Is a Prediction Model Required for Maturity Level 4

Is it necessary to have a prediction model for L4 and L5?

I collect data from different projects and put them in a 3 sigma band and take care of outliers.  Then I compare the mean and standard deviation of current PBB with previous PBB.  And I also check against the LSL and USL set by the management team the trend coming out of this PBB.  In case the mean, SD, LCL and UCL decrease from the previous PBB, I update the management team and we check the projects on the basis of this.

What happens when I talk to someone in my circle of friends they talk about regression, simulation, Monte Carlo, etc.  In my organization we need to show process performance against set targets, so why make life so complex with so many above mentioned methods?


From what I can glean from your question is that you have developed a Process Performance Baseline (PPB).  But I have no idea why you have done this and what value you are getting from knowing this PPB.  What use is it to your organization?  How does it help you meet your Quality and Process Performance Objectives (QPPOs) and your business goals?

If you are not interested in fully implementing ML 4 or ML 5, then I suppose you don’t need anything else as long as you are deriving some sort of benefit from this PPB.  However, for a complete High Maturity implementation, you are expected to do the proper statistical analysis of data distributions, probability statistics, process engineering, etc. to derive appropriate PPBs and PPMs.  And to be a PPM instead of merely a forecast model and be of use for "what-if" analyses, the PPMs must contain controllable factors that have an impact on the outcome.

Also, if you want to implement ML 4 and/or ML 5, then you need to have established organizational QPPOs, a number of PPBs that support the QPPOs and can be used to evaluate the feasibility of achieving them, and a set of Process Performance Models (PPMs) that are derived from your historical data that are used in conjunction with the PPBs to predict each project’s ability to meet its QPPOs, as well as a number of other activities.

Therefore, if all that you have is one PPB and nothing else, you only have a partial implementation of OPP and still have a lot of work ahead of you before you can consider that you have implemented ML 4, let alone ML 5.

SCAMPI Document Review

I have two questions or requests for clarification:

• During the document review in SCAMPI B, wherever we do not have a doc, ppt, or xls as an artifact, we provide screenshots from tools where the planning and tracking are done.  However, our Lead Appraiser (LA) is asking for access to tools for all the ATMs.  But it is not possible to give access to certain tools as they are client specific and only the team working on the project gets access (that too after signing an NDA).  How do we handle this situation?  Even if the tool is internal, access is very much restricted based on role in the project.  Can the LA really require access to tools for all ATMs, which is not allowed as per the policy of an organization?  Is there a guideline on what process to follow in case access to certain tools or application is restricted? 

• Is there a material, which shows a linkage of all the PAs (representing interaction of PAs) and gives a holistic view of CMMI PAs when applied to an organization at Maturity L5. This is more from a training perspective. 

Have you explained these restrictions to your Lead Appraiser?  The Lead Appraiser should be flexible regarding access to restricted tools.  As a Lead Appraiser, I would find the screen shots as acceptable evidence in your situation.  And if I wanted or needed to view additional evidence, I would request that you provide a demonstration of the tool by an authorized user and have this person be directed by the ATMs or Lead Appraiser to view specific information.  I have used screen shots as evidence on numerous appraisals in the past.  The SCAMPI method allows for screen shots and tool demos for just such reasons as yours.  If your Lead Appraiser is unwilling to abide by your restrictions on tool access, then I would strongly urge you to find a new Lead Appraiser and possibly report him or her to the SEI.

Look in Chapter 4 of the CMMI-DEV book and you will find a series of diagrams that show the linkages between the PAs at a very high level.

Why Would I Need a CMMI Expert?

If my organization is already doing something and my results are in order, what is the value of me picking up something that I am doing and saying that this is what fulfils the requirement of configuration audits or for that matter any other practice.  Why do I need a specific (CMMI) legal expert to do the hair splitting and argue that what I do indeed meets CMMI requirements and three other who say it does not?  I would be keen to understand how my organization, or for that matter any other organization in the community, would be better off.


If you are able to identify that what you are doing satisfies the practice, then you are correct in that you don’t need a CMMI expert to tell you that your practice meets the CMMI.  However, in my experience, since people look at the CMMI as a requirements specification, they have difficulty determining that some of their practices are in fact CMMI compliant and therefore take steps to implement additional, and perhaps non-value added, redundant practices to “pass” the appraisal. Therefore it is important to have a CMMI consultant and/or Lead Appraiser perform  a gap analysis to determine if the organization has made the proper interpretations of the CMMI in their implementation.



