Page 1
© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University
Mike PhillipsSoftware Engineering InstituteCarnegie Mellon UniversityExcerpted by Pat Wegerson forNorth Star INCOSE 17 February 2011
® CMMI is registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office by Carnegie Mellon University.
CMMI® Version 1.3 and Beyond
November 2010
Page 2
2CMMI V1.3 and BeyondPhillips – November 2010
© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University
Organizations Are Complex Systems
Strategic Technological
StructuralHuman/
Cultural
Managerial
OrganizationalSystem
Input-output flow of materials, energy, information
InputsHuman,
Financial,Technological,
Material,Resources
OutputsProducts,Services
Adapted from Kast and Rosenzweig, 1972.
Page 3
3CMMI V1.3 and BeyondPhillips – November 2010
© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University
What Is a Process?
A process is a set of interrelated activities, which transform inputs into outputs, to achieve a given purpose.
Result
Process Improvement flows from and extends the general management theories developed over the past ~30 years (Juran, Deming, Crosby, etc.)
Page 4
4CMMI V1.3 and BeyondPhillips – November 2010
© 2010 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!
Page 5
5CMMI V1.3 and BeyondPhillips – November 2010
© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University
Symptoms of Process Failure
Quality Problems
• Too much rework
• No product documentation
• Functions that don’t work correctly
• Customer complaints after delivery
• Delivery of embarrassing products
• Wide variation in how people perform identical tasks
• Work with wrong versions of work products
No View to the Future
• No concern for process improvement
• No feedback on process effectiveness
• Program cancellation
Page 6
6CMMI V1.3 and BeyondPhillips – November 2010
© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University
Workforce Challenges
Generation Workforce(Millions)
% Workforce Workforce % Workforce Workforce % Workforce
Traditionalists(Born before 1946)
11.5 7.5% 45,625 6.7% 8,322 7.4%
Baby Boomers (1946 - 1964)
61.5 42.0% 438,971 64.5% 77,779 68.7%
Generation X (1965-1976)
43.5 29.5% 132,948 19.5% 17,581 15.5%
Generation Y (1977 -1989)
31.5 21.0% 62,676 9.2% 9,394 8.3%
Millennium (1990 - present)
51.0 0% 153 0% 0 0%
National(2005)
DoD(2006)
Civilian AT&L Workforce (2006)
Source: Anderson 2007, NDIA STEM Initiative Strategy Session
“DoD faces significant challenges related to mitigating the pending departure of its highly experienced and seasoned talent – the critical challenge”
Frank Anderson, Jr., Director, AT&L Human Capital Initiatives and President, Defense Acquisition University 2007
Page 7
7CMMI V1.3 and BeyondPhillips – November 2010
© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University
Characteristics of Effective Processes
trackable
measurable
simple
Well-defined gates
docu
men
ted
trained
supported
enforced
practiced
Page 8
8CMMI V1.3 and BeyondPhillips – November 2010
© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University
Process Definition Inputs
Strategic Plans,
Goals, Objectives
Policies
Process Descriptions,
Procedures,
Instructions
Asset Library Measurement Repository
Process Architecture
Process Scope
Process Needs
Page 9
9CMMI V1.3 and BeyondPhillips – November 2010
© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University
Signs that Processes Are Insufficient
Unmet commitments• Late delivery• Last minute crunches• Spiraling costs
Little or no management visibility• You’re always being surprised
Quality problems• Too much rework• Functions do not work correctly• Customer dissatisfaction post-delivery;
continuing high costs
Poor morale• Frustration• Is anyone in charge?
Mars Orbiter (Sep 1999)
A 125 million dollar orbiter was lost because one team used English units of measure while another used metric units of measure.
Page 10
10CMMI V1.3 and BeyondPhillips – November 2010
© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University
Process Improvement
Whether intentional or not, you already have processes in place. Are they the RIGHT processes?
