Why Isn't the SEI Implementing the CMMI for Itself?

Why doesn't the SEI use its own model- CMMI for all its different product development and services? Even for SEI projects and program management it is crucial, and they have customers the world over. If the SEI goes for CMMI ML3 Appraisal it will be great for the user community and they can achieve their mission in a planned manner, right?

Do Lead Appraisers & SEI Partners feel that they can benefit if the SEI gets CMMI ML3 (defined Process)?

In such a case, who will appraise the SEI? (sorry for such a hypothetical Question)

As the SEI does not develop software, but delivers services, the CMMI-DEV doesn’t apply. That is why the SEI has not been previously appraised to the CMMI. However, the SEI is now implementing the CMMI-SVC for the services it delivers. This is a good thing and the SEI Partners are noticing some of the improvements. Obviously, by the SEI’s Conflict of Interest policy, a CMMI-SVC Lead Appraiser external to the SEI organization being appraised would have to lead the appraisal team.

Using the CMMI-SVC to Transform an Organization into a High-Functioning, Customer-Driven Profit Center

For those of you who were not able to attend the 2010 North American SEPG Conference in Savannah, GA in March, here is a copy of my presentation on the CMMI-SVC.

As a company grows and matures from a startup entrepreneurial venture to a sustainable corporation, the departments and company services that begin as good ideas expand and evolve to support the company’s growing business. Many times these services simply develop without any strategic vision resulting in institutionalized behaviors that are incompatible with the company’s business goals and objectives. Consequently, the transition to a larger corporation becomes a challenge. A notable example is a company’s Engineering Services Department.

When people think of Engineering Services, the Customer Support or Help Desk team is what first comes to mind. However, other services such as Product Training, Field Services (product installation and troubleshooting), and Engineering Sales Support may be provided as well.

As a product development company begins selling product, the Customer Support function becomes one of its first service offerings whether or not it recognizes it as such. In addition, it is natural for the focus of the Customer Support function to be on pleasing their customer base, as many sales are contingent upon repeat business and word of mouth until the company and its product line become established in the marketplace. Nevertheless, without a clear idea of its charter and strategic direction to support business growth and identify new markets and service offerings, the Customer Support Specialists focus instead on supporting their customer base on non-company and non-product issues and questions that consume internal resources without any tangible benefit to the company. Once a company starts banging its head on the “glass ceiling” as it attempts to grow, the leadership may recognize that its current Engineering Services approach does not support its strategic business goals and objectives.

In these circumstances, the company is not necessarily interested in implementing the CMMI for Services (CMMI-SVC) and becoming appraised to either Maturity Level 2 or Maturity Level 3. However, by using the Continuous Representation, the CMMI-SVC can provide the needed guidance to help a company restructure and reorganize its Engineering Services approach in order to become a profit center or revenue generating function.

In this presentation, we will present a case study for OMNI Flow Computers, Inc., a company that specializes in the design, development, and manufacture of panel-mount multi-run, multi-tasking liquid and gas flow computers, and field-mount, hazardous area controllers/RTUs for liquid and gas custody transfer metering systems. The challenge facing OMNI was to develop its Engineering Services Department into a high-functioning, customer-driven profit center. OMNI’s Engineering Services Department consists of three groups: Customer Support, Training, and Engineering Field Services. Customer Support handles customer questions, concerns, and issues. The Training group provides training on the OMNI product line to its customers and users. Engineering Field Services provides on-site troubleshooting services on an as-needed basis.

