The Capability Maturity Model (CMM) is a process capability maturity model which aids in the definition and understanding of an organization's processes.

The CMM was originally described in the book Managing the Software Process (Addison Wesley Professional, Massachusetts, 1989). The CMM was conceived by Watts Humphrey, who based it on the earlier work of Phil Crosby. Active development of the model by the SEI (US Dept. of Defense Software Engineering Institute) began in 1986. The SEI was at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh. Addison-Wesley is a book publishing imprint of Pearson PLC, best known for computer books. ... Watts Humphrey is a key thinker in the discipline of the management of software development. ... Carnegie Mellon University is a private research university in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States. ... Pittsburgh redirects here. ...

The CMM was originally intended as a tool for objectively assessing the ability of government contractors' processes to perform a contracted software project. Though it comes from the area of software development, it can be (and has been and still is being) applied as a generally applicable model to assist in understanding the process capability maturity of organizations in diverse areas. For example, software engineering, system engineering, project management, risk management, system acquisition, information technology (IT), personnel management. It has been used extensively for avionics software and government projects around the world. Software engineering (SE) is the application of a systematic, disciplined, quantifiable approach to the development, operation, and maintenance of software. ... Systems engineering (or systems design engineering) as a field originated around the time of World War II. Large or highly complex engineering projects, such as the development of a new airliner or warship, are often decomposed into stages and managed throughout the entire life of the product or system. ... Project Management is the discipline of organizing and managing resources (e. ... For non-business risks, see risk or the disambiguation page risk analysis. ... Information and communication technology spending in 2005 Information technology (IT), as defined by the Information Technology Association of America (ITAA), is the study, design, development, implementation, support or management of computer-based information systems, particularly software applications and computer hardware. ... Avionics software is embedded software with legally-mandated safety and reliability concerns used in avionics. ...

The CMM has been superseded by CMMI (Capability Maturity Model Integration). The old CMM was renamed to Software Engineering CMM (SE-CMM) and organizations accreditations based on SE-CMM expired on 31 December 2007. The Capability Maturity Model (CMM) is a method for evaluating the maturity of software development organisations on a scale of 1 to 5. ...

Other variants of the CMM include Software Security Engineering CMM SSE-CMM and People CMM. Other maturity models such as ISM3 have also emerged.^[1]

Maturity model

A maturity model is a structured collection of elements that describe certain aspects of maturity in an organization. A maturity model may provide, for example: This article does not cite any references or sources. ...

• a place to start
• the benefit of a community’s prior experiences
• a common language and a shared vision
• a framework for prioritizing actions
• a way to define what improvement means for your organization.

A maturity model can be used as a benchmark for assessing different organizations for equivalent comparison. The model describes the maturity of the company based upon the project the company is handling and the related clients.

Structure of CMM

The CMM involves the following aspects:

• Maturity Levels: It is a layered framework providing a progression to the discipline needed to engage in continuous improvement (It is important to state here that an organization develops the ability to assess the impact of a new practice, technology, or tool on their activity. Hence it is not a matter of adopting these, rather it is a matter of determining how innovative efforts influence existing practices. This really empowers projects, teams, and organizations by giving them the foundation to support reasoned choice.)
• Key Process Areas: A Key Process Area (KPA) identifies a cluster of related activities that, when performed collectively, achieve a set of goals considered important.
• Goals: The goals of a key process area summarize the states that must exist for that key process area to have been implemented in an effective and lasting way. The extent to which the goals have been accomplished is an indicator of how much capability the organization has established at that maturity level. The goals signify the scope, boundaries, and intent of each key process area.
• Common Features: Common features include practices that implement and institutionalize a key process area. These five types of common features include: Commitment to Perform, Ability to Perform, Activities Performed, Measurement and Analysis, and Verifying Implementation.
• Key Practices: The key practices describe the elements of infrastructure and practice that contribute most effectively to the implementation and institutionalization of the key process areas.

The remainder of this article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this article if you can.

Image File history File links Broom_icon. ...

Levels of the CMM

(See chapter 2 of (March 2002 edition of CMMI from SEI), page 11.)

There are five levels of the CMM. According to the SEI,

"Predictability, effectiveness, and control of an organization's software processes are believed to improve as the organization moves up these five levels. While not rigorous, the empirical evidence to date supports this belief."

Level 1 - Initial

At maturity level 1, processes are usually not documented and change based on the user or event. The organization does not have a stable environment and may not know or understand all of the components that make up the environment. As a result, success in these organizations depends on the institutional knowledge, the competence and heroics of the people in the organization, and the level of effort expended by the team. In spite of this chaotic environment, maturity level 1 organizations often produce products and services; however, they frequently exceed the budget and schedule of their projects. Due to the lack of formality, level 1 organizations, often over commit, abandon processes during a crisis, and are unable to repeat past successes. There is very little planning and executive buy-in for projects and process acceptance is limited. IT organizations at level 1 are often seen as a service instead of a partner.

Level 2 - Repeatable

At maturity level 2, some software development processes are repeatable, possibly with consistent results. The processes may not repeat for all the projects in the organization. The organization may use some basic project management to track cost and schedule. Project Management is the discipline of organizing and managing resources (e. ...

Process discipline is unlikely to be rigorous, but where it exists it may help to ensure that existing practices are retained during times of stress. When these practices are in place, projects are performed and managed according to their documented plans.

Project status and the delivery of services are visible to management at defined points (for example, at major milestones and at the completion of major tasks).

Basic project management processes are established to track cost, schedule, and functionality. The minimum process discipline is in place to repeat earlier successes on projects with similar applications and scope. There is still a significant risk of exceeding cost and time estimates.

Level 3 - Defined

The organization’s set of standard processes, which are the basis for level 3, are established and subject to some degree of improvement over time. These standard processes are used to establish consistency across the organization. Projects establish their defined processes by applying the organization’s set of standard processes, tailored, if necessary, within similarly standardized guidelines.

The organization’s management establishes process objectives for the organization’s set of standard processes, and ensures that these objectives are appropriately addressed.

Level 4 - Managed

Using process metrics, management can effectively control the process (e.g., for software development ). In particular, management can identify ways to adjust and adapt the process to particular projects without measurable losses of quality or deviations from specifications. Organizations at this level set quantitative quality goals for both software process and software maintenance. Subprocesses are selected that significantly contribute to overall process performance. These selected subprocesses are controlled using statistical and other quantitative techniques. A critical distinction between maturity level 3 and maturity level 4 is the predictability of process performance. At maturity level 4, the performance of processes is controlled using statistical and other quantitative techniques, and may be quantitatively predictable. At maturity level 3, processes are only qualitatively predictable.

Level 5 - Optimized

Maturity level 5 focuses on continually improving process performance through both incremental and innovative technological improvements. Quantitative process-improvement objectives for the organization are established, continually revised to reflect changing business objectives, and used as criteria in managing process improvement. The effects of deployed process improvements are measured and evaluated against the quantitative process-improvement objectives. Both the defined processes and the organization’s set of standard processes are targets of measurable improvement activities.

Process improvements to address common causes of process variation and measurably improve the organization’s processes are identified, evaluated, and deployed.

Optimizing processes that are nimble, adaptable and innovative depends on the participation of an empowered workforce aligned with the business values and objectives of the organization. The organization’s ability to rapidly respond to changes and opportunities is enhanced by finding ways to accelerate and share learning.

A critical distinction between maturity level 4 and maturity level 5 is the type of process variation addressed. At maturity level 4, processes are concerned with addressing special causes of process variation and providing statistical predictability of the results. Though processes may produce predictable results, the results may be insufficient to achieve the established objectives. At maturity level 5, processes are concerned with addressing common causes of process variation and changing the process (that is, shifting the mean of the process performance) to improve process performance (while maintaining statistical probability) to achieve the established quantitative process-improvement objectives.

Extensions

Recent versions of CMMI from SEI indicate a "level 0", characterized as "Incomplete". Many observers leave this level out as redundant or unimportant, but Pressman and others make note of it. See page 18 of the August 2002 edition of CMMI from SEI.^[2]

Anthony Finkelstein^[3] extrapolated that negative levels are necessary to represent environments that are not only indifferent, but actively counterproductive, and this was refined by Tom Schorsch^[4] as the Capability Immaturity Model. CIMM is a parody acronym, a semi-serious effort to provide a contrast to CMM, otherwise known as the Capability Maturity Model. ...

Key process areas

For more details on this topic, see Process area (CMMI).