Something is wrong…
… if no one uses the processes (except under duress)
… if everyone has their own interpretation of the process
… if you find you are always tailoring your processes
Page 11
12CMMI V1.3 and BeyondPhillips – November 2010
© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University
Common Misconceptions
I don’t need process, I have …
• Really good people
• Advanced technology
• An experienced manager
Process…
• Interferes with creativity
• = bureaucracy + regimentation
• Is only useful on large projects
• Hinders agility in fast-moving markets
• Costs too much
Page 12
13CMMI V1.3 and BeyondPhillips – November 2010
© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University
Threats to Process Improvement
Senior management problems
• Change or loss of sponsorship
• Inadequate support and resources
• Desire for quick fixes
• Unreasonable expectations
• Termination before institutionalization
• Inconsistent reinforcement
Middle management resistance
• “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it”
• “Flavor of the day”
• “This is another management initiative I can outlast”
Understand resistance before trying to eliminate it.It may be justified!
Page 13
14CMMI V1.3 and BeyondPhillips – November 2010
© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University
How Can Process Help?
Process supports the goals of the company, enabling
• Repeatability
• Insight and oversight
• Control and tracking
• Measurement
• Improvement
• Training
• Transformation (via consistency, integration, coordination)
Inte
rcha
ngea
ble
part
s
Page 14
18CMMI V1.3 and BeyondPhillips – November 2010
© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University
An Investment Is Required
DesiredState
TransitionState
PresentState
T i m e
Productivity
Page 15
19CMMI V1.3 and BeyondPhillips – November 2010
© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University
Commitment to improve must start at the top.
First understand the current process.
Structured change must become a way of life.
Improvement requires investment.
When failure occurs, focus on the process, not the people.
Institutionalizing improvements requires vigilance and periodic reinforcement.
SUCCESS
STATUS QUO
FAILURE
Critical Success Factors for Process Improvement
Page 16
© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University
What Is CMMI?
Page 17
21CMMI V1.3 and BeyondPhillips – November 2010
© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University
“M” Is for Model
Models are simplified views of the real world.
CMMI
THE REAL WORLD
Process descriptions, models, and instantiations are below the level of detail of the CMMs.
Systems Engineering
Marketing
Integrated product teams
Technology
Organizationalculture
People issues
Maturity Levels
Process Areas
Practices
ProcessDescriptions
“All models are wrong, but some are useful.” - George Box
Page 18
22CMMI V1.3 and BeyondPhillips – November 2010
© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University
CMMI in a Nutshell
CMMI is a collection of characteristics of effective processes that provides guidance for improving an organization’s processes and ability to manage the development, acquisition, and maintenance of products or services.
CMMI places proven approaches into a structure that• helps an organization examine the effectiveness of its processes• establishes priorities for improvement• helps implement these improvements
Improving processes for better products
Page 19
23CMMI V1.3 and BeyondPhillips – November 2010
© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University
CMMI Product Suite
CMMI Modelso CMMI for Developmento CMMI for Acquisitiono CMMI for Services
SCAMPISM (Standard CMMI Appraisal Method for Process Improvement) o Class A (results in ratings)o Class B (deployment)o Class C (approach)
Trainingo Introduction to CMMIo Advanced training courses
Training
Models
SCAMPI
Page 20
25CMMI V1.3 and BeyondPhillips – November 2010
© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University
Five Reasons to Adopt CMMI
CMMI helps your organization to …
• Improve delivery of performance, cost, and schedule
• Collaborate with external stakeholders and integratetheir expectations into day-to-day activities
• Provide competitive world-class products and services
• Implement an integrated enterprise business and engineering perspective
• Use common, integrated, and improving processes for systems and software
Page 21
26CMMI V1.3 and BeyondPhillips – November 2010
© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University
Evolution of Process Capability
Process is informal and unpredictable
Project management system is in place; performance is repeatable
Software engineering and management processes are defined and integrated
Product and process are quantitatively controlled
Process improvement is institutionalized
Level Process Characteristics
Time/$/...
Time/$/...
Time/$/...
Time/$/...
Time/$/...
Predicted Performance
1
2
3
4
5
Page 22
27CMMI V1.3 and BeyondPhillips – November 2010
© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University
Example Chart from CMMI Level 5 Company: Multi-Performance Results Summary
We all do!
Measure Performance Result
Cost Firm fixed price upon acceptance of requirements specifications
Schedule • Not to exceed 8% of committed schedule• Weekly status reporting with ability to detect one-day schedule slip• Time in test and agility with rework time significantly less than customer
historical average
Quality • Acceptance test defects significantly lower than customer historical average
• Company will fix defects found in production use free for life of the product
Page 23
28CMMI V1.3 and BeyondPhillips – November 2010
© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University
Example Chart from CMMI Level 5 Company: Their Results vs. Industry Average
We all do!
