Exploring the Factors Influencing Project Management Methodology Implementation in Local Governments

Abstract

This study seeks to identify the factors influencing the implementation of Project Management Methodologies (PMM) in Local Government (LG) and identify the concepts, themes and characteristics that make up each of those factors. Semi-structured interviews were employed as the primary technique, engaging practitioners directly involved in local government capital works projects. This approach allowed for flexibility in exploring individual perspectives while maintaining consistency across key thematic areas. The interviews were designed to elicit rich, detailed narratives about organisational practices, procedural challenges, and behavioural attitudes toward PMM. Subsequently, a qualitative thematic analysis was adopted for the study. Through systematically coding, insights emerge regarding the key factors influencing PMM adoption, deployment, and optimisation. The findings suggest that strong leadership commitment, adaptive learning and structured oversight are critical for successful PMM implementation. “Governance”, “Experience and competency” and “Comparison and reflection” appear to be the most influential factors for PMM adoption, deployment and optimisation, respectively. The outcomes of this research will assist LGs in identifying and understanding the factors that influence the implementation of a PMM. Currently, no mandatory national policies standardise project management capabilities within the LG sector in Australia. Therefore, the outcomes of this study will provide a substantial body of knowledge and a platform to identity, analyse and evaluate the factors influencing the implementation of a PMM to the existing management practices within LGs.

1. Introduction

Project management failures in the private sector attract considerable attention, driving research and reform. Failures in public sector projects, where public funds are involved, garner even more scrutiny (Ranasinghe et al., 2017). Several public sector projects have failed due to the absence or inadequate use of structured project management methodologies (PMMs), resulting in cost overruns, delays, and unmet objectives. A prominent example is Australia’s Home Insulation Program (HIP), part of the 2009 economic stimulus package, which was criticised in the Royal Commission report for lacking risk assessment frameworks, governance structures, and defined project controls. The project led to four fatalities, widespread fraud, and financial waste, highlighting the consequences of poor planning and oversight (Royal Commission into the Home Insulation Program, 2014). The absence of a structured methodology undermines accountability, coordination, and the capacity to respond to risks, factors critical for public sector project success. Similarly, a well-documented example of a successful public sector project that benefited significantly from the use of a formal PMM is The London 2012 Olympic Games. The London 2012 Olympics was a complex, high-risk public infrastructure programme involving multiple government bodies, contractors, and stakeholders. It required the construction of over 30 new sports venues, infrastructure upgrades, and legacy community assets within a fixed, immovable deadline. The UK Government established the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) to oversee the planning and execution of the Games’ infrastructure. The ODA adopted a structured PMM based on PRINCE2 (Projects in Controlled Environments) and MSP (Managing Successful Programmes), both widely used UK government-endorsed methodologies. The Olympic venues were completed on time and within budget, a rare achievement (National Audit Office, 2012).

Project Management Institute’s 2024 Pulse of the Profession report offers updated insights into project management practices across various sectors, including government organisations. While it does not isolate data exclusively for government entities, the report emphasises the importance of adaptable project management approaches and highlights that organisations employing hybrid methodologies, combining predictive and agile practices, tend to achieve higher project success rates. Specifically, organisations utilising hybrid approaches reported a project success rate of 75.4%, compared to 74.6% for agile and 74.4% for predictive methods. Furthermore, the 2024 report indicates that organisations offering at least three enablers, such as mentoring, training programmes, and communities of practice experience, an 8.3% increase in project performance compared to those offering none. This finding suggests that investment in capability-building initiatives is crucial for enhancing project outcomes (PMI, 2024).

Local governments (LGs), funded by rates and government contributions, are accountable for public funds, and residents expect value for money in services (Touchant, 2023). Poor project delivery undermines public trust and makes it harder to justify rate increases (Cordery & Hay, 2024). Despite this, many LGs lack commitment to Project Management Methodologies (PMM).

As of 2025, specific data on the number of Australian local governments (LGs) holding corporate memberships with the Australian Institute of Project Management (AIPM) is not publicly available. AIPM reports over 10,000 individual members and offers corporate memberships to organisations, including LGs, to enhance project management capabilities through certifications, training, and networking opportunities. However, studies show that over half of the LGs surveyed do not use or understand PMM (Sutherland Shire Council, 2013). Although some LGs have embraced PMM, its application is inconsistent. Furthermore, studies indicate that many LGs in Australia continue to face challenges in understanding and implementing Project Management Methodologies (PMMs). Research focusing on New South Wales (NSW) LGs has highlighted significant variability in project management maturity levels across councils. The development of the Local Government Project Management Maturity Model (LGPM3) aimed to assess and improve these maturity levels, revealing that inconsistent PMM adoption can lead to project inefficiencies and reduced success rates (A. J. Morris, 2022).

The persistence of these challenges over time advocates for the need for standardised PMM practices within LGs. While some councils have made progress, the overall inconsistency in PMM understanding and application suggests that further efforts are necessary to enhance project delivery outcomes and public trust in local government projects.

The existing studies have used qualitative methods to examine project management practices in the public sector; few have applied an interpretivist thematic lens specifically to the multistage evolution of PMM implementation within Australian Local Government (LG) settings. This study fills a notable gap by focusing on LG capital works projects, an area where project management maturity is highly variable and often fragmented. Unlike traditional evaluations of PMM effectiveness, the approach adopted for this study privileges the lived experiences of practitioners embedded in institutional and political contexts, enabling a more grounded analysis of how methodologies are adapted and institutionalised in practice. Furthermore, while previous studies have extensively examined the challenges of project delivery in local government contexts (e.g., De Vries & Nemec, 2013; Van Der Waldt, 2015), there remains a significant gap in understanding the organisational, procedural, and behavioural factors that underpin the adoption and implementation of Project Management Methodologies (PMM) at the local government level. Much of the current literature in project management is focused on the national-level public programmes, with relatively limited empirical research devoted specifically to local government authorities (LGAs), which operate under unique governance constraints, funding models, and community expectations.

