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.

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.

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.

Appraisal Scope Question for Agile Development

I am preparing for an appraisal coming up in a few months and I have run into an interesting question that I would like to ask you about.

Some of the projects in the Organizational Unit (OU) follow an Agile method for development. It is really a modified combination of SCRUM and XP. One of the questions they asked me was whether they would have to provide evidence for all of the Process Areas (PAs) in the scope of the appraisal? I was perplexed by this question because it seemed rather obvious to me, so I replied "of course." But this question stuck in the back of my mind so I dug into the SCAMPI Method Definition Document (MDD) for more clarification.

From the MDD, Method Assumptions and Design Principles, page I-19 and I-20: "The extent to which an organizational unit has implemented appraisal reference model practices can be determined only by considering, in aggregate, the extent to which those practices are implemented within the organizational unit by project and support groups. This process, in turn, necessitates the consideration of objective evidence for each instantiation, for each model practice within the appraisal scope."

This seems fairly clear to me, we must examine objective evidence for all practices of all instantiations within the scope of the appraisal. However, under the process definition in part 2 of the MDD you can find less convincing information under the Parameters and Limits section of 1.1.3 Determine Appraisal Scope. "Sample projects and support groups selected to form the organizational scope (i.e., the combination of focus and non-focus projects and support functions) must represent all critical factors identified for the organizational unit to which the results will be attributed." So it seems that as long as the combination of all focus and non-focus projects represent all the critical factors it should be sufficient. I know, critical factors are different from the PAs in the model scope. :-)

Also, in Parameters and Limits it clearly states: "Focus projects must provide objective evidence for every PA within the model scope of the appraisal..." "Non-focus projects must provide objective evidence for one or more PAs within the model scope of the appraisal..." So it seems that if an Agile project was a non-focus project they would not have to provide evidence for all PAs. Do you think this is correct?

The MDD goes on to further say in the Parameters and Limits: "In appraisals where the reference model scope includes any project-related PA, the organizational scope must include at least one focus project. If the organizational unit includes more than 3 projects, then the organizational scope must include sufficient focus projects and non-focus projects to generate at least 3 instances of each practice in each project-related PA in the model scope of the appraisal."

So, conceivably, you could have only 1 focus project, and say maybe 6 non-focus projects with each only having a few PAs to "generate at least 3 instances" of the practices that need to be covered in the scope of the appraisal.

I know this may seem a bit extreme, but believe me, I have run into stranger scenarios than this one. lol :-)

Ideally, all projects would cover all PAs. But the role and function of non-focus projects really seems to muddy the waters in my opinion.

What are your thoughts?

There is an SEI Technical Note CMU/SEI-2008-TN-003 published in November 2008 titled CMMI® or Agile: Why Not Embrace Both! by Hillel Glazer, Jeff Dalton, David Anderson, Mike Konrad, and Sandy Shrum that contains a lot of pertinent information about Agile and the CMMI, as well as Hillel's recently published companion article in Crosstalk Love and Marriage: CMMI and Agile Need Each Other http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/crosstalk/2010/01/1001Glazer.html

In my opinion, if Agile is one of many different development methods in use by the organization and the Agile projects do not cover all of the PAs in scope of the appraisal, then it is not in the spirit of the MDD and non-focus projects to mix and match a number of Agile projects just so there is evidence for all the PAs. The way that I look at non-focus projects is that there may be some projects in the appraisal scope that do not have evidence because the projects have not reached that part of the lifecycle yet, NOT that they are not performing the practice.

And, just because a project is using Agile in a Maturity Level (ML) 3 organization does not mean that they don’t have to perform all of the PAs. There should be evidence available though they may be using terminology that is not obviously mapping to the CMMI. Someone with deep CMMI and Agile knowledge should work with the organization to show them how what they are doing does comply with the CMMI.

Finding a Lead Appraiser

My company needs a very inexpensive Lead Appraiser – where can I find one?

