Waterfall / Traditional PM Maturity Assessment

TL;DR: Assesses organizational maturity in traditional/predictive project management across PMBOK knowledge areas and PRINCE2 principles. Evaluates process standardization, baseline management discipline, earned value adoption, change control rigor, documentation quality, and governance effectiveness. Produces a knowledge-area maturity matrix, process gap analysis, and an improvement roadmap toward predictable, controlled project delivery.

Principio Rector

La madurez en gestión predictiva no se mide por cuántos documentos se producen, sino por cuántas decisiones se toman con evidencia de baseline y cuántos desvíos se detectan antes de que se conviertan en crisis. Un proyecto waterfall maduro no es burocrático — es predecible. La diferencia está en usar los controles para decidir, no solo para documentar.

Assumptions & Limits

• Assumes the organization runs ≥3 projects using predictive methodology for meaningful assessment [METRIC]
• Assumes PM process documentation and templates are accessible [PLAN]
• Breaks when organization has no formal PM processes — there is nothing to assess; use waterfall-framework to design first
• Does not implement improvements; assesses maturity. Use waterfall-framework for implementation
• Assumes historical project performance data (SV, CV, scope changes) is available [SUPUESTO]
• Limited to PM process maturity; for organizational maturity models (OPM3, P3M3) use dedicated frameworks

Usage

# Full waterfall maturity assessment
/pm:waterfall-assessment $ARGUMENTS="--org 'PMO Central' --projects project-portfolio.md"

# Knowledge area deep-dive
/pm:waterfall-assessment --type knowledge-area --area "schedule,cost,risk"

# Benchmark comparison
/pm:waterfall-assessment --type benchmark --sector financial-services

Parameters:

Parameter	Required	Description
$ARGUMENTS	Yes	Organization/PMO identifier and project portfolio
--type	No	full (default), knowledge-area, benchmark, gap-analysis
--area	No	Specific PMBOK knowledge areas to assess
--sector	No	Industry sector for benchmark comparison

Service Type Routing

{TIPO_PROYECTO} variants:

• Agile: Assess residual waterfall practices needed for compliance or contractual obligations
• Waterfall: Primary use — full maturity assessment across all PMBOK knowledge areas
• SAFe: Assess traditional PM capabilities needed at portfolio and solution train levels
• Kanban: Assess baseline management and formal planning capabilities alongside flow practices
• Hybrid: Assess waterfall component maturity within hybrid methodology structure
• PMO: Assess organizational standardization of traditional PM processes
• Portfolio: Assess predictive planning maturity for portfolio-level forecasting
• Transformation: Baseline traditional PM maturity before methodology transformation

Before Assessing Maturity

1. Read current PM methodology documentation and templates [PLAN]
2. Read historical project performance reports (schedule variance, cost variance) [METRIC]
3. Glob **/process* or **/template* to find PM process artifacts [PLAN]
4. Grep for EVM, baseline, change control, and gate references in project documentation [INFERENCIA]

Entrada (Input Requirements)

• Current PM processes, templates, and standards documentation
• Historical project performance data (schedule variance, cost variance, scope changes)
• EVM usage practices and baseline management discipline
• Change control processes and compliance rates
• Governance structure and gate effectiveness data

Proceso (Protocol)

1. Knowledge area mapping — Assess maturity per PMBOK knowledge area (scope, schedule, cost, quality, resource, communication, risk, procurement, stakeholder, integration)
2. Process standardization — Evaluate degree of process standardization and template usage across projects
3. Baseline management — Assess quality and discipline of scope, schedule, and cost baseline management
4. Change control rigor — Evaluate change request process compliance and CCB effectiveness
5. EVM adoption — Assess earned value management implementation depth and usage for decisions
6. Documentation quality — Review documentation completeness, currency, and actual usage by teams
7. Governance effectiveness — Evaluate phase-gate compliance, steering committee decision quality
8. Organizational learning — Assess lessons learned capture, storage, and application to new projects
9. Benchmark comparison — Compare maturity levels against industry and sector benchmarks
10. Improvement roadmap — Design phased improvement plan prioritized by delivery predictability impact

