Capability Maturity Model Integration: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 19:50, 20 September 2019

Revision as of 18:27, 20 December 2019

Line 1:

{{Software development process}}

{{Redirect|CMMI|the US government organization|Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation}}

{{Use dmy dates|date=FebruaryDecember 20112019}}

'''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 [[United States Department of Defense]] (DoD) and 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.<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=2016-12-21}}</ref>

{{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 [[United States Department of Defense]] (DoD) and 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.<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=2016-12-21 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 decDecember 2008.</ref>]]

Originally CMMI addresses three areas of interest:

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

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

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

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.<ref name="Go08" /> By January 2013, the entire CMMI product suite was transferred from the SEI to the CMMI Institute, a newly created organization at Carnegie Mellon.<ref>http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/</ref>

==History==

Line 83 ⟶ 84:

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

'''Maturity Level 2 -– Managed'''

* CM -– Configuration Management

* MA -– Measurement and Analysis

* PPQA -– Process and Quality Assurance

* REQM -– Requirements Management

* SAM -– Supplier Agreement Management

* SD -– Service Delivery

* WMC -– Work Monitoring and Control

* WP -– Work Planning

'''Maturity Level 3 -– Defined'''

* CAM -– Capacity and Availability Management

* DAR -– Decision Analysis and Resolution

* IRP -– Incident Resolution and Prevention

* IWM -– Integrated Work Managements

* OPD -– Organizational Process Definition

* OPF -– Organizational Process Focus...

* OT -– Organizational Training

* RSKM -– Risk Management

* SCON -– Service Continuity

* SSD -– Service System Development

* SST -– Service System Transition

* STSM -– Strategic Service Management

'''Maturity Level 4 -– Quantitatively Managed'''

* OPP -– Organizational Process Performance

* QWM -– Quantitative Work Management

'''Maturity Level 5 -– Optimizing'''

* CAR -– Causal Analysis and Resolution.

* OPM -– Organizational Performance Management.

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

Line 125 ⟶ 126:

===Appraisal===

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 (1-51–5) 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’sorganization's processes compare to CMMI best practices, and to identify areas where improvement can be made

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

# To meet the contractual requirements of one or more customers

Appraisals of organizations using a CMMI 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 CMMI (ARC) document. There are three classes of appraisals, A, B and C, which focus on identifying improvement opportunities and comparing the organization’sorganization'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.<ref>{{cite web

Line 146 ⟶ 147:

|title=Process Maturity Profile

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

|accessdate=2011-02-16 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 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’sInstitute'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>http://www.sei.cmu.edu/process/high-performance.cfm</ref> (AIM) combines the use of CMMI and the TSP.<ref>http://www.sei.cmu.edu/tsp/</ref>

=== Security ===

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.<ref>Eileer Forrester and Kieran Doyle. Considering the Case for Security Content in CMMI for Services (October 2010)</ref> ''Security by Design with CMMI for Development, Version 1.3'' has the following process areas:

* OPSD -– Organizational Preparedness for Secure Development

* SMP -– Secure Management in Projects

* SRTS -– Security Requirements and Technical Solution

* SVV -– Security Verification and Validation

While they do not affect maturity or capability levels, these process areas can be reported in appraisal results.<ref>Siemens AG Corporate Technology. ''Security by Design with CMMI for Development, Version 1.3'', (May 2013)</ref>

Line 165 ⟶ 166:

|title=CMMI Performance Results of CMMI

|url=http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/research/results/

|accessdate=2006-09-23 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 [http://www.sei.cmu.edu/library/assets/2005sepCMMI.pdf 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>http://jeffsutherland.com/scrum/SutherlandScrumCMMIHICSSPID498889.pdf</ref>. David J. Anderson (2005) gives hints on how to interpret CMMI in an agile manner.<ref>https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/1609821</ref>.

CMMI Roadmaps,<ref>[http://www.sei.cmu.edu/library/abstracts/reports/08tn010.cfm CMMI Roadmaps]</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>[http://www.benlinders.com/2010/cmmi-v1-3-the-cmmi-project-roadmap/ CMMI Project Roadmap]</ref> CMMI Product and Product Integration Roadmaps <ref>[http://www.benlinders.com/2010/cmmi-v1-3-the-cmmi-product-and-product-integration-roadmaps/ CMMI Product and Product Integration Roadmaps]</ref> and the CMMI Process and Measurements Roadmaps.<ref>[http://www.benlinders.com/2010/cmmi-v1-3-the-cmmi-process-and-measurement-roadmaps/ CMMI Process and Measurements Roadmaps]</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 ([http://www.sei.cmu.edu/library/abstracts/reports/02tn016.cfm Solomon, 2002]). To conclude with a similar use of CMMI, Extreme Programming ([[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.

Line 177 ⟶ 178:

==See also==

* [[Software Engineering Process Group]]

* [[Capability Immaturity Model]]

* [[Capability Maturity Model]]

Line 184:

* [[People Capability Maturity Model]]

* [[Process area (CMMI)]]

* [[Software Engineering Process Group]]

== References ==

Line 194 ⟶ 195:

|url=http://www.sei.cmu.edu/library/abstracts/reports/10tr033.cfm

|title=CMMI for Development, Version 1.3

|format=PDF

|work=CMMI-DEV (Version 1.3, November 2010)

|publisher=Carnegie Mellon University Software Engineering Institute

|accessdate=16 February 2011

}}

*{{cite web

Line 206 ⟶ 205:

|work=CMMI-ACQ (Version 1.3, November 2010)

|publisher=Carnegie Mellon University Software Engineering Institute

|accessdate=16 February 2011

}}

*{{cite web

Line 212 ⟶ 210:

|url=http://www.sei.cmu.edu/library/abstracts/reports/10tr034.cfm

|title=CMMI for Services, Version 1.3

|format=PDF

|work=CMMI-SVC (Version 1.3, November 2010)

|publisher=Carnegie Mellon University Software Engineering Institute

|accessdate=16 February 2011

}}

*{{cite web

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

|title=Process Maturity Profile (Current and Past Releases)

|format=PDF

|work=CMMI for Development SCAMPI Class A Appraisal Results

|publisher=Software Engineering Institute

|accessdate=16 February 2011

}}

*{{cite web

Line 239 ⟶ 233:

|format=doc

|publisher=Carnegie Mellon University Software Engineering Institute

}}

|accessdate=22 August 2006}}

*{{cite web

|last=CMMI Guidebook Acquirer Team

Line 245 ⟶ 239:

|url=http://www.sei.cmu.edu/library/abstracts/reports/07tr004.cfm

|title=Understanding and Leveraging a Supplier's CMMI Efforts: A Guidebook for Acquirers

|format=PDF

|work=CMU/SEI-2007-TR-004

|publisher=Software Engineering Institute

|accessdate=23 August 2007

}}

Line 257 ⟶ 249:

|title=CMMI Version 1.3 Information Center

|publisher=Software Engineering Institute

|accessdate=16 February 2011

}}

*{{cite web

Line 273 ⟶ 264:

|archive-date = 25 July 2011

|url-status = dead

|df = dmy-all

}}

* [https://sas.cmmiinstitute.com/pars/ SCAMPI Appraisal Results]. The complete SEI list of published SCAMPI appraisal results.

Line 280 ⟶ 270:

{{Commons category|Capability Maturity Model Integration}}

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

* {{dmozcurlie|Computers/Programming/Methodologies/Capability_Maturity_Model}}

{{Carnegie Mellon}}

{{Software engineering}}

{{Use dmy dates|date=February 2011}}

[[Category:Maturity models]]