The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1753-8378.htm

An exploratory analysis of the CSC and

PMM for
project management and corporate organizational
success
sustainability capabilities for
organizational success 793
Hulya Julie Yazici Received 25 August 2019
Revised 30 December 2019
ISOM, Lutgert College of Business, Florida Gulf Coast University, Accepted 10 January 2020
Fort Myers, Florida, USA

Abstract
Purpose – This study investigates whether corporate sustainability capability (CSC) along with project
management maturity (PMM) based capability contribute to perceived organizational success. It also studies
how this contribution varies by project type employed in the organization.
Design/methodology/approach – The research is based on survey data collected from 66 managers of
mostly small service businesses. The survey instrument consisted of a four-part questionnaire with 41
indicators focusing on CSC, maturity in project management knowledge areas and perceived internal and
external organizational success. The SEM methodology, GLM (General Linear Model), and ANOVA are used
for the analysis of the causal relationship among the indicators. The moderating effect of Project Type is
analyzed using the Multi Group Analysis.
Findings – The findings demonstrate the impact of the successful integration of corporate sustainability and
organizational PMM efforts on organizational success. Project management capability strengthens the effects
of sustainability efforts, specifically in economic and social sustainability. Moreover, project type ranging from
derivative to breakthrough moderates this effect.
Research limitations/implications – The findings demonstrate the strategic importance of corporate
sustainability and its integration with organizational project management, valuing project sustainability
management.
Practical implications – The study shows the importance of project management and sustainability
capabilities for organizations in managing projects and developing vision, policy, and guidance with
stakeholders, leading to organizational success.
Originality/value – This study reveals most success is achieved by maturity in stakeholder management,
time, quality, communication and human resource management areas, economic and social sustainability
capabilities demonstrated by platform and breakthrough projects.
Keywords Project management maturity, Sustainability capability, Triple bottom line sustainability,
Capabilities, Organizational success, Project sustainability management, Project type
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Project sustainability management (PSM) promises to bridge a link between project and
sustainability management with a broader organizational focus. Possible integration of
sustainability practices into project management may assist project managers for success
(Gareis et al., 2010; Deland, 2009; Pullman et al., 2012; Weninger and Huemann, 2013; Silvius
et al., 2013; Silvius and Schipper, 2015; Silvius, 2017; Daneshpour, 2015; Guimaraes et al., 2017;
Aaarseth, et al., 2017; Gemunden, 2016; Zuofa and Ochieng, 2016). Along with this promise,
further research is needed in identifying the elements of sustainability relevant to the project
management discipline and in aligning triple bottom line (TBL) sustainability and project
management efforts (Marcelino-Sabada et al., 2015, Martens and de Carvalho, 2016, 2017;
International Journal of Managing
Projects in Business
Vol. 13 No. 4, 2020
The authors would like to thank FGCU Lutgert College of Business Small Business Development Center; pp. 793-817
Lee, Collier, Sarasota County Sustainability Offices, and local chapters of ASHRAE, PMI, and ASQ for © Emerald Publishing Limited
1753-8378
disseminating and participating to the survey conducted in this research. DOI 10.1108/IJMPB-08-2019-0207
IJMPB Carvalho and Rebechini, 2017, Marnewick, 2017; Martens and de Carvalho, 2014). As it stands,
13,4 the value of current project maturity management models (PMMMs) and their contribution to
an organization’s TBL sustainability have not been made clear. Are organizations that are
capable in project management, also capable in sustainability? Do organizations perform better
due to these capabilities? This study aims to answer these questions. The causal links between
project management maturity (PMM) measured by OPM3 – the organizational project and
program capability framework – and corporate sustainability capability (CSC) are studied. The
794 impact of these capabilities on organizational success is determined.
Moreover, organizations are engaged with different types of projects with varying
uncertainty and complexity (Mullally, 2014; Dvir et al., 2006; Lenfle and Loch, 2010), thus the
effects of project management and sustainability capabilities may vary. This study collected
data from small to medium organizations. As previous researchers indicated, most project
management research focused on large organizations or large-scale projects. However, small
to medium enterprises are important drivers of innovation and growth (Pollack and Adler,
2014). Thus, this study raises the following questions:
(1) Does project management capability impact small to medium size organizations’
success and what knowledge areas are emphasized?
(2) Does CSC play a role in small to medium size organizations’ success?
(3) Do PMM and CSC have a combined influence on organizational success?
(4) Does the effect of PMM and sustainability capability vary across project types?
A questionnaire is designed to include the OPM3 (PMI, 2013) based project maturity levels;
the economic, environmental, and social sustainability capability dimensions based on
Baumgartner and Ebner’s sustainability profiles (2010), and perceived measures of
organizational success based on market share and reputation, retention of employees and
customer value, and strong project alignment with sustainability vision. All indicators are
derived from previous research in project management and sustainability. This article
presents the results of the survey conducted with managers or directors of small to medium
size mostly US service organizations. Out of 97 responses received, 66 were complete and
used for the statistical analysis.
Following the literature review on project management capability, PSM, corporate
sustainability, and organizational success, the research model and the methodology are
described. This is followed by the results and implications of findings for businesses.

2. Literature review
2.1 Project management capability based maturity and success
The organizational project management maturity model (OPM3, 2013, 2015) is a framework for
assessing and developing an organization’s capabilities in project, program, or portfolio
management. Previous studies reported lower than expected PMM levels for a broad range of
national and international industries. Level 1 and 2 maturities were common for majority of the
organizations resulting in a 2.5 median maturity out of 5 (Yazici, 2009; Pretorius et al., 2012;
Abdul Rasid et al., 2014; Miklosik, 2014, 2015). Regarding knowledge areas, lower maturity
levels were observed for risk management, cost management and human resource
management, while Level 4 maturity was achieved for project quality and time management.
Risk management lends itself to extensive training requirements and long-term commitment
(Besner and Hobbs, 2008; Jia et al., 2013; Gladden, 2012; Heravi and Gholami, 2018; Yazici, 2018).
Furthermore, previous research showed little evidence with respect to PMM’s direct
contribution to project success, measured using the traditional scope, time, and cost objective
measures (Mullaly, 2006; Yazici, 2009; Pretorius et al., 2012; Killen and Hunt, 2013; Abdul-
Rasid et al., 2014; Torres, 2014; Mir and Pinnington, 2014). The conflicting findings on the CSC and
effects of PMM on project success, led researchers to focus on organizational performance PMM for
(Gorog, 2016; Miklosik, 2014; Mullaly, 2014; Pasian, 2014; Ellis and Berry, 2013; Fernandes,
et al., 2014; Aubry, 2015; Silvius, 2013, Silvius and Schipper, 2015; Silvius, 2017). The concept
organizational
of organizational project maturity implies both improving project management preparedness success
and the associated increasing success rate of the projects in the organizations. Several
organizational enablers, such as organization’s cultural orientation, shared organizational
culture, mature organizational structure, and established management paradigms were 795
found influential in project maturity efforts leading to improved organizational performance
Yazici (2009, 2011); Gorog (2016), Wen and Qiang (2016).
Besides the traditional project success approach related to scope, time and cost objective,
project efficiency, impact on the team, impact on the customer, business success, and
preparation for the future were considered Carvalho and Rabechini (2017), Carvalho et al.,
2015; Shenhar and Dvir (2007). Increased project maturity was expected to bring several
benefits to organizations beyond time, cost, quality, and customer satisfaction. Decreased
project risk, alignment of projects with strategic goals, improved communication between
project management and upper management were indicated among these benefits (Albrecht
and Spang, 2016). As suggested by Brooks et al. (2014) and Gorog (2016), future research
should explore the impact of different maturity models considering both contextual and
organizational factors.
Thus, research in PMM indicates the need for improvement in project management
capabilities based on maturity and signals a paradigm change. Several researchers proposed
the integration of sustainable objectives into project management practices (see Silvius et al.
(2013); Carvalho and Rabechini, 2017; Silvius et al. (2013); Silvius, 2017; Guimaraes et al., 2017),
which are included under PSM research.

