SW-CMM
-
Are companies still striving for Capability Maturity Models (CMM)? I only know what we've been taught at uni, but I'm interested to know whether it's an academic concept or whether people strive towards these types of goals. Reading the articles of Matt Gullett[^] and numerous other CPians has reinforced how much I still have to learn. It is nice to know that there are people out there who do make this type of effort - but is it happening on an industry wide level?
If you can keep you head when all about you Are losing theirs and blaming it on you; If you can dream - and not make dreams your master; If you can think - and not make thoughts you aim; Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it. Rudyard Kipling
-
Are companies still striving for Capability Maturity Models (CMM)? I only know what we've been taught at uni, but I'm interested to know whether it's an academic concept or whether people strive towards these types of goals. Reading the articles of Matt Gullett[^] and numerous other CPians has reinforced how much I still have to learn. It is nice to know that there are people out there who do make this type of effort - but is it happening on an industry wide level?
If you can keep you head when all about you Are losing theirs and blaming it on you; If you can dream - and not make dreams your master; If you can think - and not make thoughts you aim; Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it. Rudyard Kipling
The CIMM[^]is much more interesting - it seems to be the case that more organisations fit on 0 to -3 than 1 to 5 [EDIT, use this link instead: http://www.grisha.ru/cmm/cimm.htm[^] ] -- Ian Darling
-
Are companies still striving for Capability Maturity Models (CMM)? I only know what we've been taught at uni, but I'm interested to know whether it's an academic concept or whether people strive towards these types of goals. Reading the articles of Matt Gullett[^] and numerous other CPians has reinforced how much I still have to learn. It is nice to know that there are people out there who do make this type of effort - but is it happening on an industry wide level?
If you can keep you head when all about you Are losing theirs and blaming it on you; If you can dream - and not make dreams your master; If you can think - and not make thoughts you aim; Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it. Rudyard Kipling
Andrew Walker wrote: Are companies still striving for Capability Maturity Models (CMM)? There's a whole set of tools from Borland for this sought of thing, so there must be a need. Cheers, Simon "I ask candidates to create an object model of a chicken.", Bruce Eckel on interviewing programmers. animation mechanics in SVG (my first abstract photo)
-
Are companies still striving for Capability Maturity Models (CMM)? I only know what we've been taught at uni, but I'm interested to know whether it's an academic concept or whether people strive towards these types of goals. Reading the articles of Matt Gullett[^] and numerous other CPians has reinforced how much I still have to learn. It is nice to know that there are people out there who do make this type of effort - but is it happening on an industry wide level?
If you can keep you head when all about you Are losing theirs and blaming it on you; If you can dream - and not make dreams your master; If you can think - and not make thoughts you aim; Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it. Rudyard Kipling
Andrew Walker wrote: Are companies still striving for Capability Maturity Models (CMM)? Absolutely. Take for instance the company I work for. We are not a software house, but we are definitely interested in total quality. We strive to deliver only the best to our clients and we will adapt our processes to insure that happens. The problem is that most companies don't have an organized plan on how to achieve the goals and don't really understand the processes involved. Also, I have seen many organizations put the emphasis on the wrong parts of maturity without seeing the big picture. I also think that too many software developers care little about the process and only want to code. This is unfortunante and leads to many problems including a serious disconnect between developers (and all IT people) and management. Managment often needs direction and counseling on IT specifics, but IT fails to deliver and management looses confidence in their abilities. This just exacerbates the problems. The good news is that I believe the drive for CMM is increasing. I just posted an article "The Standalone Developer: Realtime software development" that touches on this topic (though I don't mention CMM explicitly). Enterprises are being driven to improve their communication skills because clients, vendors and the government are demanding it. For companies to keep up, they are being forced to shape up their IT initiaves or face not just project failure, but serious corporate losses. I believe that companies can no longer afford to face the types of project failures they have in the past. Clients are demanding greater access to information and facilities to interact with businesses. The technologies to achieve this are maturing and so are the processes related to them. Once a competitor has these systems in place, that competitor has a real advantage, so the drive to keep up is actually helping push CMM. (Please realize that these are just my observations. I think we still have a long way to go and I think developers are going to have to change for this to reach its fullest potential.) Andrew Walker wrote: Reading the articles of Matt Gullett[^] and numerous other CPians has reinforced how much I still have to learn. :blush. Thanks. I'm glad you are enjoying my articles.
