Capability Maturity Model Integration: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 20:20, 13 March 2023

Revision as of 17:19, 15 April 2023

Line 183:

</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 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 (software development)|Scrum]] and CMMI brings more adaptability and predictability than either one alone.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Sutherland |first=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 {{Bare URL PDF|datewebsite=MarchObject Technology Jeff 2022Sutherland}}</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}}</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.