This study is distinctive in both scope and methodology. It employs an interpretivist thematic analysis approach to inductively explore the lived experiences, practices, and perceptions of practitioners within LG capital works projects. Unlike prescriptive frameworks or top-down evaluations, the thematic analysis approach allows themes to emerge from empirical data, making the findings particularly relevant to the real-world complexity of LG project environments. Few studies to date have applied thematic analysis to investigate PMM in the LG context, particularly in Australia, where disparities in PMM knowledge and use remain stark (Sutherland Shire Council, 2013). This interpretivist methodology enables a more nuanced understanding of the socio-organisational dynamics that either support or hinder PMM institutionalisation.

This study aims to explore the factors influencing PMM implementation in LG capital works projects, identifying key concepts and characteristics that could help improve project delivery by addressing the following research questions:

RQ1. 

What are the organisational and behavioural factors influencing PMM implementation in Australian LGs?

RQ2. 

How do these factors evolve across the stages of adoption, deployment, and optimisation?

The findings will aid in developing strategies for better governance, support policy development for standardised PM practices and provide valuable insights for the future adoption of PMM in LGs. Furthermore, this research contributes to closing the gap between theory and practice by identifying actionable strategies that are both context-sensitive and grounded in stakeholder realities. It aims to inform not only academic discourse but also practical governance reforms, professional development initiatives, and policy guidelines tailored to local governments. As such, the study offers both conceptual advancement and practical utility, setting it apart from broader or more descriptive PMM research.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Local Government Context

Local government (LG) remains a fundamental tier of public administration, tasked with delivering essential services, promoting local development, and enabling participatory democracy at the grassroots level. Globally, LGs operate under legal and institutional frameworks established by higher tiers of government, yet their functions vary depending on national governance traditions. Contemporary definitions underscore LG as the administrative level closest to citizens, highlighting its role in facilitating decentralised governance and fostering accountability (Salvador & Sancho, 2023; Grossi et al., 2015). It is increasingly seen as pivotal to building resilient and adaptive institutions, particularly in response to complex challenges such as climate change, demographic pressures, and fiscal volatility (Schomaker & Bauer, 2020; Browne, 2022).

In political theory, the role of LG continues to reflect long-standing democratic ideals. Mill (2018) emphasised LG’s role in promoting civic participation and political education, while the principle of subsidiarity—reinforced in modern European governance (EU, 1992)—advocates for decision-making at the lowest effective level to enhance responsiveness and legitimacy. Recent empirical research reinforces this view by showing that LGs are instrumental in cultivating democratic norms and political engagement, particularly when institutional mechanisms such as participatory budgeting, deliberative forums, and citizen charters are present (OECD, 2021). These practices contribute not only to procedural democracy but also to social trust, political inclusion, and policy responsiveness at the local level (Ladner et al., 2022).

Furthermore, LGs serve as key actors in strengthening vertical accountability, acting as intermediaries between the state and citizens. Recent literature has highlighted the importance of transparent decision-making, local performance audits, and public scrutiny in improving both service delivery and institutional legitimacy (Tai, 2021). LGs are also increasingly central to promoting social cohesion, especially in diverse urban settings, by facilitating inclusive governance frameworks that reflect the needs of marginalised or underrepresented groups (United Nations, 2022). As such, their governance capacity is closely linked to broader socio-political variables such as legitimacy, trust in institutions, and policy equity.

Nonetheless, local governments often operate under significant constraints. Financial dependency on intergovernmental transfers continues to limit autonomy, especially in developing countries where own-source revenues are insufficient (Smoke, 2015; Gupta & Sigdel, 2024). Institutional weaknesses such as limited human capital, inadequate technological infrastructure, and political interference also hamper effectiveness (Agostino et al., 2021). These challenges are compounded by rapid urbanisation and environmental pressures, which necessitate more integrated, inclusive, and forward-looking local governance strategies (Salvador & Sancho, 2023).

2.2. Project Management Methodology

A project is defined as “a temporary endeavour undertaken to create a unique product, service, or result” (PMI, 2021). This definition is expanded to define public projects by P. W. G. Morris et al. (2016) as a finite endeavour undertaken to create a unique product or service which results in beneficial change or added value, which is participated in, executed or funded by a public organisation. Then the actual process of managing a project, “project management,” is the application of knowledge, skills, tools, and techniques to project activities to meet the project requirements (PMI, 2013).

Project Management Methodology (PMM) comprises a structured collection of processes, tools, and practices designed to guide the planning, execution, and completion of projects in a consistent and efficient manner. According to the PMI (2021), PMMs help align project activities with organisational goals, reduce risks, and enhance accountability. Recent studies have affirmed that organisations using formalised PMMs experience greater predictability in outcomes, improved stakeholder satisfaction, and more effective resource utilisation (McGrath & Whitty, 2020). These benefits are particularly salient in sectors managing large-scale, multi-stakeholder projects, where standardisation improves transparency and performance oversight.

It is noteworthy that PMM such as PRINCE2, Agile, Waterfall should not be confused with project management standard and body of knowledge such PMBOK and ISO21500. A PMM is a prescriptive, structured, and repeatable system for managing projects and provides a step-by-step framework for applying project management practices to specific project environments (De Rosa, 2024) whereas a project management standard or body of knowledge is a descriptive, non-prescriptive reference that outlines the accepted best practices, knowledge areas, and terminology within the profession (PMI, 2021).

Despite the advantages of adopting PMM, the successful implementation of PMMs faces several challenges including:

• Cultural Resistance: Resistance to change is a significant challenge, as employees may be reluctant to adopt unfamiliar methodologies. This resistance can stem from a lack of understanding, fear of increased accountability, or preference for established practices (Turner, 2016).
• Misalignment with Organisational Goals: Implementing a methodology not aligned with the organisation’s culture, strategy, or industry requirements can lead to inefficiency and failure to achieve project objectives (PMI, 2021).
• Inadequate Training and Expertise: The successful application of complex methodologies often requires skilled practitioners. A lack of adequate training, coaching, or experience can result in improper implementation, diminishing the methodology’s benefits (Kerzner, 2017).
• High Implementation Costs: Adopting a methodology may require significant upfront investments in training, tools and consulting services, which can be a barrier especially for smaller organisations with limited budgets (Conforto et al., 2014).
• Stakeholder Mismanagement: Poor communication and lack of buy-in from key stakeholders can lead to conflicts, unclear objectives and low engagement, undermining the methodology’s potential for success (Hopkinson, 2017).
• Technology Dependence: While modern tools enhance project management, they also introduce challenges such as steep learning curves, technology compatibility issues, and overreliance on software that may not fully meet project requirements (Marnewick et al., 2019).
• Dynamic Market Environments: Rapidly changing markets, customer demands, and technology advancements require frequent adaptation of methodologies, which may not be feasible for traditional or rigid systems.