I hate to say this, but you are using the wrong criteria for contracting a Lead Appraiser. When it comes to the CMMI and Lead Appraisers, you get what you pay for. And in point of fact, if you go with the lowest price Lead Appraiser that you can find, it is quite possible that this person is either very inexperienced as a Lead Appraiser or may not have the necessary experience or background to provide credible services. The risk you run is that the SEI may not accept the appraisal results in this situation. Then you have spent the money and may need to repeat everything, which can be a very expensive proposition.

Much better criteria to use when considering to hire a Lead Appraiser include:

• number of years experience as a Lead Appraiser
• number of appraisals led (SCAMPI A, B, and C)
• experience in working with small organizations
• ability to interpret the CMMI to appropriately fit your organization's needs
• recommendations/testamonials from clients who have worked with the Lead Appraiser

You should interview the Lead Appraiser. Prepare some questions and scenarios that apply to your organization and learn how they would interpret the CMMI in your context and what they would recommend.

The basic question comes down to why do you want to be appraised? Your internal costs for implementing the CMMI will far outweigh any external costs associated with an SEI-certified Lead Appraiser. You should be implementing the CMMI because there is some business value associated with the CMMI. Lead Appraisers are experts in process improvement. As an analogy, if you are going into the hospital for major surgery, do you go to the lowest price surgeon you can find (possibly someone with questionable credentials) or do you go to a surgeon that has a reputation for quality and success?

Think of it this way. Selecting a Lead Appraiser is a very important decision. There is certainly cost factors as well as risks to consider, and possibly other considerations as well. Therefore, I suggest that you look at the Decision Analysis and Resolution (DAR) Process Area and use the practices described there to select your CMMI services provider.

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.

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.

SEI Published Appraisal Results

I have a question related to the published data in SEI web site: http://www.sei.cmu.edu/appraisal-program/profile/pdf/CMMI/2008MarCMMI.pdf Process Maturity Profile by All Reporting Organizations (Page 5):

1. 1.5% or the reporting organizations are (Initial - Maturity Level 1) rating. How is a Maturity Level 1 rating achieved?
2. Also, 8% of the reporting organizations indicate that a Maturity Level is Not Given. What does ‘Not Given’ mean…? Level 0 ?

In my understanding, Maturity Level is related to the Staged representation and can have
rating from ML 2 - 5.

It is great to see and hear that people are actually looking at this information and asking questions about how to interpret the data. You are on your way to understanding Measurement and Analysis!

To answer your first question, how is Maturity Level 1 provided? Obviously, an organization does not conduct a SCAMPI A appraisal to confirm that they are Maturity Level 1. So what happens in this case is the scope of the SCAMPI A appraisal is Maturity Level 2, 3, 4, or 5. But what happens is during the appraisal a serious goal impacting weakness in a Maturity Level 2 Process Area is found by the appraisal team. By the rules of the SCAMPI method then the resulting Maturity Level is 1. Since the SCAMPI A results must be submitted to the SEI, a rating of Maturity Level 1 appears. It doesn’t happen that often because most organizations take the appropriate steps to be prepared to achieve their target Maturity Level. That is why 1.5% of the reported results are for Maturity Level 1.

The Not Given category means that the organization did not report its resulting Maturity Level rating. I would hazard a guess that it probably means that they had successfully achieved Maturity Level 1. There is no Maturity Level 0, despite what many chaotic organizations say they are when first encountering the CMMI.

CMMI Maturity 3 Appraisal Process

We are planning to go to CMMI 3 level certification. I recently joined in my company. Please tell me the necesary processes and steps.

