Transcript The Capability Maturity Model for Software

The Capability Maturity Model for
Software
Software Engineering Institute
• US DoD funded institute associated with Carnegie Mellon
• Mission is to promote software technology transfer
particularly to defense contractors
• Work has been very influential in process improvement
An important role of the SEI is to use the CMM to assess
contractors bidding for US govt defense contracts
 Maturity model proposed in mid-1980s, refined in early 1990s.
 The model is intended to represent organisational capability not the
practices used in particular projects
 Within the same organisation, there are often wide variations in
processes used
 Capability assessment is questionnaire-based with on-site visits
Capability Maturity Model (CMM)
Developed by DoD-sponsored Software Engineering
Institute (SEI); includes real-world best-practices from
hundreds of companies
Focus - practices under control of the software group
Minimum set of recommended practices that enhance
software development and maintenance capability
 Defines the expectation (the “what”)
 Implements without constraint (the “how”)
Used by governments and industries to measure ‘maturity’
of software development organizations
…which bridges us into the 5 CMM Maturity Levels…
CMM Five Maturity Levels
Level 5
Optimizing
Level 4
Managed
Level 3
Defined
Level 2
Repeatable
Level 1
Initial
Continuous process
capability improvement
Product quality planning, tracking of
measured software process
Software process defined and institutionalized to
provide product quality control
Management oversight and tracking of project;
stable planning and product baselines
Ad hoc; success depends on heroes
SEI Capability Maturity Model
Result
Key Process Areas
Level
Characteristic
Optimizing
(5)
Continuous process
capability improvement
Managed
(4)
Product quality planning;
tracking of measured
software process
Defined
(3)
Software process defined
and institutionalized to
provide product quality
control
Repeatable
(2)
Management oversight
and tracking of project;
stable planning and
product baselines
Initial
(1)
Ad hoc
(success depends
on heroes)
Key Process Areas
Process change management
Technology change mgmt
Defect prevention
Software quality management
Quantitative process management
Productivity
Productivity
&&Quality
Quality
Peer reviews
Intergroup coordination
Software product engineering
Integrated software management
Training program
Organization process definition
Organization process focus
Software configuration management
Software quality assurance
Software subcontract management
Software project tracking & oversight
Software project planning
Requirements management
"People"
Risk
5
Target N -z
Why Increase Your Process Maturity?
Performance continuously
improves at Level 5
Target N -y
Time/$/...
4
Based on quantitative understanding
of process and product, performance
continues to improve at Level 4
Target N -x
Time/$/...
3
With well-defined process
performance improves at Level 3
Time/$/...
Plans based on past performance are
more realistic at Level 2 but estimates
are perceived to be "worse”
Target N+a
2
Time/$/...
Actual
1
Target N
Time/$/...
Schedule and cost targets are typically
overrun at Level 1
Level 2 Key Process Areas & Purposes
KPA
PURPOSE
Requirements
Management
Establish a common understanding of
requirements among the customer and all
development groups
Software Project Planning Establish complete & reasonable project plans
Software Subcontractor
Management
Support selection of qualified subcontractors and
effective management of their activities
Software Quality
Assurance
Provide mgmt with visibility into process &
products
Software Configuration
Establish & maintain the integrity management of
the software products throughout the life cycle
Project-centered focus
Level 3 Key Process Areas & Purposes
KPA
PURPOSE
Organization Process Focus
To establish organizational responsibility for
software process improvement activities
Organization Process Definition
To develop and maintain software process assets
for the organization
Training Program
To develop the skills and knowledge of
individuals so they can perform their roles
effectively and efficiently
Integrated Software
Management
To integrate the software engineering and
management activities into a coherent, defined
software process for better project management
Organization-centered focus
Level 3 Key Process Areas & Purposes
(…continued)
KPA
PURPOSE
Software Product Engineering
To integrate all the appropriate software
engineering activities to produce correct,
consistent software products
Intergroup Coordination
To promote teamwork among all engineering
groups on a project, and to better satisfy the
customer’s needs
Peer Reviews
To remove defects from the software work
product early and efficiently, and reinforce
engineering practices and standards
Organization-centered focus
Level 4 Key Process Areas & Purposes
KPA
PURPOSE
Software Quality
Management
Develop a quantitative understanding
of the quality of software products
and achieve specific quality goals
Quantitative Process
Management
Control process performance of the
software project quantitatively. Focus
on identifying special causes of
variation within a stable process and
correcting the problems that caused
the variation to appear.
Process-centered focus
Level 5 Key Process Areas & Purposes
KPA
PURPOSE
Process Change
Management
Continually improve software
processes
Technology Change
Management
Identify new and useful technologies
and incorporate them into the
software process in an orderly
manner
Defect Prevention
Identify causes of recurring defects,
particularly those related to process;
prevents such defects from recurring
Continuous Software Process Improvement
CMM Pros and Cons
Advantages:
 The CMM has become a U.S. DoD standard
 The CMM widely used internationally
 The CMM is well publicized, understood, and
supported
• Lots of training, workshops, and symposia
 Process Improvement is Measurable
 Many anecdotal reports of benefits
CMM Pros and Cons
Disadvantages:








Pressure to “study for the test”
Relatively easy to achieve a given level in name only
Not “modernized” for non-DoD, small software houses
Focuses on project management rather than product
development
Ignores the use of technologies like rapid prototyping,
risk analysis
Steep learning curve due to immense ambiguity
Overly bureaucratic for a supplier selection model
Encourages/ promotes low maturity (SEI Level 2/ 3)
Summary of US Org SPI Payoffs
Organization
Payoff Summary
References
Boeing Info.
Systems
Project estimates within 20% using historical data, CPK 38% better, defect containment
effectiveness at 80%, cycle time improved 36%, staff support needs down 62%, staff size reduced
31%, customer satisfaction score up10%, $5.5M saved in 1996 alone (1992 – 1996 results)
Vu, J. (1997)
Boeing STS
Customer satisfaction rated excellent, pre-release defect containment effectiveness at 99%, 31%
reduction in rework-inspections benefit, employee satisfaction level from mean of 5.7 to 8.3,
operational systems performance close to bull's-eye, level 5 process injected into new programs
Defects 10X lower than industry average, customer satisfaction rates improved from 60 to 91%
over 4 years, achieved 9 hr. cutover to add 888 to 800 system with no reported defects.
Yamamura, G. &
Wigle, G. (1997)
HP SESD
3X3 SPI program, 1 year benefits include: cycle time reduced by 33%, major open defects
reduced from 4.6 to 1.6, fewer missed deadlines, ROI 9:1
Lowe & Cox (1996)
Harris ISD
DPL
2.5X productivity gain over norm, 90% defect rate reduction, cycle time down to 6-9 months
Robeson, D.,
Davidson, S. &
Bearden, L. (1997)
Motorola
3X productivity improvement, 3X cycle time reduction, 7X quality improvement, results from ‘92’96 representing 85% of all products & released software, 75% of product development orgs. Are
>= level 3
Major, J. (1996)
Motorola GED
On 34 current programs compared to baseline – each CMM level increases quality by 2X,
significant decreases in cycle time as higher levels reached (2-7X), productivity increases of 2-3X
at highest levels of maturity, 6.77X SPI ROI
Diaz, M. & Sligo, J.
(1997)
SAIC Health
Tech.
50% improvement in customer satisfaction, 71% reduction in error rate, 12% annual improvement
in developer productivity, production rate up 30%
Lane, J. & Zubrow, D.
(1997)
Bellcore
Resource: Noumena Consulting Group http://www.noumena.com/sw-roi-published.htm#1996-1997
Bellcore Press
Release, Feb. 5, 1997
CMM Costs
Example Costs:





Up to 5 to 7 years for solid implementation
US $250,000 to $10,000,000 for initial implementation
US $200,000 per formal external audit
Results in up to 4,000 pages of software processes
Results in over 20,000 pages of formal audit results
SEI Response: “Branding” of the CMM:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMISM)
SW-CMM® Capability Maturity Model for Software
P-CMM People Capability Maturity Model
SA-CMM Software Acquisition Capability Maturity Model
SE-CMM Systems Engineering Capability Maturity Model
IPD-CMM Integrated Product Development CMM
 Tailored CMM to small organizations
 Defined “Team” & “Personal” software processes
CMM: What’s Next?
CMM is “sunsetted” (retired)
 Training not offered after 2003
 Appraisals continuing to 2006
Organizations asked to migrate to CMMI
 The “Capability Maturity Model for Integration”
• Adds KPAs for Measurement (L2), Acquisition (L3)
• Adds additional capabilities outside the scope of CMM
– e.g. outsourcing, acquisition, and risk management
Will this fly?
 Organizations invested a lot to get CMM levels
 Lightweight processes are becoming more popular
 CMM will always remain as a historical marker
• The 1st systemic approach to software process maturity
• Other standards (ISO-9000) not software specific