Measure Performance Result (Industry vs. ML5 Company)
Schedule deviation >50% <10%
Number of defects in delivered product (Size: 100,000 source lines of code)
>100 <15
% of design and code inspected <100 100
Time to accept 100,000 SLOC product 10 months 5 weeks
% of defects removed prior to system test <60% >85%
% of development time fixing system test defects >33% <10%
Cost of Quality >50% <35%
Warranty on products ? Lifetime
Page 24
29CMMI V1.3 and BeyondPhillips – November 2010
© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University
CMMI Models
Page 25
30CMMI V1.3 and BeyondPhillips – November 2010
© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University
Sequence of Models
41
Page 26
31CMMI V1.3 and BeyondPhillips – November 2010
© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University
CMMI Models for Three Constellations
16 Core Process Areas, common to all
CMMI-DEVCMMI-DEV provides guidance for measuring, monitoring and managing development processes.
CMMI-SVCCMMI-SVC provides guidance for those providing services within organizations and to external customers.
CMMI-ACQCMMI-ACQ provides guidance to enableinformed and decisiveacquisition leadership.
Page 27
32CMMI V1.3 and BeyondPhillips – November 2010
© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University
CMMI Core PAs
CMMICore PAs
CMMI-DEV CMMI-ACQ
CMMI-SVCCore PAs are common to all three CMMI models.
Core PAs include informative material that interprets the goals and practices for the model’s area of interest.
Page 28
33CMMI V1.3 and BeyondPhillips – November 2010
© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University
Process Area Components
Related Process Areas
Introductory Notes
Example WorkProducts
Subpractices
Expected Informative
Specific Goals (SG)
Generic Goals (GG)
Required
Purpose Statement
SpecificPractices
(SP)Generic
Practices(GP)
Generic PracticeElaborations
Legend
Process Area (PA)
Subpractices
Page 29
34CMMI V1.3 and BeyondPhillips – November 2010
© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University
CMMI Model Structure
Institutionalization•Policies•Plans•Resources
•Responsibilities•Training•Managing Configurations
•Stakeholder Involvement•Monitoring and Control•Objective Evaluation
•Management Visibility•Defined Process•Improvement Information
CMMI Model Foundation (Core Process Areas)•Requirements Management•Project Planning•Project Monitoring & Control•Measurement & Analysis•Configuration Management•Process and Product QA
•Integrated Project Management•Risk Management•Decision Analysis & Resolution•Organizational Process Focus•Organizational Process Definition•Organizational Training
•Causal Analysis & Resolution•Org Process Performance•Org Performance Management
•Quantitative Project Mgmt
•Requirements Development•Supplier Agreement Mgmt•Technical Solution•Product Integration•Verification•Validation
CMMI-DEV•Capacity & Availability Management•Incident Resolution and Prevention•Supplier Agreement Mgmt•Service Continuity•Service Delivery•Service System Development•Service System Transition•Strategic Service Mgmt
CMMI-SVC CMMI-ACQ•Agreement Management•Acquisition Requirements Development•Acquisition Technical Mgt•Acquisition Validation•Acquisition Verification•Solicitation and Supplier Agreement Development
Benchmark Ratings•Goals•Process Areas
•Maturity Levels•Capability Levels
Incremental Frameworks forContinuous Process Improvement
Page 30
35CMMI V1.3 and BeyondPhillips – November 2010
© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University
Critical Distinctions Among Processes
performed vs. managed the extent to which the process is planned; performance is managed against the plan; corrective actions are taken when needed
managed vs. defined the scope of application of the process descriptions, standards, and procedures (i.e., project vs. organization)
Page 31
36CMMI V1.3 and BeyondPhillips – November 2010
© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University
Understanding Levels
Levels are used in CMMI to describe an evolutionary path for an organization that wants to improve the processes it uses to develop and maintain its products and services.
