Query on CMMI for Development v1.3

Our organization was appraised at CMMI ML3 in Oct, 2009 and we'll be going for ML5 in Q1 2011. Although we have been preparing ourselves for CMMI for Development v1.2, we are also aware that the CMMI for Development v1.3 will be out in January, 2011. We wish to get appraised for CMMI for Development v1.3. I have gone through some of the PPTs and PDFs on web but none of them give a clear insight into the changed expectations from the existing PAs or expectations from new PAs to be added.

It'll be a great help if anyone can provide me the draft version of v1.3 or any detailed document about the same.

One item that you may not be aware of is that the SEI would like to see at least 18 months between an ML 3 appraisal and a High Maturity appraisal. If you are planning for an appraisal in Q1 2011, that would be less than 18 months. Therefore you would have a very high probability of your appraisal results being audited by the SEI, which could take a long time before being accepted. I would encourage you to hire a High Maturity Lead Appraiser as soon as possible, if you haven’t already done so, and move your plans for your ML 5 appraisal at least 3 months or more into the future to ensure that you have enough data for performing the High Maturity practices and enough time for institutionalization of HM.

You will have to wait for the v1.3 release in November 2010. The problem with using drafts is that things can change before the release.

Implementing CMMI Along With ISO 9001

Suppose a company already has an ISO 9001 certification. Then they decide to achieve an appraisal at level 3. Suppose further that their plan is to add additional process assets according to their gap analysis. But then they discover that certain ISO 9001 work instructions or templates require changes to meet the requirements of CMMI level 3. If these assets are changed, would that necessarily invalidate the ISO 9001 certification? Under what conditions would the certification be invalidated, and what needs to be done under those circumstances? Is there a way to avoid this issue?

Without having any details as to your situation, I find it hard to believe that if you are ISO 9001 certified that the CMMI is causing you to make changes to your quality system that would invalidate your ISO 9001 certification. The ISO 9001 standard and the CMMI-DEV model are compatible. Are you working with an SEI-certified Lead Appraiser/consultant? If not, you may be making some decisions to change processes and process assets that are not necessary.

To properly address your concerns, you should have a Lead Appraiser conduct a gap analysis of your organization to determine what you currently have in place that is compatible with the CMMI and identify those gaps that need to be addressed in order for your organization to achieve Maturity Level 3. And any updates to existing processes and process assets should be compatible with both the ISO standard and the CMMI-DEV.

CMMI for Modeling and Simulation Efforts

I am interested in applying CMMI techniques to modeling and simulation efforts. I do not mean the modeling and simulation of the software engineering process (I have plenty of information, models etc. on that).

We do modeling and simulation work (e.g. growth of the biofuel industry, migration issues, watershed management) to inform policy makers. We have a grassroots 'best practices' movement and are looking for suggestions, ideas, etc. to improve our process. We do not use 'popular' tools and the niche software we do use is not conducive to configuration management tools etc. In addition, we rarely have a requirements document. We are essentially doing research.

Do you have any suggestions?

In my experience, a pure R&D shop has difficulty implementing the CMMI-DEV because of the free form nature of the environment and work. However, what makes more sense for you to investigate is the CMMI-SVC. It sounds like you are performing engineering or research and analysis services for policy makers.

As you may not have a requirements document for your niche software, you most surely have requirements for the research you are performing for your clients. If not, then you run the risk of having your results called into question.

Therefore, I think that you would be better served by the CMMI-SVC than the CMMI-DEV as it sounds like you may not be doing a lot of development, but instead providing research services.

The Right Model to Follow

Our operations involve providing reporting solutions & implementing them based on tools like SAP BOBJ, MSTR, MS, ORCL primarily setting up datamarts & ETL processes and also providing technical support to customers as a line of business (Java/.net support for third party tools based on bugs/additional requirements given by customers at random)

Question 1: For such an organization , would it be right to follow CMMI for Development or CMMI for Services or both?
Question 2: Are appraisals made on CMMI V1.3 or are we still in CMMI V1.2. If still on 1.2, when are we likely to move to V1.3?
Question 3: If only a few projects or one division of an organization is appraised, will the appraisal rating stand for the company?

