Talk:Capability Maturity Model: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 15:36, 7 November 2006 editSevenSigma (talk \| contribs)4 edits Missing reference and discussion of ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 12:05, 12 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk \| contribs)Bots7,332,477 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 2 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 2 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Computing}}, {{WikiProject Systems}}.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion
(78 intermediate revisions by 47 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Talk header}}
	== Please Sign Your Comments ==
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=C\|1=

			{{WikiProject Computing\|importance=\|software=yes\|software-importance=}}
	Please sign any comments you make with four ~ (tilde) characters. They will be automatically converted to an appropriate signature when your edit is saved. This helps us to understand the flow of the discussion. Thanks! /* ] 00:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC) */
			{{WikiProject Systems\|importance=mid \|field=Software engineering }}

			}}
	== Cleanup tag ==
			{{User:MiszaBot/config

			\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
	I'm just going to remove the cleanup tag, after having done some - mostly - style edits. I bolded several "missing source" comments inside the article (see ]). If anybody can help, please do so. If anybody feels that the article still merits a cleanup tag, then please feel free to readd it a again. — ] \| ] 15:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
			\|maxarchivesize = 200K

			\|counter = 1
	I added another cleanup tag (January 2006), because I need some style help with the table in '''Process areas'''. I added the table, but I'm not familiar enough with wiki markup or desktop publishing to "beautify" the table. Please help. /* ] 03:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC) */
			\|algo = old(90d)

			\|archive = Talk:Capability Maturity Model/Archive %(counter)d
	I beautified the table slightly and have updated the References section. Refer to ] for details of citation templates. I've moved some external references to the standard template format for ease of update with the benefit that they get automatically added as footnotes.<br/>
			}}
	] 13:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

	== Too software-centric ==

	This article at present gets a C- from me. It assumes that CMM is only applicable in the software domain, and that CMM is itself a methodology. Both assumptions are very wrong, and permeate the article. ] 15:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

	== POV problems ==

	Holy POV, Batman! The criticism outweighs the praise almost 4:1, and is filled with statements that are false:

	* "CMM has failed to take off the world over."

	Blatantly POV:

	* "CMM is well suited for top heavy bureaucratic organizations"
	* "Lost in the process is all opportunity for creativty with the resulting output being a sort of socialist mediocrity."

	And written from a first-person perspective:

	* "I find it odd that..."

	The current '''Critcism''' section reads more like a debate that belongs on the talk page, rather than how a Misplaced Pages article should read. I'm going to expand the content of the page (add signal) first, and then see what I can do about the POV problems (reduce noise). Anybody wanting to work in the reverse order should feel free to do so. /* ] 01:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC) */

	== Talk page: on 2005/01/05: I did some serious editing of the CMM page ==

	* added a background section;
	* made several corrections of fact;
	* restructured the poorly-arranged material (esp. pros and cons of CMM);
	* added authorities, or noted the need for authorities to substantiate some of the claims/statements made by previous authors.

	Why on earth do the people who wrote this stuff on the CMM have such an apparent lack of critical thinking? (Refer Alec Fisher "Critical Thinking"). The mind boggles. Everything stated as fact or statistic must be able to be substantiated. Otherwise it must be stated as being either:

	* arguable (hearsay).
	* opinion (of whom?).

	because that's what it is.
	] 15:00, 5 January 2005 (UTC)

	== Explanation of reversion ==

	I reverted some edits by an anonymous contributor, who did not provide an explanation. The edits seemed only to remove some useful material (and to mar some formatting). ] 10:44, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

	anyone know why the background section has disappeared? ] 10:51, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

	== CMM definition ==

	I totally disagree with this
	" The Capability Maturity Model (CMM) is a method for evaluating and measuring the maturity of the software development process of organizations on a scale of 1 to 5. "

	CMM is NOT a method for evaluating. There are numbers of methods and take a look at SCAMPI if you want one.

	CMM is a set of good practices that should be adapted to each company.
	And that's why we can not talk about certification. A company is evaluated (for example with help of the SCAMPI) at level xx of the CMMI.

	:"The Software Engineering Institute has subsequently released a revised version known as the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI)."

	::CMMI is not just a new release of the CMM since the version number is different. It is an integration of all CMMs (CMM-SE, CMM-SW, CMM-IPPD, CMM-SS).

	I will take time to write a new introduction in the near future.
	] 13:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

	And, as you can read on the SEI homepage, the SEI has ceased support for SW-CMM in 2003 (]).

	== Removed text ==

	I removed the following:

	"(Note: The author of this paragraph is assuming that the CMM is a process. It's not, it is only a model of practices that successful project typically perform (e.g. Risk Management)"

	A Misplaced Pages article is not a discussion board. Also, this comes from a section listing actual criticism. It does not support or refute such criticism. ] 12:49, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

	== About last removed text by Jeroen ==

	I agree that this is not a message board, but as a matter of fact the user was right: CMM is not a method, nor a process, nor a methodology, nor a tool. It's a compendium of principles and practices structured in a staged way in order to asses and improve Software Process in software businesses.