-
Are companies still striving for Capability Maturity Models (CMM)? I only know what we've been taught at uni, but I'm interested to know whether it's an academic concept or whether people strive towards these types of goals. Reading the articles of Matt Gullett[^] and numerous other CPians has reinforced how much I still have to learn. It is nice to know that there are people out there who do make this type of effort - but is it happening on an industry wide level?
If you can keep you head when all about you Are losing theirs and blaming it on you; If you can dream - and not make dreams your master; If you can think - and not make thoughts you aim; Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it. Rudyard Kipling
Andrew Walker wrote: Are companies still striving for Capability Maturity Models (CMM)? Two types of companies pursue this: Those who believe that the quality of the process is a guarantee of the quality of the final product. And the companies that are hired by the first kind. ORACLE One Real A$#h%le Called Lary Ellison
-
The CIMM[^]is much more interesting - it seems to be the case that more organisations fit on 0 to -3 than 1 to 5 [EDIT, use this link instead: http://www.grisha.ru/cmm/cimm.htm[^] ] -- Ian Darling
Such places are better called companies, not organisations ;P Elaine :rose: The tigress is here :-D
-
Andrew Walker wrote: Are companies still striving for Capability Maturity Models (CMM)? Two types of companies pursue this: Those who believe that the quality of the process is a guarantee of the quality of the final product. And the companies that are hired by the first kind. ORACLE One Real A$#h%le Called Lary Ellison
Daniel Turini wrote: And the companies that are hired by the first kind. :laugh: So true! Ryan Being little and getting pushed around by big guys all my life I guess I compensate by pushing electrons and holes around. What a bully I am, but I do enjoy making subatomic particles hop at my bidding - Roger Wright (2nd April 2003, The Lounge)
Punctuality is only a virtue for those who aren't smart enough to think of good excuses for being late - John Nichol "Point Of Impact" -
Andrew Walker wrote: Are companies still striving for Capability Maturity Models (CMM)? Two types of companies pursue this: Those who believe that the quality of the process is a guarantee of the quality of the final product. And the companies that are hired by the first kind. ORACLE One Real A$#h%le Called Lary Ellison
I disagree. Many companies pursue CMM not blindly, but with their eyes wide open. They realize that structure without any talent or skills is not a good mix either. What CMM brings to the table is a level of control and stability that managers and CXOs desire. I do not believe that CMM guarantees anything, but it goes a long way toward putting checks in place to prevent rampant problems with schedules, quality and resources. Just my 2 cents.
-
Are companies still striving for Capability Maturity Models (CMM)? I only know what we've been taught at uni, but I'm interested to know whether it's an academic concept or whether people strive towards these types of goals. Reading the articles of Matt Gullett[^] and numerous other CPians has reinforced how much I still have to learn. It is nice to know that there are people out there who do make this type of effort - but is it happening on an industry wide level?
If you can keep you head when all about you Are losing theirs and blaming it on you; If you can dream - and not make dreams your master; If you can think - and not make thoughts you aim; Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it. Rudyard Kipling
Yep, I don't work for a software house, but we do write quite a bit internally, and are using it for our products and system. Thing is, it does not work very well for smaller projects - a bit to clunky.
"Je pense, donc je mange." - Rene Descartes 1689 - Just before his mother put his tea on the table. Shameless Plug - Distributed Database Transactions in .NET using COM+
-
I disagree. Many companies pursue CMM not blindly, but with their eyes wide open. They realize that structure without any talent or skills is not a good mix either. What CMM brings to the table is a level of control and stability that managers and CXOs desire. I do not believe that CMM guarantees anything, but it goes a long way toward putting checks in place to prevent rampant problems with schedules, quality and resources. Just my 2 cents.