Question 1 – This question is difficult to answer based upon your description. Are you developing a product or delivering a service? I really cannot tell from your description, it could be either or both. If you are developing a product, then the CMMI-DEV might be applicable. If you are delivering a service, then the CMMI-SVC might be applicable. And you could blend the two. Another aspect to consider is are you planning to have a SCAMPI A appraisal? If so, then your Lead Appraiser will be able to help you decide which constellation is applicable to your organization. If you are not planning on being appraised, then I would suggest that you look at both constellations and use the Process Areas that apply best to your organization.
Question 2 – CMMI v1.2 is the current version. The SEI recently announced that v1.3 will be released in November 2010. And based on past experience, the SEI will most likely allow appraisals against v1.2 to be conducted up until October 31, 2011.
Question 3 – The short answer is no. The appraisal results ONLY apply to the organization that was appraised, not the entire company.

Selecting Projects for a SCAMPI Appraisal

One of my client organisations works on hardware and software design projects related to locomotive design for a manufacturer. They want to adopt the CMMI-DEV and scope their SCAMPI appraisals only for their software projects. Both, hardware and software design projects are undertaken by the same organisation, under the same management, same company name and at the same location. Is it be proper for the organization to exclude the hardware projects from their CMMI journey and appraisals? I feel it is not proper and it violates the principle of institutionalization of processes across the organization. Moreover, if the Lead Appraiser agrees to conduct an appraisal for software projects only, he or she will violate the principle of randomly selecting the projects for the appraisal.

The way I look at this situation depends upon on how the company is organized. If there are separate hardware and software development groups, departments, or divisions that deliver products to a program office (for example), then the software group could be appraised on its own. The same could be true for the hardware group. In fact, this situation occurs quite frequently in my experience here in the United States.

However, if the hardware and software groups are tightly intertwined in building and delivering a product (meaning you cannot separate the two), then I would say that both the hardware and software groups had to be appraised together.

The correct decision requires the Lead Appraiser to have a very good understanding of the organization and its business, as well as being a function of how the organization defines a project and what its process documentation states.

Application of the CMMI for Services

I am in the process of preparing a "justification" presentation that talks about why the CMMI is important and how it can be applied. Though I have enough material and data to substantiate this, I don't have data that is contextual. I am looking for data, links, or any input that would point me to where the CMMI was applied to a Staff Augmentation organization or a comparison where I can see how each CMMI constellation (DEV, ACQ, and SVC) can be applied (Development Orgs, Support and Maintenance Org, Outsourcing Org, Staff Augmentation Org).

Though I could be wrong here, but I seriously doubt that the kind of information you seek exists at this point in time. Keep in mind that the CMMI for Services (CMMI-SVC) was only released in late February 2009 and the first appraisals to this constellation cannot occur at least for another 2 or 3 months. So there won’t be any anecdotal evidence or case studies available to provide the information you seek. I would imagine that the first opportunity to see any information of the type will be at the 2010 North American SEPG Conference. And since you are asking about applying the CMMI to a Staff Augmentation organization, the applicable CMMI constellation would the CMMI-SVC. There just isn’t a lot of information about its benefits right now, not enough time has elapsed since its release.

Is There a Difference Between Software and Firmware Development wrt the CMMI?

Would you kindly let me know the difference between the development of software and firmware and what CMMI practices are useful for firmware development? Is there a need to have Configuration plan for firmware development projects to control the code version?

Though the location of where the software or firmware resides is different as well as the code, there is no difference in the development practices and activities that occur. The CMMI for Development (CMMI-DEV) applies equally well to any type of product development. All projects have requirements, the work needs to be planned and managed, the work products and deliverables need to be managed, designs have to be developed, etc. The specifics in the processes most likely will vary from hardware development to software development to firmware development, but all of the Process Areas (Engineering, Support, Project Management, and Process Management) apply.

Why SAM is excluded ?

Why is SAM removed from CMMI L3?

