Discussion: View Thread

Wed, 17 Mar 1999 08:07:45 -0800
>From: Ann Marie Harmony <itm@IN-THE-MOOD.COM>
[...]
>We all use the same life dynamics for survival and replication-to
>varying extents and with varying degrees of success-- pattern
>recognition, response, assimilation and "camoflauge"

[jring response]
Sorry to disagree but my education indicates that there are at least three
different modes of growth; systemic, fungal and viral. Only the latter
necessarily kills its host.
>
[...]
>For instance- CMM- just because you don't have all competencies
>completed at one level, does not mean you cannot begin work or
>even complete competencies at the next level- it just means that if
>you don't have all your competencies at a certain minimum
>requirement- you cannot be assessed as having fully met the
>requirements of that level. You certainly can assess yourselves at
>individual competencies.

All that is true but contrary to the official method of assessment of CMM.
If you want to invent the Harmony Maturity Model and Assessment Method
please reveal that you are doing that -- don't call it CMM. If you
encourage Jorge or anyone else to believe that by ascending CMM Levels they
will satisfy management's requirements then you are doing them a
disservice. The CMM Assessment Method is clearly geared to make management
dependent on CMM Assessment regardless of the improvement in actual
performance. Accordingly, it is a virus.

The devil may be in the details but the problem with CMM is not in the
details but in its foundation.

Firstly, the CMM Model and Assessment Method is based on a premise
(although unstated and perhaps even unrecognized) that an organization is a
state-determined system. In contrast, system thinkers know that any system
that contains people, especially more than 15 people, is patently not a s-d
system.

Secondly, there has never been more than anecdotal relevance between CMM
Level and Value of Artifact Produced. (That means the CMM mavens have not
shown that an organization which is assessed to be Level 4 produces
software that is any better than that produced by organization that is
assessed to be Level 3 or 2). Therefore, investment in CMM cannot be
justified.

On the other hand, some interesting correlations with software productivity
and quality scales that are, in fact, sound shows that the CMM Level 5 is
equivalent to 2.5 Sigma quality. Motorola and other Six Sigma afficianados
are not impressed with CMM.

Thirdly, note that the content of each level has been selected by "expert"
concensus. That is not cool but cannot be challenged prima facie.
However, also note that the Activites called for in the ascending CMM
Levels seem not aligned to the Baldridge Award Criteria nor the Demming
Prize nor the ISO 9001, let alone the Crosby Price of Non-Conformance.

Jorge and others would be well advised to avoid CMM and Business Process
Improvement rumors.

Jack Ring, 32712 N. 70th St., Snottsdale, AZ 85262-7143
602-488-4615, Cell) 602.369.4615, Fax)602-488-4616
Work like you don't need the money. Love like you've never been hurt.
Dance like nobody's watching.

Jack,
I hate to be the first to lift the 'I'm dumb' hand, but what's CMM?


Phil Rutherford
Academic Director and Lecturer
Competency-based systems specialist
robnphil@ozemail.com.au
http://www.competency-au.com


----------
> From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
> To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
> Subject: Re: [MG-ED-DV] TQM or ISO or CMM?
> Date: Thursday, 18 March 1999 18:19
>
> Wed, 17 Mar 1999 08:07:45 -0800
> >From: Ann Marie Harmony <itm@IN-THE-MOOD.COM>
> [...]
> >We all use the same life dynamics for survival and replication-to
> >varying extents and with varying degrees of success-- pattern
> >recognition, response, assimilation and "camoflauge"
>
> [jring response]
> Sorry to disagree but my education indicates that there are at least
three
> different modes of growth; systemic, fungal and viral. Only the latter
> necessarily kills its host.
> >
> [...]
> >For instance- CMM- just because you don't have all competencies
> >completed at one level, does not mean you cannot begin work or
> >even complete competencies at the next level- it just means that if
> >you don't have all your competencies at a certain minimum
> >requirement- you cannot be assessed as having fully met the
> >requirements of that level. You certainly can assess yourselves at
> >individual competencies.
>
> All that is true but contrary to the official method of assessment of
CMM.
> If you want to invent the Harmony Maturity Model and Assessment Method
> please reveal that you are doing that -- don't call it CMM. If you
> encourage Jorge or anyone else to believe that by ascending CMM Levels
they
> will satisfy management's requirements then you are doing them a
> disservice. The CMM Assessment Method is clearly geared to make
management
> dependent on CMM Assessment regardless of the improvement in actual
> performance. Accordingly, it is a virus.
>
> The devil may be in the details but the problem with CMM is not in the
> details but in its foundation.
>
> Firstly, the CMM Model and Assessment Method is based on a premise
> (although unstated and perhaps even unrecognized) that an organization is
a
> state-determined system. In contrast, system thinkers know that any
system
> that contains people, especially more than 15 people, is patently not a
s-d
> system.
>
> Secondly, there has never been more than anecdotal relevance between CMM
> Level and Value of Artifact Produced. (That means the CMM mavens have
not
> shown that an organization which is assessed to be Level 4 produces
> software that is any better than that produced by organization that is
> assessed to be Level 3 or 2). Therefore, investment in CMM cannot be
> justified.
>
> On the other hand, some interesting correlations with software
productivity
> and quality scales that are, in fact, sound shows that the CMM Level 5 is
> equivalent to 2.5 Sigma quality. Motorola and other Six Sigma
afficianados
> are not impressed with CMM.
>
> Thirdly, note that the content of each level has been selected by
"expert"
> concensus. That is not cool but cannot be challenged prima facie.
> However, also note that the Activites called for in the ascending CMM
> Levels seem not aligned to the Baldridge Award Criteria nor the Demming
> Prize nor the ISO 9001, let alone the Crosby Price of Non-Conformance.
>
> Jorge and others would be well advised to avoid CMM and Business Process
> Improvement rumors.
>
> Jack Ring, 32712 N. 70th St., Snottsdale, AZ 85262-7143
> 602-488-4615, Cell) 602.369.4615, Fax)602-488-4616
> Work like you don't need the money. Love like you've never been hurt.
> Dance like nobody's watching.

