognized maturity models, such as CMMI, OPM3, the Kerzner Model, PRINCE2 Maturity Model and P3M3, to formulate a framework that responds specifically to the challenges and needs of PM4R. This approach has revealed that an integrated, results-oriented maturity model not only improves the efficiency and effectiveness of project management, but also facilitates a culture of continuous improvement and adaptability in diverse contexts.

The PM4R methodology was highlighted as the most appropriate due to its strong alignment with development and social impact objectives. It provides specific tools for social context assessment and stakeholder management, integrating social aspects in all project phases. It also emphasizes the importance of accountability and transparency, which is crucial for development projects. These findings are consistent with existing literature, which suggests that a results-oriented approach is essential for the sustainability and success of social development projects (World Bank, 2021).

Proposed Maturity Model: The proposed maturity model design, based on PM4R and the 10 elements of the SIA approach, provides a clear and effective structure for assessing and improving the capabilities of organizations in the management of social development projects. This model design allows organizations to progress from initial and ad hoc practices to optimized and advanced practices, ensuring the integration of social aspects and the fulfillment of sustainable development objectives.

Importance of the PM4R Methodology: PM4R stands out for its focus on specific results, integration of social aspects and specific tools for social context assessment and stakeholder management. Its flexibility to adapt to regulatory frameworks and its emphasis on accountability and transparency make it a robust option for designing a maturity model for development and social impact projects.

Methodology Evaluation: The evaluation of the methodologies under the ten key elements revealed that PM4R is the most suitable methodology, followed by PMDPRO and ISO 21500. Methodologies such as PRINCE2, PMBOK, and ICB IPMA, while valuable, do not align as closely with the specific objectives of social development projects.

Limitations and Proposals for Continuity

Although the study provides a robust framework for the creation of a maturity model for social development projects, it has certain limitations. One of them is the reliance on the PM4R methodology and the ten elements of the Social Impact Assessment (SIA) as fundamental axes, which, although adequate for the social context, may require adjustments for different sectors or regions with different regulatory frameworks. In addition, by focusing on a qualitative analysis, the study does not quantitatively explore the impact of each methodology on the development of organizational capabilities, which could be a valuable area for further research.

This article is limited only to the proposed design of the project maturity model. The continuity of this work is being developed in a doctoral thesis that will propose the methodological development and implementation of the model, along with the data collection instruments, data processing and subsequent data analysis for the establishment of the maturity level for an organization. This process involves a case study in an organization dedicated to the structuring and management of development and social impact projects in southwestern Colombia.

In the future, it is recommended that longitudinal implementation studies be carried out to observe the progress of organizations in the proposed maturity levels, as well as to validate the model in different contexts and sectors. This will facilitate greater adaptability of the model and allow it to be refined, increasing its applicability in various social development scenarios. In addition, the incorporation of quantitative data analysis methods and the use of performance metrics could strengthen the model and provide empirical evidence of its effectiveness in improving the sustainability and impact of social projects.

Process in the Organization Case Study

In order to implement the maturity model in the organization dedicated to the structuring and management of development and social impact projects in the southwest of Colombia, a structured process will be followed that includes the following phases:

Initial evaluation

• Diagnosis: Conduct an initial comprehensive diagnosis of the organization to assess its current status in terms of its capacity to manage development projects and social impact.
• Identification of Existing Practices: Document current project management practices, identifying both strengths and areas for improvement.

Definition of indicators and methodologies

• Establishment of indicators: Define key indicators based on the 10 elements of the SIA approach.
• Data Collection Methodologies: Develop specific methodologies for the collection of data needed to evaluate the defined indicators.

Development of data collection instruments

• Surveys and Interviews: Design surveys and structured interviews to collect data from various stakeholders.
• Documentary Review: Review existing documents, project reports and other relevant records.

Model implementation

• Application of the Maturity Model: Apply the maturity model in the organization, using the defined indicators and methodologies to evaluate its current state.
• Level Assessment: Assess the organization against the five proposed maturity levels, identifying its current position.

Data analysis

• Data Processing: Analyze the data collected to identify patterns, trends and areas for improvement.
• Benchmarking: Benchmark the organization's performance against nationally and internationally recognized standards and best practices.

Development of improvement plans

• Action Plans: Develop specific action plans to address identified areas for improvement.
• Training and Development: Implement training programs to develop the necessary skills in the organization's personnel.

Implementation of improvements

• Execution of Improvement Plans: Execute the improvement plans developed, making adjustments as necessary.
• Monitoring and Evaluation: Continuously monitor the organization's progress towards higher levels of maturity and perform periodic assessments.

Documentation and reporting

• Progress Reports: Produce periodic reports documenting the organization's progress in implementing the maturity model.
• Recommendations: Provide recommendations based on findings from data analysis and ongoing evaluation.

Validation and adjustments

• Continuous Review: Validate the results obtained and adjust the maturity model as necessary.
• Stakeholder Feedback: Involve stakeholders to obtain feedback and ensure that the model responds to their needs and expectations.

The implementation of the development and social impact project maturity model in the case study organization will not only validate the proposed design, but will also provide practical guidance for other organizations seeking to improve their capabilities in managing development and social impact projects. This detailed process ensures that improvements are sustainable and aligned with the organization's strategic objectives, thus promoting a positive and lasting social impact.

Based on what has been recorded in this document, we recommend the implementation of the proposed maturity model, based on the PM4R methodology and the 10 elements of the Social Impact Assessment (SIA) approach, in organizations dedicated to the management of development and social impact projects. This model will not only provide a clear and effective structure for evaluating and improving organizational capabilities, but will also promote a culture of continuous improvement, accountability and transparency. Validation of the model through specific case studies, such as the one being developed in southwestern Colombia, will be crucial to demonstrate its effectiveness and adapt its components to diverse contexts, thus ensuring that organizations can achieve higher levels of maturity and sustainability in their social development initiatives.

References

Aguiar, J., Pereira, R., Vasconcelos, J. B., & Bianchi, I. (2018). An overlapless incident management maturity model for multi-framework assessment (ITIL COBIT CMMI-SVC). Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management, 13, 137-163. https://doi.org/10.28945/4083.

Aljowder, T., Ali, M., & Kurnia, S. (2023). Development of a maturity model for assessing smart cities: A focus area maturity model. Smart Cities, 6(4), 2150-2175. https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities6040099.

Atoum, I., & Ayyagari, M. R. (2019). CMMI-DEV implementation simplified: A spiral software model. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 10(4). 

Axelos. (2017). Managing Successful Projects with PRINCE2® 2017 Edition. TSO. 

Axelos. (2019). ITIL Foundation ITIL 4 Edition. TSO. 

Axelos. (2019). Portfolio, Programme, and Project Management Maturity Model (P3M3).

Bartolome, L. O. (2022). Portfolio, Programme, and Project Management (P3M3): An Assessment to Maturity Level. International Journal of English Literature and Social Sciences, 7(3). 

García-Mireles, G. A., Moraga, M. A., & García, F. (2019). Development of maturity models: A systematic literature review. In 16th International Conference on Evaluation & Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE 2012), 279-283. 

Higuera, E. (2019). Modelos de madurez en la gerencia de proyectos. Negonotas Docentes, 13, 11-22. 

International Project Management Association. (2015). IPMA Individual Competence Baseline for Project, Programme & Portfolio Management (4th Ed.). IPMA.

ISO. (2012). ISO 21500:2012 - Guidance on Project Management. International Organization for Standardization. 

Khan, F. J., & Mansur, A. K. (2013). Project Management Maturity Models and Organizational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3®): A Critical Morphological Evaluation. In International Conference on Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Economy. Lucerne, Switzerland. 

Kvam, R. (2018). Social Impact Assessment: Integrating Social Issues in Development Projects. Inter-American Development Bank. https://publications.iadb.org/en/social-impact-assessment-integrating-social-issues-development-projects. 

Nikolaenko, V., & Sidorov, A. (2023). Assessment of Project Management Maturity Models Strengths and Weaknesses. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 16(2), 121. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm16020121.

Pantoja Vallejo, A. (Ed.). (2015). Manual básico para la realización de tesinas, tesis y trabajos de investigación (2ª Ed.). EOS Universitaria. 

P2M Consortium. (2017). P2M: A Guidebook of Project and Program Management for Enterprise Innovation. P2M Consortium. 

Piña Ararat, M. A., & Bazurto Roldán, J. A. (2022). Modelo de madurez aplicado al contexto organizacional de la Gestión de proyectos para la Alcaldía de Chinacota-Colombia. Project Design and Management, 4(2). 

PM4NGOs. (2017). Project Management for Development Professionals Guide (PMDPro Guide). PM4NGOs. 

Project Management Institute. (2021). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) (7th Ed.). Project Management Institute. 

Schwaber, K., & Sutherland, J. (2020). The Scrum Guide. Scrum.org. 

Wojciechowska, A. (2023). Evaluation of Design Maturity Models for Usability in the IT Industry. Scientific Papers of Silesian University of Technology. Organization and Management Series, 170. 

World Bank. (2021). Project Management for Results (PM4R) Guidelines. World Bank Group. 

Woźniak, M., & Sliż, P. (2023). The impact of project excellence on the level of project maturity of an organization. Zeszyty Naukowe Politechniki Śląskiej. Organizacja i Zarządzanie, 169, 759-782.