JULIO GONZALEZ SANZ, profile picture
Uploaded byJULIO GONZALEZ SANZ
PPT, PDF647 views

Cmmi 26 ago_2009_

This document provides an update on the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI). It discusses the status of CMMI version 1.2 adoption and transition activities including training, appraisals, and foreign language translations. It also summarizes plans for future CMMI models and their relationships including CMMI for Development, Acquisition, and Services as well as interfaces with other models like the People CMM.

Embed presentation

Downloaded 12 times
© 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 Institute Carnegie Mellon University
2 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug 26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University Strategic Technological Structural Human/ Cultural Managerial Organizational System 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.
3 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug 26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University “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 Organizational culture [People issues] Maturity Levels Process Areas Practices Process Descriptions “All models are wrong; some models are useful.” George Box
4 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug 26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University 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!
5 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug 26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University SEI’s IDEAL Approach Diagnosing Establishing Acting Learning Propose Future Actions Analyze and Validate Pilot/Test Solution Create Solution Develop ApproachSet Priorities Develop Recommendations Characterize Current and Desired States Charter Infrastructure Build Sponsorship Stimulus for Change Set Context Implement Solution Refine Solution Plan Actions Initiating
6 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug 26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University 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%
7 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug 26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University CMMI Transition Status Reported 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
8 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug 26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University CMMI, V1.2 Foreign Language Translation Status Reported to the SEI CMMI-DEV, V1.2 Language 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, V1.2 Language Status Chinese (Traditional) Completed April 2009
9 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug 26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University 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 Q 1/0 4 Q 2/0 4 Q 3/0 4 Q 4/0 4 Q 1/0 5 Q 2/0 5 Q 3/0 5 Q 4/0 5 Q 1/0 6 Q 2/0 6 Q 3/0 6 Q 4/0 6 Q 1/0 7 Q 2/0 7 Q 3/0 7 Q 4/0 7 Q 1/0 8 Q 2/0 8 Q 3/0 8 Q 4/0 8 Q 1/0 9 Q 2/0 9 Q 3/0 9
10 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug 26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University SCAMPI v1.1/v1.2 Class A Appraisals Conducted by Quarter Reported as of 7-31-09 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
11 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug 26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University 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 Pakistan http://www.sei.cmu.edu/appraisal-program/profile/profile.html Statistical analyses by the presenter. Business Services 40.8% Engineering & Management Services 13.3% Other Services 0.8% Mining 0.2% Wholesale Trade 1.0% Transportation, Communication, Electric, Gas and Sanitary Services 3.2% Retail Trade 0.4% Finance, Insurance and Real Estate 5.9% Public Administration (Including Defense) 10.1% Fabricated Metal Products 0.4% Primary Metal Industries 1.0% Industrial Machinery And Equipment 2.2% Instruments And Related Products 5.9% Electronic & Other Electric Equipment 5.1% Transportation Equipment 9.1%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 fewer 13.6% 26 to 50 15.6% 51 to 75 12.8% 76 to 100 8.9% 101 to 200 19.8% 201 to 300 9.0% 301 to 500 7.4% 501 to 1000 6.8% 1001 to 2000 3.7% 2000+ 2.5% 201 to 2000+ 29% 1 to 100 51% Manufacturing 19% Services 66%
12 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug 26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University Countries where Appraisals have been Performed and Reported to the SEI Argentina Australia Austria Bahrain Bangladesh Belarus Belgium Brazil Bulgaria Canada Chile China Colombia Costa Rica Czech Republic Denmark Dominican Republic Egypt Finland France Germany Greece Hong Kong Hungary India Indonesia Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea, Republic Of Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malaysia Mauritius Mexico Morocco Nepal Netherlands New Zealand Norway Pakistan Panama Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Romania Russia Saudi Arabia Singapore Slovakia South Africa Spain Sri Lanka Sweden Switzerland Taiwan Thailand Turkey Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Viet Nam
13 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug 26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University Number of Appraisals and Maturity Levels Reported to the SEI by Country Country Number of Appraisals Maturity Level 1 Reported Maturity Level 2 Reported Maturity Level 3 Reported Maturity Level 4 Reported Maturity Level 5 Reported Country Number 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 5 Australia 32 1 7 5 2 4 Mauritius 10 or fewer Austria 10 or fewer Mexico 57 24 25 3 4 Bahrain 10 or fewer Morocco 10 or fewer Bangladesh 10 or fewer Nepal 10 or fewer Belarus 10 or fewer Netherlands 10 or fewer Belgium 10 or fewer New Zealand 10 or fewer Brazil 106 1 50 42 1 9 Norway 10 or fewer Bulgaria 10 or fewer Pakistan 25 1 18 4 1 Canada 51 1 12 22 5 3 Panama 10 or fewer Chile 30 17 10 2 Peru 10 or fewer China 745 1 117 540 27 41 Philippines 21 2 11 7 Colombia 22 7 11 1 2 Poland 10 or fewer Costa Rica 10 or fewer Portugal 10 or fewer Czech Republic 10 or fewer Romania 10 or fewer Denmark 10 or fewer Russia 10 or fewer Dominican Republic 10 or fewer Saudi Arabia 10 or fewer Egypt 34 1 17 11 2 2 Singapore 19 3 10 1 4 Finland 10 or fewer Slovakia 10 or fewer France 141 4 81 45 1 2 South Africa 10 or fewer Germany 64 9 32 11 1 1 Spain 105 1 60 35 2 4 Greece 10 or fewer Sri Lanka 10 or fewer Hong Kong 18 2 11 5 Sweden 10 or fewer Hungary 10 or fewer Switzerland 10 or fewer India 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 2 Israel 17 3 10 2 Ukraine 10 or fewer Italy 31 14 14 United Arab Emirates 10 or fewer Japan 267 17 75 121 13 16 United Kingdom 93 3 42 30 1 3 Korea, Republic Of 138 1 47 61 13 7 United States 1272 27 448 462 21 124 Latvia 10 or fewer Uruguay 10 or fewer Lithuania 10 or fewer Viet Nam 12 9 1 2 Luxembourg 10 or fewer
© 2008 Carnegie Mellon University Beyond CMMI V1.2...
15 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug 26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University 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
16 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug 26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University CMMI-ACQ v1.2 Acquisition Category Process Areas Acquisition Requirements Development Solicitation & Supplier Agreement Development Agreement Management Acquisition Technical Management Acquisition Validation Acquisition Verification CMMI Model Framework (CMF) 16 Project, Organizational, and Support Process Areas
17 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug 26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University Visibility into the Team’s Capability Acquisition Planning RFP Prep. Solicita- tion Source Selection System Acceptance Program Leadership Insight / Oversight Transition Plan Design Integrate & Test Develop Deliver CMMI for Development CMMI for Acquisition Operational Need Developer Acquirer
18 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug 26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University CMMI-SVC v0.5(+) Capacity and Availability Managemen t Service Continuity Service System Development Strategic Service Managemen t Incident Resolution & Prevention Service Delivery Service System Transition 16 Core Process Areas and 1 shared PA (SAM) PA Addition
19 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug 26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University People Capability Maturity Model: Primary Objective Performance Process capability Workforce capability enables improves People CMMPeople CMM CMMI-DEV, -ACQ, -SVC CMMI-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.)
20 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug 26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University CMMI Planned Elements – Multi-Model •Improving the interfaces is of interest to both government and industry….
21 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug 26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University CMMI Planned Elements – Multi-model2 •Multiple models complicate process improvement – but make it much more powerful by addressing specific needs in various environments….
22 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug 26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University 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
23 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug 26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University CMMI Version 1.3 Product Suite: What May Change Mike Konrad Mike Phillips Rusty Young Will Hayes Aug 26, 2009
24 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug 26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University 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
25 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug 26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University 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.
26 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug 26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University High Maturity Topics • Overall goal: improve clarity of HM practices • Introduce a lower-ML version of CAR • Show Practice Evolution through Amplifications
27 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug 26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University 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”
28 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug 26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University Introduce a lower-ML version of CAR • Problem statement: • 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 • The goal in a nutshell: • 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
29 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug 26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University Show Practice Evolution through Amplifications • Problem statement: • Some see ML 2-3 practices as static – not evolving as ML increases • The goal in a nutshell: • 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
30 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug 26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University 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
31 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug 26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University 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 • The goal in a nutshell: • 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.
32 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug 26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University 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?
33 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug 26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University 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
34 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug 26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University 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”
35 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug 26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University 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”
36 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug 26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University Eliminating Generic Practices at CL 4-5 • Problem statement: • 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 • The goal in a nutshell: • 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
37 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug 26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University 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
38 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug 26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University 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
39 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug 26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University Consolidation Across Constellations2 • Will your org’n be using multiple CMMI models? A. No B. DEV+ACQ C. DEV+SVC D. SVC+ACQ E. All 3
40 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug 26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University Consolidation Across Constellations3 • 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
41 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug 26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University Consolidation Across Constellations4 • 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.
42 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug 26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University Miscellaneous Topics • Multiple model implementations • Agile methods • “Lean” the Model • Additional Guidance • Repackaging the model
43 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug 26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University Multiple Model Implementations • The goal in a nutshell: • 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
44 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug 26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University Agile Methods • The goal in a nutshell: • 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])
45 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug 26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University “Lean” the Model • The goal in a nutshell: • 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
46 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug 26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University Provide Additional Guidance • The goal in a nutshell: • 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
47 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug 26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University Repackaging the model • The goal in a nutshell: • 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?
48 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug 26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University 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!
49 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug 26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University What Have We Missed? •Now let’s chat….