The CMMI contains several key process areas indicating the aspects of product development that are to be covered by company processes. The latest version of Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI)--CMMI for Development, Version 1. ... The latest version of Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI)--CMMI for Development, Version 1. ...

Software process framework for SEI's Capability Maturity Model

The software process framework documented is intended to guide those wishing to assess an organization/projects consistency with the CMM. For each maturity level there are five checklist types:

History

The Capability Maturity Model was initially funded by military research. The United States Air Force funded a study at the Carnegie-Mellon Software Engineering Institute to create an abstract model for the military to use as an objective evaluation of software subcontractors. The result was the Capability Maturity Model, published as Managing the Software Process in 1989. The CMM is no longer supported by the SEI and has been superseded by the more comprehensive Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI), of which version 1.2 has now been released. “The U.S. Air Force” redirects here. ... This article is about the concept. ... Carnegie Mellon is a private research university located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. ... The Software Engineering Institute (SEI) is a federally funded research and development center sponsored by the U.S. Department of Defense and operated by Carnegie Mellon University. ... An abstract model (or conceptual model) is a theoretical construct that represents something, with a set of variables and a set of logical and quantitative relationships between them. ... In science, the ideal of objectivity is an essential aspect of the scientific method, and is generally considered by the scientific community to come about as a result of strict observance of the scientific method, including the scientists willingness to submit their methods and results to an open debate by... This article is about characterizing and appraising something of interest. ... Computer software (or simply software) refers to one or more computer programs and data held in the storage of a computer for some purpose. ... Year 1989 (MCMLXXXIX) was a common year starting on Sunday (link displays 1989 Gregorian calendar). ... Capability Maturity Model® Integration (CMMI) is a process improvement approach that provides organizations with the essential elements of effective processes. ...

Context

In the 1970s, technological improvements made computers more widespread, flexible, and inexpensive. Organizations began to adopt more and more computerized information systems and the field of software development grew significantly. This led to an increased demand for developers—and managers—which was satisfied with less experienced professionals. The 1970s decade refers to the years from 1970 to 1979, also called The Seventies. ... “Software development” redirects here. ...

Unfortunately, the influx of growth caused growing pains; project failure became more commonplace not only because the field of computer science was still in its infancy, but also because projects became more ambitious in scale and complexity. In response, individuals such as Edward Yourdon, Larry Constantine, Gerald Weinberg, Tom DeMarco, and David Parnas published articles and books with research results in an attempt to professionalize the software development process. Edward Nash Yourdon is a computer consultant, an author and lecturer, and a recognised pioneer in the software engineering methodology of structured programming[1]. Ed was the lead developer of the structured systems analysis and design methodology (SSADM) of the 1970s, and was a co-developer of the Yourdon/Whitehead... Larry L. Constantine is a pioneer of modern software engineering practice, he is regarded as an authority on the human side of software development. ... Gerald Marvin Weinberg is an author and teacher of the psychology and anthropology of computer software development. ... Tom DeMarco is a well-known author, teacher, and speaker on software engineering topics. ... David Lorge Parnas (born February 10, 1941) is an early pioneer of software engineering who developed the concept of module design which is the foundation of object oriented programming today. ...

Watts Humphrey's Capability Maturity Model (CMM) was described in the book Managing the Software Process (1989). The CMM as conceived by Watts Humphrey was based on the work a decade earlier of Phil Crosby who published the Quality Management Maturity Grid in his book Quality is Free in 1979.^[5] Active development of the model by the SEI (US Dept. of Defense Software Engineering Institute) began in 1986. Watts Humphrey is a key thinker in the discipline of the management of software development. ... Philip B. Phil Crosby, (June 18, 1926–August 18, 2001) was a businessman and author who contributed to management theory and quality management practices. ... Quality Management Maturity Grid (QMMG) is an organizational maturity matrix conceived by Philip B. Crosby first published in his book Quality is Free in 1979. ... Also: 1979 by Smashing Pumpkins. ...

The CMM was originally intended as a tool to evaluate the ability of government contractors to perform a contracted software project. Though it comes from the area of software development, it can be, has been, and continues to be widely applied as a general model of the maturity of processes (e.g., IT Service Management processes) in IS/IT (and other) organizations. IT Service Management (ITSM) is a discipline for managing large-scale information technology (IT) systems, philosophically centered on the ITSM stands in deliberate contrast to technology-centered approaches to IT management and business interaction. ...