CMMI supports two improvement paths:
• continuous - enabling an organization to incrementally improve processes corresponding to an individual process area (or set of process areas) selected by the organization
• staged - enabling the organization to improve a set of related processes by incrementally addressing successive predefined sets of process areas
Page 32
37CMMI V1.3 and BeyondPhillips – November 2010
© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University
Staged Representation: PAs by Maturity Level
5 Optimizing
4 Quantitatively Managed
3 Defined
2 Managed
Continuous Process Improvement
Quantitative Management
Process Standardization
Basic Project Management
RiskRework
1 Initial
Level Focus QualityProductivity
Page 33
38CMMI V1.3 and BeyondPhillips – November 2010
© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University
Achieving Maturity Levels
Processes are ad hoc and chaotic
Adhere to policy; follow documented plans and processes; apply adequate resources; assign responsibility and authority; train people; apply CM; monitor, control, and evaluate process; identify and involve stakeholders; review with management
Tailor the project’s process from organization’sstandard processes; understand processes qualitatively; ensure that projects contribute to organization assets
Measure process performance; stabilize process and control charts; deal with causes of special variations
Prevent defects; proactively improve; insert and deploy innovative technology
ML1Initial
ML2Managed
ML3Defined
ML4 Quantitatively
Managed
ML5Optimizing
GG 2All ML2 PAs
GG 2 and GG 3All ML2 and ML3 PAs
GG 2 and GG 3All ML2, ML3, andML4 PAs
GG 2 and GG 3All ML2, ML3, ML4,and ML5 PAs
Page 34
40CMMI V1.3 and BeyondPhillips – November 2010
© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University
Achieving Capability Levels (CLs) for a Process Area
CL0 Not performed, incomplete
CL1Performed
Perform the work
CL2Managed
Adhere to policy; follow documented plans and processes, apply adequate resources; assign responsibility and authority; train people, apply CM, monitor, control, and evaluate process; identify and involve stakeholders; review with management
CL3Defined
Project’s process is tailored from organization’s standard processes; understand process qualitatively; process contributes to the organizations assets
A few GPs or SPs may be implemented
GG 1All SPs
GG 1 and GG 2All SPs
GG 1, GG 2, and GG 3All SPs
Page 35
42CMMI V1.3 and BeyondPhillips – November 2010
© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University
CMMI for Development
Page 36
43CMMI V1.3 and BeyondPhillips – November 2010
© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University
CMMI for Development Model
CMMI
Core PAs
Development-specific PAs
Shared PA (SAM)
16
5
1
22
CMMI-SVC CMMI-ACQ
CMMI-DEV
Core PAs that are present in all CMMI models.
Page 37
44CMMI V1.3 and BeyondPhillips – November 2010
© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University
Comparison of Models
Measure CMMI for Development CMMI for Acquisition
CMMI for Services
V1.1 Staged
V1.1Cont
V1.2 V1.3 V1.2 V1.3 V1.2 V1.3
Pages 715 710 560 468 428 423 531 506
Process Areas
25 25 22 22 22 22 24 24
Generic Goals
2 5 5 3 5 3 5 3
Generic Practices
12 17 17 13 17 13 17 13
Specific Goals
55 55 50 49 46 47 52 53
Specific Practices
185 189 173 167 161 163 182 181
Page 38
45CMMI V1.3 and BeyondPhillips – November 2010
© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University
Development-Specific PAs
Technical Solution
Requirements Development
Supplier Agreement
Management
(Shared with SVC)
Product Integration
Validation
Verification
CMMI Model Framework
(CMF)
16 Project, Organizational,
and Support Process Areas
Page 39
46CMMI V1.3 and BeyondPhillips – November 2010
© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University
CMMI-DEV PAs by Maturity Level
Maturity Level Process Areas
5 Optimizing Causal Analysis and Resolution Organizational Performance Management
4 Quantitatively Managed Organizational Process PerformanceQuantitative Project Management
3 Defined
Decision Analysis and ResolutionIntegrated Project ManagementOrganizational Process DefinitionOrganizational TrainingOrganizational Process FocusProduct IntegrationRequirements DevelopmentRisk ManagementTechnical SolutionValidationVerification
2 Managed
Configuration ManagementMeasurement and AnalysisProject Monitoring and ControlProject PlanningProcess and Product Quality AssuranceRequirements ManagementSupplier Agreement Management
For the V1.3 release, there were
no changes that affected the DEV
PAs’ positioning by maturity level.
