The paper presents a new model called m∆ (mdelta) designed to quantify maturity levels of organizations, particularly in relation to the CMMI framework. It outlines the need for effective process improvement and continuous development to elevate organizations from lower to higher maturity levels while focusing on practical implementation strategies. The paper includes case studies demonstrating the application of m∆ in real scenarios, emphasizing the importance of ongoing evaluation and adaptation in response to changing market needs.

1. 2nd International Colloquium
On
High Maturity Best Practices 2011
(HMBP 2011)
Presenting a Paper
On
M∆ - MDelta
Quantifying Maturity
By
Sushant Mukund Hublikar
E-mail: shublika@cisco.com
Ph: +91-9886752443
Cisco Systems India Pvt. Ltd.,
Salarpuria Hallmark, Kadubeesanahalli,
Opposite to New Horizon College,
Outer Ring Road.
BANGALORE – 560061

2. Page |2
Abstract
The main intention of this paper is to bring into focus, a new model developed to
gauge the maturity levels of the organizations or the independent business units within
organizations and to provide a simple method of evaluating focus areas to achieve higher
maturity levels and sustain at those levels with continuous improvement. In this paper, we
would be mainly talking about MDelta, the model being proposed, its need, applications and
outcome.
Prologue
Models, Maturity Levels and M∆
Delta (∆) is a Greek alphabet which signifies finite differences between functions, basically
used in mathematics and computational analysis.
In this paper, we have proposed a new model appropriately called as MDelta (M∆). This
model basically constitutes methods/techniques of evaluating “differences” between the
immediate maturity levels of the CMMI Model.
CMMI best practices are published in documents called models, each of which addresses a
different area of interest. CMMI currently addresses three areas of interest:
1. Product and service development - CMMI for Development (CMMI-DEV),
2. Service establishment, management, and delivery - CMMI for Services (CMMI-
SVC),
3. Product and service acquisition - CMMI for Acquisition (CMMI-ACQ).
The current release of CMMI is Version 1.3, developed in November 2010.
Using the improvement path known as the staged representation enables you to achieve
“maturity levels”. Maturity levels apply to an organization’s process improvement
achievement across multiple process areas. These levels are a means of improving the
processes corresponding to a given set of process areas (i.e., maturity level). There are 5
maturity levels numbered 1 through 5.
• The maturity levels are measured by the achievement of the specific and
generic goals associated with each predefined set of process areas.
CMMI Levels 4 and 5 are known as the High Maturity Levels.
Achieving maturity level 4 involves implementing all process areas for maturity levels 2, 3,
and 4. Likewise, achieving maturity level 5 involves implementing all process areas for
maturity levels 2, 3, 4, and 5.
• M∆ attempts to quantify the maturity and ascertains the progress required
in the process areas of the lower maturity levels to elevate to the high
maturity levels.
HMBP 2011 | M∆

3. Page |3
Endeavouring to quantify the maturity indicates the need of the organizations to be
“appraised” to higher maturity levels and maintain a stable process improvement cycle.
Adhering to the focus of this year's Colloquium, "High Maturity: A Practical Approach", this
paper makes a sincere effort to address on “How to Implement” rather than “What Activities
To Implement”.
• CMMI for Development (CMMI-DEV) model has been used as the model for reference
in this paper to demonstrate the usage of M∆.
Changing trends in the market currently are at the highest pace and so are the customer
needs. Therefore, there is a need for organizations to adhere to the customer desires by
bringing out quality products without any slippage in time and at the same time maintaining
standard processes and standards throughout the lifecycle. This can be gauged better with
the help of a quantifiable entity which would recognize the areas needing enhancements.
M∆ attempts to do the same.
HMBP 2011 | M∆

4. Page |4
Let’s Achieve!
Implementation of M∆
Let us consider the process areas of the High Maturity levels and the immediate lower
Maturity level 3:
CAR - Causal Analysis and Resolution
Maturity Level 5
Optimizing
OPM - Organizational Performance Management
High Maturity
Levels Maturity Level 4 OPP - Organizational Process Performance
Quantitatively
Managed QPM - Quantitative Project Management
DAR - Decision Analysis and Resolution
IPM - Integrated Project Management
OPD - Organizational Process Definition
OPF - Organizational Process Focus
OT - Organizational Training
Lower Maturity Maturity Level 3
Level PI - Product Integration
Defined
RD - Requirements Development
RSKM - Risk Management
TS - Technical Solution
VAL – Validation
VER – Verification
Table 1: Immediate Maturity Levels
HMBP 2011 | M∆