More Related Content

PPTX
Light Tactical All-terrain Vehicle (LTATV) Crew Augmentation
byH4Diadmin
 
PDF
Cilt Singapore (Cpl Brochure)
byFranck Paduch
 
PDF
CMMI: Para além do desenvolvimento de Software - Carlos Sánchez Fernández (...
byPaula Gomes
 
PPTX
Powering your Software Development
byStrongstep - Innovation in software quality
 
PDF
APRESENTAÇÃO CORPORATIVA - CMMI
byEdson Costa
 
PDF
Aula 07 qs - cmmi
byJunior Gomes
 
PPT
Processo de certificação CMMI
bythomasdacosta
 
PPTX
Cmmi e mps.Br
byJefferson Bessa
 
Light Tactical All-terrain Vehicle (LTATV) Crew Augmentation
byH4Diadmin
 
Cilt Singapore (Cpl Brochure)
byFranck Paduch
 
CMMI: Para além do desenvolvimento de Software - Carlos Sánchez Fernández (...
byPaula Gomes
 
Powering your Software Development
byStrongstep - Innovation in software quality
 
APRESENTAÇÃO CORPORATIVA - CMMI
byEdson Costa
 
Aula 07 qs - cmmi
byJunior Gomes
 
Processo de certificação CMMI
bythomasdacosta
 
Cmmi e mps.Br
byJefferson Bessa
 

Viewers also liked

PDF
‘WATER MAFIA’ GETS BUSY IN NEW BBMP AREAS AS SUMMER APPROACHES
byBangalore Generalnews
 
PDF
Ds 001-2017-minedu-norma-de-contratacion-docente-2017
byedu mamani
 
PDF
BENGALUREANS PREFER TAXIS OVER OWN CARS
byBangalore Generalnews
 
PPTX
Haccp 2
byDimitris Fekas
 
PPTX
TV Cultura - Produção
by[ fr ] Digital Business Consulting
 
PDF
EDIT
bySam Street
 
PDF
Benefícios Exclusivos VISA
byFuture Group
 
PDF
Genkiphonicsposters
byRuslana Shamanska
 
DOCX
Distribución de los contenidos del plan nacional de alfabetizacion tecnologica
byW1MFH3R
 
PPTX
Interface web
byArmando Rivarola
 
PDF
Saa cvs focus group presentation v2
byHavco Havering
 
PDF
FOLLOW LAW, LET SCHOOLS TEACH IN ENGLISH: HIGH COURT
byBangalore Generalnews
 
PDF
Brazil - guia internet_marketing
byStanley Domeniquini
 
PPT
Βιογραφικό σημείωμα 1
byDimitris Fekas
 
PDF
CompUSA Employment Marketing Ads
byElijah Owens
 
PPT
Oculos de sol
bySandryx
 
PDF
Proyecto sociotecnologico i
byW1MFH3R
 
‘WATER MAFIA’ GETS BUSY IN NEW BBMP AREAS AS SUMMER APPROACHES
byBangalore Generalnews
 