	You need sources for the criticism? There it goes: http://www.sei.cmu.edu/pub/documents/93.reports/pdf/tr24.93.pdf

	Good reading :)
	] 04:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

	== SW-CMM vs. CMMI? ==

	Does anyone agree that a summary of the differences between these two would be helpful? I found the differences difficult to identify. -- ] 15:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

	== The Most Beneficial Elements of CMM ==

	Regarding the section, "The Most Beneficial Elements of CMM ...", I would appreciate it if the author could clarify the first sentence in the second point and the "Note" in the third point. I would suggest something, but I'm unsure what points are being made. Also in the third point, it's "cannot" instead of "can not".

	Otherwise, a helpful article. Thanks for taking the time ot write it.
	] 10:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

	== Changes to Context sub-topic ==		== Changes to Context sub-topic ==
Line 111:		Line 22:
	]		]

			==merge==
	== Level 5 - Optimising. ==
			{{discussion top\|1=The result was '''no consensus'''. --] (]) 19:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)}}

			The various specializations of this model do not seem to be appropriately covered in separate article . They would be, I think, much more understandable as sections here.
	I would like the word Agile removed from the level 5 optimising text please.

	If the term is used in regards to Agility - the ability to change with regards to market forces and/or project forces then it is ok. However, I suspect that many people will take it to mean the Agile s/w methodologies - in that regard it is plain wrong to use, as CMM works no matter what methodology you started out with, and at level 5 you are talking about business process modelling not software process modelling.

	I would suggest that the correct word should be 'Adaptable' or even better 'Nimble and Adaptable' which refers to speed and ability to change quickly.

			There's another possibility for a much more readable and non-duplicative article: rewrite the whole subject in the way followed to the German WP article--in fact, a direct translation would seem clearer. (I know German technical description has a reputation for being extremely unreadable--which I think is undeserved--to me, it just takes some sympathy & familiarity with the spirit and syntax of the language. This may be true in some areas, but I think that as compared to English language management jargon, it is superior. ''']''' (]) 00:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
	I'm happy to leave the sentence the word is in alone - just remove that rather 'emotive' term :)

			Opposed: I think a better solution would be to create a high-quality page for each maturity model, and then create an overall page listing maturity models, explaining the relationships among them, and linking to them. This creates greater clarity in a growing field. The maturity models to include might be: CMM, CMMI, others already listed at the bottom of the CMM page, Project Management Maturity Model (PM3) from PMI. If people know of other models to include, that would be useful. ] (]) 15:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Sid Kemp, Sid@SidKemp.com
	AndyW
			* '''Opposed''' The CMM article can easily reference the CIM article which does provide a useful description of subversive techniques generally applied to developing projects. However I believe a merger would serve to generally reduce the clarity of the CMM. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			General Agreement: CMM, CMMI etc are all related, theory then how to apply the theory. If there was a relationship diagram that might facilitate the correct linking of the existing sections that might make things clearer to a reader who is new to the subject matter. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	== PCMMI ==
			{{discussion bottom}}

			== Article Reads Like News Release ==

			Could someone provide clarification as to what parts of this article seem "overly promotional"?
	What about adding a section for the People CMMI ..?? ] 12:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

			] (]) (cool ASCII art ship missing here) 03:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
	== Companies ==

			I would also like to know why the article was tagged "overly promotional". If there is no rationale for the tag, I would like to get the tag removed. - ] (]) 22:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
	about the practice of CMMI. Does anyone knows about the first CMMI certified company ? I've added ] as the first CMMI 5 company. What about other major milestomes....] 12:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

			Back in May 2012 (!) someone added an inappropriate link to a supplier site. The article then contained much more (C) Carnegie and other commercial references which subsequently appear to have been toned down or edited out. Second removing the tag as it denigrates the overall article ] (]) 16:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
	== Needs Major Revision, Possibly Splitting into 2 Articles ==

			:Yeah, I've fixed for this and CIMM. ] (]) 05:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
	I believe this page needs major revision. The original CMM has now been largely superseded by the CMMI, which is for systems development (including software development) rather than software alone. Many of the details here are therefore more or less outdated. I would suggest two separate articles: one for the general concept of capability maturity models (of which CMM/CMMI is not the only example); and one for the specifics of the SEI's CMM model, making clear that it is now obsolescent. I have added a long-overdue link to the existing article on CMMI, which should remain. Maybe there should be a separate article on SCAMPI as well? — <small>The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 02:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC{{{3\|}}})</small>

			== Redact ==
	:I agree. Been meaning to answer ]'s call for help for months; finally driven to it when ] pointed out that ] page. I've straightened things a bit, but think we need to make this a general "CMM(I)-based improvement" page, with the SW-CMM specific stuff moved off to a historical page, and the CMMI page tracking the latest versions of the model. When the other v1.2 constellations (ACQ, Services) out, that page will probably need to fork, too. Any suggestions on how to proceed? ] 01:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