Note that the first application of a staged maturity model to IT was not by CMM/SEI, but rather Richard L. Nolan in 1973.^[6] Richard L. Nolan is currently William Barclay Harding Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School Stages of growth model Harvard Business School Biography Categories: | ...

The model identifies five levels of process maturity for an organization:

1. Initial (chaotic, ad hoc, heroic) the starting point for use of a new process.
2. Repeatable (project management, process discipline) the process is used repeatedly.
3. Defined (institutionalized) the process is defined/confirmed as a standard business process.
4. Managed (quantified) process management and measurement takes place.
5. Optimising (process improvement) process management includes deliberate process optimization/improvement.

Within each of these maturity levels are KPAs (Key Process Areas) which characterise that level, and for each KPA there are five definitions identified:

1. Goals
2. Commitment
3. Ability
4. Measurement
5. Verification

The KPAs are not necessarily unique to CMM, representing — as they do — the stages that organizations must go through on the way to becoming mature.

The assessment is supposed to be led by an authorised lead assessor. One way in which companies are supposed to use the model is first to assess their maturity level and then form a specific plan to get to the next level. Skipping levels is not allowed.

N.B.: The CMM was originally intended as a tool to evaluate the ability of government contractors to perform a contracted software project. It may be suited for that purpose. When it became a general model for software process improvement, there were many critics.

"Shrinkwrap" companies are also called "COTS" or commercial-off-the-shelf firms or software package firms. They include Claris, Apple, Symantec, Microsoft, and Lotus, amongst others. Many such companies rarely if ever managed their requirements documents as formally as the CMM described in order to achieve level 2, and so all of these companies would probably fall into level 1 of the model.

Origins

In the 1980s, several military projects involving software subcontractors ran over-budget and were completed much later than planned, if they were completed at all. In an effort to determine why this was occurring, the United States Air Force funded a study at the SEI. The result of this study was a model for the military to use as an objective evaluation of software subcontractors. In 1989, the Capability Maturity Model was published as Managing the Software Process. The basis for the model is the Quality Management Maturity Grid introduced by Philip Crosby in his 1979 book 'Quality is Free'. “The U.S. Air Force” redirects here. ... Year 1989 (MCMLXXXIX) was a common year starting on Sunday (link displays 1989 Gregorian calendar). ... Quality Management Maturity Grid (QMMG) is an organizational maturity matrix conceived by Philip B. Crosby first published in his book Quality is Free in 1979. ... Philip Crosby Philip Crosby is regarded as one of the earliest Quality Assurance guru. ...

Timeline

• 1987: SEI-87-TR-24 (SW-CMM questionnaire), released.
• 1989: Managing the Software Process, published.
• 1990: SW-CMM v0.2, released (first external issue see Paulk handout).
• 1991: SW-CMM v1.0, released.
• 1993: SW-CMM v1.1, released.
• 1997: SW-CMM revisions halted in support for CMMI.
• 2000: CMMI v1.02, released.
• 2002: CMMI v1.1, released.
• 2006: CMMI v1.2, released.

Year 1987 (MCMLXXXVII) was a common year starting on Thursday (link displays 1987 Gregorian calendar). ... Year 1989 (MCMLXXXIX) was a common year starting on Sunday (link displays 1989 Gregorian calendar). ... This article is about the year. ... Year 1991 (MCMXCI) was a common year starting on Tuesday (link will display the 1991 Gregorian calendar). ... Year 1993 (MCMXCIII) was a common year starting on Friday (link will display full 1993 Gregorian calendar). ... For the band, see 1997 (band). ... Year 2000 (MM) was a leap year starting on Saturday (link will display full 2000 Gregorian calendar). ... Also see: 2002 (number). ... Year 2006 (MMVI) was a common year starting on Sunday of the Gregorian calendar. ...