Phil

I know you did not address that question to me but I wanted to say - That's
not a dumb question - why should you know? It is a reminder to us all not
to assume our jargon is universal....

CMM is the Capability Maturity Model developed by the Software Engineering
Institute of Carnegie Mellon University.

It is way of measuring the organisation's maturity with regard to its
software processes.

Although it has merits - it also has flaws (but that is because it was
invented by humans)
For example - It has the flaw that it does not discuss the major software
process of testing - a number of software testers are trying to address
this by developing maturity assessments of the software process. (look for
test KPI, test assessment programme and test maturity model - various
people like Richard Warden, Paul Gerrard and others are loking at this)

Also it does not look at people and how they affect and are affected by
processes (motivation, attitude, etc etc) or things that are not processes.
In an IT organisation I would see it sitting inside the Business Excellence
Model, along with ISO 9000 and other models.

But it is useful as a way of looking at software processes

Isabel

IE Testing Consultancy Ltd Riverview House Bonds Mill Estate Stonehouse
Glos. GL10 3RF England
email Isabel_Evans@compuserve.com

Message text written by INTERNET:robnphil@ozemail.com.au
>
Jack,
I hate to be the first to lift the 'I'm dumb' hand, but what's CMM?


Phil Rutherford
Academic Director and Lecturer
Competency-based systems specialist
robnphil@ozemail.com.au
http://www.competency-au.com

<

On Fri, 19 Mar 1999, Phillip Rutherford wrote Re: TQM or ISO or CMM?
>
>Jack,
>I hate to be the first to lift the 'I'm dumb' hand, but what's CMM?
>
Apologies for the code. CMM is Capability Maturity Model, a "standard"
developed by the Software Engineering Institute on US government funds to
establish an index for assessing the capability of software engineering
organizations. A companion is the Assessment Method. Similar to ISO 9001
it uses Key Practice Areas, Key Practices, etc..

A typical assessment costs about $50,000. Some government contracting
officers will not accept bids from organizations who do not have formal
documented assessments showing them to be Level 2 or better.

Honest!

Jack Ring, 32712 N. 70th St., Snottsdale, AZ 85262-7143
602-488-4615, Cell) 602.369.4615, Fax)602-488-4616
Work like you don't need the money. Love like you've never been hurt.
Dance like nobody's watching.

Jack,
Thanks a million for that. We have a similar problem out here where some
government agencies refuse to take on any external contractor if they
aren't assessed as complying with ISO 9000. Same trip - $Xthousands to be
assessed as capable of correctly maintaining the paperwork. The problem is,
this has little to do with contractor competence or capability. And,
besides, most government people I know say that this is the only way they
can narrow down the EOIs they receive for contract work. Shame really.

Thanks again.

Phil Rutherford
Academic Director and Lecturer
Competency-based systems specialist
robnphil@ozemail.com.au
http://www.competency-au.com


----------
> From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
> To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
> Subject: Re: [MG-ED-DV] TQM or ISO or CMM?
> Date: Saturday, 20 March 1999 10:44
>
> On Fri, 19 Mar 1999, Phillip Rutherford wrote Re: TQM or ISO or CMM?
> >
> >Jack,
> >I hate to be the first to lift the 'I'm dumb' hand, but what's CMM?
> >
> Apologies for the code. CMM is Capability Maturity Model, a "standard"
> developed by the Software Engineering Institute on US government funds to
> establish an index for assessing the capability of software engineering
> organizations. A companion is the Assessment Method. Similar to ISO
9001
> it uses Key Practice Areas, Key Practices, etc..
>
> A typical assessment costs about $50,000. Some government contracting
> officers will not accept bids from organizations who do not have formal
> documented assessments showing them to be Level 2 or better.
>
> Honest!
>
> Jack Ring, 32712 N. 70th St., Snottsdale, AZ 85262-7143
> 602-488-4615, Cell) 602.369.4615, Fax)602-488-4616
> Work like you don't need the money. Love like you've never been hurt.
> Dance like nobody's watching.