To address challenges in PMM implementation, key strategies include fostering organisational change, providing adequate training, aligning methodologies with organisational goals, and tailoring frameworks to project contexts. These actions ensure improved adoption and effectiveness (Turner, 2016; Kerzner, 2017; PMI, 2021). Furthermore, although numerous studies have discussed the benefits of Project Management Methodologies (PMMs), the literature often overlooks the institutional and behavioural readiness required for their successful adoption—particularly in public sector organisations like local governments (LGs) (McGrath & Whitty, 2020; Errida & Lotfi, 2020). Unlike the private sector, where agility, efficiency, and competitive advantage drive PMM uptake, the public sector is often shaped by bureaucratic inertia, electoral accountability, and regulatory compliance (Bredillet et al., 2010; Van Der Waldt, 2015). For example, while private organisations can tailor agile methodologies to market demands, LGs must respond to shifting political priorities, annual budget constraints, and a broad range of community stakeholders (Cordery & Hay, 2024; Touchant, 2023). These contextual differences fundamentally alter how PMMs are perceived, adopted, and institutionalised.

Despite this, much of the literature still assumes a linear, rational implementation model and fails to engage with institutional frictions such as leadership turnover, fragmented responsibility, or cross-departmental siloing—factors particularly acute in LGs (Hanisch & Wald, 2012; Salvador & Sancho, 2023). Furthermore, the behavioural dimensions of change management, such as staff resistance, lack of PMM literacy, and role ambiguity, remain under-theorised (Ramazani & Jergeas, 2015; Istrate & Marian, 2012). These omissions create a conceptual blind spot in understanding how PMMs can succeed in decentralised and politically dynamic environments. By addressing these issues, our study contributes a more nuanced view of PMM implementation grounded in public sector realities and challenges the assumption that methodologies effective in the private sector can be transferred wholesale to LG contexts (De Rosa, 2024).

2.3. PMM and Contingency Theory

PMMs offer structured frameworks that support planning, execution, and governance processes, helping LGs improve project efficiency, accountability, and transparency (Cordery & Hay, 2024; PMI, 2021). However, the adoption of PMMs in LG remains uneven due to diverse organisational capabilities, inconsistent leadership support, and variable maturity levels across jurisdictions (De Rosa, 2024; Salvador & Sancho, 2023). Unlike private enterprises, LGs face unique constraints such as political oversight, limited technical capacity, and tight regulatory environments which complicate the standardised application of PMMs. Consequently, the development of context-sensitive PMMs that are tailored to LG operational realities is required to reflect the values of public service, rather than relying on generic, one-size-fits-all methodologies designed for corporate environments (Agostino et al., 2021; McGrath & Whitty, 2020).

This aligns with Contingency Theory, which posits that there is no single best way to manage projects; rather, effective project management depends on the alignment between the methodology used and the specific internal and external context of the organisation (Salvador & Sancho, 2023). In the LG context, contingency-based thinking supports the flexible adaptation of PMMs in response to varying project types, community expectations, stakeholder dynamics, and institutional capabilities. For instance, the size and complexity of a capital works project, the political environment, and the degree of interdepartmental coordination required are all contingencies that should inform PMM selection and adaptation (Hanisch & Wald, 2012). As such, PMM implementation in LG benefits from contingency-informed frameworks that allow for iterative learning, cross-functional collaboration, and continuous alignment with strategic priorities. This theoretical lens reinforces the idea that methodological flexibility, when anchored in governance principles and public value orientation, is essential for successful project delivery in local government environments.

3. Theoretical Framework for Implementation of PMM in LG

The public sector is complex and multifaceted; applying standard project management practices to create or promote organisational change would be challenging and difficult (Crawford et al., 2003). Organisations must understand where they are in terms of project management maturity; this is in order to understand the level of effort, resources and time commitment required to establish a PMM. For Procca (2008), implementing a project management method would be impossible if the organisation and its employees could not obtain project management competencies. It takes time to establish a project management culture and a PMM within an organisation, gradually optimising its implementation.

Since there is no off-the-shelf maturity PMM model specifically for LGs, this study adopts P3M3 project, programme and portfolio maturity model (Sowden, 2010) amongst numerous generic PMM maturity models, i.e., CMMI, PM2, OPM3, KPMM, ProMMM, TPM, and ISPM-PRADO (De Rosa, 2024). Developed by the UK’s Office of Government Commerce (OGC) in 2006 and updated in 2021 (Trzeciak & Grebski, 2023), the purpose of P3M3 is to provide a frame of reference that can be used to baseline an organisation’s capabilities in three fundamental areas of project, programme, and portfolio management (M. Young et al., 2014). P3M3 facilitates a comprehensive overview of the organisation’s maturity in managing projects, programmes, and portfolios, identifying strengths and weaknesses to develop improvement plans (Silva & da Costa, 2019)

Since government agencies deal with complex programmes and portfolios involving multiple projects, stakeholders, regulations, and long-term public impact, P3M3 model is well-suited for government settings. Furthermore, P3M3 model is widely adopted in the UK public sector and various international organisations (De Rosa, 2024).

For establishing a necessary background for this study, a theoretical framework was developed to synthesise the essence of P3M3 maturity model. This framework suggests that the process of PMM implementation in local government goes through three stages of maturity: adoption, deployment and optimisation.

Table 1. Mapping P3M3 Levels to Adoption, Deployment and Optimisation Stages.

P3M3 Maturity Levels	Stage	Description
Level 1–Awareness & Level 2–Repeatable	Adoption	Organisations recognise the need for structured management and start introducing basic processes, frameworks, and methodologies. Initial efforts may be inconsistent.
Level 3–Defined & Level 4–Managed	Deployment	Processes become standardised, integrated across teams, and actively managed. Governance improves, and quantitative performance measurement begins.
Level 5–Optimised	Optimisation	Continuous improvement is embedded in the culture. The organisation uses data-driven insights to refine and enhance project, programme, and portfolio management.

demonstrates how P3M3 levels are streamlined to these three stages of the PMM implementation process.

