The Implementation of Maturity Models in the United Arab Emirates

Thèse de Doctorat , 2011 , 82 Pages

Gestion d'entreprise - Direction d'entreprise, Management, Organisation

The field of project management maturity has been introduced in the Middle East market recently and it is yet to prove its benefits. This research investigates the implementations of such maturity models in the UAE. The objective is to study and compare project management maturity models, show how they can be implemented in the UAE and finally recommend ways to merge different maturity models together to benefit from them the most.
The primary research method used in this research was to document a case study of an implementation of a maturity model in a government organization in Dubai, UAE. Moreover, experts' interviews were also means of primary research used for this research paper. In addition, the secondary research methods were represented by the academic online journals, electronic books and Dubai Municipality documents were used to collect data about maturity models. The dissertation concludes on the relevance and value of these models and provides recommendations for organizations seeking maturity models and recommendations for various project management audiences.

Table of Contents

Abstract

1 Chapter One: Introduction
1.1 Background
1.2 Aim of the Research
1.3 The objectives
1.4 Structure of the research
1.5 Methodology

2 Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
2.1 Project Management Offices (PMOs)
2.1.1 Definition of Project Management Offices (PMOs)
2.1.2 Roles of Project Management Offices (PMOs)
2.1.3 Types of Project Management Offices (PMOs)
2.1.4 Responsibilities of Project Management Offices (PMOs)
2.1.5 Relationship between Project Management Office and Project Performance
2.1.6 Relationship between PMOs and Project Management Maturity
2.2 Background of Project Management Maturity Models
2.2.1 Definition of Project Management Maturity Models
2.2.2 Elements of Maturity Models:
2.3 Portfolio, Program and Project Management Maturity Model (P3M3)
2.4 Prince 2 maturity model
2.5 The Berkeley Project Management Processes Maturity Model
2.6 Project management process maturity (PM)2 model
2.7 Capability Maturity Model (CMM)
2.7.1 Background of CMMs
2.8 CMMI
2.8.1 Background of CMMI
2.8.2 Structure of CMMI Product Suite
2.8.3 Types of CMMI appraisals
2.9 Organizational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3)
2.9.1 History of Organizational project management maturity model (OPM3)
2.9.2 What is Organizational project management maturity model (OPM3)
2.9.3 Elements of Organizational project management maturity model (OPM3)
2.9.4 Structure of Organizational project management maturity model (OPM3)
2.9.5 Types of Organizational project management maturity model (OPM3) assessments
2.10 Applying a mixture of Maturity Models (OPM3 and CMMI)
2.11 Comparison between OPM3 and CMMI
2.12 Case Study Background (Dubai Municipality)
2.12.1 Background about Dubai Municipality
2.12.2 Background about Information Technology Department
2.12.3 Background about Project Management in ITD
2.12.4 Background about ITD - PMO
2.12.5 Reflection of Maturity Models in light of ITD - PMO
2.13 Summary of Chapter

3 Chapter Three: Research Methodology
3.1 Introduction to Chapter
3.2 Qualitative research approach
3.3 Methods of data collection
3.3.1 Primary Research
3.3.2 Secondary Research
3.3.3 Limitations of the research methodology:

4 Chapter Four: Analysis and Results
4.1 Case study 1 data:
4.1.1 ITD PMO- OPM3 assessment
4.1.2 OPM3 Consultant recommendations to ITD PMO
4.2 Semi structured interviews
4.2.1 Expert Interview One- OPM3 certified assessor and practitioner (Lotfy Sabry, Managing
Director, Experts Project Management Co.):
4.2.2 Expert Interview Two- CMMI certified assessor and practitioner (P J Corum, Quality
Assurance Institute Middle East FZ. LLC.):
4.3 Summary of chapter

5 Chapter Five: Discussion and Interpretation
5.1 Summary of the main findings
5.1.1 Overall themes
5.1.2 Case study
5.1.3 Experts' interviews
5.2 Discussion of the Research Propositions
5.3 Limitations of the empirical research conducted
5.4 Suggestions for future research

6 Chapter Six: Recommendations
6.1 Introduction:
6.2 Higher management in government or private organizations
6.3 Heads of Project Management Offices
6.4 Project Teams
6.5 Maturity models implementers or assessors
6.6 PMI and SEI
6.7 Academic researchers

7 Chapter Seven: Conclusion

8 References:

9 Appendix: Sample of Interview Transcript

List of Figures

Figure 1: Five stages of PMO

Figure 2: Capability Maturity Model (CMM)

Figure 3: CMMI Representations- Stage Vs Continuous

Figure 4: Elements of OPM3: Knowledge, Assessment and Improvement

List of Tables

Table 1: Key Project Management Processes

Table 2: Major Organizational Characteristics

Table 3: Characteristics Of The Berkeley (Pm) 2 Model

Table 4: Capability levels and maturity levels

Table 5: Major characteristics of CMMI appraisal classes

Table 6: Major differences between OPM3 online self-assessment and OPM3 Product Suite assessment

