Capability Maturity Models

1
Capability Maturity Models

• CSSE 372, Software Project Management
• Mark Ardis, Rose-Hulman Institute
• January 11, 2005

2
Acknowledgments

• Some material was taken from a tutorial by Mike
  Phillips of the Software Engineering Institute
  (SEI)
• http//www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/ presentations/euro-
  sepg-tutorial/
• Some material was taken from the SW-CMM Maturity
  Profile
• http//www.sei.cmu.edu/sema/ profile_SW-CMM.html
  

3
Outline

• History of Capability Maturity Models
• Why focus on Process?
• CMMI
• Appraisal
• Results

4
History (1/3)

• In the beginning there was chaos...
• Department of Defense spent millions of dollars
  on software that was never completed.
• Contractor selection was unscientific
• Meanwhile, process gurus (Deming, Crosby, Juran)
  taught the Japanese how to improve manufacturing

5
History (2/3)

• Crosby wrote Quality is Free in 1979
• included the concept of a quality management
  maturity grid
• Ron Radice at IBM adapted that to software in
  early 1980s at IBM
• Software Engineering Institute (SEI) created in
  mid 1980s
• Watts Humphrey brought work of Ron Radice to SEI

6
History (3/3)

• SEI created Capability Maturity Model (CMM) for
  software, others were developed later
• Systems engineering
• Software acquisition
• People
• Increasing pressure to integrate all the models
  led to the Capability Maturity Model Integration
  (CMMI)

7
Why Process?
8
Underlying Premise of Process Improvement
The quality of a product is largely determined
by the quality of the process that is used to
develop and maintain it.
Based on TQM principles as taught by Juran,
Deming and Crosby.
9
Categories of Benefits

• Improved schedule and budget predictability
• Improved cycle time
• Increased productivity
• Improved quality (as measured by defects)
• Increased customer satisfaction
• Improved employee morale
• Increased return on investment
• Decreased cost of quality

10
Results Boeing Effort Estimation
Improved Schedule and Budget Predictability
140
.
Over/Under Percentage
.
. . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
. . . . . .
. .
. . . .
. . . . .
. . . .
.
. .
.
.
..
.
.
.
. . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . .
.
.
. . . .
. .. ....
.. . .. . ..
.
. . .
0
. . . .
.
.
. .
. . . .. .
.
.
. . .
. . . . .
. . . . . .
.
.
. ..
.
.
. .
..
.
.
. .
. . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
. . . . . .
..
.
. . . . .
.
.
. .
.
.
. . . . . .
..
..
.
. . . . .
. . . . . .
.
.
.
.
. . . . .
.
. . . . . .
. . .
.
. .
.
.
.
-140
Without Historical Data
With Historical Data
Variance between 20 to - 145
Variance between - 20 to 20

(Mostly Level 1 2)
(Level 3)
(Based on 120 projects in Boeing Information
Systems)
Reference John D. Vu. Software Process
Improvement JourneyFrom Level 1 to Level 5.
7th SEPG Conference, San Jose, March 1997.
11
Improved Cycle Time
Source Software Engineering Div., Hill AFB,
Published in Crosstalk May 1999
12
Increased Productivity
Source Software Engineering Div., Hill AFB,
Published in Crosstalk May 1999
13
Increased Productivity and Quality

14
Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMISM)
15
The CMMI Project

• DoD sponsored collaboration between industry,
  Government, SEI
• Over 100 people involved

• KPMG
• Lockheed Martin
• Motorola
• Northrop Grumman
• Pacific Bell
• Q-Labs
• Raytheon
• Reuters
• Rockwell Collins
• SAIC
• Software Productivity Consortium
• Sverdrup Corporation
• TeraQuest
• Thomson CSF
• TRW

• U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force
• Federal Aviation Administration
• National Security Agency
• Software Engineering Institute
• ADP, Inc.
• ATT Labs
• BAE
• Boeing
• Computer Sciences Corporation
• EER Systems
• Ericsson Canada
• Ernst and Young
• General Dynamics
• Harris Corporation
• Honeywell

16
CMMI Models
CMMI-SE/SW Staged Representation
CMMI-SE/SW Continuous Representation

• Source Models
• Capability Maturity Model for Software V2, draft
  C (SW-CMM V2C)
• EIA Interim Standard 731, System Engineering
  Capability Model (SECM)
• Integrated Product Development Capability
  Maturity Model, draft V0.98 (IPD-CMM)

• Combined System Engineering / Software
  Engineering model
• Can be applied to
• Just the software engineering projects in an
  organization
• Just the system engineering projects in an
  organization
• Both

17
Advantages of Each Representation
18
Staged Representation
19
The Maturity Levels
Optimizing
Optimizing
Focus on processimprovement
Quantitatively Managed
Process measuredand controlled
Defined
Defined
Process characterized for the organization and is
proactive
Managed
Process characterized for projects and is often
reactive
Performed
Process unpredictable, poorly controlled and
reactive
20
Maturity Levels Cannot Be Skipped

• A level provides a necessary foundation for
  effective implementation of processes at the next
  level.
• Higher level processes are easily sacrificed
  without the discipline provided by lower levels.
• The effect of innovation is obscured in a noisy
  process.

21
How Long Does It Take?

• For organizations that began theirCMM-based SPI
  effort in 1992 or later,the median time to move
  from
• maturity level 1 to 2 was 22 months
• maturity level 2 to 3 was 19 months
• maturity level 3 to 4 was 25 months
• maturity level 4 to 5 was 13 months

22
Why Does It Take So Long? (1/2)

• Training
• Staff need to learn how to assess and change the
  process
• Management needs to learn how to support process
  assessment and change
• Technical staff need to appreciate need for
  process assessment and change
• Assessment Process
• Collection of data
• Analysis of results

23
Why Does It Take So Long? (2/2)

• Changing the Process
• Train staff
• Establish goals
• Measure
• Analyze
• Act on recommendations

24
Process Areas
25
Process Areas

• Process Areas (PAs) are clusters of
  relatedpractices performed collectively to
  achieve a set of goals.
• They are the major building blocks in
  establishing the process capability of an
  organization.
• Each process area has been defined to reside at
  a given maturity level.

26
Process Areas at Level 2

• Requirements Management
• Project Planning
• Project Monitoring and Control
• Supplier Agreement Management
• Measurement and Analysis
• Process and Product Quality Assurance
• Configuration Management

27
Process Areas at Level 3

• Requirements Development
• Technical Solution
• Product Integration
• Verification
• Validation
• Organizational Process Focus
• Organizational Process Definition

• Organizational Training
• Integrated Project Management
• Integrated Supplier Management
• Risk Management
• Decision Analysis and Resolution
• Organizational Environment for Integration
• Integrated Teaming

28
Process Areas at Level 4

• Organizational Process Performance
• Quantitative Project Management

29
Process Areas at Level 5

• Organizational Innovation and Deployment
• Causal Analysis and Resolution

30
SW-CMM v1.1 vs. CMMI
Defect Prevention Causal Analysis and
Resolution Technology Change Mgmt Organizational
Innovation Deployment Process Change
Management Quantitative Process
Mgmt Organizational Process Performance Software
Quality Mgmt Quantitative Project
Management Organization Process
Focus Organization Process Focus Organization
Process Definition Organization Process
Definition Training Program Organizational
Training Integrated Software Mgmt Integrated
Project Management Risk Management Software
Product Engr Requirements Development Technical
Solution Product Integration Intergroup
Coordination Verification Peer Reviews
Validation Decision Analysis and
Resolution Requirements Management Requirements
Management Software Project Planning Project
Planning Software Project Tracking
Oversight Project Monitoring and
Control Software Subcontract Mgmt Supplier
Agreement Management Software Quality
Assurance Product Process Quality Assurance
Software Configuration Mgmt Configuration
Management Measurement and Analysis
LEVEL 5 OPTIMIZING
LEVEL 4 MANAGED
LEVEL 3 DEFINED
LEVEL 2 REPEATABLE
30
31
Appraisal
32
Standard CMMI Appraisal Method for Process
Improvement (SCAMPI)

• Led by authorized Lead Appraiser
• Tailorable to organization and model scope
• Source selection appraisals or process monitoring
  are tailoring options of SCAMPI

33
Data Collection
34
Reported Maturity Profiles
35
Organization Categories
36
Organization Type
37
Organization Size
38
USA vs. Non-USA
39
Number of Reported Appraisals
40
Maturity Trends
41
More Information

• http//sei.cmu.edu/cmmi
• http//sei.cmu.edu/sema