On the surface the CMMI is a simple model, but the more you study it, you find additional layers of complexity that can lead to misunderstandings or extra non-value added practices.



I would maintain that if you were only using the CMMI for helping you identify areas for process improvement, were not interested in being appraised, and you had some internal process improvement specialists who are knowledgeable of the CMMI, ISO, etc., then you most likely would not need to use an external CMMI expert.  However, if your goal is to be appraised to the CMMI, then it is vitally important to work with a CMMI consultant and/or Lead Appraiser.



One last point, you refer to a CMMI legal expert.  That is a telling statement.  In my experience, even when I encounter CMMI Lawyers in an organization, they lose sight of the purpose of the CMMI and process improvement.  They are more interested in “what if” scenarios.  Such as What if I do this or write this document, will that be CMMI compliant?  The focus is more on explicitly covering all of the CMMI requirements rather than doing what is beneficial to the organization’s business practices.  And if you find yourself or others in your organization splitting hairs over whether a practice meets or doesn’t meet the CMMI, you have probably lost sight of what you are trying to do from a process improvement perspective.  You should be keeping things as simple as possible for your organization, and the hair splitting comes into play when your implementation may be too complex.


Hope this explanation helps.

Is This a Valid Performance Model?

Is a reliability growth model considered to be a valid PPM in the CMMI?


Asking this question out of context with what you do in the organization does not have a lot of meaning.  The correct answer is both yes and no.  Please remember what High Maturity is all about.  You begin with setting your business goals and objectives and use them to derive your Quality and Process Performance Objectives (QPPOs).  These QPPOs in turn will lead you to the proper measures, process performance baselines (PPBs), and process performance models (PPMs) that your organization needs to quantitatively and statistically manage your work.So, if Reliability Growth is a critical process or sub-process and you have sufficient data to analyze to determine that you have a stable and capable process, then a reliability growth model might be considered a valid PPM.

But just selecting models without performing the analysis I just sketched out is incorrect and you will not be able to demonstrate that your organization is a High Maturity organization.

Thanks for the detail. I just happen to see in CMMI v1.3 High Maturity in which the "reliability model growth" which was given as example in OPP SP1.5 (CMMI v1.2) is deleted. Does it mean that reliability growth model will not be accepted in CMMI v1.3? Or the reliability growth model is not acceptable by the experts? Or is it only good if you use CMM v1.2  and not for CMMI v1.3?

As CMMI v1.3 is an improvement and the practices are carefully analyzed by the SEI and experts, is it advisible to use the reliability growth model given in CMMI v1.2? Or there is any chance that CMMI v1.3 will include the reliability growth model as an example?


Apparently there is some misunderstanding of my answer above.  Whether the CMMI contains the reliability growth model as an example or not is irrelevant to whether or not it is a good model.  Your organization has to mathematically analyze its data, business objectives, QPPOs, PPBs, and PPMs to determine if there is a need for using a reliability growth model.  Do the following analysis:

1. Describe the reliability growth model in probabilistic terms.
2. Define the critical sub-processes (those that must be consistently and correctly followed every time) that can be managed using the reliability growth model.
3. Define how a project manager uses the reliability growth model in the context of his or her projects to predict performance, "what-if" analysis, and predict QPPO achievement.
4. Provide an equation or show by other means how the stable sub-processes that you have identified in your processes contribute to the reliability growth model.
5. List the other models that are used in conjunction with reliability growth model and why it has statistical relevance.

Once you have performed this analysis you will have enough information to answer this question yourself.

Audit Findings

My personal experience shows that when audits are planned monthly or at milestones, it is very difficult to take any proactive quality measures. Let's say that SQA is conducting a review at the end of the design phase just before the milestone review, and during the audit they identify that a particular design option has been selected without applying DAR, then how can they close this type of reported non-compliance by having evidence that the project team is fixing the issue? What I have seen is that sometimes the project team considers the same non-compliance as an oversight like other types of mistakes and they close the non-compliance by labeling it as a lessons learned. Although as SQA I know that there might be a chance that this same issue can occur again in the future. But apart from presenting the findings to the milestone review meeting, we have nothing to do. And the SQA group does not have insight into most of the organization's processes where this type of event occurs so we can ensure every project is following the process per the plan. So please shed some light on this topic and suggest that what type of postmortem we can do as a reactive response and what type of proactive measure we can take?