Edge Cases

1. Organization claims maturity but performance data contradicts — Trust data over self-assessment. Compare claimed process adherence with actual project variance data. Document the gap explicitly [METRIC].
2. Inconsistent maturity across departments — Assess per department, then aggregate. Inconsistency itself is a finding — standardization is a maturity indicator [INFERENCIA].
3. Templates exist but are not used — Template existence ≠ process maturity. Assess actual adoption rates. Templates without enforcement are shelf-ware [METRIC].
4. Organization undergoing methodology transformation — Baseline current waterfall maturity before transformation begins. This becomes the "before" measurement [PLAN].

Example: Good vs Bad

Good example — Evidence-based maturity assessment:

Attribute	Value
Knowledge areas	All 10 PMBOK areas assessed with evidence
Maturity range	Level 2-4 across areas (average 2.8/5)
Strongest area	Risk management (Level 4) — active risk registers on 90% of projects
Weakest area	Earned value (Level 1) — EVM not used on any project
Standardization	65% template adoption rate across projects
Roadmap	12-month improvement plan with 3 quick wins and 4 structural changes

Bad example — Checklist maturity: "We have templates for everything, so we are mature." Template existence without adoption tracking, performance data analysis, or governance effectiveness assessment is not a maturity evaluation. Maturity is measured by outcomes (predictability), not by artifact count.

Salida (Deliverables)

• 05_waterfall_assessment_{proyecto}_{WIP}.md — Traditional PM maturity report
• PMBOK knowledge area maturity matrix (10 areas x 5 levels)
• Process standardization scorecard with adoption rates
• Gap analysis prioritized by impact on delivery predictability
• Improvement roadmap with quick wins and structural changes

Validation Gate

• All 10 PMBOK knowledge areas assessed with evidence-backed scores [METRIC]
• Maturity levels calibrated on consistent 1-5 scale with clear criteria [METRIC]
• Process standardization measured by adoption rates, not template existence [METRIC]
• EVM adoption depth assessed (not just presence/absence) [METRIC]
• Change control compliance rate quantified [METRIC]
• Governance effectiveness assessed with decision quality evidence [PLAN]
• Benchmark comparison against sector standards included [PLAN]
• Improvement roadmap prioritized by predictability impact [PLAN]
• Evidence ratio: ≥80% [METRIC]/[PLAN], <20% [SUPUESTO]
• Assessment grounded in PMBOK/PRINCE2, not Agile-biased criteria [PLAN]

Escalation Triggers

• No formal PM processes standardized despite running regulated or contractual projects
• EVM not used in any project with budget above organizational threshold
• Change control consistently bypassed with no consequence
• Phase gates rubber-stamped without substantive review

Additional Resources

Resource	When to Read	Location
Body of Knowledge	Traditional PM maturity models	references/body-of-knowledge.md
State of the Art	Modern predictive PM practices	references/state-of-the-art.md
Knowledge Graph	Waterfall assessment in methodology	references/knowledge-graph.mmd
Use Case Prompts	Maturity assessment scenarios	prompts/use-case-prompts.md
Metaprompts	Custom assessment frameworks	prompts/metaprompts.md
Sample Output	Reference maturity report	examples/sample-output.md

Output Configuration

• Language: Spanish (Latin American, business register)
• Evidence: [PLAN], [SCHEDULE], [METRIC], [INFERENCIA], [SUPUESTO], [STAKEHOLDER]
• Branding: #2563EB royal blue, #F59E0B amber (NEVER green), #0F172A dark

---

---

Sub-Agents

Documentation Quality Reviewer

Documentation Quality Reviewer Agent

Core Responsibility

Assesses the quality, completeness, and consistency of project documentation across all waterfall phases, ensuring that documents serve their intended purpose of enabling handoffs, supporting audit trails, and providing a reliable basis for downstream work.

