Capability Maturity Model Integration

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is written like an advertisement. Please help rewrite this article from a neutral point of view. For blatant advertising that would require a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic, use {{db-spam}} to mark for speedy deletion. (July 2009)

Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) in software engineering and organizational development is a process improvement approach that provides organizations with the essential elements for effective process improvement. It can be used to guide process improvement across a project, a division, or an entire organization. CMMI helps integrate traditionally separate organizational functions, set process improvement goals and priorities, provide guidance for quality processes, and provide a point of reference for appraising current processes^[2]

Contents 1 Overview 2 History 3 CMMI topics 3.1 CMMI representation 3.2 CMMI Model Framework 3.3 CMMI models 3.4 Appraisal 3.5 Achieving CMMI compliance 4 Applications 5 See also 6 References 7 Further reading 8 External links

[edit] Overview

CMMI is a collection of best practices^{[dubious – discuss]} that meet the needs of organizations in different areas of interest. A collection of best practices that cover a particular area of interest is called a CMMI model.

CMMI currently addresses three areas of interest:

(1) Product and service development — CMMI for Development (CMMI-DEV),

(2) Service establishment, management, and delivery — CMMI for Services (CMMI-SVC), and

(3) Product and service acquisition — CMMI for Acquisition (CMMI-ACQ).

CMMI was developed by a group of experts from industry, government, and the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) at Carnegie Mellon University. CMMI models provide guidance for developing or improving processes that meet the business goals of an organization. A CMMI model may also be used as a framework for appraising the process maturity of the organization.^[1]

CMMI originated in software engineering but has been highly generalised over the years to embrace other areas of interest, such as the development of hardware products, the delivery of all kinds of services, and the acquisition of products and services. The word "software" does not appear in definitions of CMMI. This generalization of improvement concepts makes CMMI extremely abstract. It is not as specific to software engineering as its predecessor, the Software CMM (CMM, see below).

[edit] History

Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) is developed by the CMMI project, which aimed to improve the usability of maturity models by integrating many different models into one framework. The project consisted of members of industry, government and the Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute (SEI). The main sponsors included the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and the National Defense Industrial Association.

CMMI is the successor of the Capability Maturity Model (CMM) or Software CMM. The CMM was developed from 1987 until 1997. In 2002, CMMI Version 1.1 was released. Version 1.2 followed in August 2006.

[edit] CMMI topics

[edit] CMMI representation

CMMI exists in two representations: continuous and staged.^[1] The continuous representation is designed to allow the user to focus on the specific processes that are considered important for the organization's immediate business objectives, or those to which the organization assigns a high degree of risk. The staged representation is designed to provide a standard sequence of improvements, and can serve as a basis for comparing the maturity of different projects and organizations. The staged representation also provides for an easy migration from the SW-CMM to CMMI.^[1]

[edit] CMMI Model Framework

(NB: this section moved from CMM, where it was irrelevant. It requires checking for relevance here in CMMI.)

Depending on the CMMI constellation (acquisition, services, development) you use, the process areas it contains will vary. Key process areas are the areas that will be covered by the organization's processes. The table below lists the process areas that are present in all CMMI constellations. This collection of sixteen process areas is called the CMMI Model Framework, or CMF.

[edit] CMMI models

CMMI best practices are published in documents called models, each of which addresses a different area of interest. The current release of CMMI, version 1.2, provides models for three areas of interest: development, acquisition, and services.

• CMMI for Development (CMMI-DEV), v1.2 was released in August 2006. It addresses product and service development processes.
• CMMI for Acquisition (CMMI-ACQ), v1.2 was released in November 2007. It addresses supply chain management, acquisition, and outsourcing processes in government and industry.
• CMMI for Services (CMMI-SVC), v1.2 was released in February 2009. It addresses guidance for delivering services within an organization and to external customers.
• CMMI Product Suite (includes Development, Acquisition, and Services), v1.3 is expected to be released in 2010. SEI Press Release

Regardless of which model an organization chooses, CMMI best practices should be adapted by an organization according to its business objectives.

[edit] Appraisal

An organization cannot be certified in CMMI; instead, an organization is appraised. Depending on the type of appraisal, the organization can be awarded a maturity level rating (1-5) or a capability level achievement profile.

Many organizations find value in measuring their progress by conducting an appraisal. Appraisals are typically conducted for one or more of the following reasons:

1. To determine how well the organization’s processes compare to CMMI best practices, and to identify areas where improvement can be made
2. To inform external customers and suppliers of how well the organization’s processes compare to CMMI best practices
3. To meet the contractual requirements of one or more customers

Appraisals of organizations using a CMMI model^[3] must conform to the requirements defined in the Appraisal Requirements for CMMI (ARC) document. There are three classes of appraisals, A, B and C, which focus on identifying improvement opportunities and comparing the organization’s processes to CMMI best practices. Appraisal teams use a CMMI model and ARC-conformant appraisal method to guide their evaluation of the organization and their reporting of conclusions. The appraisal results can then be used (e.g., by a process group) to plan improvements for the organization.

