Discussion: View Thread

MG-ED-DV Clarifying the CMM

  • 1.  MG-ED-DV Clarifying the CMM

    Posted 04-14-2002 12:30
    Sorry, but CMM(tm) has never stated requirements.
    It has stated Key Process Areas -- the attributes of an organization that
    are scored.
    CMM has never had any KPA that deals with the attributes of the product
    being produced.
    The only KPA dealing with improvement seeks to improve the adherence to
    KPA's. .
    CMM is not a way of scoring achievement. It is a way of scoring a beauty
    contest.

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Automatic digest processor" <LISTSERV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
    To: "Recipients of MG-ED-DV digests" <MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
    Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 10:37 PM
    Subject: MG-ED-DV Digest - 12 Apr 2002 to 13 Apr 2002 (#2002-86)


    > There are 2 messages totalling 73 lines in this issue.
    >
    > Topics of the day:
    >
    > 1. CMM and ISO9000
    > 2. MG-ED-DV - Followership
    >
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    > Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 07:47:28 -0400
    > From: Charles Wankel <wankelc@optonline.net>
    > Subject: Re: CMM and ISO9000
    >
    > From: Conna Condon [mailto:gandolf@cyberverse.com]
    >
    > "What was that original corporate objective again?"
    >
    > <wicked grins> Ahhhhhhhh ... now there's the salient question. Wise,
    > very wise.
    >
    > Objective: meet contract requirements at minimum obvious short term
    > costs ... aka do it on the cheap.
    >
    > You mention ISO9000.2000. They snuck in under the old IS09000 ...
    > saved 3 years of the cost of the stronger standard. That was a
    > consistency standard rather than a quality standard.
    >
    > In the old ISO9000 you "say what you do and do what you say". However,
    > if what you do causes the output to be broken every 5th time than to be
    > ISO9000 compliant you will produce a broken output every 5th time.
    > Consistently.
    >
    > That is why ISO9000.2000 has added an improvement requirement (which
    > CMM always had). One hopes things will get better when everyone has to
    > be compliant to the new standard.
    >
    > Conna
    >
    > ------------------------------
    >
    > Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 21:30:56 -0400
    > From: Hank Sims <HSims@rhsmith.umd.edu>
    > Subject: Re: MG-ED-DV - Followership
    >
    > si=
    > ze=3D2>
    Colleagues..
    One way to think about
    "follow=
    > ership" is to think about so-called followers
    as
    "self-leaders"..=
    > . that is, individuals who have capacity and skill to
    lead
    thems=
    > elves.
    My colleague Charles Manz and other associates have
    discus=
    > sed this
    in several articles and books...  Our fundamental
    notion=
    > is that
    an important role of leaders is to develop the capacity
    =
    > of followers
    to be excellent self-leaders.  I refer you to Manz
    &=
    > amp; Neck,
    "Mastering Self-Leadership", or, our recent book
    (Man=
    > z & Sims)
    "The New SuperLeadership:  Leading Other to Lead
    T=
    > hemselves"...
     
    and finally, I do recognize and
    ap=
    > ologize for the self-plug...
    it;s just that we have been
    thinking=
    > about "followership" for
    years through the lens of
    "self-leaders=
    > hip" and I am unable
    to contain
    myself...
    thanks
    <=
    > PRE>Hank Sims , U of Md.
    
    href=3D"mailto:hsims@r=
    > hsmith.umd.edu">
    hsims@rhsmith.umd.edu
    
    href=
    >
    =3D"http://www.hanksims.com">www.hanksims.com
     
    <PR=
    > E>> Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 06:23:41 -0400> From: Charles
    Wankel=
    > <wankelc@optonline.net>> Subject: Re: Leadership
    vocabulary+++>=
    > ;> From: Steven.Henderson@solent.ac.uk>
    [mailto:Steven.Henderson@sole=
    > nt.ac.uk]>> The more I read what colleagues have written on
    leadershi=
    > p, the more it> strikes me that I don't know anything about follower
    shi=
    > p. Are there> hard followers, who are inspired by leaders to achieve
    gre=
    > at things for> the organisation? Are there soft followers, who reject
    le=
    > adership that> cannot justify itself in terms of the good of the
    organis=
    > ation, or the> wider society of which it is a part? Do the range of
    ski=
    > lls described> by Erwin depend upon some aspects of followership for
    the=
    > ir efficacy? Is> there an equivalent set of followership
    skills?>>=
    > Steven Henderson
    =
    >
    > ------------------------------
    >
    > End of MG-ED-DV Digest - 12 Apr 2002 to 13 Apr 2002 (#2002-86)
    > **************************************************************
    >