As the Training and Engineering Field Services groups were recent additional capabilities, Customer Support presented the biggest obstacle to overcome. Noted management consultant Peter Drucker declared several years ago that Quality in a service or product is not what you put into it. It is what the client or customer gets out of it. Moreover, an obstacle to achieving this objective was one of the core challenges faced by the department: developing an appropriate customer focus and developing new service offerings. A major reason for these challenges is the nature of OMNI products. OMNI's customers integrate their products into custody transfer systems that involve a wide variety of large-scale hardware and electronic equipment from other manufacturers. OMNI’s customers usually develop and commission these systems for their clients and end users. Therefore, when calls come in to OMNI’s Customer Support group, the first challenge they had to overcome was determining if the customer’s issue was actually an OMNI product issue or the result of an external issue. The next challenge was to determine the root cause of the issue, so that the customer would receive a timely resolution of their issue.

Fortunately, the release of the CMMI-SVC came at the right time for OMNI. Of the seven new services Process Areas (PAs), many of the Specific Practices and associated informative material proved useful in guiding the transformation of OMNI’s Engineering Services Department. The Service Delivery PA provided excellent guidance for establishing and documenting Engineering Services’ existing service offerings, ensuring that each group was prepared to deliver the defined service offerings, and delivering the service offerings. The Incident Resolution and Prevention PA provided excellent guidance for identifying, documenting, tracking, reporting, and resolving customer complaints, issues, and other service interruptions. The Service Continuity PA helped focus the Engineering Services Department manager to identify and prioritize the department’s essential functions and necessary resources. The Strategic Service Management PA brought the needed focus to establish the Engineering Services strategic needs and plans for its standard services.

The OMNI Engineering Services Department’s journey is not yet over. They are still growing, maturing, and learning what it means to become a high-functioning customer-driven profit center. However, along the way they learned some valuable lessons. This presentation will discuss some of the pitfalls they encountered, what strategies worked and what did not work, as well as provide some practical advice to aid other organizations facing similar challenges.

If you make customers unhappy in the physical world, they might each tell six friends. If you make customers unhappy on the Internet, they can each tell 6000 friends. - Jeff Bezos

Customer service is not a department. It is an attitude. – Unknown

This presentation provides a case study of a computer manufacturer that used the CMMI for Services to help transform its Engineering Services department (Customer Support, Training, and Engineering Field Services groups) into a high-functioning, customer-driven profit center. Challenges, successful approaches, lessons learned, and practical advice to aid other organizations facing similar challenges will be presented.

Using the CMMI-SVC to Transform an Organization into a High-Functioning, Customer-Driven Profit Center

View more presentations from Henry Schneider.

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.

Examples of Applying CMMI or CMMI-SVC to Government Organizations

I'm looking for cases where CMMI or CMMI-SVC have been applied (successfully or otherwise) within a government organization. I'm trying to identify lessons learned that would be useful to a US federal government department that has considered applying CMMI practices for process improvement.

There have been multiple US Government and Military organizations that have implemented and been appraised to the CMMI. Just look at the SEI's list of appraisal results http://sas.sei.cmu.edu/pars/pars.aspx and you will find these organizations. As far as the CMMI-SVC goes, this constellation was only released in late Feb 2009 and organizations are just beginning to use the model. So I seriously doubt that there are any examples of use available at this point in time. My guess is that the first time anyone will see examples of the CMMI-SVC being used will be at the 2010 SEPG Conference in Savannah, Georgia March 2010.

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.

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).

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.

Evaluating the CMMI for Services

I'm currently involved in an evaluation of different types of assessments for the area of IT Service Management (ITSM) and therefore challenging the CMMI for Services 1.2 (CMMI-SVC).

A major problem I see in CMMI-SVC, is the disregarded sufficient differentiation of practices over different maturity levels. Maybe I´m wrong with my opinion and someone can help me fixing this mess.

I´d like to give a background for a better understanding o f what I mean:

1. In my opinion many (internal) IT service units in mid-size companies don´t have any official agreements (nor contracts) with their business customer to specify service content, service levels or support. Sometimes these things are partly available and if at all, then often are informally and silently accepted.
2. In such (above) described IT service units you will find quite often an official HelpDesk (mostly official because it´s a specific function within IT) or minimum some guys necessary for service support (like handling service incidents) to keep the business process running.

