Organizational Aspects and Practices for Enhancing Organizational Project Management Maturity
Abstract
:1. Introduction
Research Questions
- What organizational aspects could influence the implementation of PMM in organizations?
- What organizational practices could influence the success of PMM implementation?
2. Methods
2.1. Study Design
2.2. Eligibility Criteria
2.3. Information Sources
2.4. Search
2.5. Study Selection
2.6. Risk of Bias across Studies
2.7. Data Extraction
2.8. Primary Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Study Selection
3.2. Study Characteristics
3.3. Risk of Bias across Studies
3.4. Research Design Used by Previous Studies
3.5. Main Findings
3.6. Organizational Aspects Influencing Organizational Project Management Maturity
3.6.1. Organization Culture
3.6.2. Stakeholders’ Differences and Priority
3.6.3. Matured Organization Structure
3.6.4. Project Complexity
3.6.5. Motivation
3.6.6. Prerequisite for the Next Maturity Level
3.7. Organizational Practices Influence Project Management Maturity
3.7.1. Integration with Existing Organization Strategic Initiatives
3.7.2. Adoption of PM Reference
3.7.3. The Establishment of Project Management Office
3.7.4. The Use of Project Management Software Tools
4. Discussion and Conclusions
5. Implications for Future Research and Practice
Author Contributions
Funding
Informed Consent Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Existing PMM Models and Relevant Theories
Author of the References | Elements Considered | Maturity Levels | Relevant Theory |
---|---|---|---|
Qin et al. (2017) | CMMI as introduced by SEI Four main elements:
| Level 1: Initial Process Level 2: Structured Process and Standard Level 3: Organisational Standards and Institutionalized Process Level 4: Managed Process Level 5: Optimizing Process | The foundation of CMMI can be explained by Dynamic capabilities (Shuen et al., 2014) Dynamic capabilities suggest that a strong capabilities are built on best practices and ability to integrate, and reconfigure internal and external competencies to address rapidly changes market. |
Kerzner (2019) | Kerzner Project Management Model, KPM3 Based on critical success factors:
| Level 1: Common Language Level 2: Common Processes Level 3: Singular Methodology Level 4: Benchmarking Level 5: Continuous Improvement | The foundation of KPM3 is another example of model that fit into Contingency Theory (Donaldson, 2001). KPM3 based on critical success factors and those factors needs to be aligned with to the project environment in order to achieve the most ideal capability, or fit condition. |
Crawford (2001) | PM Solutions PMMM Project Management Maturity Model designed based on all nine of the PMBOK areas of knowledge. | Level 1: Initial Process Level 2: Structured Process and Standard Level 3: Organisational Standards and Institutionalized Process Level 4: Managed Process Level 5: Optimizing Process | The core process in strong capability is demonstrate in this model, thus the foundation of this model is relevant to Dynamic capability. |
References
- PMI. Research Highlights by Industry and Region; Pulse of the Profession; Project Management Institute: Newton Square, PA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Görög, M. A broader approach to organizational project management maturity assessment. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2016, 34, 1658–1669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anantatmula, V.S.; Rad, P.F. Role of Organizational Project Management Maturity Factors on Project Success. Eng. Manag. J. 2018, 30, 165–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cooke-Davies, T.; Arzymanow, A. The maturity of project management in different industries: An investigation into variations between project management models. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2003, 21, 471–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crawford, J.K. Project Management Maturity Model; Information Systems Management; Auerbach Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2006; Volume 23, p. 50. [Google Scholar]
- Crawford, J.K. Project Management Maturity Model: Providing a Proven Path to Project Management Excellence; Marcel Dekker: New York, NY, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- De Souza, T.F.; Gomes, C.F.S. Assessment of maturity in project management: A bibliometric study of main models. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2015, 55, 92–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Albrecht, J.C.; Spang, K. Project complexity as an influence factor on the balance of costs and benefits in project management maturity modeling. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 119, 162–171. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, K.; Su, Y.; Zhang, S. Evaluating Supplier Management Maturity in Prefabricated Construction Project-Survey Analysis in China. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Grant, K.P.; Pennypacker, J.S. Project management maturity: An assessment of project management capabilities among and between selected industries. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2006, 53, 59–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kostalova, J.; Tetrevova, L. Proposal of Project Management Methods and Tools Oriented Maturity Model. Gest. Proj. GeP 2018, 9, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Berssaneti, F.T.; Carvalho, M.M.D.; Muscat, A.R.N. The impact of critical success factors and project management maturity in project success: A survey of Brazilian companies. Production 2014, 26, 707–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khoshgoftar, M.; Osman, O. Comparison of maturity models. In Proceedings of the 2009 2nd IEEE International Conference on Computer Science and Information Technology, Beijing, China, 8–11 August 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Galli, B.J. Project Management Maturity Models: An Overview of the Common Models and a Proposed Uniform Model. Int. J. Appl. Logist. 2018, 8, 19–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tahri, H.; Drissi-Kaitouni, O. New design for calculating project management maturity (PMM). Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 181, 171–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kerzner, H. Strategic Planning for Project Management Using a Project Management Maturity Model, 3rd ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Crawford, J.K. Project Management Maturity Model; Auerbach Publications: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Sanchez, F.; Bonjour, E.; Micaelli, J.P.; Monticolo, D. An approach based on bayesian network for improving project management maturity: An application to reduce cost overrun risks in engineering projects. Comput. Ind. 2020, 119, 103227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Irfan, M.; Hassan, M.; Hassan, N.; Habib, M.; Khan, S.; Nasruddin, A.M. Project Management Maturity & Organizational Reputation: A Case Study of Public Sector Organizations. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 73828–73842. [Google Scholar]
- Berssanetia, F.T.; de Carvalho, M.M.; Muscat, A.R.N. Impact of reference model for project management and project management maturity models on performance: An exploratory study in information technology projects. Producao 2012, 22, 421–435. [Google Scholar]
- De Guimarães, J.C.F.; Severo, E.A.; Vieira, P.S. Cleaner production, project management and Strategic Drivers: An empirical study. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 141, 881–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Backlund, C.D.; Sundqvist, E. Maturity assessment: Towards continuous improvements for project-based organisations? Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2015, 8, 256–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albrecht, J.C.; Spang, K. Linking the benefits of project management maturity to project complexity: Insights from a multiple case study. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2014, 7, 285–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shuen, A.; Feiler, P.F.; Teece, D.J. Dynamic capabilities in the upstream oil and gas sector: Managing next generation competition. Energy Strategy Rev. 2014, 3, 5–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Donaldson, L. The Contingency Theory of Organizations; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Berssaneti, F.T.; Carvalho, M.M. Identification of variables that impact project success in Brazilian companies. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2015, 33, 638–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Insights and Trends: Current Programme and Project Management Practices. Available online: https://www.pwc.com/cl/es/publicaciones/assets/insighttrends.pdf (accessed on 5 May 2021).
- Yazici, H.J. An exploratory analysis of the project management and corporate sustainability capabilities for organizational success. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2020, 13, 793–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pells, D.L. What Happened to Organizational PM Maturity. PM World J. 2020, 9, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
- Alami, O.M.; Bouksour, O.; Beidouri, Z. An intelligent project management maturity model for Moroccan engineering companies. Vikalpa 2015, 40, 191–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Langston, C.; Ghanbaripour, A.N. A Management Maturity Model (MMM) for project-based organisational performance assessment. Constr. Econ. Build. 2016, 16, 68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Albliwi, S.A.; Antony, J.; Lim, S.A.H. A systematic review of Lean Six Sigma for the manufacturing industry. Bus. Process Manag. J. 2015, 21, 665–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Limkakeng, A.T.; de Oliveira, L.L.H.; Moreira, T.; Phadtare, A.; Rodrigues, C.G.; Hocker, M.B.; McKinney, R.; Voils, C.I.; Pietrobon, R. Systematic review and metasummary of attitudes toward research in emergency medical conditions. J. Med. Ethics 2014, 40, 401–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jaleel, F.; Daim, T.; Giadedi, A. Exploring the impact of knowledge management (KM) best practices for project management maturity models on the project management capability of organizations. Int. J. Manag. Sci. Eng. Manag. 