5. Page |5
Maturity Level 3 (Defined) to Maturity Level 4 (Quantitatively Managed):
To achieve High Maturity Level 4, we need to understand the Maturity Level 3 areas where
the organizations/business units require regulation.
Therefore, we are suggesting a simple method where we can divide the nine process areas
of the ML 3 into groups equal to as many process areas of ML 4 i.e. a set of 4 process areas
(Group 1) in ML 3 has been directly mapped to the Organizational Process Performance
(OPP) PA of ML 4 and the remaining 7 (Group 2) have been mapped to the Quantitative
Project Management (QPM) PA of the ML 4 respectively.
This grouping or classification has been done based on the specific goals associated with
each of the PA of ML 3 which closely satisfies the goals of the corresponding PA of ML 4.
To elaborate, let us consider OPP => Organizational Process Performance PA of ML 4.
The purpose of OPP is to
• Establish and maintain a quantitative understanding of the performance of
selected processes in the organization’s set of standard processes in
support of achieving quality and process performance objectives
• To provide process performance data, baselines, and models to
quantitatively manage the organization’s projects.
Now, scanning the PAs of ML 3 which closely relate to OPP, we have the following:
OPD => Organizational Process Definition involves establishing and maintaining a
usable set of organizational process assets, work environment standards, and rules and
guidelines for teams.
OPF => Organizational Process Focus which involves planning, implementing, and
deploying organizational process improvements based on a thorough understanding of
current strengths and weaknesses of the organization’s processes and process assets.
OT => Organizational Training involves developing skills and knowledge of people so
they can perform their roles effectively and efficiently.
Similarly, let us consider QPM => Quantitative Project Management PA of ML 4.
The purpose of QPM is to
• Quantitatively manage the project to achieve the project’s established
quality and process performance objectives.
The PAs of ML 3 which closely relate to QPM are:
DAR => Decision Analysis and Resolution involves analyzing possible decisions using a
formal evaluation process that evaluates identified alternatives against established criteria.
HMBP 2011 | M∆

6. Page |6
IPM => Integrated Project Management involves establishing and managing the
project and the involvement of relevant stakeholders according to an integrated and defined
process that is tailored from the organization’s set of standard processes.
PI => Product Integration involves assembling the product from the product
components, ensuring that the product possesses the required functionality and quality
attributes, and delivering the product.
RD => Requirements Development involves analyzing, and establishing customer,
product, and product component requirements.
RSKM => Risk Management involves identifying potential problems before they occur so
that risk handling activities can be planned and invoked as needed across the life of the
product or project to mitigate adverse impacts on achieving objectives.
TS => Technical Solution involves selecting, designing, and implementing solutions
to requirements.
VAL => Validation involves demonstrating that a product or product component fulfils
its intended use when placed in its intended environment.
VER => Verification involves ensuring that selected work products meet their specified
requirements.
Referring to the figure below, we have:
M∆ = ML 4 – ML 3
M∆1 = f (OPP) - f (OPD + OPF + OT)
M∆2 = f (QPM) – f (DAR + IPM + PI + RD + RSKM + TS + VAL + VER)
ML 3
M∆ = M∆1 + M∆2
This would help to quantify or single out the areas which need focus and improvements to
achieve higher maturity.
DAR
IPM
ML 4
OPD
OPF
OT
PI
RD
RSKM
TS HMBP 2011 | M∆
VAL
VER Figure 1: Mapping PAs of ML 3 to ML 4

