Assessment of the maturity of project management offices of government agencies of Kazakhstan: analysis, trends, and development prospects

Modern project management research encompasses a broad spectrum of topics, including PMO maturity, digital transformation, strategic project management, and success factors in the public sector.

A foundational study by Hobbs & Aubry (2007) examined 500 organizations with Project Management Institute (PMI) support, identifying core PMO functions and developing a conceptual framework that remains influential in assessing their maturity. This research initiated a systematic approach to evaluating PMOs, providing empirical insights into their role within organizations. Pinto (2012) further emphasized that the evolution of maturity assessment methodologies has been a major focus of both academic and professional project management communities, underscoring the increasing importance of standardized evaluation frameworks.

Among the most widely recognized project management maturity models are Organizational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3), Portfolio, Program, and Project Management Maturity Model (P3M3), and Project Management Maturity Model (PMMM).

OPM3, introduced by PMI in 2003, offers a comprehensive maturity framework that assesses processes, competencies, and achieved outcomes (Fahrenkrog et al., 2003). It serves as a roadmap for organizations seeking structured improvements in project management capabilities.

P3M3, developed by Axelos (2015), evaluates an organization’s maturity across portfolio, program, and project management, providing a structured pathway for organizations at different stages of maturity.

PMMM (Kerzner’s maturity model) follows a five-tier system, characterizing organizational project management evolution while acknowledging common barriers such as resistance to change and misalignment of strategic priorities (Kerzner, 2019).

These models have been widely applied in both academic research and professional practice, serving as benchmarks for assessing PMO effectiveness. However, research on their application in public sector settings remains relatively limited, necessitating further empirical analysis to determine how these frameworks align with government agencies’ operational realities.

The relationship between maturity levels and project success has been extensively studied. Burger et al. (2024) found that higher maturity levels contribute to improved project performance, but they do not guarantee success independently. Their study in the mining industry emphasized that organizational and strategic enablers are equally important for project effectiveness. This suggests that while maturity models provide a useful framework, their success depends on complementary organizational factors.

Similarly, Van der Waldt (2020) examined project management maturity in public sector institutions, concluding that higher maturity correlates with better policy implementation and social program success. However, he emphasized that maturity alone is insufficient and institutions must also integrate project management into their broader governance structures. To address these challenges, Karim et al. (2022) proposed that maturity should be viewed as an organization’s ability to institutionalize best practices, rather than just a measure of process formalization.

Digital transformation presents unique challenges that require robust project management structures. Hafseld et al. (2021) analyzed government digital transformation projects, highlighting that technological innovation, organizational readiness, and stakeholder engagement are all critical factors. Their research suggests that higher project management maturity levels contribute to better digital transformation outcomes, as agencies with formalized project governance structures tend to manage digital initiatives more effectively.

Similarly, Titov & Titova (2022) emphasized that strategic alignment between digital transformation and organizational goals is essential, highlighting the need for adaptable project management methodologies. Hurochkina & Zvonar (2020) further contributed to this discourse by comparing traditional and agile digital project management approaches, concluding that agile methods improve adaptability and efficiency, particularly in government settings.

The connection between project success and maturity was also explored by Cao & Swierczek (2010), who analyzed infrastructure projects in Vietnam. Their study underscores the importance of managerial competence, project professionalism, and a stable external environment in achieving project success. Notably, they found that the early planning phase is crucial, as maturity models are most effective when applied systematically from the project’s inception.

Public sector projects introduce additional complexities due to regulatory frameworks, political considerations, and bureaucratic structures. Lawani & Moore (2016) highlighted that project implementation in developing countries is often hindered by structural inefficiencies, inconsistent regulations, and contractor management challenges. Shkaft et al. (2021) reinforced this view, emphasizing that early-stage planning and competent leadership are critical success factors for government projects.

The role of PMOs in public administration was extensively analyzed by Menon (2024), who identified best practices for their establishment, methodology selection, and competency development. These findings reinforce the notion that PMOs serve as critical enablers of structured project execution in government agencies.

The strategic dimension of project management was explored by Too & Weaver (2014), who proposed a four-component model integrating portfolio management, project sponsorship, PMOs, and long-term project governance. Their findings align with those of Karayaz & Gungor (2013), who argued that PMOs facilitate stakeholder coordination, promote standardization, and integrate project management with institutional objectives. These studies collectively underscore the importance of strategic integration in project maturity models.

The introduction of project management in Kazakhstan’s public sector has been driven by efforts to improve transparency, efficiency, and adaptability in response to dynamic socioeconomic conditions. The Concept for the Development of Public Administration in Kazakhstan until 2030 (2021) establishes institutionalization of PMOs as a key component of government efficiency reforms.

Initially, the Ministry of National Economy managed PMO coordination (Government Resolution, 2021); but in 2023, the responsibility shifted to the Ministry of Digital Development, Innovation, and Aerospace Industry (Government Resolution, 2023), reflecting the increasing strategic importance of digital project management.