2.2 Project sustainability management (PSM) and success

Project sustainability management promises to bridge a link between project and sustainability
management with a broader organizational focus. Several researchers contributed to the
conceptualization of PSM (Gareis et al., 2010; Deland, 2009; Pullman et al., 2012; Weninger and
Huemann (2013); Silvius et al., 2013; Silvius and Schipper, 2015; Marcelino-Sadaba, 2015;
Daneshpour, 2015; Guimaraes et al., 2017; Marnewick, 2017). In earlier studies, Gareis et al.
(2010) developed a draft model to relate sustainable development to project management
analyzing the principles of sustainable development that can be implicitly considered in project
management. The TBL holistic approach can be considered in all aspects of project
management, while risk reduction can relate to project resources, context, and design of the PM
process. Sustainability, in a broad sense, integrates economic, environmental, and social
responsibilities. It includes TBL thinking that integrates profit, people and the planet into
corporate culture, strategy and operations (Gimenez et al., 2012). Thus, TBL, also known as
corporate sustainability, comprises economic, environmental and social dimensions (Dow
Jones, 2008). As defined by Savitz and Weber (2006), TBL captures the essence of sustainability
by measuring the impact of an organization’s activities on the world. Sustainable development
and corporate sustainability depend on all three dimensions of firm performance: economic,
environmental, and social (Surroca et al., 2010; De Giovanni and Vinzi, 2012).
Weninger and Huemann (2013) emphasized the integration of sustainability principles
specifically in the project initiation process, and considered the TBL, value-based
sustainability principles. Later, Daneshpur (2015) outlined the principles of integrating
sustainability into project management emphasizing the long-term focus of sustainability
goals contrasting with short-term oriented traditional project management goals. He went on
emphasizing the need for taking responsibility of the results of projects in the full life cycle
and the need for practical implementation of sustainability in project management.
IJMPB Silvius (2017) defined a new school of project management based on sustainability
13,4 dimensions, the societal perspective, stakeholders’ approach, TBL criteria, and value-based
approach. Martens and Carvalho (2016, 2017) incorporated strategic and tactical perspectives
based on experts’ opinion, in their modeling, including stakeholder management, sustainable
innovation model, and environmental policies.
Aarseth et al. (2017), in their in-depth search of sustainability strategies implemented by
organizations and their own case study, outlined several sustainability strategies that were
796 adopted in multi-faceted fashion by project organizations and by project hosts, separately or
mutually. These strategies ranged from setting sustainability policies to playing an
influencing role in project practices and developing sustainability competencies. Aarseth
et al. (2017) concluded that sustainability is a salient issue that needs to be thoroughly
considered in project organizations.
Among the most recent examples of linking sustainability and PMM for project success,
Guimaraes et al. (2017) concluded a strong relationship among strategic drivers (management
and leadership, strategic plan, customer focus, tools and technologies, and process analysis
and continuous improvement), PMM and cleaner production success applied to Brazilian
industries.
Carvalho and Rabechini (2017) investigated the relationship between sustainability
management and project success and found a low degree of commitment to social and
environmental aspects of the projects. Among the researchers whose studies encompass the
TBL perspective, Marcelino-Sabada et al. (2015) proposed a four-dimensional sustainability
framework in project management. Marnewick (2017) also pointed out the need for
considering TBL sustainability context in business and information systems (IS) projects.
Marnewick’ s analysis determined that for most IS projects (71 per cent), social and
environmental aspects are not considered by project managers and capability levels focused
almost exclusively on economic considerations.
All these studies suggest that sustainability integration with PMM is worthy of being
studied further, conceptually and well as empirically. This study brings an empirical
perspective to the PSM underlying the economic, social, and environmental aspects of
sustainability, and the causal links between PMM and the TBL, also known as corporate
sustainability, capability. One more question remains to be answered: Whether the project
and sustainability capacities varying across project type depends on the selection of projects?

2.3 Project type or categorization

Previous research incorporating project type is limited. Earlier, Crawford (2006) concluded
that project categorization systems are a powerful tool for aligning capability with strategic
intent. Dvir et al. (2006) determined different patterns of correlations between certain aspects
managers’ personalities and project success. Mullaly (2014) indicated that project maturity
models need to embrace different types of projects. In previous research, most studies
involved projects specific to a sector, such as construction, IS, information technology (IT),
transportation, or financial (Zuofa and Ochieng, 2016; Yuan, 2017; Heravi and Gholami, 2018).
However, projects can be categorized with respect to scope, complexity, and uncertainty
involved, regardless of sector. Few studies categorized projects based on complexity. For
instance, Carvalho and Rabechini (2017) evaluated project complexity as a control variable
when analyzing the effects of social and environmental sustainability on project success.
However, control effect of project complexity on these variables was not significant and called
for further research.
Thus, the question on whether project and sustainability capabilities vary across project
types, remains to be answered.
As the Introduction and Literature review outlined, there is enough conceptual background
supporting the importance of project management and corporate sustainability capabilities on
how businesses perform. The following research framework is developed to integrate these CSC and
concepts and empirically demonstrate their significance on organizational success. PMM for
organizational
3. Research framework and hypotheses
Figure 1 shows the research framework. Based on the previous research described above, success
PMM based capability, accompanied with CSC is expected to positively influence perceived
organizational success, measured by the internal and external performance indicators.
As literature review on PMM explained, organizational project capability based on
797
maturity is expected to positively influence organizational performance. Increased project
maturity is found to bring several benefits to organizations beyond time, cost, quality, and
customer satisfaction. As previous researchers demonstrated, savings to the organization,
sales growth, and increased competitiveness are typical results of an increased project
maturity (Yazici, 2009; Gorog, 2016; Wen and Qiang, 2016; Carvalho et al., 2015; Carvalho and
Rabechini, 2017; Albrecht and Spang 2016).
Therefore,
H1. PMM based capability is positively associated with perceived organizational
success, measured with external and internal organizational performance.
Previous research on PSM showed a possible relationship between sustainability
management, and project success, with limited sustainability criteria taken into
consideration (Carvallo and Rabechini, 2017; Guimaraes et al., 2017; Yuan, 2017; Silvius ,
2017). The degree to which an organization is engaged with corporate sustainability,
comprising economic, environmental and social practices, and reporting of these activities
has been increasing. Several indexes and metrics are developed to measure this commitment.
Dow Jones Sustainability World Index, GRI reporting guidelines, and discrepancies among
them were also reported (Christofi et al., 2012; Lee and Saen, 2012). Overcash and Twomey,
2011 indicated the importance of four pillars that can lead to future directions in
sustainability programs. The approach by Baumgartner and Ebner’s (2010) focuses on the
integration of sustainability strategies. Their model assesses the capability of an
organization in each of three dimensions of sustainability.
As these studies indicated, there is a need to integrate all three dimensions of
sustainability in project management and study the relationship between corporate
sustainability (also known as TBL sustainability) capability and project management
capability. Thus, the integration of project and sustainability capabilities is deemed
important and is expected to positively relate to organizational success. Therefore, following
hypotheses are developed for the economic, environmental, and social dimensions of
sustainability and organizational success.

PMM based Capability

(PM1 - PM9)
H1

H4a
H2a,b,c

Project Type

H4b Organizational Success

Corporate Sustainability Capability External: Market Share, Reputation
Economic (EC1-EC6) Internal: Employee Retention/Customer Value,
Environmental (ENV1-ENV5) Vision Figure 1.
Social (SOC1-SOC8) H3a,b,c Alignment
(PERF1-PERF4)
Research framework
IJMPB The economic sustainability dimension, often discussed as “generic” dimension deals not
13,4 only with generating wealth, but also with aspects that lead to economic success, such as
innovation and technology, processes, knowledge management (KM), compliance with ISO
standards and alike (Baumgartner and Ebner, 2010; Marcelino-Sadaba et al., 2015, Carvalho
and Rabechini, 2017). Marnewick (2017) focused on return on investment and business agility
as economic sustainability dimensions and determined that IS project managers rated highly
the importance of economic sustainability. So, high levels of project maturity are expected to
798 be associated with high levels of economic sustainability capability. The maturity levels in
knowledge areas of quality, time, cost, risk, stakeholder management should contribute to
this association.
H2a. PMM based capability is positively associated with economic sustainability
capability.
Environmental sustainability deals with environmental impacts caused by resource use,
emissions into air, water or into ground, waste, biodiversity, and environmental issues of the
product over life cycle. Social sustainability aims to positively influence all present and future
relationship with internal and external stakeholders (Baumgartner and Ebner, 2010). Few
research studies analyzed the link between PMM and environmental and social sustainability
dimensions (Martens and de Carvalho 2017; Guimaraes, et al., 2017). Carvalho and Rabechini
(2017) demonstrated that PSM measured by green procurement and partnership, design of
environment, environmental technologies, and social responsibility significantly relates to
social and environmental performance, and in turn to project success. Based on these
findings, we test the following hypotheses:
H2b. PMM based capability is positively associated with environmental sustainability
capability.
H2c. PMM based capability is positively associated with social sustainability capability.
Research in PSM and in corporate sustainability signal the significance of corporate
sustainability and organizational success. These findings and conceptualizations also
indicate the need for corporations to balance all three economic, social, and environmental
considerations, and the lack of integration of these efforts in policy making. Moreover, the
strong need for integrating sustainability in the measurement of project success, the
significance of stakeholder management, and engaging and managing stakeholders were
emphasized by previous researchers (Silvius et al. (2013); Gorog (2016); Miklosik (2015);
Daneshpour, 2015; Zuofa and Ochieng, 2016; Yuan, 2017), leading us to investigate the
following hypotheses.
H3a. PMM and economic sustainability capabilities positively relate to organizational
success.
H3b. PMM and environmental sustainability capabilities positively relate to
organizational success.
H3c. PMM and social sustainability capabilities positively relate to organizational
success.
Furthermore, organizations are engaged with different type of projects with varying
uncertainty (Mullally, 2014; Dvir et al., 2006; Lenfle and Lock, 2010), thus not only is
project maturity expected to vary, but the contribution of capabilities on business
success may also vary based on project types, that is, project type is expected to moderate
the project management and sustainability capabilities. This study defines project type
and classifies it into three categories: derivative, platform, and breakthrough, based
on Dvir et al. (2006)’ definitions used as basis and expanded. Triple bottom line CSC and
sustainability projects may range from short- or intermediate-term improvement to PMM for
long-term change or breakthrough projects, affecting the strategic decision making
differently. Thus,
organizational
success
H4a. Project type significantly moderates the effect of PMM based capability and
perceived organizational success.
H4b. Project type significantly moderates the effect of PMM enabled sustainability 799
capability and organizational success.

