cmmi 26 ago_2009_

© 2008 Carnegie Mellon University

® CMMI is registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office by Carnegie Mellon University.

CMMI® Update August 26, 2009

Mike Phillips Software Engineering InstituteCarnegie Mellon University

2CMMI UpdatePhillips, Aug 26, 2009


Strategic Technological

StructuralHuman/

Cultural

Managerial

OrganizationalSystem

Input-output flow of materials, energy, information

Inputs:Human,

Financial,Technological,

Material,Resources

Outputs:Products,Services

Organizations Are Complex Systems

Adapted from Kast and Rosenzweig, 1972.



“M” is for Model

Models are simplified views of the real world.

CMM

THE REAL WORLD

Process descriptions, models, and

instantiations are below the level of detail of the CMMs.

[Systems Engineering]

Marketing

[Integrated product teams]

Technology

Organizationalculture

[People issues]

Maturity Levels

Process Areas

Practices

Process

Descriptions

“All models are wrong; some models are useful.” George Box



How Do You Want to Work?

• Random motion – lots of energy, not much progress

• No teamwork – individual effort

• Frequent conflict

• You never know where you’ll end up

• Directed motion – every step brings you closer to the goal

• Coordinated efforts

• Cooperation

• Predictable results

Processes can make the difference!



SEI’s IDEAL Approach

Diagnosing Establishing

Acting

Learning

ProposeFutureActions

Analyzeand

Validate

Pilot/Test

Solution

Create

Solution

Develop

ApproachSet Priorities

Develop

Recommendations

Characterize Current

and Desired States

Charter

Infrastructure

BuildSponsorship

Stimulus for

Change

Set Context

Implement

Solution

Refine

Solution

Plan Actions

Initiating



SCAMPI Calendar Year-end 2008 Statistics(Cumulative) as of 3-31-09

CYE07 CYE08 Delta % Increase

# Appraisals Performed 3,113 4,134 1,021 32.8%

# Unique Organizations Appraised 2,674 3,446 772 28.9%

# Unique Participating Companies 1,882 2,544 672 35.7%

# Re-appraised Organizations 361 564 203 56.2%

# Unique Projects 14,620 21,141 6,521 44.6%



CMMI Transition StatusReported to the SEI as of 7-31-09

Training Introduction to CMMI - 105,442

Intermediate CMMI - 2,959 Understanding CMMI High Maturity Practices - 558 Introduction to CMMI V1.2 Supplement for ACQ - 939 Introduction to CMMI V1.2 Supplement for SVC (1 Day) - 668 Introduction to CMMI Services V1.2 (3 Day) - 46

Authorized / Certified Introduction to CMMI V1.2 Instructors - 433 CMMI-ACQ V1.2 Instructors - 55 CMMI-SVC V1.2 Instructors - 69 SCAMPI V1.2 Lead Appraisers (195 Certified) - 520 SCAMPI V1.2 B & C Team Leaders - 518 SCAMPI V1.2 High Maturity Lead Appraisers (All Certified) - 149 CMMI-ACQ V1.2 Lead Appraisers (16 Certified)

CMMI-SVC V1.2 Lead Appraisers (All Certified)

- 56

- 52



CMMI, V1.2 Foreign Language Translation StatusReported to the SEI

CMMI-DEV, V1.2Language Status

Chinese (Simplified) Underway, to be completed in 2009

Chinese (Traditional) Completed December 2007

French Completed August 2008

German Completed in April 2009

Japanese Completed August 2007. Intro course translated

October 2007

Portuguese To be completed in November 2009

Spanish Completed in June 2009

CMMI-ACQ, V1.2Language Status

Chinese (Traditional) Completed April 2009



Number of v1.1/v1.2 Introduction to CMMI Attendees by Year and Quarter as of 7-31-09

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500



SCAMPI v1.1/v1.2 Class A Appraisals Conducted by QuarterReported as of 7-31-09

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400



CMMI Adoption Has Been Broad

25 countries with 10 or more appraisals (Aug 06 -> Jul 08):

• USA 598 -> 1034• China 158 -> 465• India 177 -> 323• Japan 155 -> 220• France 65 -> 112• Korea (ROK) 56 -> 107• Taiwan 31 -> 88• Brazil 39 -> 79• Spain 25 -> 75• U.K. 42 -> 71• Germany 28 -> 51• Argentina 15 -> 47 • Canada 18 -> 43• Malaysia 15 -> 42• Mexico <10 -> 39• Australia 23 -> 29• Egypt 10 -> 27• Chile <10 -> 20• Philippines 14 -> 20• Colombia <10 -> 18• and Italy, Israel, Singapore,

Hong Kong, and Pakistanhttp://www.sei.cmu.edu/appraisal-program/profile/profile.htmlStatistical analyses by the presenter.

