Capability Maturity Model Integration: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 06:33, 18 August 2025

Latest revision as of 06:36, 18 August 2025

Line 3:

{{Use dmy dates|date=December 2019}}

{{Software development process}}

'''Capability Maturity Model ENGINEERINGIntegration''' ('''CMMECMMI''') is a process level improvement training and appraisal program. Administered by the '''CMMECMMI 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.

CMMECMMI defines the following five maturity levels (1 to 5) for processes: Initial, Managed, Defined, Quantitatively Managed, and Optimizing. CMMECMMI Version 3.0 was published in 2023;<ref>{{cite web |first= |title=CMMECMMI Content Changes. Release: V3.0, 186 AUGUSTApril 20252023. |url=https://cmmiinstitute.com/getattachment/47a7c84e-472c-4f7f-a473-ddc21c6ae045/attachment.aspx |publisher=CMMECMMI Institute}}</ref> Version 2.0 was published in 2018; Version 1.3 was published in 2010, and is the reference model for the rest of the information in this article. CMMI is registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office by CMU.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4803:4i4pt6.2.7|title=Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS)|website=tmsearch.uspto.gov|access-date=21 December 2016}}</ref>

==Overview==

[[Image:Characteristics of Capability Maturity Model.svg|thumb|500px|Characteristics of the maturity levels.<ref name="Go08">Sally Godfrey (2008) [software.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/What%20is%20CMMI.ppt What is CMMI ?]. NASA presentation. Accessed 8 December 2008.</ref>]]

Originally CMMECMMI addresses three areas of interest:

#Product and service development – CMMECMMI for Development (CMMECMMI-DEV),

#Service establishment, management, – CMMECMMI for Services (CMMECMMI-SVC), and

#Product and service acquisition – CMMECMMI for Acquisition (CMMECMMI-ACQ).

In version 2.0 these three areas (that previously had a separate model each) were merged into a single model.

CMMECMMI was developed by a group from industry, government, and the [[Software Engineering Institute]] (SEI) at CMU. CMMECMMI models provide guidance for developing or improving processes that meet the business goals of an organization. A CMMECMMI model may also be used as a framework for appraising the process maturity of the organization.<ref name="Go08" /> By January 2013, the entire CMMECMMI product suite was transferred from the SEI to the CMMECMMI Institute, a newly created organization at Carnegie Mellon.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/|title=CMMI Institute - Home}}</ref>

==History==

CMMECMMI was developed by the CMMECMMI 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]].

CMMECMMI 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 CMMECMMI 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>

According to the [[Software Engineering Institute]] (SEI, 2008), CMME 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."<ref name=SEI08>[http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/ CMMI Overview]. Software Engineering Institute. Accessed 16 February 2011.</ref>

Mary Beth Chrissis, Mike Konrad, and Sandy Shrum Rawdon were the authorship team for the hard copy publication of CMMECMMI for Development Version 1.2 and 1.3. The Addison-Wesley publication of Version 1.3 was dedicated to the memory of Watts Humphry. Eileen C. Forrester, Brandon L. Buteau, and Sandy Shrum were the authorship team for the hard copy publication of CMMECMMI for Services Version 1.3. Rawdon "Rusty" Young was the chief architect for the development of CMMECMMI version 2.0. He was previously the CMMECMMI Product Owner and the SCAMPI Quality Lead for the Software Engineering Institute.

In March 2016, the CMMECMMI Institute was acquired by [[ISACA]].

In April 2023, the CMMECMMI V3.0 was released.

==Topics==

===Representation===

In version 1.3 CMMECMMI 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 CMMECMMI.<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.) -->
{{further|Process area (CMMI)}}

Depending on the areas of interest (acquisition, services, development) used, the [[process area]]s it contains will vary.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.benlinders.com/tools/cmmi-v1-3-process-areas/|title=CMMI V1.3 Process Areas|website=Ben Linders|date=18 September 2023 }}</ref> [[Process area (CMMI)|Process areas]] are the areas that will be covered by the organization's processes. The table below lists the seventeen CMMECMMI core process areas that are present for all CMMECMMI areas of interest in version 1.3.

