Capability Immaturity Model

Abstract: This article provides an overview of the Capability Maturity Model® for Software (Software CMM®) and the concepts of software process maturity. (Capability Maturity Model and CMM are registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.) It contains a background discussion of why process is crucial to organizational and project success, a description of the development of the CMM, a detailed summary of the model, and a description of the model's use for process improvement and the evaluation of software suppliers; describes the use of the CMM in the context of the SEI's IDEALSM (IDEAL is a service mark of Carnegie Mellon University) approach to process improvement; summarizes some of the strengths and weaknesses of the current model and its use; characterizes the state of the practice and the return on investment for software process improvement; and concludes with a discussion of likely future directions for CMM-like models. Keywords: capability maturity model; trademark; Carnegie Mellon University; principles; total quality management; software; maturity model; uses; key process improvement; case studies

Abstract: Purpose – The current conventional strategic management model is incapable of dealing with various questions on organizational management in a dynamically discontinuous environment. Hence, how an enterprise can effectively apply its knowledge management (KM) capability and develop a uniquely dynamic capability in order to provide quick response to a dynamic environment has become an urgent need. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the above-mentioned issues. Design/methodology/approach – In order to gain best exploration on KM capability, dynamic capability, and organizational performance, the questionnaire and statistical analytical techniques were used. Findings – The results indicate that dynamic capability is an important intermediate organizational mechanism through which the benefits of KM capability are converted into performance effects at the corporate level. That is, KM capability enhances the dynamic capability of organizations. While dynamic capability, in turn, increases organizational pe...

Abstract: The capability maturity model (CMM) approach to software process improvement is the most dominant paradigm of organizational change that software organizations implement. While some organizations have achieved various levels of success with the CMM, the vast majority have failed. In this paper, we investigate the assumptions about organizational culture embedded in the CMM models and we discuss their implications for software process improvement (SPI) initiatives. In this paper, we utilize the well-known competing values model to surface and analyze the assumptions underlying the CMM. Our analysis reveals contradictory sets of assumptions about organizational culture in the CMM approach. We believe that an understanding of these contradictions can help researchers address some of the difficulties that have been observed in implementing and institutionalizing SPI programs in organizations. Further, this research can help to open up a much-needed line of research that would examine the organization theory assumptions that underpin CMM. This type of research is important if CMM is to evolve as an effective organizational change paradigm for software organizations.

Abstract: This chapter introduces the capability maturity model (CMM) for Software as an alternative vehicle to assess an organization's abilities. This includes an introduction of the CMM in the wider sense, and, specifically, the CMM for Software. The CMM is about the capability and maturity of an organization. It is a model that identifies the requirements that a process needs to satisfy to improve in both capability and maturity. The CMM model provides organizations with guidance on how they can gain control of processes and evolve through a number of incremental stages toward a culture of software engineering and management excellence. The CMM framework can be used in a number of ways, such as seeking certification, internal review, and tool/ methodology comparison. Each maturity level contains a number of key process areas (KPA). Each KPA has a series of associated activities which, when performed together, achieve a set of goals. All goals of a KPA must be achieved to satisfy that KPA and therefore achieves a certain level of maturity in the model. The KPAs are organized by common features. These are attributes that address whether the implementation and institutionalization of a KPA is effective, repeatable, and lasting.