A REVIEW OF EXISTING CAPABILITY MATURITY MODEL (CMM) DERIVATIVE FRAMEWORKS

Abstract

This paper discusses existing Capability Maturity Model (CMM) derivative frameworks [i.e., People Capability Maturity Model (PCMM), Project Management Maturity Model (PMM), etc.]. Other derivatives are also discussed. Through a discussion of various process-related issues, the goal of these CMM derivatives is to increase production within industry settings. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]

Headnote

ABSTRACT

This paper discusses existing Capability Maturity Model (CMM) derivative frameworks [i.e., People Capability Maturity Model (PCMM), Project Management Maturity Model (PMM), etc.]. Other derivatives are also discussed. Through a discussion of various process-related issues, the goal of these CMM derivatives is to increase production within industry settings.

INTRODUCTION

The basis of the PCMM implements human resources best practices and organizational development methodologies as its basic pattern for KPA delineation (Curtis, Hefley & Miller, 2000). Through use of the PCMM, organizations may characterize the maturity of their work force practices, guide a program of continuous work force development, set priorities for immediate actions, and integrate work force development with process improvement as methods of fostering excellence within corporate structures. Table 1 delineates the basic maturity levels that comprise the PCMM.

Similar to the CMM, each PCMM maturity level also increases visibility into processes for both managers and engineering staff and focuses upon processes that are of value across the organization (Kan, 1995). Within levels two through five of the PCMM are KPA requirements that outline a set of goals considered important for enhancing process capability with respect to environmental management functions (CMU, 1994; Kan, 1995). As described by Curtis, Hefley and Miller (2000), Table 2 delineates example KPA requirements that are unique to the PCMM framework.

Another application domain of the CMM framework is that of project management. According to Project Management Technologies Corporation (PMTC, 1997), the CMM framework may be used as the basis for a project management maturity model (PMM). In this instance, unique project management KPA requirements are implemented within the traditional CMM framework. Table 3 delineates this model.

INDUSTRIAL PROCESS MATURITY MODEL

The IPMM may also facilitate implementation through evolutionary steps rather than revolutionary innovations within a framework of five maturity levels that lay successive foundations for continuous process improvement derived from those of the CMM (CMU, 1994; Kan, 1995). Thus, the proposed IPMM maturity levels may be delineated as follows in Table 4.

Similar to the CMM architecture, the proposed IPMM model also contains a set of key practices necessary for describing the activities and infrastructure that contribute to the most effective implementation and institutionalization of the key process area (CMU, 1994). Each succeeding IPMM level of maturity introduces additional KPAs while retaining and building upon KPA tenets of previous maturity levels as a method of generating process maturation (based upon levels two through five of the proposed (PMM). As examples, Table 4 delineates proposed IPMM key process areas by maturity level, and Table 5 delineates example IPMM key practice areas.

As with the CMM architecture, the proposed IPMM practices that describe KPAs are ordered by common features as a method of convenience (CMU, 1994). Thus, similar to the CMM framework, order is determined by common attributes that judge whether the implementation and institutionalization of a KPA is effective, repeatable, and lasting. Based upon Table 5, examples of five proposed IPMM KPA categories are presented within Table 6.

Given this basis for the IPMM, organizations may greatly improve their industrial initiatives and processes through evolution from a setting where few processes exist to a setting in which processes are continuously monitored and systematically improved in a fashion that parallels CMM implementation (CMU, 1994; O'Brien, 1999). Further, through implementation of the IPMM architecture, organizations that employ risky technological environments and ad hoc data collection methodologies may evolve into settings where proactive technological embellishment and defined data analysis are manifested to generate industrial management process improvements similar to those required by the CMM framework (Paulk, 1995). Table 7 delineates the previously introduced tools.

CONCLUSION

"There is no more important concern in any business, service, or manufacturing than doing something faster" (Eckes, 2001). This paper has provided evidence to support Eckes's statement. This paper has also introduced various philosophies, legislation, and quantitative tools that assist production and operations managers when implementing improvement initiatives to achieve this goal. Through addressing process-related issues, production and operations managers hope to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of processes within various industrial environments.

References

REFERENCES

Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) (1994). The capability maturity model-Guidelines for improving the software process. Carnegie Mellon University Software Engineering Institute. New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing.

Curtis, B., W. Hefley & S. Miller (2000). Overview of the people capability maturity model (PCMM). Carnegie-Mellon University Software Engineering Institute. New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing.

Davis, M., N. Aquilano & R. Chase (1999). Fundamentals of operations management (Third Edition). New York: Irwin-McGraw Hill Publishing.

Deresky, H. (1997). International management: Managing across borders and cultures. (Second Edition). New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing.

Eckes, G. (2001). The six-sigma revolution: How General Electric and others turned processes into profits. New York: John Wiley and Sons Publishing.

Gordon, J. (1996). Organizational behavior: A diagnostic approach (Fifth Edition). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Publishing.

Harrington, H. (1991). Business process improvement: The breakthrough strategy for total quality, productivity, and competitiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing.

Hunt, D. (1994). Managing for quality: Integrating quality and business strategy. Glencoe, CA: Business One Publishing.

Hunt, D. (1993). Quality in America: How to implement a competitive quality program. Glencoe, CA: Business One Publishing.

Kan, S. (1995). Metrics and models in software quality engineering. New York: Addision-Wesley Publishing.

O'Brien, J. (1999). Management information systems: Managing information technology in the Internetworked enterprise (Fourth Edition). New York: Irwin McGraw-Hill Publishing.

Paulk, M. (1995). The rational planning of (software) projects. Proceedings of the First World Congress for Software Quality. San Francisco, CA. June 20-22.

PMTC (1997). Project management maturity model. The Project Management Network. Retrieved July, 12, 2001, from http://www.pm3.com

Thompson, A. & A. Strickland (1996). Strategic management: Concepts and cases (Ninth Edition). New York: Irwin Publishing.