MANAGEMENT MATURITY AS A DYNAMIC CHARACTERISTIC OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MODERN MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IN THE CONTEXT OF ORGANIZATIONAL RESILIENCE
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32999/ksu2307-8030/2026-60-12Keywords:
management maturity, management system, evolution of maturity models, organizational resilience, dynamic capabilities, organizational learning, management transformation, organizational capacity, disturbances, adaptation, management developmentAbstract
The article substantiates the conceptual foundations of the authors’ interpretation of management maturity as a dynamic characteristic of the development and transformation of an organization’s management system and a mechanism for its development under the influence of organizational disturbances. Based on the integration of the principles of organizational life cycle theory, dynamic capabilities theory, organizational learning theory, and the concept of organizational resilience, these theoretical approaches are used as the methodological basis of the study. Management maturity is proposed to be understood as the ability of a management system to purposefully adapt and transform management processes, competencies, and decision-making mechanisms in response to environmental challenges. This ability enables the organization to transform acquired experience into a sustained increase in organizational capacity and resilience through mechanisms of learning and self-improvement. The central role of organizational resilience in the dynamics of management maturity as a linking mechanism between the potential of the management system and its realization under conditions of disturbances is substantiated. The sequence “organizational life cycle → dynamic capabilities → disturbance → organizational resilience → organizational learning → transformation of the management system → a new level of management maturity” is conceptually presented. It is demonstrated that the organization’s ability not only to restore its previous state but also to comprehend the experience of disturbances, reconsider management assumptions and decisions, change behavioral patterns, and institutionalize new practices creates the prerequisites for a qualitative increase in management maturity. A dynamic transition logic T₀ → T₁ is proposed, according to which a disturbance can act not only as a source of threats to organizational functioning but also as a catalyst for the development of its management system. A fundamental distinction is established between the restoration of the previous state and an increase in management maturity: in the former case, the system returns to T₀, whereas learning and transformation result in the formation of a qualitatively new state T₁ > T₀. This provides a theoretical basis for the further development of an instrumentarium for assessing management maturity and determining its level based on the ability of the management system to navigate cycles of disturbance, adaptation, learning, and transformation.
References
1. Crosby P. B. Quality Is Free: The Art of Making Quality Certain. New York : McGraw-Hill, 1979. 309 p.
2. Humphrey W. S. Managing the Software Process. Reading, MA : Addison-Wesley Professional, 1989.
3. Wendler R. The maturity of maturity model research: A systematic mapping study. Information and Software Technology. 2012. Vol. 54, No. 12. P. 1317–1339. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2012.07.007
4. Saavedra V., Dávila A., Melendez K., Pessoa M. Organizational maturity models architectures: A systematic literature review. Trends and Applications in Software Engineering : Proceedings of CIMPS 2016. Cham : Springer, 2017. P. 33–46. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48523-2_4
5. Kucińska-Landwójtowicz A., Czabak-Górska I. D., Domingues P., Sampaio P., Ferradaz de Carvalho C. Organizational maturity models: The leading research fields and opportunities for further studies. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management. 2024. Vol. 41, No. 1. P. 60–83. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/From-theory-to-practice-of-organizational-project-%E2%80%93-Mehri-Ghanbaripour/2632f55da48cee229f6c4af0459b5a4960e700c5
6. Aras A., Büyüközkan G. Digital transformation journey guidance: A holistic digital maturity model based on a systematic literature review. Systems. 2023. Vol. 11, No. 4. Art. 213. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/systems11040213
7. Thordsen T., Bick M. A decade of digital maturity models: Much ado about nothing? Information Systems and e-Business Management. 2023. Vol. 21. P. 947–976. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-023-00656-w
8. Hein-Pensel F., Winkler H., Brückner A., Wölke M., Jabs I., Mayan I. J., Kirschenbaum A., Friedrich J., Zinke-Wehlmann C. Maturity assessment for Industry 5.0: A review of existing maturity models. Journal of Manufacturing Systems. 2023. Vol. 66. P. 200–210. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2022.12.009
9. Bozorg Mehri S., Ghanbaripour A. N., Menadue V. R., Patching A. From theory to practice of organizational project management maturity models – systematic literature review. Built Environment Project and Asset Management. 2026. Vol. 16, No. 2. P. 263–285. URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/396452972_From_theory_to_practice_of_organizational_project_management_maturity_models_-_systematic_literature_review
10. Тулупов М. О. Удосконалення відомих підходів щодо визначення терміну «зрілість» в контексті управління проєктами. Управління проектами у розвитку суспільства : XVIII Міжнародна конференція. Тема: «Управління проектами в умовах пандемії COVID-19» : тези доповідей, Київ, 15 трав. 2021 р. Київ : КНУБА, 2021. С. 282–286.
