Understanding Model Representations and Levels: What Do They Mean?

Similar documents
Software Engineering. Lecture 7: CMMI

CMM,,mproving and,ntegrating

CMMI SM Model Measurement and Analysis

MEASURING PROCESS CAPABILITY VERSUS ORGANIZATIONAL PROCESS MATURITY

A Global Overview of The Structure

Update Observations of the Relationships between CMMI and ISO 9001:2000

How to Develop Highly Useable CMMI Documentation

Chapter 6. Software Quality Management & Estimation

NDIA Systems Engineering Division. November in partnership with: Software Engineering Institute Carnegie Mellon University

Capability Maturity Model

SWEN 256 Software Process & Project Management

Software Project Management Sixth Edition. Chapter Software process quality

Process Quality Levels of ISO/IEC 15504, CMMI and K-model

CMMI Capability Maturity Model Integration [CMU SEI]

Boldly Going Where Few Have Gone Before SCAMPI SM C Appraisal Using the CMMI for Acquisition

Highlights of CMMI and SCAMPI 1.2 Changes

This chapter illustrates the evolutionary differences between

CMM and CMMI : Show Me the Value!

CMMI Version 1.2. Model Changes

CMMI for Technical Staff

Capability Maturity Model for Software (SW-CMM )

SOFTWARE ENGINEERING SOFTWARE PROCESS. Saulius Ragaišis.

Teuvo Suntio. Quality Development Tools. Professor of Power Electronics at University of Oulu. Electronic System Design A TS Rev. 1.

9/24/2011 Sof o tw t a w re e P roc o e c s e s s s Mo M d o e d l e s l 1 Wh W a h t t i s i s a Pr P oc o ess s 2 1

CAPABILITY MATURITY MODEL INTEGRATION - CMMI. Software Engineering Competence Center

Measuring the Maturity Level of Core System Development Project in a Financial Company Using CMMI-DEV

Software technology 3. Process improvement models. BSc Course Dr. Katalin Balla

8. CMMI Standards and Certifications

Measurement in Higher Maturity Organizations: What s Different and What s Not?

By: MSMZ. Standardization

What s New in V1.3. Judah Mogilensky Process Enhancement Partners, Inc.

Best Practice Information Aids for CMMI SM -Compliant Process Engineering

Software Quality Management

Business Process Improvement Guided by the BPMM i

Rational Software White Paper TP 174

A Practical Guide to Implementing Levels 4 and 5

Practical Process Improvement: the Journey and Benefits

CMMI Level 2 for Practitioners: A Focused Course for Your Level 2 Efforts

CMMI SM Mini- Assessments

Proposed Approach to Heterogeneous CMMI. Appraisals. Joseph V. Vandeville. 14 November 2007

CMMI A-Specification. Version 1.7. November, For CMMI Version 1.2. This document is controlled by the CMMI Steering Group.

DORNERWORKS QUALITY SYSTEM

CC and CMMI. An Approach to Integrate CC with Development

Top 10 Signs You're Ready (or Not)

Given the competitive importance of

This resource is associated with the following paper: Assessing the maturity of software testing services using CMMI-SVC: an industrial case study

Measuring Performance: Evidence about the Results of CMMI

Quality Management with CMMI for Development v.1.3 (2013)

Project Selection for SCAMPI A

CERT Resilience Management Model, Version 1.2

Relationship between CMMI Maturity Levels and ISO/IEC Processes Capability Profiles

Achieving SA-CMM Maturity Level A DoD Acquisition Management Experience

Software Process Assessment

Contrasting CMMI and the PMBOK. Systems Engineering Conference October 2005

Two Branches of Software Engineering

SCRUM and the CMMI. The Wolf and the Lamb shall Feed Together

Transition from SW-CMM to CMMI : The Benefits Continue!

Introduction To The The Software Engineering Institute s Capability Maturity Model for Software

Quality Management of Software and Systems: Software Process Assessments

6. Capability Maturity Method (CMM)

Managing a Project and Keeping Sane While Wrestling Elegantly With PMBOK, Scrum and CMMI (Together or Any Combination)

Revista Economică 70:4 (2018) USING THE INTEGRATED CAPABILITY AND MATURITY MODEL IN THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS OF SOFTWARE SYSTEMS

MTAT Software Engineering Management

Introduction to Software Product Lines Patrick Donohoe Software Engineering Institute Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213

Strategies for Transitioning from SW-CMM to CMMI

Process Improvement Is Continuous Improvement

Ensuring BD Success With Metrics-Based Management

Implementing integration of quality standards CMMI and ISO 9001 : 2000 for software engineering

Streamlining Processes and Appraisals

CMMI for Services Quick Reference

CMMI Version 1.2 and Beyond

Lockheed Martin Benefits Continue Under CMMI

CMMI V2.0 MODEL AT-A-GLANCE. Including the following views: Development Services Supplier Management. CMMI V2.0 outline BOOKLET FOR print.