Supplier Agreement Management (SAM) is not excluded from the CMMI-DEV or CMMI-SVC. When you say L3, I assume you mean Maturity Level 3 and SAM is definitely NOT excluded from ML 3. If, however, the Lead Appraiser in working with the organization determines that SAM is not applicable to the work performed by the organization, SAM will be considered Not Applicable to the scope of the appraisal. And that could be at any Maturity Level. Please read previous my posts regarding SAM for more information. http://ppqc.blogspot.com/2009/04/excluding-supplier-agreement-management.html and http://ppqc.blogspot.com/2009/07/cmmi-novice-question.html

CMMI Novice Question

I would like to know if all the Maturity Level 2 Process Areas must be completed for a Maturity Level 2 appraisal? There are some process areas which are not applicable to our organization.

For the CMMI for Development (CMMI-DEV) there is only one Process Area (PA) that can be designated Not Applicable (N/A), SAM. Therefore, at a minimum, REQM, PP, PMC, MA, PPQA, and CM are required for a Maturity Level 2 (ML 2) appraisal. And if the organization has outsourced some work, then SAM is also applicable.

I find it hard to believe that you can state that one or more of these PAs are not applicable to your organization. Every project has requirements to manage from the janitor to the President. Everyone works on a project. You just have to define what a project is. And then you manage the project. Everyone can define specific measures that can be used to manage the project. Everyone has some sort of configuration items or documents that have to be managed. And everyone needs some sort of objective evaluation of the process and project compliance. For a small organization, you may have combined one or more of these PAs under one person. But that does not mean these PAs are not applicable.

Now if you said that you had problems with the engineering PAs (RD, TS, PI, VER, and VAL), then I would suggest that the CMMI-DEV may not be the appropriate model constellation for your use and you should look at the CMMI for Services (CMMI-SVC) or CMMI for Acquisition (CMMI-ACQ).

Applicability of Requirements Development (RD)

Is Requirements Development (RD) applicable for maintenance projects?

If the CMMI-DEV is applicable to your maintenance projects, then the short answer is YES!

Excluding Supplier Agreement Management

Page 440 of CMMI-DEV 1.2 model clearly states that: "SAM process area does not directly address arrangements in which the supplier is integrated into the project team and uses the same processes and reports to the same management as the product developers (for example, integrated teams)."

This statement opens room for some Lead Appraisers to trigger the default button: "SAM is out." But the paragraph continues with the following statement: "Typically, these situations are handled by other processes or functions, possibly external to the project, though some of the specific practices of this process area may be useful in managing the formal agreement with such a supplier."

In my oppinion, not considering SAM may incur problems in the future because you may be postponing the elaboration of a mature way to handle suppliers and contracts and this will be necessary when the organization evolves to higher maturity levels. And, of course, it will be necessary to survive in a global IT world driven by strong and stronger supplier/acquirer relationships.

In my country, only 2 out of 16 organizations who published their Maturity Level 2 appraisals considered SAM in their scope. And, guess what? Many of these organizations use a high number of contractors in their development phases. So, what led them to exclude SAM?

It is important to understand the intent of SAM. If you are augmenting your staff by having a supplier provide people and these people then act, for all intents and purposes, as your employees, then SAM does not apply. Basically, they are following your processes and not managing any of the work on their own, you are managing the work. However, if you give the supplier a chunk of work that they can manage by themselves using their own processes, then SAM applies. So both the organization and the Lead Appraiser need to be aware that if the relationship changes with the supplier, then SAM may move from being N/A to in scope for an appraisal. And you raise a good point, whether or not the Lead Appraiser determines if SAM is in or out of scope, the organization should be aware of the necessary practices it should have in place to manage a supplier.

And if the organization wants to become more sophisticated in managing suppliers, they should be using the CMMI-ACQ.