The Standard CMMI Appraisal Method for Process Improvement (SCAMPI) is an appraisal method that meets all of the ARC requirements.^[4]

A Class A appraisal is more formal and is the only one that can result in a level rating. Results of an appraisal may be published (if the appraised organization approves) on the CMMI Web site of the SEI: Published SCAMPI Appraisal Results. SCAMPI also supports the conduct of ISO/IEC 15504, also known as SPICE (Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination), assessments etc.

[edit] Achieving CMMI compliance

The traditional approach that organizations often adopt to achieve compliance with the CMMI involves the establishment of an Engineering Process Group (EPG) and Process Action Teams (PATs) ^[5] This approach requires that members of the EPG and PATs be trained in the CMMI, that an informal (SCAMPI C) appraisal be performed, and that process areas be prioritized for improvement. More modern approaches that involve the deployment of commercially available, CMMI-compliant processes, can significantly reduce the time to achieve compliance. SEI has maintained statistics on the "time to move up" for organizations adopting the earlier Software CMM and primarily using the traditional approach.^[6] These statistics indicate that, since 1987, the median times to move from Level 1 to Level 2 is 23 months, and from Level 2 to Level 3 is an additional 20 months. These statistics have not been updated for the CMMI.

The Software Engineering Institute’s (SEI) Team Software Process methodology and the Capability Maturity Modeling framework have been successfully employed to accelerate progress from Maturity Level 1 to Maturity Level 4. They’ve demonstrated progressing form Level 1 to Level 4 in 30 months, which is less than half of the average time it has taken traditionally. ^[7]

[edit] Applications

The SEI published that 60 organizations measured increases of performance in the categories of cost, schedule, productivity, quality and customer satisfaction.^[8] The median increase in performance varied between 14% (customer satisfaction) and 62% (productivity). However, the CMMI model mostly deals with what processes should be implemented, and not so much with how they can be implemented. These results do not guarantee that applying CMMI will increase performance in every organization. A small company with few resources may be less likely to benefit from CMMI; this view is supported by the Process Maturity Profile (page 10). Of the small organizations (<25 employees), 70.5% are assessed at level 2: Managed, while 52.8% of the organizations with 1001–2000 employees are rated at the highest level (5: Optimizing).

Interestingly, Turner & Jain (2002) argue that although it is obvious there are large differences between CMMI and agile methods, both approaches have much in common. They believe neither way is the 'right' way to develop software, but that there are phases in a project where one of the two is better suited. They suggest one should combine the different fragments of the methods into a new hybrid method. Sutherland et al. (2007) assert that a combination of Scrum and CMMI brings more adaptability and predictability than either one alone. David J. Anderson (2005) gives hints on how to interpret CMMI in an agile manner. Other viewpoints about using CMMI and Agile development are available on the SEI Web site.

The combination of the project management technique Earned value management (EVM) with CMMI has been described (Solomon, 2002). To conclude with a similar use of CMMI, Extreme Programming (XP), a software engineering method, has been evaluated with CMM/CMMI (Nawrocki et al., 2002). For example, the XP requirements management approach, (which relies on oral communication), was evaluated as not compliant with CMMI.

CMMI can be appraised using two different approaches: staged and continuous. The staged approach yields appraisal results as one of five maturity levels. The continuous approach yields one of six capability levels. The differences in these approaches are felt only in the appraisal; the best practices are equivalent and result in equivalent process improvement results.

[edit] See also

• Capability Maturity Model
• ISO 15504: The SPICE project
• Process area (CMMI)
• Process improvement
• Software Engineering Institute
• Software Engineering Process Group