Ds 001-2017-minedu-norma-de-contratacion-docente-2017
byedu mamani
 
BENGALUREANS PREFER TAXIS OVER OWN CARS
byBangalore Generalnews
 
Haccp 2
byDimitris Fekas
 
TV Cultura - Produção
by[ fr ] Digital Business Consulting
 
EDIT
bySam Street
 
Benefícios Exclusivos VISA
byFuture Group
 
Genkiphonicsposters
byRuslana Shamanska
 
Distribución de los contenidos del plan nacional de alfabetizacion tecnologica
byW1MFH3R
 
Interface web
byArmando Rivarola
 
Saa cvs focus group presentation v2
byHavco Havering
 
FOLLOW LAW, LET SCHOOLS TEACH IN ENGLISH: HIGH COURT
byBangalore Generalnews
 
Brazil - guia internet_marketing
byStanley Domeniquini
 
Βιογραφικό σημείωμα 1
byDimitris Fekas
 
CompUSA Employment Marketing Ads
byElijah Owens
 
Oculos de sol
bySandryx
 
Proyecto sociotecnologico i
byW1MFH3R
 

Similar to Cmmi 26 ago_2009_

PDF
CMMI V2.0
byDark Night
 
DOC
CMMI Implementation Guide
byVishnuvarthanan Moorthy
 
PPT
Sukhchan Alliance Llc Cmmi
byArvinder Singh
 
PDF
Polarion Conf 2012 - CMMi Constellation and Polarion Integration
byEmerasoft, solutions to collaborate
 
PPTX
Applicability of CMMI for Small to Medium Enterprises
byrhefner
 
PPTX
cmmiconsulting-brief-100428125821-phpapp02.pptx
bymuhammadsmady
 
PPT
Applying Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) for Your Company Proces...
byrhefner
 
PPTX
Capability Maturity Model Integration
byuniversity of Gujrat, pakistan
 
PPTX
CMMI
byshankarghimire6
 
PPT
Cmmi Dev 2
bykmpeter
 
PPTX
Why Cmmi
byIndranil Das
 
PPT
Presentation on Catalyic Consulting
bygulafshan30
 
PDF
Cmmi Overview And Nihilent Show Case In Cmmir Consulting.1
byjonathanwiesman_1
 
PDF
CMMi.pdf
bydemingcertificationa
 
PDF
Introduction to CMMI
byYelda Gurbuz Erdogan
 
PPT
The True Costs and Benefits of CMMI Level 5
byrhefner
 
PDF
What is cmmi & understanding
byIndicium Assessment Pvt. Ltd
 
PDF
[StepTalks2011] Trends for Process Improvement: Portugal and the World - Paul...
byStrongstep - Innovation in software quality
 
PPT
Cmmi
bybht all
 
PPTX
Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI)
byMariamKhan120
 
CMMI V2.0
byDark Night
 
CMMI Implementation Guide
byVishnuvarthanan Moorthy
 
Sukhchan Alliance Llc Cmmi
byArvinder Singh
 
Polarion Conf 2012 - CMMi Constellation and Polarion Integration
byEmerasoft, solutions to collaborate
 
Applicability of CMMI for Small to Medium Enterprises
byrhefner
 
cmmiconsulting-brief-100428125821-phpapp02.pptx
bymuhammadsmady
 
Applying Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) for Your Company Proces...
byrhefner
 
Capability Maturity Model Integration
byuniversity of Gujrat, pakistan
 
CMMI
byshankarghimire6
 
Cmmi Dev 2
bykmpeter
 
Why Cmmi
byIndranil Das
 
Presentation on Catalyic Consulting
bygulafshan30
 
Cmmi Overview And Nihilent Show Case In Cmmir Consulting.1
byjonathanwiesman_1
 
CMMi.pdf
bydemingcertificationa
 
Introduction to CMMI
byYelda Gurbuz Erdogan
 
The True Costs and Benefits of CMMI Level 5
byrhefner
 
What is cmmi & understanding
byIndicium Assessment Pvt. Ltd
 
[StepTalks2011] Trends for Process Improvement: Portugal and the World - Paul...
byStrongstep - Innovation in software quality
 