4. Materials and Methods

This research seeks to identify the factors that influence the implementation of a PMM in LG in the context of capital works projects. To deepen understanding of these factors, this study adopts a phenomenological approach, aiming to explore and interpret the lived experiences of individuals engaged in managing capital works projects within LG. Phenomenology focuses on uncovering the essence of participants’ experiences, prioritising their perspectives and subjective realities over abstract theorisation. This study is exploratory and does not seek to prove a theory. Therefore, it is inductive research where pattens and relationships are identified to form an explanation about the phenomenon that is being researched (Ragab & Arisha, 2018).

This study is grounded in an interpretivist epistemology, which seeks to understand the subjective meanings and lived experiences of individuals situated within their institutional and social contexts (Thanh & Thanh, 2015). Interpretivism emphasises that reality is socially constructed, and it is through qualitative inquiry that researchers can access and interpret the perspectives and interpretations of participants. Creswell and Creswell (2017) support this approach by stating that qualitative research allows for the exploration and understanding of the meaning individuals assign to complex phenomena—particularly when the research involves human interaction, organisational behaviour, and context-specific experiences. Given the need to explore managerial roles, leadership influences, and institutional conditions affecting PMM implementation, a qualitative research design was deemed most appropriate. Semi-structured interviews were chosen as the primary method for data collection, as they offer flexibility in probing complex issues while allowing participants to articulate their thoughts in a nuanced and context-rich manner. According to Rubin and Rubin (2011), qualitative interviews are highly effective for exploring real-world issues, especially in capturing the social, organisational, and political dimensions that influence decision-making and policy implementation. In the context of LG, interviews are particularly valuable for uncovering what factors facilitate the embedding of PMMs in practice. This research adopts an exploratory and inductive approach, where patterns, themes, and relationships are derived from the empirical data rather than tested against predefined hypotheses (Ragab & Arisha, 2018). Thematic analysis was selected as the preferred method for analysing interview data due to its flexibility and rigour in identifying recurring patterns across qualitative datasets. This method enables the researcher to systematically code, categorise, and interpret data, thus illuminating the critical factors that influence PMM implementation. Braun and Clarke’s (2006) framework for thematic analysis guided the analytic process, ensuring consistency in theme development and the connection of findings to the broader research question. In addition to primary data, an extensive review of the academic literature on PMMs, public sector project governance, and leadership in LG was undertaken. The secondary data provided a conceptual foundation for the study, informing the design of interview questions and ensuring that the emergent findings are situated within the existing body of knowledge. This dual strategy of combining primary and secondary data strengthens the credibility of the research and supports the development of a more comprehensive understanding of the contextual and organisational factors influencing PMM implementation in Australian LGs.

4.1. Population and Sample

In this research, participants for the research were involved in capital works projects in LG environments in jurisdictions across Australia. They were able to provide first-hand accounts of experience related to the research. The unit of study in the context of this research is individuals who are involved in managing capital works projects, or those who directly influence managing capital works projects in LG. The researcher interviewed 37 participants. During the research process potential participants were initially consulted via e-mail to invite them to participate in this research. In this email, the researcher requested their consent in principle and also requested them to nominate any subordinates or co-workers they thought might also be suitable and interested in participating in the research. These nominees were then directly contacted to obtain their own consent.

The researcher endeavoured as much as possible to include participants from different states and territories to achieve a better representation of the Australian context, and to obtain a better cross-section in the sample. In total, 30% of participants were located in Victoria, 14% were located in Queensland, Western Australia and Australia Capital State each, 10%, 8% and 5% were located in Tasmania, South Australia, New South Wales and Northern Territory, respectively (

Table 2. Number of participants and their location.

State	No. of Participants	Percentage%
Victoria	11	30%
Queensland	5	14%
Tasmania	4	10%
South Australia	3	8%
Western Australia	5	14%
Australian Capital Territory	5	14%
New South Whales	2	5%
Northern Territory	2	5%
Total	37	100%

).

The majority of participants were project managers, coordinators, project engineers or project officers executing capital work projects in their respective LGs (57%). The sample also consisted of some top managers managing such employees (24%) and some mid-managers such as executive managers and project management office (PMO) managers (19%) (see

Table 3. Distribution of participants by position.

Position	No. of Participants	Percentage%
Top Mgt. Executives (GM, Director, CEO and similar.)	9	24%
Mid–Management (Exe Mgr., PMO Mgr.)	7	19%
Project Management (PM Officer, PM, Snr.PM, Coordinator and similar.)	21	57%

). This allowed the researcher to probe issues from project managers as well as those who have authority to make changes to the status quo such as senior management. The distribution of participants by role/authority level within their organisations is shown in Table 3.

4.2. Data Collection and Instrumentation

To investigate the factors that influence implementation of a PMM, two types of questions were posed to the research participants. The preliminary set of questions aimed to understand the background of the participants, primarily to establish the extent of the actual application of a PMM in participants’ organisations through observed activities such as disseminating project documentation (such as the approved business case, project charter, project plan). The reported activities were compared with the participants’ claims of adoption level in their organisation.

The main set of questions aimed at investigating the research topic hence the interview schedule was informed by themes emerging from an extensive literature review. These themes formed the basis of initial interview questions and were followed by open-ended questions to seek clarity or probe certain aspects of the answers.

The initial interview was trialled for adequacy via a pilot interview within 3 months from March to May 2023, with three local government employees. The pilot interviews demonstrated that the flow of the interview questions and relevant promptings was at the desired level to proceed to the actual interviews which were conducted on a one-on-one basis from June 2023 till November 2023 and generally took one to two hours with each participant. These interviews were digitally recorded to ensure no data was lost during the process. Subsequently, the recordings were converted to transcripts and imported to NVivo 12, a qualitative data analysis toolkit for creating and applying coding structures, identifying themes, and categorising data to uncover patterns and insights. The transcripts provided raw data to be applied to the thematic analysis method. The official interviews were conducted, transcribed and coded where initial concepts were shaped. Based on the reading and re-reading transcripts and conducting systematic coding, further factors (themes) were identified. This iterative process ensured the validity of emerging data. In reviewing the emerging themes, the themes were checked to ensure they work in relation to the coded extracts and the entire dataset. Subsequently, the collated data was revisited for each theme to assess internal consistency and coherence. Final analysis and write-up of the thematic narrative was undertaken, often with supporting quotations from the data.