It sounds like from your description that all that SQA does is flag a problem and then the project team declares what they are going to do and makes the final decision. In other words SQA has no control over the non-compliance after identifying the problem. This is an incorrect implementation of SQA. The SQA or PPQA people are the “eyes and ears” of senior management and if there is a disagreement between the Project Team and SQA about an audit finding, that must be escalated to Senior Management for resolution. The Project Team does not have the authority to declare that an audit finding has been correctly resolved. SQA has the responsibility and authority to decide if the non-compliance is being properly identified and worked. If SQA feels that the Project Team’s action to address the non-compliance is inadequate, then SQA should not accept the closure and insist that the Project Team take appropriate corrective actions. If SQA meets resistance, then SQA should escalate the issue to top management for resolution. Resolution may involve doing nothing, training or re-training the people following the process, modifying the process, or some combination.
Hope this explanation helps.

PI SP 3.1 Confirm Readiness of Product Components for Integration

I need help with understanding this practice. Here is the situation: In our organization we have implemented MS Team System. This tool allows us to analyze the code from different perspectives. We have implemented peer reviews. The code reviews allow us to verify if the complies with the design specification. We have also implemented CM audits to check the identification of every configuration item. Consequently, I´m not certain we are fully aligned with this practice.

The purpose of PI SP 3.1 is to ensure that all of the components that you will be assembling are ready for assembly. For purely a software project, this practice is pretty easy and straightforward. At a minimum, you want to be certain that every module has been properly checked into your CM system, that every configuration unit has been unit tested, and that the external and internal interfaces have been examined to verify that they comply with the documented interface descriptions. It sounds like you might have most of these activities covered by MS Team System and your peer reviews. What I don’t see in your description is any activity associated with checking the interfaces against their descriptions. When you are integrating hardware and software, or have a large and complex software project with many different systems, this practice becomes more complicated.
Hope this short explanation helps.

I have one more question. Should we run unit tests for every configuration unit? Is it possible to implement actions other than unit testing to comply with this best practice? I think that the Static Code Analysis in VS Team System checks the interfaces betwen components. In the peer reviews of code we check the interfaces against their descriptions documented in design specifications.

You are actually focusing on the wrong topic. Instead you should be seeking answers to these types of questions.

1. What do your business goals and objectives tell you about the required quality level of products?
2. What is the reason for performing unit tests? Or what are you trying to achieve by unit testing the code?
3. Do your customer requirements and your business goals and objectives require a quality level that demands that you perform unit tests before creating a product build?
4. What are your requirements for each configuration item before creating a build?

Answers to these questions will provide the answers to your questions.

Basically, your configuration audits are there in order for you to determine if all of the configuration items are ready to be assembled. Perhaps the Static Code Analysis in VS Team System is satisfactory, perhaps it is not. That is for you to decide based on the quality requirements for your product.

Hope this explanation helps, but there is no clear answer to your question without being able to spend some time with you and your organization to perform an in-depth analysis of your processes and procedures.

Traceability in Pure Testing Projects

I have a question about addressing requirements traceability for pure testing projects (Understanding requirements->Writing Manual Test cases->executing them). If the application is not developed by us, what information other than Module name, Requirement ID, description, and Manual Test Case ID needs to be mapped?

There is no definitive answer to your question. The actual answer is up to you and your organization to decide what is necessary for your traceability. What does each testing project need to know about traceability? If you can answer that question, then you have the answer to your question as well. What you have listed sounds reasonable, but only you can determine if it is complete or that you need to add other elements.

Review Activity for a Short Term Project

Our organization will be going through CMMI Maturity Level 2 Appraisal in a couple of months. I have a PPQA question. As per the PPQA Process Area (PA), we require a review of the work products (content/template) and procedures required at Maturity Level2 during the project life cycle. We have one project that is 3 months long. There are many work products that will be produced during the project development life cycle.