4. Research methods
Based on the literature review presented above, a survey instrument is developed to measure
the causal links between PMM-based capability, CSC, and resulting perceived organizational
success. For content validity, all indicators were taken from previously validated instruments
and published research studies.
The survey consists of four parts: questionnaire with 41 indicators/questions as further
discussed.
Part 1: Introductory questions consist of organization demographics, such as principal
industry, public or private, size, green certification; revenue, project types most commonly
used, and sustainability reporting (seven questions).
Part 2: Corporate or triple bottom sustainability assessment for three dimensions: economic,
environmental, and social. Six-item questionnaire for economic sustainability, five-item
questionnaire for environmental sustainability, and eight-item questionnaire for
social sustainability assessment where subjects assess their organization at levels 1 to 4.
Each level description is pertinent with the sustainability category, and 1 represents a low level
of maturity, and 4, a mature state of maturity. There are a total of 19 questions for this part.
These questions are adopted from Baumgartner and Ebner’s sustainability profiles (2010).
Part 3: Project management maturity questions: 45 questions of project maturity in nine
knowledge areas using the 1 to 5 Likert scale where each level represents a maturity level; 1
representing an initial state, and 5, an optimizing process state.
Part 4: Organizational success questions: five questions of internal or external project
performance, using the 1 to 5 Likert scale. A value of 5: to a great extent, and 1: to a little
extent.

4.1 Data collection

4.1.1 Survey dissemination. The survey was disseminated online to 200 organizations’
executives, project/program or sustainability managers, mostly from local/regional businesses
and government/county offices in the state of Florida, and a small percentage of national and
international organizations. Although 97 responses were obtained with a 48.5 per cent
response rate, not all responses were complete for all four parts of the questionnaire; thus, 66
complete responses were used for the analysis. The survey consisted of a total of 76 individual
questions; thus it may be expected that due to the high volume, some questions may be left
unanswered, a shortcoming of long questionnaires. From participating organizations, 18 per
cent were manufacturing related, and 83 per cent were service organizations in various
sectors, such as banking, business support, healthcare, real estate, and logistics.
Data was recorded using a spreadsheet developed in Excel Windows. SEM methodology,
GLM (General Linear Model), and ANOVA are used for the analysis and interpretation of
results. The moderating effect of Project Type is analyzed using Multi Group Analysis.
Softwares used included: SPSS 24, Covariance-SEM based AMOS 24, and Partial Least
Squares based SCRIPT WARP (6.0).
IJMPB Following the dissemination of the questionnaire and preliminary analysis, the results
13,4 were presented at the annual meetings of Institute of Industrial and Systems Engineering
(IISE), Decisions Sciences Institute (DSI), and Production and Operations Management
Society (POMS). The audience was interactively polled using the same questionnaire and
results were discussed and compared to research results. Similarities or contrasts were noted
as a supplement to the findings.
800
4.2 Research variables and validation
Project management maturity based capability and CSC are independent variables of the
study. These capabilities are expected to influence the dependent variable, organizational
success, measured by the perceived internal and external organizational performance.
4.2.1 Dependent variable. 4.2.1.1 Organizational success. Organizational success is
measured by the perceived internal and external organizational performance resulting from
sustainable project management efforts. Indicators were adopted from previous research
(Kohl and Associates, 2012; Mullaly, 2014; Carvalho and Rabechini, 2017).
Mullaly (2014) assessed the tangible value of project maturity with increased market share,
customer retention, cost savings, and revenue increases, and intangible values such as
improved reputation. Carvalho and Rabechini (2017) measured project success using various
perceptional dimensions, such as impact on clients, impact on staff, and direct business success.
Based on a group of practitioners’ research studies in assessing value of sustainability efforts,
company reputation, customer value, employee retention, and community relations are
considered as significant measures (Kohl, T. Associates, 2012). Furthermore, several studies in
PSM indicated the significance of incorporating sustainability in organizational strategic plan
(Eskerod and Huermann, 2013; Aarseth et al., 2017; Finnerty et al., 2017; Zuofa and Ochieng,
2016; Yuan, 2017). Thus, alignment of projects with sustainability goals and vision is an
indicator of how sustainability is operationalized. Considering previous research, the following
are used to assess perceived organizational performance. A Likert scale of 5: to a great extent, 3:
to some extent, 1: not at all or not enough information is used.
(1) Perceptions on external organizational performance, such as increased market share,
increased positive reputation of the organization (PERF1, PERF2).
(2) Perceptions on internal organizational performance, increased employee retention
and customer value, project alignment with organization’s sustainability vision
(PERF3, PERF4).
4.2.2 Independent variables. 4.2.2.1 Project management maturity based capability measures.
Project maturity, recently modeled as the organizational project management maturity model
(OPM3®) by the Project Management Institute (2013 ) aims to integrate, assess, and improve
project management practices. Nine indicators (PM1-PM9) representing nine knowledge
areas measure PMM. The 2013 OPM3 model replaced the KM area with Stakeholder
Management measure.
The PMM measures and related knowledge areas are as follows:
(1) PM1: Project Integration Management (PIM).
(2) PM2: Project Scope Management (PSM).
(3) PM3: Project Time Management (PTM).
(4) PM4: Project Risk Management (PRM).
(5) PM5: Project Cost Management (PCM).
(6) PM6: Project Quality Management (PQM).
 (7) PM7: Project Human Resource Management (PHRM). CSC and
(8) PM8: Project Communications Management (PCOM). PMM for
(9) PM9: Project Stakeholder Management (PSHM).
organizational
success
PMM questions consist of 46 questions of PMM from nine knowledge areas based on a 1 to
5 Likert scale, These five levels of maturity are used as descriptors of the Capability
Maturity Model (CMM), and taken directly from the CMM standard (Mullaly, 2006; Crawford, 801
2014). These levels are described below:
(1) Level 5: Optimizing Process: A fully mature project organization with processes
consistently applied throughout the organization as part of the overall management
process. Processes are in place to improve project performance, to measure project
effectiveness and efficiency, and management focuses on continuous improvement.
(2) Level 4: Managed Process: A mature PM process applied consistently on all projects,
with PM recognized as a formal management discipline: Processes are integrated
with corporate processes; management uses data to make decisions, solid analysis of
project performance.
(3) Level 3: Organizational standards and institutionalized process: an organization with
a refined and integrated PM process that is consistently applied on each project. All
processes are standard and repeatable for all projects.
(4) Level 2: Structure Process and Standards: Some project management capabilities
defined, but not consistently applied.
(5) Level 1: Initial Process: A fully ad-hoc project management capability, no consistent
or repeatable processes.
Respondents are asked to assess their organization’s PMM based on these levels considering
all the projects they are involved with.
4.2.2.2 Corporate sustainability capability measures. This study measures sustainability
capability through the lens of maturity models. The aspects of TBL sustainability
dimensions and levels of capability are adopted from Baumgartner and Ebner (2010).
(1) Economic dimension of corporate sustainability (EC1–EC6).

The economic dimension is based on DSJI (2008) and embraces generic aspects of an
organization that result in economic success and allow the organization to remain in the
market for a long time. It encompasses the environmental and social activities that turn into
savings and economic benefits. Six indicators (EC1–EC6) represent the economic dimension
and measure the following aspects:
EC1: Innovation and technology, efforts in sustainability related R&D.
EC2: Collaboration with business partners, exchange of information.
EC3: Knowledge management (KM) activities of sustainability related knowledge within the
organization.
EC4: Process-related efforts, process management on sustainability.
EC5: Purchase/outsource contracting, sustainability issues in purchase, relationship with
suppliers.
EC6: Sustainability reporting.
IJMPB (1) Environmental dimension of corporate sustainability (ENV1–ENV5).
13,4 As Baumgartner et al. (2010) defined, environmental sustainability capability generally
assessed by the ecological aspects, is measured using five indicators (ENV1–ENV5).
These are:
ENV1: sustainability strategies related to resource use,
802 ENV2: emission,
ENV3: waste and hazardous waste,
ENV4: biodiversity,
ENV5: environmental aspects of the product over the whole life cycle.
These indicators are in line with several previous studies. Marnewick (2017) used energy,
waste, material and resources, and transport dimensions for measuring environmental
sustainability capability. Similarly, Carvalho and Rabechini (2017) incorporated green
procurement, environmental technologies and design for environment variables that focus on
issues like resource utilization, eco-efficiency, and life cycle management.
(1) Social sustainability dimension of corporate sustainability capability (SOC1-SOC8).