5. Results and Discussion

The main categories that influence adoption, deployment and optimisation of a PMM were generated through extensive content analysis of finely refined codes. The analysis reveals that adopting a PMM has eight main influencing factors. The deployment and optimising phases have six factors influencing each of them.

Table 4. Factors that influence adoption of a PMM, in rank order.

No	Factors that Influence PMM Adoption	Number of Participants	Frequency of Code
1	Governance	36	217
2	Top management supports	35	131
3	Commitment to adoption	32	106
4	Training and development	31	80
5	Change management	24	51
6	Stakeholders’ collaboration	23	38
7	Fit for purpose	21	46
8	Positive outcomes	20	28

,

Table 5. Factors that influence deployment of a PMM, in rank order.

No	Factors That Influence PMM Deployment	Number of Participants	Frequency of Code
1	Experience and competency	33	81
2	Leadership	28	65
3	Fit for operation	27	50
4	Resource requirements	26	48
5	Organisational culture	25	60
6	Oversight		24

and

Table 6. Factors that influence optimisation of a PMM, in rank order.

No	Factors That Influence PMM Optimisation	Number of Participants	Frequency of Code
1	Comparison and reflection	34	61
2	Training and development	31	61
3	Commitment to continuous improvement	30	73
4	Importance of lesson learned	26	53
5	Cultural change	25	42
6	Empowering employees	20	41

below summarise these categories:

Figure 1 illustrates the identified factors influencing PMM utilisation across its implementation stages.

5.1. PMM Adoption Stage

5.1.1. Category 1: Governance

Participants acknowledged their organisations lacked robust PMM practices. While some agreed they had some components of PMM, their PMMs lacked business cases, project plans, risk registers, and lesson learnt registers, which is a clear indication of a lack of governance.

You have a…loose project plan to talk about the public engagement, talk about managing the key stakeholders, but we do not have a formal process. We do not have a policy or a procedure to say that this would be applied to everything policy-wise; we don’t have that.

(Participant1)

It was noted that some project management professionals were not committed to following the PMM process. Inconsistent use of PMMs will lead to precedence for practitioners to circumvent the process at their convenience and deliver inconsistent outcomes from projects thus creating a governance risk (Joslin & Müller, 2015). A PMM creates the consistency and predictability that organisational governance requires and keeps an organisation’s projects in line with best governance practices. Therefore, participants saw a PMM as a tool to maintain project governance. Furthermore, according to research findings of Errida and Lotfi (2020), if an organisation fails to use a PMM this will jeopardise its efforts and overall effectiveness regarding project quality, repeatability, knowledge management, comparability and future impact.

5.1.2. Category 2: Top Management Support

Participants stress that endorsement from top management is required for PMM adoption. It appeared from participants’ comments that prior experience of top management in PMM implementation assists in their support for adopting a PMM which they drive.

The CEO is already committed to the project management framework because he was a project manager and had operated as one in his previous employment, one of the senior executives also a project manager, so, therefore, was happy to go for that process, so that was the starting point.

(Participant#11)

This finding is generally in line with Shao et al. (2016) that top management’s prior experience and appropriate leadership style significantly influence the successful adoption and implementation of enterprise systems, which can be extended to PMM initiatives.

5.1.3. Category 3: Commitment to Adoption

There is a need for commitment to successful PMM adoption. R. Young and Jordan (2008) argue that without genuine commitment from senior leadership, projects are unlikely to achieve their objectives, highlighting that such support is a critical determinant of success.

According to participants there should be enthusiasm and commitment to have a PMM adopted. If this commitment is not present, then adoption is unlikely.

Because it’s alright for the executive to be committed, but if they actually don’t have understanding in the key people as to why this is a better way forward, then people don’t come on the journey from the start.

(Participant#13)

Some project management professionals will choose to ignore the PMM and continue as they did without a PMM.

5.1.4. Category 4: Training and Development

Many participants accepted that project management was a specialised field and that they would need training when a PMM is adopted. Similarly, as explained by Errida and Lotfi (2020), for employees to successfully implement a new PMM, they need the knowledge and capability to do so. The objective of training on the PMM should be to provide such knowledge and capability to employees. Project management professionals must be trained on the PMM, and other stakeholders who are integral to project delivery must also be trained. Of LGs that had adopted a PMM, most had provided their employees with some formal training, or a certification in project management (such as a Diploma in Project Management). Project management professionals need to be trained in the PMM, as do other stakeholders integral to project delivery. ‘A number of managers as well as other staff kind of took a project management diploma to get a greater understanding of project management methodology’ (Participant#24).

5.1.5. Category 5: Change Management

Adopting a PMM needs to be performed gradually. Participants believe that a PMM should not be rolled out overnight; that it takes incremental effort to manage change caused by adoption, and also that the organisation’s PMM capability needs to gradually build up. Errida and Lotfi (2020) also emphasise that implementing a PMM is not merely a technical exercise but constitutes a significant organisational change. They highlight that such implementation affects various components of an organisation, including processes, people, structures, culture, and resources. Therefore, a phased approach is recommended to ensure a smooth transition and to build the necessary readiness across all organisational facets. Participants had suggestions on how this change process needed to be handled: a frequent suggestion was to provide a suitable case study of a project implementing a PMM and how it benefited that project’s process and delivery outcome. ‘A bit of a case study to show you a major project and how the system’s implemented and how it helps the user’ (Participant#2).

Another common suggestion of participants was to commence PMM rollout via a pilot project so project managers can use pilot projects to customise the PMM to the organisation by looking at their issues. By doing so they can fine tune the PMM for use across the organisation’s project programme. Thus, the risk is reduced by employing a PMM that is refined to the organisation’s demands and needs. ‘It is up to the Council think about the methodology or the deployment methodology could be phases by, firstly selecting big projects only and get used to that process and then spread it out the program’ (Participant#4).