7. Page |7
OPP
QPM
Maturity Level 4 (Quantitatively Managed) to Maturity Level 5 (Optimizing):
To achieve High Maturity Level 5, the levels of maturity level 4 need to be “sustained” and
constantly improved upon.
M∆ = ML 5 – ML 4
M∆ = f (CAR + OPM) – f (OPP + QPM)
Let us consider CAR => Causal Analysis and Resolution PA of ML 5
The purpose of CAR is to
• Identify causes of selected outcomes and take action to improve process
performance.
• Improving quality and productivity by preventing the introduction of defects
or problems and by identifying and appropriately incorporating the causes
of superior process performance.
The QPM PA of ML 4 relates closely to the CAR PA of ML 5 due to the following similarities:
CAR mainly deals with the identifying and analyzing causes of selected outcomes and taking
actions to remove causes, prevent the recurrence of defects and problems in the future, and
proactively analyze data to identify potential problems and prevent them from occurring
whereas one of the specific goals of QPM involves performing root cause analysis of selected
issues to address deficiencies in achieving the project’s quality and process performance
objectives.
HMBP 2011 | M∆

8. Page |8
Similarly, the purpose of OPM => Organizational Performance Management PA of ML 5 is
• Proactively manage the organization’s performance to meet its business
objectives.
• Iteratively analyzing aggregated project data, identifying gaps in
performance against the business objectives, and selecting and deploying
improvements to close the gaps.
Similarly the OPM PA of ML 5 is satisfied by the combined achievement of OPP and QPM PAs
of ML 4.
The OPM PA addresses improved product quality (e.g., functionality, quality attributes),
increased productivity, increased process efficiency and effectiveness, increased consistency
in meeting budget and schedule, greater customer and end-user satisfaction, shorter
development or production time to change functionality, add new features, or adapt to new
technologies, and improved use of resources across the organization while the OPP PAs
satisfy them at the same level by addressing: organizational quantitative quality and
process performance objectives based on business, establishing definitions of the measures
to be used in process performance analyses, establishing process performance baselines and
process performance models along with QPM which involves selecting sub-processes and
attributes critical to understanding performance and that help to achieve the project’s
quality and process performance objectives, selecting measures and analytic techniques to
be used in quantitative management, monitoring the performance of selected sub-processes
using statistical and other quantitative techniques, managing the project using statistical
and other quantitative techniques to determine whether or not the project’s objectives for
quality and process performance are being satisfied.
ML 4 ML 5
OPP CAR
QPM OPM
Figure 2: Mapping PAs of ML 4 to ML 5
Therefore,
M∆ = ML 5 – ML 4
M∆1 = f (CAR) - f (QPM)
HMBP 2011 | M∆

9. Page |9
M∆2 = f (OPM) – f (OPP + QPM)
M∆ = M∆1 + M∆2
High Maturity Process Areas require more of improvements than implementation. The
processes are there and standards are set but the focus is more towards how well the
processes are sustained and how actively are the standards followed to make it a regular
way of doing business.
In the next section, we will look a few case studies for the application and results of M∆.
HMBP 2011 | M∆

10. P a g e | 10
Case Study
Applications and Results of M∆
Scenario 1:
A software development organization currently appraised at CMMI Maturity Level 3 is aiming
for a High Maturity appraisal. It has established and implemented all the required processes
and achieved the specific/generic goals of Level 3. However, though the products being
developed by the organization are delivered on time to the market, there is gradual
decrease in the quality of the products and the customers are circumspect about this.
The organization stands at a precarious position where it may be demoted from the Level 3
appraisal during the next audit cycle. The board of directors, the engineering heads and the
senior management set up a meeting to discuss the areas they are falling behind and how
to overcome and improve the processes followed.
Approach:
• Identify the Process Areas of Level 3 where the processes are not being followed as
recommended starting from the gathering the requirements.
i. Are the product managers analyzing the customer needs and providing the
proper requirements? => RD
ii. Has the correct solution for the requirement, design and development been
selected to build the product? => TS
iii. Are the required product components (infrastructure/environment) being used
correctly to build the right product to possess the required functionality and
quality attributes? => PI
iv. Does the final product fulfil its intended use when placed in its intended
environment? => VAL
v. Does the final product meet the specified requirements? => VER
vi. Are the correct project management processes implemented for the product
development followed with the involvement of the relevant stakeholders? =>
IPM
vii. Are the risks encountered during the project handled effectively and on
priority? => RSKM
viii. Are the organizational process assets, work environment standards, rules and
guidelines employed as per the standards set by the organization? => OPD
ix. Has the organization identified the correct processes to be followed based on
the thorough understanding of its current strengths and weaknesses? => OPF
x. Are the resources well-trained enough to perform their roles effectively and
efficiently? => OT
HMBP 2011 | M∆