• Requirement documents such as SRS, Use cases, Bidirectionally traceability matrix document, change log, etc;
• Plans for all the PAs, e.g. requirements management plan, project plan, configuration plan, etc;
• Development artifacts, such as ERD, Code, UML diagrams, etc;
• QC artifacts, such as test cases, test reports, etc.
• Monitoring/controlling artifacts, such as Issue list, MoMs, Risks, etc.

How is it possible to review the work products for a 3 month project when we don't have a separate QA department and the stakeholders involved in development do the work product reviews one way or the other.

This same question holds true for reviewing procedures.

Of course, we review high priority documents, such as Project Plan, Use Cases, ERD, Application; but not all of them.

Can you help me understand what should be done for a short duration project, such that the PPQA PA requirements are met and we don't have to hire separate people just to fulfill the requirement?

The first thing that I would do is postpone your ML 2 SCAMPI A appraisal as apparently you have a major risk to achieving ML 2 since PPQA does not appear to be in place in your organization. And even if you could put PPQA in place for a 3 month project between now and your appraisals, that may still not be enough time to demonstrate institutionalization, meaning that you have a repeatable process. Essentially you will have one project using PPQA, which is one data point. And it is not possible to determine institutionalization from one data point. Your organization will be at serious risk of not achieving ML 2.

Industry average shows that PPQA is 3 – 5% of your organization. You haven’t told me how large your organization is. But if your organization is 25 people, than 1 person should be assigned to perform the PPQA practices.

I think that you are misunderstanding the differences between reviewing a work product and objectively evaluating a work product. It sounds like your project teams are already reviewing the work products. The role of PPQA is not to review the work products, but to audit the work products and processes to ensure that the work products follow the specific standards and are products according to your documented processes.

I highly recommend that you, or someone you select in your organization, take a training class on how to perform PPQA. I cannot adequately explain how to perform PPQA and answer your specific questions in this blog. The person you select for the training needs to be taught how to conduct a work product audit, how to conduct a process audit, how to plan PPQA audits, how to communicate audit results, and how to track audit non-compliances to resolution. If you don’t already have this capability in house, it will take some time to develop it internally. And I strongly advise against using an external consultant to provide this service. PPQA is for the benefit of your organization and management. It is essentially the eyes and ears of your senior management. And an external consultant may be motivated by other considerations than your best business interests if asked to provide PPQA services.

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.

Appraisals: Practice or Subpractice level?

For successful SCAMPI appraisals, is there any reason to prepare process compliance at the sub-practice level? Would appraisers be looking for evidence at that level?

This is a question answered by taking the 3-day Introduction to CMMI class and also by your Lead Appraiser. There are three CMMI components: Required, Expected, and Informative. An appraisal only covers the Required (Goals) and Expected (Practices) components. Your Lead Appraiser should also be providing some training or guidance on how to build the PIIDs, which contain the objective evidence for an appraisal. And the whole appraisal team is involved in reviewing the PIIDs during the Readiness Review to determine if the evidence is proper for a SCAMPI appraisal.

If a Lead Appraiser or the appraisal team is appraising you to the sub-practice level, they have gone too far. The SCAMPI method is only concerned with appraising the organization to the Goals and Practices.

How Do We Select a High Maturity Consultant?

My friend is a Quality Manager in a company who has reached CMMI Maturity Level 3. They now want to achieve Maturity Level 5. They started taking quotes from different companies. In the selection process they found that there are 3 or 4 major players in our country who have up to 3 High Maturity Lead Appraisers. Most of these companies have submitted proposals for consulting and appraisal in a single quote. Now my friend fears that:

1. Most of them already have at least 40 High Maturity clients and at least 30 Maturity Level 3 clients. Will they have the capacity do lead the appraisal on time for my friend's company ( considering 12 SCAMPI appraisals per year per LA) ?
2. Most of them deliver the consulting and training activities , which is 70 % of the contract value and sometimes they break the contracts and not deliver the SCAMPI, which is still highly profitable, since only 30 % value is lost, and no need to deal with High Maturity appraisal needs.

In order to address this issue, does the SEI publish a list of contracts for SEI Partner? Does the SEI have a specific committee or group to look in to the capacity management and availability management of their SEI partners, so that companies will not have such concerns?

