slide1
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
SM SCAMPI, SCAMPI Lead Appraiser, and SEI are service marks of Carnegie Mellon University.

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 30

Topics - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 81 Views
  • Uploaded on

Interpretive Guidance Project: What We Know CMMI User’s Conference November 18, 2003. SM SCAMPI, SCAMPI Lead Appraiser, and SEI are service marks of Carnegie Mellon University.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Topics' - janina


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

Interpretive Guidance Project: What We Know

CMMI User’s Conference

November 18, 2003

  • SM SCAMPI, SCAMPI Lead Appraiser, and SEI are service marks of Carnegie Mellon University.
  • ®Capability Maturity Model Integration, Capability Maturity Model, Capability Maturity Modeling, CMMI, and CMM are registered in the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office.
topics
Topics
  • Project Overview and Status
  • Preliminary Report Summary
  • Questions
interpretive guidance objectives
Interpretive Guidance Objectives
  • To understand and address the issues that software organizations have when using CMMI
  • To allow current SW-CMM users to more easily upgrade to CMMI
  • To eliminate as many perceived barriers to CMMI adoption as possible
  • To make CMMI adoption easy
project status highlights phase i
Project Status Highlights – Phase I
  • Phase I activities have been completed.
  • Collected comments from Birds-of-a-Feather sessions in conjunction with conferences and SPIN meetings
  • Formed expert group
  • Received responses from Web-based questionnaire
  • Received very limited feedback from SCAMPISMappraisals
  • Performed preliminary analysis of issues
  • Released Interpretive Guidance Preliminary Report (available on CMMI Website)
project status highlights phase ii
Project Status Highlights – Phase II
  • Purpose is to analyze issues to determine:
    • if interpretive guidance is needed
    • where interpretive guidance is appropriate
    • what form interpretive guidance will take
  • Phase II activities just getting started.
  • At a minimum we will
    • perform detailed analysis of the issues
    • conduct detailed interviews to investigate issue areas further
    • meet with groups at SEI to share analysis and to understand how their activities support/address identified issues
    • present preliminary data at conferences to make sure that the data is correct and our analysis is accurate
    • produce a final report to document our findings and conclusions
      • interpretive guidance for software organizations
      • summary and conclusions from this task
preliminary report
Preliminary Report

Describes the data-collection activities from both Birds of a Feather (BoF) sessions and Web-based questionnaire efforts

Includes summaries of the data collected through August 2003

bof sessions attended
BoF Sessions Attended
  • CMMI Users Group
  • ICSPI Conference
  • New York City SPIN
  • QAAM/QAI Conference on Managing Software Excellence PROFES 2002
  • Acquisition of SW-Intensive Systems
  • SEPG 2003
  • Southern California SPIN meeting
  • San Diego SPIN meeting
  • bITa Europe Conference
  • NDIA Transition Workshop
  • STC 2003
  • European SEPG Conference
  • Practical Software Measurement
web based questionnaire
Web-Based Questionnaire
  • Notified ~7,000 people
  • 4,000 people with direct internet access
  • 3,000 people that the questionnaire was available
  • placed an announcement on the SEI Web site
  • The numbers of responses received for the sections of the questionnaire were:
  • 668 Background and Context (required section)
  • 587 Global Issues
  • 339 Generic Goals and Generic Practices
  • 182 Specific Process Areas
background
Background
  • Nine questions were asked to understand the background of the respondent
  • Some questions were specific to the person filling out the questionnaire
  • Other questions were providing background information about the organization
  • Highlights are presented in the following slides
slide10

How would you best describe your familiarity with CMMI?

Didn\'t respond

1%

Total Respondents = 668

Use it regularly

54%

Use it occasionally

25%

Heard of it

19%

Never heard of it

1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Percent of Respondents

slide11

What if any CMMI training have you received?

(Multiple responses were permitted)

SCAMPI team training

17%

Total Respondents = 668

SCAMPI lead appraiser training

17%

CMMI instructor training

10%

Intermediate CMMI

35%

Introduction to CMMI

95%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Percent of Respondents

slide12

Approximately how many appraisals, if any, have been

conducted in your organization since June 2000?

(Multiple responses were permitted)

Other appraisal methods or gap analyses

2695

Total Respondents = 668

SCE

335

CBA IPI

1395

SCAMPI class B or C

1077

SCAMPI class A

374

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Number of appraisals conducted

slide13

Has your organization made a decision about

adopting CMMI?

Didn\'t respond

4%

Total Respondents = 668

Chosen not to adopt CMMI

10%

Well institutionalized in organization

15%

Adoption in progress

48%

Decision not made yet

23%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Percent of Respondents

slide14

What is your personal role in process improvement?