Page 40
47CMMI V1.3 and BeyondPhillips – November 2010
© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University
CMMI-DEV PAs by Category
Process ManagementOrganizational Innovation and Deployment (OID)Organizational Process Definition (OPD)Organizational Process Focus (OPF)Organizational Process Performance (OPP)Organizational Training (OT)
SupportCausal Analysis and Resolution (CAR)Configuration Management (CM)Decision Analysis and Resolution (DAR)Measurement and Analysis (MA)Process and Product Quality Assurance (PPQA)
Project ManagementIntegrated Project Management (IPM)Project Monitoring and Control (PMC)Project Planning (PP)Quantitative Project Management (QPM)Requirements Management (REQM)Risk Management (RSKM)(+) Supplier Agreement Management (SAM)
EngineeringProduct Integration (PI)Requirements Development (RD)Technical Solution (TS) Validation (VAL) Verification (VER)For the V1.3 release, REQM was moved from
“Engineering” to “Project Management.”
Page 41
48CMMI V1.3 and BeyondPhillips – November 2010
© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University
Product Integration
SG 1: Prepare for Product IntegrationSP 1.1 Establish an Integration Strategy
SP 1.2 Establish the Product Integration EnvironmentSP 1.3 Establish Product Integration Procedures and
CriteriaSG 2: Ensure Interface Compatibility
SP 2.1 Review Interface Descriptions for Completeness
SP 2.2 Manage InterfacesSG 3: Assemble Product Components and Deliver the
Product
SP 3.1 Confirm Readiness of Product Components for Integration
SP 3.2 Assemble Product Components
SP 3.3 Evaluate Assembled Product Components
SP 3.4 Package and Deliver the Product or Product Component
Revised the purpose statement to ensure proper behavior instead of
proper function, thereby more explicitly including quality attributes and required
functionality.
Changed emphasis on integration sequence to an emphasis on
integration strategy.
Described an integration strategy and how it relates to an integration
sequence.
Page 42
49CMMI V1.3 and BeyondPhillips – November 2010
© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University
Requirements Development
SG 1: Develop Customer Requirements
SP 1.1 Elicit Needs
SP 1.2 Transform Stakeholder Needs into Customer Requirements
SG 2: Develop Product Requirements
SP 2.1 Establish Product and Product Component Requirements
SP 2.2 Allocate Product Component Requirements
SP 2.3 Identify Interface RequirementsSG 3: Analyze and Validate Requirements
SP 3.1 Establish Operational Concepts and Scenarios
SP 3.2 Establish a Definition of Required Functionality and Quality Attributes
SP 3.3 Analyze Requirements
SP 3.4 Analyze Requirements to Achieve Balance
SP 3.5 Validate Requirements
SP1.2 revised to add that customer requirements should be prioritized
based on their criticality to the customer and other stakeholders.
Broadened emphasis from “operational scenarios” to a more
balanced “scenarios (operational, sustainment, and development).”
Added a focus on architectural requirements.
Because “Quality attributes” needs to be considered in addition to “functionality,” SG3 and SP 3.2 were
revised.
Added informative material that requirements can be monitored
through development based on their criticality to the customer.
Page 43
© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University
V1.3 CMMI Model Updates: Core PAs
Page 44
54CMMI V1.3 and BeyondPhillips – November 2010
© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University
CMMI Product Suite, Version 1.3
Version 1.3 focused on but was not limited to the following:
• High Maturity
• Appraisal efficiency
• Consistency across constellations
• Simplify the generic practices
Version 1.3 was change request (CR) driven.
Page 45
56CMMI V1.3 and BeyondPhillips – November 2010
© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University
How Similar Are Core PAs?
Core process areas appear in all CMMI models; however...
• These process areas are not identical across all models.
• Informative material can be different so that users interpret goals and practices for the area of interest addressed by the model.
• Sometimes practices can be different in one model from another (e.g., Project Planning).
Page 46
57CMMI V1.3 and BeyondPhillips – November 2010
© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University
V1.3 Model Architecture Changes
IPPD/TeamingRemoved the IPPD addition from CMMI-DEV and in its place added teaming practices from CMMI-ACQ and CMMI-SVC. These practices are not optional.
AmplificationsRemoved the “amplification” model component.
CMMI-ACQRenamed the “Acquisition” process area category to be “Acquisition Engineering.”
Moved AM and SSAD from the Acquisition PA category to the Project Management PA category.