All that the SEI does is maintain a list of SEI Partners and certified High Maturity Lead Appraisers. If there is indeed a problem as you have stated, then you or your friend should contact the SEI about the SEI Partner in question as this certainly sounds like unethical behavior.

Another issue is that an SEI-certified High Maturity Lead Appraiser cannot appraise the organization if he or she has provided the consulting to the organization, unless the SEI approves the potential Conflict of Interest.

The steps taken by SEI in this area are impressive. Also I understand that the control on appraisals/per year is established by SEI. Out of curiosity i would like to ask follow up questions.

I belive the critical part of this entire process is that consulting and apprisal services cannot be performed by the same Lead appriser. If there is a need of separate contract for SCAMPI A appraisal activities, and it cannot be included in a consulting contract, then it can have more credibility. Also like ISO where the certification agencies are audited annually (correct me if am wrong), will SEI do an onsite audit on SEI partners? Or do they have a databse of all the contracts established by SEI partners around the world (considering 800 to 1000 appraisals per year)? Because the user community trusts the SEI more than the SEI Partners ( for most of the users it may be the first time to contract with an SEI Partner and they might not be sure of the guidelines provided by the SEI or about the SEI Ethics commitee). All this can be prevented if the SEI takes a copy of all contracts established for SCAMPI A across the countries. What are your views on it? .

Note:The intent of the question is to increase the user communities' trust on SEI to increase, but not to reduce the credibility of SEI partners/Lead Appraisers.

The SEI does not have the time or resources to perform annual on-site audits of the SEI Partners. And as an SEI Partner, I would not welcome an on-site audit by the SEI. It would be additional expense for me.

What the SEI does provide that may help with your concerns is that they perform a QA audit of the results of every appraisal submitted by a Lead Appraiser. If the appraisal results do not meet the evaluation criteria, then a more in-depth audit occurs. What can then happen is that if the problems are serious enough, the Lead Appraiser can lose his or her CMMI credentials. This has happened to a number of Lead Appraisers since this policy was put in place.

In addition, each Lead Appraiser must be certified by the SEI, which provides another layer of credibility.

The SEI Partners provide the service and the certified-Lead Appraisers deliver the service. As a buyer of CMMI services, it is your responsibility to learn about the SEI policies regarding Ethics and Conflict of Interest, as well as the credibility of the different SEI Partners and Lead Appraisers. Otherwise, you get what you pay for. In other words, buyer beware!

And depending upon what country you are in, the SEI Partners are trusted as much or more than the SEI by the user community.

Achieving a Maturity Level Without a Consultant or Training

I was wondering if it is possible to go it alone with CMMI Maturity Level 2. I have been told by many that attempting CMMI Maturity Level 2 without a consultant or highly trained staff would be somewhat challenging. What are your thoughts?

Also, having limited resources for process improvement being a strong possibility, do you have any recommendations for online sources that can help offset the costs?

Though it is entirely possible to implement the CMMI without hiring a CMMI consultant, that is a high risk approach. Though I don’t see how you could avoid taking the Introduction to CMMI training class. That, in my opinion, would be a huge mistake. There are some areas in the CMMI that are open to interpretation when trying to go it alone and you can end up doing things in the spirit of achieving Maturity Level 2 that have no business value to you. In addition, since your organization has to provide 4 to 8 appraisal team members, each appraisal team member must take the SEI’s Introduction to CMMI class.

These are all worthwhile expenditures of your process improvement budget. And when you compare these expenses to your internal costs for process improvement, these are usually negligible in comparison.

But if you are trying to do things as cheaply as possible, that begs the question, why are you even considering implementing the CMMI and trying to achieve Maturity Level 2? Basically you get what you pay for. Going the cheap route doesn’t demonstrate management commitment to process improvement and can result in wasted effort, wasted money, and an aborted process improvement initiative.

Bi-directional Traceability

Our organization is in the process of preparing for a CMMI Maturity Level 2 SCAMPI A appraisal. We are concerned about our approach for bi-directional traceability REQM SP 1.4. We maintain traceability is follows:

1. High Level Requirements <--> Use Cases (Includes GUIs and Database Interactions) <--> Test Cases

2. Use Cases <--> Source Code

Note: One can trace from Test Cases to Source Code through the Use Cases and Vice Versa, but the traceability is not direct. The reason behind this is, test cases are generated from use cases and are tested against the application (black box testing). Source code does not have associated test cases.