In addition, the Prime Minister’s Decree (2023) established the National Project Office (NPO), operating within the Office of the Digital Government as a matrix structure that integrates various project governance entities, including the following:

Department of Project Management Policy (Ministry of Digital Development, Innovation, and Aerospace Industry)

Thus, Kazakhstan’s public sector is undergoing a structured transition toward project-based governance. The study of PMO maturity in government agencies is particularly relevant as it provides insights into the degree of project management institutionalization, identifies existing gaps, and informs further strategic development efforts.

Despite the global expansion of project management maturity research, there remains a notable gap in empirical studies focused on transitional public sectors, particularly in post-Soviet and Central Asian contexts. Most widely adopted maturity models – such as P3M3, OPM3, and PMMM – were developed in Western institutional environments and often presume a level of managerial autonomy, strategic integration, and performance accountability that may not align with the bureaucratic and politically influenced structures of emerging public administrations. In Kazakhstan, recent efforts to institutionalize project management – through national standards, centralized PMO coordination, and digital transformation initiatives – represent a unique case of top-down reform. However, the extent to which these reforms have translated into actual improvements in project management maturity across government bodies remains unclear. This study aims to address this empirical and contextual gap by applying the P3M3 model to assess the maturity of PMOs in Kazakhstan’s central and regional agencies. By doing so, it provides a rare comparative lens on the alignment between global maturity frameworks and the operational realities of governance in an evolving public sector landscape.

A cluster analysis categorized agencies into five P3M3 maturity levels. No agency was found at Level 4 (Managed) or Level 5 (Optimizing), indicating that no institution had achieved full process optimization or strategic integration.

The distribution of government agencies by cluster is shown in Table 2.

An analysis of the maturity distribution reveals that a significant number of government agencies fall within the Transitional maturity category. This suggests that project management is actively being implemented and institutionalized across government institutions, reflecting ongoing efforts to standardize practices and improve efficiency.

The presence of government agencies in the Advanced maturity category demonstrates that a structured and well-documented approach to project management is being adopted in some organizations. These institutions consistently apply defined processes, ensuring predictable and efficient project outcomes. However, their number remains relatively small, highlighting the need for further scaling and institutional strengthening of PMOs.

The low number of agencies in the Initial maturity category suggests that even at the early stages of project management implementation, basic project management structures are in place across most organizations. This provides a solid foundation for further development, as agencies in this category have at least some awareness of project management principles, even if application remains inconsistent.

No government agencies were found in the Optimized (Level 4) or Strategic (Level 5) maturity categories, indicating that Kazakhstan’s public sector has not yet reached the stage of fully managed or continuously improving project management practices. These levels represent a long-term goal, where project management is deeply integrated into governance structures and is guided by performance metrics, strategic alignment, and adaptive learning.

Despite the positive trajectory, continued efforts are required to transition more organizations from Transitional maturity to Advanced maturity by the following:

enhancing standardization, that is, ensuring that defined project management methodologies are consistently followed across all agencies;

The results indicate Kazakhstan’s public administration is progressing toward a more structured approach to project management, with most organizations beyond the ad hoc stage. However, further efforts are needed to institutionalize best practices and strengthen regulatory mechanisms across all government levels.

A one-factor ANOVA was conducted to assess the differences in the maturity levels of PMOs between ministries, CGAs, and REAs. This method enables the identification of statistically significant differences in PMO maturity levels across different types of government institutions (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).

The results of ANOVA indicate that several indicators show significant differences (p < 0.05), including Management Control (p = 0.0191), Benefits Management (p = 0.0119), Stakeholder Engagement (p = 0.0444), and Risk Management (p = 0.0029). This suggests that these aspects of project management maturity vary significantly between different government agencies, potentially reflecting disparities in the adoption, implementation, and institutionalization of project management practices.

Financial Management (p = 0.0909) does not show statistically significant differences, suggesting that budgetary and financial oversight practices are more standardized across government agencies, possibly due to centralized regulations. The significant differences in key indicators imply that while project management practices are being implemented, some institutions have further formalized these processes. This variation may stem from differences in organizational culture, resources, leadership, or exposure to project management methodologies. These findings emphasize the need for targeted interventions, particularly in stakeholder engagement, benefits realization, and risk management, to bridge gaps between agencies. Strengthening capacity-building and promoting knowledge-sharing initiatives could help standardize project management practices.

A t-test was conducted to assess differences between specific pairs of government agency groups. This method is widely used in statistical analysis as it allows for the identification of significant differences between groups, even in cases where sample sizes are relatively small (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The test was applied to compare the maturity levels of PMOs between ministries and CGAs, as well as between ministries and REAs.