5.1.6. Category 6: Stakeholders’ Collaboration

The LG is influenced by what its internal and external stakeholders think about it, especially its residents. At times sub-optimal interaction with such stakeholders, and resulting outcomes, prompts LGs to consider adopting a PMM. The use of PMM in managing such projects assists in keeping stakeholders informed while projects are being managed in a consistent manner to achieve higher predictability of outcomes. Almost always, LG projects will have multiple stakeholder groups with diverse interests. This multiple stakeholder situation requires transparency and entails a requirement to keep stakeholders up to date (Schnackenberg & Tomlinson, 2016). If that requirement is inadequately addressed it is only a matter of time before some stakeholders become unsatisfied and start expressing it. ‘Stakeholder management wherein, a person will complain, ‘How come I didn’t know about this, all these things, how come I wasn’t updated that project is now two months delayed?’ things like that’ (Participant#34).

5.1.7. Category 7: Fit for Purpose

PMM, and its instruments, need to be fit for organisational operations. If not, traction for PMM adoption will be hindered.

Our project management framework is not necessarily right, but it’s useful. And we try and identify where we can make changes in the line. But don’t get caught up in a model, and that’s it because then your mind becomes closed

(Participant#29)

The participant also encourages project management professionals not to get bogged down in the PMM model but to keep an open mind to the possibility of making it fit for purpose. While a PMM could lock in a mindset of employees to its model, those who are used to another model might not want to conform to a new PMM. In such cases incorporating the PMM ingredients into existing practices and templates is recommended (Vaskimo, 2015). That way, employees feel familiar with such templates and as a result the possibility of the PMM’s acceptance is high.

5.1.8. Category 8: Positive Outcomes

Participants understand that adoption of a PMM may lead to delivering better community service and this could lead to willingness to change. Educating project team members of benefits of a PMM may encourage its adoption. Another aspect that top management is concerned about is their investment in establishing a PMM and its related resources, such as a PMO structure (Griffith, 2013). However, when they see benefits and cost-savings, they are convinced of their investment. Finally, while the PMM process assists in managing and obtaining consistent outcomes, due to its transparency it also informs the community of project status leading to better community relationships. ‘So that they could see then they all been proper governance, proper management, wasn’t just the money just been consumed’ (Participant#7).

5.2. PMM Deployment Stage

5.2.1. Category 1: Experience and Competency

Challenges in a PMM adoption often remain prevalent and influence the deployment stage as factors of “experience and competency.” One such challenge is longevity of employees and their resistance to deploying the PMM (Ramazani & Jergeas, 2015). Project management professionals in the early career stages are likely to embrace technology and tools more easily than those in the later career stages who have long performed projects a certain way. Experience project team members already experienced in project delivery without a formal PMM will be reluctant to take up PMM. As a result, deployment of the PMM may be unsuccessful.

There were a lot of very experienced engineers who have been in the industry for 30, 40 … Some people worked there for 50 years before they retired, they have their own system, that’s their work, that’s their life, it’s really hard to change.

(Participant#11)

5.2.2. Category 2: Leadership

During interviews participants indicated the importance of having internal champions supporting the PMM deployment. With rigorous selection criteria, champions who can train and develop staff in PMMs could be externally recruited to the organisation. Champions need to have the big picture in mind and gradually lead others towards that picture. Ozmen (2013) emphasised the importance of leveraging champions as ambassadors to drive PMM adoption. While there should be macro-level thinkers and operators planning PMM deployment, organisations also need micro-level PMM operators to champion the PMM to project management professionals.

It’s not just a champion, it’s the person that can look at the big picture, actually not forget about why we were there, people forget about the, we are actually there to deliver projects big picture? We are not there to deliver programs; we are there to do projects for the community, so community can see value.

(Participant#7)

The initial stages of PMM deployment may be complicated; leaders play a vital role in asserting the organisation’s stance and commitment to PMM deployment and in leading the deployment process through its stages. When leadership is visible it lifts employees’ morale, creating a positive mindset about PMM during deployment.

5.2.3. Category 3: Fit for Operation

Deploying a PMM should be as simple as possible while meeting the organisation’s requirements. ‘I think the simplicity or complexity of the framework and the tools and templates that have been implemented will be an issue for implementation’ (Participant#13).

If the PMM’s templates or systems it incorporates are too complicated, appear not to add significant value, and are not fit for the operation, then getting following from project management professionals will be challenging (Whitaker, 2014). During deployment of PMM, to ensure its fit for operation, there needs to be a consultative process that should be strategically planned and executed incrementally.

5.2.4. Category 4: Resources Requirements

Participants expressed a desire for senior management to ensure sufficient resources exist for the PMM deployment to succeed. If sufficient resources meet the workflow demand, it is likely that better quality outcomes from capital works projects could be expected (Van Der Waldt, 2010). This generates interest in other stakeholders who see projects being managed using best practices, desire their own projects to be managed in the same way and demand for resources increases. ‘I’ve looked at as we need more resources on this team than project management because if you want to take on working with the other groups to have them create their projects, you need more resources’ (Participant#28).

While this is a good intention, it creates more work for project managers and applies stress to existing PMM resources.

5.2.5. Category 5: Organisational Culture

For PMM deployment to succeed, its way of working needs to be embedded in the organisation’s work culture. Groupthink, where teams hold a belief, is hard to change–if certain teams within the organisation have the mentality that what they do is good for them and they do not need a PMM, then change needs to be carefully implemented (Bredillet et al., 2010). Deploying a PMM requires changing the project management culture in LGs to embed PMM across different departments that manage capital works projects. Consideration must be given to identifying approaches that remove a siloed mentality from project teams by listening to those who will use the PMM and providing them with a role in developing the PMM. Project management professionals in an organisation using common PMM terminology, and its extent of use, is an excellent indicator of how well the PMM has been embedded in their day-to-day project management work culture.

When I first got here, they didn’t use any of that sort of language. You know you sit there, and you talk about float, they would never recall what ’you’re talking about, they were contingent to that, they weren’t interested in contingency, risk profiling, and early adoption, and opportunities, and all of those sort of things, it wasn’t something they talked about on a daily basis, but those project managers now talk about it on a daily basis, and to me, that’s a major change.

(Participant#19)

5.2.6. Category 6: Oversight

When a LG is spending public monies, it should be accountable, demonstrating value for money. However, sometimes LGs fail to produce such information about their projects and programmes, and fail to make crucial decisions about them. LGs that have information about capital works projects and programmes at their fingertips exhibit competency and efficiency, providing confidence to the relevant stakeholders.