11. Марухленко О. В., Рубан Д. О., Турбаєвський Я. Е. Зрілість управління проєктами як фактор формування організаційної репутації. Економічний простір. 2025. № 207. С. 25–33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30838/EP.207.25-33
12. Argyris C. Personality and Organization: The Conflict between System and the Individual. New York : Harper & Brothers, 1957. 291 p.
13. Argyris C. Double loop learning in organizations. Harvard Business Review. 1977. Vol. 55, No. 5. P. 115–125.
14. Kerzner H. Strategic Planning for Project Management Using a Project Management Maturity Model. New York : Wiley, 2001.
15. Fahrenkrog S. L., Baca C., Kruszewski L. M., Wesman P. R. Project Management Institute's Organizational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3). PMI Global Congress, 2003.
16. Helfat C. E., Finkelstein S., Mitchell W., Peteraf M. A., Singh H., Teece D. J., Winter S. G. Dynamic Capabilities: Understanding Strategic Change in Organizations. Malden, MA : Blackwell, 2007.
17. Teece D. J., Pisano G., Shuen A. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal. 1997. Vol. 18, No. 7. P. 509–533. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7%3C509::AID-SMJ882%3E3.0.CO;2-Z
18. Teece D. J. Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal. 2007. Vol. 28, No. 13. P. 1319–1350. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.640
19. Штепа О. С. Диспозиційна модель особистісної зрілості : автореф. дис. ... канд. психол. наук : 19.00.05. Київ, 2006. 17 с.
20. Цина В. І. Розвиток особистісно-професійної зрілості майбутніх учителів: теоретико-методичний аспект. Полтава : ПНПУ імені В. Г. Короленка, 2015. - 404 с.
21. Дарміць Р. З., Чабан М.-Л. М. Управлінська зрілість: підходи до визначення, чинники та класифікація. Економіка та суспільство. 2023. № 56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32782/2524-0072/2023-56-147
22. Argyris C., Schön D. A. Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading, MA : Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1978, 344 p.
23. Duchek S. Organizational resilience: A capability-based conceptualization. Business Research. 2020. Vol. 13. P. 215–246. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40685-019-0085-7
24. Miller D., Friesen P. H. A longitudinal study of the corporate life cycle. Management Science. 1984. Vol. 30, No. 10. P. 1161–1183. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.30.10.1161
25. Тюхтенко Н. А. Управління знаннями для формування інтелектуального потенціалу організації в умовах партнерства бізнесу, науки і освіти. Серія: Економіка. 2026. Т. 31. С. 88–99. DOI: https://doi.org/10.34079/2518-1394-2026-16-31-88-99