The results of the t-test partially confirm the conclusions of the ANOVA analysis. While most maturity indicators do not exhibit statistically significant differences (p > 0.05), some key aspects, including Management Control, Benefits Management, and Stakeholder Engagement, demonstrate statistically significant variations between certain agency types (p < 0.05). These findings indicate that, while the overall maturity levels of PMOs remain relatively uniform across different government agencies, some specific aspects of project management implementation differ. This may be due to variations in project governance structures, resource allocation strategies, or organizational mandates between ministries, CGAs, and REAs.

The focus group was designed to deepen the understanding of differences identified through the quantitative analysis and to explore the underlying institutional and contextual factors affecting project management maturity in Kazakhstan’s public sector. The qualitative findings offered a deeper probe into the reasoning behind observed maturity levels – revealing perceptions, structural constraints, and practitioner experiences that are not readily captured through survey data alone.

Participants generally agreed that the self-assessment provided a reasonable reflection of their agency’s maturity. However, some emphasized that maturity is not a fixed state, but a dynamic process shaped by evolving practices, leadership priorities, and structural reforms. One respondent noted that the tool required periodic revision to reflect institutional progress, while another viewed the assessment as an important step in building internal awareness, even if it underestimated certain efforts. There was shared recognition that maturity is an evolving process, and periodic reassessment is necessary to reflect institutional shifts.

When discussing variation in maturity across agencies, participants pointed to several influencing factors. Central agencies were perceived to have stronger institutional mandates and more developed digital infrastructure, while regional agencies often demonstrated greater operational engagement, especially in implementing national projects. Differences in staff qualifications, leadership support, access to certification, and financial resourcing were frequently cited as underlying causes of disparity. Notably, both regional and central representatives agreed that leadership involvement was a key determinant of maturity, regardless of the agency’s position in the hierarchy. These qualitative insights provide deeper context for the statistically significant differences observed in the survey data, particularly in areas such as Management Control, Benefits Management, Stakeholder Engagement, and Risk Management. While maturity levels vary across agencies, the focus group findings suggest these disparities are closely tied to institutional capacity, culture, and strategic commitment to project-based governance.

Participants highlighted a range of systemic and organizational barriers that constrain the advancement of project management maturity in government institutions. These barriers were both external, rooted in governance and regulatory frameworks, and internal, tied to operational and administrative practices.

Externally, several respondents emphasized the important coordinating role of the NPO and acknowledged its existing mandate within the current institutional framework as an interagency forum. However, they noted that its authority could be further strengthened to support the enforcement of common standards and the consistent implementation of project management practices across government bodies. The lack of regulatory mechanisms – such as mandatory certification, minimum professional experience requirements for project leadership roles, and defined career path trajectories for project professionals in the public sector – was also cited as a limiting factor for the professionalization and long-term institutionalization of project-based governance.

Internally, recurring constraints included bureaucratic duplication, fragmented reporting channels, and a lack of clarity in the distribution of project-related roles and responsibilities. Some participants also pointed to inefficiencies in administrative routines, where overlapping reporting requirements contribute to unnecessary workload. More broadly, the institutional culture surrounding project-based governance was identified as a barrier in some agencies. Project management is still occasionally perceived as an additional administrative burden rather than as a strategic tool, which limits its adoption and undermines commitment at both operational and leadership levels. In a few cases, respondents noted that the functional nature of their agency presents structural constraints to applying standard project management models. In addition, insufficient institutional incentives for project offices and limited leadership engagement were perceived as factors that inhibit progress. Several participants underscored that capacity-building remains inconsistent, and that more systematic efforts are needed to strengthen project management competencies across the public sector.

Despite institutional challenges, participants shared a range of encouraging practices that have supported the development of project management within their agencies. Several respondents emphasized their agencies’ active participation in nationally coordinated initiatives which fostered interdepartmental collaboration and underscored the strategic importance of project-based approaches in achieving national priorities. Leadership engagement was also identified as a key enabling factor, especially in the context of high-profile national projects. In regional administrations, the direct involvement of deputy-level officials was instrumental in elevating the visibility and perceived value of project management efforts, thereby encouraging broader institutional support.

Participants noted that the way agencies organize internal processes, engage leadership, and coordinate across departments can significantly influence implementation outcomes. In many cases, active support from PMO teams and senior officials helped translate strategic goals into practical results. These examples underscore the importance of internal ownership and initiative in strengthening a project-oriented culture.

Participants proposed a range of measures to support the advancement of project management maturity in the public sector. These included embedding project performance indicators into executive evaluations, recognizing certified staff through career incentives, and integrating digital dashboards into decision-making processes. Respondents also emphasized the importance of reducing bureaucratic duplication, institutionalizing regular peer-learning forums and interagency exchange, and strengthening the role and mandate of NPO to ensure coordination and methodological consistency. In addition, several participants noted the need to formally acknowledge the strategic role of PMOs within government agencies and to elevate their institutional status to ensure continuity, authority, and cross-functional influence. There was broad agreement that sustainable progress depends not only on tools and frameworks but also on leadership commitment, professional development, and coordinated governance.