Social sustainability is aimed to positively influence all present and future relationships
with stakeholders. It comprises internal and external social aspects and is measured using
eight indicators (SOC1-SOC8). These are:
SOC1: the level of corporate governance,
SOC2: motivation and incentives,
SOC3: health and safety efforts,
SOC4: human capital development,
SOC5: ethical behavior and human rights,
SOC6: controversial activities,
SOC7: no corruption or cartel efforts,
SOC8: corporate citizenship efforts.

These indicators agree with previous research and are more comprehensive. Marnewick
(2017) included human rights, health and safety, and ethical behavior in assessing social
sustainability capability.
Four levels of capability are used to assess economic, environmental, and social
sustainability practices. Matching with these sustainability capability levels, a 1 to 4 Likert
scale is used. Following are the common description of the four capability levels as adopted
from Baumgartner and Ebner (2010):
Level 4: Sophisticated/Outstanding: Systematic planning and deployment of the
sustainability effort. Proactive commitment throughout the organization.
Level 3: Satisfying: Systematic planning and deployment of the sustainability effort.
Level 2: Elementary: Certain measurements and practices exist within mandatory and CSC and
voluntary frameworks. PMM for
Level 1: Beginning: Sustainability efforts are in their initial phase. Some mandatory organizational
frameworks are in place. success
4.2.3 Moderating variable
Project Type is represented under three categories based on the definitions given by Dvir 803
et al. (2006) in their study examining project types, project manager’s personality, and project
success. Dvir et al. (2006) had classified projects based on complexity, novelty, technological
uncertainty, and pace. These criteria are in line with Carvalho and Rabechini’s (2017)
classification dimensions for project complexity but expand further to include team multi-
disciplinary and geographic dispersion. So, considering the previous research, this study
defined project types as derivative, platform, and breakthrough projects with following
descriptions, ranging from low complexity and low uncertainty to high complexity and high
uncertainty:
(1) Derivative projects: Continuous improvement projects, relatively low-complexity and
low-uncertainty projects.
(2) Platform projects: benchmarking, best practice transfer or six sigma improvement
projects, relatively medium level of complexity and uncertainty.
(3) Breakthrough projects: new product/process development, reengineering/change
projects, high level of complexity and high uncertainty.
Respondents were asked about the most common project type in their organization:
1: Derivative, 2: Platform; 3: Breakthrough, and 4: Other, an open-ended category, considering
a combination of these projects, or other ones, such as service projects.

4.2.4 Validation of measures

Project management maturity is measured based on five levels of maturity, sustainability
capability, four levels of capability, and organizational success is based on a Likert scale of 5;
thus all data is normalized prior to validation and structural model analysis.
First, exploratory factor analysis was conducted for independent and dependent
constructs using maximum likelihood as a means of extraction and Promax as method of
rotation (SPSS, version 24). Items with good measurement properties should exhibit high
factor loadings on the latent factor of which they are indicators (convergent validity), and
small factor loadings on the factors that are measured by differing sets of indicators
(discriminant validity). As a result of this initial exploratory factor analysis, three indicators
for social sustainability were removed. For further convergent and discriminant validity, and
for model fit, structural equation modeling was used (SPSS AMOS, 24, Warp-PLS, 6.0).
Table I shows the exploratory factor analysis and reliability results for all constructs.
Convergent validity is established by examining that the factor loadings are above 0.5 and
the average variance extracted by each construct is at least 0.5 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981;
Hair et al., 2013; Carvalho and Rabechini, 2017).
As shown in Table I, all indicators loaded on their respective factors and there were no
cross-loadings greater than 0.50. The average variance extracted (AVE) of every latent
variable ranged between 0.52 and 0.72, all greater than 0.5.
The reliability of the factors was checked using Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability
measures. As Cronbach alpha is affected by the number of items, average item
intercorrelation, and dimensionality, Composite Reliability measure is used in conjunction
with Cronbach alpha (Werts et al., 1974; Bagozzi, 1981; Cortina, 1993; Schmitt, 1996). A scale is
IJMPB Cronbach Average
13,4 Factor Standard Composite alpha variance
Constructs loading Mean deviation reliability coefficients extracted Save

PMM based – 1.02 0.47 0.96 0.95 0.72 0.85

capability(PMM)
PIM 0.89 – – – – – –
804 PSM 0.94
PTM 0.91
PCM 0.79
PRM 0.80
PQM 0.83
PHRM 0.83
PCOM 0.92
PSHM 0.72
Economic – 0.79 0.29 0.87 0.81 0.52 0.72
sustainability
capability (ECO)
ECO1 0.77 – – – – – –
ECO2 0.57
ECO3 0.79
ECO4 0.81
ECO5 0.62
ECO6 0.74
Environmental – 0.75 0.42 0.91 0.87 0.72 0.85
sustainability
capability (ENV)
ENV1 0.57 – – – – – –
ENV2 0.88
ENV3 0.93
ENV4 0.78
ENV5 0.80
Social sustainability – 0.99 0.28 0.81 0.71 0.54 0.68
capability(SOC)
SOC3 0.61 – – – – – –
SOC5 0.51
SOC6 0.78
SOC7 0.71
Table I. SOC8 0.75
Exploratory factor Organizational – 1.22 0.44 0.87 0.78 0.62 0.79
analysis, reliability, success (PERF)
and mean and standard PERF1 0.87 – – – – – –
deviations of the PERF2 0.84
constructs based on PERF3 0.85
normalized data PERF4 0.55

found reliable if alpha is 0.70 or higher (Nunnally, 1978; Henseler et al., 2009; Tenenhaus et al.,
2005). In this study, composite reliability coefficients are above 0.82 and Cronbach alphas are
over 0.71 showing that all scales are reliable. The dependent construct of Performance
composite reliability coefficient is 0.87 and Cronbach alpha is 0.78. Earlier, Carvallo and
Rabechini (2017) and Guimares (2017) had reported 0.7 for project success and PSM
indicators.
Discriminant validity of the measures is acceptable if the AVE of each construct is greater
than the variance among all constructs. This is demonstrated by showing that the square root
of AVE (SAVE) is greater than the correlations among the construct and all other constructs
of the model (Henseler et al., 2009; Tenenhaus et al., 2005; Carvalho and Rabechini, 2017). CSC and
SAVEs of the constructs shown in the diagonal are greater than the correlations between the PMM for
construct and all other constructs.
Table II shows the correlation matrix of the latent variables. The measurements
organizational
demonstrate satisfactory levels of discriminant validity. success
4.2.4.1 Confirmatory factor analysis with covariance based structural equation modeling
(SEM) and partial least squares (PLS)-SEM. PLS is an efficient structural equation modelling
method and is considered better suited for explaining complex relationships, placing minimal 805
demand on sample size and residual distribution. Compared to the better-known factor-based
covariance fitting approach for latent structural modelling (exemplified by software such as
LISREL, EQS), the component-based PLS avoids two serious problems: inadmissible
solutions and factor indeterminacy. The approach estimates the latent variables as exact
linear combinations of the observed measures; therefore, it avoids the indeterminacy problem
and provides an exact definition of component scores (Chin and Newsted, 1999; Ritchie and
Eastwood, 2005). PLS is mostly used for the analysis of non-normal data, small sample size,
and formative measurement of latent variables (Hair et al., 2013; Lowry and Gaskin, 2014).
For model fit, based on WARP-PLS (6.0) that is widely used when dealing with small
sample sizes, all results are acceptable: Average adjusted R-square of 0.381 (p < 0.003),
average block VIF (variance inflation factor) of 1.671, and average full collinearity VIF of
1.884, as less than 3.3. Using covariance-based SEM to assess model fit, the recommended
standards for large sample size data are 0.8–0.9 for GFI (goodness of fit), CFI (confirmatory fit
index), NFI (normalized fit index), and AGFI (adjusted goodness of fit index); <0.06 for
RMSEA (root mean square residual), and min chi square/degrees of freedom (df) ratio < 3.
Based on AMOS 24, for the perceived organizational performance, chi-square is 390.485,
df 5 217, GFI 5 0.72, CFI 5 0.77, NFI 5 0.74, chi-square/df 5 1.61, RMSEA 5 0.12. These are
acceptable based on the common standards, considering the small sample size of this study
(< 250). This agrees with previous research findings that RMSEA tends to increase when
sample size decreases and goodness of fit measures are also affected for sample sizes between
50 and 250 (Anderson and Gerbing, 1984).

5. Results
Responses were mostly from small businesses (64 per cent), with employees less than 500. Out
of the total organizations, 57 per cent had annual revenues less than 10 million USD
(see Figure 2). A total of 86 per cent of the businesses were in the service sector ranging from
retail to health, construction, financial services, retail, logistics, agriculture, entertainment,
and very specialized services. A total of 13 per cent were manufacturing organizations.
A total of 69 per cent of the businesses were privately owned. This profile is common to
the SW Florida region, with small (size and revenue based) and privately-owned businesses
dominating the region. Although engaged in green activities, only 27 per cent of the
businesses were green certified.