1. First off, just to be clear, there is no such thing as “CMMI 3 level certification.” An organization is appraised to the CMMI using the SCAMPI A appraisal method to determine either the organization’s Maturity Level or the Capability Level of the organization’s processes. The result of the SCAMPI A is not a certification, but simply a rating of the current Maturity Level or Capability Level.
2. Has your company already achieved Maturity Level 2? Has your company hired a CMMI consultant? Has your company hired an SEI-authorized SCAMPI Lead Appraiser? Has an SEI-authorized instructor provided the SEI Introduction to CMMI class to your company?
3. If the answer to all of these questions is NO, then hire a CMMI consultant and a Lead Appraiser. The Lead Appraiser cannot provide the CMMI consulting. Most Lead Appraisers are also authorized CMMI instructors, so the next step is to train your process group and any people who might be an appraisal team member on the CMMI.
   
4. Perform a Class C appraisal (gap analysis) to identify where you need to focus your CMMI implementation efforts. Use the findings from the Class C to write a process improvement plan, and use the plan to monitor and control your CMMI implementation efforts.
   
5. Implement CMMI Maturity Level 2 FIRST. Once you have established the firm project management foundation of Maturity Level 2, THEN consider implementing Maturity Level 3. If you try to implement BOTH Maturity Level 2 and Maturity Level 3 at the same time, you will encounter difficulties. There is a huge difference between managing projects at Maturity Level 2 and managing projects at Maturity Level 3.
   
6. Once you feel comfortable that you have addressed all of the findings from the Class C and you have had several project cycles to institutionalize the documented processes, then consult with your Lead Appraiser to determine if your organization is ready to conduct a benchmarking SCAMPI A appraisal.
   
7. There will be more training (appraisal team and PIIDs) and activities leading up to the SCAMPI A, but your Lead Appraiser will tell you exactly what you will need to do to prepare for the appraisal.

Appraising Your Own Organization

In writing yesterday's blog entry I had included a statement that a SCAMPI A Lead Appraiser was not allowed to audit his or her organization, which I removed before posting. The SEI requires that the appraisal be done by an external third party. However, when I looked for this requirement in the ARC and MDD I could not find the reference. Through the help of other Lead Appraisers I have since located this requirement. Go to the SEI's Appraisal Policy Changes site and read the 4th bullet http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/faq/apc-faq.html.

Can a Lead Appraiser in an organization perform an v1.2 appraisal in that organization?

All Class A SCAMPI v1.2 appraisals that will become public record (e.g., announced in a press release or on an organization's Web site, or posted on a published SCAMPI appraisals results Web page) or used in a proposal in response to U.S. Department of Defense requirements must be led by an SEI-authorized SCAMPI Lead Appraiser from an external, third-party organization.

The external, third-party organization can be another SEI Partner organization or a separate business unit from the one containing the appraised organization (e.g., from corporate or from a different division, group, or other organizational business type, which is under separate management).

Lead Appraiser Authorization Steps

What are the requirements for the SEI to "approve" a lead appraiser?

The SEI is the only body allowed to authorize a SCAMPI Lead Appraiser (LA).
The process for becoming a SCAMPI LA is:

1. You must take the SEI’s Intro to CMMI 3-day class, either the current v1.2 class or the v1.2 Upgrade class if you have taken an earlier version.
   
2. You must have an SEI Partner sponsor you as a candidate Lead Appraiser
   
3. You must take the SEI’s 5-day Intermediate CMMI Class v1.2 $2750
   
4. You must participate on at least two SCAMPI A appraisals within the past 24 months
   
5. You must take the SEI’s 5-day SCAMPI LA class $4200
   
6. You must be observed by an SEI Observer leading a SCAMPI A Appraisal
7. The SCAMPI LA renewal requirements can be found here http://www.sei.cmu.edu/appraisal-program/appraiser-communications/scampi-renewal.pdf . There is a three year period in which the LA has to conduct at least one SCAMPI A and accrue at least 3 points

In addition, the prerequisites for becoming a LA are:

• at least ten years of project management and engineering experience in systems or software engineering
• a minimum of two years of experience managing technical personnel
• an advanced degree in a related technical area or equivalent experience

Since there are limited appraisal opportunities within a company, there may not be enough opportunities for the LA to accumulate the necessary 3 points in order to maintain his or her LA credentials.