CMMI-DEVMoved REQM from the Engineering PA category to the Project Management PA category.
Page 47
58CMMI V1.3 and BeyondPhillips – November 2010
© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University
V1.3 Changes to GGs, GPs, and GP Elaborations
Positioned generic goals, generic practices, and GP elaborations in one central location as the first section of Part 2 in all three models.
Simplified GG1 to make it more readable.
Renamed GP 2.6 to “Control Work Products.”
Added “selected work products” to the GP 2.9 statement.
Simplified the GP 3.2 statement to replace “collect work products, measures, measurement results, and improvement information” with “collect process related experiences.”
Eliminated GG4 and GG5.
Page 48
59CMMI V1.3 and BeyondPhillips – November 2010
© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University
Core PAs by Maturity Level
Causal Analysis and ResolutionOrganizational Performance Management
5 Optimizing
4 Quantitatively Managed
3 Defined
2 Managed
ContinuousProcess Improvement
QuantitativeManagement
ProcessStandardization
BasicProjectManagement
Organizational Process PerformanceQuantitative Project Management
Decision Analysis and ResolutionIntegrated Project Management Organizational Process DefinitionOrganizational Process FocusOrganizational Training Risk Management
Configuration ManagementMeasurement and AnalysisProject Monitoring and ControlProject PlanningProcess and Product Quality AssuranceRequirements Management
RiskRework
1 Initial
Process AreasLevel Focus QualityProductivity
Page 49
60CMMI V1.3 and BeyondPhillips – November 2010
© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University
Core PAs by Category
Process ManagementOrganizational Process Definition (OPD)Organizational Process Focus (OPF)Organizational Performance Management (OPM)Organizational Process Performance (OPP)Organizational Training (OT)
SupportCausal Analysis and Resolution (CAR)Configuration Management (CM)Decision Analysis and Resolution (DAR)Measurement and Analysis (MA)Process and Product Quality Assurance (PPQA)
Project and Work ManagementIntegrated Project Management (IPM)Project Monitoring and Control (PMC)Project Planning (PP)Quantitative Project Management (QPM)Requirements Management (REQM)Risk Management (RSKM)(+) Supplier Agreement Management (SAM)
SAM is a shared PA instead of a core PA.
“Work” is substituted for “Project” in CMMI-SVC titles.
Page 50
66CMMI V1.3 and BeyondPhillips – November 2010
© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University
New Informative Material
Update selected process areas to provide interpretation of practices for organizations with respect to the following topics:
• Agile methods
• Quality attributes (i.e., non functional requirements or “ilities”)
• Allocation of product capabilities to release increments
• Product lines
• System of systems
• Architecture-centric development practices
• Technology maturation
• Customer satisfaction
Page 51
71CMMI V1.3 and BeyondPhillips – November 2010
© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University
V1.3 Changes to High Maturity PAs
Many of the most significant changes to CMMI models as part of Version 1.3, are the changes to the high maturity process areas (CAR, OPM, OPP, and QPM).
These process areas are core process areas, but we’ve focused on these four over the others because of their significance in this release.
Page 52
72CMMI V1.3 and BeyondPhillips – November 2010
© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University
High Maturity Changes for V1.3
Terminology Confusion
• Common Cause (Statistical versus Quantitative Techniques)
• Process Models and Process Modeling
• Business Objectives
• Subprocesses
Requirements implied versus explicit/ Explanations not central or consistent
• Model/ Audit Criteria/ Presentations (Healthy Ingredients)/ UCHMP
Perceptions
• Customers – ML 5 is expensive – no better than 3
• Industry – ML 5 is NOT RIGHT for every business
High Maturity in ALL constellations
• Examples are focused on Development
Page 53
73CMMI V1.3 and BeyondPhillips – November 2010
© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University
High Maturity Restructuring for V1.3
• Insufficient link between process improvement, business objectives, and performance
• Clarify distinction between ML4 and ML5
• Eliminate GG4 and GG5
• Make CAR more relevant for organizational benefit
Page 54
75CMMI V1.3 and BeyondPhillips – November 2010
© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University
Causal Analysis and Resolution
SG 1: Determine Causes of Selected Outcomes
SP 1.1 Select Outcomes for Analysis
SP 1.2 Analyze Causes
SG 2: Address Causes of Selected Outcomes
SP 2.1 Implement Action Proposals
SP 2.2 Evaluate the Effect of Implemented Actions
SP 2.3 Record Causal Analysis Data
Used “outcomes” instead of “defects and problems.”