Business Services40.8%

Engineering & Management Services13.3% Other Services

0.8%

Mining0.2%

Wholesale Trade1.0%

Transportation, Communication, Electric, Gas

and Sanitary Services3.2%

Retail Trade0.4%

Finance, Insurance and Real Estate5.9%

Public Administration (Including Defense)

10.1%

Fabricated Metal Products0.4%

Primary Metal Industries1.0%

Industrial Machinery And Equipment

2.2%

Instruments And Related Products

5.9%

Electronic & Other Electric Equipment

5.1%

Transportation Equipment9.1%Health Services

0.6%

Est’d 900,000+ work in orgs that have had a SCAMPI A appraisal.

• SCAMPI A reports from 60 countries• 72% of adopters are commercial orgs• 2/3 Services; 1/5 Manufacturing• Approx. 70% of adopters in US are

contractors for military/gov’t or are gov’t

25 or fewer13.6%

26 to 5015.6%

51 to 7512.8%

76 to 1008.9%

101 to 20019.8%

201 to 3009.0%

301 to 5007.4%

501 to 10006.8%

1001 to 20003.7%

2000+2.5%

201 to 2000+29% 1 to 100

51%

Manufacturing19%

Services66%



Countries where Appraisals have been Performed and Reported to the SEI

Argentina Australia Austria Bahrain Bangladesh Belarus Belgium BrazilBulgaria Canada Chile China Colombia Costa Rica Czech Republic DenmarkDominican Republic Egypt Finland France Germany Greece Hong Kong HungaryIndia Indonesia Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea, Republic Of LatviaLithuania Luxembourg Malaysia Mauritius Mexico Morocco Nepal NetherlandsNew Zealand Norway Pakistan Panama Peru Philippines Poland PortugalRomania Russia Saudi Arabia Singapore Slovakia South Africa Spain Sri LankaSweden Switzerland Taiwan Thailand Turkey Ukraine United Arab Emirates United KingdomUnited States Uruguay Viet Nam



Number of Appraisals and Maturity LevelsReported to the SEI by Country

CountryNumber of Appraisals

Maturity Level 1

Reported

Maturity Level 2

Reported

Maturity Level 3

Reported

Maturity Level 4

Reported

Maturity Level 5

Reported CountryNumber of Appraisals

Maturity Level 1

Reported

Maturity Level 2

Reported

Maturity Level 3

Reported

Maturity Level 4

Reported

Maturity Level 5

Reported

Argentina 64 45 12 2 3 Malaysia 56 20 31 5Australia 32 1 7 5 2 4 Mauritius 10 or fewerAustria 10 or fewer Mexico 57 24 25 3 4Bahrain 10 or fewer Morocco 10 or fewerBangladesh 10 or fewer Nepal 10 or fewerBelarus 10 or fewer Netherlands 10 or fewerBelgium 10 or fewer New Zealand 10 or fewerBrazil 106 1 50 42 1 9 Norway 10 or fewerBulgaria 10 or fewer Pakistan 25 1 18 4 1Canada 51 1 12 22 5 3 Panama 10 or fewerChile 30 17 10 2 Peru 10 or fewerChina 745 1 117 540 27 41 Philippines 21 2 11 7Colombia 22 7 11 1 2 Poland 10 or fewerCosta Rica 10 or fewer Portugal 10 or fewerCzech Republic 10 or fewer Romania 10 or fewerDenmark 10 or fewer Russia 10 or fewerDominican Republic 10 or fewer Saudi Arabia 10 or fewerEgypt 34 1 17 11 2 2 Singapore 19 3 10 1 4Finland 10 or fewer Slovakia 10 or fewerFrance 141 4 81 45 1 2 South Africa 10 or fewerGermany 64 9 32 11 1 1 Spain 105 1 60 35 2 4Greece 10 or fewer Sri Lanka 10 or fewerHong Kong 18 2 11 5 Sweden 10 or fewerHungary 10 or fewer Switzerland 10 or fewerIndia 409 14 191 24 166 Taiwan 117 1 74 38 2

Indonesia 10 or fewer Thailand 27 12 13 1

Ireland 10 or fewer Turkey 14 12 2Israel 17 3 10 2 Ukraine 10 or fewerItaly 31 14 14 United Arab Emirates 10 or fewer

Japan 267 17 75 121 13 16 United Kingdom 93 3 42 30 1 3Korea, Republic Of 138 1 47 61 13 7 United States 1272 27 448 462 21 124Latvia 10 or fewer Uruguay 10 or fewerLithuania 10 or fewer Viet Nam 12 9 1 2Luxembourg 10 or fewer


Beyond CMMI V1.2...