[edit] References

[edit] Further reading

Books and journals

• Ahern, Dennis M.; Armstrong, Jim; Clouse, Aaron; Ferguson, Jack; Hayes, Will; Nidiffer, Kenneth (2005). CMMI SCAMPI Distilled: Appraisals for Process Improvement. Addison-Wesley Professional. ISBN 0-8493-1654-5. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/publications/books/process/scampi-distilled.html. 
• Ahern, Dennis M.; Clouse, Aaron; Turner, Richard (2003). CMMI Distilled: A Practical Introduction to Integrated Process Improvement. Addison-Wesley Professional. ISBN 0-8493-1654-5. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/adoption/distilled.html. 
• Anderson, David J. (July 2005). "Stretching agile to fit CMMI level 3 — the story of creating MSF for CMMI process improvement at Microsoft Corporation". Proceedings of the Agile Conference, Denver. http://www.agilemanagement.net/Articles/Papers/StretchingAgiletoFitCMMIL.html. 
• Chrissis, Mary Beth; Konrad, Mike; Shrum, Sandy (2006). CMMI: Guidelines for Process Integration and Product Improvement (2nd Edition). Addison-Wesley Professional. ISBN 0321279670. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/publications/cmmi-book-v12.html. 
• Harkonen, J., Belt, P., Mottonen, M., Kess, P. & Haapasalo, H. (2009). "Maturity of verification and validation in ICT companies". International Journal of Innovation and Learning 6 (1): 33–50. doi:10.1504/IJIL.2009.021681. http://www.inderscience.com/search/index.php?action=record&rec_id=21681&prevQuery=&ps=10&m=or. 
• Kulpa, Margaret K.; Kent A. Johnson (2003). Interpreting the CMMI: A Process Improvement Approach. Auerbach Publications. ISBN 0-8493-1654-5. 
• Turner, R. & Jain. A. (2002). "Agile Meets CMMI: Culture Clash or Common Cause?". Extreme Programming and Agile Methods – XP/Agile Universe 2002 2418: 153–165. doi:10.1007/3-540-45672-4_15. ISBN 3-540-44024-0. 
• Nawrocki, J.R.; Jasinski, M.; Walter, B.; Wojciechowski, A. (2002). "Extreme Programming Modified: Embrace Requirements Engineering Practices". Proceedings of the IEEE Joint International Conference on Requirements Engineering: 3. doi:10.1109/ICRE.2002.1048543. 
• Sutherland, Jeff; Jakobsen, Carsten Ruseng; Johnson, Kent (2007). "Scrum and CMMI Level 5: The Magic Potion for Code Warriors" (PDF). Agile (IEEE Computer Society): 272–278. http://jeffsutherland.com/scrum/Sutherland-ScrumCMMI6pages.pdf. 

SEI reports

• "CMMI for Development, Version 1.2" (doc). CMMI-DEV (Version 1.2, August 2006). Carnegie Mellon University Software Engineering Institute. 2006. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/publications/documents/06.reports/06tr008.html. Retrieved on 22 August 2007. 
• "CMMI for Acquisition, Version 1.2" (doc). CMMI-ACQ (Version 1.2, November 2007). Carnegie Mellon University Software Engineering Institute. 2007. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/publications/documents/07.reports/07tr017.html. Retrieved on 19 December 2007. 
• "Process Maturity Profile (March 2007)" (PDF). CMMI v1.1 SCAMPI v1.1 Class A Appraisal Results 2006 End-Year Update. Software Engineering Institute. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/appraisal-program/profile/pdf/CMMI/2007marCMMI.pdf. Retrieved on 31 March 2007. 
• "Appraisal Requirements for CMMI, Version 1.2 (ARC, V1.2)" (pdf). Carnegie Mellon University Software Engineering Institute. 2006. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/publications/documents/06.reports/06tr011.html. Retrieved on 22 August 2006. 
• "Standard CMMI Appraisal Method for Process Improvement (SCAMPI) A Versiions 1.2: Method Definition Document" (doc). Carnegie Mellon University Software Engineering Institute. 2006. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/publications/documents/06.reports/06hb002.html. Retrieved on 22 August 2006. 
• CMMI Guidebook Acquirer Team (2007). "Understanding and Leveraging a Supplier's CMMI Efforts: A Guidebook for Acquirers" (pdf). CMU/SEI-2007-TR-004. Software Engineering Institute. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/publications/documents/07.reports/07tr004.html. Retrieved on 23 August 2007. 

SEI web pages

• "CMMI Model Download". Software Engineering Institute. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/models/. Retrieved on 28 December 2006. 
• "History of CMMI". Software Engineering Institute. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/faq/his-faq.html. Retrieved on 28 October 2006. 
• "SEI Partner List". Software Engineering Institute. http://partner-directory.sei.cmu.edu. Retrieved on 28 October 2006. 

[edit] External links

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Capability Maturity Model Integration

• Official website
• Capability Maturity Model Integration at the Open Directory Project
• SCAMPI Appraisal Results. The complete list of published SCAMPI appraisal results.

v • d • e Software engineering Fields Requirements analysis • Software design • Computer programming • Formal methods • Software testing • Software deployment • Software maintenance Concepts Data modeling • Enterprise architecture • Functional specification • Modeling language • Programming paradigm • Software • Software architecture • Software development methodology • Software development process • Software quality • Software quality assurance • Structured analysis Orientations Agile • Aspect-oriented • Object orientation • Ontology • Service orientation • SDLC Models Development models: Agile • Iterative model • RUP • Scrum • Spiral model • Waterfall model • XP • V-Model Other models: CMMI • Data model • Function model • IDEF • Information model • Metamodeling • Object model • Systems model • View model • UML Software engineers Kent Beck • Grady Booch • Fred Brooks • Barry Boehm • Ward Cunningham • Ole-Johan Dahl • Tom DeMarco • Edsger W. Dijkstra • Martin Fowler • C. A. R. Hoare • Watts Humphrey • Michael A. Jackson • Ivar Jacobson • Craig Larman • James Martin • Bertrand Meyer • David Parnas • Winston W. Royce • James Rumbaugh • Niklaus Wirth • Edward Yourdon Related fields Computer science • Computer engineering • Enterprise engineering • History • Management • Mathematics • Project management • Quality management • Software ergonomics • Systems engineering