Cmm: Applications of Software Modeling

CMM: Applications of Software Modeling in the World of Project Management The Capability Maturity Model for Software (hereafter known as CMM) is a model used by many software design and engineering organizations. It was designed to identify the practices that have been most useful in helping organizations develop mature, quality control standard operating procedures and processes when developing a product.

(CMM Official Website, 2005) The maturity framework provided by CMM suggests that the ideal organization deploys software creation processes that can be repeated through the use and creation of standardized policies, procedures, and practices. The goal of CMM was to create an organizational context whereby the organization's best practices can be rapidly transferred across diverse groups within the organization. CMM also aims to reduce variations in performing best practices and have adequate testing and quality control measures.

These objectives are all deployed to enhance organizational capability in software design by rendering the operations more reliable. (Bemberger, 1997) There are five CMM levels used to assess the effectiveness of software development processes. The CMM scale extends from 1 (utter chaos) to 5 (continuously improving). U.S. government agencies that use CMM insist that companies that bid for government business obtain at least a CMM Level 3 assessment. This means that the developing organization has a codified, repeatable process for an entire division or company.

For most private organizations "the magic number is 5, and software development and services companies that don't have it risk losing billions of dollars worth of business from American and European corporations." (Kotch, 2004) But some management theorists have argued the CMM structure focuses too heavily on process or technology, not people within the context of project management.

Furthermore, even those software organizations deemed to have reached a maturity level of five, "indicated that their progression to this state required significant changes in managing people, and their continuing improvement in their organizational capability required them to address issues regarding their people assets and human resources management." (People CMM, 2005) One potential response to this criticism is to create a corresponding project management maturity model based on the goals and principles applied to software through the CMM rating scale, with five levels corresponding to the five CMM levels.

The new project management maturity model could improve IT project management processes and systems with standardization, much as standardization within the framework of CMM improved the process of software development itself.

Level 1: Chaotic In traditional CMM ratings, "Level 1 describes most of the software development organizations in the world: no standard methods for writing software, and little ability to predict costs or delivery times." (Kotch, 2004) A project management Level 1 would have no clear leader of the project, no clear project objectives, and no clear timetable, or one that "consists mostly of ordering more pizza after midnight," chaotically working overtime without a clear schedule to the detriment of the project and worker morale and sanity.

(Kotch, 2004) The level would be characterized by a lack of quality controls and clear managerial standards and objectives, with little supervision and employee 'check ins' in the form of meetings. Level 2: Defined but inappropriately so Project management at this level would set goals, and have a set schedule, but the goal objectives often create chaos because they were inflexible or unobtainable in the entirety. There may be a clear leader, but there is no clear chain of command beneath the leader.

Critically, there is an absence of standard operating procedures for management and ways of evaluating performance. Things may go well, occasionally, but as if by chance, and because of individual and sporadic employee competence or brilliance in ways that cannot carry over into regular working methods or other organizational departments. Level 3: Acceptable There is clear set of project manager procedures that are reliable.

There are standard management practices and a chain of command, an overall set of project objectives, and a sense of responsibility for getting particular jobs done, even if some links in the chain of command might be lacking. Quality control measures exist, and are often met, as the goals are testable. Also, there is a commitment to developing checks for.