Process

1. Inventory required documents. List all documents mandated by the methodology framework for each phase (charter, requirements spec, design docs, test plans, etc.).
2. Assess completeness. For each required document, verify its existence, currency, and completeness against the documentation standard template.
3. Evaluate content quality. Review documents for clarity, precision, ambiguity, internal consistency, and fitness for their intended audience.
4. Check cross-document alignment. Verify that information is consistent across related documents (requirements align with design, design aligns with test plans).
5. Measure document currency. Assess whether documents are updated when changes occur or whether they become stale after initial creation.
6. Evaluate accessibility. Determine whether documents are stored, versioned, and accessible to all stakeholders who need them.
7. Produce quality assessment. Generate a document quality scorecard with specific gaps, inconsistencies, and improvement priorities.

Output Format

• Documentation Completeness Matrix — Checklist of required vs actual documents per phase with quality ratings.
• Cross-Document Consistency Report — Identified inconsistencies and misalignments between related documents.
• Documentation Improvement Plan — Prioritized actions to improve document quality and maintenance practices.

Documentation Quality Scorer

Documentation Quality Scorer Agent

Core Responsibility

Scores documentation quality. This agent operates autonomously, applying systematic analysis and producing structured outputs.

Process

1. Gather Inputs. Collect all relevant data, documents, and stakeholder inputs needed for analysis.
2. Analyze Context. Assess the project context, methodology, phase, and constraints.
3. Apply Framework. Apply the appropriate analytical framework or model.
4. Generate Findings. Produce detailed findings with evidence tags and quantified impacts.
5. Validate Results. Cross-check findings against related artifacts for consistency.
6. Formulate Recommendations. Transform findings into actionable recommendations with owners and timelines.
7. Deliver Output. Produce the final structured output with executive summary, analysis, and action items.

Output Format

• Analysis Report — Structured findings with evidence tags and severity ratings.
• Recommendation Register — Actionable items with owners, deadlines, and success criteria.
• Executive Summary — 3-5 bullet point summary for stakeholder communication.

Phase Gate Compliance Auditor

Phase-Gate Compliance Auditor Agent

Core Responsibility

Evaluates the rigor and effectiveness of the organization's phase-gate process by verifying that each project phase produces the required deliverables at the mandated quality level, that gate reviews are substantive rather than rubber-stamp, and that gate decisions are enforced.

Process

1. Map phase-gate model. Document the organization's phase-gate model including phases, gates, required deliverables, approval criteria, and decision options (Go/Kill/Hold/Recycle).
2. Audit deliverable completeness. For each completed gate, verify that all required deliverables were submitted and met their acceptance criteria.
3. Assess gate review quality. Evaluate whether gate reviews involve appropriate stakeholders, allocate sufficient time, and apply genuine scrutiny to deliverables.
4. Analyze gate decisions. Review the distribution of gate decisions across projects — if gates never produce Kill/Hold decisions, the process may lack rigor.
5. Measure phase adherence. Determine whether work from later phases bleeds into earlier phases (phase leakage) or whether phases are properly sequential.
6. Evaluate escalation paths. Assess what happens when projects fail a gate — whether recycling processes are defined and enforced.
7. Produce compliance report. Generate a comprehensive compliance assessment with a project-by-project gate status and systemic improvement recommendations.

Output Format

• Gate Compliance Matrix — Project-by-project status of gate deliverables and decision outcomes.
• Phase Leakage Analysis — Evidence of work starting before gate approval and its impact on project outcomes.
• Gate Effectiveness Report — Assessment of gate review rigor with recommendations for strengthening the process.

Process Adherence Tracker

Process Adherence Tracker Agent

Core Responsibility

Tracks process adherence. This agent operates autonomously, applying systematic analysis and producing structured outputs.

Process

1. Gather Inputs. Collect all relevant data, documents, and stakeholder inputs needed for analysis.
2. Analyze Context. Assess the project context, methodology, phase, and constraints.
3. Apply Framework. Apply the appropriate analytical framework or model.
4. Generate Findings. Produce detailed findings with evidence tags and quantified impacts.
5. Validate Results. Cross-check findings against related artifacts for consistency.
6. Formulate Recommendations. Transform findings into actionable recommendations with owners and timelines.
7. Deliver Output. Produce the final structured output with executive summary, analysis, and action items.

Output Format

• Analysis Report — Structured findings with evidence tags and severity ratings.
• Recommendation Register — Actionable items with owners, deadlines, and success criteria.
• Executive Summary — 3-5 bullet point summary for stakeholder communication.

Requirements Stability Analyst

Requirements Stability Analyst Agent

Core Responsibility

Measures the stability of requirements throughout the waterfall project lifecycle, tracking change requests, scope creep, and requirements volatility to assess whether the predictive approach is appropriate for the project's requirements profile and change dynamics.

Process

1. Baseline requirements inventory. Document the total number of requirements at baseline and their categorization (functional, non-functional, interface, regulatory).
2. Track change volume. Measure the number of change requests submitted per phase and their disposition (approved, rejected, deferred).
3. Calculate volatility index. Compute the requirements volatility rate as the ratio of changed requirements to total requirements over the project lifecycle.
4. Analyze change timing. Determine when in the lifecycle changes occur — early changes are normal while late changes signal process problems or poor upfront analysis.
5. Assess impact propagation. Evaluate how individual requirement changes cascade through design, development, and testing phases in terms of rework effort.
6. Evaluate traceability. Verify that requirements traceability matrices are maintained and that changes can be traced through all downstream artifacts.
7. Recommend stability improvements. Propose practices to improve requirements stability or, if volatility is inherently high, recommend methodology adjustments.

Output Format

• Requirements Volatility Report — Change volume, timing distribution, and volatility index with trend analysis.
• Impact Cascade Analysis — Downstream rework costs and schedule impacts of requirement changes by phase.
• Stability Improvement Plan — Recommendations for reducing requirements churn or adapting the methodology to handle it.

Requirements Stability Measurer

Requirements Stability Measurer Agent

Core Responsibility

Measures requirements stability. This agent operates autonomously, applying systematic analysis and producing structured outputs.

Process

1. Gather Inputs. Collect all relevant data, documents, and stakeholder inputs needed for analysis.
2. Analyze Context. Assess the project context, methodology, phase, and constraints.
3. Apply Framework. Apply the appropriate analytical framework or model.
4. Generate Findings. Produce detailed findings with evidence tags and quantified impacts.
5. Validate Results. Cross-check findings against related artifacts for consistency.
6. Formulate Recommendations. Transform findings into actionable recommendations with owners and timelines.
7. Deliver Output. Produce the final structured output with executive summary, analysis, and action items.

Output Format

• Analysis Report — Structured findings with evidence tags and severity ratings.
• Recommendation Register — Actionable items with owners, deadlines, and success criteria.
• Executive Summary — 3-5 bullet point summary for stakeholder communication.

Waterfall Process Optimizer

Waterfall Process Optimizer Agent

Core Responsibility

Identifies opportunities to streamline and optimize the waterfall process without sacrificing the predictive discipline, governance rigor, and documentation standards that make waterfall appropriate for the project context, focusing on eliminating waste while preserving value.

Process

1. Map end-to-end process. Document the complete waterfall process flow including all activities, handoffs, reviews, approvals, and wait states.
2. Identify waste categories. Classify process waste using lean categories: waiting, overprocessing, defects, handoff losses, unnecessary documentation, and redundant reviews.
3. Measure cycle efficiency. Calculate the ratio of value-adding time to total elapsed time for each phase to identify phases with excessive overhead.
4. Analyze handoff effectiveness. Evaluate inter-phase handoffs for information loss, delays, and rework caused by incomplete or unclear deliverables.
5. Benchmark against standards. Compare the organization's waterfall process against industry standards (PMBOK, PRINCE2) to identify unnecessary additions or missing practices.
6. Design optimized process. Propose specific process improvements that reduce waste and cycle time while maintaining gate rigor and documentation standards.
7. Create optimization roadmap. Produce a phased implementation plan for process improvements with expected efficiency gains and risk mitigation.

Output Format

• Process Waste Analysis — Categorized waste identification with quantified time and cost impact.
• Cycle Efficiency Report — Phase-by-phase efficiency ratios with improvement targets.
• Optimization Roadmap — Prioritized process improvements with implementation sequence and expected ROI.