PPQA Audit Frequency

Organizations that have no history with peforming Process and Product Quality Assurance (PPQA) audits usually ask me how often should they be auditing their processes and work products. And the correct answer is "it depends", but that is usually not satisfactory. The frequency of audits depends upon the nature and severity of the quality issues associated with following the organization's processes. If there are minor findings or quality issues, then the audits don't have to occur very often, may be only once a year. But if there are major findings or issues, then they should be occuring at a higher rate until the issues go away and the processes stabilize.

Yesterday Pat O'Toole posted a message on the CMMI discussion group that take this approach one step further.

When consulting with a client on PPQA Pat suggests that PPQA use a "compliance scale" similar to that used in a SCAMPI appraisal: Fully Compliant, Largely Compliant, Partially Compliant, and Not Compliant.

This approach avoids the game playing of "just doing enough to get a 'Yes' in the audit." It also allows for a finer grading of compliance metrics and trends. And turns the audit feedback sessions into more of an internal consulting discussion than merely a "did we pass or not" exercise.

To "score" an audit, award 100 points for Fully Compliant, 75 points for Largely Compliant, 25 points for Partially Compliant, and 0 points for Not Compliant. Average the score over all of the audit items and you get the score for that particular audit.

You can average the scores of all PPQA audits conducted on a particular project to get the project-level compliance score. Hopefully you find that there is a positive correlation between projects with high compliance scores and the "success" of the project. (If there is a negative correlation you have serious cause of concern!)

I also recommend that you maintain a database (or Excel spreadsheet) with the audit items and their scores across projects and time. You can use the same scoring mechanism described above to show the average score for each audit item.

Audit items that average 90+ for 3 months are candidates for sampling - people appear to "get it" for these items. Audit items that average below some minimum threshold (60?) are probably candidates for reworking the process infrastructure - whatever you've provided isn't being used anyway, so perhaps it's time to give them something that they CAN use (and/or DO find value added).

Pat's quantitative approach makes it very clear which processes and/or projects need to be audited more frequently than others. So when a process or project scores above 90% (or so), you can reduce the audit frequency for that process or project. The default audit frequency needs to be set by the organization. Auditing once a month may be too frequent for some organizations and just right for others. The frequency should match the normal durations of your project lifecycles. Assuming a monthly frequency, if the audit score is 90+% then the frequency for that audit can go to a bi-monthly frequency. If the next time that particular audit again achieves 90+%, the audit can go to on a six month cycle. If on the other hand the score drops below 90, then audit frequency should drop back to the previous frequency. Now you have a variable audit frequency that you can tie directly to the audit results. Pretty cool!

Developing Questions for the CMMI Specific and Generic Goals Would Lead to Implementing Alternative Practices

I would be very CAUTIOUS about taking this approach to implementing the CMMI. The CMMI authors did not go to the lengths they did with defining the Expected components (Specific and Generic Practices) if all they really wanted an organization to do was start at the Goals and identify the supporting practices. In my experience as a Lead Appraiser, it is only on the rare occasion that I have identified and documented an alternative practice in a SCAMPI. 99.999% of the time, the organization’s practices are aligned with the Expected components. And I assert that the only time an alternative practice comes up is with legacy projects that are years in duration using practices that are no longer state of the art and there is no business value in changing them. For example one of the underlying assumptions of REQM is that an organization is using tools to help manage and control the project’s requirements. But if the original requirements were established before the advent of requirements tools and the organization’s documented process for reviewing and managing requirements was to manually review, trace, and track requirements through meetings and discussions re-deriving the traceability each time and the process works, it is an alternative practice. There is no requirements database, just a requirements document. There is no requirements traceability matrix or requirements tracking system, just the documented requirements and the expertise of the requirements analysts who are highly trained in how to procedurally review, maintain, manage, and control requirements. So it is difficult to evaluate SP 1.1 – 1.5 as FI, but REQM SG 1 is clearly FI.

