CAPABILITY MATURITY MODEL

Presentation by:Lokesh Soni - 140020069N.Mounica - 140040092B.Lavan Teja - 140040096

Need for Maturity Model In the 1960s, use of computers grew more

widespread, more flexible and less costly. Increased uses meant significant increase

in demand for Software development. The growth was accompanied by growing

pains:I. Project failure was commonII. Ambitions for project scale and complexity

exceeded market capability to deliver adequate products within a planned budget.  

Need for Maturity ModelIn the 1980s, several US military projects

involving software subcontractors ran over-budget and were completed far later than planned, if at all. In an effort to determine why this was occurring, the United States Air Force funded a study at the SEI which

ultimately resulted in formulation of Capability Maturity Model

Maturity modelA set of structured levels that describe how well the behaviors, practices and processes of an organization can reliably and sustainably produce required outcomes. It provides: a place to start the benefit of a community’s prior

experiences a common language and a shared vision a framework for prioritizing actions a way to define what improvement means for

your organization

What is CMM? Developed by the Software

Engineering Institute of the Carnegie Mellon University

Framework that describes key elements of an effective software process.

An evolutionary improvement path from an ad hoc, immature process to a mature, disciplined process.

Also used as a general model to aid in business processes, and has been used extensively worldwide in government offices, commerce, industry and software-development organizations.

Sources of CMM

Is based on actual practices; Reflects the best of the state of the

practice; Reflects the needs of individuals

performing software process improvement, software process assessments, or software capability evaluations;

Structure Of CMM

Maturity Levels of the CMMA maturity level is a well-defined evolutionary plateau toward achieving a mature software process. The five maturity levels provide the top-level structure of the CMM. Level 1 – Initial Level 2 – Repeatable Level 3 - Defined Level 4 - Managed Level 5 - Optimizing

Characteristics of the Maturity Levels

Level-1 Initial

Processes are ad hoc Do not have stable environment. Success depends on competence

and heroics of the people Even a strong engineering process

cannot overcome the instability created by the absence of sound management practices.

Level-2 REPEATABLE

Policies and procedures to implement these policies are established.

Process based on past results and requirements of current project.

Planning and tracking of the software project is stable

Earlier successes can be repeated.

Level-3 Defined

Set of standard processes forms basis for level3

Standard processes used to establish consistency across the organization.

Both software engineering and management activities are stable and repeatable.

Critical distinctions between level 2 and level 3 are scope of standards, process descriptions, and procedures.

Level-4 Managed

Detailed measures of the software process and product quality are collected.

Both the software process and products are quantitatively understood and controlled.

Narrowing the variation in process performance to fall within acceptable quantitative bounds

When known limits are exceeded, corrective action can be taken

At maturity level 4, the performance of processes is quantitatively predictable. At maturity level 3, processes are only qualitatively predictable.

Level-5 Optimizing Entire organization focuses on continuous

process improvement. Innovations to exploit the best software

engineering practices are identified and implemented throughout the organization.

Processes evaluated to prevent known types of defects from recurring, and lessons learned are disseminated to other projects.

Data on process effectiveness used for cost benefit analysis of new technologies and proposed process changes

Level Focus  Result5

OptimizingContinuous Process Improvement

Highest Quality /Lowest Risk

4Managed

Quantitatively Managed

Higher Quality /Lower Risk

3Defined

Process Standardization

Medium Quality /Medium Risk

2Managed

Basic Project Management

Low Quality /High Risk

1Initial

Process is informal and Adhoc

Lowest Quality /Highest Risk

Benefits Of Adopting CMM Consistency (in delivery) Cost saving (effective error detection) Improvement in Market demand(meet the

customer demands) Process improvement

Achieving Higher CMM Levels Will... Make processes repeatable and the outcome more

predictable (e.g. Motorola Transmission products) Increase product quality and decrease rework levels

(e.g. Raytheon Equipment Division) Transit company from “operating in fire-fighting” mode

to “operating according to the plan” (e.g. Hughes Fullerton)

Generate an average return on investment (e.g. Motorola University Survey)

Providing a road map and data for improving product development processes (e.g. SEI industry survey)

Motorola Transmission products

Initially “It was impossible to measure quality before the product

hit the field” Difficulty in predicting ship dates Fixing the modems in customers’ hands was difficult and

expensive and consumed engineering resources What they found after achieving level-2

“Today, we predict schedules within 15% from the baseline”

“Quality has improved to the point where less than 2 field problems are reported each month”

Source: Jed Johnson, “How We Climbed to Maturity Level 2”, Application Development Trends, April 1994

Raytheon Equipment Division

Transition from level-1 to level-3 brought $7.70 return on every dollar invested in process

improvement Rework levels dropped from 41% of project costs to 11% $4.48 million savings over 6 projects in 1 year

Significant increase in productivity Tracked 11 projects and estimated productivity in 2 year

time period Found a 140% increase in productivity during the time

period

Source: Raymond Dion, “Process Improvement and the Corporate Balance Sheet”, IEEE Software, July 1993

Hughes Fullerton Transition between level-2 and level-3 brought

$2 million annual net cost savings Reduced a 6% average cost overrun to 3% average First year benefits are 5 times the total

improvement expenditures Stabilized work environment

Fewer overtime hours, fewer gut-wrenching problems and a more stable work environment

Improved morale and a coherent culture

Source: Humphrey, Synder, Willis, “Software Process Improvement at Hughes Aircraft”, IEEE Software, July 1991

Motorola University Survey Results summarized by Karl Williams (Motorola

University) in “The value of software improvement” Overtime down 20X Released defects down 20X Productivity up 3.4X Development costs down 3X Return on investment from 16X to 4X: average

8X

Source: Karl Williams, “The value of software improvement”, SPIRE97, June 1997

SEI industry survey Software Engineering Institute surveyed 167

people representing 61 assessments 86% of those surveyed believed the CMM

provides a valuable improvement roadmap Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

Schedule 40 58 80Budget 40 58 62Product Quality

78 90 100

Productivity

58 62 84

Customer satisfaction

80 70 100

Employee morale

25 50 60

Source: Camegie Mellon University/Software Engineering Institute- The Evidence for CMM based Software Process Improvement – SEMA.5.97

It’s very difficult to consistently deliver quality products while also making

profit, if development process is poor.

Improve the process Improve the products and

profits

References

http://www.selectbs.com/process-maturity/what-is-the-capability-maturity-model

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_Maturity_Model

http://repository.cmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1179&context=sei

THANK YOU