THE CAPABILITY MATURITY MODEL (CMM) ARCHITECTURE AND FRAMEWORK WITHIN TRADITIONAL INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTS: AN OVERVIEW

Abstract

This study investigated the potential for adapting the Capability Maturity Model (CMM) within traditional industrial environments. Using the CMM architecture, a similar Industrial Process Maturity Model (IPMM) was proposed. A survey was used to assess the perceptions of personnel within process improvement and process maturity work groups and initiatives. The data were analyzed and compared using ANOVA, Chi-Squared methods, and Pearson correlation coefficients. Stratification involved separating responses into categories of management versus non-management responses. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]

Headnote

ABSTRACT

This study investigated the potential for adapting the Capability Maturity Model (CMM) within traditional industrial environments. Using the CMM architecture, a similar Industrial Process Maturity Model (IPMM) was proposed. A survey was used to assess the perceptions of personnel within process improvement and process maturity work groups and initiatives. The data were analyzed and compared using ANOVA, Chi-Squared methods, and Pearson correlation coefficients. Stratification involved separating responses into categories of management versus non-management responses.

INTRODUCTION

This research determines that quality and process improvement methodologies existing within industrial environments do not advocate process maturity as their primary basis. This research also confirmed the notion that process maturity is not considered within previous or existing improvement initiatives. The proposed Industrial Process Maturity Model (IPMM) features the integration of software industry maturity models with aspects of traditional organizational settings that may provide a potential solution for shortcomings of existing paradigms. ANOVA indicates that process and procedural documentation exists in the host firms and that process and procedural training is required for both new and existing employees (Fowler, 1993). When considering the relationship between maturity level production process grouping and categorical grouping of processes within the context of improvement initiatives, a slightly positive Pearson relationship was found. Therefore, it can be concluded that little (if any) correlation exists between these issues. A slightly positive Pearson relationship between maturity level production process grouping and process maturity being a contributor to successful process output was found within the context of improvement initiatives. It can be concluded that little (if any) correlation exists between these issues.

RESEARCH SUMMARY

This research investigated aspects of Capability Maturity Model (CMM) derivation within traditional corporate environments. The literature review investigated the strengths and weaknesses of traditional management and process improvement philosophies, and it discussed the lack of process maturity attributes of each management and improvement philosophy. The examined management and improvement philosophies included TQM, BPI, BPR, BPM, Six-Sigma, and regulation (corporate or government). The literature review and basic CMM architecture assisted in the creation of the survey instrument.

The survey questionnaire (available upon request) was distributed via U.S. Postal Service to random recipients listed in the Forbes 500 lists for the years 2001 and 2002. Specific individuals were recipients based on data contained in the lists. The data sets for this research represented a 15.67 percent participating response rate. Respondents were classified as being either management or non-management personnel for the purpose of statistical analysis. The primary hypothesis statements tested were stated as follows:

H0: μ^sub Mgt^ = μ^sub NMgt^ Production processes may be defined as being ad hoc or chaotic.

H1: μ^sub Mgt^ ≠ μ^sub NMgt^ Production processes may not be defined as being ad hoc or chaotic.

H0: μ^sub Mgt^ = μ^sub NMgt^ Production processes are disciplined and repeatable.

H1: μ^sub Mgt^ ≠ μ^sub NMgt^ Production processes are not disciplined and not repeatable.

H0: μ^sub Mgt^ = μ^sub NMgt^ Production processes are standardized and consistent.

H1: μ^sub Mgt^ ≠ μ^sub NMgt^ Production processes are not standardized and are not consistent.

H0: μ^sub Mgt^ = μ^sub NMgt^ Production processes are predictable.

H1: μ^sub Mgt^ ≠ μ^sub NMgt^ Production processes are not predictable.

H0: μ^sub Mgt^ = μ^sub NMgt^ Production processes are continuously being evaluated for improvement.

H1: μ^sub Mgt^ ≠ μ^sub NMgt^ Production processes are not continuously being evaluated for improvement.

ANOVA was used to test the primary hypothesis statements using data collected from management and non-management groups regarding their perceptions of process maturity as a component of process improvement initiatives (Hinkle, Wiersma & Jurs, 1998). The outcomes of the primary ANOVA hypothesis testing are presented in Table 1.

ANOVA was implemented for questions 6-13. The outcomes of the analysis for each of these statements are given in Table 2.

Pearson correlation coefficients were used to determine relationships between statements 14, 15, and 16 of the survey. Table 3 presents the testing outcomes.

RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS

Firms that are considering the implementation of a process improvement initiative can use this research and its associated data to examine the potential benefits of advocating a maturity-based model for its improvement activities. Organizations seeking to optimize their processes may consider the proposed IPMM as being a candidate model in addition to such traditional paradigms such as TQM, BPI, BPM, etc., or they may consider it as an additional tool for embellishing any existing improvement initiative(s).

When comparing the basic frameworks of the CMM and the proposed IPMM, one notes both similarities and differences. Each level of the proposed IPMM directly correlates with respect to the philosophical descriptions of its counterpart within the CMM. However, the primary differences exist within the specific, direct specification of the tenets and attributes for each level of maturity. Although the CMM contains numerous key process areas within its architecture, the proposed IPMM does not contain definitions for any key process areas within its current design. It is beyond the scope of this paper to state specific activities that firms must observe within each level of the proposed IPMM. Instead, this research only proposes the high-level IPMM model itself. Future research may investigate the salient characteristics of each IPMM level of maturity as a method of further defining and crafting its basic paradigm and key process areas.

The host environments for this study consisted of larger firms contained within the Forbes 500 list. Therefore, the applications of this research might not be applicable within smaller firms whose infrastructure is less complex. A future study may examine the potential of the proposed IPMM as a tool within smaller, less complex organizations.

Another recommendation for future investigation is related to the potential influence of bias within this research study. The Chi-Squared analysis indicated the potential for bias among the respondent survey responses. Therefore, future studies may attempt to repeat this research as a means of validating its outcomes, conclusions, and observations.

CONCLUSIONS

The literature review for this paper presents numerous methods through which traditional production industries may implement and embellish process improvement activities. Examples include TQM, BPR, BPI, BPM, Six-Sigma, Re-engineering, etc. Although these paradigms advocate both qualitative philosophies and quantitative metrics that enhance process improvement activities within organizational settings, none of these paradigms consider process maturity as its basis. However, within the software industry, the CMM provides an architecture that advocates process maturity as its basis. Therefore, this research investigates the potential of adapting the software model within traditional environments. The proposed IPMM features the integration of software industry maturity models with aspects of traditional organizational settings that may provide a potential solution for the shortcomings of existing paradigms.

When considering this research, one must realize that the concept of process quality is not identical to the concept of process maturity. During the course of implementation of the proposed IPMM, it is anticipated that fluctuations of process maturity will occur in that firms may digress or progress in maturity depending on the outcomes of certain activities. Therefore, process maturity may be considered from a dynamic perspective.

The first five survey questions directly correlated with each of the CMM's five maturity levels, and constituted the basis for the proposed IPMM levels of maturity. Statistically significant testing outcomes were noticed for the first and the fifth questions, whereas the second through fourth questions did not yield a statistically significant outcome. The analysis of this series of questions did not prove that processes are not chaotic or random, and that production processes are not continuously evaluated for improvement.

Based on the testing outcomes, hypothesis testing indicated that processes were considered to be disciplined and repeatable, standardized and consistent, and predictable (Siegel, 1994). Both the CMM and IPMM require these attributes to be manifested throughout organizational processes and improvement activities. Given these outcomes, most of the primary, basic organizational process requirements necessary for the existence of the proposed IPMM are indicated.

Questions 6-13 considered additional organizational attributes that are advocated by both the CMM and the proposed IPMM architectures. The testing outcomes from these survey questions indicate that process and procedural documentation exists in the host firms and that process and procedural training is required for both new and existing employees. This set of outcomes also indicates that an emphasis on quality products and quality processes exists within host environments. However, little quantitative information concerning the quality of both products and processes was not statistically proven by the testing outcomes (Walpole & Myers, 1993).

As expected, questions 6-13 also confirmed the notion that process maturity is not considered within previous or existing improvement initiatives. Also, based on the additional analysis, it appears that process improvement is not clearly advocated among the respondent firms. Further, it appears that the host firms also do not clearly advocate performance tracking and the strict enforcement of such improvement initiatives.

When considering the relationship between maturity level production process grouping and categorical grouping of processes within the context of improvement initiatives, a slightly positive relationship was found. Therefore, it can be concluded that little (if any) correlation exists between these issues. A slightly positive relationship between maturity level production process grouping and process maturity being a contributor to successful process output was found within the context of improvement initiatives. Thus, it can be concluded that little (if any) correlation exists between these issues.

Practical aspects of the proposed IPMM must also be considered. Within corporate environments, it is anticipated that the IPMM may be used to embellish existing process improvement initiatives. The IPMM may also be a separate tool through which leaders may craft a separate philosophical improvement initiative that is exclusive of the existing methods used in workplace environments. However, because of the dynamic characteristics of individual host environments, no single implementation, solution, or recommendation should be considered as a generic prescription for the practical application and implementation of the proposed IPMM.

References

REFERENCES

Fowler, F. (1993). Survey research methods (Second Edition). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Hinkle, D., W. Wiersma & S. Jurs (1998). Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences (Fourth Edition). Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Company.