Measurement and Analysis vs. Generic Practice 2.8

Would you expect that measures being reported for Generic Practice (GP) 2.8 on all Maturity Level (ML) 2 and ML 3 Process Areas (PAs) would follow the complete Measurement and Analysis (MA) PA? That is these GP 2.8 measures would have written objectives, operational definitions, storage, collection and analysis procedures in line with MA Specific Goal (SG) 1 and SG 2. Or can the PAs be monitored (measured) and controlled without the full breath of the MA PA?

This is a good question. So let’s take a step backwards and look at the CMMI and Generic Practice – PA Relationships. The summary table in the Generic Practice section of the model clearly states that Project Monitoring and Control (PMC) can implement GP 2.8 for all project-related processes. And MA provides general guidance about measuring, analyzing, and recording information that can be used in establishing measures for monitoring actual performance of the process. Please note that this information is GUIDANCE and part of the INFORMATIVE material. Therefore, it is not required that the org use MA for GP 2.8. HOWEVER, from a practical point of view, why would MA be part of the model if there wasn’t a requirement and expectation that it would be implemented? Since it is a ML 2 PA and you are asking about ML 3, as a Lead Appraiser I would expect to see that MA was used for defining, collecting, analyzing, and reporting both the project and process measures. Without implementing MA for the process measures, the org would be receiving little to no benefit from GP 2.8. And as I have seen GP 2.8 implemented, sometimes the process measures are embedded in the project measures that have been defined using MA.