Matt Gullett wrote: What CMM brings to the table is a level of control and stability that managers and CXOs desire. And since when CXOs desires are aligned with good software? Matt Gullett wrote: They realize that structure without any talent or skills is not a good mix either. CMM has been around for some time, now. Maybe it's because I really don't read all the case studies I see, but if CMM is so good for the software industry, why don't we see lots of cases of really successful software where the project was driven by CMM guidelines? Every time I see a CMM case study, it is an obtuse project to automate the process x of the company y. Why don’t we see a DBMS, an OS, a text editor, a spreadsheet, a disk defragmentation tool with a “CMM Inside” sticker? ORACLE One Real A$#h%le Called Lary Ellison
-
Matt Gullett wrote: What CMM brings to the table is a level of control and stability that managers and CXOs desire. And since when CXOs desires are aligned with good software? Matt Gullett wrote: They realize that structure without any talent or skills is not a good mix either. CMM has been around for some time, now. Maybe it's because I really don't read all the case studies I see, but if CMM is so good for the software industry, why don't we see lots of cases of really successful software where the project was driven by CMM guidelines? Every time I see a CMM case study, it is an obtuse project to automate the process x of the company y. Why don’t we see a DBMS, an OS, a text editor, a spreadsheet, a disk defragmentation tool with a “CMM Inside” sticker? ORACLE One Real A$#h%le Called Lary Ellison
Daniel Turini wrote: And since when CXOs desires are aligned with good software? I did not say that their desires where inline with good software, only that CMM promises to give them some level of control and stability. This does not mean that they will make good decisions, which is why CMM is not a guarantee to work, only that it offers them confidence in what they can expect and can therefore make plans and decisions accordinly. If every project that comes across their desk is overbudget and overschedule, this does not instill confidence in them. CMM gives them percieved value by providing a firm foundation for business people to understand software development. I firmly believe that proper processes are critical to the delivery of quality software. CMM does not necessarily mean rigid, unbendable rules. It means processes for coping with rules that bend, schedules that change and requuirements that change. It also adds something that CXO's love: visibility. They want to have a porthole into the software development process and be able to understand it just like they understand corporate finance, etc. Daniel Turini wrote: why don't we see lots of cases of really successful software where the project was driven by CMM guidelines? Sure, CMM has been around a long while, but unfortunantely, most software has been developed using a cowboy mentality and this is the "process" that businesses and IT has become used to. The cost overruns and schedule slipage have drawn management into IT at a much closer level. IT is an asset or a liability to them, that's it. I suspect that many DBMS, OS, text editos, etc have been built by companies/individuals who use CMM concepts, but to them it is just part of the process, nothing special. There is no reason to shout "we used CMM" because they wouldn't know what else existed. One other thing I would add, though. CMM is not a panacea for perfect software. There is a tremendous amount of software (especially corporate software) that can benefit tremendously from what CMM offers. You state that the CMM examples you have seen are mostly related to automating process X at company Y. Even if this is the one place CMM is useful (which I think is shortsighted), this accounts for a tremendous branch of software development.
-
Are companies still striving for Capability Maturity Models (CMM)? I only know what we've been taught at uni, but I'm interested to know whether it's an academic concept or whether people strive towards these types of goals. Reading the articles of Matt Gullett[^] and numerous other CPians has reinforced how much I still have to learn. It is nice to know that there are people out there who do make this type of effort - but is it happening on an industry wide level?
If you can keep you head when all about you Are losing theirs and blaming it on you; If you can dream - and not make dreams your master; If you can think - and not make thoughts you aim; Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it. Rudyard Kipling
With repect to the job market, I have seen a lot of job ads from government and defence contractors which seek developers and consultants who have worked in a CMM level 3 environment etc. Never seen any software or other kind of company doing the same. Wonder if that shows a trend of who uses CMM and who does not.
-
Daniel Turini wrote: And since when CXOs desires are aligned with good software? I did not say that their desires where inline with good software, only that CMM promises to give them some level of control and stability. This does not mean that they will make good decisions, which is why CMM is not a guarantee to work, only that it offers them confidence in what they can expect and can therefore make plans and decisions accordinly. If every project that comes across their desk is overbudget and overschedule, this does not instill confidence in them. CMM gives them percieved value by providing a firm foundation for business people to understand software development. I firmly believe that proper processes are critical to the delivery of quality software. CMM does not necessarily mean rigid, unbendable rules. It means processes for coping with rules that bend, schedules that change and requuirements that change. It also adds something that CXO's love: visibility. They want to have a porthole into the software development process and be able to understand it just like they understand corporate finance, etc. Daniel Turini wrote: why don't we see lots of cases of really successful software where the project was driven by CMM guidelines? Sure, CMM has been around a long while, but unfortunantely, most software has been developed using a cowboy mentality and this is the "process" that businesses and IT has become used to. The cost overruns and schedule slipage have drawn management into IT at a much closer level. IT is an asset or a liability to them, that's it. I suspect that many DBMS, OS, text editos, etc have been built by companies/individuals who use CMM concepts, but to them it is just part of the process, nothing special. There is no reason to shout "we used CMM" because they wouldn't know what else existed. One other thing I would add, though. CMM is not a panacea for perfect software. There is a tremendous amount of software (especially corporate software) that can benefit tremendously from what CMM offers. You state that the CMM examples you have seen are mostly related to automating process X at company Y. Even if this is the one place CMM is useful (which I think is shortsighted), this accounts for a tremendous branch of software development.