Is this kind of traceability considered bi-directional and is satisfactory for Maturity Level 2?

What you describe is one of many ways to implement bi-directional traceability and meet the intent of the CMMI. If your method supports your business goals and objectives and there are no quality issues, your approach should be acceptable for a Maturity Level 2 appraisal.

It is interesting that you think tracing from Test Cases to Source Code via Use Cases may not be acceptable. Traceability is a multi-dimensional mapping that can have one-to-many and many-to-one relationships. As long as you trace from the top all the way to the bottom and vice versa, you should be fine no matter how many links there are in the chain, and the chain can have branches as well.

Please note that bi-directional traceability does not mean tracing one whole document to another whole document. What it means is that a given item in one document (a specific requirement for example) can trace to multiple items in another document, multiple items in one document can trace to one item in another document, one item can trace to one item, etc.

Some Appraisal Questions

1. Why does the SEI ask for focus projects instead of all the projects done by the company?
2. Usually companies can select consultants and the Lead Appraiser (LA). Why is the SEI giving the right to chose the LA by the company or consultant?
3. Why do the appraisal results expire after 3 years?
4. Why doesn't the SEI have compliance appraisals every 6 months or 1 year similar to ISO?

1. The SCAMPI method is a sampling method to determine the degree of institutionalization of the processes on the projects. Therefore the use of focus projects. For organizations where there are only 1 or 2 projects, then all of the projects are usually included in the appraisal scope. But for organizations with many projects, it would be prohibitive to evaluate all of the projects. That is why it is the responsibility of the Lead Appraiser to select the focus projects, along with input from the organization. The principle here is that if the processes are truly institutionalized throughout the organization, then it doesn’t matter which projects are selected for the appraisal. Any set of selected projects should be representative of how all projects in the organization behave.
   
   
2. If I understand your statement, you are incorrect. The organization does select the CMMI consultant and Lead Appraiser. However, only SEI-certified Lead Appraisers are allowed to lead and report SCAMPI appraisal results. If a Lead Appraiser is NOT SEI-certified and he or she leads a SCAMPI appraisal, then the appraisal results are NOT valid.
   
   
3. The appraisal results expire after three years because in the past many organizations tended to backslide in their process maturity after having their appraisal. The three year period is long enough to address the findings from the SCAMPI A appraisal and prepare for a re-appraisal at the same or higher Maturity Level. If there is no expiration date, then there could be less motivation to continue with Process Improvement.
   
   
4. In addition, there is no such thing as a compliance appraisal at this time. There has been some discussion along these lines, but nothing has been settled. There is a fundamental difference between ISO audits and CMMI appraisals. ISO is a standard and the result of the audit is certification. CMMI is a set of guidelines for process improvement and the result is Maturity Level or Capability Level that is valid for three years.

Is Going Directly for a CMMI ML 5 Appraisal Allowed?

Is a CMMI v1.2 ML 5 appraisal allowed in the following situation?

One of my company's divisions was successfully appraised to CMMI v1.1 ML 5 but the appraisal results expired in 2009. Now my company wants all three divisions, which are located in different cities, appraised to ML 5. Though skipping levels is not recommended, however, is it allowed to go for the appraisal?

There is nothing from the SEI that prevents a company from being appraised to whatever Capability Level or Maturity Level that it chooses. That being said, what does drive the CL or ML is the organization being able to collect, analyze, and correctly use data for statistical and quantitative analysis, as well as being able to institutionalize the behaviors and practices. You should hire an SEI-Certified High Maturity Lead Appraiser and have him or her perform a Class C or Class B appraisal to determine the risks with your current approach and implementation of ML 5. The outcome of this exercise will determine if it is feasible to achieve ML 5 at all three sites.

How Do I Become A Lead Appraiser?

Would you please tell me step by step the procedure to become a SCAMPI Lead Appraiser (LA)? I am currently working with a Maturity Level 5, company in India with 5.5 years of relevant experience in Process and Quality Consulting. It would be really great if you could provide me with some references, emails, and sites as a roadmap.