Now take a look at the CMMI-SVC Process Areas and their associated Maturity Levels. You will find Service Development (SD) at Maturity Level 2 including specific practices:

SP 1.1 Analyze Existing Agreements and Service Data
SP 1.2 Establish the Service Agreement
SP 2.1 Establish the Service Delivery Approach
SP 2.2 Prepare for Service System Operations
SP 2.3 Establish a Request Management System
SP 3.1 Receive and Process Service Requests
SP 3.2 Operate the Service System
SP 3.3 Maintain the Service System

and you will find Incident Resolution and Prevention (IRP) at maturity level 3 including specific practices:

SP 1.1 Establish an Approach to Incident Resolution and Prevention
SP 1.2 Establish an Incident Management System
SP 2.1 Identify and Record Incidents
SP 2.2 Analyze Incident Data
SP 2.3 Apply Workarounds to Selected Incidents
SP 2.4 Address Underlying Causes of Selected Incidents
SP 2.5 Monitor the Status of Incidents to Closure
SP 2.6 Communicate the Status of Incidents
SP 3.1 Analyze Selected Incident Data
SP 3.2 Plan Actions to Address Underlying Causes of Selected Incidents
SP 3.3 Establish Workarounds for Selected Incidents

To come to an end I would expect that it is an essential part of any IT unit to solve service incidents, to fulfill the main goal of the company, and keep the business process working. Therefore I would assign half of the listed IRP practices to Maturity Level 2 and would other way around assign half of the SD practices to Maturity Level 3. The CMMI-SVC therefore seems for me to be not sufficient in differentiating practices over Maturity Levels, and would lead to the conclusion that CMMI-SVC is not useful for Maturity Level determination.

I appreciate any explanation if there is a misunderstandig or if there exists a grain of truth.

Your position is much the same as the kind of statements we heard regarding the engineering practices being at ML 3 in the CMMI-DEV. Just because these practices are at ML 3 does not mean that they are not important and are probably even performed at ML 1. What you have to bear in mind is that the CMMI is a set of process improvement guidelines , as well as the definition and purpose of ML 2 and ML 3. At ML 2, projects establish the foundation for an organization to become an effective service provider by institutionalizing basic project management and service establishment and delivery practices. Basically, ML 2 is about gaining control over the projects and service delivery and that is why there is only one service PA at ML 2. You have to get delivery under control before you can focus improving the other aspects of services like Incident Resolution and Prevention. And at ML 3, service providers use defined processes for managing projects. They embed tenets of project management and services best practices, such as service continuity and incident resolution and prevention, into the standard process set.

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

What is the Latest News on CMMI-ACQ and CMMI-SVC?

Are there many organizations using the CMMI-ACQ at the moment and what kind of feedback do you have - good or bad?

There doesn’t appear to be much interest in this constellation at this point. I have taught the Intro to CMMI-ACQ supplement one time in the past 12 months. The students were from the US Navy and consultants supporting the Navy. They were very interested in the material and felt that the information was very useful. I think that the CMMI-ACQ is slowly gaining momentum. It is just my perception here in the US that there is not a whole lot of interest in the CMMI-ACQ. There should be a lot of interest in the government sector where most everything is outsourced or acquired. But I just don’t see the interest yet. We heard at the Lead Appraiser workshop in October that Maggie Glover had led the first SCAMPI A using the CMMI-ACQ for an organization in Taiwan. It may take some time to build interest in the CMMI-ACQ. The constellation that appears to be of much more interest and a broader applicability is the CMMI-SVC.

if you are a interested in a comparison of the CMMI- DEV and CMMI-ACQ please visit this site http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/models/ACQ-v12-comparetoDEV.html

Is there any news on the CMMI-SVC? I am interested in finding out when the final report comes out.

The CMMI-SVC is scheduled for release in March 2009. Pre-release training is currently available to SEI Partners and will be open to everyone after the March 2009 release.

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.