Matt Gullett wrote: If every project that comes across their desk is overbudget and overschedule, this does not instill confidence in them. I love having a company that only make successful software, but most projects are over budget and over schedule. You know, I believe that a software success is mostly due to innovation (obviously, after it’s decided that the application has a market). It’s hard to innovate and still keep on budget and schedule. If you are creating yet another CRUD database application, I believe that CMM guidelines may fit well (don’t get me wrong, you can make lots of cash with it, and even can innovate), but for really innovative work, there’s no point on “process improvement”: you are making what (almost) no one has ever done before. So, to define a schedule and a budget, you’ll ending up cutting off most innovations of your software. I don’t know if I am being clear here: briefly, IMHO, the “hero” or the “cowboy style” is still useful. I think that software is a creative process, and if there is repeatable work on it, you have the wrong set of programmers. Good programmers don’t need to repeat lots of work. As such, if CMM suits the software process, maybe it should suit McCann Erickson[^] too. After all, I think an ad is as a fair comparison to software, as it is entirely a product of brainwork. ORACLE One Real A$#h%le Called Lary Ellison
-
Matt Gullett wrote: If every project that comes across their desk is overbudget and overschedule, this does not instill confidence in them. I love having a company that only make successful software, but most projects are over budget and over schedule. You know, I believe that a software success is mostly due to innovation (obviously, after it’s decided that the application has a market). It’s hard to innovate and still keep on budget and schedule. If you are creating yet another CRUD database application, I believe that CMM guidelines may fit well (don’t get me wrong, you can make lots of cash with it, and even can innovate), but for really innovative work, there’s no point on “process improvement”: you are making what (almost) no one has ever done before. So, to define a schedule and a budget, you’ll ending up cutting off most innovations of your software. I don’t know if I am being clear here: briefly, IMHO, the “hero” or the “cowboy style” is still useful. I think that software is a creative process, and if there is repeatable work on it, you have the wrong set of programmers. Good programmers don’t need to repeat lots of work. As such, if CMM suits the software process, maybe it should suit McCann Erickson[^] too. After all, I think an ad is as a fair comparison to software, as it is entirely a product of brainwork. ORACLE One Real A$#h%le Called Lary Ellison
Hey Daniel. I really appreciate and respect your opinions. Please don't take my feedback as negative or self-righteous. I truly want to hear other peoples opinions and learn from them. I like to think my opinions are flexible and that I am still learning. So... Daniel Turini wrote: It’s hard to innovate and still keep on budget and schedule. Maybe sometimes, but innovation and process are not mutually exclusive. For me at least, I find innovation easier during the design phase. Sure, I throw allot of code around, try lots of things, but when that is done, I return to the structure and figure out the rest. All that code created at 2AM I prefer to throw away. Besides, after writing it the first time, the second time is 10x easier and the reesults are better. On one point related to CMM, I have to agree with you: detailed design documents. I have had many people tell me that a detailed design document is important, but this is one thing I have found that absolutely does stifle innovation. After having been told by several respected people how important detailed design documents are, I tried it on a few projects and found it crippled innovation. Architectural design, though, seems to help. Daniel Turini wrote: If you are creating yet another CRUD database application, I believe that CMM guidelines may fit well Absolutely. As I said before CMM isn't for everything, but is for allot of corporate projects. Hmmm... I wonder how much of our differences arrises from our work environments? I develop internal corporate mostly, I suspect that you work for a software house or run your own company?? The dynamic is different (I worked for a consultant firm for several years, so I remember.) Daniel Turini wrote: the “hero” or the “cowboy style” is still useful. Absolutely, just make sure there is some type of quality control in place. A good programmer will only be sharpened by the process, not dulled by it. (So long as the process isn't smothering.) Daniel Turini wrote: I think that software is a creative process That's the only reason I stay in it myself. Anyway, thanks for your viewpoint. Matt Gullett