			I think the cite flagging in the § I just edited is for the unsubstantiated thing about decomposition. I think what was trying to be said and what it is perfectly valid and reasonable to say, is that work is divided into requirements analysis, design and implementation. Comically in the current common culture with "agile" and what not, even having this, let alone having them at some known quality level, is a tremendous step. Nonetheless it's not supported by the defining document or anything else, and technically it is distinct from and not specifically mandated by CMM. So removing the cite flag as the rest is regurgitation. Decomposition is common sense which the capitalist juggernaut generally blows past but it's still in the nature of a specific prescription. ] (]) 06:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
	== Missing reference and discussion of ==

			== History section OR-ish ==
	As the title of this article is 'Capability Maturity Model' and not Software ... etc. I would have expected a better discussion of its origins. The references of the CMMi provide P.B. Crosby's book 'Quality is free' as one of the sources of the maturity model. However in this book it is called the Quality Management Maturity Grid. As far as I have understood, this book defines the original five levels. I haven't read the book, so I don't feel qualified to work in this information into the article. However, I think it should. A new article to discuss the Quality Management Maturity Grid is not a good option, as the term Capability Maturity Model is more mainstream now.

			The History section is pretty good (if a bit wordy), but it's more a new (or at very least unsourced) commentary on existing facts, than existing facts per se. Please add more history details for CMM, then this section can be closed. ] (]) 23:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
	] 15:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:05, 12 February 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Capability Maturity Model article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing: Software

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.

Systems Mid‑importance

	Systems science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the field of Software engineering.

Changes to Context sub-topic

I have expanded the Context sub-topic to provide a better feel for the history of software development and especially the drive to create a software development profession.

There probably should be something about the "wicked problems" and how the overhead involved in the CMMI is designed to help software development solve these types of complex problems.

Also, the CMMI is part of the drive to professionalize software development much as the modern medical system is considered a profession due to a large body of knowledge which is based on scientific investigation.

Richard Chambers

merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The various specializations of this model do not seem to be appropriately covered in separate article . They would be, I think, much more understandable as sections here.

There's another possibility for a much more readable and non-duplicative article: rewrite the whole subject in the way followed to the German WP article--in fact, a direct translation would seem clearer. (I know German technical description has a reputation for being extremely unreadable--which I think is undeserved--to me, it just takes some sympathy & familiarity with the spirit and syntax of the language. This may be true in some areas, but I think that as compared to English language management jargon, it is superior. DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Opposed: I think a better solution would be to create a high-quality page for each maturity model, and then create an overall page listing maturity models, explaining the relationships among them, and linking to them. This creates greater clarity in a growing field. The maturity models to include might be: CMM, CMMI, others already listed at the bottom of the CMM page, Project Management Maturity Model (PM3) from PMI. If people know of other models to include, that would be useful. SidKemp (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Sid Kemp, Sid@SidKemp.com

Opposed The CMM article can easily reference the CIM article which does provide a useful description of subversive techniques generally applied to developing projects. However I believe a merger would serve to generally reduce the clarity of the CMM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biofuel (talk) 00:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

General Agreement: CMM, CMMI etc are all related, theory then how to apply the theory. If there was a relationship diagram that might facilitate the correct linking of the existing sections that might make things clearer to a reader who is new to the subject matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gexxie (talk • contribs) 15:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article Reads Like News Release

Could someone provide clarification as to what parts of this article seem "overly promotional"?

Bill Cupp (talk) (cool ASCII art ship missing here) 03:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I would also like to know why the article was tagged "overly promotional". If there is no rationale for the tag, I would like to get the tag removed. - Johnlogic (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Back in May 2012 (!) someone added an inappropriate link to a supplier site. The article then contained much more (C) Carnegie and other commercial references which subsequently appear to have been toned down or edited out. Second removing the tag as it denigrates the overall article MaryEFreeman (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I've fixed for this and CIMM. Lycurgus (talk) 05:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Redact

I think the cite flagging in the § I just edited is for the unsubstantiated thing about decomposition. I think what was trying to be said and what it is perfectly valid and reasonable to say, is that work is divided into requirements analysis, design and implementation. Comically in the current common culture with "agile" and what not, even having this, let alone having them at some known quality level, is a tremendous step. Nonetheless it's not supported by the defining document or anything else, and technically it is distinct from and not specifically mandated by CMM. So removing the cite flag as the rest is regurgitation. Decomposition is common sense which the capitalist juggernaut generally blows past but it's still in the nature of a specific prescription. Lycurgus (talk) 06:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

History section OR-ish

The History section is pretty good (if a bit wordy), but it's more a new (or at very least unsourced) commentary on existing facts, than existing facts per se. Please add more history details for CMM, then this section can be closed. TinaFromTexas (talk) 23:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Categories: