Capability Maturity Model Integration CMMI

1
Capability Maturity Model Integration(CMMI)

• Group 1
• Yen Chen
• Elizabeth Myers
• Stephanie Sornatale

2
What is CMMI?

• Capability Maturity Model Integration
• process improvement model for the development and
  maintenance of products and services
• consists of best practices that addresses
  productivity, performance, costs, and stakeholder
  satisfaction

What processes should be implemented not How they
can be implemented
3
History

• CMMI is the successor of CMM
• Created by the Software Engineering Institute
  (SEI)
• Goal Improve usability of maturity models by
  integrating many models into one framework
• Combined 3 source models
• Capability Maturity Model for Software (SW-CMM)
• Systems Engineering Capability Model1 (SECM)
• Integrated Product Development Capability
  Maturity Model (IPD-CMM)

4
CMMI Today

• Version 1.2 released August 2006
• 3 CMMI constellations
• CMMI Development
• CMMI Services
• CMMI Acquisition
• 25 Process Areas
• CMMI Models include
• Systems Engineering
• Software Engineering
• Integrated Product and Process Development
• Supplier Sourcing

5
Appraisal Requirements for CMMI (ARC)

• Defines the requirements for appraisal methods
  used with CMMI models
• SCAMPI Classes (A, B, C)

• Standard CMMI Appraisal Method for Process
  Improvement
• Official SEI method to provide ratings for CMMI
  models
• SCAMPI A is the only method that can result in a
  rating

6
CMMI Framework

• The structure that organizes the components used
  in

• generating models
• training materials
• appraisal methods

7
CMMI Representations

• Allows an org to pursue different improvement
  paths
• CMMI Models have 2 different representation types
• Continuous (6 Capability Levels)
• Allows organizations to select a process area and
  improve processes related to it
• Staged (5 Maturity Levels)
• Uses predefined sets of process areas to define
  an improvement path for an organization

8
CMMI Representations Models
Both representations provide the same essential
contents but organized differently
9
Continuous Representation
Advantages

• Improve one process area or several areas
• Improve processes at different rates

• If you know which processes need improvement and
  understand the dependencies among the process
  areas described in CMMI

10
Staged Representation

• Proven sequence of improvements, each serving as
  a foundation for the next
• Single rating that summarizes appraisal results
• Allows comparisons across organizations

• Each level provides a set of process areas that
  characterize different org behaviors
• goals, commitment, ability, measurement,
  verification

11
Process Areas

• Related practices in an area that satisfy a set
  of goals considered important for making
  significant improvements
• All CMMI process areas are common to both
  continuous and staged representations.
• Process Management
• Project Management
• Engineering
• Support

12
Process Areas

• Symptoms of Process Failure
• Commitments missed
• No management visibility of progress
• Quality Assurance problems
• Poor Morale
• Process model provides
• A starting point for improving
• Benefit of communitys prior experiences
• Common language
• Shared vision
• Framework for prioritizing actions

13
Process Areas

• Causal Analysis and Resolution Level 5/Support
• Determine the Causes of Defects
• Address Causes of Defects
• PMs Knowledge Area - Quality

14
Process Areas

• Configuration Management Level 2/Support
• Establish Baseline
• Track and Control Changes
• Establish Integrity
• PMs Knowledge Area - Integration

15
Process Areas

• Integrated Project Management Level 3/Project
  Management
• Use the Projects Defined Process
• Coordinate and Collaborate with Relevant
  Stakeholders
• Use the Projects Shared Vision
• Organized Integrated Team
• PMs Knowledge Area Integration, Communication,
  Human Resources

16
Process Areas

• Project Planning Level 2/Project Management
• Establish Estimates
• Develop a Project Plan
• Obtain Commitment to the Plan
• PMs Knowledge Area Scope, Time

17
Process Areas

• Risk Management Level 3/Project Management
• Prepare for Risk Management
• Identify and Analyze Risks
• Mitigate Risks
• PMs Knowledge Area Risk Management

18
Process Areas

• Supplier Agreement Management Level 2/Project
  Management
• Establish Supplier Agreements
• Satisfy Supplier Agreements
• PMs Knowledge Area Procurement

19
Process Areas

• Requirements Management Level 2/Engineering
• Manage Requirements
• PMs Knowledge Area Scope

20
Process Areas

• Requirements Management Level 3/Process
  Management
• Establish Organizational Process Assets
• PMs Knowledge Area Integration