Current state

Although these models have proved useful to many organizations, the use of multiple models has been problematic. Further, applying multiple models that are not integrated within and across an organization is costly in terms of training, appraisals, and improvement activities. The CMM Integration project was formed to sort out the problem of using multiple CMMs. The CMMI Product Team's mission was to combine three source models:

1. The Capability Maturity Model for Software (SW-CMM) v2.0 draft C
2. The Systems Engineering Capability Model (SECM)
3. The Integrated Product Development Capability Maturity Model (IPD-CMM) v0.98
4. Supplier sourcing

CMMI is the designated successor of the three source models. The SEI has released a policy to sunset the Software CMM and previous versions of the CMMI.^[7] The same can be said for the SECM and the IPD-CMM; these models were superseded by CMMI. Capability Maturity Model® Integration (CMMI) is a process improvement approach that provides organizations with the essential elements of effective processes. ...

Future direction

With the release of the CMMI Version 1.2 Product Suite, the possibility of multiple CMMI models was created. There is now a CMMI for Development (CMMI-DEV), V1.2[1] and a CMMI for Acquisition (CMMI-ACQ), V1.2[2]. A version of the CMMI for Services is being developed by a Northrop Grumman-led team under the auspices of the SEI, with participation from Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, SAIC, SRA, and Systems and Software Consortium (SSCI).[3] The Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE: NOC) is an aerospace and defense conglomerate that is the result of a 1994 merger between Northrop and Grumman. ... The Software Engineering Institute (SEI) is a federally funded research and development center sponsored by the U.S. Department of Defense and operated by Carnegie Mellon University. ... The Boeing Company (NYSE: BA, TYO: 7661) is a major aerospace and defense corporation, originally founded by William Edward Boeing. ... Lockheed/BAE/Northrop F-35 Lockheed Trident missile C-130 Hercules; in production since the 1950s, now as the C-130J Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) is an aerospace manufacturer formed in 1995 by the merger of Lockheed Corporation with Martin Marietta. ... Raytheon Company (NYSE: RTN) is a major American defense contractor and industrial corporation with core manufacturing concentrations in defense systems and defense and commercial electronics. ... Science Applications International Corporation Science Applications International Corporation (usually known as SAIC) is the largest employee-owned research and engineering firm in the United States. ...

Suggestions for improving CMMI are welcomed by the SEI. For information on how to provide feedback, see the CMMI Web site.

In some cases, CMMI can be combined with other methodologies. It is commonly used in conjunction with the ISO 9001 standard. JPMorgan Chase & Co. tried combining CMM with Extreme Programming (XP), and Six Sigma. They found that the three systems reinforced each other well, leading to better development, and did not mutually contradict, see Extreme Programming (XP), Six Sigma and CMMI. ISO 9000 specifies requirements for a Quality Management System overseeing the production of a product or service. ... JPMorgan Chase & Co. ... Extreme Programming (or XP) is a software engineering methodology, the most prominent of several agile software development methodologies, prescribing a set of daily stakeholder practices that embody and encourage particular XP values (below). ... The often-used six sigma symbol. ...

Controversial aspects

The software industry is diverse and volatile. All methodologies for creating software have supporters and critics, and the CMM is no exception. Starting in the 1980s, application software has been sold in mass-produced packages through retailers The software industry comprises of businesses involved in the development, maintenance and publication of computer software. ...

Praise

• The CMM was developed to give Defense organizations a yardstick to assess and describe the capability of software contractors to provide software on time, within budget, and to acceptable standards. It has arguably been successful in this role, even reputedly causing some software sales people to clamour for their organizations' software engineers/developers to "implement CMM."

• The CMM is intended to enable an assessment of an organization's maturity for software development. It is an important tool for outsourcing and exporting software development work. Economic development agencies in India, Brazil, Ireland, Egypt, Syria, and elsewhere have praised the CMM for enabling them to be able to compete for US outsourcing contracts on an even footing.

• The CMM provides a good framework for organizational improvement. It allows companies to prioritize their process improvement initiatives.

• The CMM can be tailored to smaller organizations and individual projects of limited scope.

Criticism

• CMM is well suited for bureaucratic organizations such as government agencies, large corporations and regulated monopolies. If the organizations deploying CMM are large enough, they may employ a team of CMM auditors reporting their results directly to the executive level. (A practice encouraged by SEI.) The use of auditors and executive reports may influence the entire IT organization to focus on perfectly completed forms rather than application development, client needs or the marketplace. If the project is driven by a due date, CMMs intensive reliance on process and forms may become a hindrance to meeting the due date in cases where time to market with some kind of product is more important than achieving high quality and functionality of the product.