On 19 Mar 99, at 16:44, Jack Ring wrote:

> Apologies for the code. CMM is Capability Maturity Model, a "standard"
> developed by the Software Engineering Institute on US government funds to
> establish an index for assessing the capability of software engineering
> organizations. A companion is the Assessment Method. Similar to ISO 9001
> it uses Key Practice Areas, Key Practices, etc..

> A typical assessment costs about $50,000. Some government contracting
> officers will not accept bids from organizations who do not have formal
> documented assessments showing them to be Level 2 or better.

So Jack- could one now say that this "CMM certification process"
(which could take- years for organization to complete- and cost-
significant money-) is by and large
1.an instutionally acceptable methodology that
2.may or may not reflect the true health/competence of the
organization as it is today-
3.but instead is a piece of paper
4. paid for at one time or another
5. procurred from some approved agency
5.to "certify" that the recipient entity is now a worthy contributor/bid
contender
6.and may now be officially recognized by various other entities and
institutions
7.without embarassment for the entities doing the "recognition"
8. No matter how the winning bidder actually performs?

Clearly you feel the actual content leaves a lot to be desired. Just
as clearly there is a strategy involved here to save institutional "face."

Could one say that entities who religiously "go" by such certification
tactics in acknowledging the presence, rights and privileges of
others, are incompetent to "keep score" without being personally
handed a score card?

And perhaps even after being handed a score card, the decision
making process remains extremely risky, if they are illiterate for all
operative intents and purposes.

My Best
Ann Marie

$======= Better Communications Tooling ==========$
________ http://www.in-the-mood.com
______.---, | Your most valuable corporate
// | |~ STAFF | assets just checked in....
|| _____|-|_____ __|Or did they already check out?

$======= People Capital Development =============$

At 7:57 AM 3/20/99, Ann Marie Harmony wrote:
[...]
>So Jack- could one now say that this "CMM certification process"
>(which could take- years for organization to complete- and cost-
>significant money-) is by and large
>1.an instutionally acceptable methodology that
>2.may or may not reflect the true health/competence of the
>organization as it is today-

Only as it "was" at some time in the past -- which is not a bona fide
predictor of "is" let alone "will be."

>3.but instead is a piece of paper
>4. paid for at one time or another
>5. procurred from some approved agency
>5.to "certify" that the recipient entity is now a worthy contributor/bid
>contender

Only "was" at some time in the past -- which is not a bona fide predictor
of "is" let alone "will be."

>6.and may now be officially recognized by various other entities and
>institutions
>7.without embarassment for the entities doing the "recognition"
>8. No matter how the winning bidder actually performs?
>
>Clearly you feel the actual content leaves a lot to be desired. Just
>as clearly there is a strategy involved here to save institutional "face."

That, in my view, is the most damning thing that can be said about CMM but
it appears that you do not share this value. If you are interested in
institutionalizing mutually cooperative mechanisims for ignoring the truth
while claiming Truth, then yes, the CMM is a powerful tool. And if you are
proficient at calling misrepresentations Truth, you may be able to get a
good job in the White House. But what has that got to do with Management
Education and Development?

>
>Could one say that entities who religiously "go" by such certification
>tactics in acknowledging the presence, rights and privileges of
>others, are incompetent to "keep score" without being personally
>handed a score card?
>
>And perhaps even after being handed a score card, the decision
>making process remains extremely risky, if they are illiterate for all
>operative intents and purposes.

No.

Ann Marie,
I think this thread contributes little to the Discussion. If you want to
discuss this further, let's take it off line and let anyone who wants to
join in contact either of us.


Jack Ring, 32712 N. 70th St., Snottsdale, AZ 85262-7143
602-488-4615, Cell) 602.369.4615, Fax)602-488-4616
Work like you don't need the money. Love like you've never been hurt.
Dance like nobody's watching.

On 20 Mar 99, at 10:01, Jack Ring wrote:

> Only as it "was" at some time in the past -- which is not a bona fide
> predictor of "is" let alone "will be."

But what has that got to do with
> Management Education and Development?

AMH wrote
> >And perhaps even after being handed a score card, the decision
> >making process remains extremely risky, if they are illiterate for all
> >operative intents and purposes.

Jack wrote
> No.

No... what? Risk is NOT increased when people insist on operating
as if they are illiterate, as well as deaf and blind, but unfortunately
not silent, in order to save face for the institutions they represent
and are vested in?

By golly- what DOES this have to do with Management Education
and Development?

My best
Ann Marie Harmony
aka Alice strolling through Wonderland's Flower Garden


$======= Better Communications Tooling ==========$
________ http://www.in-the-mood.com
______.---, | Your most valuable corporate
// | |~ STAFF | assets just checked in....
|| _____|-|_____ __|Or did they already check out?

$======= People Capital Development =============$