11. P a g e | 11
xi. Are correct decisions being taken at the right time that has a minimal effect
on the ability of the project to achieve its objectives? => DAR
Deduce:
• According to the scenario, the product is delivered “on time” but the quality is
decreasing. Considering this situation, we can shortlist RD, TS and PI as the three
areas which need improvement.
M∆ = ML 4 – ML 3
M∆1 = OPP – (OPD + OPF + OT) = No differences.
M∆2 = QPM – (DAR + IPM + PI + RD + RSKM + TS + VAL + VER) = PI + RD + TS
M∆ = M∆1 + M∆2 = PI + RD + TS
How To Implement:
• Now, analyse the specific goals of each of these PAs:
i. RD: Are the product managers analyzing the customer needs and providing
the proper requirements?
No > Analyse the market and find out the trends and the changing
customer needs
Yes > The requirements gathered are correct.
ii. TS: Has the correct solution for the requirement, design and development
been selected to build the product?
No > The solution suggested is incorrect because of ambiguous
requirements.
Yes > The solution decided upon is correct.
iii. PI: Are the required product components (infrastructure/environment) being
used correctly to build the right product to possess the required functionality
and quality attributes?
No > The product components are causing a change in the functionality.
Yes > The product components used are correct
Any of these three areas would have failed for the decrease in quality. Reworking on
them will fetch good results and thereby identifies how to prevent such deviations in
the future.
Sustenance:
• Sustaining at Level 3 and to continually improve the processes to appraise to Level 4,
the organizations need to perform this activity, frequently, say, once in a quarter, on
all the projects that are delivered during that time period.
HMBP 2011 | M∆

12. P a g e | 12
How?
 Perform a M∆ for each project.
 Ensure there are no process areas identified for improvements.
 Ensure the specific process area goals are achieved.
Ex: In the above scenario, in the next release of the product, validating the
requirements with the customer needs by direct interactions, sharing the
solution to verify the requirements and frequent display of the product
prototypes will immensely help to get a clear picture on the final solution.
Similarly, in the coming release, following the same process leads to the
evolution of an organizational standard which every project would follow.
Conclusion:
Once these areas have been taken care of, the organization remains CMMI Level 3
appraised but has a good chance to be appraised to Level 4, as all the other process
areas are taken care of.
QPM = No delta.
OPP = No delta
Scenario 2:
A small-scale organization has done well to reach CMMI Level 3 and is looking for an
appraisal towards CMMI Level 4. Customers are readily offering projects to the
organization and the need for more human resources has been answered by an
urgent recruitment drive. The hasty process has ended up in candidates with false
experience joining the organization. This has dealt a severe blow to the confidence
level of the customers with their projects delivered with a huge number of faults and
the standard processes to be followed have also deviated in order to meet the
deadlines. The management are in a fix to identify the crux of this issue.
Approach:
• Identify the Process Areas of Level 3 where the processes are not being followed as
recommended starting from the gathering the requirements.
i. Are the correct project management processes implemented for the product
development followed with the involvement of the relevant stakeholders? =>
IPM
ii. Are the risks encountered during the project handled effectively and on
priority? => RSKM
iii. Are the organizational process assets, work environment standards, rules and
guidelines employed as per the standards set by the organization? => OPD
HMBP 2011 | M∆

13. P a g e | 13
iv. Has the organization identified the correct processes to be followed based on
the thorough understanding of its current strengths and weaknesses? => OPF
v. Are the resources well-trained enough to perform their roles effectively and
efficiently? => OT
vi. Are correct decisions being taken at the right time that has a minimal effect
on the ability of the project to achieve its objectives? => DAR
Deduce:
• According to the scenario, the processes have been deviated and the resources are
not “well-trained” to perform their roles efficiently. Considering this situation, we can
shortlist OPD, OPF, OT, IPM and RSKM as the areas which need improvement.
M∆ = ML 4 – ML 3
M∆1 = OPP – (OPD + OPF + OT) = OPD + OPF + OT
M∆2 = QPM – (DAR + IPM + PI + RD + RSKM + TS + VAL + VER) = IPM + RSKM
M∆ = M∆1 + M∆2 = OPD + OPF + OT + IPM + RSKM + DAR
How to Implement:
• Analysing the specific goals of the PAs
i. Are the correct project management processes implemented for the product
development followed with the involvement of the relevant stakeholders? =>
IPM
No > The processes were not followed as recommended. The last minute
rush to delivery has heavily impacted the adherence to the processes.
Yes > The standard processes have been followed effectively.
ii. Are the risks encountered during the project handled effectively and on
priority? => RSKM
No > The correct risks were not identified and overall the project was
delivered open to risks.
Yes > The risks were identified and the appropriate mitigation plan were
put in place.
iii. Are the organizational process assets, work environment standards, rules and
guidelines employed as per the standards set by the organization? => OPD
No > The infrastructure/environment required for the under-trained
resources and the time (and in turn, money) spent to make them acquaint
with the project was heavily utilized thus violating the threshold of their
usage. There were also cases of attrition because of the pressure involved
thereby the deteriorating the work environment.
HMBP 2011 | M∆