Added examples for service organizations and for selecting
outcomes for analysis.
Added subpractices in SP 1.1 for defining the problem, and in SP 2.2
for following up when expected results did not occur.
Added more information about how PPMs can be used.
Added emphasis on prevention and reducing recurrence.
Page 55
76CMMI V1.3 and BeyondPhillips – November 2010
© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University
Organizational Performance Management
SG 1: Manage Business Performance
SP 1.1 Maintain Business Objectives
SP 1.2 Analyze Process Performance Data
SP 1.3 Identify Potential Areas for Improvement
SG 2: Select Improvements
SP 2.1 Elicit Suggested Improvements
SP 2.2 Analyze Suggested Improvements
SP 2.3 Validate Improvements
SP 2.4 Select and Implement Improvements for Deployment
SG 3: Deploy Improvements
SP 3.1 Plan the Deployment
SP 3.2 Manage the Deployment
SP 3.3 Evaluate Improvement Effects
Renamed the PA to be Organizational Performance
Management (OPM).
Added a new goal about managing business performance using
statistical and other quantitative techniques.
Provided more information about how improvements can be selected
for deployment.
More explicitly described and discussed using process performance models.
Clarified that not all improvement validations include piloting.
Page 56
77CMMI V1.3 and BeyondPhillips – November 2010
© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University
Organizational Process Performance
SG 1: Establish Performance Baselines and Models
SP 1.1 Establish Quality and Process Performance Objectives
SP 1.2 Select Processes
SP 1.3 Establish Process Performance Measures
SP 1.4 Analyze Process Performance and Establish Process Performance Baselines
SP 1.5 Establish Process Performance Models
Re-ordered SPs, moving the old SP 1.3 (Establish Quality and Process Performance Objectives) to SP 1.1
Revised SP 1.4 to include process performance analysis and
assessment of subprocess stability.
Revised SP 1.5 to note that under certain circumstances, projects may need to create their own process
performance models.
Clarified the relationship of OPP to other high maturity process areas.
Page 57
78CMMI V1.3 and BeyondPhillips – November 2010
© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University
Quantitative Project Management
SG 1: Prepare for Quantitative Management
SP 1.1 Establish the Project’s Objectives
SP 1.2 Compose the Defined Process
SP 1.3 Select Subprocesses and Attributes
SP 1.4 Select Measures and Analytic Techniques
SG 2: Quantitatively Manage the Project
SP 2.1 Monitor the Performance of Selected Subprocesses
SP 2.2 Manage Project Performance
SP 2.3 Perform Root Cause Analysis
Restructured QPM so that SG1 focuses on preparation and SG2 focuses on managing the project.
Added guidance about using process performance baselines and
process performance models.
Define quantitative management in the glossary to include statistical
management and use that definition for use of the terms
throughout QPM.
Removed the practice about applying statistical methods to
understand variation to reduce the over-emphasis on control charts.
Added new practices about managing performance and
performing root cause analysis.
Page 58
© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University
CMMI Adoption
Page 59
80CMMI V1.3 and BeyondPhillips – November 2010
© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University
72
3012
42
760
1885
355
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
2600
2800
3000
3200
3400
3600
Africa Asia Australia Europe North America South America
Nu
mb
er o
f A
pp
rais
als
Number of Appraisals Reported to the SEI by Continent
Page 60
81CMMI V1.3 and BeyondPhillips – November 2010
© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University
* Red/Italic country name: New additions with this reporting since March 2010
Countries Where Appraisals Have Been Performed and Reported to the SEI
Argentina Australia Austria Bahrain Bangladesh Belarus Belgium BrazilBulgaria Canada Chile China Colombia Costa Rica Czech Republic DenmarkDominican Republic Egypt Finland France Germany Greece Guatemala Hong KongHungary India Indonesia Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea, Republic OfLatvia Lithuania Luxembourg Macedonia Malaysia Mauritius Mexico MoroccoNepal Netherlands New Zealand Norway Pakistan Panama Paraguay PeruPhilippines Poland Portugal Romania Russia Saudi Arabia Singapore SlovakiaSouth Africa Spain Sri Lanka Sweden Switzerland Taiwan Thailand TunisiaTurkey Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Viet Nam
Page 61
82CMMI V1.3 and BeyondPhillips – November 2010
© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University
CMMI Adoption Has Been Broad
34 countries with > 10 appraisals(as of Sept 2010):
USA 1719 China 1475 India 576 Japan 324 Spain 198 France 183 Korea (ROK) 176 Brazil 167
Taiwan 147 U.K. 118Mexico 104 Germany 80 Argentina 79
Malaysia 74Canada 62 Egypt 52 Italy 46Colombia 43 Chile 43Thailand 41
And - Australia, Pakistan, Philippines,Singapore, Israel, Hong Kong, Viet Nam, Turkey, Netherlands, Portugal,Sri Lanka, Ireland, Peru and Russia
http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/casestudies/profiles/cmmi.cfm
Is the source for these statistical analyses.