21
CMMI Process Benefits

• Efficient, effective assessment and improvement
  across multiple process disciplines in an
  organization
• Reduced costs (including training) associated
  with improving and assessing processes
• A common, integrated vision for process
  improvement that can be used as a basis for
  engineering and enterprise-wide process
  improvement efforts
• A means of representing new discipline-specific
  information in a standard, proven process
  improvement context

22
CMMI Program Benefits

• Improved schedule and budget predictability
• Improved cycle time
• Increased productivity
• Improved quality (as measured by defects)
• Decreased cost of quality

23
CMMI Technical Benefits

• Provides more detailed coverage of the product
  life cycle than other process-improvement
  products used alone.
• Provides a set of well-integrated models that
  will facilitate project management and improve
  the development processand the resulting
  products.
• Promotes collaboration between systems
  engineering and software engineering.
• Better ability to address scalability

24
Organizational Improvements

• Allows for better business alignment
• Better ability to leverage of resources and to
  examine business trends
• Increased customer satisfaction
• Increased return on investment
• Improved employee morale

25
Some of the Organizations Currently Using CMMI

• IBM Global Svcs
• Infosys
• Intel
• J. P. Morgan
• KPMG
• L3 Communications
• Lockheed Martin
• Motorola
• NASA
• NDIA
• NEC
• Nokia
• Northrop Grumman
• NRONTT DATA
• Polaris

• Accenture
• Bank of America
• Boeing
• Bosch
• BMW
• Dyncorp
• EDS
• Ericsson
• FAA
• Fannie Mae
• Fujitsu
• General Dynamics
• General Motors
• Hitachi
• Honeywell

• Raytheon
• Reuters
• SAIC
• Samsung
• Social Security Admin.
• Tata Consultancy Srvs
• TRW
• U.S. Air Force
• U.S. Army
• U.S. Navy
• U.S. Treasury Dept
• Wipro
• Zurich Financial Srvs

26
Performance Results

• http//www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/results/results-by-cat
  egory.htmlBC3

27
Performance Results A Study

• Project performance is most related to the
  process engineering and organizational support
  activities of the CMM (Level III)
• Product and process quality activities (Level IV)
  also have a positive relationship with project
  performance.
• Basic project management process activities
  (Level II) were not significant at all.
  Organizations need to realize that benefits may
  not be reached until they achieve Level III.
• Process engineering and organizational support
  activities are positively associated with
  learning, control, interaction quality, and
  software flexibility.
• Adherence to basic project management activities
  was negatively related to software flexibility.
  However, software flexibility can be improved
  with Levels III and IV activities.
• The quality of the interaction between users and
  IS staff was positively related to product and
  process quality related activities (Level IV) but
  not activities in other levels.
• James J. Jiang, Gary Klein, Hsin-Ginn Hwang, Jack
  Huang, Shin-Yuan Hung (2004) An exploration of
  the relationship between software development
  process maturity and project performance.
  Information Management 41, pg. 279288

28
Disadvantages

• CMMI is not the answer for every organization.
  Its rigid requirements for documentation and
  step-by-step progress make it better suited to
  large organizations than to small.
• Smaller organizations also often lack the
  resources and knowledge required to initiate
  CMMI-based process improvement.
• "Smaller organizations and projects are
  encountering some difficulty implementing the
  CMMI due to the number of expected practices and
  the level of sophistication inferred. The
  model's practices need to be interpreted in light
  of the work to be performed and scaled to provide
  value, not overhead.
• Burnsville, Minnesota-based CMMI assessor Pat
  O'Toole.
• May requires a considerable amount of time and
  effort to implement and a major shift in
  organizational culture and attitude.
• The organizations culture can also be adversely
  impacted by adding to its rigid bureaucracy and
  reducing creativity and freedom on the part of
  the developers.

29
Disadvantages

• CMMI models are not themselves processes or even
  process descriptions
• The actual processes an organization chooses
  depend on many factors, and the process areas of
  a CMMI model may simply not map one-to-one with
  those used in your organization.
• It turns out that the traits CMMI measures are,
  in practice, difficult to develop, even though
  they're easy to recognize.
• Most large, commercial developers that sell
  packaged Software rarely manage their
  requirements documents as formally as CMMI
  requires.
• Because documentation is a requirement for Level
  2, all of those companies would, if rated, rank
  on the maturity scale as Level 1, initial or ad
  hoc.
• includes companies such as Apple Computer Inc.
  and Microsoft Corp

30
Outsourcing Controversy

• An unanticipated consequence of CMM development
  was that it gave a significant boost to software
  development outsourcing, particularly in the
  pre-Y2k period.
• Economic development agencies in India and
  Ireland, for example, have praised CMMI for
  allowing them to compete for U.S. outsourcing
  contracts.
• This has had a very positive effect on the
  employment of software engineers in Third World
  economies, but it has also adversely affected the
  high-tech job market in developed countries.

31
Outsourcing Controversy

• Today, many U.S. government agencies in addition
  to the DoD insist that companies that bid for
  their business obtain at least a CMM Level 3.
• CIOs increasingly use CMM assessments to whittle
  down the lists of dozens of unfamiliar offshore
  service providersespecially in Indiawanting
  their business. For CIOs, the magic number is 5,
  and software development and services companies
  that don't have it risk losing billions of
  dollars worth of business from American and
  European corporations.
• With CIOs increasingly dependent on outside
  service providers to help with software projects,
  some have come to view CMM (and its new, more
  comprehensive successor, CMM Integration, or
  CMMI) as the USDA seal of approval for software
  providers.
• Some software providers routinely exaggerate
  their assessments, leading CIOs to believe that
  the entire company has been assessed at a certain
  level when only a small slice of the company was
  examined.
• And once providers have been assessed at a
  certain level, there is no requirement that they
  test themselves ever againeven if they change
  dramatically or grow much bigger than they were
  when they were first assessed. They can continue
  to claim their CMM level forever.
• As American and European companies stampede
  offshore to find companies to do their
  development work, they first need to understand
  what CMM ratings really mean. Yet few CIOs bother
  to ask crucial questions, say IT industry
  analysts and the service providers themselves.

32
CMMI Other Initiatives

• Organizations working with CMMI often complement
  or extend it with other best practice initiatives
  such as
• Product Line practices
• Earned Value Management
• Operational and service organizations
• COTS-based systems
• Acquisition
• Marketing
• Six Sigma or ISO 9000

33
CMMI Alternatives

• Software Quality Function Deployment Model (SQFD)
• Adaptation of the quality function deployment
  model suggested as an implementation vehicle for
  Total Quality Management (TQM)
• Focuses on defining user requirements and
  planning SW projects
• Result is a set of measurable technical product
  specifications and their priorities
• Project Management Maturity Model
• Project Maturity Model based on CMM developed in
  90s
• PMI Standards Development Program published the
  Organizational Project Management Maturity Model
  (OPM3) in Dec. 03
• International Institute for Learning, Inc.s
  Model
• 4 levels common language, common processes,
  singular methodology, benchmarking and continuous
  improvement
• ESI International Inc.s Model
• 5 levels called ad hoq, consistent, integrated,
  comprehensive, optimized

34
Summary/Closing

• The quality of a system is highly influenced by
  the quality of the process used to acquire,
  develop, and maintain it
• Process improvement should be done to help the
  businessnot for its own sake.

In God we trust, all others bring data.
-W. Edwards Deming
35
Questions?
36
Sources

• CMMI Website http//www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/general/
  general.html
• CMMI Overview http//www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/adoptio
  n/pdf/cmmi-overview06.pdf
• CMMI Forum https//seir.sei.cmu.edu/seir/frames/f
  rmset.map.html
• Mary Beth Chrissis, Mike Konrad, Sandy Shrum (Jul
  11, 2003). Introduction to CMMI.
  http//www.awprofessional.com/articles/article.asp
  ?p98146rl1
• Russell Kay (January 24, 2005). CMMI.
  Computerworld. http//www.computerworld.com/action
  /article.do?commandviewArticleBasicarticleId991
  59
• Mike Konrad James W. Over (February 06, 2005)
  Agile CMMI No Oxymoron. http//www.ddj.com/dept/a
  rchitect/184415287
• CHRISTOPHER KOCH (Mar. 1, 2004). Bursting the
  CMM Hype CIO Magazine. http//www.cio.com/archive/
  030104/cmm.html
• Comments (March 1, 2004). Bursting the CMM Hype
  Welcome to Capability Maturity Model Hell! Cio
  Magazine. http//comment.cio.com/comments/16450.ht
  ml
• James J. Jiang, Gary Klein, Hsin-Ginn Hwang, Jack
  Huang, Shin-Yuan Hung (2004) . An exploration of
  the relationship between software development
  process maturity and project performance.
  Information Management 41, pg. 279288