|Paradigms and models|
|Methodologies and frameworks|
|Standards and Bodies of Knowledge|
Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) is a process level improvement training and appraisal program. Administered by the CMMI Institute, a subsidiary of ISACA, it was developed at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU). It is required by many U.S. Government contracts, especially in software development. CMU claims CMMI can be used to guide process improvement across a project, division, or an entire organization. CMMI defines the following maturity levels for processes: Initial, Managed, Defined, Quantitatively Managed, and Optimizing. Version 2.0 was published in 2018 (Version 1.3 was published in 2010, and is the reference model for the remaining information in this wiki article). CMMI is registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office by CMU.
Originally CMMI addresses three areas of interest:
In version 2.0 these three areas (that previously had a separate model each) were merged into a single model.
CMMI was developed by a group from industry, government, and the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) at CMU. 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.By January 2013, the entire CMMI product suite was transferred from the SEI to the CMMI Institute, a newly created organization at Carnegie Mellon.
CMMI was 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, version 1.1 was released, version 1.2 followed in August 2006, and version 1.3 in November 2010. Some major changes in CMMI V1.3are the support of agile software development, improvements to high maturity practices and alignment of the representation (staged and continuous).
According to the Software Engineering Institute (SEI, 2008), 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."
In March 2016, the CMMI Institute was acquired by ISACA.
In version 1.3 CMMI existed in two representations: continuous and staged.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 risks. 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.
In version 2.0 the above representation separation was cancelled and there is now only one cohesive model.
Depending on the areas of interest (acquisition, services, development) used, the process areas it contains will vary.Process areas are the areas that will be covered by the organization's processes. The table below lists the seventeen CMMI core process areas that are present for all CMMI areas of interest in version 1.3.
|CAR||Causal Analysis and Resolution||Support||5|
|DAR||Decision Analysis and Resolution||Support||3|
|IPM||Integrated Project Management||Project Management||3|
|MA||Measurement and Analysis||Support||2|
|OPD||Organizational Process Definition||Process Management||3|
|OPF||Organizational Process Focus||Process Management||3|
|OPM||Organizational Performance Management||Process Management||5|
|OPP||Organizational Process Performance||Process Management||4|
|OT||Organizational Training||Process Management||3|
|PMC||Project Monitoring and Control||Project Management||2|
|PP||Project Planning||Project Management||2|
|PPQA||Process and Product Quality Assurance||Support||2|
|QPM||Quantitative Project Management||Project Management||4|
|REQM||Requirements Management||Project Management||2|
|RSKM||Risk Management||Project Management||3|
|SAM||Supplier Agreement Management||Support||2|
The process areas below and their maturity levels are listed for the CMMI for services model:
Maturity Level 2 – Managed
Maturity Level 3 – Defined
Maturity Level 4 – Quantitatively Managed
Maturity Level 5 – Optimizing
CMMI best practices are published in documents called models, each of which addresses a different area of interest. Version 1.3 provides models for three areas of interest: development, acquisition, and services.
In version 2.0 DEV, ACQ and SVC were merged into a single model where each process area potentially has a specific reference to one or more of these three aspects. Trying to keep up with the industry the model also has explicit reference to agile aspects in some process areas.
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:
Appraisals of organizations using a CMMI modelmust 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. Of these, class A appraisal is the most formal and is the only one that can result in a level rating. 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.Results of a SCAMPI 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.
This approach promotes 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 as well as CMMI. [ citation needed ]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. Since the release of the CMMI, the median times to move from Level 1 to Level 2 is 5 months, with median movement to Level 3 another 21 months. These statistics are updated and published every six months in a maturity profile.
The Software Engineering Institute's (SEI) team software process methodology and the use of CMMI models can be used to raise the maturity level. A new product called Accelerated Improvement Method(AIM) combines the use of CMMI and the TSP.
To address user security concerns, two unofficial security guides are available. Considering the Case for Security Content in CMMI for Services has one process area, Security Management.Security by Design with CMMI for Development, Version 1.3 has the following process areas:
While they do not affect maturity or capability levels, these process areas can be reported in appraisal results.
The SEI published that 60 organizations measured increases of performance in the categories of cost, schedule, productivity, quality and customer satisfaction.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 1,001–2,000 employees are rated at the highest level (5: Optimizing).
Turner & Jain (2002) argue that although it is obvious there are large differences between CMMI and agile software development, 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.
CMMI Roadmaps,which are a goal-driven approach to selecting and deploying relevant process areas from the CMMI-DEV model, can provide guidance and focus for effective CMMI adoption. There are several CMMI roadmaps for the continuous representation, each with a specific set of improvement goals. Examples are the CMMI Project Roadmap, CMMI Product and Product Integration Roadmaps and the CMMI Process and Measurements Roadmaps. These roadmaps combine the strengths of both the staged and the continuous representations.
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 four 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.
The Capability Maturity Model (CMM) is a development model created in 1986 after a study of data collected from organizations that contracted with the U.S. Department of Defense, who funded the research. The term "maturity" relates to the degree of formality and optimization of processes, from ad hoc practices, to formally defined steps, to managed result metrics, to active optimization of the processes.
The Software Engineering Institute (SEI) is an American research and development center headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Its activities cover cybersecurity, software assurance, software engineering and acquisition, and component capabilities critical to the Department of Defense.
Watts S. Humphrey was an American pioneer in software engineering, who was called the "father of software quality."