Integrated SCAMPI

I am faced with a problem with determining which CMMI to use (CMMI-DEV, CMMI-SVC, or CMMI-ACQ) for an in-house IT Department that performs all three types of functions for the organization. I face the following questions:

1. Is there an integrated SCAMPI for all three models held together? Or is the scope is simply determined by adding different PAs from different models? In this case, against what model will the ratings be announced?
2. What about the cost paid to the SEI? Is it calculated differently for such a SCAMPI?
3. What about exclusions if all PAs from these three models that are not fully applicable? Is there a way other than pursuing Continuous Representation?
4. Can you recommend any research work done already on integrating the three model for designing and implementing the OSSP?

I will be greatful for your help and support...

As a first step you should hire an SEI-certified Lead Appraiser, preferably in all three constellations, to provide you the proper advice as to which constellation is appropriate for your organization.

I would only recommend that an organization use the CMMI-ACQ if their primary focus was acquiring products and services from vendors. The CMMI-DEV and CMMI-SVC both have the Supplier Agreement Management Process Area, so either constellation will work if acquisition is not the primary focus of the organization.

Here are my answers to your specific questions:

1. It is possible to conduct blended SCAMPI A appraisals that cover more than one constellation. But your Lead Appraiser will have to work with your organization and the SEI on how best to perform the blended appraisal and determine your Capability or Maturity Level ratings.
2. There are NO fees paid to the SEI by the organization for any appraisal. Any appraisal costs are negotiated between you and your Lead Appraiser.
3. The determination of the appraisal scope is performed jointly with your Lead Appraiser when planning the appraisal. The appraisal scope specifies the representation and the Process Areas being evaluated.
4. I am unaware of any reported results using blended constellations. Though Mike Phillips from the SEI has said that blended SCAMPIs are permissible. I suggest that you contact the SEI and ask for this kind of information, if it exists.

CMMI-SVC and Emergence of Open Organizations

Emergence of Open Organization- when will it happen? LinkedIn + Google+Sourceforge+Newscale + Visa
I foresee Newscale/ Pinky/SEI coming up with a master service catalogue that could be integrated with Google where any Group member can have his own service catalog in his profile. The Group Service catalog could well be an Organization's service catalog. Probably any individual would say he has his office is in Yahoo!, Google etc and may add that he works for a particular social enterprise/many enterprises. I also feel that some governmental procedures or a global standard will evolve for the governance of Open companies. My question is does the CMMI-SVC address this?

What you are asking about is a virtual office environment and the tools to enable this environment. There are two practices in the CMMI that address work environments: OPD SP 1.6 Establish and maintain work environment standards and IPM SP 1.3 Establish and maintain the project’s work environment based on the organization’s work environment standards. Since both OPD and IPM are Core Process Areas (PAs), they are common to all CMMI constellations CMMI-DEV, CMMI-ACQ, and CMMI-SVC. So your virtual office concept can work with any of the three constellations.

CMMI-SVC vs. CMMI-DEV

I have some questions about the CMMI-SVC. As I understand it, the CMMI-SVC is scheduled to be released in March. My company performs IT systems maintenance by adapting the CMMI-DEV to process improvement and conducting appraisals. Of course the CMMI-DEV is good for IT system developement organizations. But I want to know which CMMI constellation, the CMMI-DEV or CMMI-SVC, is a better fit for IT system maintenance organizations. In our case, IT system maintenance provides IT service and maintenance at the same time.

What is the logical basis to switch constellations from CMMI-DEV to CMMI-SVC, especially if the CMMI-SVC is more adequate for IT system maintenance organization?

Also I am now confused about the CMMI-DEV focus. It is only focusing on System development organizations and not System maintenance organizations with the release of the CMMI-SVC?

Some people in my organiztion now think that we have been using the wrong CMMI constellation for our IT maintenance organizations.

Yes, you are correct, the CMMI for Services will be released in March, at the same time as the 2009 SEPG Conference. I think that many maintenance organizations have the same questions and problems with the CMMI-DEV.