Constructs PMM ECO ENV SOC PERF

PMM 0.85 0.46 0.02 0.32 0.30

ECO 0.49 0.72 0.56 0.58 0.47
ENV 0.31 0.56 0.85 0.54 0.26 Table II.
SOC 0.67 0.58 0.54 0.68 0.32 Latent variables
PERF 0.34 0.47 0.27 0.32 0.79 correlation matrix
IJMPB Participants were also asked about the common project types in their organizations.
13,4 Responses showed that derivative projects were the most common (46 per cent), followed by
breakthrough (23 per cent) and platform (18 per cent) projects. A total of 13 per cent indicated
service-oriented projects, such as training, infrastructure projects, or combination of the two
other categories. This showed that small to medium businesses are mostly engaged in
improvement projects (derivative) and engaged to a lesser degree in change or new product/
service development projects (breakthrough), or platform projects, such as benchmarking,
806 best practice transfer, or six sigma improvement projects.

5.1 PMM-based capability assessment results

Participants assessed their organization’s PMM on nine knowledge areas and sub-areas of
project management based on a 1–5 Likert scale considering all projects involved. Based on
the complete responses collected from 66 professionals from 60 organizations, PMM means
ranged between 2.2 and 2.77, with an overall project maturity mean of 2.42 out of 5. The
lowest mean score of 2.21 was reported for the Project Scope Management, and the highest
mean score of 2.77 was for the Project Quality Management maturity.
The survey results mostly agree with recent research studies that reported mean or
median maturities of 2.5, but also show better results with respect to maturity levels of 3 and
higher. In this study, organizations reported higher maturity at Level 4 – managed process
(23 per cent) and Level 5 – optimizing process (10 per cent); and lower Level 1 – initial
processes (12 per cent) and Level 2 – structured process and standards (15 per cent)
maturities, compared to earlier studies, and 17 per cent of the organizations with Level 3
maturity – organizational standards and institutionalized process.
As for the specific PMM areas, Level 3 and higher maturities were reported for Project
Quality Management (59 per cent), Project Cost Management (57 per cent), Project Time
Management (54 per cent), and Project Communications Management (53 per cent).
Furthermore, 45 per cent of the organizations perceived Levels 3 and higher maturity for Risk
Management, while 50 per cent of the respondents reported Level 3 and higher maturity in the
areas of Human Resources and Stakeholder Management. For Project Integration
Management, Level 3 and higher percentages were at 34 per cent. A total of 21 per cent of
the respondents were not able to evaluate their PMM, due to their constraints in data
gathering and analysis.
This study showed a small improvement in maturity in several Project Management
areas, such as Risk Management, Human Resources and Cost Management, compared to
earlier studies). This indicates that the small and intermediate organizations show an effort to
standardize and institutionalize their project-management processes. On the other hand,
Project Integration and Scope Management areas needed improvement. For Project
Integration management, maturity in Project Work Monitoring and Control was the

Annual Revenues
Number of employees
Not Available
8%
>5000
2001-5000 20%
over $1B <$1 Million
20% 36% 7%
500-2000
$100 million - 9% <500
$1B 64%
7% $10-$100
Figure 2.
million $1-$10 million
Organizations annual 8% 21%
revenue and size
demographics
lowest. This was followed by Project Plan Development. Risk Control was also another area, CSC and
businesses needed to improve. The study shows that with respect to Risk Management, PMM for
55 per cent of the organization were at Level 2 or lower. It seems, although improved
compared to earlier studies mentioned in Literature Review, organizations still struggle in
organizational
an effective risk planning and management for all stakeholders of the projects. success
5.1.1 Comparison of PMM capability based on organizations demographics and project
types. Based on the demographics data collected, PMM scores vary. Private businesses’ mean
project maturity (2.46) was higher than public ones (2.20). This difference was also 807
statistically significant (t 5 4.78, p <5 0.000). Significant differences were also observed
between organizations with varying annual revenues. Businesses with revenues over
10 million show higher overall project maturity (2.62–3.00) than the ones with less than
10 million dollars annual revenues (1.85–2.00, t 5 9.93, p <5 0.0000). With respect to green
certifications, businesses that were certified show higher project maturity than organizations
with no certification (2.42 vs 2.35); however, the difference was not statistically significant
(t 5 1.34, p <5 0.09).
When considering project categories, the highest overall project maturity mean was
observed with platform projects (2.69), compared to derivative (2.45) or breakthrough projects
(2.38). The t test showed that PMM scores of platform projects is significantly higher than the
other two project type PMM scores (t 5 4.56, p <5 0.000, t 5 5.75, p <5 0.000) (see Figure 3).
Platform projects involve benchmarking, best practices, or six sigma improvement, thus
encompass all areas of the organization. Maturity level was closer to 3, indicating more
standardization is implemented across platform projects. Breakthrough projects, on the
other hand, involve change in organizational processes, but the level of maturity for new
product/service efforts or change projects was significantly lesser, calling further
improvement. Same applies to derivative projects, the most common projects organizations
involve with, but with lesser PMM.

5.2 Corporate sustainability capability (CSC) assessment

Business executives and managers assessed their organizations’ TBL sustainability
capability based on 19 indicators with a Likert scale of 1 to 4; 1: representing
sustainability efforts in their initial phase, versus 4: systematic planning and deployment
of the sustainability effort and proactive commitment. Based on the complete responses
collected from 66 professionals from 60 organizations, mean capability in economic
sustainability was 1.95 out of 4; 1.72 in environmental sustainability; and 2.00 in social
sustainability. These mean scores correspond with Level 2 capability, representing an
elementary level, that is, certain measurements and practices exist within some

PMM per project type

Breakthrough

Plaorm

Derivave
Figure 3.
Mean maturity scores
2.20 2.30 2.40 2.50 2.60 2.70 2.80
per project type
Mean maturity score
IJMPB mandatory and voluntary frameworks, but not reaching a satisfying or sophisticated
13,4 capability level. Table III shows the mean and standard deviation range for each
sustainability category.
The mean TBL sustainability capability, comprising all measures of economic,
environmental and social sustainability varies between 1.34 and 2.81 out of 4; the lowest
capability found in biodiversity related strategies, an environmental sustainability measure,
and the highest capability in health and safety efforts, a social sustainability measure.
808 Environmentally, overall respondents rated their capability the lowest of the three
sustainability categories, ranging between 1.35 and 2.05 out of 4; resource use was rated
the highest, biodiversity-related strategies was rated the lowest. When examining social
sustainability, that is overall rated higher than the other two categories, corporate governance
and corporate citizenship efforts, and motivation and incentives were rated the lowest (means:
1.5, 1.6 and 1.66/4), while promising capabilities in health and safety efforts (2.81 / 4), ethical
behavior and human rights practices, and awareness of controversial activities (2.53/4) were
observed.
Based on demographics, with respect to public versus private, publicly owned
organizations were more sustainable than the private ones (2.06/4, vs 1.83/4), although this
difference is only significant at one tail (t 5 1.89, one tail p <5 0.03). Organizations with green
certifications status, as expected, were significantly more capable than the ones who were not
green certified (2.28 vs 1.82 out of 4) (t 5 3.48, p <5 0.000). When these results are compared
with PMM assessment, private organizations were more mature, and no significant
differences were found in PMM based capability with respect to green certifications status
(2.42 vs 2.35), (t–1.34, p <5 0.09).
While privately owned organizations may invest more in project maturity efforts, publicly
owned organizations may face more obligation in their sustainable practices. Similar to PMM
assessment, businesses with revenues over 10 million (2.28 / 4) showed higher capability in
sustainability practices compared to organizations with annual revenues less than 1 or 10
million (1.40–1.69 out of 4) (t 5 6.24, p <5 0.000). Organization size measured by the number
of employees was not found to be a significant factor. Table IV shows the PMM and CSC
scores per demographics.

5.3 Organizational success results

The perceived organizational success is measured by four performance indicators, on a scale
of 1 to 5, 5 indicating “to a great extent”, 4: to moderate extent, 3: to some extent; 2: to a little
extent, and 1: not at all. Based on the findings, executives agreed to some or moderate extent
(mean: 3.52, median: 3.88, standard deviation: 1.29) that sustainability efforts resulted in
increased organizational success. Respondents agreed greatly (mean: 3.71, median: 4.25) that
corporate sustainability efforts mostly contributed to internal success measures of increased
employee retention and customer value, along with project alignment with the sustainability
vision (mean: 3.94, median: 4.5). Executives agreed to some extent (mean: 3.27, median: 3.5)

Sustainability capability Overall Standard Mean Standard deviation

measures* mean deviation range range

Economic sustainability (G1–G6) 1.95 0.88 1.78–2.21 1.11–1.34

Table III.
Triple bottom Environmental sustainability 1.72 1.05 1.30–2.05 1.29–1.39
sustainability (G7–G11)
capability means and Social sustainability (G12–G19) 2.00 1.03 1.5–2.81 1.03–1.62
standard deviations Note: * Scale: 4: Sophisticated/Outstanding; 3: Satisfying; 2: Elementary; 1: Beginning
that sustainability efforts affected increased market share and positive reputation of their CSC and
organization. PMM for
organizational
5.4 Hypothesis testing success
5.4.1 Significance of PMM-based project capability and CSC on perceived organizational
success. As different scales were used for PMM (Levels 1–5), compared to CSC scores (Levels
1–4), perceived organizational success scores (levels 1–4), and project type (Levels 1–3), all 809
data is normalized using logarithmic transformation prior to significance analysis and
hypothesis testing. For the main effect of PMM, the association of PMM and corporate (triple
bottom) sustainability capability, and its combined effect on the perceived organizational
project success, structural modeling analysis is conducted using PLS-based Script Warp (6.0).
Figure 4 shows the path coefficients and corresponding p values for the latent variables.
The survey results showed the significant impact of PMM-based capability on the
perceived organizational success (β 5 0.672, p < 0.001). PMM significantly relates to perceived
market share and company reputation (external performance) (β 5 0.35, p < 0.013), and
perceived employee retention/customer value and project alignment with sustainability vision
(internal performance) (β 5 0.49, p < 0.046). Thus, Hypothesis 1 is supported. Moreover, the
contribution of each PMM element of organizational success is analyzed. Project Stakeholder
Management and Project Time Management positively contribute to the perceived increased
market share and reputation of the organization (β 5 0.30, p 5 0.017; β 5 0.453, p 5 0.001), as
well as to the positive impact on employee retention and customer value (β 5 0.196, p <5 0.05,
β 5 0.333, p 5 0.004) while Project Quality Management positively contributed to increased
company reputation (β 5 0.258, p <5 0.05). Furthermore, Project Communication
Management and Project Human Resource Management were found instrumental in the
alignment of projects with sustainability vision (β 5 0.308, p <5 0.017; β 5 0.354, p <5 0.002).
R2 values ranged between 0.31 and 0.458.
Survey data showed a significant link between PMM and CSC scores (β 5 0.472,
p <5 0.004). The combined effect of PMM-based project capability and CSC significantly
impacts perceived organizational success (β 5 0.505, p <5 0.003). When each sustainability
category is analyzed, PMM significantly loads on Social Sustainability (β 5 0.671, p <5 0.000,
Economic Sustainability β 5 0.517, p < 0.001, and Environmental Sustainability (β 5 0.34,
p 5 0.007) to affect organizational success. Therefore, Hypotheses 2a, 2b and 2c are
supported.
The effects of sustainability capabilities on organizational success however showed the
significant contribution of economic sustainability (β 5 0.39, p 5 0.003) and social
sustainability capability (β 5 0.24, p 5 0.047), but not much regarding the environmental
sustainability capability. Further breakdown of organizational success into external and
internal performance measures showed the significant contribution of economic and social

Demographic Mean PMM Mean CSC

variable Categories score* T, p value score** T, p value

Business type Public 2.2 4.78, <50.000 2.06 1.89, one tail p <5 0.03
Private 2.46 1.83
Revenues Less than 2.62–3.00 9.93, <5 0.000 – –
10M
Table IV.
Over 10M 1.85–2.00 – Descriptive analysis
Green Certified 2.42 1.34, <5 0.09 2.28 3.48, p <5 0.000 results of PMM and
certification Not certified 2.35 1.82 CSC scores per
Note: * Based on a scale of 5. ** based on a scale of 4 demographics
IJMPB sustainability capabilities on several measures. Economic sustainability capability
13,4 significantly contributed to increased market share, increased reputation, and increased
retention of employees (β 5 0.33–0.379, p 5 0.005–0.03). Social sustainability capability was
significantly linked to increased market share (β 5 0.263, p 5 0.05). Project alignment with
organization’s sustainability vision was the only performance measure environmental
sustainability capability was significantly and positively associated with (β 5 0.38,
p 5 0.007). Economic sustainability capability is by far the biggest contributor in terms of
810 perceived business success. Thus, Hypothesis 3a and 3c are supported, Hypothesis 3b is
partially supported.
5.4.2 Analysis of the moderating effect of project type. The moderating effect of project type
on the relationship among PMM-based capability, CSC (ECO, ENV, SOC), and organizational
success, is tested using multi-group analysis in AMOS, 24. The projects were described by
respondents as derivative, platform, and breakthrough. The fourth type that is a combination
of the three, or service projects was not included. The analysis is conducted for each of the
four organizational success measures: Market share, reputation, retention of employees and
customer value, and project alignment with sustainability vision. Based on the model fit
results, differences between the three project types were significant. Table V shows the multi
group analysis results. X2 difference is significant (p 5 0.002) among the three types.
The standardized regression estimates indicated the positive contribution of PMM on
increased Market Share and increased employee Retention and customer value for all project
categories, although the most contribution is observed for Type 3, that is, breakthrough
projects. Increased project maturity in new product/service or reengineering/change projects
are perceived as linked the most to perceived organizational success, affecting market share,
and employee retention/customer value success parameters. Thus, Hypothesis 4a is partially
supported.
Similarly, the combined effect of PMM and TBL sustainability capability (in economic,
environmental, and social) was found to be strongest with the breakthrough projects
(β values 5 0.569–0.83; p 5 0.000–0.045). This indicates that increased project maturity
significantly contributes to TBL sustainability capability, whether this is economic,
environmental, or social capability. Analyzing the moderating effect of project type for the
causal link between CSC and organizational success, positive contribution of economic
sustainability capability on organizational success is observed for platform and breakthrough
projects, and the contribution of social sustainability capability for derivative projects.

Economic
Sustainability β
Capability (6i) p
β
p
β
p
PMM based β Perceived
Figure 4. capability (9i) p Environmental
Organizaonal
Structural model Success (4i)
results of PMM-based Sustainability
capability, Economic, β Capability (4i)
Environmental, Social p
Sustainability
Capability and Social β
Perceived Sustainability p
Organizational Success Capability (5i)
 Derivative Platform Breakthrough
CSC and
projects projects projects PMM for
Constructs X2/df Significance β, p value β, p value β, p value organizational
PMM- external 3.53 0.002 success
perf
PMM-PERF1 0.32, 0.027 0.14, 0.027 0.39, 0.027
PMM-PERF2 – – – 811
PMM- internal 3.8 0.001
Perf
PMM-PERF3 0.37, 0.021 0.08,0.02 0.41, 0.021
PMM-PERF4 – – –
PMM-SUST-PERF 1.87 0.000 – – –
PMM-ECO – – 0.8, 0.000
PMM-ENV – – 0.66, 0.005
PMM-SOC 0.45, 0.032 0.64, 0.05 0.59, 0.02
ECO-PERF1 – 0.69, 0.000 0.89, 0.000
ECO-PERF2 – 0.56, 0.012 0.64, 0.05
ECO-PERF3 – 0.66, 0.000 1.00, 0.000
ECO-PERF4 – 0.46, 0.036 0.78, 0.000
SOC-PERF1 0.63, 0.000 0.57, 0.001 0.39, 0.04
SOC-PERF2 – 0.64, 0.004 –
SOC-PERF3 0.47, 0.02 –0.59, 0.002 0.73, 0.000
SOC-PERF4 0.39, 0.05 0.67, 0.003 – Table V.
ENV-PERF1 0.53, 0.000 – – Multi-group analysis
ENV-PERF2 – – – results for the
ENV-PERF3 – – – moderating effect of
ENV-PERF4 – – – project type

Therefore, Hypothesis 4b is partially supported. Project type significantly moderates with

economic and social sustainability capability, but not for environmental sustainability
capability when impacting business success.
Table VI summarizes research hypotheses supported by this study.
6. Discussion of results
This survey-based exploratory study shows significant casual links between project
management capability based on maturity and CSC in affecting organizational success.
PMM along with TBL sustainability contributes to external and internal organizational
performance, thus providing empirical evidence for the integration of project maturity with
sustainability. This agrees with several researchers (Silvius, 2017; Silvius et al., 2013; Silvius
and Schipper, 2015; Guimares et al., 2017; Eskerod and Huemann, 2013; Finnerty et al., 2017)
who developed the framework for project management focusing on sustainable development,
social aspect, and value system and management for stakeholder approach. Among
organizational success factors, project managers and directors from 60 small to moderate
size organizations perceived the project alignment with sustainability vision and retention of
employee retention and customer value as the highest, followed by the increased market share
and positive reputation, resulting from sustainability capability and PMM efforts.
With respect to project capability based on PMM, results showed that 49 per cent of the
small to medium size mostly private organizations were at Level 3 and higher project
maturity levels, that is, standardized and institutionalized their project management
processes with an overall project maturity mean of 2.43 out of 5. In specific maturity areas,
project quality management (59 per cent), project cost management (57 per cent), project time
management (54 per cent), and project communications management (53 per cent) continued
IJMPB Hypotheses Result
13,4
H1: PMM is positively associated with organizational success Supported
H2a: PMM is positively associated with economic sustainability capability Supported
H2b: PMM is positively associated with environmental sustainability capability Supported
H2c: PMM is positively associated with social sustainability capability Supported
H3a: PMM enabled economic sustainability capability strongly relates to organizational Supported
812 project success
H3b: PMM enabled environmental sustainability capability strongly relates to Partially
organizational project success supported
H3c: PMM enabled social sustainability capability strongly relates to organizational Supported
project success
H4a: Project type moderates PMM–organizational success link Partially
Table VI. supported
Research hypothesis H4b: Project type significantly moderates with PMM-enabled sustainability capability Partially
test results and organizational project success supported