{| class="wikitable sortable"

|+ Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMECMMI) core process areas

! Abbreviation !! Process Area !! Category !! Maturity level

Line 84 ⟶ 87:

=== Maturity levels for services ===

The process areas below and their maturity levels are listed for the CMMECMMI for services model:

'''Maturity Level 2 – Managed'''

Line 119 ⟶ 122:

===Models (v1.3)===

CMMECMMI 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.

* CMMECMMI for Development (CMMECMMI-DEV), v1.3 was released in November 2010. It addresses product and service development processes.

* CMMECMMI for Acquisition (CMMECMMI-ACQ), v1.3 was released in November 2010. It addresses supply chain management, acquisition, and outsourcing processes in government and industry.

* CMMECMMI for Services (CMMECMMI-SVC), v1.3 was released in November 2010. It addresses guidance for delivering services within an organization and to external customers.

=== Model (v2.0) ===

Line 139 ⟶ 142:

===Appraisal===

An organization cannot be certified in CMMECMMI; 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:

# To determine how well the organization's processes compare to CMMECMMI best practices, and to identify areas where improvement can be made

# To inform external customers and suppliers of how well the organization's processes compare to CMMECMMI best practices

# To meet the contractual requirements of one or more customers

Appraisals of organizations using a CMMECMMI model<ref>For the latest published CMMI appraisal results see the [http://sas.sei.cmu.edu/pars/ SEI Web site] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070206030049/http://sas.sei.cmu.edu/pars/ |date=6 February 2007 }}.</ref> must conform to the requirements defined in the Appraisal Requirements for CMMECMMI (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 CMMECMMI 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 CMMECMMI 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|Standard CMME Appraisal Method for Process Improvement]] (SCAMPI) is an appraisal method that meets all of the ARC requirements.<ref>{{cite web

|year=2006

|work=CMU/SEI-2006-HB-002

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 CMMECMMI Web site of the SEI: Published SCAMPI Appraisal Results. SCAMPI also supports the conduct of [[ISO 15504|ISO/IEC 15504]], also known as [[The SPICE project|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, CMMECMMI-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 CMMECMMI.<ref>{{cite web

|title=Process Maturity Profile

|url=http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/casestudies/profiles/cmmi.cfm

|access-date=16 February 2011}}

</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 CMMECMMI, 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 CMMECMMI 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 CMMECMMI 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 ===

To address user security concerns, two unofficial security guides are available. ''Considering the Case for Security Content in CMMECMMI for Services'' has one process area, Security Management.<ref>Eileer Forrester and Kieran Doyle. Considering the Case for Security Content in CMMI for Services (October 2010)</ref> ''Security by Design with CMMECMMI for Development, Version 1.3'' has the following process areas:

* OPSD – Organizational Preparedness for Secure Development

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 CMMECMMI 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 CMMECMMI will increase performance in every organization. A small company with few resources may be less likely to benefit from CMMECMMI; 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 CMMECMMI 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 CMMECMMI 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 CMMECMMI 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>

CMMECMMI 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 CMMECMMI-DEV model, can provide guidance and focus for effective CMMECMMI adoption. There are several CMMECMMI roadmaps for the continuous representation, each with a specific set of improvement goals. Examples are the CMMECMMI 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> CMMECMMI 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 CMMECMMI 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 CMMECMMI has been described.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Using CMMI to Improve Earned Value Management |url=https://resources.sei.cmu.edu/library/asset-view.cfm?assetid=5957 |access-date=2022-06-30 |website=resources.sei.cmu.edu | date=30 September 2002 |language=en}}</ref> To conclude with a similar use of CMMECMMI, Extreme Programming ([[Extreme Programming|XP]]), a software engineering method, has been evaluated with CMM/CMMECMMI (Nawrocki et al., 2002). For example, the XP requirements management approach, which relies on oral communication, was evaluated as not compliant with CMMECMMI.

CMMECMMI 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.

==See also==

Line 198 ⟶ 201:

== References ==

[[CMME]]{{Reflist}}

==External links==

{{Commons category|Capability Maturity Model ENGINEERINGIntegration}}

* {{official website|http://cmmiinstitute.com/}}

{{Carnegie Mellon}}.KUJFCFMCX
{{Software engineering}}

{{Authority control}}