Now we are able to demonstrate that here, we are doing these 20 projects. Which one of those do you want for us to stop so we can slot in your project?” Of course, they ’won’t say any; they wouldn’t do that.

(Participant#34)

Further, a PMM having programme oversight provides management with more meaningful information to take necessary decisions and control projects or programmes to ensure success. Project oversight in a PMM can be fit for a LG’s purpose; this helps decision-making that suits its circumstances and context (Van Der Waldt, 2015).

5.3. PMM Optimisation Stage

5.3.1. Category 1: Comparison and Reflection

LG’s maturity compared to other LGs influences the optimisation of a PMM. Employees knowing where their LG stands with PMM maturity compared to peers makes them reflect on their PMM practices and prompts them to improve and optimise practices (A. J. Morris, 2022). The participants discussed maturity compared to their peers in two aspects. The first was the PMM maturity they believe they had achieved compared to their peers; most participants expressed a belief that they were at a similar stage of PMM to other LGs. Second, they compared their various PMM practices or components with those of their peers. ‘I would think a similar team in another council here in […] State (the State in which the participant from) would probably be almost the same, or if not, then we are not too far behind from them’ (Participant#34).

It appears the participant drew the comparison from feedback received from a team member who came from another LG in the same state.

5.3.2. Category 2: Training and Ongoing Support

Training and ongoing support for employees ensures a smooth integration and boosts productivity through increasing familiarisation with the PMM, allowing them to understand concepts that help them master concepts and their application. This can support a culture of continuous improvement. ‘Education and being trained or having the knowledge, to help people get their heads around the methodology’ (Participant#33).

The training should be planned in advance so that it is proactive and takes into consideration employee knowledge levels. Training should not be static; it needs to evolve with the adoption of the PMM and with the project maturity of the organisation so that the recipients of the training are continuously upgrading their skills and knowledge. Ongoing feedback loops and performance metrics can assess the PMM’s impact enabling iterative improvements (Errida & Lotfi, 2020).

5.3.3. Category 3: Commitment to Continuous Improvement

In organisations where a PMM is already embedded in the work culture, continuous improvement practices should be adopted. For example, Malhotra et al. (2025) suggest that benchmarking PMM standards to open market practices is always good since new ideas can be gained from beyond the LG sector. Benchmarking against competitors can identify areas in the PMM that need improvement.

We’re always looking for a better way. Even in the past few years, we’ve probably gone from here to there (pointing at the maturity chart), and we’ve just got this sense of achievement that we really need to keep improving and looking for better ways.

(Participant#32)

Continuous improvement processes also support optimisation and longevity of a PMM in a LG. Where employees feel that a PMM makes their role easier, they are more likely to support continuous improvement (Camp, 2024). Those driving and maintaining a PMM must understand what motivates project managers to do their jobs and must be familiar with the challenges they face. The PMM should be aligned to support employees with to engage with their passions and challenges. It should be an instrument that makes work efficient rather than a hindrance.

5.3.4. Category 4: Importance of Lesson Learned

As a PMM optimises in a LG organisation, lessons learned in various forms is one of the most influential factors that lead to PMM optimisation. But while lessons learned are extremely helpful in refining effective governance and optimising a PMM, the approach must be practical. ‘I guess interesting part about lessons learned is if you get too crazy with lessons learned, you end up with a database of lessons repeated because no one ever looks at them’ (Participant#19).

Little is gained by collecting lessons learned unless they are applied to improving future projects. Rhodes and Dawson (2013) state that if lessons learned are discussed and recorded formally at project closure this is a significant step forward in an organisation’s PMM optimisation. However, Jugdev (2023) asserts that recording lessons learned does not of itself assist in improving the PMM optimising process. For better optimising, lessons learned must be used to inform future project planning, delivery and governance.

5.3.5. Category 5: Cultural Change

Embedding a PMM into the work culture is the cornerstone of PMM optimisation and this relies on understanding the mindset of project professionals. In general, project management professionals want to managing projects well and will support anything that helps them do a good job. By extension they will appreciate optimising of their PMM since it will help them do their job better.

I think there is definitely a culture. I think we need the culture to be you always need to be continue learning. If we have that culture built into everyone across the organization, you’ll always want to step one step in front and keep going.

(Participant#8)

Research conducted by Istrate and Marian (2012) support this finding that project professionals should observe how others manage projects using a PMM, so they begin to grasp how the PMM makes work more methodical and easier. When they see how a PMM assists their peers, this is convincing empirical evidence which motivates them to try to improve their practices. This evidence will convince them that they do not want to be left out of such best practices, or to lag their peers.

5.3.6. Category 6: Empowering Employees

It is important for LGs to empower and encourage employees to find the best ways to improve project management practices and optimise their PMMs. Empowerment enables employees to take ownership of their roles, make informed decisions, and contribute to continuous improvement (Sugiono & Alfaraby, 2025). Empowerment from top management gives creative freedom to think independently and propose new ideas leading to the improvement of PMM practices. Alshemmari (2023) emphasises that empowerment also gives employees the authority to make decisions. This sense of ownership motivates them to optimise methods to achieve better results, as they feel directly responsible for outcomes. By removing micromanagement and providing autonomy, employees can focus on delivering results efficiently. This streamlined approach naturally leads to PMM optimisation. By empowering employees, LGs unlock the potential to consistently optimise working methods and achieve better outcomes.

They have an empowerment warrant. So, the empowerment warrant is you can … As long as you don’t break any laws or legislation, that you don’t give advice you’re not competent in… get on and get the work done; you’ve got my backing, I’ve given you a document to say as long as you do it for these reasons, whether you’re right or wrong, you’re not going to get hammered, you’re going to be backed up by me.