3 Complementary “Constellations”

CMMI-SVC

CMMI-DEV

CMMI-Services provides guidance for those providing

services within organizations and to external customers

CMMI-ACQ

CMMI-ACQ provides

guidance to enable

informed and decisive

acquisition leadership

CMMI-Dev provides

guidance for measuring,

monitoring and managing

development processes

16 Core Process Areas, common to all



CMMI-ACQ v1.2Acquisition Category Process Areas

Acquisition Requirements Development

Solicitation & Supplier

Agreement Development

AgreementManagement

AcquisitionTechnical

Management

Acquisition Validation

Acquisition Verification

CMMI Model Framework

(CMF)

16 Project, Organizational,

and Support Process Areas



Visibility into the Team’s Capability

Acquisition Planning

RFPPrep.

Solicita-tion

Source Selection

System Acceptance

Program Leadership Insight / Oversight

Transition

Plan DesignIntegrate& Test

Develop Deliver

CMMI for Development

CMMI for Acquisition

Operational Need

Developer

Acquirer



CMMI-SVC v0.5(+)

Capacity and

Availability

Management

Service Continuity

Service System

Development Strategic

Service Manageme

nt

Incident Resolution

& Prevention

Service Delivery

Service System

Transition

16 Core Process Areas

and 1 shared PA (SAM)

PA Addition



People Capability Maturity Model: Primary Objective

PerformanceProcess

capability

Workforce

capabilityenables improves

People CMMPeople CMM CMMI-DEV, -ACQ, -SVCCMMI-DEV, -ACQ, -SVC

The primary objective of:a CMM is to improve the capability of an organization’s processes.

CMMI (DEV, ACQ, SVC) is to improve the capability of an organizations processes within specific domains.

the People CMM is to improve the capability of an organization’s workforce through enhanced management and human capital

processes. (People CMM defines capability as the level of knowledge, skills, and

process abilities available within each workforce competency of the organization to build its products or deliver its services.)



CMMI Planned Elements – Multi-Model

•Improving the interfaces is of interest to both government and industry….



CMMI

Planned Elements – Multi-model2 •Multiple models complicate process improvement – but make it much more powerful by addressing specific needs in various environments….

Increasing decision authority of process group

Lean

Six Sigma SOX

FDA/510K

COBIT ISO 9000

CMMIISO 12207P-CMM

SCOR ITIL SWEBOK

PSMGQIM

IDEAL ATAM

TSPAgileRUP

6S/DMAIC

6S/DFSS

Governance(including external mandates, regulations,

and internally chosen governance)

Organizational infrastructureand readiness

(including business, engineering, and change/improvement practices)

Tactical(procedural, for both improvement

and engineering tasks)

Enterpriseoriented

Discipline/domain specific

Incr

easi

ng d

eci

sion

aut

horit

y of

pro

cess

gro

up

EFQM

eSCM-SP

eSCM-CL



Planned Sequence of Models

SA-CMMSA-CMM

GM IT SourcingGM IT Sourcing

CMMI-DEV V1.2CMMI-DEV V1.2

CMMI-ACQCMMI-ACQ

CMMI-SVCCMMI-SVC

CMMI V1.1CMMI V1.1

CMMI-AMCMMI-AM

CMMI V1.3CMMI V1.3

March 2009

2010

41



CMMI Version 1.3 Product Suite: What May Change

Mike KonradMike PhillipsRusty YoungWill Hayes

Aug 26, 2009



CMMI Product Suite, Version 1.31

• “Version 1.3 will focus upon but not be limited to:

• High Maturity

• More effective GPs

• Appraisal efficiency

• Consolidation across Constellations”

• (per criteria documented by the CMMI Steering Group)

• Version 1.3 will be Change Request (CR) driven.

• Events such as “Beyond Version 1.2,” “Future Directions,” and this webinar are for information sharing and dialogue



CMMI Product Suite, Version 1.32

• We would like to present some ideas around certain topics.

• For selected topics, we will briefly discuss:

• Our initial ideas on the topic

• Pros/Cons• For selected ideas, we may poll you for your preference

• Candidate questions (we’ll ask as time permits) are in green font

• The poll will give us insight into the preferences of the community.



