110:
1123:
485:
users have experienced the process in multiple and varied conditions, and are able to demonstrate competence. The process maturity enables adaptions to particular projects without measurable losses of quality or deviations from specifications. Process
Capability is established from this level. (Example - surgeon performing an operation hundreds of times with levels of negative outcome approaching zero).
484:
It is characteristic of processes at this level that, using process metrics, effective achievement of the process objectives can be evidenced across a range of operational conditions. The suitability of the process in multiple environments has been tested and the process refined and adapted. Process
369:
the goals of a key process area summarize the states that must exist for that key process area to have been implemented in an effective and lasting way. The extent to which the goals have been accomplished is an indicator of how much capability the organization has established at that maturity level.
263:
in his book "Quality is Free". Humphrey's approach differed because of his unique insight that organizations mature their processes in stages based on solving process problems in a specific order. Humphrey based his approach on the staged evolution of a system of software development practices within
472:
It is characteristic of processes at this level that there are sets of defined and documented standard processes established and subject to some degree of improvement over time. These standard processes are in place. The processes may not have been systematically or repeatedly used - sufficient for
431:
Within each of these maturity levels are Key
Process Areas which characterise that level, and for each such area there are five factors: goals, commitment, ability, measurement, and verification. These are not necessarily unique to CMM, representing — as they do — the stages that organizations
340:
A maturity model can be used as a benchmark for comparison and as an aid to understanding - for example, for comparative assessment of different organizations where there is something in common that can be used as a basis for comparison. In the case of the CMM, for example, the basis for comparison
392:
There are five levels defined along the continuum of the model and, according to the SEI: "Predictability, effectiveness, and control of an organization's software processes are believed to improve as the organization moves up these five levels. While not rigorous, the empirical evidence to date
302:
In 2016, the responsibility for CMMI was transferred to the
Information Systems Audit and Control Association (ISACA). ISACA subsequently released CMMI v2.0 in 2021. It was upgraded again to CMMI v3.0 in 2023. CMMI now places a greater emphasis on the process architecture which is typically
514:
The model was originally intended to evaluate the ability of government contractors to perform a software project. It has been used for and may be suited to that purpose, but critics pointed out that process maturity according to the CMM was not necessarily mandatory for successful software
311:
The CMM was originally intended as a tool to evaluate the ability of government contractors to perform a contracted software project. Though it comes from the area of software development, it can be, has been, and continues to be widely applied as a general model of the maturity of
299:(CMMI) project was formed to sort out the problem of using multiple models for software development processes, thus the CMMI model has superseded the CMM model, though the CMM model continues to be a general theoretical process capability model used in the public domain.
501:
of process variation and changing the process (for example, to shift the mean of the process performance) to improve process performance. This would be done at the same time as maintaining the likelihood of achieving the established quantitative process-improvement
264:
an organization, rather than measuring the maturity of each separate development process independently. The CMM has thus been used by different organizations as a general and powerful tool for understanding and then improving general business process performance.
496:
It is a characteristic of processes at this level that the focus is on continually improving process performance through both incremental and innovative technological changes/improvements. At maturity level 5, processes are concerned with addressing statistical
460:
It is characteristic of this level of maturity that some processes are repeatable, possibly with consistent results. Process discipline is unlikely to be rigorous, but where it exists it may help to ensure that existing processes are maintained during times of
473:
the users to become competent or the process to be validated in a range of situations. This could be considered a developmental stage - with use in a wider range of conditions and user competence development the process can develop to next level of maturity.
449:, uncontrolled and reactive manner by users or events. This provides a chaotic or unstable environment for the processes. (Example - a surgeon performing a new operation a small number of times - the levels of negative outcome are not known).
