home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: hsv.tech,ingr.general
- Path: sparky!uunet!infonode!darryl
- From: darryl@infonode.ingr.com (Darryl Davis)
- Subject: Software Process Maturity Presentation
- Message-ID: <1992Nov21.202731.10681@infonode.ingr.com>
- Keywords: SEI, CMM, Software Process, Software Engineering
- Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
- Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 20:27:31 GMT
- Lines: 233
-
- The Huntsville ACM SIGAda is hosting a special evening presentation on
- the Carnegie Mellon University Software Engineering Institute's (SEI's)
- Capability Maturity Model (CMM) for Software, featuring Mark Paulk of the
- SEI, project leader of the CMM Project. This will be held on Tuesday,
- November 24th at 7:30 p.m. at BDM International, 950 Explorer Blvd., in
- Huntsville.
-
- On overview of the CMM is provided below. This is mostly condensed from
- the SEI writings.
-
-
- Huntsville ACM SIGAda officers:
-
- Chairperson: Jerry Mungle
- Nichols Research Corp.
- 883-1170, ext. 1273
-
- Vice-Chairperson: Kevin J. Weise
- COLSA Corp.
- 922-1512, ext. 1864
-
- Secretary: Gunde Siripuram
- COLSA Corp.
- 922-1512, ext. 1864
-
- Treasurer: Anna Sherwood
- BDM International
- 922-5226
-
- Past Chairperson: John Wiley
- Intergraph Corp.
- 730-4376
-
- ---
-
- AN EXECUTIVE OVERVIEW OF
- THE CAPABILITY MATURITY MODEL FOR SOFTWARE
-
- Prepared by
- Darryl Davis and Dana Wallace
-
- Intergraph Corporation
-
- November 21, 1992
-
-
- The software process is the set of activities, methods, and practices people
- use to develop and maintain software and the associated products.
-
- It has been proven that process improvement greatly contributes to improved
- profitability, with very significant returns on the investment. The
- quality, cost, and schedule of a software product is greatly affected by the
- quality of the process used to create it. After failing to realize promised
- productivity and quality gains from new methods and technologies,
- organizations have come to realize that the fundamental problem is the
- inability to manage the overall software process. Improving the process, and
- improving our understanding of the process, will have the direct result of
- improved software at less cost and in less time.
-
- The Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) Software Engineering Institute's
- (SEI's) Capability Maturity Model (CMM) for Software [Paulk91, Weber91]
- provides an evolutionary strategy for software organizations to use in
- developing a mature, disciplined, software process. It covers practices for
- planning, engineering, and managing software development and maintenance.
- The CMM helps answer the questions:
-
- o How good is our current software process?
-
- o What must we do to improve it?
-
- o Where do we start?
-
- The CMM is based on time-proven quality principles. It applies Total
- Quality Management to software. Its roots are in statistical quality
- control, which was developed by Shewart in the 1930s and further developed
- and successfully demonstrated (primarily in Japan) by Deming [Deming86] and
- Juran [Juran88, Juran89].
-
- The CMM casts these principles into a maturity framework (first inspired by
- Crosby [Crosby79]). The framework consists of five maturity levels that
- describe the progression from a chaotic process to a well controlled,
- optimizing process. The levels lay successive foundations for continuous
- process improvement. By determining their position in this framework,
- organizations can readily identify the most fruitful areas for improvement
- actions. [Humphrey91] Each level establishes an intermediate set of goals
- toward higher levels of process maturity.
-
- Level 5, the "optimizing" level, is the highest level of maturity
- represented in the model. At level 5, the process is self-optimizing based
- on the feedback of process measurements. But before an organization can
- attempt to achieve this level, these process measurements must be in place.
-
- At level 4, the "managed" level, a quantitatively measured process has been
- established. But before a process can be measured, it must first be well
- defined.
-
- At level 3, the "defined" level, the process is well defined and
- institutionalized. "At this point advanced technology can usefully be
- introduced." [Humphrey89] But an organization cannot devote the attention
- needed to successfully establish such a process unless they are out of
- "crisis mode."
-
- At level 2, the "repeatable" level, the organization is not tied up battling
- crisis situations. Basic project management, requirements management,
- subcontract management, configuration management, and software quality
- assurance are in place. "Planning and managing new projects is based on
- experience with similar projects." [Paulk91] The commitments are realistic.
- "Project managers track software costs, schedules, and functionality; and
- problems in meeting commitments are identified when they arise. Software
- requirements and the artifacts developed to satisfy them are baselined, and
- their integrity is controlled." [Paulk91] Project standards are defined and
- followed. Project teams work with their customers and subcontractors to
- establish an effective working environment. The organization is able to
- repeat successful practices developed on earlier projects. At this stage,
- basic software engineering methods and technologies can be introduced if
- great care is used to keep the risk down.