2018, 14, 47–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G.; Prisma Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 2009, 151, 264–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Okoli, C.; Schabram, K. A Guide to Conducting a Systematic Literature Review of Information Systems Research. Sprouts Work. Pap. Inf. Syst. 2010, 10, 1–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Xiao, Y.; Watson, M. Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2019, 39, 93–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nagendrababu, V.; Pulikkotil, S.J.; Sultan, O.S.; Jayaraman, J.; Soh, J.A.; Dummer, P.M.H. Effectiveness of technology-enhanced learning in Endodontic education: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. Endod. J. 2019, 52, 181–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shaffril, H.A.M.; Samah, A.A.; Samsuddin, S.F.; Ali, Z. Mirror-mirror on the wall, what climate change adaptation strategies are practiced by the Asian’s fishermen of all? J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 232, 104–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fisher, L.-B.; Newig, J. Importance of actors and agency in sustainability transitions. Sustainability 2016, 8, 476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Turner, M.; Kitchenham, B.; Brereton, P.; Charters, S.; Budgen, D. Does the technology acceptance model predict actual use? A systematic literature review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 2010, 52, 463–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gibbs, G.R. Analyzing qualitative data. In The Sage Qualitative Research Kit, 2nd ed.; Flick, U., Ed.; Sage: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Ortiz-Avram, D.; Domnanovich, J.; Kronenberg, C.; Scholz, M. Exploring the integration of corporate social responsibility into the strategies of small-and medium-sized enterprises: A systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 201, 254–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Merriam, S.B.; Tisdell, E.J. Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation, 4th ed.; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Creswell, J.W.; Poth, C.N. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches, 4th ed.; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Sandelowski, M.; Barroso, J.; Voils, C.I. Using qualitative metasummary to synthesize qualitative and quantitative descriptive findings. Res. Nurs. Health 2007, 30, 99–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Special Issue on Project Management Maturity. Available online: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/ijmpb.2013.35306aaa.007/full/html (accessed on 6 September 2021).
- Creswell, J.W. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 4 ed.; SAGE: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Bolat, B.; Kuşdemir, A.; Uslu, İ.C.; Temur, G.T. An assessment for IT project maturity levels. Int. J. Inf. Technol. Proj. Manag. 2017, 8, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brookes, N.; Butler, M.; Dey, P.; Clark, R. The use of maturity models in improving project management performance: An empirical investigation. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2014, 7, 231–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carvalho, B.d.O.; Ogasavara, M.H. A link between post-acquisition acculturation and project management maturity: A case study research in the automotive industry. Manag. Res. J. Iberoam. Acad. Manag. 2017, 15, 83–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, X.N.; Wei, B. The Application of Project Management Maturity Model. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2013, 475, 1707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, W.F.; Li, D.W.; Hu, R. Three-Dimensional Complex Construction Project Management Maturity Model: Case Study of 2010 Shanghai Expo. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2012, 209, 1363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khalema, L.; Van Waveren, C.C.; Chan, K.-Y. The relationship between project management office maturity and organisational project management maturity: An empirical study of the South African government infrastructure departments. S. Afr. J. Ind. Eng. 2015, 26, 12–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mihic, M.M.; Petrovic, D.C.; Obradovic, V.L.; Vuckovic, A.M. Project Management Maturity Analysis in the Serbian Energy Sector. Energies 2015, 8, 3924–3943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pasian, B.; Sankaran, S.; Boydell, S. Project management maturity: A critical analysis of existing and emergent factors. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2012, 5, 146–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qi, S.J.; Chen, W.; Zhang, Y.B.; Wu, J.J.; Cai, J.Z. Identification of influence factors and establishment of evaluation index system for OPM3 in mega construction engineering enterprise. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2014, 584, 2233–2238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abdul Rasid, S.Z.; Wan Ismail, W.K.; Mohammad, N.H.; Long, C.S. Assessing adoption of project management knowledge areas and maturity level: Case study of a public agency in Malaysia. J. Manag. Eng. 2014, 30, 264–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ronald, B.; Tamara, H. Case Study: Re-Visiting the Roles of Project Management Maturity and Organisational Culture for Perceived Performance—A Replication Based on German Data. Adv. Manag. 2018, 11, 13–30. [Google Scholar]
- Young, M.; Young, R.; Romero Zapata, J. Project, programme and portfolio maturity: A case study of Australian Federal Government. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2014, 7, 215–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Žurga, G. Project Management in Public Administration. TPM-Total Project Management Maturity Model. The Case of Slovenian Public Administration. Transylv. Rev. Adm. Sci. 2018, 14, 144–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pretorius, S.; Steyn, H.; Jordaan, J.C. Project management maturity and project management success in the engineering and construction industries in Southern Africa. S. Afr. J. Ind. Eng. 2012, 23, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Górecki, J. Maturity of project management in polish and foreign construction companies. Found. Manag. 2015, 7, 71–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Matrane, O.; Okar, C.; Talea, M. Project management maturity in small and medium-sized enterprises in Morocco: An empirical investigation. Int. J. Adv. Stud. Comput. Sci. Eng. 2014, 3, 38. [Google Scholar]
- Nenni, M.E.; Arnone, V.; Boccardelli, P.; Napolitano, I. How to increase the value of the project management maturity model as a business-oriented framework. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2014, 6, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Patah, L.A.; de Carvalho, M.M. Success obtained from investments in the project management methodology. Producao 2015, 26, 129–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turner, R.; Miterev, M. The Organizational Design of the Project-Based Organization. Proj. Manag. J. 2019, 50, 487–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, N.; Creasy, T.; Fan, Y. Fifteen years of theory in project management: A review. Int. J. Constr. Proj. Manag. 2015, 7, 153. [Google Scholar]
Criterion | Inclusion | Exclusion |
---|---|---|
Timeline | Articles published between 2011 and 2021 | Any publication before 2011 |
Literature type | Journal (research paper) | Review paper, book, lecture, and conference |
Language | Articles published in English | Non-English |
Subject area | Project management maturity | Not project management maturity |
Database | Search String |
---|---|
Scopus | (TITLE-ABS-KEY (“project management maturity model”) AND ALL (“project management maturity model”)) |
ProQuest | ti(“project management maturity model”) OR ab(“project management maturity model”) OR ft(“project management maturity model”) |
Author(s) | Study Design | Sector | Type of Participant | No of Participant |
---|---|---|---|---|
[30] | Mixed methods | Private—Engineering Companies | Project Manager | 15 qualitative 13 quantitative |
[23] | Qualitative | Private—Automotive and Energy | Project Manager, Head of Department | 6 (2 interviews per case organization |
[22] | Mixed methods | Private—Engineering and Construction (Mining) | Top Management, Project Manager Project Coordinator Managers | 6 interviews 67 respondents, survey 9 respondents, visit and interview |
[20] | Quantitative | Private—Information Technology | Project professional | 51 respondents |
[49] | Quantitative | Private—Information Technology | Project Manager | 16 firms |
[50] | Qualitative | Private—7 Multi organizations | Professional | 90 respondents |
[51] | Qualitative | Private—Automotive | Managers | 14 respondents |
[52] | Qualitative | Private—Manufacturing | Engineering laboratory | Not applicable |
[53] | Qualitative | Private—Facility Construction | Head of Department | Not mentioned |
[34] | Mixed methods | Private—Information Technology PM Consultancy | Senior IT Project Manager | 18 interviews 190 survey respondents |
[54] | Quantitative | Public—Government Agencies | Project Manager PMO staff | 128 respondents |
[50] | Mixed methods | Private—Information Technology | Project Manager Engineer Director IS IT Manager | 41 respondents |
[55] | Quantitative | Private—Energy | Project management practitioner | 75 respondents from 75 organizations |
[56] | Mixed methods | Public—Education | Course developer Instructional designer Sponsor Subject matter expert Unit/dept. head | 10 members from two universities |
[57] | Quantitative | Private—Facility Construction | Excellent project manager High-level business executive | 238 respondents |
[58] | Quantitative | Public Agency | Project manager Team member | 65 respondents |
[59] | Quantitative | Private—Multiple | Project manager | 78 respondents |
[60] | Quantitative | Public– Government agencies | Secondary data | NA |
[61] | Qualitative | Public Agency | Archival data | NA |
[31] | Qualitative | Private—Information Technology (Infra) | CEO Program manager Project manager | From 1 organization |
[62] | Quantitative | Private—Construction Engineering Petrochemical Mining | Project professional | 225 respondents |
[28] | Quantitative | Private and Public—Local/regional business Government/county office | Manager of small service business | 66 respondents |
[63] | Quantitative | Private—Facility Construction | Practitioner from 18 companies | Not mentioned |
Themes | No. of Studies (%) | Studies |
---|---|---|
Organizational aspects influence PMM | ||
Organization culture | 6 (26) | [22,39,43,52,58,64] |
Stakeholders’ differences and priorities | 5 (22) | [22,51,52,58,59] |
Mature organization structure | 4 (17) | [22,43,45,59] |
Project complexity | 4 (17) | [22,25,43,51] |
Motivation | 2 (9) | [22,56] |
Pre-requisite for the next maturity level | 2 (9) | [42,50] |
Organizational practices influence PMM | ||
Integration with organization strategic initiative | 9 (39) | [25,39,43,46,51,53,56,58,59] |
Adopting PM reference | 8 (35) | [20,22,50,51,56,57,58,59] |
The establishment of Project Management Office | 3 (13) | [49,51,56] |
The use of project management software tools | 2 (9) | [51,59] |
Themes | Themes Relation to Research Questions | Contribution to Theory |
---|---|---|
Organizational aspects influence PMM | ||
Organization culture | High adaptability culture makes it easy to adopt PMM | Broaden CT: Organizational culture influences organizational flexibility to adopt initiatives for improvement |
Stakeholders’ differences and priorities | Stakeholders prioritize project deliverables rather than the enhancement of PMM | Broaden stakeholder theory (ST): Organization to balance and prioritize different stakeholders’ expectations |
Mature organization structure | A mature structure provides an ideal environment to adopt PMM | Broaden CT: Organizational structure affects the way the organization communicates and distributes its authority |
Project complexity | Project complexity changes organizations’ focus on the initiative to adopt PMM. | Broaden CT: Project complexity determined the effort made to achieve the intended fit condition. |
Motivation | Major changes in an organization could disrupt motivation for the implementation of PMM. | Broaden dynamic capability: Motivation is a cluster of activities to build a strong organizational capability. |
Pre-requisite for the next maturity level | Fulfil key processes, provide a better foundation to implement PMM | Broaden dynamic capability: Existing organizational practices are signature practices, building strong organizational capability. |
Organizational practices influence PMM | ||
Integration with organization strategic initiative | PMM could be more beneficial when integrated with other existing strategic initiatives | Broaden dynamic capability: Core process in building strong organizational capability. |
Adopting PM reference | Organization with existing PM systems could accelerate the PMM adoption process | Broaden dynamic capability: Practice building strong organizational capability. |
The establishment of the Project Management Office (PMO) | The existence of PMO drives the implementation of PMM | Broaden Dynamic capability: Coordinating PMO is a coordinating function, one of the core processes in dynamic capability. |
The use of project management software tools | Investing in PM software tools and training increases organizational maturity in managing projects | Broaden dynamic capability: Practice building strong organizational capability. |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Karim, M.A.; Ong, T.S.; Ng, S.H.; Muhammad, H.; Ali, N.A. Organizational Aspects and Practices for Enhancing Organizational Project Management Maturity. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5113. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095113
Karim MA, Ong TS, Ng SH, Muhammad H, Ali NA. Organizational Aspects and Practices for Enhancing Organizational Project Management Maturity. Sustainability. 2022; 14(9):5113. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095113
Chicago/Turabian StyleKarim, Muhammad Abdul, Tze San Ong, Sin Huei Ng, Haslinah Muhammad, and Noor Azman Ali. 2022. "Organizational Aspects and Practices for Enhancing Organizational Project Management Maturity" Sustainability 14, no. 9: 5113. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095113