to be highly structured and institutionalized. These results demonstrate improved project

maturities compared to previous research (Mullaly, 2006; Bannan, 2005; Grant and
Pennypacker, 2006; Pretorius et al., 2012; Abdul Rasid et al., 2014; Miklosik, 2014), that is
very promising. Nevertheless, project risk management, stakeholder management, human
resource, and integration project management areas need further improvement.
Answering research question 1 “Do organizations with higher project management
maturity perform better and what dimensions are emphasized” of the study, several
knowledge areas in PMM were found impacting organizational success. Maturities in project
stakeholder management and project time management positively contributed to increased
market share and reputation, as well as to the positive impact on employee retention and
customer value. Contribution of project quality management on an increased market share and
the role of project communication management and project human resources management on
the alignment of projects with the sustainability vision, shows that investment in PMM is
highly valuable. So, these findings show that high levels of PMM are associated with
increased tangible as well intangible values for organizational success, for most of the PMM
areas, thus expanding Mullaly’s (2014) findings.
Secondly, this research studied the contribution of corporate sustainability and its
combined affect with PMM on business success. So, continuing with corporate sustainability
capabilities, the green certified and public organizations were found more capable in
corporate sustainability. Breaking down to each of the sustainability, the survey results
showed that the mean capability in economic sustainability was 1.95 out of 4; 1.72 in
environmental sustainability and 2.00 in social sustainability. These mean scores correspond
with Level 2 capability, representing an elementary level, that is, certain measurements and
practices exist within some mandatory and voluntary frameworks, but not reaching a
satisfying or sophisticated capability level. So, although organizations reached Level 3 in
several project maturities, the same cannot be said for sustainability capability. The fact that
only 26 per cent of the organizations were green certified, may have a role in this. The
sustainability capability assessment also showed that executives perceived the economic
sustainability capability to be having the most impact on the organizational project success.
This agrees with previous research that little or no consideration were given to the social and
environment dimensions (Carvalho and Rabechini, 2017; Marnewick, 2017; Martens and de
Carvalho, 2014). But it is also promising that PMM-enabled environmental sustainability
capability was positively associated with project alignment with sustainability vision.
Moreover, Social sustainability capability had a positive impact on organizational success,
specifically, on increased market share. It is surprising that social sustainability was not CSC and
linked to an increased company reputation, instead economic sustainability capability was PMM for
associated with all success measures. Thus, the findings of this research support to some
extent the new school of thought in project management by Silvius (2017) that centers around
organizational
integrating sustainable business practices with project management, as well as Carvalho and success
Rabechini (2017) who verified the positive impact of PSM on business success. As this
research explored the contribution of sustainability and project management capabilities on
business success, the results are promising and show a need to incorporate environmental 813
considerations with economic and social ones.
And finally, this research also shows the significant moderation effect of project types with
project and sustainability capabilities as impacting business success. Although project
maturity-based capability and CSC were observed with platform projects; the breakthrough
projects, such as new product/service or reengineering/change projects were found to benefit
most from increased project maturity and were most influential in organizational success.
Project maturity and sustainability capability integration enabled breakthrough projects to have a
profound impact on internal and external organizational success. While social sustainability
efforts were more effective with derivative, that is, continuous improvement projects, both
platform and breakthrough projects played a role in economic sustainability efforts.

7. Conclusion
This study explored the causal links between PMM-based capability, CSC, and the
moderation effect of project type on organizational success. The significant contribution of
PMM, economic and social sustainability capabilities on organizational success is
demonstrated along with the moderating effect of project type. The most common
categories of derivative, platform, and breakthrough projects were found to moderate with the
capability efforts, indicating different requirements of project and sustainability capabilities
are expected for business success, based on project complexity (uncertainty, structure).
Platform and breakthrough projects enabling economic sustainability capability were found
instrumental in this success. Stakeholder management, time management, quality
management, communication, and human resource management knowledge areas
contributed most to the impact of PMM on organizational success.
Although economic sustainability capability was perceived as the most influential on
organizational success, environmental and social capabilities have certainly a role to play.
Green certified organizations were found more capable in corporate sustainability, so
organizations can continue in their efforts of environmental sustainability. The statistically
significant causal link between PMM and environmental sustainability capability is
promising. Further research can explore the impact of environmental sustainability
capability on organizational success with a larger data set.
Organizations can use these findings to assess their capabilities in managing projects and
their efforts in sustainability management to develop vision, policy, and guidance internally,
as well as with their stakeholders. As this study demonstrated, these capabilities contribute
to the alignment of projects with a sustainability vision and to organizational success. PMM
accompanied with sustainability efforts seems to be the perfect recipe for business success.
Overall, this study contributes to PSM and project maturity research. Nevertheless, it has
its own limitations: majority of the organizations in the study were service organizations,
small to moderate size and more US companies were involved. These are typical
characteristics of the businesses of the region the study took place, and it is valuable to
understand their capabilities and future needs for the region that is ecologically critical. The
study can be extended, however to a wider range sectors and international organizations.
Future studies can continue to examine the effects of triple bottom sustainability on
IJMPB organizational performance measures and determine what specific sustainability elements
13,4 are valuable to allocate resources.