Cmmi
bybht all
 
Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI)
byMariamKhan120
 

More from JULIO GONZALEZ SANZ

PPT
Cmmi hm 2008 sepg model changes for high maturity 1v01[1]
byJULIO GONZALEZ SANZ
 
PPT
Cmmi%20 model%20changes%20for%20high%20maturity%20v01[1]
byJULIO GONZALEZ SANZ
 
PPTX
Creation use-of-simple-model
byJULIO GONZALEZ SANZ
 
PPT
Introduction to bayesian_networks[1]
byJULIO GONZALEZ SANZ
 
PPT
Workshop healthy ingredients ppm[1]
byJULIO GONZALEZ SANZ
 
PPT
The need for a balanced measurement system
byJULIO GONZALEZ SANZ
 
PPTX
Magic quadrant
byJULIO GONZALEZ SANZ
 
PPT
6 six sigma presentation
byJULIO GONZALEZ SANZ
 
PPT
Volvo csr suppliers guide vsib
byJULIO GONZALEZ SANZ
 
PPT
Just in-time and lean production
byJULIO GONZALEZ SANZ
 
PPT
History of manufacturing systems and lean thinking enfr
byJULIO GONZALEZ SANZ
 
PPT
Using minitab exec files
byJULIO GONZALEZ SANZ
 
PPT
Sga iso-14001
byJULIO GONZALEZ SANZ
 
PPTX
Cslt closing plenary_portugal
byJULIO GONZALEZ SANZ
 
PPT
Une 66175 presentacion norma 2006 por julio
byJULIO GONZALEZ SANZ
 
PDF
Swebokv3
byJULIO GONZALEZ SANZ
 
PDF
An architecture for data quality
byJULIO GONZALEZ SANZ
 
PDF
Sap analytics creating smart business processes
byJULIO GONZALEZ SANZ
 
PDF
Big data analytics, research report
byJULIO GONZALEZ SANZ
 
PDF
Evaluating and comparing software metrics in the software engineering laboratory
byJULIO GONZALEZ SANZ
 
Cmmi hm 2008 sepg model changes for high maturity 1v01[1]
byJULIO GONZALEZ SANZ
 
Cmmi%20 model%20changes%20for%20high%20maturity%20v01[1]
byJULIO GONZALEZ SANZ
 
Creation use-of-simple-model
byJULIO GONZALEZ SANZ
 
Introduction to bayesian_networks[1]
byJULIO GONZALEZ SANZ
 
Workshop healthy ingredients ppm[1]
byJULIO GONZALEZ SANZ
 
The need for a balanced measurement system
byJULIO GONZALEZ SANZ
 
Magic quadrant
byJULIO GONZALEZ SANZ
 
6 six sigma presentation
byJULIO GONZALEZ SANZ
 
Volvo csr suppliers guide vsib
byJULIO GONZALEZ SANZ
 
Just in-time and lean production
byJULIO GONZALEZ SANZ
 
History of manufacturing systems and lean thinking enfr
byJULIO GONZALEZ SANZ
 
Using minitab exec files
byJULIO GONZALEZ SANZ
 
Sga iso-14001
byJULIO GONZALEZ SANZ
 
Cslt closing plenary_portugal
byJULIO GONZALEZ SANZ
 
Une 66175 presentacion norma 2006 por julio
byJULIO GONZALEZ SANZ
 
Swebokv3
byJULIO GONZALEZ SANZ
 
An architecture for data quality
byJULIO GONZALEZ SANZ
 
Sap analytics creating smart business processes
byJULIO GONZALEZ SANZ
 
Big data analytics, research report
byJULIO GONZALEZ SANZ
 
Evaluating and comparing software metrics in the software engineering laboratory
byJULIO GONZALEZ SANZ
 