• Suggestions of scientifically managing the software process with metrics only occur beyond the Fourth level. There is little validation of the processes cost savings to business other than a vague reference to empirical evidence. It is expected that a large body of evidence would show that adding all the business overhead demanded by CMM somehow reduces IT headcount, business cost, and time to market without sacrificing client needs.

• The CMM does not describe how to create an effective software development organization. The CMM contains behaviors or best practices that successful projects have demonstrated. Being CMM compliant is not a guarantee that a project will be successful, however being compliant can increase a project's chances of being successful.

• The CMM can seem to be overly bureaucratic, promoting process over substance. For example, for emphasizing predictability over service provided to end users. More commercially successful methodologies (for example, the Rational Unified Process) have focused not on the capability of the organization to produce software to satisfy some other organization or a collectively-produced specification, but on the capability of organizations to satisfy specific end user "use cases" as per the Object Management Group's UML (Unified Modeling Language) approach[4].

• From the systemic perspective, the CMM(I) represents a (n+1) classical engineering approach which does not take under consideration numerous human cognitive, organizational and cultural factors, essential for the success of every projects, see also socio-cognitive engineering viewpoint. On the other hand, a process design is strongly connected with the process carrier systems and their requested functions and goals, these clear computational relations are especially important for the validation of the results of the CMM(I) applications. It seems, the CMM(I) requires yet a solid theoretical ontological and epistemological background in order to be a trustworthy standard, for an example only, the arbitrary initial choice of the levels and Key Process Areas are not sufficiently motivated.

• Critical analysis of CMM has been published in at least two papers. Bach raises questions about the validity of CMM's assertions regarding what constitutes good software-development processes. Bollinger and McGowan discuss flaws in CMM's use of assembly-line process models. They show that manufacturing is fundamentally different than software development, as the former is primarily concerned with replication and the latter with design.

The Rational Unified Process (RUP) is an iterative software development process created by the Rational Software Corporation, now a division of IBM. The RUP is an extensive refinement of the (generic) Unified Process. ... In software engineering, a use case is a technique for capturing the potential requirements of a new system or software change. ... In the field of software engineering, the Unified Modeling Language (UML) is a standardized specification language for object modeling. ... Systemics is the emerging branch of science that studies holistic systems. ... Cognitive The scientific study of how people obtain, retrieve, store and manipulate information. ... Socio-cognitive may relate to systems, processes, functions, models, as well as can indicate the branch of science, engineering or technology, such as socio-cognitive research, socio-cognitive interactions. ... In general, a carrier is a system or process with a specific property or is attributed of something (in physical or in abstract sense). ... This article or section should include material from Episteme Epistemology (from the Greek words episteme=science and logos=word/speech) is the branch of philosophy that deals with the nature, origin and scope of knowledge. ...

The most beneficial elements of CMM Level 2 and 3

• Creation of Software Specifications, stating what is going to be developed, combined with formal sign off, an executive sponsor and approval mechanism. This is NOT a living document, but additions are placed in a deferred or out of scope section for later incorporation into the next cycle of software development.

• A Technical Specification, stating how precisely the thing specified in the Software Specifications is to be developed will be used. This is a living document.

• Peer Review of Code (Code Review) with metrics that allow developers to walk through an implementation, and to suggest improvements or changes. (Note - This is problematic because the code has already been developed, and a bad design potentially cannot be fixed by "tweaking".) The Code Review gives complete code a formal approval mechanism.

• Version Control - a very large number of organizations have no formal revision control mechanism or release mechanism in place.

• The idea that there is a "right way" to build software, that it is a scientific process involving engineering design and that groups of developers are not there to simply work on the problem du jour.

// Definition In software development, peer review refers to a type of software review in which a work product (normally some form of document) is examined by its author and/or one or more colleagues of its author, in order to evaluate its technical content and quality. ... Revision control is an aspect of documentation control wherein changes to documents are identified by incrementing an associated number or letter code, termed the revision level, or simply revision. It has been a standard practice in the maintenance of engineering drawings for as long as the generation of such drawings...

Companies appraised against the CMMI

Many IT companies across the world are making forays up the CMMI level ladder.

For a complete list view the published SCAMPI results.