References
Aarseth, W., Aaltonen, K., Okland, A. and Andersen, B. (2017), “Project sustainability strategies: a
systematic literature review”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 35 No. 6,
pp. 1071-1083.
814
Abdul Rasid, S.Z., Wan Ismail, W.K., Mohammad, N.H. and Long, C.S. (2014), “Assessing adoption of
project management knowledge areas and maturity level: case study of a public agency in
Malaysia”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 264-271.
Albrecht, J.C. and Spang, K. (2016), “Disassembling and reassembling project management maturity”,
Project Management Journal, Vol. 47 No. 5, pp. 18-35.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1984), “The effect of sampling error on convergence, improper
solutions, and goodness of indices for maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis”,
Psychometrika, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 155–173.
Aubry, M. (2015), “Project management office transformations: direct and moderating effects that
enhance performance and maturity”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 46 No. 5, pp. 19-45.
Bagozzi, R.P. (1981), “An examination of the validity of two models of attitude”, Multivariate
Behavioral Research, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 323-359.
Bannan, K.J. (2005), “Potential for greatness”, PM Network, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 51-54.
Baumgartner, R.J. and Ebner, D. (2010), “Corporate sustainability strategies: sustainability profiles
and maturity levels”, Sustainable Development, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 76-89.
Besner, C. and Hobbs, B. (2008), “Project management practice, generic or contextual: a reality check”,
Project Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 16-33.
Brooks, N., Butler, M., Dey, P. and Clark, R. (2014), “The use of maturity models in improving project
management performance”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 7 No. 2,
pp. 231-246.
Carvalho, M.M. and Rabechini Jr., R. (2017), “Can project sustainability management impact project
success? An empirical study applying a contingent approach”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 35 No. 6, pp. 1120-1132.
Carvalho, M.M., Patah, L.A. and de Souza Bido, D. (2015), “Project management and its effects on
project success: cross-country and cross-industry comparisons”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 33 No. 7, pp. 1509-1522.
Chin, W.W. and Newsted, P.R. (1999), “Structural equation modeling analysis with small samples
using partial least squares”, Statistical Strategies for Small Sample Research, Vol. 1 No. 1,
pp. 307-341.
Christofi, A., Christofi, P. and Sisaye, S. (2012), “Corporate sustainability: historical development and
reporting practices”, Management Research Review, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 157-172.
Cortina, J.M. (1993), “What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and application”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 1, pp. 98-104.
Crawford, L., Hobbs, B. and Turner, J.R. (2006), “Aligning capability with strategy: categorizing
projects to do the right projects and to do them right”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 37
No. 2, pp. 38-50.
Crawford, J.K. (2014), Project Management Maturity Model, 3rd edition, CRC Press, Auerbach,
New York, NY.
De Giovanni, P. and Vinzi, V.E. (2012), “Covariance versus component-based estimations of
performance in green supply chain management”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 135 No. 2, pp. 907-916.
Deland, D. (2009), “Sustainability through project management and net impact”, PMI Global Congress CSC and
Proceedings, Orlando, Florida, FL.
PMM for
Daneshpour, H. (2015), “Integrating sustainability into management of project”, International Journal
of Environmental Science and Development, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 321-325.
organizational
Dow Jones Sustainability World Indexes Guide Version 9.1 (2008), available at: http://www.sustainability-
success
index.com/djsi_pdf/publications/Guidebooks/DJSI_World_Guidebook_91.pdf, January.
Dvir, D., Sadeh, A. and Malch-Pines, A. (2006), “Projects and project managers: the relationship 815
between project managers’ personality, project types, and project success”, Project Management
Journal, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 36-48.
Ellis, K. and Berry, D.M. (2013), “Quantifying the impact of requirements definition and management
process maturity on project outcome in large business application development”, Requirements
Engineering, Vol. 18, pp. 223-249.
Eskerod, P. and Huemann, M. (2013), “Sustainable development and project stakeholder management:
what standards say”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 36-50.
Fernandes, G., Ward, S. and Araujo, M. (2014), “Developing a framework for embedding useful project
management initiatives in organizations”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 81-108.
Finnerty, N., Sterling, R., Coakley, D. and Keane, M.M. (2017), “An energy management maturity
model for multi-site industrial organisations with a global presence”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 167, pp. 1232-1250.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Gareis, R., Huemann, M. and Martinuzzi, A. (2010), “Relating sustainable development and project
management: a conceptual model”, in Proceedings of PMI® Research Conference, Washington DC.
Gemunden, H.G. (2016), “Project governance and sustainability-Two major themes in project
management research and practice”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 47 No. 6, pp. 3-6.
Gimenez, C., Sierra, V. and Rodon, J. (2012), “Sustainable operations: their impact on the triple bottom
line”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 140 No. 1, pp. 149-159.
Gladden, R. (2012), “The project risk maturity model: measuring and improving risk management
capability”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 5, p. 101.
Gorog, M. (2016), “A broader approach to organisational project management maturity assessment”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 34 No. 8, pp. 1658-1669.
Grant, K.P. and Pennypacker, J.S. (2006), “Project management maturity: an assessment of project
management capabilities among and between selected industries”, IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 59-68.
Guimares, J.C.F., Severo, E.A. and Vieira, P.S. (2017), “Cleaner production, project management and
strategic drivers: an empirical study”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 141, pp. 881-890.
Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2013), “Partial least squares structural equation modeling:
rigorous applications, better results and higher acceptance”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 46
No. 1-2, pp. 1-12.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sinkovics, R.R. (2009), “The use of partial least squares path modeling in
international marketing”, Advances in International Marketing, Vol. 20, pp. 277–319.
Heravi, G. and Gholami, A. (2018), “The influence of project risk management and organizational
learning on the success of power plant construction projects”, Project Management Journal,
Vol. 49 No. 5, pp. 22-37.
Jia, G., Ni, X., Chen, Z., Hong, B., Chen, Y., Yang, F. and Lin, C. (2013), “Measuring the maturity of risk
management in large-scale construction projects”, Automation in Construction, Vol. 34, pp. 56-66.
Killen, C.P. and Hunt, R.A. (2013), “Robust project portfolio management: capability evolution and
maturity”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 131-151.
IJMPB Kohl, T.A.S. (2012), A Common-Sense Approach to Sustainability, Resource associates Corporation.
13,4 Lee, K.H. and Saen, R.F. (2012), “Measuring corporate sustainability management: a data envelopment
analysis approach”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 140 No. 1, pp. 219-226.
Lenfle, S. and Loch, C. (2010), “Lost roots: how project management came to emphasize control over
flexibility and novelty”, California Management Review, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 32-55.
Lowry, P.B. and Gaskin, J. (2014), “Partial least squares (PLS) structural equation modeling (SEM) for
816 building and testing behavioral causal theory: when to choose it and how to use it”, IEEE
Transactions on Professional Communication, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 123-146.
Marcelino-S
adaba, S., Gonz
alez-Jaen, L.F. and P
erez-Ezcurdia, A. (2015), “Using project management
as a way to sustainability. From a comprehensive review to a framework definition”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 99, pp. 1–16.
Marnewick C. (2017), “Information system project’s sustainability capability levels”, International
Journal of Project Management, Vol. 35 No. 6, pp. 1151-1166.
Martens, M.L. and de Carvalho, M.M. (2014), “A Conceptual Framework of Sustainability in Project
Management”, Project Management Institute, Newtown Square.
Martens, M.L. and de Carvalho, M.M. (2016), “The challenge of introducing sustainability into project
management function: multiple-case studies”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 117, pp. 29-40.
Martens, M.L. and de Carvalho, M.M. (2017), “Key factors of sustainability in project management
context: a survey exploring the project managers’ perspective”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 35 No. 6, pp. 1084-1102.
Martens, M.L. and de Carvalho, M.M. (2016), “Sustainability and success variables in the
project management context: an expert panel”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 47 No. 6,
pp. 24-43.
Miklosik, A. (2014), “Selected aspects of systemic approach to project management”, Actual Problems
of Economics, Vol. 155 No. 5, pp. 195-202.
Miklosik, A. (2015), “Improving project management performance through capability maturity
measurement”, Procedia Economics and Finance, Vol. 30, pp. 522-530.
Mir, F.A. and Pinnington, A.H. (2014), “Exploring the value of project management: linking project
management performance and project success”, International Journal of Project Management,
Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 202-217.
Mullaly, M. (2006), “Longitudinal analysis of project management maturity”, Project Management
Journal, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 62-73.
Mullaly, M. (2014), “If maturity is the answer, then exactly what was the question?”, International
Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 169-185.
Nunnally, J. (1978), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Overcash, M. and Twomey, J.M. (2011), “Structure of industrial or corporate sustainability
programmes”, International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, Vol. 4 No. 02, pp. 109-114.
Pasian, B.L. (2014), “Extending the concept and modularization of project management maturity with
adaptable, human and customer factors”, International Journal of Managing Projects in
Business, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 186-214.
Pollack, J. and Adler, D. (2014), “Does project management affect business productivity? Evidence
from Australian small to medium enterprises”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 45 No. 6,
pp. 17-24.
Pretorius, S., Steyn, H. and Jordaan, J.C. (2012), “Project management maturity and project
management success in the engineering and construction industries in Southern Africa”, South
African Journal of Industrial Engineering, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 1-12.
Project Management Institute (2013), Organizational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3),
3rd edition, Project Management Institute, Newtown Square.
Pullman, M., (2012), Sustainability Delivered: Designing Socially and Environmentally Responsible CSC and
Supply Chains, Business Expert Press, New York, NY.
PMM for
Ritchie, W.J. and Eastwood, K. (2005), “Finding the perfect partner: Comparing Hofstede’s dimensions
with organizational culture for international joint venture compatibility”, Journal of Global
organizational
Business, Vol. 32, p. 67. success
Savitz, A. and Weber, W. (2006), The Triple Bottom Line: How Today’s Best-Run Companies are
Achieving Economic, Social and Environmental Success, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken.
817
Schmitt, N. (1996), “Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha”, Psychological Assessment, Vol. 8
No. 4, p. 350.
Shenhar, A.J. and Dvir, D. (2007), “Project management research—the challenge and opportunity”,
Project Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 93-99.
Silvius, A.J.G., Schipper, R. and Nedeski, S. (2013), “Sustainability in project management: reality
bites”, PM World Journal, Vol. II No. II, pp. 1-14.
Silvius, A.J.G. and Schipper, R. (2015), “Developing a maturity model for assessing sustainable project
management”, Journal of Modern Project Management, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 16-27.
Silvius, G. (2017), “Sustainability as a new school of thought”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 166,
pp. 1479-1493.
Surroca, J., Trib
o, J.A. and Waddock, S. (2010), “Corporate responsibility and financial performance:
the role of intangible resources”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 463-490.
Tenenhaus, M., Vinzi, V.E., Chatelin, Y.M. and Lauro, C. (2005), “PLS path modeling”, Computational
Statistics and Data Analysis, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 159-205.
Torres, L. (2014), A Contingency View on the Effect of Project Management Maturity on Perceived
Performance (PhD Thesis), Skema Business School, Lille, France.
Wen, Q. and Qiang, M. (2016), “Enablers for organizational project management in the Chinese
context”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 113-126.
Weninger, C. and Huemann, M. (2013), “Project initiation: investment analysis for sustainable
development”, in Sustainability Integration for Effective Project Management, IGI Global,
Pennsylvania, pp. 144-159.
Werts, C.E., Linn, R.L. and J€oreskog, K.G. (1974), “Intraclass reliability estimates: Testing structural
assumptions”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 25-33.
Yazici, H.J. (2009), “The role of project management maturity and organizational culture on perceived
performance”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 14-33.
Yazici, H.J. (2011), “Significance of organizational culture in perceived project and business
performance”, Engineering Management Journal, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 20-29.
Yazici, H.J. (2018), “Role of organizational project maturity on business success: last five years’ outlook
and beyond”, in Developing Organizational Maturity for Effective Project Management, IGI
Global, Pennsylvania, pp. 43-54.
Yuan, H. (2017), “Achieving sustainability in railway projects: major stakeholder concerns”, Project
Management Journal, Vol. 48 No. 5, pp. 115-132.
Zuofa, T. and Ochieng, E. (2016), “Sustainability in construction project delivery: a study of
experienced project managers in Nigeria”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 47 No. 6, pp. 44-55.

Corresponding author
Hulya Julie Yazici can be contacted at: hyazici@fgcu.edu

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com