Cmmi 26 ago_2009_

  • 1.
    © 2008 CarnegieMellon 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 Institute Carnegie Mellon University
  • 2.
    2 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University Strategic Technological Structural Human/ Cultural Managerial Organizational System 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.
  • 3.
    3 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University “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 Organizational culture [People issues] Maturity Levels Process Areas Practices Process Descriptions “All models are wrong; some models are useful.” George Box
  • 4.
    4 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University 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!
  • 5.
    5 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University SEI’s IDEAL Approach Diagnosing Establishing Acting Learning Propose Future Actions Analyze and Validate Pilot/Test Solution Create Solution Develop ApproachSet Priorities Develop Recommendations Characterize Current and Desired States Charter Infrastructure Build Sponsorship Stimulus for Change Set Context Implement Solution Refine Solution Plan Actions Initiating
  • 6.
    6 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University 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%
  • 7.
    7 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University CMMI Transition Status Reported 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
  • 8.
    8 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University CMMI, V1.2 Foreign Language Translation Status Reported to the SEI CMMI-DEV, V1.2 Language 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, V1.2 Language Status Chinese (Traditional) Completed April 2009
  • 9.
    9 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University 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 Q 1/0 4 Q 2/0 4 Q 3/0 4 Q 4/0 4 Q 1/0 5 Q 2/0 5 Q 3/0 5 Q 4/0 5 Q 1/0 6 Q 2/0 6 Q 3/0 6 Q 4/0 6 Q 1/0 7 Q 2/0 7 Q 3/0 7 Q 4/0 7 Q 1/0 8 Q 2/0 8 Q 3/0 8 Q 4/0 8 Q 1/0 9 Q 2/0 9 Q 3/0 9
  • 10.
    10 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University SCAMPI v1.1/v1.2 Class A Appraisals Conducted by Quarter Reported as of 7-31-09 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
  • 11.
    11 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University 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 Pakistan http://www.sei.cmu.edu/appraisal-program/profile/profile.html Statistical analyses by the presenter. Business Services 40.8% Engineering & Management Services 13.3% Other Services 0.8% Mining 0.2% Wholesale Trade 1.0% Transportation, Communication, Electric, Gas and Sanitary Services 3.2% Retail Trade 0.4% Finance, Insurance and Real Estate 5.9% Public Administration (Including Defense) 10.1% Fabricated Metal Products 0.4% Primary Metal Industries 1.0% Industrial Machinery And Equipment 2.2% Instruments And Related Products 5.9% Electronic & Other Electric Equipment 5.1% Transportation Equipment 9.1%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 fewer 13.6% 26 to 50 15.6% 51 to 75 12.8% 76 to 100 8.9% 101 to 200 19.8% 201 to 300 9.0% 301 to 500 7.4% 501 to 1000 6.8% 1001 to 2000 3.7% 2000+ 2.5% 201 to 2000+ 29% 1 to 100 51% Manufacturing 19% Services 66%
  • 12.
    12 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University Countries where Appraisals have been Performed and Reported to the SEI Argentina Australia Austria Bahrain Bangladesh Belarus Belgium Brazil Bulgaria Canada Chile China Colombia Costa Rica Czech Republic Denmark Dominican Republic Egypt Finland France Germany Greece Hong Kong Hungary India Indonesia Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea, Republic Of Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malaysia Mauritius Mexico Morocco Nepal Netherlands New Zealand Norway Pakistan Panama Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Romania Russia Saudi Arabia Singapore Slovakia South Africa Spain Sri Lanka Sweden Switzerland Taiwan Thailand Turkey Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Viet Nam
  • 13.
    13 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University Number of Appraisals and Maturity Levels Reported to the SEI by Country Country Number of Appraisals Maturity Level 1 Reported Maturity Level 2 Reported Maturity Level 3 Reported Maturity Level 4 Reported Maturity Level 5 Reported Country Number 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 5 Australia 32 1 7 5 2 4 Mauritius 10 or fewer Austria 10 or fewer Mexico 57 24 25 3 4 Bahrain 10 or fewer Morocco 10 or fewer Bangladesh 10 or fewer Nepal 10 or fewer Belarus 10 or fewer Netherlands 10 or fewer Belgium 10 or fewer New Zealand 10 or fewer Brazil 106 1 50 42 1 9 Norway 10 or fewer Bulgaria 10 or fewer Pakistan 25 1 18 4 1 Canada 51 1 12 22 5 3 Panama 10 or fewer Chile 30 17 10 2 Peru 10 or fewer China 745 1 117 540 27 41 Philippines 21 2 11 7 Colombia 22 7 11 1 2 Poland 10 or fewer Costa Rica 10 or fewer Portugal 10 or fewer Czech Republic 10 or fewer Romania 10 or fewer Denmark 10 or fewer Russia 10 or fewer Dominican Republic 10 or fewer Saudi Arabia 10 or fewer Egypt 34 1 17 11 2 2 Singapore 19 3 10 1 4 Finland 10 or fewer Slovakia 10 or fewer France 141 4 81 45 1 2 South Africa 10 or fewer Germany 64 9 32 11 1 1 Spain 105 1 60 35 2 4 Greece 10 or fewer Sri Lanka 10 or fewer Hong Kong 18 2 11 5 Sweden 10 or fewer Hungary 10 or fewer Switzerland 10 or fewer India 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 2 Israel 17 3 10 2 Ukraine 10 or fewer Italy 31 14 14 United Arab Emirates 10 or fewer Japan 267 17 75 121 13 16 United Kingdom 93 3 42 30 1 3 Korea, Republic Of 138 1 47 61 13 7 United States 1272 27 448 462 21 124 Latvia 10 or fewer Uruguay 10 or fewer Lithuania 10 or fewer Viet Nam 12 9 1 2 Luxembourg 10 or fewer
  • 14.
    © 2008 CarnegieMellon University Beyond CMMI V1.2...
  • 15.
    15 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University 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
  • 16.
    16 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University CMMI-ACQ v1.2 Acquisition Category Process Areas Acquisition Requirements Development Solicitation & Supplier Agreement Development Agreement Management Acquisition Technical Management Acquisition Validation Acquisition Verification CMMI Model Framework (CMF) 16 Project, Organizational, and Support Process Areas