(Participant#29)

6. Credibility

In quantitative research, validity is tied to measurement accuracy and statistical testing. In qualitative research; however, credibility is often discussed as the functional equivalent of validity in quantitative studies, reflecting the degree to which the findings accurately represent participants’ meanings and realities (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Many scholars avoid the term “validity” for qualitative research because it implies a positivist, single-truth worldview. For example, Lincoln and Guba (1985) replaced it with credibility, which focuses on how believable and faithful the findings are to participants’ experiences. Credibility of qualitative research determines whether the research truly measures that which it was intended to measure or how truthful the research results are (Golafshani, 2003). Credibility is regulated by empirical facts and reasoning and can be assessed throughout the whole research process (Lomborg & Kirkevold, 2003). Measuring credibility involves rigorous attention to the design, data collection, and interpretation phases, drawing on established strategies from methodological experts such as Yin (2018), Creswell and Poth (2018), and Denzin (1978). The research process used in this research was tested to ensure the rigor of this research study. Firstly, the credibility was achieved through iterative rounds of revisiting the same dataset to validate the emerging findings by salient literature. Denzin argues that combining interviews, document analysis, and observational data can provide a fuller, more nuanced understanding of the research questions, reducing the risk of systematic bias.

During the interview, the interviewees were provided with ample time to explain and elaborate their answers to ensure they could reflect on the interview questions and answer sufficiently to their satisfaction. Furthermore, a thick detailed description of the research process throughout all phases was provided enabling readers to determine how closely this research matches their situation and if the findings are transferable. The outcome of this qualitative research is based on the information provided through interviews. Interviewees responded based on their experiences, which are shaped by the passage of time. Therefore, the results cannot be generalised in other contexts. The objective of this study is to provide a comprehensive and in-depth understanding through the examination of specific data.

7. Conclusions

This study has explored the implementation of Project Management Methodologies (PMMs) in the context of Local Government (LG) capital works projects, using an interpretive thematic analysis approach. By drawing on the lived experiences of practitioners across Australian LGs, the research uncovered key organisational, procedural, and behavioural factors that shape how PMMs are adopted, deployed, and optimised in the delivery of infrastructure and public works. The findings highlight that governance structures, leadership commitment, training and development, and organisational culture are central to embedding PMMs within LG capital works environments.

Capital works projects, by their nature, represent some of the most visible and resource-intensive responsibilities of LGs. They directly affect community infrastructure, service delivery, and long-term public value. As such, inefficiencies or inconsistencies in managing these projects can lead to significant accountability concerns and diminished public trust. This study confirms that tailored and phased implementation of PMMs can address such risks by fostering consistency, transparency, and performance measurement throughout the project lifecycle. Moreover, optimising PMM use in capital works requires not only procedural reforms but also cultural change and continuous learning particularly through reflection, lessons learned, and the empowerment of project professionals.

A central contribution of this study lies in its application of Contingency Theory to the context of PMM implementation in local governments. This research emphasises the importance of aligning project management practices with the specific internal and external conditions of LGs. Through thematic analysis, it became clear that factors such as political oversight, workforce capabilities, community engagement expectations, and organisational maturity all function as contingencies that shape how PMMs are introduced and institutionalised. This reinforces the theoretical insight that successful PMM deployment requires flexible, context-sensitive strategies rather than rigid standardisation, an approach that is especially critical in the diverse and dynamic environments of local governance. This study also aims to bridge theory and practice by advancing a more responsive understanding of PMM institutionalisation in the public sector. It contributes to project governance literature by proposing that future frameworks incorporate adaptive, non-linear, and context-aware dimensions, thus enhancing their relevance for diverse governmental settings.

The project management literature has long wrestled with the tension between standardisation of methods and contextual adaptation, particularly within the public sector (Hanisch & Wald, 2012; De Vries & Nemec, 2013). While standardisation offers consistency and comparability, critics argue that rigid PMMs often fail in environments with complex governance structures and heterogeneous stakeholder demands (Bredillet et al., 2010). In contrast, Contingency Theory asserts that methodological fit must align with organisational and environmental variables. This study contributes to this discourse by illustrating how LGs must adapt generic PMMs in ways that reflect local realities. Through qualitative analysis, the findings of this study expose how LGs selectively modify or even hybridise methodologies based on leadership, maturity level, and stakeholder pressures, offering empirical insight into the adaptive logic of PMM deployment in decentralised governance systems.

The thematic findings, organised across adoption, deployment, and optimisation phases, highlight not only the procedural steps LGs take in PMM implementation but also the contingent conditions that mediate success. These include factors such as political sponsorship, maturity benchmarking against peer councils, internal resistance due to legacy practices, and the strategic role of internal champions. The results suggest that effective PMM implementation is less about linear compliance with a methodology and more about the capacity for situational adaptation and reflexive learning.

Standardising PMMs across public institutions presents inherent challenges due to the heterogeneity of organisational maturity, capacity, and political context. While standardised frameworks aim to promote consistency, efficiency, and transparency, their rigid application can overlook the institutional pluralism and capability asymmetries among local, state, and federal agencies. Smaller or rural councils, for instance, may lack the technical infrastructure or human capital to implement high-maturity PMMs, whereas larger metropolitan councils may demand greater process sophistication. The findings from this study reveal that successful adoption often depends less on methodological completeness and more on contextual fitness and institutional readiness, suggesting that PMMs should be adaptable rather than prescriptive when applied in diverse public sector environments.

Maturity models such as P3M3 offer structured guidance for process optimisation and capability benchmarking, yet their architecture often assumes a linear, cumulative path to maturity. This assumption may be ill-suited for public sector institutions that operate under cyclical political turnover, shifting strategic priorities, and community-responsive mandates. The evidence from this study indicates that LGs may oscillate between maturity stages or selectively implement PMM components in response to external pressures or internal reform windows. As such, current models may underrepresent the adaptive, iterative nature of maturity progression in politicised settings. To remain relevant, maturity models must evolve to incorporate non-linear pathways, recursive feedback loops, and contingency-responsive criteria that reflect the realities of local governance. This evolution would not only improve the diagnostic utility of models like P3M3 but also enhance their legitimacy and usability in practice.

The sphere of project management is vast, and its body of knowledge has also expanded rapidly in recent decades. Therefore, this research was limited to the area of project management methodologies in Australian LGs, and specifically to LG capital works projects. The knowledge created reflects characteristics relevant to Australian local governments. The research outcomes are relatable and reflect the current state of practice

This research focused only on the LG sector. However state and federal governments would also benefit from consistent PMM practices. Therefore, future research could explore the possibility of expanding the scope of research to include state and federal levels of government. Furthermore, this research is focused on implementing PMM for LG capital works projects. Further research could be performed to expand the scope of the research to capture other types of projects carried out in LGs, such as organisational change projects, IT projects, and community welfare projects.