Estimated 1.2 million people work in organizations that have had at least one SCAMPI A appraisal since April 2002.
• There were SCAMPI A appraisals reported from 71 countries.
• Approximately 75% of adopters are commercial organizations.
• Services; 1/6 Manufacturing
• Approximately 2/3 of adopters in the US are contractors for military/government or are government.
25 or fewer13.6%
26 to 5015.6%
51 to 7512.8%
76 to 1008.9%
101 to 20019.8%
201 to 3009.0%
301 to 5007.4%
501 to 10006.8%
1001 to 20003.7%
2000+2.5%
201 to 2000+23.8%
1 to 10058.2%
Manufacturing16.3%
Services71.1%
Retail Trade0.3%
Wholesale Trade0.1%
Transportation, Communication, Electric, Gas
and Sanitary Services3.6%
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate5.5%
Public Administration (Including Defense)
3.2%
Fabricated Metal Products0.2%
Primary Metal Industries0.3%
Industrial Machinery And Equipment
0.7%
Electronic & Other Electric Equipment
10.4%
Instruments And Related Products
1.0%
Transportation Equipment2.4%
Other Manufacturing Industries
1.2%Health Services
1.3%
Other Services10.7%
Engineering & Management Services24.2%
Business Services35.0%
Page 62
83CMMI V1.3 and BeyondPhillips – November 2010
© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University
CMMI Transition StatusReported to the SEI as of 10-31-10
Training
Introduction to CMMI V1.2 120,838
Intermediate Concepts of CMMI 3,238
Understanding CMMI High Maturity Practices 636
Introduction to CMMI V1.2 Supplement for ACQ 1,325
Introduction to CMMI V1.2 Supplement for SVC 2,361
Introduction to CMMI for Services V1.2 314
Certifications
Introduction to CMMI V1.2 Instructors 408
CMMI-ACQ V1.2 Supplement Instructors 66
CMMI-SVC V1.2 Supplement Instructors 131
Introduction to CMMI for Services V1.2 Instructors 23
SCAMPI V1.2 Lead Appraisers 466
SCAMPI V1.2 High Maturity Lead Appraisers 142
CMMI-ACQ V1.2 Lead Appraisers 72
CMMI-SVC V1.2 Lead Appraisers 147
Page 63
85CMMI V1.3 and BeyondPhillips – November 2010
© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University
Number of Appraisals Conducted by YearReported as of 10-31-10
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
SPA CBAIPI(Discontinued after 12/31/2005) SCAMPI v.X ClassA
Page 64
86CMMI V1.3 and BeyondPhillips – November 2010
© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University
Continuous Improvement
Certification of our process improvement professionals is appropriate and achievable
• Lead Appraisers first
• Instructors next
• CMMI consultants/practitioners in the future
Improved architecture allows process improvement model expansion.
• Extensions of the lifecycle
o allows coverage of more of the enterprise or potential partnering organizations
o adapts model features to fit non-developmental efforts
Page 65
87CMMI V1.3 and BeyondPhillips – November 2010
© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University
Transition…
We are providing an on-line upgrade course for V1.3 as we did for V1.2.
• Users make the transition by taking the upgrade course.
During a period of one year, organizations may use either V1.2 or V1.3 models for their appraisals.
Appraisals using V1.2 models will be valid for the full 3 years.