  • 17.
    17 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University Visibility into the Team’s Capability Acquisition Planning RFP Prep. Solicita- tion Source Selection System Acceptance Program Leadership Insight / Oversight Transition Plan Design Integrate & Test Develop Deliver CMMI for Development CMMI for Acquisition Operational Need Developer Acquirer
  • 18.
    18 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University CMMI-SVC v0.5(+) Capacity and Availability Managemen t Service Continuity Service System Development Strategic Service Managemen t Incident Resolution & Prevention Service Delivery Service System Transition 16 Core Process Areas and 1 shared PA (SAM) PA Addition
  • 19.
    19 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University People Capability Maturity Model: Primary Objective Performance Process capability Workforce capability enables improves People CMMPeople CMM CMMI-DEV, -ACQ, -SVC CMMI-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.)
  • 20.
    20 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University CMMI Planned Elements – Multi-Model •Improving the interfaces is of interest to both government and industry….
  • 21.
    21 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University CMMI Planned Elements – Multi-model2 •Multiple models complicate process improvement – but make it much more powerful by addressing specific needs in various environments….
  • 22.
    22 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University 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
  • 23.
    23 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University CMMI Version 1.3 Product Suite: What May Change Mike Konrad Mike Phillips Rusty Young Will Hayes Aug 26, 2009
  • 24.
    24 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University 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
  • 25.
    25 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University 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.
  • 26.
    26 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University High Maturity Topics • Overall goal: improve clarity of HM practices • Introduce a lower-ML version of CAR • Show Practice Evolution through Amplifications
  • 27.
    27 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University 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”
  • 28.
    28 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University Introduce a lower-ML version of CAR • Problem statement: • 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 • The goal in a nutshell: • 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
  • 29.
    29 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University Show Practice Evolution through Amplifications • Problem statement: • Some see ML 2-3 practices as static – not evolving as ML increases • The goal in a nutshell: • 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
  • 30.
    30 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University 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
  • 31.
    31 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University 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 • The goal in a nutshell: • 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.
  • 32.
    32 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University 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?
  • 33.
    33 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University 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
  • 34.
    34 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University 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”
  • 35.
    35 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University 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”
  • 36.
    36 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University Eliminating Generic Practices at CL 4-5 • Problem statement: • 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 • The goal in a nutshell: • 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
  • 37.
    37 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University 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
  • 38.
    38 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University 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
  • 39.
    39 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University Consolidation Across Constellations2 • Will your org’n be using multiple CMMI models? A. No B. DEV+ACQ C. DEV+SVC D. SVC+ACQ E. All 3
  • 40.
    40 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University Consolidation Across Constellations3 • 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
  • 41.
    41 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University Consolidation Across Constellations4 • 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.
  • 42.
    42 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University Miscellaneous Topics • Multiple model implementations • Agile methods • “Lean” the Model • Additional Guidance • Repackaging the model
  • 43.
    43 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University Multiple Model Implementations • The goal in a nutshell: • 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
  • 44.
    44 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University Agile Methods • The goal in a nutshell: • 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])
  • 45.
    45 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University “Lean” the Model • The goal in a nutshell: • 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
  • 46.
    46 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University Provide Additional Guidance • The goal in a nutshell: • 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
  • 47.
    47 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University Repackaging the model • The goal in a nutshell: • 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?
  • 48.
    48 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University 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!
  • 49.
    49 CMMI Update Phillips, Aug26, 2009 © 2008 Carnegie Mellon University What Have We Missed? •Now let’s chat….

Editor's Notes

  • #17 Key Acquirer Roles Business analysis/relationship management (incl. requirements) Systems engineering, architecture strategy, system acceptance Contract development &amp; supplier management Program ownership / project management Key Supplier Roles Application Design/Development System Maintenance Desktop / Service / Help Desk Hosting Data center / mainframe INSTRUCTOR NOTES: KEY POINT Both Developers and Acquirers have strong, albeit different, needs for process SUGGESTED SCRIPT Acquisition is a team sport. With both the Acquirer and the Developer on the SAME team. Each has a role to play, and Process is an important element in each of these roles Ultimately, the goal of both the Acquirer and the Developer is to translate an Operational Need into a fieldable and supportable product. In pursuit of this: the Acquirer Plans the acquisition Develops an RFP Solicits proposals Selects a source Monitors the project throughout development Accepts the product Transitions the product to operations The Developer Plans the development Designs the product Develops the product Integrates and tests the product Delivers the product The processes used by the developer and the acquirer are different but similar CMMI-Acquisition Module recommends Acquirers processes CMMI recommends Developers processes TRANSITION What processes does the Acquirer need?
  • #18 CMMI = Capability Maturity Model Integration CMMI-AM = Capability Maturity Model Integration-Acquisition Module SE/SW = Systems Engineering/Software Engineering IPPD = Integrated Product and Process Development RFP = Request for Proposal SS = Supplier Sourcing The arrow from operational need originally was curved and pointed directly into acquisition planning. In reality, per discussions with acquisition officers, it applies to all acquirer functions. Thus the arrow was changed to point more to the overall box in general Acquisition is a team sport. With both the Acquirer and the Developer on the SAME team. Each has a role to play, and Process is an important element in each of these roles. Ultimately, the goal of both the Acquirer and the Developer is to translate an Operational Need into a fieldable and supportable product. In pursuit of this: the Acquirer Plans the acquisition, Develops an RFP, Solicits proposals, Selects a source, Monitors the project throughout development, Accepts the product, Transitions the product to operations The Developer Plans the development, Designs the product, Develops the product, Integrates and tests the product. Delivers the product The processes used by the developer and the acquirer are different but similar CMMI-Acquisition Module recommends Acquirers processes CMMI recommends Developers processes
  • #20 Theme of slide: Primary emphasis of the People-CMM is building workforce capability whereas for CMMI-DEV (ACQ, SVC) it is building process capability. However, they both support in some fashion the workforce capability and process capability. Text: A Capability Maturity Model is a process improvement model which aids in the definition and understanding of an organization&amp;apos;s processes. (click) CMMI for Development (Acquisition and Services) provides organizations with the essential elements of effective processes to meet the organizations goals or mission within the specific domains targeted for improvement. (click) The People CMM is to improve the organization’s workforce practices to deploy a more capable workforce. That is a workforce with the right level of knowledge, skills and process abilities that (click) enables the capability of the organizations processes and (click) improves overall organizational performance.