Before an organization can improve how it executes projects, it needs an honest picture of where it actually stands, not where it thinks it stands. Avenew gave PT Metranet that picture: a rigorous, dual-layer assessment of both organizational maturity and individual competency that identified not just the gaps, but the specific, prioritized path forward.
A Digital Company at an Organizational Inflection Point
PT Metranet occupies a distinctive position in Indonesia's digital economy. Established in 2009 as a subsidiary of PT Telekomunikasi Indonesia (Telkom), Metranet was created as the group's vehicle for developing and scaling digital innovation, turning early-stage ideas into products with real market relevance. Over the years, that mandate has evolved into a multi-portfolio digital company managing a range of platforms across media, procurement, and digital services: Uzone.id, an online media platform delivering news and entertainment to Indonesian audiences; Cazbox, a digital platform focused on empowering women through inclusive technology solutions; Xooply, an integrated procurement platform with built-in approval workflows and logistics management, now used by over 300 companies; and Scala, a digital mediation services platform extending digital access more broadly across the market.
Running four distinct digital platforms, each with its own product roadmap, user base, technical infrastructure, and business model, means running four parallel organizations under a single corporate roof. As these portfolios grew and the project initiatives supporting each of them multiplied, Metranet found itself at a familiar inflection point for fast-moving digital companies: the organizational capability that had carried the business to its current scale was being asked to carry it further, into higher complexity and greater strategic ambition, without a clear shared framework for how projects were managed, governed, and executed.
The fundamental question Metranet needed answered was not whether its teams were working hard or whether capable individuals existed within the organization. The question was whether the organization, as a whole, had the project management maturity to execute its strategic agenda consistently, at the standard the business now required. In 2025, Metranet engaged Avenew to answer that question with evidence.
Two Dimensions of Capability
Project management capability in any organization exists at two distinct levels, and the failure to assess both simultaneously produces an incomplete and often misleading picture.
The first dimension is organizational maturity: the degree to which project management processes are defined, documented, consistently applied, and integrated across the organization. A mature project management organization is one where sound practices do not depend on the presence of a particular experienced individual, they are embedded in the way the organization works.
The second dimension is individual competency: the actual capability of the people who manage and execute projects to apply the right knowledge, skills, and behaviors in real project situations. An organization can have well-designed processes and still underperform if the people operating within them lack the competence to use them effectively. Conversely, an organization with highly capable individuals but no shared process framework creates a dependency on those individuals that does not scale and does not survive turnover.
Avenew's assessment of Metranet was designed to examine both dimensions simultaneously, and to understand how they related to each other across the organization's different business unit portfolios.
Avenew's Assessment Methodology
The assessment framework Avenew brought to Metranet was built on a combination of internationally recognized models, adapted to Metranet's specific organizational context and strategic goals.
Tailored OPM3 and CMMI-Based Maturity Assessment
Tailored OPM3 and CMMI-Based Maturity Assessment formed the organizational backbone of the diagnostic. The Organizational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3) and the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) both provide structured frameworks for measuring the degree to which project management processes are institutionalized across an organization, but neither is a plug-and-play instrument. Avenew adapted both models to reflect Metranet's specific operating environment: a multi-portfolio digital company with distinct business unit structures, a Telkom Group governance context, and an organizational profile very different from the infrastructure or engineering environments for which generic maturity models are often calibrated. The tailored assessment measured not just whether certain processes existed on paper, but whether they were consistently understood, consistently applied, and producing consistent outcomes across Metranet's portfolio units.
PMI Talent Triangle Competency Mapping
PMI Talent Triangle Competency Mapping structured the individual competency assessment around the three domains the Project Management Institute has identified as defining a well-rounded project professional: Ways of Working, Power Skills, and Business Acumen. By mapping individual competency profiles against this framework, Avenew was able to produce a structured picture of where Metranet's project management talent was concentrated, where it was thin, and what development priorities would produce the highest organizational return. The Talent Triangle framing was particularly well-suited to Metranet's situation because it captures not just technical project management knowledge, but the leadership, communication, and strategic thinking dimensions that become increasingly important as organizations try to elevate their PMO function from administrative coordination to genuine organizational governance.
Dual-Layer Competency Assessment
Dual-Layer Competency Assessment was the methodological mechanism that made the individual-level diagnostic genuinely useful rather than merely evaluative. Rather than measuring competency through a single instrument, Avenew assessed each participant across two distinct layers: declared knowledge, what individuals understand about project management concepts, tools, and practices, and applied competency readiness, the degree to which that knowledge translates into consistent, effective behavior in real project situations. This distinction matters because the gap between knowing and doing is one of the most consequential and most frequently overlooked dimensions of organizational capability. An organization where people know what good project management looks like but do not consistently apply it has a different development need than one where foundational knowledge gaps are the primary constraint. Avenew's dual-layer approach made that distinction visible and actionable.
Performance Competency Review
Performance Competency Review deepened the picture by connecting individual competency profiles to actual project performance patterns, examining the relationship between the capability levels observed in the assessment and the execution behaviors visible in practice. This grounding in real performance evidence ensured that the assessment findings were anchored in organizational reality, not just survey responses, and strengthened the credibility of the recommendations that followed.
The assessment was conducted across Project Managers, Project Officers, and PMO personnel spanning Metranet's business unit portfolios, ensuring that the findings reflected the full range of project management roles and contexts within the organization, not just the most senior or most experienced practitioners.
Integrated Gap Analysis Framework
Integrated Gap Analysis Framework synthesized the findings from all assessment layers into a single, prioritized view of the capability gaps that most constrained Metranet's project management effectiveness. The gap analysis was designed not as a comprehensive list of every area where improvement was possible, but as a prioritized map of the interventions most likely to accelerate the organization's journey toward higher maturity, distinguishing between foundational gaps that needed to be addressed before anything else could improve, and enhancement opportunities that could be pursued in parallel or in sequence.
The assessment combined quantitative instruments, structured questionnaires and rapid self-assessments, with qualitative methods including in-depth interviews and Focus Group Discussions. This triangulation approach was deliberate: quantitative data provides breadth and comparability; qualitative engagement surfaces the organizational dynamics, informal practices, and contextual nuances that structured questionnaires alone cannot capture. Together, they produced a picture that was both analytically rigorous and organizationally credible.
What the Assessment Delivered
The output of Avenew's assessment was not a report for the shelf. It was a structured, actionable intelligence package that gave Metranet's leadership the specific, evidence-grounded understanding of organizational capability they needed to make confident decisions about where to invest in improvement.
The assessment clarified the organization's current project management maturity with precision, identifying where practices were established and performing, where they were inconsistent or informally dependent on individual knowledge, and where meaningful process gaps existed. Across the business unit portfolios assessed, the findings provided cross-unit comparability: understanding whether the challenges observed were systemic across the organization or specific to particular units is critical for prioritizing improvement efforts, and the multi-portfolio scope of Avenew's assessment made that analysis possible.
The competency mapping produced individual and aggregate capability profiles across the PMI Talent Triangle dimensions, giving Metranet a data-grounded foundation for its capability development planning. Rather than relying on informal judgments about team strengths and development needs, the organization now had a structured, evidence-based picture that could inform training prioritization, hiring decisions, role design, and career development pathways.
The gap analysis framed the improvement agenda in a way that was both realistic and strategically coherent, distinguishing between the foundational process standardization work that needed to happen at the organizational level, the PMO governance strengthening that would shift the function from administrative coordination toward genuine project assurance, and the collective competency development that would move the team's applied capability forward in a sustainable way. This sequenced, integrated framing gave Metranet not just a list of things to fix, but a clear understanding of how the different elements of improvement fit together and what order made strategic sense.
Capability Assessment as a Strategic Investment
The Metranet engagement reflects a dimension of project management advisory work that is sometimes undervalued: the diagnostic investment that makes every subsequent improvement effort more effective. Organizations that attempt to improve their project management capability without first establishing an honest, rigorous baseline frequently invest in the wrong things, training programs that address surface symptoms rather than root causes, process improvements that are technically sound but organizationally misaligned, governance structures that solve for the wrong maturity level.
Avenew's approach to capability assessment is built on the conviction that clarity precedes improvement. By combining internationally recognized maturity frameworks with a dual-layer competency methodology and a multi-method evidence base, Avenew gave Metranet the organizational self-knowledge it needed to pursue improvement with confidence and precision.
This is consistent with Avenew's broader identity as a project-driven organizational capability partner. Whether the engagement is a PMO transformation, an ISO standardization program, or a maturity and competency assessment, the underlying commitment is the same: to help organizations understand where they are, define where they need to be, and build the capability to get there, in a way that is evidence-based, organizationally grounded, and genuinely sustainable.