CM M Is for Services. AAddison-Wesley. Guidelines for Superior Service. Sandy Shrum. Second Edition. Eileen C. Forrester Brandon L Buteau

Finding the Perfect Recipe:

Q.A. Осигуряване на качество на софтуера (2016/2017, редовно/задочно)

Measurement and Analysis: What Can and Does Go Wrong?

Software Engineering Inspection Models Continued

CMMI Today The Current State

KM YOUR WAY TO CMMI. Abstract

CMMI GLOSSARY A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Evolutionary Differences Between CMM for Software and the CMMI

Tug the CFO s Purse String for a CMMI Program

CMMI Current State. Bob Rassa Industry CMMI Chair, Raytheon. Clyde Chittister Chief Operating Officer, Software Engineering Institute

CMMI Conference November 2006 Denver, Colorado

Maturing Measurement Capability The CMMI SM Measurement Thread and Recognized Industry Guidance - Standards

The CMMI Value Proposition

The Large System Problem

Collaborative Government / Contractor SCAMPI Appraisal

USAF Software Technology Support Center (STSC) STSC SPI Help Desk COM , DSN

Presented By: Mark Paulk

Headquarters Air Combat Command. Maturing the Enterprise Applying process improvement strategies to a large GIS program

Process Improvement: A Synergized Approach

A Measurement Approach Integrating ISO 15939, CMMI and the ISBSG

Using Pilots to Assess the Value and Approach of CMMI Implementation

The Rational Unified Process and the Capability Maturity Model Integrated Systems/Software Engineering

Software Engineering

Improving Your Play Book Lessons Learned from Proposal Benchmarking

TACOM-ARDEC Software Enterprise (SWE) CMMI Based Process Improvement

CMMI Update. Mary Beth Chrissis, as represented by: Pat O Toole Software Engineering Institute. Pittsburgh, PA May 15, 2008

Transcription:

Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890 Understanding Model Representations and Levels: What Do They Mean? Mary Beth Chrissis Mike Konrad Sandy Shrum Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Defense 2004 by Carnegie Mellon University CMMI is registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office by Carnegie Mellon University.

Topics Representations: Continuous and Staged Levels: Capability and Maturity Process Areas Selecting a Representation Summary 2004 by Carnegie Mellon University page 2

Understanding CMMI Representations Representations reflect different types of approaches to process improvement and emphasize the organization, use, and presentation of components in a model. There are two types of representations in CMMI models: staged continuous A representation in CMMI is analogous to a view into a data set provided by a database: The data viewed is the same for each representation. The use, organization, and presentation of the data are different. 2004 by Carnegie Mellon University page 3

Continuous Representation Allows you to choose a process area to improve and how far you would like to improve it Uses capability levels to characterize improvement Allows you to select the order of improvement that best meets your organization s business objectives and mitigates your organization s areas of risk Enables comparisons across and among organizations on a process area by process area basis 0 1 2 3 4 5 PA PA PA 2004 by Carnegie Mellon University page 4

Staged Representation Uses predefined sets of process areas to define an improvement path for organizations Uses maturity levels to characterize improvement Provides a single rating that summarizes appraisal results and allows comparisons among organizations 2004 by Carnegie Mellon University page 5

Comparison of Representations Staged Process improvement is measured using maturity levels. A maturity level is the degree of process improvement achieved across a predefined set of process areas. Organizational process maturity describes the degree to which the organization implements the behaviors described in a set of process areas. Continuous Process improvement is measured using capability levels. A capability level is the degree of process improvement achieved within an individual process area. Process area capability describes the degree to which the organization implements the behaviors described in a single process area. 2004 by Carnegie Mellon University page 6

Topics Representations: Continuous and Staged Levels: Capability and Maturity Process Areas Selecting a Representation Summary 2004 by Carnegie Mellon University page 7

