SE News

CMMI Version 1.3 models will be released in November 2010. This latest release of CMMI models includes changes to the high maturity material and other improvements that will better meet the needs of organizations that use CMMI models.

The decision to improve the coverage of high maturity was central to the Version 1.3 update. The decision to eliminate the high capability goal structure adds value for process improvement more than simply maintaining the legacy approach. Some will find these changes challenging; however, most will see that the advantages of a multi-constellation environment outweigh the risks that come with any change.

Mike Phillips

http://www.sei.cmu.edu/newsitems/CMMI_focus_073010.cfm

The People Capability Maturity Model (CMM) is a tool that helps you successfully address the critical people issues in your organization. The People CMM employs the process maturity framework of the highly successful Capability Maturity Model for Software (SW-CMM) as a foundation for a model of best practices for managing and developing an organization’s workforce. The Software CMM has been used by software organizations around the world for guiding dramatic improvements in their ability to improve productivity and quality, reduce costs and time to market, and increase customer satisfaction. Based on the best current practices in fields such as human resources, knowledge management, and organizational development, the People CMM guides organizations in improving their processes for managing and developing their workforce.

Bill Curtis
Bill Hefley
Sally Miller

http://www.sei.cmu.edu/publications/documents/09.reports/09tr003.html

The CMMI for Services (CMMI-SVC), Version 1.2 model, scheduled for release in mid-March 2009, instead has been released in February 2009.

In lean economic times, service organizations, which make up 80% of the world economy, can benefit by using process improvement to make the most of their resources to achieve desired business results. CMMI for Services (CMMI-SVC) is a guide to help service provider organizations reduce costs, improve quality, and improve the predictability of schedules.

Customers are requesting that their service providers demonstrate a CMMI rating or capability profile, but attempts to use CMMI-DEV in a service setting can distort the integrity of appraisal results. Service providers deserve the same opportunity that the development community has enjoyed for years. They deserve the opportunity to improve their processes based on community models of practice that specifically address the interests and concerns of service providers. CMMI-SVC is the model of practice that service organizations have been waiting for.

CMMI-SVC provides best practices that service providers can use when they
* Decide what services they should be providing, define standard services, and let people know about them
* Make sure they have everything they need to deliver a service, including people, processes, consumables, and equipment
* Get new systems in place, change existing systems, retire obsolete systems, all while making sure nothing goes terribly wrong with the service
* Set up agreements, take care of service requests, and operate service systems
* Make sure they have the resources needed to deliver services and that services are available when needed—at an appropriate cost
* Handle what goes wrong—and prevent it from going wrong in the first place if possible
* Ensure they are ready to recover from potential disasters and get back to delivering services if the disaster occurs

http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/models/CMMI-Services-status.html
http://www.sei.cmu.edu/publications/documents/09.reports/09tr001.html

CMMI “roadmaps”, which are a goal-driven approach to selecting and deploying relevant process areas from the CMMI-DEV model, can provide guidance and focus for effective CMMI adoption. The Dutch Software Process Improvement (SPIder) network convened a workshop in November 2006 to develop several CMMI roadmaps for the continuous representation, each with a specific set of improvement goals. These roadmaps combine the strengths of both the staged and the continuous representations.

Jan Jaap Cannegieter, André Heijstek, Ben Linders, Rini van Solingen

http://www.sei.cmu.edu/publications/documents/08.reports/08tn010.html

Agile development methods and CMMI (Capability Maturity Model Integration) best practices are often perceived to be at odds with each other. This report clarifies why the discord need not exist and proposes that CMMI and Agile champions work toward deriving benefit from using both and exploit synergies that have the potential to dramatically improve business performance.

Hillel Glazer
Jeff Dalton
David Anderson
Mike Konrad
Sandy Shrum

http://www.sei.cmu.edu/publications/documents/08.reports/08tn003.html

It is my privilege to congratulate CrossTalk on 20 years of publishing articles for and by the defense software community. Longevity in any field is not easy, but longevity in the fast-paced world of software is indeed a notable accomplishment. The occurring changes during the past 20 years are far too countless to mention, yet they have all contributed to the present state of defense software today. Likewise, those of us currently involved with CrossTalk stand on the shoulders of the authors, editors, sponsors, and publishers who went before us, all of whom significantly contributed in assisting CrossTalk in fulfilling its mission of informing readers of new industry trends, proven methodologies, cutting-edge technologies, innovative practices, and, of
course, lessons learned.

