Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Xsmith (talk | contribs) at 01:03, 25 September 2006 (→Needs Major Revision, Possibly Splitting into 2 Articles: Agree!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please Sign Your Comments

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! /* Pradeep Arya 00:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC) */

Cleanup tag

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 cite sources). 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. — Adrian | Talk 15:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

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. /* Pradeep Arya 03:45, 5 January 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. Matt Whyndham 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. /* Pradeep Arya 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. IainB 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). m.e. 10:44, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

anyone know why the background section has disappeared? m.e. 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. Jiriki 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. Jeroen 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 :) 83.213.81.125 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. -- Jontce 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. 154.20.32.195 10:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

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

Level 5 - Optimising.

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.

I'm happy to leave the sentence the word is in alone - just remove that rather 'emotive' term :)

AndyW

PCMMI

What about adding a section for the People CMMI ..?? Pratheepps 12:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Companies

about the practice of CMMI. Does anyone knows about the first CMMI certified company ? I've added Wipro as the first CMMI 5 company. What about other major milestomes....Pratheepps 12:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Needs Major Revision, Possibly Splitting into 2 Articles

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? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rodparkes (talk • contribs) 02:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Been meaning to answer Pradeep Arya's call for help for months; finally driven to it when Rodparkes pointed out that CMMI 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? Xsmith 01:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)