Honeywell’s Project Management Levels

According to Hartwig and Smith (2000), “Honeywell FM & T is the prime contractor for the National Nuclear Security Administration, Kansas City Plant” (p. 2). Therefore, the nature of Honeywell’s mandate makes project management an important undertaking in its operation. Program management maturity model is an important plan and framework in project management (Hartwig and Smith, 2000). Additionally, several project management maturity models exist in practice. However, this essay will use the 5 level project management process maturity model to discus Honeywell. This essay will, therefore, give suggestions on what must be done to move Honeywell from level 2 to level 3 of this model.

The 5 level project management process maturity model is motivated by the need to transform an organization from being functionally-driven to project-driven (Kwak and Ibbs, 2000). In addition, the 5 level Project management process maturity model helps an organization gauge its growth against that of its competitor. The main goal of 5 level project management process maturity model is, therefore, to use an organization applying project management practices and processes as a reference point (Kwak and Ibbs, 2000). This model consists of five levels. According to Kwak and Ibbs (2000), these levels include level 1 (ad-hoc stage), level 2 (planned stage), level 3 (managed stage), level 4 (integrated stage) and level 5 (sustained stage).

This paper assumes that Honeywell has already gone through level 2. Therefore, its project manager is familiar with some of the project management processes. Accordingly, the project manager is able to control some of these processes. However, in level 2, major decisions in project management depend on individuals rather than execution of effective project management processes (Kwak and Ibbs, 2000). For that reason, functional isolation is still prevalent at Honeywell. Therefore, to effectively manage its affairs, Honeywell needs to move from level 2 to level 3. According to Kwak and Ibbs (2000), at level 3, project management processes are partially formal. In addition, these processes display the fundamentals of project planning and control system. In this regard, major problems affecting project management are indentified and documented and data related to project management collected (Kwak and Ibbs, 2000). There are also formal methods of generating and communicating data (Hartwig and Smith, 2000). Furthermore, collected date is analyzed and shared by the project management team (Kwak and Ibbs, 2000). This helps the team work as a unit.

The management of Honeywell has to fulfill some requirement in order to move from level 2 to level 3 of the 5 level project management process maturity model. Firstly, its senior management must embrace the process fully. Therefore, senior management should be ready for decision making and execution. Consequently, it should be able to direct on how Honeywell works. Therefore, Honeywell’s senior management should desist from directing functional units or focusing on functional targets (Management Services, 2007). Instead, it should focus on how projects within Honeywell will work and their targets.

Secondly, in order to fully understand and apply project management skills and practices, Honeywell must train its staff. This training should essentially target the project management team. According to Abudi (2010), training provides members of a project implementation team with a number of benefits. To start with, members are able to apply the newly acquired skills to an ongoing project. Secondly, the project management team members enjoy professional and personal growth. Thirdly, team members acquire the necessary skills to solve various problems within the project. Finally, this training is a morale booster and provides an environment for a continuous learning process. Moreover, Honeywell’s best employees are likely to stick around because of the learning opportunities given to them.

Finally, Honeywell’s cross-functional teams must be integrated to form a project management team. A cross-functional team consists of people from various departments within an organization (Butler, 2009). For that reason, it is a challenge to maintain and build such a team. Nonetheless, a cross-functional team is an indispensible tool for an organization that wants to move to level 3. A cross-functional team brings people with different expertise together (Butler, 2009). Consequently, problem-solving becomes easier and useful decisions are arrived at with ease. Therefore, Honeywell’s management should strive to have a project management team that is cross-functional. If Honeywell gains such a team, the lead time in most project management processes and practices will be reduced drastically. This team will make key decisions on resource allocation and prioritization of major issues within Honeywell.

Level 3, of the 5 level project management process maturity model, is an important stage in project management. In addition, level 3 brings professionalism in project management. In this level, problems affecting project management are indentified and documented, formal methods are used to collect data and a cross-functional team is integrated to form a project management team. For that reason, a company undertakes key adjustments in level 3. Therefore, in order to reach level 3, Honeywell must be ready to restructure its top management, train its staff and establish an effective cross-functional team.


Abudi, G. (2010). Training project team members on the job. Web.

Butler, J. (2009). Building effective cross functional teams: How to get them up & running to help manage deductions. Web.

Hartwig, L. & Smith, M. (n.d.). Honeywell FM&T – project management maturity model. Web.

Kwak, Y. H. & Ibbs, C. W. (2000). Project management process maturity model (PM) 2. Web.

Management Services. (2007). Why focusing on processes business management. Web.