294:
The CMM model's application in software development has sometimes been problematic. Applying multiple models that are not integrated within and across an organization could be costly in training, appraisals, and improvement activities. The
376:
common features include practices that implement and institutionalize a key process area. There are five types of common features: commitment to perform, ability to perform, activities performed, measurement and analysis, and verifying
251:
after retiring from IBM. At the request of the U.S. Air Force he began formalizing his
Process Maturity Framework to aid the U.S. Department of Defense in evaluating the capability of software contractors as part of awarding contracts.
523:
The software process framework documented is intended to guide those wishing to assess an organization's or project's consistency with the Key
Process Areas. For each maturity level there are five checklist types:
281:
and practices at each of the five maturity levels was initiated in 1991, with
Version 1.1 being published in July 1993. The CMM was published as a book in 1994 by the same authors Mark C. Paulk, Charles V. Weber,
356:
a 5-level process maturity continuum - where the uppermost (5th) level is a notional ideal state where processes would be systematically managed by a combination of process optimization and continuous process
209:
In 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
274:
Organizations were originally assessed using a process maturity questionnaire and a
Software Capability Evaluation method devised by Humphrey and his colleagues at the Software Engineering Institute.
255:
The result of the Air Force study was a model for the military to use as an objective evaluation of software subcontractors' process capability maturity. Humphrey based this framework on the earlier
186:
was still in its early years, and the ambitions for project scale and complexity exceeded the market capability to deliver adequate products within a planned budget. Individuals such as
562:
Roles, entry criteria, inputs, activities, outputs, exit criteria, reviews and audits, work products managed and controlled, measurements, documented procedures, training, and tools
337:
can be viewed as a set of structured levels that describe how well the behaviors, practices and processes of an organization can reliably and sustainably produce required outcomes.
435:
The model provides a theoretical continuum along which process maturity can be developed incrementally from one level to the next. Skipping levels is not allowed/feasible.
171:
In the 1980s, the use of computers grew more widespread, more flexible and less costly. Organizations began to adopt computerized information systems, and the demand for
799:
383:
The key practices describe the elements of infrastructure and practice that contribute most effectively to the implementation and institutionalization of the area.
583:
Key
Process Areas purposes, goals, policies, and standards; process descriptions; procedures; training; tools; reviews and audits; work products; measurements
96:, it is also used as a model to aid in business processes generally, and has also been used extensively worldwide in government offices, commerce, and industry.
891:
863:
445:
It is characteristic of processes at this level that they are (typically) undocumented and in a state of dynamic change, tending to be driven in an
832:
120:
243:
Active development of the model by the US Department of
Defense Software Engineering Institute (SEI) began in 1986 when Humphrey joined the
363:
a Key
Process Area identifies a cluster of related activities that, when performed together, achieve a set of goals considered important.
1261:
67:
The Capability Maturity Model was originally developed as a tool for objectively assessing the ability of government contractors'
206:
began to publish articles and books with research results in an attempt to professionalize the software-development processes.
1251:
898:
870:
754:
604:
296:
56:
1176:
128:
705:
Mark C. Paulk; Bill Curtis; Mary Beth Chrissis; Charles V. Weber (July 1993). "Capability maturity model, version 1.1".
839:
559:
Describes the process information content recommended by the Key Process Areas. These are refined into checklists for:
1133:
1106:
1027:
153:
27:) is a development model created in 1986 after a study of data collected from organizations that contracted with the
71:
to implement a contracted software project. The model is based on the process maturity framework first described in
609:
256:
774:
635:
244:
400:(chaotic, ad hoc, individual heroics) - the starting point for use of a new or undocumented repeat process.
41:
practices, to formally defined steps, to managed result metrics, to active optimization of the processes.
746:
599:
175:
grew significantly. Many processes for software development were in their infancy, with few standard or "
52:
28:
406:- the process is at least documented sufficiently such that repeating the same steps may be attempted.
1227:
945:
235:
began developing his process maturity concepts during the later stages of his 27-year career at IBM.