14. P a g e | 14
Yes > The assets, standards were efficiently followed and there was
professionalism maintained at the workplace.
iv. Has the organization identified the correct processes to be followed based on
the thorough understanding of its current strengths and weaknesses? => OPF
No > The organization failed in the process of staffing the right candidates
required for the job. There was no background verification done on the
candidates and hence had to bear the embarrassment for the poor project
delivery.
Yes > The organization strengthened it stronger areas of operation and
utilized minimal of its weakest areas.
Ex: Being a small scale organization, the new candidates faced the shortage
of owning work place desks for themselves. Therefore, the organization
decided to depute them at the client’s place directly. This will provide more
interaction with the client and work getting done faster.
v. Are the resources well-trained enough to perform their roles effectively and
efficiently? => OT
No > The recruited candidates were not enough experienced to handle the
projects as soon as they were on the job. There was a sufficient amount of
training required thereby using up much important time on the same.
Yes > The candidates were well suited for the job and the right resources
have been employed to handle the projects on the go.
Again, failure in any of these areas would have led to the deviations in the processes.
Sustenance:
• Re-define the organizational processes frequently and communicate the same to
each and every employee, including new hires. Any new hire would obviously require
some time to get acclimatized to the work and the work place but ensuring that the
time is within the consumption of the overall project is a challenge to maintain. This
can be achieved only by setting up a standard documentation for every new hire and
revisit them often for changes in line with the organizational standards.
Also, revisit the organizational processes of the recruiting/staffing unit and make
certain that the correct practices as followed.
How?
 Perform a M∆ after each medium-to-large scale recruitment drive.
 Ensure there are no process areas identified for improvements.
 Ensure the specific process area goals are achieved.
Ex: In the above scenario, in the next event of recruitment, identifying
candidates who satisfy the requirements completely or who are certified in
the technology required for the organization would be a good practice rather
than accepting candidates who just closely match the requirements. Also,
putting in place an entire new hire training unit department with a detailed
HMBP 2011 | M∆

15. P a g e | 15
outlined courses on the technologies needed would help the organization save
time on training and thereby utilizing the candidates immediately on the job
and delivering the projects on time.
Following the same process during every hiring campaign leads to the
evolution of an organizational standard which forms the core of organizational
processes.
Conclusion:
Once these areas have been taken care of, the organization remains CMMI Level 3
appraised but has a good chance to be appraised to Level 4, as all the other process
areas are taken care of.
QPM = No delta.
OPP = No delta
Scenario 3:
An IT bellwether appraised at CMMI Level 4 is pursuing CMMI Level 5 achievement. It
has well-laid organizational standards, efficient project specific processes, best practices in
the fields of Human Resources and technology. Customers are very keen on doing business
with the organization as they are aware of the kind of quality with which the projects are
delivered with and their promises being kept. However, sustaining the improvements within
the processes has been a minor hiccup with the company. The external auditing firm has
listed the areas which need “further” improvement.
Approach:
• Identify the Process Areas of Level 4 where the processes require more precision and
the projects where the standards need to be maintained.
i. Are the organization’s set of standard processes in support of achieving
quality and process performance objectives, and to provide process
performance data, baselines maintained? => OPP
ii. Are the projects managed quantitatively to achieve the project’s established
quality and process performance objectives? => QPM
Deduce:
• According to the scenario, the organization has well-defined standards and has
created a stronghold for itself in the market with respect to the quality of work
delivered.
In this case,
M∆ = ML 5 – ML 4
M∆1 = CAR - QPM
M∆2 = OPM – (OPP + QPM)
HMBP 2011 | M∆

