Key Practices of the Capability Maturity Model, Version 1.1

IEEE Software, 1993

2002

The ideas and findings in this report should not be construed as an official DoD position. It is published in the interest of scientific and technical information exchange. FOR THE COMMANDER

Applying UML, 2004

This paper provides an overview of the latest version of the Capability Maturity Model for Software, CMM v1.1. Based on over six years of experience with software process improvement and the contributions of hundreds of reviewers, CMM v1.1 describes the software engineering and management practices that characterize organizations as they mature their processes for developing and maintaining software. This paper stresses the need for a process maturity framework to prioritize improvement actions, describes the process maturity framework of five maturity levels and the associated structural components, and discusses future directions for the CMM.

Software process improvement and assessment guided by a maturity level or a process capability profile based on a capability/maturity model is now well established in practice as a successful means for improving software intensive organizations. Therefore, a wide range of software process capability/maturity models have been developed evolved and adapted over the past years. In this paper, we present the results of a systematic literature review on this type of models. Our results show that there exist a large variety of models with a trend to the specialization of those models for specific domains. We also identified that most of those models are concentrated around the CMM/CMMI framework and the standard ISO/IEC 15504 (SPICE).

IEEE Software, 2010

A seeming multitude of software process capability/maturity models (SPCMMs) have emerged, and many software engineers have had to worry about compliance with them at one time or another. Although using SPCMMs is a well-established practice, the ways they're used can vary widely. At best, they can pull together vast bodies of knowledge about good software practices-the hard-won expertise of many engineers-into a form that's easier to work with. At worst, they're misused as "processes for process' sake," in which conforming to the model stifles opportunities for innovation and tailoring. If software engineers had better knowledge about how SPCMMs are developed and the basis of their recommendations, they might be able to interpret and use them to optimize their benefits. We therefore studied these issues in a systematic literature review and follow-on questionnaire.

Process Improvement with CMMI® v1.2 and ISO Standards, 2008

CMMI (Capability Maturity Model Integration) is a process improvement maturity model for the development of products and services. It consists of best practices that address development and maintenance activities that cover the product lifecycle from inception through delivery and maintenance. The purpose of CMMI for software development is to help organizations improve their development and maintenance processes for both products and services. In this paper, we have tried to focus on the importance of process improvement in a software organization by discussing the various aspects of Capability Maturity Model's different process areas.

The ideas and findings in this report should not be construed az an official DoD position. It is published in the interest of scientific and technica! information exchange. Review and Approval This report has been reviewed and is approved for publication.

Software Process: Improvement and Practice, 1996

In 1987, the SEI released a software process maturity framework and maturity questionnaire to support organizations in improving their software process. Four years later, the SEI released the Capability Maturity ModelSM for Software (SW-CMMS'). The SW-CMM has influenced software process improvement worldwide to a significant degree. More recently, the SEI has become involved in developing additional capability maturity models that impact software. This paper discusses the problems these CMMs are trylng to address, our goals in developing these CMMs, the objectives and status of each of these models, and our current plans for the 1996-1997 time frame. We then briefly turn to topics that address the usability of the SW-CMM in certain situations: in small organizations and in challenging application domains. We then describe SEI's involvement in an international standards effort to create a standard for software process assessment. Finally, to gain perspective on how the CMMs might impact the community in the future, we look at the growing use of the SW-CMM and some benefits associated with its use.

2020

Tsounos, and David White and the editorial assistance from Suzanne Couturiaux and Bill Pollak. Special thanks go to the members of the CMM Correspondence Group, who contributed their time and effort to reviewing drafts of the CMM and providing insightful commenn and recommendations, and to the members of the CMM Advisory Board, who helped guide us. The current members of the Advisory Board are