1256:
982:
248:
182:
As a result, the growth was accompanied by growing pains: project failure was common, the field of
580:
Provides an overview of an entire maturity level. These are further refined into checklists for:
267:
Watts Humphrey's Capability Maturity Model (CMM) was published in 1988 and as a book in 1989, in
210:
124:
614:
572:
Describes the recommended content of documented procedures described in the Key Process Areas.
226:
1236:
551:
Describes the recommended content of select work products described in the Key Process Areas.
317:
914:
135:
1195:
1019:
659:
Humphrey, W. S. (March 1988). "Characterizing the software process: a maturity framework".
172:
93:
45:
740:
704:
85:. It was later published as an article in 1993 and as a book by the same authors in 1994.
8:
221:
The first application of a staged maturity model to IT was not by CMU/SEI, but rather by
1151:
Proceedings of the International Conference on Transformations in Engineering Education
1072:
964:
855:
684:
31:, who funded the research. The term "maturity" relates to the degree of formality and
506:
Between 2008 and 2019, about 12% of appraisals given were at maturity levels 4 and 5.
303:
realized as a process diagram. Copies of CMMI are available now only by subscription.
1129:
1102:
1023:
1012:
894:
866:
835:
825:
750:
676:
191:
1163:
968:
741:
Mark C. Paulk; Charles V. Weber; Bill Curtis; Mary Beth Chrissis (January 1, 1994).
1076:
1064:
1007:
954:
720:
688:
668:
413:
260:
222:
183:
543:
Describes the policy contents and KPA goals recommended by the Key Process Areas.
195:
1231:
1098:
1090:
1043:
421:- the process is quantitatively managed in accordance with agreed-upon metrics.
334:
283:
232:
187:
82:
1245:
1055:
1047:
707:
680:
370:
The goals signify the scope, boundaries, and intent of each key process area.
277:
The full representation of the Capability Maturity Model as a set of defined
176:
73:
743:
The Capability Maturity Model: Guidelines for Improving the Software Process
59:, which has largely superseded the CMM and addresses some of its drawbacks.
278:
203:
32:
959:
940:
860:
Quality Software Management: Anticipating Change. Vol. 1: Systems Thinking
427:- process management includes deliberate process optimization/improvement.
199:
775:"What is the Capability Maturity Model? (CMM) | Process Maturity | FAQ"
724:
1068:
672:
1166:
Attests to 2001 use of the text so it couldn't have come from here.
238:
37:
1222:
800:"What is CMMI? A model for optimizing development processes"
341:
would be the organizations' software development processes.
213:
funded a study at the Software Engineering Institute (SEI).
1048:"Characterizing the software process: A maturity framework"
716:
48:
processes, but it can also be applied to other processes.
289:
888:
Waltzing with Bears: Managing Risk on Software Projects
1097:. SEI series in software engineering. Reading, Mass.:
983:"People Capability Maturity Model (P-CMM) Version 2.0"
941:"Managing the computer resource: A stage hypothesis"
166:
1011:
824:
879:
412:- the process is defined/confirmed as a standard
1243:
432:must go through on the way to becoming mature.
320:processes) in IS/IT (and other) organizations.
51:In 2006, the Software Engineering Institute at
736:
734:
1177:"CMMI Adoption Trends - 2019 Mid Year Update"
1128:. McGraw-Hill Education (India) Pvt Limited.
885:
518:
306:
239:Development at Software Engineering Institute
848:
16:Assessment of software development processes
1000:
816:
731:
1083:
700:
698:
1148:
958:
247:located at Carnegie Mellon University in
154:Learn how and when to remove this message
92:Though the model comes from the field of
1089:
1042:
854:
658:
134:Relevant discussion may be found on the
1193:
822:
768:
766:
695:
44:The model's aim is to improve existing
1244:
1164:State of Michigan SDLC Appendix on CMM
1006:
1121:
938:
797:
633:
605:Capability Maturity Model Integration
297:Capability Maturity Model Integration
290:Capability Maturity Model Integration
57:Capability Maturity Model Integration
763:
636:"The Difference Between CMMI vs CMM"
103:
13:
328:
14:
1273:
1262:Information technology management
1216:
919:Process Enhancement Partners, Inc
772:
349:The model involves five aspects:
167:Prior need for software processes
886:DeMarco, T.; Lister, T. (1997).
827:1989. Modern Structured Analysis
610:People Capability Maturity Model
257:Quality Management Maturity Grid
108:
1194:Fishman, Charles (1996-12-31).
1187:
1169:
1157:
1142:
1115:
1036:
975:
932:
907:
323:
798:White, Sarah K. (2018-03-16).
791:
652:
627:
245:Software Engineering Institute
1:
1095:Managing the Software Process
915:"CMMI-Six Sigma, their roots"
620:
269:Managing the Software Process
225:, who, in 1973 published the
79:Managing the Software Process
77:and, later, in the 1989 book
1252:Software development process
1228:Architecture Maturity Models
1196:"They Write the Right Stuff"
344:
216:
7:
747:Addison-Wesley Professional
600:Capability Immaturity Model
593:
509:
62:
10:
1278:
939:Nolan, R. L. (July 1973).
519:Software process framework
307:Adapted to other processes
286:, and Mary Beth Chrissis.
99:
53:Carnegie Mellon University
29:U.S. Department of Defense
387:
21:Capability Maturity Model
634:Nayab, N. (2010-04-27).
249:Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
393:supports this belief".
211:United States Air Force
615:Testing Maturity Model
492:Optimizing (Efficient)
229:for IT organizations.
227:stages of growth model
179:" approaches defined.
1149:Natarajan, R (2015).
1125:Juran'S Quality Hb 6E
987:resources.sei.cmu.edu
960:10.1145/362280.362284
318:IT service management
121:synthesis of material
1122:Juran (2010-08-26).
1020:New American Library
823:Yourdon, E. (1989).
173:software development
94:software development
46:software development
35:of processes, from
361:Key Process Areas:
131:to the main topic.
125:verifiably mention
119:possibly contains
900:978-0-932633-60-6
892:Dorset House Pub.
872:978-0-932633-72-9
864:Dorset House Pub.
773:McKay, Vivienne.
756:978-0-201-54664-4
725:10.1109/52.219617
589:
588:
480:Managed (Capable)
192:Larry Constantine
164:
163:
156:
1269:
1210:
1209:
1207:
1206:
1191:
1185:
1184:
1173:
1167:
1161:
1155:
1154:
1146:
1140:
1139:
1119:
1113:
1112:
1087:
1081:
1080:
1052:
1040:
1034:
1033:
1017:
1004:
998:
997:
995:
994:
979:
973:
972:
962:
936:
930:
929:
927:
926:
911:
905:
904:
883:
877:
876:
852:
846:
845:
830:
820:
814:
813:
811:
810:
795:
789:
788:
786:
785:
779:www.selectbs.com
770:
761:
760:
745:(1st ed.).
738:
729:
728:
702:
693:
692:
656:
650:
649:
647:
646:
631:
529:
528:
414:business process
374:Common Features:
354:Maturity Levels:
261:Philip B. Crosby
223:Richard L. Nolan
184:computer science
159:
152:
148:
145:
139:
112:
111:
104:
1277:
1276:
1272:
1271:
1270:
1268:
1267:
1266:
1257:Maturity models
1242:
1241:
1219:
1214:
1213:
1204:
1202:
1192:
1188:
1175:
1174:
1170:
1162:
1158:
1147:
1143:
1136:
1120:
1116:
1109:
1091:Humphrey, W. S.
1088:
1084:
1069:10.1109/52.2014
1050:
1044:Humphrey, W. S.
1041:
1037:
1030:
1014:Quality is Free
1005:
1001:
992:
990:
981:
980:
976:
937:
933:
924:
922:
913:
912:
908:
901:
884:
880:
873:
856:Weinberg, G. M.
853:
849:
842:
821:
817:
808:
806:
796:
792:
783:
781:
771:
764:
757:
739:
732:
703:
696:
673:10.1109/52.2014
657:
653:
644:
642:
632:
628:
623:
596:
577:Level overcome
521:
512:
390:
377:implementation.
347:
331:
329:Maturity models
326:
309:
292:
241:
219:
196:Gerald Weinberg
169:
160:
149:
143:
140:
133:
123:which does not
113:
109:
102:
91:
88:
65:
17:
12:
11:
5:
1275:
1265:
1264:
1259:
1254:
1240:
1239:
1234:
1232:The Open Group
1225:
1223:CMMI Institute
1218:
1217:External links
1215:
1212:
1211:
1186:
1181:CMMI Institute
1168:
1156:
1141:
1134:
1114:
1107:
1099:Addison-Wesley
1082:
1046:(March 1988).
1035:
1028:
999:
989:. 30 June 2001
974:
953:(7): 399–405.
931:
906:
899:
878:
871:
847:
841:978-0135986240
840:
833:Prentice Hall.
815:
790:
762:
755:
730:
694:
651:
625:
624:
622:
619:
618:
617:
612:
607:
602:
595:
592:
591:
590:
587:
586:
585:
584:
578:
574:
573:
570:
566:
565:
564:
563:
557:
553:
552:
549:
545:
544:
541:
537:
536:
533:
520:
517:
511:
508:
504:
503:
494:
487:
486:
482:
475:
474:
470:
463:
462:
458:
451:
450:
443:
429:
428:
422:
416:
407:
401:
389:
386:
385:
384:
381:Key Practices:
378:
371:
364:
358:
346:
343:
335:maturity model
330:
327:
325:
322:
308:
305:
291:
288:
240:
237:
233:Watts Humphrey
218:
215:
188:Edward Yourdon
168:
165:
162:
161:
116:
114:
107:
101:
98:
83:Watts Humphrey
64:
61:
55:developed the
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1274:
1263:
1260:
1258:
1255:
1253:
1250:
1249:
1247:
1238:
1235:
1233:
1229:
1226:
1224:
1221:
1220:
1201:
1197:
1190:
1183:. 2019-10-21.
1182:
1178:
1172:
1165:
1160:
1152:
1145:
1137:
1135:9780071070898
1131:
1127:
1126:
1118:
1110:
1108:0-201-18095-2
1104:
1100:
1096:
1092:
1086:
1078:
1074:
1070:
1066:
1062:
1058:
1057:
1056:IEEE Software
1049:
1045:
1039:
1031:
1029:0-451-62247-2
1025:
1021:
1016:
1015:
1009:
1008:Crosby, P. B.
1003:
988:
984:
978:
970:
966:
961:
956:
952:
948:
947:
942:
935:
920:
916:
910:
902:
896:
893:
889:
882:
874:
868:
865:
861:
857:
851:
843:
837:
834:
829:
828:
819:
805:
801:
794:
780:
776:
769:
767:
758:
752:
748:
744:
737:
735:
726:
722:
718:
714:
710:
709:
708:IEEE Software
701:
699:
690:
686:
682:
678:
674:
670:
666:
662:
661:IEEE Software
655:
641:
640:Bright Hub PM
637:
630:
626:
616:
613:
611:
608:
606:
603:
601:
598:
597:
582:
581:
579:
576:
575:
571:
568:
567:
561:
560:
558:
555:
554:
550:
547:
546:
542:
539:
538:
534:
531:
530:
527:
526:
525:
516:
515:development.
507:
500:
499:common causes
495:
493:
489:
488:
483:
481:
477:
476:
471:
469:
465:
464:
459:
457:
453:
452:
448:
444:
442:
438:
437:
436:
433:
426:
423:
420:
417:
415:
411:
408:
405:
402:
399:
396:
395:
394:
382:
379:
375:
372:
368:
365:
362:
359:
355:
352:
351:
350:
342:
338:
336:
321:
319:
315:
304:
300:
298:
287:
285:
280:
279:process areas
275:
272:
270:
265:
262:
259:developed by
258:
253:
250:
246:
236:
234:
230:
228:
224:
214:
212:
207:
205:
201:
197:
193:
189:
185:
180:
178:
177:best practice
174:
158:
155:
147:
137:
132:
130:
126:
122:
117:This section
115:
106:
105:
97:
95:
89:
86:
84:
80:
76:
75:
74:IEEE Software
70:
60:
58:
54:
49:
47:
42:
40:
39:
34:
30:
26:
22:
1203:. Retrieved
1200:Fast Company
1199:
1189:
1180:
1171:
1159:
1150:
1144:
1124:
1117:
1094:
1085:
1063:(2): 73–79.
1060:
1054:
1038:
1018:. New York:
1013:
1002:
991:. Retrieved
986:
977:
950:
944:
934:
923:. Retrieved
921:. 2011-01-23
918:
909:
890:. New York:
887:
881:
862:. New York:
859:
850:
831:. New York:
826:
818:
807:. Retrieved
803:
793:
782:. Retrieved
778:
742:
712:
706:
667:(2): 73–79.
664:
660:
654:
643:. Retrieved
639:
629:
535:Description
522:
513:
505:
498:
491:
479:
467:
455:
446:
440:
434:
430:
424:
418:
409:
403:
397:
391:
380:
373:
366:
360:
357:improvement.
353:
348:
339:
332:
324:Model topics
313:
310:
301:
293:
276:
273:
268:
266:
254:
242:
231:
220:
208:
204:David Parnas
181:
170:
150:
141:
118:
90:
87:
78:
72:
68:
66:
50:
43:
36:
33:optimization
24:
20:
18:
1153:. Springer.
502:objectives.
284:Bill Curtis
200:Tom DeMarco
144:August 2016
1246:Categories
1205:2020-02-15
993:2017-01-17
925:2018-05-11
809:2020-06-04
784:2017-03-20
645:2020-02-15
621:References
569:Procedure
490:Level 5 -
478:Level 4 -
466:Level 3 -
456:Repeatable
454:Level 2 -
439:Level 1 -
404:Repeatable
946:Comm. ACM
719:: 18–27.
681:0740-7459
548:Standard
425:Efficient
345:Structure
217:Precursor
136:talk page
69:processes
1093:(1989).
1010:(1979).
969:14053595
858:(1992).
594:See also
556:Process
510:Critique
63:Overview
1077:1008347
689:1008347
540:Policy
468:Defined
461:stress.
441:Initial
419:Capable
410:Defined
398:Initial
316:(e.g.,
314:process
100:History
1132:
1105:
1075:
1026:
967:
897:
869:
838:
753:
687:
679:
447:ad hoc
388:Levels
367:Goals:
202:, and
129:relate
38:ad hoc
1237:ISACA
1073:S2CID
1051:(PDF)
965:S2CID
715:(4).
685:S2CID
532:Type
1130:ISBN
1103:ISBN
1024:ISBN
895:ISBN
867:ISBN
836:ISBN
751:ISBN
717:IEEE
677:ISSN
19:The
1230:at
1065:doi
955:doi
804:CIO
721:doi
669:doi
127:or
81:by
25:CMM
1248::
1198:.
1179:.
1101:.
1071:.
1059:.
1053:.
1022:.
985:.
963:.
951:16
949:.
943:.
917:.
802:.
777:.
765:^
749:.
733:^
713:10
711:.
697:^
683:.
675:.
663:.
638:.
333:A
271:.
198:,
194:,
190:,
1208:.
1138:.
1111:.
1079:.
1067::
1061:5
1032:.
996:.
971:.
957::
928:.
903:.
875:.
844:.
812:.
787:.
759:.
727:.
723::
691:.
671::
665:5
648:.
157:)
151:(
146:)
142:(
138:.
23:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.