High Maturity Topics

• Overall goal: improve clarity of HM practices

• Introduce a lower-ML version of CAR

• Show Practice Evolution through Amplifications



Overall Goal: Improve Clarity of HM Practices

• Problem statement:

• HM practices are currently unclear, leading to a variety of interpretations

• The goal in a nutshell:

• All CMMI users have a common understanding of the HM Practices

• Involves:

• Clarifying connection between statistical management of subprocesses and project management

• Increase depth and clarity of CAR and OID practices

• Improving/clarifying terminology

• Aligning required, expected, and informative

— Also, clarify the role of informative material in the model

• Adding additional notes and examples describing typical “how to’s”



Introduce a lower-ML version of CAR


• Causal Analysis is viewed as valuable at any ML

— Use of OSSP, and PDP does ‘stabilize’ performance to a degree

— ML3 basis can assure some uniformity of impact

— May not be able to distinguish special from common causes of variation


• Create a lower ML version of CAR (e.g., as an SP[s] in IPM).

• Involves:

• Strengthening CAR at ML 5

• Introducing practices (e.g., IPM) addressing causal analysis at ML 3



Show Practice Evolution through Amplifications


• Some see ML 2-3 practices as static – not evolving as ML increases


• Make it easier for an organization to interpret the practices as the organization matures.

• Involves:

• Reviewing lower-ML practices for instances where an amplification would clarify how the practice “matures” at levels 4 and 5 (e.g., PP)

• Inserting clearly-delimited amplifications in lower-ML PAs



More Effective GPs Topics

• Overall goal: simplify the GPs

• Reducing the GG 2 GPs to a Few

• Clarifying role of measurement in GP 2.8

• Improving the Clarity of GP 3.2

• Eliminating Generic Practices at CL 4-5



Overall Goal: Simplify the GPs

• Problem Statement:

• GPs have a multiplier effect on # of items that need to be addressed

— GPs greatly affect the # of artifacts needed for an appraisal

— If a GP is misunderstood, every PA is affected

• Redundancy: Almost all GPs have associated PAs


• Simplify the GPs

• Involves:

• Reviewing the need for GG 1, GG 4-5, and their GPs

• Reducing the # of GPs at CL 2 (which are more important?)

• Rewording problematic GPs (per Pat O’Toole’s ATLAS surveys)

• Clarifying that GPs can be implemented at single or multiple organizational or project levels, or both, depending on the PA.



Reducing the GG 2 GPs to a Few (1)

• A proposal to reduce the GPs under GG 2 to just a few was presented at a webinar a few months ago:

• GP 2.1 Policy

• GP 2.2 Plan the Process

• GP 2.8 Monitor and Control the Process (revised to incorporate GP 2.10 Higher-level management)

• Webinar feedback suggests the above may be too few.

• Would you:

A. Add 2.3 Resources?

B. Add 2.9 Adherence?

C. Keep 2.10 separate?

D. Not add any other generic practices?

E. Keep all the generic practices?



Reducing the GPs to a few (2)

• Instead of reducing the GPs to a few, would you

A. Add content and examples to the model clarifying the intent of the GPs and describing how to address the overlap between GPs and PAs?

B. Change the appraisal method with respect to artifacts required for GPs?

C. Still reduce the GPs



Clarifying Role of Measurement in GP 2.8

• Measuring the process should be seen as a means (as opposed to the means) to monitoring and controlling the process

• GP 2.8 was never intended to require a measure for every PA

• Informative material should be updated to clarify this

• But if no measures are ever involved in monitoring and controlling the process for any PA, this should raise a “red flag”



Improving the Clarity of GP 3.2

• Propose rewording GP 3.2 from:

• “Collect work products, measures, measurement results, and improvement information derived from planning and performing the process to support the future use and improvement of the organization’s processes and process assets”

• to:

• “Collect information derived from planning and performing the process to support the future use and improvement of the organization’s processes.”

• Replace “information” with:

A. “information”

B. “measurements”

C. “measurements and other information”



Eliminating Generic Practices at CL 4-5


• CL 4-5 GPs inadequately cover PAs with which they are associated

• Used in only a minority of appraisals

— Not necessary for Staged representation

• Encourage suboptimization


• Remove the CL 4-5 GPs until a broad and shared understanding of the associated PAs at ML4-5 is achieved.

• Involves:

• Simplifying insitutionalization discussion for both representations (e.g., equivalent staging)

• Should the CL 4-5 GPs be eliminated from V1.3?

• A. Yes. B. Don’t care. C. No



Appraisal Efficiency

• Possible changes to the model to improve efficiency include:

• Simplifying # of GPs (see earlier slides)

• Resolve practice ambiguities

— E.g., PP SP 1.1, “Establish … WBS to estimate … scope …”

• Make applicability of SPs more “solid” (e.g., evaluating supplier processes)

• Refinements to SCAMPI itself include:

• Using directed sampling (during Discovery)

— Constructing an appropriate indicator set (rotating, random)

— Readiness review (ensuring indicators have been identified)

• Using Inverted PIIDs (as an option, not a requirement)?