The problems arise with the engineering Process Areas (PAs) Requirements Development (RD), Technical Solution (TS), Product Integration (PI), Verification (VER), and Validation (VAL), especially TS and PI. In a maintenance environment, there are not very many opportunities for new development and Technical Solution. The only time that occurs is when there are major changes or updates to the existing product. Then it makes sense to perform the engineering PAs. But the majority of the time the organization is fixing defects, basically delivering a maintenance service. In this situation, it may make more sense to use the CMMI-SVC and its PAs Capacity and Availability Management (CAM), Incident Resolution and Prevention (IRP), Service Continuity (SC), Service Delivery (SD), Service System Development (SSD), Service System Transition (SST), and Strategic Service Management (SSM). It is also possible to blend constellations CMMI-DEV and CMMI-SVC to address both software development and software maintenance.

It is a bit difficult to provide the proper guidance and advice regarding which constellation is the best fit without knowing more information about the specific organization. But in my opinion, I would suggest that if there is very little to no new development work being done by the projects and the organization, then the CMMI-SVC should be examined to see if it provides a better fit for the organization. Being appraised to the CMMI-SVC or CMMI-ACQ is just as prestigious as being appraised to the CMMI-DEV as 16 of the PAs are shared by all three constellations.

And as a final point, there in no change in the focus of the CMMI-DEV with the release of the CMMI-SVC. The CMMI-DEV still applies to the same situations as it always has.

CMMI v1.3 Query

I have few questions about the release of CMMI v1.3 expected next year.

1. We are implementing CMMI v1.2 level 5 this year (first quarter). When the SEI releases v1.3 will there be any changes again in expectation and understanding as it was done in v1.2 for the High Maturity practices.
2. How will the release of v1.3 affect the ongoing and planned appraisals based on v1.2?
3. When v1.3 is released next year, can a company directly go from ML5 v1.1 to ML5 v1.3? If so,what will be the impacts?
4. If the v1.3 updates all three constellations (CMMI-DEV, CMMI-ACQ, and CMMI-SVC) then appraisals based on v1.2 will again be 'NON COMPLIANT with the latest CMMI model version. How will the SEI accomodate the differences?
5. Is there any pre-release material available?

These are good questions, but they are questions that can only be addressed by the SEI at this time. The SEI Partners and Lead Appraisers only know what the SEI told us in October, which was in general terms. We don’t have any specific information on the contents of v1.3. All that we know is that v1.3 is triggered by the changes necessary to the core CMMI framework to accommodate CMMI-ACQ and CMMI-SVC. The SEI is also include changes to the HM PAs. There will most likely be other changes rolled in as well. But as v1.3 is probably a year in the future, it doesn’t help to speculate on the impacts of v1.3 today.

As with previous model updates, I would fully expect that when the SEI releases v1.3 that there will be a sunset period for v1.2 to address the kinds of issues that you have brought up.

For question #1, it is my impression that there is no change in the HM expectations, just clearer statements of the HM expectations.

And keep in mind that all CMMI Ratings are only good for three years and if the results are posted on the SEI’s site, the model version used for the appraisal is indicated. So for question #4, the appraisal results are not invalidated because the model is updated. It is incumbent upon the organization to remain current on model changes and be prepared to be appraised to the correct version at the renewal date.

The SEI also just made this announcement:

CMMI Version 1.3 News

The Software Engineering Institute is now planning Version 1.3 of the CMMI Product Suite. CMMI Version 1.3 will include updates to the models in all three constellations: Development, Acquisition, and Services. These updates will synchronize the architecture and content of the models as members of the CMMI Product Suite and clarify the high maturity material in all three models. Change requests submitted before March 2, 2009 for CMMI-DEV, CMMI-ACQ, and CMMI-SVC will be reviewed as part of this project. As plans are finalized, more information about CMMI Version 1.3 will become available on the SEI website. The date of the Version 1.3 release is not yet definite, but is likely in 2010.

If you wish to submit a change request for a CMMI model, download and complete the appropriate form and email it to cmmi-cr@sei.cmu.edu. For more information about the CMMI User Feedback process and change request forms, see http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/models/change-requests.html.

In addition, the SEI announced today a webinar on v1.3 scheduled for Feb 10, 2009.