16. P a g e | 16
M∆ = M∆1 + M∆2 = OPP + QPM
How to Implement:
• Analyzing the specific goals of the PAs
i. Are the organization’s set of standard processes in support of achieving
quality and process performance objectives, and to provide process
performance data, baselines maintained? => OPP
No > The products were not delivered within budget and on time, the
productivity was not improved, the customer ratings did not increase and they
remained the same.
Yes > The products were delivered on time and were of high quality and
even the customer ratings have shot up. Time-to-market has improved by a
specified percent.
ii. Are the projects managed quantitatively to achieve the project’s established
quality and process performance objectives? => QPM
No > The products performance attributes such as Usability, Reliability,
and Maintainability were not improved. The cycle time and the percentage of
rework time did not reduce. Schedule slippage did not improve.
Yes > The products function much better now, the mean time between
failures is at an all-time low, the total lifecycle cost has been reduced by a
specified percent.
Stagnation in any of the above areas would have led to the deviations in the
processes.
Sustenance:
• Constantly improving the processes set by the organization and regularly monitoring
them at equal intervals of a time period assists in recognizing the best practices
being followed within the business units as well as the organizational level. Drill down
to the individual teams of the business units and the processes they follow to carry
out their roles efficiently. Ensure the same is being done at the unit level, being in
sync with the set standards.
How?
 Perform a M∆ at the individual team levels.
 Check the process areas which need “further” improvement.
 Ensure the specific process area goals are achieved
Ex: A team comprising of certified testers who were also genuinely
experienced in their domain followed the process of improving their cycle time
by constantly automating the test cases developed for the previous release.
By doing so, they were able to reduce to time taken for manual testing on the
existing test cases and concentrated only on the newer features. This led to a
HMBP 2011 | M∆

17. P a g e | 17
decrease in the total time for of the testing phase and at the same time
quality was also kept in check.
 Perform a M∆ at a unit level. Repeat the same steps further up the hierarchy.
Conclusion:
Once these areas have been taken care of, the organization remains CMMI Level 3
appraised but has a good chance to be appraised to Level 4, as all the other process
areas are taken care of.
CAR = No delta.
OPM = No delta
Epilogue
Accomplished
In this paper, there has been an endeavour to bring out a simple method which
organizations can follow to determine the maturity level differences in their processes
and standards in pursuit of High Maturity. The M∆ approach can be applied to CMMI
for Services (CMMI-SVC), CMMI for Acquisition (CMMI-ACQ) models as well and
evaluate the process areas which would need improvement and assist the
organizations to achieve High Maturity.
Hopefully, M∆ at the least provides a way of singling out processes or standards
which need to re-worked upon. This has been an earnest endeavour to put forth the
ideas presented in the paper. Organizations can validate the ideas put forth here and
find out if it really helps.
HMBP 2011 | M∆

18. P a g e | 18
References
1. CMMI® for Development, Version 1.3. (http://www.sei.cmu.edu)
2. Self Ideation
3. Wikipedia
Author’s Biography
 Possessing 5.5+ yrs of experience in Software Testing/Quality Assurance.
 Currently employed with Cisco Systems India Pvt Ltd., as a QA Engineer.
 Advanced Level ISTQB Certified (Test Analyst)
 Presented a White Paper at Software Testing Conference 2010 conducted by
QAI.
 A Passionate Tester.
Appendix
CAR - Causal Analysis and Resolution
CMMI - Capability Maturity Model Integration
DAR - Decision Analysis and Resolution
IPM - Integrated Project Management
M∆ - MDelta (Maturity Delta)
ML - Maturity Level
OPD - Organizational Process Definition
OPF - Organizational Process Focus
OPM - Organizational Performance Management
OPP - Organizational Process Performance
OT - Organizational Training
PA - Process Area
QPM - Quantitative Project Management
PI - Product Integration
RD - Requirements Development
RSKM - Risk Management
TS - Technical Solution
VAL - Validation
VER - Verification
HMBP 2011 | M∆