Content deleted Content added
Typo fixing, MOS:DASH, link maintenance, refine ref details, typo(s) fixed: ’s → 's (4) |
Filled in 13 bare reference(s) with reFill 2 | Alter: title, template type. Add: isbn, chapter, chapter-url. Removed or converted URL. Some additions/deletions were actually parameter name changes. | You can use this tool yourself. Report bugs here. | via #UCB_Gadget |
||
Line 15:
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>{{Cite web|url=http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/|title=CMMI Institute - Home}}</ref>
==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>
According to the [[Software Engineering Institute]] (SEI, 2008), 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>
Line 39:
{{details|Process area (CMMI)}}
Depending on the areas of interest (acquisition, services, development) used, the process areas it contains will vary.<ref>
{| class="wikitable sortable" style="background:lightyellow"
Line 150:
</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>
=== Security ===
Line 169:
</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>{{Cite book|chapter-url=https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/1609821|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}}</ref>
CMMI Roadmaps,<ref>
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.
| |||