In July 2025, Saudi Arabia’s Zakat, Tax and Customs Authority (ZATCA) announced that it had achieved Level 5 in P3M3, following its predecessor’s Level 4 achievement in 2020. The progress between these milestones offers valuable lessons for government institutions seeking to strengthen their management capabilities. Established procedures, regular reporting, and performance measurement are important, yet they cannot drive improvement on their own. PeopleCert later documented the changes behind ZATCA’s progress, from making better use of lessons learned to strengthening data-informed decisions. This article examines those findings and how other institutions can apply them to their own needs.
The P3M3 model assesses the maturity of an institution’s project, program, and portfolio management practices, including how consistently those practices are applied and improved. It looks at whether effective ways of working can be repeated and whether underlying causes of poor performance are understood, rather than judging capability by the success of individual projects.
The assessment covers three areas, which can be examined together or independently:
These areas are assessed across seven perspectives: governance, management control, benefits management, risk management, stakeholder management, financial management, and resource management.
Having documented methods is only part of the evidence. An institution must also demonstrate that its practices influence actual decisions, that results are reviewed, and that improvements are made when weaknesses appear.
For a more detailed explanation of the assessment areas and maturity levels, read Synexcell’s guide to building more mature project, program, and portfolio management practices.
Level 5 represents continual improvement, the highest stage of the maturity model. At Level 4, processes are established, performance is measured, and management decisions are supported by reliable data. At Level 5, the institution uses that information to improve the processes themselves, tests new approaches, and extends successful practices across teams.
Consider a hypothetical example involving repeated project delays caused by the same supplier. An office with mature performance measurement can report how often the delays occur and assess their impact.
Moving toward Level 5 requires a further response: investigating why the delays keep occurring, revising supplier evaluation or approval procedures where necessary, and checking whether those changes reduce the problem in subsequent projects.
The difference lies in whether performance information leads to lasting changes in how work is managed.
PeopleCert’s official overview of the maturity model explains how assessments help institutions identify gaps, establish improvement priorities, and monitor progress. Achieving the highest level demonstrates a strong capability for learning and improvement, although it cannot eliminate every risk or guarantee the success of every project.
ZATCA’s journey began well before the announcement of Level 5. On September 13, 2020, its predecessor, the General Authority of Zakat and Tax, announced that it had reached Level 4. On July 29, 2025, ZATCA announced that it had reached Level 5, becoming the first Saudi authority to achieve this classification, according to its official announcement.
Synexcell published an article on the case study developed in collaboration with ZATCA, documenting the Authority’s achievement under P3M3 and the development of its project governance practices in support of digital transformation and Saudi Vision 2030.
According to the case study, ZATCA’s main challenges did not stem from a lack of documentation or performance measurement. Established procedures were already in place.
The gaps involved how effectively lessons from previous work were shared across programs, how portfolio decisions were connected to strategic objectives, and how benefits and risks could be monitored more proactively.
To address these weaknesses, ZATCA worked with Synexcell, a PeopleCert Accredited Consulting Partner, on an assessment and improvement initiative covering all three management areas and seven assessment perspectives.
The work followed six connected phases:
The documented changes included the development of performance dashboards and predictive analytics, improvements to resource planning and supplier evaluation, and a centralized platform for lessons learned.
The final assessment confirmed Level 5 maturity across project, program, and portfolio management.
ZATCA’s experience offers practical lessons that government institutions can adapt to their own responsibilities, operating environments, and available resources. Replicating the Authority’s exact structure or systems is unnecessary.
The greater value lies in converting performance findings into specific improvements, assigning responsibility for implementation, and checking whether those changes produce better results.
| The Value | How Government Institutions Can Apply It | Evidence of Improvement |
| Address the gaps affecting decisions | Examine delayed escalations or resource conflicts before investing in additional systems | Shorter decision-making times or fewer recurring resource conflicts |
| Turn lessons learned into process changes | Identify recurring causes of delays and assign responsibility for reviewing and updating the relevant procedures | Updated procedures applied in subsequent projects, with their impact assessed |
| Connect portfolios to benefits | Assign an owner to each expected benefit and continue monitoring after project delivery | Clear benefit ownership and available post-delivery performance data |
| Test improvements before wider implementation | Pilot an escalation process or dashboard within a selected program and refine it using feedback | Adoption of effective practices and discontinuation of activities that add little value |
Departments must participate in reviewing evidence and developing solutions, rather than leaving maturity improvement entirely to the Project Management Office (PMO).
Identifying the causes of repeated problems will have limited value unless decisions follow that address the underlying issues and reduce their recurrence in future projects.
For a broader understanding of decision ownership and escalation, read Synexcell’s The Project Management Office and Its Impact on Improving Project Governance.
ZATCA’s experience provides a useful reference for building an improvement path suited to each government institution.
When applying P3M3, the target maturity level should reflect the assessment findings, portfolio size, risks, and available resources. Reaching Level 5 is not a prerequisite for achieving meaningful improvements.
A practical approach involves five steps:
For instance, an institution may already measure project delays consistently but fail to use the findings to improve procurement procedures or resource allocation.
In this case, the priority is addressing the weakness in how decisions are made and procedures are updated before investing in another reporting tool.
If the assessment identifies a need to establish a project management office or revise its authority, Synexcell’s PMO Establishment in a Saudi Government Entity: A Step-by-Step Guide provides further guidance.
ZATCA’s experience shows that meaningful progress occurs when assessment findings become decisions and improvements that remain effective after the assessment is complete. Other government institutions can adopt this approach without following an identical roadmap or waiting until they are ready to pursue Level 5. Synexcell Management Consultancy contributed to ZATCA’s documented maturity journey. Through its project, program, and portfolio management services, Synexcell supports maturity assessments, improvement planning, and the development of effective governance practices.
What is holding back your institution’s next stage of improvement? Have a chat with Synexcell’s consultants to identify the maturity gaps that matter most, establish a practical improvement roadmap, and focus your resources on changes that deliver measurable value.
Formal assessments are conducted through accredited consulting partners under PeopleCert’s assessment requirements. Institutions can also carry out internal reviews to prepare for an assessment and identify weaknesses, while recognizing the distinction between internal reviews and accredited assessments.
Evidence typically includes policies, procedures, project records, decisions, risk and benefits documentation, interviews, and practical examples showing that established processes are actually followed. The assessment scope determines the specific evidence required.
The decision should reflect the complexity of its activities, risk exposure, governance requirements, and resources available for improvement. Strengthening existing practices and addressing an important gap may be more valuable than immediately pursuing the highest level.
There is no standard timeframe that applies to every institution. Progress depends on the current maturity level, the extent of changes required, leadership commitment, and the availability of evidence demonstrating that improvements have been implemented and sustained.
