If your organization runs both Scrum sprints and traditional milestone-based delivery, you have probably struggled to assess your team's overall capability with a single framework. The project management maturity model from PM Solutions recently released an updated edition that attempts to solve exactly this problem. The revision adds specific Agile and adaptive components alongside the existing traditional content, letting organizations evaluate hybrid environments without forcing a methodology choice.
The book has been in development for nearly a year. It builds on the original maturity model structure while addressing a gap that many assessment frameworks ignore: most organizations do not run exclusively on one methodology. They have pockets of Agile practice within otherwise traditional delivery structures.
Quick take
- New edition adds Agile and adaptive components to the original maturity model
- Framework pairs Agile practice statements with ten traditional knowledge areas
- Five maturity levels apply to both approaches simultaneously
- Evaluation tools allow self-assessment without committing to a single methodology
- Designed for organizations mid-transformation or running hybrid delivery
Why the Update Reflects Real-World Practice
The original model evaluated organizations against ten knowledge areas: scope, schedule, cost, quality, resources, communications, risk, procurement, stakeholder management, and integration. These remain the foundation. The new version adds maturity indicators for each knowledge area that reflect Agile values, such as iterative delivery, continuous feedback, and team self-organization.
The timing is not accidental. Over the past several years, more organizations have adopted Agile practices without fully abandoning traditional methods. A team might run sprints for software development while using waterfall-style reporting for finance and compliance. The updated model validates this mixed state rather than treating it as organizational indecision.
For the readers of this site, the practical question is whether a maturity framework that acknowledges hybrid delivery helps your team demonstrate capability. The answer depends on how your organization actually works.
Our analysis: who benefits and what to watch
The clearest beneficiaries are organizations in mid-transformation. If you have moved some teams to Scrum or Kanban while others continue with traditional delivery, the updated model gives you a consistent vocabulary for assessing both. You stop running parallel assessments with incompatible scales.
The model also helps project managers communicate capability to leadership in a single score. When someone asks where the organization stands on project management maturity, you can produce one number that reflects your actual working environment.
The risk is that the model could encourage organizations to treat the score as a destination rather than a diagnostic. Maturity measurement is useful precisely because it shows where you are, not because it tells you which methodology is superior.
What to watch next: whether organizations use the updated framework to benchmark improvement over time or simply to check a box. The value lies in tracking progress across assessment cycles, not in achieving a single high score.
A Practical Example for Your Next Review
Say you are a project manager preparing your annual self-assessment. Your team runs two-week sprints for product development but uses traditional milestone reporting for a key client. Under the old model, you would have assessed your team against either Agile indicators or traditional indicators, not both. Your review would have missed how your team actually operates.
With the updated model, you can assess your team on Agile components for the sprint work and traditional components for client reporting. You produce one maturity level that reflects your full context. This gives your manager a more honest picture and gives you language to explain why your hybrid approach is a deliberate choice, not a failure to standardize.
You can apply this same logic when evaluating your team's strengths and development areas. If the Agile components show higher maturity than the traditional components, you know where to focus coaching. If the reverse is true, you have evidence to support an Agile pilot program.
How This Connects to Your Current Workflow
Whether you use Scrum, Kanban, or a hybrid approach, the updated model asks a straightforward question: at what maturity level does your team operate for each knowledge area, measured against both traditional and adaptive indicators? The gap between those two scores often reveals where your actual practice differs from your stated methodology.
If your team claims to run Scrum but has minimal retrospective practice and no clear definition of done, your Agile maturity score will reflect that gap. The model does not force you to change; it shows you what your current practice actually looks like.
This matters for planning. Teams that understand their real maturity level can set achievable improvement goals. Teams that overestimate their maturity often invest in the wrong areas and wonder why results do not improve.
Bottom line
The project management maturity model update matters if your organization operates in mixed-methodology environments. It gives you a framework to assess what you actually do, not what you aspire to do. Use it as a diagnostic tool, track your scores over time, and focus on closing genuine gaps rather than chasing a methodology label.
Key takeaways
- The updated model covers both Agile and traditional approaches in one framework
- Five maturity levels apply to hybrid environments without forcing a methodology choice
- Assessment results connect directly to business outcome improvements
- The model supports both internal self-assessment and external benchmarking
- Mid-transformation organizations benefit most from the hybrid evaluation approach
Frequently asked questions
Does the update recommend one methodology over another?
No. It provides indicators for both, letting organizations self-assess based on what they actually practice rather than prescribing a single approach.
How is the Agile component different from the traditional component?
Agile indicators focus on iteration, feedback loops, and team autonomy. Traditional indicators focus on documentation, upfront planning, and milestone-based delivery.
Can small teams use this model effectively?
Yes. The evaluation tools scale. A team of five and an organization of five hundred can both apply the same framework to their specific context.
Is this model aligned with any certification standards?
The foundation follows PMI's PMBOK knowledge areas, which aligns with PMP and PMI-ACP certifications used by many Agile and traditional practitioners.
Where can organizations access the updated framework?
The book from PM Solutions contains the full model, evaluation tools, and case studies demonstrating practical application across different organizational contexts.