Content deleted Content added
→History: Add authorship teams for CMMI-DEV 1.2 and 1.3, and for CMMI-SVC 1.3 |
HMSLavender (talk | contribs) m Reverted edits by 119.235.51.216 (talk) (AV) |
||
| (27 intermediate revisions by 24 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Short description|Process level improvement training and appraisal program}}
{{Redirect|CMMI|the US government organization|Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=December 2019}}
{{Software development process}}
'''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 five maturity levels (1 to 5) for processes: Initial, Managed, Defined, Quantitatively Managed, and Optimizing. CMMI Version 3.0 was published in 2023;<ref>{{cite web |title=CMMI Content Changes. Release: V3.0, 6 April 2023. |url=https://cmmiinstitute.com/getattachment/47a7c84e-472c-4f7f-a473-ddc21c6ae045/attachment.aspx |publisher=CMMI Institute}}</ref> Version 2.0 was published in 2018; ==Overview==
Line 18 ⟶ 21:
==History==
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 ([[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 V1.3 <ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.benlinders.com/2011/cmmi-v1-3-summing-up/|title=CMMI V1.3: Summing up|date=10 January 2011|website=Ben Linders}}</ref> are the support of [[agile software development]],<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.benlinders.com/2010/cmmi-v1-3-agile/|title=CMMI V1.3: Agile|date=20 November 2010|website=Ben Linders}}</ref> improvements to high maturity practices<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.benlinders.com/2010/cmmi-v1-3-released-high-maturity-clarified/|title=CMMI V1.3 Released: High Maturity Clarified|date=2 November 2010|website=Ben Linders}}</ref> and alignment of the representation (staged and continuous).<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.benlinders.com/2010/cmmi-v1-3-deploying-the-cmmi/|title=CMMI V1.3: Deploying the CMMI|date=16 November 2010|website=Ben Linders}}</ref>
Line 28 ⟶ 31:
In March 2016, the CMMI Institute was acquired by [[ISACA]].
In April 2023, the CMMI V3.0 was released.
==Topics==
===Representation===
In version 1.3 CMMI existed in two representations: continuous and staged.<ref name=Go08/> 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.<ref name=Go08 />
In version 2.0 the above representation separation was cancelled and there is now only one cohesive model.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.cmmiinstitute.com/cmmi/model-viewer/appendices/a |title=CMMI Institute - Core Practice Areas, Categories, and Capability Areas |access-date=15 December 2018 |archive-date=16 December 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181216031208/https://www.cmmiinstitute.com/cmmi/model-viewer/appendices/a |url-status=dead }}</ref>
===Model framework (v1.3)===
<!-- (NB: this section moved from CMM, where it was irrelevant. It requires checking for relevance here in CMMI.) -->
{{
Depending on the areas of interest (acquisition, services, development) used, the [[process
{| class="wikitable sortable"
Line 120 ⟶ 123:
===Models (v1.3)===
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.
* CMMI for Development (
* CMMI for Acquisition (
* CMMI for Services (
=== Model (v2.0) ===
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.
Some key differences between v1.3 and v2.0 models are given below
# "Process Areas" have been replaced with "Practice Areas (PA's)". The latter is arranged by levels, not "Specific Goals".
Line 155 ⟶ 158:
|url=http://www.sei.cmu.edu/library/abstracts/reports/06hb002.cfm
|access-date=23 September 2006}}
</ref> Results of a SCAMPI appraisal may be published (if the appraised organization approves) on the CMMI Web site of the SEI:
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.<ref>{{cite web
Line 163 ⟶ 166:
</ref> 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.{{citation needed|date=November 2013}}
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<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://resources.sei.cmu.edu/library/|title=SEI Digital Library|website=resources.sei.cmu.edu|date=9 February 2024 }}</ref> (AIM) combines the use of CMMI and the TSP.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://resources.sei.cmu.edu/library/asset-view.cfm?assetid=72816|title=TSP Overview|website=resources.sei.cmu.edu|date=13 September 2010 }}</ref>
=== Security ===
Line 180 ⟶ 183:
|url=http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/research/results/
|access-date=23 September 2006}}
</ref> 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
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 (software development)|Scrum]] and CMMI brings more adaptability and predictability than either one alone.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Sutherland |first1=Jeff |last2=Ruseng Jakobsen |first2=Carsten |last3=Johnson |first3=Kent |title=Scrum and CMMI Level 5: The Magic Potion for Code Warriors |url=http://jeffsutherland.com/scrum/SutherlandScrumCMMIHICSSPID498889.pdf |website=Object Technology Jeff Sutherland}}</ref> David J. Anderson (2005) gives hints on how to interpret CMMI in an agile manner.<ref>{{Cite book|chapter=Stretching agile to fit CMMI level 3 - the story of creating MSF for CMMI/spl reg/ process improvement at Microsoft corporation|first=D. J.|last=Anderson|date=20 July 2005|pages=193–201|via=IEEE Xplore|doi=10.1109/ADC.2005.42|title=Agile Development Conference (ADC'05)|isbn=0-7695-2487-7|s2cid=5675994}}</ref>
CMMI Roadmaps,<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://resources.sei.cmu.edu/library/asset-view.cfm?assetid=8581|title=CMMI Roadmaps|website=resources.sei.cmu.edu|date=31 October 2008 }}</ref> 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,<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.benlinders.com/2010/cmmi-v1-3-the-cmmi-project-roadmap/|title=CMMI V1.3: The CMMI Project roadmap|date=7 December 2010|website=Ben Linders}}</ref> CMMI Product and Product Integration Roadmaps<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.benlinders.com/2010/cmmi-v1-3-the-cmmi-product-and-product-integration-roadmaps/|title=CMMI V1.3: The CMMI Product and Product Integration roadmaps|date=14 December 2010|website=Ben Linders}}</ref> and the CMMI Process and Measurements Roadmaps.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.benlinders.com/2010/cmmi-v1-3-the-cmmi-process-and-measurement-roadmaps/|title=CMMI V1.3: The CMMI Process and Measurement roadmaps|date=28 December 2010|website=Ben Linders}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Using CMMI to Improve Earned Value Management
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 resulting in equivalent process improvement results.
Line 194 ⟶ 197:
* [[Capability Maturity Model]]
* [[Enterprise Architecture Assessment Framework]]
* [[People Capability Maturity Model]]
* [[Software Engineering Process Group]]
== References ==
{{Reflist}}
==External links==
{{Commons category|Capability Maturity Model Integration}}
* {{official website|http://cmmiinstitute.com/}}
{{Carnegie Mellon}}
{{Software engineering}}
{{Authority control}}
[[Category:Maturity models]]
[[Category:Software development process]]
[[Category:Standards]]
[[Category:Systems engineering]]
[[Category:Carnegie Mellon University software]]
| |||