Auditor Directing a PPM

We are trying for CMMI ML 5 Ver 1.2, and our auditor has asked us to come up with a PPM for predicting the outcome of CAR and OID. Can you help me on how to go about it?

When you say auditor, I assume that you mean your Lead Appraiser (LA) is asking you for a PPM for predicting the outcome of Causal Analysis and Resolution (CAR) and Organizational Innovation and Deployment (OID). Is your Lead Appraiser an SEI-certified High Maturity Lead Appraiser? Has your organization identified the need for a Process Performance Model (PPM) to predict the CAR and OID outcomes, or is this solely a request from your LA? Your LA is not the person to tell you which PPMs you need. Do you have Process and Product Quality Objectives (QPPOs) that require PPM(s) to predict CAR and OID outcomes? If the answer is no, then you don't need a PPM for CAR and OID.

What I find odd is that you do not mention a Process Performance Baseline (PPB) for CAR and OID. If you are going to define and develop a PPM, then you really need to develop the CAR and OID PPBs first before you can determine the PPMs. From your brief description, it sounds like your Lead Appraiser may have overstepped his boundaries in asking for the CAR and OID PPM.

Applicability of the Informative Material

I have been told that if an organization has to go for CMMI ML 5 the organization has to address all of the sub-practices even though they are informative material and if the company is only going for ML 3, then they can apply appropriate sub-practices. Is this true?

Please allow me to try to explain the model. There are at least two ways to look at the CMMI: 1) implementing the model and 2) appraising the organization against the model.

In addition, there are three CMMI components: Required, Expected, and Informative. These components only have meaning when you are talking about appraisals. The Required components are the Specific and Generic Goals, the Expected components are the Specific and Generic Practices, and everything else is an Informative Component.

When you are implementing the model, you should not be concerned about differentiating between the different types of components. From Chapter Two of the CMMI-ACQ (and this statement applies to ALL CMMI constellations): “All model components are important because the informative material helps you to understand the expected and required material. It is best to take these model components as a whole. If you understand all three types of material, you can then understand all the pieces and how they fit together to form a framework that can benefit your organization.”

When the organization is being appraised against the CMMI in a formal SCAMPI A appraisal, the organization will only be appraised against the Required and Expected components, regardless of the Maturity Level. However, the appraisal team may be evaluating the evidence and perhaps asking questions in the interview sessions at the sub-practice level just to gain a better understanding of how the organization is addressing each of the Required and Expected components. The organization will not be penalized if it is not performing one or more sub-practices. The appraisal team will be identifying and documenting weaknesses with the organization’s implementation of the goals and practices.

Because there has been a misunderstanding of what High Maturity means (ML 4 and ML 5), the SEI has been emphasizing that the proper implementation of the goals and practices for OPP, QPM, OID, and CAR means reading, understanding, and implementing the types of activities described in the Informative material. So, for a ML 4 or ML 5 SCAMPI, the organization will not be evaluated against the OPP. QPM, OID, and CAR sub-practices, but weaknesses will be noted at the goal and practice level if the organization has not properly implemented these Process Areas to meet the intent, which is gained by understanding the Informative material.

Understanding Causal Analysis and Resolution (CAR)

In the context of the CMMI, CAR is a Maturity Level 5 Process Area. You can perform CAR qualitatively at lower Maturity Levels, but you cannot realize the full benefits of CAR until you have stable processes and statistically understand the process capabilities. Let’s step through the practices one-by-one and talk about what they mean from a quantitative perspective;

SP 1.1 Select the defects and other problems for analysis.
You can perform this practice very simply and qualitatively just by having a gut feel that something is wrong and you want to investigate its causes. However, you should be using data and statistical tools such as Pareto analysis, histograms, or process capability analysis to determine which defects to analyze.

SP 1.2 Perform causal analysis of selected defects and other problems and propose actions to address them.
You can perform this practice qualitatively just by meeting with those people responsible for performing the process, using tools like cause-and-effect (fishbone) diagrams or check sheets. From a Maturity Level 5 perspective, you may have criteria that states you perform causal analysis when a stable process does not quantitatively meet its specified quality and process performance objective.

SP 2.1 Implement the selected action proposals that were developed in causal analysis.
Again it is possible to perform this practice qualitatively simply by implementing an action as the result of the cause-and-effect diagram. From a Maturity Level 5 perspective, you may be designing an experiment to see if the proposed action will have the desired quantitative results.

SP 2.2 Evaluate the effect of the changes on process performance.
This practice will be difficult to perform qualitatively. The intent of this practice is to measure the effects of the change on the process performance, which can only be done accurately if you have stable and capable processes in place and you are using quantitative methods to manage these processes.

SP 2.3 Record causal analysis and resolution data for use across the projects and organization.
If you are performing qualitative causal analysis you may not have any data to record other than results from the cause-and-effect diagram and rationale for the change. From a Maturity Level 5 perspective you might have data on the defects and other problems you analyzed and measures of the changes to the process performance resulting from the causal analysis.