1. Crosby, P. B. (1979). Quality is free: The art of making quality certain. McGraw-Hill.
2. Humphrey, W. S. (1989). Managing the software process. Addison-Wesley Professional.
3. Wendler, R. (2012). The maturity of maturity model research: A systematic mapping study. Information and Software Technology, no. 54(12), pp. 1317–1339. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2012.07.007
4. Saavedra, V., Dávila, A., Melendez, K., & Pessoa, M. (2017). Organizational maturity models architectures: A systematic literature review. In Trends and applications in software engineering: Proceedings of CIMPS 2016 (pp. 33–46). Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48523-2_4
5. Kucińska-Landwójtowicz, A., Czabak-Górska, I. D., Domingues, P., Sampaio, P., & Ferradaz de Carvalho, C. (2024). Organizational maturity models: The leading research fields and opportunities for further studies. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, no. 41(1), pp. 60–83. Available at: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/From-theory-to-practice-of-organizational-project-%E2%80%93-Mehri-Ghanbaripour/2632f55da48cee229f6c4af0459b5a4960e700c5
6. Aras, A., & Büyüközkan, G. (2023). Digital transformation journey guidance: A holistic digital maturity model based on a systematic literature review. Systems, no. 11(4), Article 213. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/systems11040213
7. Thordsen, T., & Bick, M. (2023). A decade of digital maturity models: Much ado about nothing? Information Systems and e-Business Management, no. 21, pp. 947–976. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-023-00656-w
8. Hein-Pensel, F., Winkler, H., Brückner, A., Wölke, M., Jabs, I., Mayan, I. J., Kirschenbaum, A., Friedrich, J., & Zinke-Wehlmann, C. (2023). Maturity assessment for Industry 5.0: A review of existing maturity models. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, no. 66, pp. 200–210. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2022.12.009
9. Bozorg Mehri, S., Ghanbaripour, A. N., Menadue, V. R., & Patching, A. (2026). From theory to practice of organizational project management maturity models – systematic literature review. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, no. 16(2), pp. 263–285. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/396452972_From_theory_to_practice_of_organizational_project_management_maturity_models_-_systematic_literature_review
10. Tulupov, M. O. (2021). Udoskonalennia vidomykh pidkhodiv shchodo vyznachennia terminu «zrilist» v konteksti upravlinnia proiektamy [Improving existing approaches to defining the term “maturity” in the context of project management]. Upravlinnia proiektamy u rozvytku suspilstva: XVIII Mizhnarodna konferentsiia, pp. 282–286. KNUBA. (in Ukrainian)
11. Marukhlenko, O. V., Ruban, D. O., & Turbayevskyi, Ya. E. (2025). Zrilist upravlinnia proiektamy yak faktor formuvannia orhanizatsiinoi reputatsii [Project management maturity as a factor in organizational reputation formation]. Ekonomichnyi prostir, no. 207, pp. 25–33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30838/EP.207.25-33 (in Ukrainian)
12. Argyris, C. (1957). Personality and organization: The conflict between system and the individual. Harper & Brothers.
13. Argyris, C. (1977). Double loop learning in organizations. Harvard Business Review, no. 55(5), pp. 115–125.
14. Kerzner, H. (2001). Strategic planning for project management using a project management maturity model. Wiley.
15. Fahrenkrog, S. L., Baca, C., Kruszewski, L. M., & Wesman, P. R. (2003). Project Management Institute's organizational project management maturity model (OPM3). PMI Global Congress.
16. Helfat, C. E., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M. A., Singh, H., Teece, D. J., & Winter, S. G. (2007). Dynamic capabilities: Understanding strategic change in organizations. Blackwell.
17. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, no. 18(7), pp. 509–533. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7%3C509::AID-SMJ882%3E3.0.CO;2-Z
18. Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, no. 28(13), pp. 1319–1350. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.640
19. Shtepa, O. S. (2006). Dyspozytsiina model osobystisnoi zrilosti [Dispositional model of personal maturity] Extended abstract of candidate dissertation. Kyiv, 17 p. (in Ukrainian)
20. Tsyna, V. I. (2015). Rozvytok osobystisno-profesiinoi zrilosti maibutnikh uchyteliv: Teoretyko-metodychnyi aspekt [Development of personal and professional maturity of future teachers: Theoretical and methodological aspect]. PNPU imeni V. H. Korolenka, 404 р. (in Ukrainian)
21. Darmits, R. Z., & Chaban, M.-L. M. (2023). Upravlinska zrilist: Pidkhody do vyznachennia, chynnyky ta klasyfikatsiia [Management maturity: Approaches to definition, factors, and classification]. Ekonomika ta suspilstvo, no. 56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32782/2524-0072/2023-56-147 (in Ukrainian)
22. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
23. Duchek, S. (2020). Organizational resilience: A capability-based conceptualization. Business Research, no. 13, pp. 215–246. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40685-019-0085-7
24. Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. (1984). A longitudinal study of the corporate life cycle. Management Science, no. 30(10), pp. 1161–1183. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.30.10.1161
25. Tyukhtenko, N. A. (2026). Upravlinnia znanniamy dlia formuvannia intelektualnoho potentsialu orhanizatsii v umovakh partnerstva biznesu, nauky i osvity [Knowledge management for the formation of an organization's intellectual potential in the context of business, science, and education partnership]. Seriia: Ekonomika, no. 31, pp. 88–99. DOI: https://doi.org/10.34079/2518-1394-2026-16-31-88-99 (in Ukrainian)