Special Event in the SEI Webinar Series: CMMI Version 1.3 Product Suite

Join us for a Webinar on February 10

Presented by Mike Konrad and Rusty Young

In this webinar session, Mike Konrad, manager of the CMMI Model Team and CMMI Chief Architect, and Rusty Young, manager of the SCAMPI Appraisal Team, will discuss CMMI Version 1.3. Version 1.3 will include updates to the entire CMMI Product Suite and will focus on, but not be limited to:

1. Clarity of high maturity
2. More effective generic practices
3. Appraisal efficiencies
4. Commonality across the constellations: Development, Acquisition, and Services

This webinar will be the final in-depth communication on Version 1.3 before the change request period is closed. Change requests that are submitted before March 2, 2009 for CMMI-DEV, CMMI-ACQ, and CMMI-SVC constellations will be reviewed as part of this project. As plans are finalized, more information about CMMI Version 1.3 will become available on the SEI website. The date of the Version 1.3 release is not yet definite, but is likely in 2010. SPACES ARE LIMITED! SO, REGISTER NOW!
Title:

Special Event in the SEI Webinar Series: CMMI Version 1.3 Product Suite
Date:
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Time:
9:30 AM - 12:30 PM EST
After registering you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the Webinar.

System RequirementsPC-based attendeesRequired: Windows® 2000, XP Home, XP Pro, 2003 Server, Vista
Macintosh®-based attendeesRequired: Mac OS® X 10.4 (Tiger®) or newer

Space is limited.Reserve your Webinar seat now at:https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/258250327

CMMI Use in a Non-Software Organization

The CMMI model is used for improving the maturity of company processes, mainly in software organizations. But the model says that CMMI can be used also in other engineering contexts, such as mechanical, electrical etc. Does anyone know about companies that have been evaluated in contexts other than software?

As you have stated, the CMMI for Development (CMMI-DEV) is useful for systems engineering, hardware engineering, and software engineering. Over the past 20 to 30 years, it has been primarily software organizations that have been implementing maturity models. But these models do apply in other contexts. In point of fact, I have been working with a client for over a year that just performs systems engineering and we are using the CMMI-DEV. We are currently planning their ML 3 SCAMPI A for early 2009. There is no software development involved in the scope of their appraisal. It has been an interesting experience to think outside of the software realm when interpreting the SPs and GPs, but it does work very nicely.

Who Owns the Process?

A company/organization entirely outsources its software development to another company. That's their business model. The developers working for the company whose name appears on their paycheck work for the client in every way except for who signs the paycheck (so to speak).

The entire development effort (client and developers) implements CMMI.

IF BOTH the leaders of the client company AND the developer company take part in the process efforts, e.g., GP2.1, GP2.7, GP2.8, GP2.10, GP3.2, et al. can the SCAMPI be done such that both OUs are delineated? Can BOTH organizations lay claim to a rating?

I think the key element comes down to the definition of the Organizational Unit. And you imply in your scenario that there are two OUs. One OU has outsourced the engineering work and the other OU is performing the engineering work. Given the OU definitions, I think that this scenario indicates the need for two SCAMPI appraisals. One for the client using the CMMI-ACQ since it has outsourced the development work and one for the development organization using the CMMI-DEV.

Is CMMI only for Software Companies?

Can the CMMI be applied only for software developments companies, or can systems integration companies also derive benefit from it ? What I mean by "systems integration companies" are organizations who engage in selling IT solutions including sofware and hardware as a solution.

The CMMI is not a software only model. By the end of this year, the SEI will have released three CMMI constellations: CMMI for Development, CMMI for Acquisition, and CMMI for Services. The Development and Acquisition constellations are currently available, the Services constellation is due to be released this Fall. The CMMI for Development (CMMI-DEV) covers hardware, software, and systems engineering and so it will apply to systems integration companies as you have defined the term.

Applicability of the CMMI to a Volunteer Association

I'm hoping all y'all can help ... one of the volunteer associations that I am involved with is considering developing an organizational assessment model to evaluate project management maturity or competence. I'm looking for some market info/competitive analysis.