Here are the steps and requirements for becoming a SCAMPI Lead Appraiser. This information is directly from the SEI’s web site.

To become an instructor or Lead Appraiser, you must successfully complete authentic SEI courses. The first prerequisite course for becoming either an instructor or Lead Appraiser is the Introduction to CMMI Version 1.2 course. This courses is available from SEI Partners (see SEI Partner Network Directory and Guide to Services) or from the SEI. The second prerequisite is the Intermediate Concepts of CMMI Version 1.2 course that is available only from the SEI.

CMMI Version 1.2 Instructor Training is the final course leading to candidacy as an Introduction to CMMI Instructor. After successfully completing this course, the candidate instructor must also be observed, by an authorized SEI Observer, teaching the SEI's Introduction to CMMI V1.2 course. Upon successful completion of the observation, the instructor is then authorized as an Introduction to CMMI Instructor.

SCAMPI Lead Appraiser Training is the final course leading to candidacy as a SCAMPI Lead Appraiser. After successfully completing this course, the candidate Lead Appraiser must be observed leading a SCAMPI A appraisal using a CMMI model and be approved by an authorized SEI Observer.

You can find more information on the SEI’s site by searching for SCAMPI Lead Appraiser. Of course you will have to either upgrade to v1.3 or take the v1.3 classes when the new versions are released later this year.

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.

REQM and RD in the CMMI

Why is REQM Management at Maturity Level 2 and Requirement Development at Maturity Level 3? We develop the requirements first and then manage them in the project.

There reason for the placement is due to the meaning of ML 2 vs. ML 3. ML 2 is all about stabilizing projects and gaining control over project estimates. Once the organization has achieved this, then it can begin to evaluate how to improve the engineering areas.

Since you need to have a baseline upon which to plan a project and the other ML 2 Process Areas, that is why REQM is the first Process Area in ML 2. The intent is to manage the collection of project requirements: good, bad, or indifferent. And use this collection to plan the project, etc. Then when you have achieved ML 2 and move to ML 3, then you can address how to improve the Requirements Elicitation to obtain better requirements.

Please keep in mind that the CMMI is a collection of guidelines and best practices for doing process improvement. The CMMI is not a roadmap for how to do software engineering.

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.

Project Planning SP 1.2 - Task Attribute: Effort or Size?

Is it possible to establish estimates of work product and task attributes by means of task time estimates? Can the task effort be similar to the size of a task?

By going directly to task time estimates you have effectively skipped performing Project Planning Specific Practice 1.2. The intent of SP 1.2 is for you to perform some sort of basis of estimate for the project’s tasks and activities. This is a bottom-up approach. If you are not used to this approach, it can be a struggle at first to take a step backwards from task time estimates and really understand the underlying assumptions that people are making in their heads about the factors that are driving the task time estimates. Some very basic task attributes include estimating the number of pages in a document that is being produced or updated, the number of technical drawings being produced or updated for a hardware item, the number of new or modified interfaces, the number of new or modified screens , etc. Then based on your historical data from previous projects, it is possible for you to empirically determine a set of productivity factors that will convert these sizing parameters into effort and arrive at the task time estimates. The bottom line is effort of a task is not the same as the size of a task.

Do you think this practice would be Fully, Largely, Partially or Not Implemented? Would this be this a problem in a SCAMPI A appraisal? What do you think about that?

Taking this example out of context with everything else your organization is doing makes this a difficult question to answer. The appraisal team is the only group that would be qualified to make that judgment based on documented evidence and the interviews. However, as a Lead Appraiser, I would have to say that you have a problem that needs to be addressed before you conduct a SCAMPI. The SCAMPI rules state that if a Process Area is in the scope of the appraisal, then all of its Specific and Generic practices are applicable. And if you are not performing a practice, which may or may not be the case, then there could be issues in Project Planning that impact Goal Satisfaction and result in a Maturity Level 1 rating.

To provide you the best answer, you should be talking to your Lead Appraiser and have him or her give you the proper guidance on this issue. As a risk mitigation, I would recommend that you put a process in place to estimate sizing parameters that are then used to calculate effort. Your estimators are already doing this, but it sounds like they are doing it in their heads. You just have to break the process down into smaller steps to allow the sizing estimates to be captured first. There is benefit to doing this.