-
- Level 1, the "initial" level, is the lowest level of maturity. The process
- is ad hoc and maybe even chaotic. Sound management practices are lacking.
- Quality, cost, and schedule are generally unpredictable. It is an unstable
- environment for software development and maintenance. Poor planning and
- reaction-driven commitments undermine the benefits of software engineering
- practices. It is "difficult or even impossible to introduce advanced
- methods and technology." [Humphrey89] The projects are frequently in
- crisis, driving them to abandon any planned procedures and revert to coding
- and testing. A project's success depends completely on its having an
- exceptional manager and software team. These very rare managers can
- sometimes withstand the pressures to take shortcuts in the process, but when
- they leave the project their stabilizing influence leaves with them.
-
- Experience has shown that it typically takes an organization committed to
- process improvement anywhere from a year and a half (by some small
- organizations) to three years to progress by one complete level of maturity;
- but the progression from level 1 to level 2 may require more on the order of
- three to five years. However, there are many factors that may cause the
- time to vary more widely.
-
- The CMM is:
-
- o Cutting edge: The CMM is the product of the most up-to-date research
- by the nation's foremost software engineering organization. Extensive
- testing continues in order to improve and evolve the CMM.
-
- o Evolutionary: It is based on many small, evolutionary steps each
- providing the foundation for the next step.
-
- o Focused: Organizations can use the CMM to identify deficiencies and
- work aggressively on the few issues most critical to improving the
- software process.
-
- o Low risk: The SEI performs extensive research to identify, experiment
- with, scale up, and prove the practices in the CMM. Risk is minimized
- for managers who must meet commitments and cannot afford to experiment
- with their process.
-
- o Flexible: The CMM does not require any specific software technology,
- organizational structure, life-cycle model, or set of documents. Care
- has been taken to provide a complete set of valid principles that
- apply to a wide range of situations, not a rigid set of rules and
- regulations.
-
- o Specific: The CMM consists of clear-cut goals, and specific practices
- that can be used to achieve those goals.
-
- o Supported: The SEI supports the CMM with comprehensive documentation,
- training, and certified vendors.
-
-
- FURTHER READING
-
- The SEI technical report "Capability Maturity Model for Software" [Paulk91]
- gives an overview of the CMM. Specifically, it includes a brief history and
- rationale, describes the framework and structure of the CMM, and explains
- how organizations can use the CMM to improve their process.
-
- The SEI technical report "Key Practices of the Capability Maturity Model"
- [Weber91] describes the practices that correspond to each maturity level of
- the CMM. "It is an elaboration of what is meant by maturity at each level of
- the CMM and a guide that can be used for software process assessments,
- software capability evaluations, and process improvements." [Weber91]
-
- The book Managing the Software Process [Humphrey89] covers the essentials of
- software management. It, together with the paper "Characterizing the
- Software Process," [Humphrey88] provided the initial foundation for the CMM.
- This book is the place to turn to for more comprehensive and detailed
- guidance for improving the process.
-
- The paper "Software Process Improvement at Hughes Aircraft" [Humphrey91]
- presents how Hughes' Software Engineering Division progressed from level 2
- to level 3 of the model in just two years, and discusses how much it cost
- and the benefits gained.
-
-
- REFERENCES
-
- [Crosby79] P. B. Crosby, Quality is Free, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1979.
-
- [Deming86] W. Edwards Deming, Out of the Crisis, MIT Center for Advanced
- Engineering Study, Cambridge, MA, 1986.
-
- [Humphrey88] Watts S. Humphrey, "Characterizing the Software Process," IEEE
- Software, March 1988.
-
- [Humphrey89] Watts S. Humphrey, Managing the Software Process,
- Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1989.
-
- [Humphrey91] Watts S. Humphrey, Terry R. Snyder, and Ronald R. Willis,
- "Software Process Improvement at Hughes Aircraft," IEEE Software, July 1991.
-
- [Juran88] Joseph M. Juran, Juran on Planning for Quality, Macmillan, New
- York, NY, 1988.
-
- [Juran89] Joseph M. Juran, Juran on Leadership for Quality, The Free Press,
- New York, NY, 1989.
-
- [Paulk91] Mark C. Paulk, et. al., "Capability Maturity Model for Software,"
- Tech. Report CMU/SEI-91-TR-24, SEI, CMU, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, August
- 1991.
-
- [Weber91] Charles V. Weber, et. al., "Key Practices of the Capability
- Maturity Model," Tech. Report CMU/SEI-91-TR-25, SEI, CMU, Pittsburgh,
- Pennsylvania, August 1991.
-
-
- -- --
- Darryl L. Davis Phone: (205) 730-8554
- Senior Technical Manager Fax.: (205) 730-8344
- Custom Services Group Internet: darryl@ingr.com
- Intergraph Electronics Design Automation
- Mail Stop LR23B2
- Intergraph Corporation
- Huntsville, AL 35894-0001 USA
- -- --
-