CMMI for Acquisition

PPQC Adds Delivery of CMMI-ACQ Training and Appraisals to Its Offerings

I am pleased to announce that PPQC is now authorized by the Software Engineering Institute as a partner provider for the CMMI-ACQ, both as a provider of the CMMI-ACQ training class and also SCAMPI A, B, and C appraisals to the CMMI-ACQ. Visit these links for more information PPQC Services and PPQC Training.

The CMMI-ACQ version 1.2 was released in November 2007 and it provides guidance for the application of CMMI best practices by the acquirer. Best practices in the model focus on activities for initiating and managing the acquisition of products and services that meet the needs of the customer. Although suppliers may provide artifacts useful to the processes addressed in CMMI-ACQ, the focus of the model is on the processes of the acquirer. CMMI-ACQ integrates bodies of knowledge that are essential for an acquirer.

By integrating these bodies of knowledge, CMMI-ACQ provides a comprehensive set of best practices for acquiring products and services. CMMI-DEV may be treated as a reference for supplier-executed activities for systems engineering, software development, and hardware design work in an acquisition initiative. In those cases where the acquirer also has a role as a product or service developer (e.g., taking responsibility for the first few layers of product development and integration), CMMI-DEV (in particular the Requirements Development, Technical Solution, and Product Integration Process Areas) should also be used to improve the acquirer's product or service development processes.

Changes to Intro to CMMI Training and Appraisals for CMMI-ACQ

When taking the CMMI-ACQ upgrade training class from the SEI on March 21, there were a number of important changes that will impact CMMI Instructors, Lead Appraisers, and organizations that I think should be made available. No doubt over the next few months more information will be communicated by the SEI.

The FERPA form has been a pain for instructors because you have to be sure to collect them from each student and submit them to the SEI. In the past the SEI has stated that the FERPA forms were required by Carnegie Melon. In addition, the FERPA form is required so the results can be input to SAS and then made available to the Lead Appraiser when planning an appraisal.

The SEI made some small incremental additions to the core 16 Process Areas to accommodate ACQ. These changes are to the informative material. The CMMI Constellation architecture allows the SEI the freedom to tailor the core PAs at the sub-practice level. The sub-practice changes are posted on the web.

There is no difference in SCAMPI appraisals for the CMMI-ACQ. The SAS is almost ready to use for CMMI-ACQ.

On-line training for CMMI-ACQ is being developed with blended learning and will be available in May at about the same cost. The intent is that students can take the class online and then the instructor will schedule an online meeting with the class to discuss the material.

The CMMI-ACQ contains a new feature in the Process Areas. Typical Supplier Deliverables. This new feature ≠ deliverable artifacts. The Typical Supplier Deliverables are there to remind the acquirer of typical work products the acquirer might produce

The core Process Areas have some differences and this is intentional. To quote Rusty Young “Informative NOT Ignorative!” so the changes are important to note.

The CMMI-ACQ class will be a one-day add on training class. The current plan is to deliver the three-day class ( a generalist course) followed by a single day supplemental class in either DEV, ACQ, or SVC. The three-day CMMI class is for most people and the one-day supplemental is intended for Appraisal Team Members. This new structure will be available in about a year from now, March 2009.

When conducting a SCAMPI for a combined DEV and ACQ appraisal use the Continuous Representation if the overlap of the two constellations becomes a strength. You should be able to enter CMMI-DEV plus some ACQ PAs that best fit in the OTHER category in SAS.

The SEI relabled the categories in the Continuous Representation for CMMI-ACQ. REQM is included in Project Management.

And, finally, comparisons of the CMMI-ACQ to CMMI-DEV are provided at http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/models/ACQ-v12-comparetoDEV.html . Go to the bottom of the page for chapter-by-chapter detailed comparisons and to download PDF copies.
There may be a CMMI v1.2a update released after all the CMMI constellations have been released, perhaps by the end of 2009. And it may be called v1.3 instead.