The Capability Maturity Model ( CMM ) is a development model created after the study of data collected from organizations contracted with the US Department of Defense, which funded the research. The term "maturity" relates to the degree of formality and process optimization, from ad hoc practices , to formally defined steps, to managed results metrics, to active optimization of processes.
The purpose of the model is to improve the existing software development process, but also can be applied to other processes.
Video Capability Maturity Model
Overview
Maturity Model The ability was initially developed as a tool for objectively assessing the ability of government contractor processes to implement a contracted software project. This model is based on the process maturity framework first described in the IEEE Software and, later, in Watsi Humphrey's 1989 Manage the Software Manual . It was later published in a report in 1993 and as a book by the same author in 1995.
Although this model comes from the field of software development, this model is also used as a model to assist in business processes in general, and has also been used extensively worldwide in government, trade and industry offices.
Maps Capability Maturity Model
History
Previous requirement for software process
In the 1960s, the use of computers grew wider, more flexible and less expensive. Organizations are beginning to adopt a computerized information system, and demand for software development is increasing significantly. Many processes for software development are still in the early stages, with a few standard approaches or "best practices" defined.
As a result, the growth is accompanied by growing pain: project failure is common, computer science is still in the early years, and ambitions for project scale and complexity exceed the market's ability to deliver adequate products within the planned budget. Individuals such as Edward Yourdon, Larry Constantine, Gerald Weinberg, Tom DeMarco, and David Parnas began publishing articles and books with research results in an attempt to professionalize the software development process.
In the 1980s, several US military projects involving software subcontractors went well beyond budget and were completed much later than planned, if any. In an effort to determine why this happened, the United States Air Force funded a study in SEI.
Precursors
The first application of the gradual maturity model for IT was not by CMU/SEI, but by Richard L. Nolan, who, in 1973 published stages of growth model for IT organizations.
Watts Humphrey began to develop the concept of process maturity during the final stage of his 27-year career at IBM.
Development at the Software Engineering Institute
The active development of the model by the US Department of Defense Software Engineering Institute (SEI) began in 1986 when Humphrey joined the Software Engineering Institute located at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania after retiring from IBM. At the request of the US Air Force, he began formalizing the Process Maturity Framework to assist the US Department of Defense in evaluating the capabilities of software contractors as part of contract awarding.
The results of the Air Force study are a model for the military to use as an objective evaluation of the capabilities capabilities of software subcontracting processes. Humphrey based this framework on the Quality Management Maturity Grid developed by Philip B. Crosby in his book "Quality is Free". Humphrey's approach differs because of his unique insight that the organization matures the process gradually based on problem-solving processes in a particular order. Humphrey bases his approach on the gradual evolution of a system of software development practices within an organization, rather than measuring the maturity of each independently independent development process. CMM has been used by various organizations as a common and powerful tool for understanding and then improving the performance of general business processes.
The Watts Humphrey Mental Capability Model (CMM) was published in 1988 and as a book in 1989, in Managing the Software Process .
The organization was initially assessed using a process maturity questionnaire and the Software Capability Evaluation method designed by Humphrey and his colleagues at the Software Engineering Institute.
The full representation of the Capability Maturity Model as a set of process areas and practices defined on each of the five levels of maturity began in 1991, with Version 1.1 completed in January 1993. The CMM was published as a book in 1995 by its principal company. writers, Mark C. Paulk, Charles V. Weber, Bill Curtis, and Mary Beth Chrissis. United States New York, USA.
CMMI
Application of CMM model in software development is sometimes problematic. Applying some models that are not integrated within and across the organization can be costly in training, assessment, and upgrading activities. The Integrity Maturity Capability (CMMI) project was formed to solve the problem using several models for the software development process, so the CMMI model has replaced the CMM model, although the CMM model continues to be the general theoretical process capability model used in the CMM model. public domain.
Adapted to another process
CMM was originally intended as a tool to evaluate the ability of government contractors to undertake contracted software projects. Although derived from the field of software development, it can, has, and continues to be widely applied as a general model of process maturity (eg, IT service management processes) in IS/IT Organizations (and others).
Model topics
Maturity Model
The model of maturity can be seen as a series of structured levels that illustrate how well an organization's behavior, practices, and processes can reliably and sustainably produce the required results.
The model of maturity can be used as a benchmark for comparison and as an aid to understanding - for example, for a comparative assessment of different organizations where there is something similar that can be used as a basis for comparison. In the case of CMM, for example, the basis of comparison is the process of developing an organization's software.
Structure
This model involves five aspects:
- Maturity Level: continuum of 5-level maturity process - where the highest level (5th) is a notional ideal state in which the process will be managed systematically with a combination of process optimization and ongoing process improvement.
- Main Process Area: The Key Process Area identifies a group of related activities that, when carried out together, achieve a set of objectives that are considered important.
- Goals: the purpose of the key process area summarizes the conditions that must exist for that key process area to be implemented in an effective and lasting way. The extent to which objectives have been achieved is an indicator of how much capability the organization has established at that level of maturity. Goals indicate the scope, boundaries, and intent of each major process area.
- General Features: common features include practices that implement and institute key process areas. There are five common types of features: commitments to perform, ability to perform, activities performed, measurement and analysis, and implementation verification.
- Key Practices: Key practices describe the elements of infrastructure and practices that contribute most effectively to the implementation and institutionalization of the region.
Level
There are five levels that are determined along the continuum of the model and, according to SEI: "The predictability, effectiveness, and control of the organization's software process is believed to increase as the organization moves on these five levels, though not strictly, empirical evidence to date supports this belief."
- Beginning (chaotic, ad hoc, individual heroic) - a starting point for the use of a new or undocumented repetition process.
- Repeatable - this process is at least adequately documented so repeating the same steps can be tried.
- Defined - processes defined/confirmed as standard business processes
- Capable - the process is managed quantitatively in accordance with approved metrics.
- Efficient - process management including deliberate process optimization/enhancement.
In each level of maturity is the Main Process Area that characterizes that level, and for each of these areas there are five factors: objectives, commitments, abilities, measurements, and verification. This is not always unique to CMM, representing - as they do - the stages that organizations must travel on the road to becoming mature.
This model provides theoretical continuum in which the process of maturity can be gradually developed from one level to the next. Skip level is not allowed/feasible.
- Level 1 - Beginning
- It is characteristic of processes at this level that they are (usually) undocumented and in a state of dynamic change, tend to be encouraged in ad hoc , uncontrolled and reactive ways by users or events. This provides a chaotic or unstable environment for the process. (Example - surgeon performing new surgery several times - negative rate of unknown result).
- Level 2 - Can Be Repeated
- This is a characteristic of this maturity level that some processes may be repeated, possibly with consistent results. The discipline of the process may not be tight, but where it exists can help to ensure that existing processes are maintained during times of stress.
- Level 3 - Defined
- It is characteristic of the process at this level that there is a set of defined and documented standard processes defined and subject to some degree of improvement over time. This standard process already exists. The process may never be used systematically or repeatedly - enough for the user to be competent or a process to be validated in various situations. This can be considered a stage of development - with use in a wider range of conditions and development of user competence, the process can progress to the next level of maturity.
- Level 4 - Managed (Capable)
- It is characteristic of the process at this level that, using process metrics, the effective achievement of process objectives can be proven under various operational conditions. The suitability of processes in various environments has been tested and the process is refined and customized. Process users have experienced the process in various conditions and vary, and are able to demonstrate competence. Process maturity allows adaptation for specific projects without loss of quality or measurable deviations from specifications. Process Capability is formed from this level. (Example - surgeon performs surgery hundreds of times with negative near-zero level of results).
- Level 5 - Optimizing (Efficient)
- This is a process characteristic at this level whose focus is on continuously improving process performance through incremental and innovative technological change/improvement.
At maturity level 5, the process deals with addressing the static common causes of process variation and altering processes (eg, to shift the mean of process performance) to improve process performance. This will be done at the same time as maintaining the possibility of achieving the objective of improving the quantitative process already established. There are only a few companies in the world that have reached this level 5..
Critique
This model was originally intended to evaluate the ability of government contractors to undertake software projects. It has been used for and may be suitable for that purpose, but critics point out that maturity of the process according to CMM is not necessarily mandatory for successful software development.
Software process framework
The documented software process framework is intended to guide those wishing to assess organizational or project consistency with the Main Process Area. For each level of maturity there are five types of checklists:
See also
- The Immigration Model Capability
- Integration Capability Maturity Model
- Person Maturity Capability Model
- Test the Maturity Model
References
External links
- CMMI Institute
- Capability Model Maturity in Curlie (based on DMOZ)
- Architecture Maturity Model in The Open Group
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments