This article discusses the 10 most common misconceptions the author has had to overcome concerning software process improvement and the Software Capability Maturity Model. Topics include management vs. developer changes required, having standards in place, consensus vs. steamroller approaches, keeping it simple, and why you cannot expect software process improvement to work unless you give your employees time to do it.

Successfully implementing CMMI and Six Sigma together requires an understanding of the relationships between the two. This report contains a brief summary of each initiative and then outlines the connections between frameworks commonly used in Six Sigma and the CMMI process areas. Coupling this knowledge with a conscious strategy enables an organization to create tactical plans and specific mappings to support implementation. Example strategies and tactics that organizations have used to integrate these initiatives are also provided.

This article looks at whether there is home for agile methods in organizations that have embraced the CMM?

This article provides an overview of the approach utilized to implement process improvement across its global organization without losing focus of its business drivers. It provides a practical overview of how over a four year period an organization moved from CMM® Level 1 to Level 3 and is currently transitioning to CMMI® Level 4. It will provide a candid insight including lessons learned and approaches adopted to achieve success. It will also provide examples of significant and measurable business benefits that can be accrued from adopting a documented and repeatable process improvement framework.

This article addresses product line adoption in the context of an organization that is using the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) models to guide its process improvement effort. Details are provided to show how selected CMMI process areas provide a basis for certain important software product line practices.

In February 2006, the Software Engineering Measurement and Analysis Initiative at the Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute (SEI) conducted the first in a series of yearly studies to gauge the state of the practice in software measurement. The results of this study, which are revealed in this technical report, offer these benefits: they can be used to indicate (1) what measurement definition and implementation approaches are being adopted and used by the community, (2) the most prevalent types of measures being used by organizations that develop or acquire software, and (3) what behaviors are preventing the effective use of measurement (so that these barriers can be addressed). In addition, when the studies are conducted on a periodic basis, the results can indicate trends over time.

Configuration management (CM) acts as a central nervous system in system development, and is a prominent key process area and generic practice in Capability Maturity Model® Integration (CMMI®) and other maturity models. As such, implementing and improving CM in the company may seem like an overwhelming task. This article takes you through the requirements in CMMI step by step and offers practical and ready-to-use advice on how to get started and how to get better in this interesting and rewarding area.

This article explores all aspects of integrating the CMMI and RUP frameworks: why do it, how to get started, challenges to success.

After a short introduction to what the Personal Software Process (PSP) is, we will highlight the ways in which individual engineers (and their organizations) can benefit from adding the PSP’s Personal Quality Management techniques to their professional repertoires. We will take a brief look at the benefits that have been achieved by those who have already learned to apply these principles in their work. Then we will examine in more detail the specific activities PSP-trained engineers engage in to manage the quality of the software they produce. We will look at everything from simple defect logging, to personal and peer reviews, to developing a personal quality plan and using it to guide your work.

In July 2006, the 309th Software Maintenance Group (309th SMXG) at Hill Air Force Base, Utah was appraised at a Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) Level 5. One focus project had been using the Team Software Process(TSP)SMsince 2001. TSP is generally considered a Level 5 process; however, during the preparation for the assessment, it became obvious to the team that even the stringent process and data analysis requirements of the TSP did not completely address CMMI requirements for several process areas (PAs). The TSP team successfully addressed these issues by adapting their process scripts, measures, and forms in ways that may be applicable to other TSP teams.