Volume 8, Issue 2, September 2014, Pages 147–152
Oussama Matrane1, Mohamed Talea2, and Chafik Okar3
1 Etudiant doctorant en deuxième année à la faculté des sciences Ben M'Sik, Laboratoire Electronique & Traitement de l'information, Casablanca, Maroc
2 PES à la faculté des sciences Ben M'Sik, Laboratoire Electronique & Traitement de l'information, Casablanca, Maroc
3 PA à ESTB, Université Hassan I, Maroc
Original language: French
Copyright © 2014 ISSR Journals. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
The information technology and communication have become an essential support for all activities of companies. They have emerged as a strategic asset in the service operations and management of the company.
In this context, the key challenge for the company is to maximize its information system in order to make a major lever for achieving its objectives. However, companies face a lot of problems for the implementation of their information system. This is typically a notion of maturity that is required.
In this article, we aim to study the maturity of projects and models most used in the literature, while providing a comparative study between the different models of maturity in project management.
Author Keywords: Information System, Management Project, Performance, Maturity Model.
Oussama Matrane1, Mohamed Talea2, and Chafik Okar3
1 Etudiant doctorant en deuxième année à la faculté des sciences Ben M'Sik, Laboratoire Electronique & Traitement de l'information, Casablanca, Maroc
2 PES à la faculté des sciences Ben M'Sik, Laboratoire Electronique & Traitement de l'information, Casablanca, Maroc
3 PA à ESTB, Université Hassan I, Maroc
Original language: French
Copyright © 2014 ISSR Journals. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Abstract
The information technology and communication have become an essential support for all activities of companies. They have emerged as a strategic asset in the service operations and management of the company.
In this context, the key challenge for the company is to maximize its information system in order to make a major lever for achieving its objectives. However, companies face a lot of problems for the implementation of their information system. This is typically a notion of maturity that is required.
In this article, we aim to study the maturity of projects and models most used in the literature, while providing a comparative study between the different models of maturity in project management.
Author Keywords: Information System, Management Project, Performance, Maturity Model.
Abstract: (french)
Les technologies de l'information et de la communication sont devenues un support incontournable de l'ensemble des activités de l'entreprise. Elles s'imposent désormais comme un actif stratégique au service des opérations et du pilotage de l'entreprise.
Dans ce contexte, l'enjeu essentiel pour l'entreprise est d'exploiter au maximum son Système d'Information afin d'en faire un levier majeur de l'atteinte de ses objectifs. Or, les entreprises rencontrent beaucoup de problèmes pour la mise en œuvre de leur système d'information. C'est typiquement une notion de maturité qui s'impose.
Dans cet article, nous avons l'ambition d'étudier la maturité des projets et ses modèles les plus utilisés dans la littérature, tout en offrant une étude comparative entre les différents modèles de maturité dans la gestion des projets.
Author Keywords: Système d'information, Gestion des projets, Performance, Modèle de maturité.
How to Cite this Article
Oussama Matrane, Mohamed Talea, and Chafik Okar, “Etude comparative des différents modèles de maturité en gestion des projets,” International Journal of Innovation and Scientific Research, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 147–152, September 2014.