Levels Levels provide a means to measure process improvement. What improvement do you want to measure? Improvement of a SINGLE process within your organization? Improvement of your organization (i.e., collection of processes that characterize organizational behavior)? CMMI levels are associated with a particular representation: The continuous representation has capability levels. The staged representation has maturity levels. 2004 by Carnegie Mellon University page 8

Maturity Levels A maturity level is a well-defined evolutionary plateau of process improvement. There are five maturity levels. Each maturity level has one generic goal. Each level is a layer in the foundation for continuous process improvement using a proven sequence of improvements, beginning with basic management practices and progressing through a predefined and proven path of successive levels. 2004 by Carnegie Mellon University page 9

The Maturity Levels 5 4 Focus on continuous process improvement Process measured and controlled Optimizing Quantitatively Managed 3 Process characterized for the organization and is proactive Defined 2 1 Process characterized for projects and is often reactive Process unpredictable, poorly controlled, and reactive Initial Managed 2004 by Carnegie Mellon University page 10

Capability Levels A capability level is a well-defined evolutionary plateau describing the organization s capability relative to a process area. There are six capability levels. For capability levels 1-5, there is an associated generic goal. Therefore, each process area has five generic goals associated with it. Each level is a layer in the foundation for continuous process improvement. Thus, capability levels are cumulative (i.e., a higher capability level includes the attributes of the lower levels). 2004 by Carnegie Mellon University page 11

The Capability Levels 5 Optimizing 4 Quantitatively Managed 3 Defined 2 Managed 1 Performed 0 Incomplete 2004 by Carnegie Mellon University page 12

Levels 0 and 1 Capability Level 0: Incomplete The process is either not performed or partially performed. One or more specific goals of the process area are not satisfied. Capability Level 1: Performed All specific goals of the process area are satisfied. Essential activities are performed and the work is accomplished. The process may be unstable and inconsistently implemented. Maturity Level 1: Initial Processes are performed but often in an ad-hoc and occasionally chaotic manner. Performance is dependent on the competence and heroics of the people. Performance is difficult to predict. 2004 by Carnegie Mellon University page 13

Level 0 and 1 Behavior The process is ad hoc. In Out Requirements flow in. A product is (sometimes) produced by some amorphous process. The product flows out and (we hope) works. 2004 by Carnegie Mellon University page 14

Level 2: Managed A managed process is a performed process that is also planned and executed in accordance with policy; employs skilled people having adequate resources to produce controlled outputs; involves relevant stakeholders; is monitored, controlled, and reviewed; and is evaluated for adherence to its process description. A managed process is institutionalized (i.e., ingrained in the way work is performed). Discipline helps ensure that existing practices are retained during times of stress. The status of activities and work products is visible to management at defined points. 2004 by Carnegie Mellon University page 15

Level 2 Behavior The process is managed. In Out Requirements flow in. Plans are developed in accordance with policies. Activities are performed in accordance with plans. Measurements and reviews occur at defined points. The product flows out and (usually) works. 2004 by Carnegie Mellon University page 16

Level 3: Defined A level 3 process is a defined process. This level builds on the foundation of level 2. A defined process is a managed process whose description is tailored from the organization s set of standard processes according to the organization s tailoring guidelines. This contributes work products, measures, and other process-improvement information to the organizational process assets. The organization s set of standard processes are established and improved over time. 2004 by Carnegie Mellon University page 17

Level 3 Behavior The process is managed according to a defined process. In Out Commonality allows more uniform estimation of performance and sharing of resources. 2004 by Carnegie Mellon University page 18

Level 4: Quantitatively Managed A level 4 process is a quantitatively managed process. A quantitatively managed process is a defined process that is controlled using statistical and other quantitative techniques. Statistical predictability is achieved. Projects use measurable objectives to meet the needs of the customers, end-users, and the organization. Managers and engineers use the data with statistical and other quantitative techniques in managing the processes and results. 2004 by Carnegie Mellon University page 19

Level 4 Levels 2 and 3 build a foundation defined processes, which - achieve consistency across the organization - provide a qualitative understanding of sub-processes and their relationships measures are collected and analyzed to understand and manage activities and results. - threshold limits are set, but not using statistical and other quantitative methods. - exceeding threshold limits triggers actions. Statistical and other quantitative methods are used, at the organizational and project levels, to understand past process performance, past product quality, and past service quality predict future process performance, future product quality, and future service quality 2004 by Carnegie Mellon University page 20

Level 4 Behavior Processes are quantitatively managed. In Out The behavior of the process is predictable and quantitatively understood. A quantitative basis exists for decisions to achieve established product quality, service quality, and processperformance goals. 2004 by Carnegie Mellon University page 21

Level 5: Optimizing A level 5 process is an optimizing process. An optimizing process is a quantitatively managed process that is changed and adapted to meet relevant current and projected business objectives. The focus is on continually improving the range of process performance through incremental and innovative technological improvements. Process improvement is inherently part of everybody s role, resulting in cycles of continual improvement. 2004 by Carnegie Mellon University page 22

Level 5 Behavior Processes and products are measurably improved. In Out Continual and measurable process improvement (while managing process stability) is a way of life. 2004 by Carnegie Mellon University page 23

Topics Representations: Continuous and Staged Levels: Capability and Maturity Process Areas Selecting a Representation Summary 2004 by Carnegie Mellon University page 24

Maturity Level 5 Process Management Project Management Engineering Support Organizational Innovation and Deployment Causal Analysis and Resolution 4 Organizational Process Performance Quantitative Project Management Organizational Process Focus Integrated Project Management for IPPD Requirements Development Decision Analysis and Resolution 3 Organizational Process Definition Organizational Training Risk Management Integrated Teaming Integrated Supplier Management Technical Solution Product Integration Verification Validation Organizational Environment for Integration 2 Project Planning Project Monitoring and Control Supplier Agreement Management Requirements Management Measurement and Analysis Process and Product Quality Assurance Configuration Management 1 Risk Rework 2004 by Carnegie Mellon University page 25

Topics Representations: Continuous and Staged Levels: Capability and Maturity Process Areas Selecting a Representation Summary 2004 by Carnegie Mellon University page 26

Selecting a Representation The most important consideration is which business objectives you would like your process improvement program to support and how these business objectives align with the two representations. When choosing a representation, consider the following factors: Business/Cultural Historical/Legacy 2004 by Carnegie Mellon University page 27

Business/Cultural Factors Business senior management vision knowledge of business objectives product line focus strategic alliance partners competition political pressure market pressure Culture process-based culture management s attitude toward change knowledge of organizational change management experience in process improvement TQM exposure strong engineering discipline culture 2004 by Carnegie Mellon University page 28

Historical/Legacy Factors Historical availability of case studies and return on investment data papers and publications SEI Process Appraisal Information System (PAIS) data ISO 9000 audit results quality improvement programs self-assessments Legacy experience with previous models (e.g., EIA-731, SE-CMM, SW-CMM) familiarity with existing CMMI terminology international standards such as ISO/IEC TR 15504 certification in ISO 9001 or Tickit PSP and TSP influences 2004 by Carnegie Mellon University page 29

Align with Business Goals Remember: Process improvement should be the driver behind the choice. The focus behind process improvement is the organization s business goals. 2004 by Carnegie Mellon University page 30

Advantages of Each Representation Continuous Representation Maximum flexibility to select the order of process improvement High visibility of improvement within process areas Easy upgrade from EIA 731 Easy comparison to ISO 15504 Ability to improve process areas at different rates Staged Representation Predefined and proven path with case study and ROI data Organizational improvement focus Easy upgrade from SW-CMM Familiar benchmarking capability Results that reflect maturity of the organization 2004 by Carnegie Mellon University page 31

Both Representations Support Each Other The continuous representation can be useful to an initiative focused on the staged representation as a guide for detailed planning for improvement within each process area as a way to track and report intermediate progress short of achieving a full maturity level The staged representation can be useful for an initiative focused on the continuous representative as a guide to understanding how process areas support each other as a guide for big picture, organization-based planning as a means for benchmarking success 2004 by Carnegie Mellon University page 32

Summary Both representations are designed to offer essentially equivalent results. Most of the content is similar. Why not choose both representations? The Addison-Wesley CMMI book and V1.2 (will) package the representations together to make it easier to use both representations. Much of this material in this presentation came from the section on Choosing a Representation in the book CMMI Guidelines for Process Integration and Product Improvement 2004 by Carnegie Mellon University page 33

For More Information For more information about CMMI, see http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/ Or, contact SEI Customer Relations Phone: 412 / 268-5800 Email: customer-relations@sei.cmu.edu 2004 by Carnegie Mellon University page 34

Questions? 2004 by Carnegie Mellon University page 35