— Documents tagged with all the SPs and GPs they map to



Consolidation Across Constellations1

• Overall goal:

• Achieve balance between:

— “Naturalness” of model content within each area of interest

— Commonality of model content across constellations

• Help ensure CMMI Models are usable in combination

• Provide clarity as to what is specific to an area of interest vs. common

• Reference:

• CMMI-DEV V1.2, CMMI-ACQ V1.2, forthcoming CMMI-SVC V1.2




• Will your org’n be using multiple CMMI models?

A. No

B. DEV+ACQ

C. DEV+SVC

D. SVC+ACQ

E. All 3




• Covering Integrated/Self-Directed Teams in CMMI:

• In CMMI-DEV, this topic is optional but at goal level (OPD SG 2, IPM SG 3)

• In CMMI-ACQ, this topic is expected (OPD SP 1.7, IPM SP 1.6)

• People CMM has considerable material on teams

• Definitions

• IPT = Integrated Product Team (all disciplines having a significant role in product lifecycle are represented on IPT)

• Self-directed team = A team that establishes its own plans and processes; measures, analyzes, and improves its performance; and adjusts in response to change

• Select type of team (A) and how included (B)

• A1. IPT B1. Optional as in DEV

• A2. Self-directed B2. Expected as in ACQ, SVC

• A3. Both




• Some reviewers of CMMI-SVC model drafts have proposed adding these PAs (with appropriate wording changes) to DEV and ACQ:

• Capacity and Availability Management (CAM)— The purpose of CAM is to ensure effective service system performance and ensure

that resources are provided and used effectively to support service requirements.

• Service Continuity (SCON)— The purpose of SCON is to establish and maintain plans to ensure continuity of

services during and following any significant disruption of normal operations.



Miscellaneous Topics

• Multiple model implementations

• Agile methods

• “Lean” the Model

• Additional Guidance

• Repackaging the model



Multiple Model Implementations


• Enable organizations to implement multiple models, frameworks, etc.

• Reference:

• Jeannine Siviy’s and Patrick Kirwin’s SEI Webinar, “Process Improvement in Multi-Model Environments (PrIME),“ July 2008

• Involves:

• Ensuring CMMI constellations have common Architecture & Glossary

• A methodology to efficiently trace to multiple frameworks



Agile Methods


• Enable CMMI and Agile users to make synergistic use of both

• Reference:

• Hillel Glazer, Jeff Dalton, David Anderson, Mike Konrad, and Sandy Shrum, “CMMI® or Agile: Why Not Embrace Both!” SEI Technical Note CMU/SEI-2008-TN-003. November 2008.

• Involves:

• Inserting notes that help adopters of Agile methods correctly interpret practices (e.g., evaluating alternative technical solutions [TS SG 1])



“Lean” the Model


• Make the essence of the “underlying model” visible

• Reference:

• Results of Beyond V1.2 Workshops

• Involves:

• Identifying material that does not need to be in the model

• Moving this material to a Web page, Wiki, or separate technical note

• Making the external material easy to locate

• Eliminating/consolidating low-value practices

• Example:

• Move the GP Elaborations out of the model and into supplementary material



Provide Additional Guidance


• Identify particular challenges (or opportunities) affecting the CMMI user community that complicate interpretation and implementation of CMMI practices

• Make additional guidance, notes, and examples available (not necessarily within the model)

• Should V 1.3 cover:

A. 6 Sigma, Lean

B. OPM3

C. People CMM

D. COTS, GOTS

E. System-of-system



Repackaging the model


• Make the model easier to use

• Make the use across constellations cost-effective

• Clearly identify “normative” material

• Should V 1.3 cover:

A. Package all constellations in a single report/book and differentiate between constellations via the use of appendices, amplifications, etc.?

B. Have a separate report/book for each constellation?

C. Separate the “normative” material (goals and practices) from the informative material ?

D. Keep the current packaging of the model?



Summary

• Four drivers for Version 1.3:

• Clarify high maturity,

• Simplify GPs,

• Increase appraisal efficiencies, and

• Improve commonality across the constellations.

• We appreciate your input and feedback!



What Have We Missed?

•Now let’s chat….

cmmi 26 ago_2009_

Documents

cmmi v1

cmmi update phillips

cmmiacq v1

cmmi services v1

intermediate cmmi

certified cmmisvc v1

sei cmmidev

scampi v1