1. If you are familiar with CMM and CMMI, do you feel that these models are adequate to assess non-software organizations?
2. Do you have direct, personal experience with any of the existing models? Was it good or bad?
3. If you don't have direct experience, do you have any secondhand information about any of the models?
4. What models are you aware of? What do you know of their strengths
   and weaknesses?
5. Has your current employer expressed any interest in an assessment? Why or why not?
   

First off, let me set some things straight about the CMM and CMMI. The CMM is no longer valid for use as of December 31, 2005. It was replaced by the CMMI. Since its introduction in December 2000, the CMMI has evolved into what the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) is calling a group of constellations. The first constellation is the CMMI for Development (CMMI-DEV). The second constellation is the CMMI for Acquisition (CMMI-ACQ) that was released last Fall. And the third constellation is the CMMI for Services (CMMI-SVC) that will be released towards the end of 2008. There is a core set of 16 Process Areas that are common to all constellations and the core includes the Project Management Process Areas of Requirements Management (REQM), Project Planning (PP), Project Monitoring and Control (PMC), Integrated Project Management (IPM), Risk Management (RSKM), and Quantitative Project Management (QPM).

REQM, PP, PMC, IPM, RSKM, and QPM apply to any type of organization, not just software organizations. The CMMI-DEV is for software engineering, hardware engineering, and/or systems engineering organizations. The CMMI-ACQ is for organizations who have outsourced their development and/or maintenance work and are just managing their subcontractors. The CMMI-SVC is for organizations who provide services.

REQM, PP, and PMC are the basic project management Process Areas (Maturity Level 2). IPM and RSKM build on REQM, PP, and PMC to enable the Project Manager to proactively manage the project (Maturity Level 3). And QPM builds on REQM, PP, PMC, IPM, and RSKM to allow the Project Manager to quantitatively manage the project and statistically manage selected sub-processes to achieve the organization’s and project’s quality and process performance objectives.

It might take a little bit of thought and discussion to determine how these Process Areas can be used in a volunteer association, but using the CMMI would be a great place to start.

CMMI Updates from the SEI

Last week I participated in the workshop at the Software Engineering Institute in Pittsburgh to develop questions for the Lead Appraiser certification exam that is planned to be administered for the first time in October 2008. To kick off the workshop, Mike Phillips/Program Manager of the CMMI, gave us the latest information on a number of topics that I want to summarize for you here.

1. The purpose of this workshop was to help increase the professional aspect of the Lead Appraiser profession and it represents a maturation of the profession.
2. The first opportunity to use the Lead Appraiser test will be at the Lead Appraiser Workshop in Vancouver, WA in October 2008. All Lead Appraisers must take and pass the exam and there will be a one-year window for taking the exam.
3. The release of CMMI v1.3 will not be very long after the release of CMMI-SVC constellation, which is currently planned for March 2009. The SEI is trying to get it out sooner, possibly as early as January 2009.
4. v1.3 will include a number of changes resulting from developing CMMI-ACQ and CMMI-SVC. There are two IPPD practices for ACQ, one in OPD and one in IPM, that are now mandatory. The SEI also wants to include the updated High Maturity material in this release. The intent is to bring all three constellations into a greater harmony. The plan is to release v1.3 by the end of 2009.
5. The strategy for the Introduction to the CMMI class will also be changing somewhat. At some unspecified time in the future, the new class will consist of a 3-day generic course applicable to any constellation, and then 1-day supplemental classes for each constellation. The generic class is expected to be for everyone and the supplemental classes will be for appraisal team members only.
6. Someone in the audience asked Mike Phillips if the SEI is going to consider hardware engineering as a separate discipline. His answer was that the SEI is not trying to differentiate hardware engineering at this time. They are backing away from discipline-specific distinctions.
7. Mike Phillips said that there are ongoing discussions on future constellations. Possibly one for manufacturing and another for operations. But these constellations, if they were to materialize, are way off into the future.
8. When v1.3 is released near December 2009, the SEI will issues three TRs, one for each constellation.
9. v1.3 was approved as an idea by the SEI Steering Group one month ago. The next steps are in work, but it is still too early in the process to be definitive.