ISO/IEC 15504Information technology – Process assessment, also termed Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination (SPICE), is a set of technical standards documents for the computer software development process and related business management functions. It is one of the joint International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) standards, which was developed by the ISO and IEC joint subcommittee, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 7.
The Personal Software Process (PSP) is a structured software development process that is designed to help software engineers better understand and improve their performance by bringing discipline to the way they develop software and tracking their predicted and actual development of the code. It clearly shows developers how to manage the quality of their products, how to make a sound plan, and how to make commitments. It also offers them the data to justify their plans. They can evaluate their work and suggest improvement direction by analyzing and reviewing development time, defects, and size data. The PSP was created by Watts Humphrey to apply the underlying principles of the Software Engineering Institute's (SEI) Capability Maturity Model (CMM) to the software development practices of a single developer. It claims to give software engineers the process skills necessary to work on a team software process (TSP) team.
Quality management ensures that an organization, product or service is consistent. It has four main components: quality planning, quality assurance, quality control and quality improvement. Quality management is focused not only on product and service quality, but also on the means to achieve it. Quality management, therefore, uses quality assurance and control of processes as well as products to achieve more consistent quality. What a customer wants and is willing to pay for it determines quality. It is a written or unwritten commitment to a known or unknown consumer in the market. Thus, quality can be defined as fitness for intended use or, in other words, how well the product performs its intended function.
The Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) defines a Process Area as, "A cluster of related practices in an area that, when implemented collectively, satisfies a set of goals considered important for making improvement in that area." Both CMMI for Development v1.3 and CMMI for Acquisition v1.3 identify 22 process areas, whereas CMMI for Services v1.3 identifies 24 process areas. Many of the process areas are the same in these three models.
Capability Immaturity Model (CIMM) in software engineering is a parody acronym, a semi-serious effort to provide a contrast to the Capability Maturity Model (CMM). The Capability Maturity Model is a five point scale of capability in an organization, ranging from random processes at level 1 to fully defined, managed and optimized processes at level 5. The ability of an organization to carry out its mission on time and within budget is claimed to improve as the CMM level increases.
The implementation maturity model (IMM) is an instrument to help an organization in assessing and determining the degree of maturity of its implementation processes.
People Capability Maturity Model is a maturity framework that focuses on continuously improving the management and development of the human assets of an organization. It describes an evolutionary improvement path from ad hoc, inconsistently performed practices, to a mature, disciplined, and continuously improving development of the knowledge, skills, and motivation of the workforce that enhances strategic business performance.
A Software Engineering Process Group (SEPG) is an organization's focal point for software process improvement activities. These individuals perform assessments of organizational capability, develop plans to implement needed improvements, coordinate the implementation of those plans, and measure the effectiveness of these efforts. Successful SEPGs require specialized skills and knowledge of many areas outside traditional software engineering.
The Standard CMMI Appraisal Method for Process Improvement (SCAMPI) is the official Software Engineering Institute (SEI) method to provide benchmark-quality ratings relative to Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) models. SCAMPI appraisals are used to identify strengths and weaknesses of current processes, reveal development/acquisition risks, and determine capability and maturity level ratings. They are mostly used either as part of a process improvement program or for rating prospective suppliers. The method defines the appraisal process as consisting of preparation; on-site activities; preliminary observations, findings, and ratings; final reporting; and follow-on activities.
The Trillium Model, created by a collaborative team from Bell Canada, Northern Telecom and Bell Northern Research combines requirements from the ISO 9000 series, the Capability Maturity Model (CMM) for software, and the Baldrige Criteria for Performance Excellence, with software quality standards from the IEEE. Trillium has a telecommunications orientation and provides customer focus. The practices in the Trillium Model are derived from a benchmarking exercise which focused on all practices that would contribute to an organization's product development and support capability. The Trillium Model covers all aspects of the software development life-cycle, most system and product development and support activities, and a significant number of related marketing activities. Many of the practices described in the model can be applied directly to hardware development.
LeanCMMI is an approach to software engineering process improvement that integrates agile computing methods with process design and deployment for organization's wishing to improve software engineering capability and achieve a maturity level two or three rating based upon the Software Engineering Institute's Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI).
Maturity is a measurement of the ability of an organization for continuous improvement in a particular discipline. The higher the maturity, the higher will be the chances that incidents or errors will lead to improvements either in the quality or in the use of the resources of the discipline as implemented by the organization.
The E-learning maturity model (eMM) in software engineering is a model to assess the capability of electronic educational technology (e-learning) processes.
Roger R. Bate (1923–2009) was a brigadier general, Rhodes Scholar, professor, and scientist who has held a variety of positions with the Air Force, Texas Instruments, and the Software Engineering Institute at Carnegie Mellon University.
The Open Source Maturity Model (OMM) is a methodology for assessing Free/Libre Open Source Software (FLOSS) and more specifically the FLOSS development process. This methodology is released under the Creative Commons license.
Bill Curtis is a software engineer is best known for leading the development of the Capability Maturity Model and the People CMM in the Software Engineering Institute at Carnegie Mellon University, and for championing the spread of software process improvement and software measurement globally. In 2007 he was elected a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) for his contributions to software process improvement and measurement.
Tudor IT Process Assessment (TIPA®) is a methodological framework for process assessment. Its first version was published in 2003 by the Public Research Centre Henri Tudor based in Luxembourg. TIPA is now a registered trademark of the Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology (LIST). TIPA offers a structured approach to determine process capability compared to recognized best practices. TIPA also supports process improvement by providing a gap analysis and proposing improvement recommendations.
|Wikimedia Commons has media related to Capability Maturity Model Integration .|