Workforce Maturity.nl

There is a wide range of possibilities to assess an organization's maturity level from a CMM perspective. The People CMM Reference Guide provides (in section 6.4) an overview of the possible assessment methods ranging from very pragmatic (self assessments) to formal SEI authorized assessments using the SCAMPI approach.

In this early SEI document William Hefley and Bill Curtis describe a detailed description of the an assessment.

A useful comparison of general CMM assessment approaches is provided by Richard Waina in part 2 of his CMM article series; the following excerpt gives a summary overview:

 

A CMM self-assessment is used to educate the organization on the model and to begin to identify areas for improvement.

The procedure can be administered in several hours and provides scores by Process Area Goal, based on the understanding of the participants involved. It is based on a detailed survey that is administered by the deploying organization. Accuracy tends to be low. As the organization becomes more familiar with the CMM and undergoes more intensive assessments, accuracy generally increases. Cost and organization disruption are fairly low.

 

A Mentored Self-Assessment (MSA) requires a trained and experienced MSA Leader from outside the organization. He provides CMM training and administers a CMM Self-Assessment in a group setting with selected organization members. The purpose of the mentored self-assessment is to ensure that an organization understands the meaning and intent of the CMM, and to provide an independent validation of the self-assessment results. Accuracy tends to be fair, with the cost and organization disruption being low.

An Interim Profile is a Maturity Questionnaire (MQ) based technique. (1) After initial logistics and setup, the MQ is administered to a majority of project/organization members. The data are collected, analyzed, and summarized into a set of initial project profiles. Project members then review these profiles. Changes may be made if adequate substantiating evidence is provided. An organization profile is then created and distributed, and feedback on the process obtained. An Interim Profile is used to check the status of progress improvement efforts between assessments. It is not recommended as an initial assessment. Accuracy, cost and disruption are similar to an MSA.

A CMM mini-assessment is a reduced-scale modification of the CBA-IPI where two or more trained and experienced assessors from outside the organization review the documented processes and implementation evidence and conduct several group interviews. The purpose of the mini-assessment is to provide an independent verification of self-assessment results and to provide suggestions for improvements based on an independent review. Accuracy is fairly good for mini-assessments. Cost of assessment preparation and conduct and organization disruption are moderate.

A CMM Based Appraisal for Internal Process Improvement (CBA-IPI) is conducted according to an SEI-defined process. (2) A typical formal assessment requires six to eight people plus a Lead Assessor for six to ten days, depending on the scope of the assessment. Teams are recommended to have a mix of organization and outside members. Because of the considerable cost associated with formal assessments, they must be scheduled to provide maximum benefit to the organization. The normal output of a CBA-IPI is a findings briefing which includes KPA strengths and weaknesses, and Goal/KPA/Maturity Level satisfaction. A written final report is optional. Accuracy is generally good; preparation and conduct cost and organization disruption tend to be fairly high. The disruption can work to the organization’s advantage because it conveys that this is a significant event in the life of the organization, and the start of a new way of doing business.

A Software Capability Evaluation (SCE) is similar to a CBA-IPI, except that all the team members come from outside the organization being evaluated. (3) A SCE typically requires about six to eight people for five days (sometimes more), and has costs about the same as a CBA-IPI. It is often used by government agencies or other entities desiring to assess the risk of using a specific organization to develop software.

SCAMPI (Standard CMMI Assessment Method for Process Improvement) is a part of the Integrated CMM Product Suite. (4) The SCAMPI method has two primary objectives, similar to a CBA-IPI:

1. To support, enable, and encourage an organization’s commitment to process improvement.
2. To provide an accurate picture of the strengths and weaknesses of the organization’s current process using the CMMI model as a reference model. It also identifies areas for improvement.

Assessment Considerations

There are at least three major factors to consider in choosing an assessment method:

1. Accuracy of the assessment – How well will the assessment method identify improvement opportunities? Are there major opportunities it might miss?
2. Cost – This includes both preparation costs, including team selection, training and preparation, if any, and organization preparation, and the cost of actually conducting the assessment.
3. Organization disruption – How much will the assessment impact normal organization operations, and can this impact be used to communicate important issues to the organization?