In this special 20th anniversary issue, Gerald M. Weinberg takes a bi-directional view of where defense software had been and where it is going in his article What Have 20 Years Accomplished and What Is Left to Accomplish in the Next 20 Years?, while Dr. Linda Ibrahim provides insightful thoughts about the progress of the industry as a whole in A Process Improvement Commentary.

Watts S. Humphrey cautions readers in his article, The Process Revolution, not to repeat mistakes and to build reliability and consistency into your processes by consistently recording and learning from history. In the same vein, Paul Kimmerly’s article, Heroes: Carrying a Double-Edged Sword, discusses the benefits and limitations of heroes in process improvement efforts.

You may have heard the saying the more things change the more they stay the same. Interestingly, Dr. Alistair Cockburn explores the merits of this platitude in a software sense by reviewing Agile practices in his article Good Old Advice, and focuses on Agile’s applicability in today’s world.

Conversely, Jamie Hohman and Dr. Hossein Saiedian provide guidance in their article, Wiki Customization to Resolve Management Issues in Distributed Software Projects. This article adds new dimensions to the dynamics of traditional project management and provides methods of easing the stresses brought on by trying to manage distributed projects.

Lastly, don’t miss Gary A. Petersen’s witty walk down CrossTalk’s memory lane in his article, CrossTalk: The Long and Winding Road, as he examines the maturity and growth of the magazine as it developed from a diminutively distributed black-and-white copy to its current form and shape.

Karl Rogers

http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/crosstalk/2008/08/index.html

The CMMI for Acquisition Primer, Version 1.2 provides those who acquire products and services an introduction to CMMI best practices that can help them. Replacing the CMMI Acquisition Module, the primer (57 pages) is based on the best practices of the CMMI for Acquisition (CMMI-ACQ), Version 1.2 model (441 pages) and can be used by projects that acquire products or services in government and non-government organizations.

Best practices in the primer cover activities such as monitoring and controlling contractors and suppliers that develop products and services and deliver services. The practices in this primer provide a foundation for acquisition process discipline and rigor that enables product and service development and service delivery to be repeatedly executed for ultimate acquisition success.

Dr. Karen Richter, Institute for Defense Analyses

http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/models/primer-announce.html

This technical note describes the conceptual elements necessary for building quality into systems, or any entity, and evaluating the quality actually achieved. It presents definitions and conceptual elements within the context of Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) to show how CMMI codifies the concepts. Another goal of including the CMMI context is to help CMMI implementers recognize the purpose of some CMMI components relative to quality concepts and principles, and to help ensure a CMMI implementation leading to quality products.

Emanuel R. Baker
Matthew J. Fisher
Wolfhart Goethert

http://www.sei.cmu.edu/publications/documents/07.reports/07tn002.html

I repeatedly encounter those seeking the one solution that will solve the problems in their organization. Such a search is often commissioned by a boss who wants the single answer and a quick fix to the organization’s problems. In this column, I try to describe how to relate some of these answers rather than trying to make any of them - even CMMI - a single solution.

Mike Phillips

http://www.sei.cmu.edu/news-at-sei/columns/cmmi-in-focus/cmmi-in-focus.htm

The Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute (SEI) proudly announced the release of CMMI for Acquisition (CMMI-ACQ), Version 1.2, a CMMI model designed for use in managing the supply chain by those who acquire, procure, or otherwise select and purchase products and services for business purposes. This model is a continuation of work to define best practices for organizations that acquire products and services or outsource development and support, which was work begun in a partnership between General Motors and the SEI.

CMMI-ACQ provides guidance to acquisition organizations for initiating and managing the acquisition of products and services that meet the needs of the customer. The model focuses on acquirer processes and integrates bodies of knowledge that are essential for successful acquisitions.

http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/models/ACQ-v12-announce.html

About 80 percent of software houses around the world are small companies. Compared to the large companies, small shops typically have advantages in terms of agility, performance, motivation, and focus. What they don’t often have is validation that the processes they use to deliver software also focuses on quality — the type of validation usually reserved for large organizations that have adopted capability models like CMMi.

However, Codice Software is a small company that adheres to both Agile methodologies (SCRUM) and process improvement (CMMi). In this article, I explain why we pursued CMMi evaluation during the development of Plastic SCM (a configuration-management and version-control tool), what went smoothly, and what difficulties we had in making our SCRUM process fit within CMMi rules.

Pablo Santos

http://www.ddj.com/architect/201202684