One aspect of P3M3® that many people are less familiar with is the generic attributes. One of the generic attributes is Capability Development. Within the P3M3® model this attribute specifies what kind of training arrangements need to be in place in order to achieve level 2 (repeatable) or level 3 (defined) process maturity:
Level 2 states “generic training may be provided in key concepts, and there may be individuals undertaking qualification training. Local sharing of knowledge may exist but mostly ad hoc.”
Level 3 states “training is focussed on the organisation’s approaches and raising competencies of individuals in specific roles. Forums exist for sharing organisational experience to improve individual and organisational performance.”
The key message here is that training must be taken into account as part of capability improvement. If training provision is uncoordinated, with little or no knowledge sharing, an organisation will have its maturity rated no higher than level 1 (awareness), no matter how highly it has rated for the seven individual process perspectives.
The implications of this one generic attribute are significant. Organisations who use P3M3® must carefully consider the difference in the nature of training that underpins level 2 and level 3:
If you are only targeting level 2 it is fine to send staff on generic courses to obtain qualifications and to use products such as e-learning which provide a basic level of understanding of portfolio, programme or project management disciplines.
If you are targeting level 3, however, the training must be focussed on your organisation’s approaches and raising the competencies of individuals in specific roles. This necessitates a tailored approach based on face-to-face engagement and rules out ‘one-size fits all’ training such as e-learning or generic qualification training.
Have a look at your capability improvement plan – does it adequately address the need for tailored training in those areas where you are targeting level 3 maturity?