Content deleted Content added
tag with {{Bare URL PDF}} |
Removed External Link in body of article and pruned EL section to meet WP:EL. |
||
Line 121:
===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 156:
|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 181:
|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>http://jeffsutherland.com/scrum/SutherlandScrumCMMIHICSSPID498889.pdf {{Bare URL PDF|date=March 2022}}</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>
Line 187:
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}}</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 197:
* [[LeanCMMI]]
* [[People Capability Maturity Model]]
* [[Software Engineering Process Group]]
== References ==
{{Reflist}}
==External links==
| |||