See also

• Capability Maturity Model Integration
• People Capability Maturity Model
• Personal Software Process (PSP)
• Team Software Process (TSP)
• Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL)
• Software maintenance
• ISO 15504
• Open ePolicy Group

Capability Maturity Model® Integration (CMMI) is a process improvement approach that provides organizations with the essential elements of effective processes. ... People Capability Maturity Model (short names:PCMM,P-CMM) is a maturity framework that focuses on continuously improving the management and development of the human assets of an organization. ... Designed by Software Engineering Institute at Carnegie Mellon, PSP has its roots in Capability Maturity Model (CMM), the Personal Software Process is a set of guidelines and best practices to incorporate discipline in the software development process. ... This page meets Wikipedias criteria for speedy deletion. ... The Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL) is a set of concepts and techniques for managing information technology (IT) infrastructure, development, and operations. ... In software engineering, software maintenance is the process of enhancing and optimizing deployed software (software release), as well as remedying defects. ... ISO 15504 is a standard for Process Assessment. ... There are very few or no other articles that link to this one. ...

References

Books

• Chrissis, Mary Beth; Konrad, Mike, Shrum, Sandy (2003). CMMI : Guidelines for Process Integration and Product Improvement. Addison-Wesley Professional. ISBN 0-321-15496-7. 
• Kulpa, Margaret K.; Kent A. Johnson (2003). Interpreting the CMMI : A Process Improvement Approach. Auerbach Publications. ISBN 0-8493-1654-5. 

• Humphrey, Watts (1989). Managing the Software Process. Addison-Wesley Professional. ISBN 0-201-18095-2. 

Papers

• Bach, James (September 1994). "The Immaturity of CMM (with 1999 Post Script)". originally from: The American Programmer.

• McGowan, Clement (1991). "A Critical Look at Software Capability Evaluations". IEEE Software.

Websites

• History of Process Models
• Process Improvement: The Capability Maturity Model

Watts Humphrey is a key thinker in the discipline of the management of software development. ...

Footnotes

1. ^ What is CMMI? (PDF). SEI (2006). Retrieved on 2006-10-28.
2. ^ August 2002 edition of CMMI (PDF). CMU/SEI-2002-TR-011. SEI (2002). Retrieved on 2006-10-28.
3. ^ Finkelstein, Anthony (2000-04-28). A Software Process Immaturity Model (PDF). University College London. Retrieved on 2006-10-28.
4. ^ Schorsch, Tom (1996). The Capability Im-Maturity Model. The Air Force Institute of Technology. Retrieved on 2006-10-28.
5. ^ Crosby, Philip (1979). Quality is Free. Mc Graw Hill. ISBN 0451622472. 
6. ^ Nolan, Richard (July, 1973). "Managing the computer resource: a stage hypothesis" (399 - 405). Communications of the ACM 16 (7). Association for Computing Machinery. Retrieved on 2007-07-27. 
7. ^ Sunsetting Version 1.1 of the CMMI® Product Suite. SEI (2006). Retrieved on 2006-10-28.

Year 2006 (MMVI) was a common year starting on Sunday of the Gregorian calendar. ... is the 301st day of the year (302nd in leap years) in the Gregorian calendar. ... Year 2006 (MMVI) was a common year starting on Sunday of the Gregorian calendar. ... is the 301st day of the year (302nd in leap years) in the Gregorian calendar. ... Year 2000 (MM) was a leap year starting on Saturday (link will display full 2000 Gregorian calendar). ... is the 118th day of the year (119th in leap years) in the Gregorian calendar. ... Year 2006 (MMVI) was a common year starting on Sunday of the Gregorian calendar. ... is the 301st day of the year (302nd in leap years) in the Gregorian calendar. ... Year 2006 (MMVI) was a common year starting on Sunday of the Gregorian calendar. ... is the 301st day of the year (302nd in leap years) in the Gregorian calendar. ... Year 2007 (MMVII) is the current year, a common year starting on Monday of the Gregorian calendar and the AD/CE era in the 21st century. ... is the 208th day of the year (209th in leap years) in the Gregorian calendar. ... Year 2006 (MMVI) was a common year starting on Sunday of the Gregorian calendar. ... is the 301st day of the year (302nd in leap years) in the Gregorian calendar. ...

External links

• SEI CMMI Official Web Site