(Multiple responses were permitted)

Other

13%

Consultant to organizations (CMM or CMMI)

35%

Member of the technical staff

27%

Member of the management team

42%

Support for process improvement activities

73%

Policy for adoption of new technologies

26%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Percent of Respondents

Total Respondents = 668

slide15

Approximately how many full-time equivalent (FTE) employees

does your organization employ who are primarily engaged in the

development, maintenance, or acquisition of software or

software-intensive systems?

Didn\'t respond

3%

More than 500

37%

29%

100 to 500

Less than 100

31%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Percent of Respondents

Total Respondents = 668

slide16

How would you best describe your familiarity

with the Software CMM?

Didn\'t respond

2%

Use it regularly

65%

Use it occasionally

21%

Heard of it

Total Respondents = 668

11%

Never heard of it

1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Percent of Respondents

global issues
Global Issues
  • Thirteen questions were asked
  • General questions that address CMMI adoption
  • CMMI concepts or terminology
  • model representations
  • costs
  • ROI
  • Highlights are presented in the following slides
slide18

In your opinion, is CMMI adequate for guiding process

improvement?

0%

Didn\'t Respond

10%

Don\'t know

1%

Rarely if ever

12%

Sometimes

42%

More often than not

35%

Almost always

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Total Respondents = 587

Percent of Respondents

slide19

Adopting CMMI will help us to leverage our earlier investments

in process improvement.

Didn\'t Respond

4%

Don\'t Know

13%

Strongly Disagree

1%

Disagree

6%

Agree

47%

Strongly Agree

29%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Total Respondents = 587

Percent of Respondents

slide20

Existing CMMI training courses, guidance documents, web

resources, and other process assets are adequate for our purposes.

Didn\'t Respond

5%

Don\'t Know

15%

Strongly Disagree

6%

Disagree

17%

Agree

48%

Strongly Agree

9%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

Total Respondents = 587

Percent of Respondents

slide21

Existing CMMI appraisal methods are suitable for our

organization\'s needs.

Didn\'t Respond

5%

Don\'t Know

26%

Total Respondents = 587

Strongly Disagree

4%

Disagree

15%

39%

Agree

Strongly Agree

11%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Percent of Respondents

slide22

The cost of adopting CMMI is impeding the adoption of CMMI in

our organization.

Didn\'t Respond

6%

Don\'t Know

11%

Total Respondents = 587

Strongly Disagree

8%

32%

Disagree

Agree

27%

Strongly Agree

16%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Percent of Respondents

slide23

Including both systems engineering and software in a single

model has been a help for us.

Didn\'t Respond

6%

Don\'t Know

15%

Total Respondents = 587

Strongly Disagree

5%

Disagree

10%

Agree

31%

Strongly Agree

33%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Percent of Respondents

slide24

We have had difficulty in mapping our processes to the CMMI.

7%

Didn\'t Respond

Don\'t Know

16%

Strongly Disagree

18%

41%

Disagree

Agree

15%

Strongly Agree

3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Total Respondents = 587

Percent of Respondents

slide25

We have had difficulty tracking the changes and additions from

models that we have previously used.

Didn\'t Respond

8%

Don\'t Know

26%

11%

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

43%

Agree

10%

2%

Strongly Agree

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Total Respondents = 587

Percent of Respondents

slide26

Having a choice between the two model representations (staged

or continuous) and variations (SW, SE, IPPD, SS) has been helpful for us.

Didn\'t Respond

8%

Don\'t Know

20%

6%

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

17%

35%

Agree

Strongly Agree

14%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Total Respondents = 587

Percent of Respondents

slide27

Does your organization need ROI or other quantitative evidence

to help make the business case for adopting CMMI?

Didn\'t Respond

6%

No, it\'s not a real issue

12%

for us

No, we\'ve already built a

14%

good business case

Yes, it certainly would

44%

help to have

Yes, we must have it

24%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Total Respondents = 587

Percent of Respondents

conclusions
Conclusions
  • The responses were overwhelmingly positive.
  • Much of the data collected is not unique to commercial software, IT, and IS organizations. Similar data was reported by organizations in disciplines such as systems engineering and acquisition.
  • We still need to conduct our detailed analysis.
  • Copies of the report are available on the CMMI Website at http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/.
for more information about cmmi
For More Information About CMMI
  • Go to CMMI Web site:

http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi

http://seir.sei.cmu.edu

  • Contact SEI Customer Relations:

Customer RelationsSoftware Engineering InstituteCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburgh, PA 15213-3890FAX: (412) 268-5800

customer-relations@sei.cmu.edu

ad