Talk:Capability Maturity Model

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Computing / Software (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
 
WikiProject Systems (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is within the field of Software engineering.
 

Changes to Context sub-topic[edit]

I have expanded the Context sub-topic to provide a better feel for the history of software development and especially the drive to create a software development profession.

There probably should be something about the "wicked problems" and how the overhead involved in the CMMI is designed to help software development solve these types of complex problems.

Also, the CMMI is part of the drive to professionalize software development much as the modern medical system is considered a profession due to a large body of knowledge which is based on scientific investigation.

Richard Chambers

Inaccuracies[edit]

CMU and Monmouth Unviersity offered a graduate degree prior to 1989. (Monmouth's first graduating class may have been in 1989). Either other events preceded the dates in the first section or the dates are incorrect. As topics go, this one cannot be "objective" in the true sense of the word. Academic and industry research have created an abundant supply of sources but the majority are published by the SEI. What isn't published by the SEI references work that is published by the SEI.

Note too, that "CERT" is a registered mark owned by CMU that is licensed to the Department of Homeland Security. The SEI is part of CMU and the first CERT, to which the registered mark refers, is owned also by CMU. Kernel.package (talk) 20:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 13:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)



Capability Maturity ModelCapability maturity model

Per WP:CAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization") and WP:TITLE, this is a generic, common term, not a propriety or commercial term, so the article title should be downcased. In addition, WP:MOS says that a compound item should not be upper-cased just because it is abbreviated with caps. Lowercase will match the formatting of related article titles. Tony (talk) 02:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now. This is a service mark. Is there any evidence this is commonly written in lowercase in the relevant literature? —Ruud 19:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose – as much as I dislike over-capitalization, this one is a registered service mark and is hard to find in lower case. Dicklyon (talk) 03:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose with same motivation as Ruud and Dicklyon. SchreyP (messages) 13:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks for feedback. I'd like to withdraw this one. Tony (talk) 14:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

merge[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The various specializations of this model do not seem to be appropriately covered in separate article . They would be, I think, much more understandable as sections here.

There's another possibility for a much more readable and non-duplicative article: rewrite the whole subject in the way followed to the German WP article--in fact, a direct translation would seem clearer. (I know German technical description has a reputation for being extremely unreadable--which I think is undeserved--to me, it just takes some sympathy & familiarity with the spirit and syntax of the language. This may be true in some areas, but I think that as compared to English language management jargon, it is superior. DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Opposed: I think a better solution would be to create a high-quality page for each maturity model, and then create an overall page listing maturity models, explaining the relationships among them, and linking to them. This creates greater clarity in a growing field. The maturity models to include might be: CMM, CMMI, others already listed at the bottom of the CMM page, Project Management Maturity Model (PM3) from PMI. If people know of other models to include, that would be useful. SidKemp (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Sid Kemp, Sid@SidKemp.com

  • Opposed The CMM article can easily reference the CIM article which does provide a useful description of subversive techniques generally applied to developing projects. However I believe a merger would serve to generally reduce the clarity of the CMM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biofuel (talk) 00:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

General Agreement: CMM, CMMI etc are all related, theory then how to apply the theory. If there was a relationship diagram that might facilitate the correct linking of the existing sections that might make things clearer to a reader who is new to the subject matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gexxie (talkcontribs) 15:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Article Reads Like News Release[edit]

Could someone provide clarification as to what parts of this article seem "overly promotional"?

Bill Cupp (talk) (cool ASCII art ship missing here) 03:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I would also like to know why the article was tagged "overly promotional". If there is no rationale for the tag, I would like to get the tag removed. - Johnlogic (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Back in May 2012 (!) someone added an inappropriate link to a supplier site. The article then contained much more (C) Carnegie and other commercial references which subsequently appear to have been toned down or edited out. Second removing the tag as it denigrates the overall article MaryEFreeman (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I've fixed for this and CIMM. Lycurgus (talk) 05:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)