Table 7: Comparison of OPM3 and CMMI

Table 8: A comparison of the assessment offerings for OPM3 and CMMI

Table 9: PM2 Levels of Maturity as extracted from ITD PMO gap analysis report

Glossary of Terms

1. CMM: Capability Maturity Model
2. CMMI: Capability Maturity Model Integrated
3. DM: Dubai Municipality
4. DM-ITD: Dubai Municipality-Information Technology Department
5. DM-ITD PMO: Dubai Municipality-Information Technology Department Project Management Office
6. EPM: Enterprise Project Management
7. ITIL: Information Technology Infrastructure Library
8. OPM3: Organizational Project Management Maturity Module
9. P3M3: Portfolio, Programme and Project Management Maturity Model
10. (PM)2: Project management Process Maturity
11. PMBoK: Project Management Body of Knowledge
12. PMI: Project Management Institute
13. PMO: Project Management Office
14. PRINCE 2: PRojects IN Controlled Environments
15. PRINCE 2 MM: PRojects IN Controlled Environments Maturity Model
16. SEI: Software Engineering Institute

Abstract

The field of project management maturity has been introduced in the Middle East market recently and it is yet to prove its benefits. This research investigates the implementations of such maturity models in the UAE. The objective is to study and compare project management maturity models, show how they can be implemented in the UAE and finally recommend ways to merge different maturity models together to benefit from them the most.

The primary research method used in this research was to document a case study of an implementation of a maturity model in a government organization in Dubai, UAE. Moreover, experts' interviews were also means of primary research used for this research paper. In addition, the secondary research methods were represented by the academic online journals, electronic books and Dubai Municipality documents were used to collect data about maturity models. The dissertation concludes on the relevance and value of these models and provides recommendations for organizations seeking maturity models and recommendations for various project management audiences.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

1 Chapter One: Introduction

1.1 Background

Recently, the significance of effective project management in delivering business value has gained increased attention. Project management methods and processes are now considered effective tools to deliver and respond to changes in organizations. In order to measure the effectiveness of project management processes and practices, the project management maturity concept has emerged recently.

This study was undertaken to fulfill the requirements of modern organizations with achieving their strategic objectives effectively and in a mature manner. Many organizations are now facing new challenges such as changes in the technology, changes in client expectations, changes in methodologies and processes and many others. The high level goal of this research is to help organizations measure their maturity when it comes to project management and therefore, become more flexible in terms of structures and methods in order to achieve their strategic objectives through managing projects effectively.

1.2 Aim of the Research

The aim of this dissertation is to study the implementation of project management maturity models in organizations whether they are supported by project management offices or not. This research is done through case study method and expert interviews related to a government organization in Dubai. This dissertation studies the factors affecting both the implementation of maturity models in government organizations and how those models can improve project management and project management offices.

This dissertation focuses exclusively on project management maturity models for organizations- What should organizations do to achieve maturity? □ therefore we will not focus on individual skills of project managers and how to optimize them.

1.3 The objectives

The objectives of this dissertation are as follows:

1- Study different kinds of Project Maturity models, Project Management Offices Maturity Models and Process Maturity Models, in terms of how they are structured and their main benefits to organizations
2- Investigate the importance of Project Management Offices (PMOs) and how they are structured in organizations
3- Identify the reasons behind implementing maturity models in general and their effect on project performance
4- Investigate and analyze the implementation of a maturity model through the PMO, which is covered in the case study related to the implementation of Organizational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3) assessment in Dubai Municipality.
5- Compare between OPM3 and Capability Maturity Model Integrated (CMMI).
6- Define and recommend the requirements necessary to use and implement maturity models effectively and identify when one model can be better than another model.
7- Define and recommend the requirements needed to implement a successful OPM3 implementation in a Project Management Office or project environment in a government organization

1.4 Structure of the research

This dissertation is structured in six chapters that will cover the objectives identified above. Below is a brief overview of each chapter:

- Chapter 2 provides information about Project Management Offices, different maturity models, an overview of each of them, information about OPM3, information about CMMI, a comparison between OPM3 and CMMI, and introduction to Dubai Municipality's case study.

- Chapter 3 provides information about the research methods used in this research. Mainly for this research the researcher will use a qualitative research method through case studies and expert interviews. The case study was extracted from hands on experience in the Project Management Offices when the about OPM3 assessment took place, expert interviews with OPM3 and CMMI consultants, documentations provided by Dubai municipality, Information technology department, project management office and participants observations.

- Chapter 4 this chapter of analysis and results of data collection states the case study about Dubai municipality in implementing the about OPM3. And covers the two experts' interviews (OPM3 expert and CMMI expert).

- Chapter 5 provides the discussion and interpretation of the data collected including the case study and the interviews. And an interpretation of the data collected in light of the literature review. Also limitations of the research, suggestions for future research and the main findings of the research are covered in this chapter.

- Chapter 6 includes recommendations to government organizations, private organizations, PMOs and project environments, and academic researchers.

- Chapter 7 includes a conclusion for this research study.

- Chapters 8 and 9 include the references and appendix.

1.5 Methodology

This dissertation is based on research journals, newspaper, electronic books, case studies, experts and semi-structured interviews, analyzing government documents and observations which represent the research methods that are considered part of the qualitative research approach. The use of these various research tools for collecting and analyzing data is explained further in the chapter on research methodology.

Case studies and experts interviews were the main research methods for this paper in which interviews were conducted to collect the required data from experts and consultants who have expertise and are familiar with Project Management maturity models.

2 Chapter Two: Review of the Literature

This section of the research will cover a literature review on project management offices, their types, activities and functions. The review will also cover Maturity Models and their effects on Project Performance and also will cover some of well-known project management maturity models and hold a comparison between them.

In this literature review, we try to explore the notion of maturity in project management in a holistic context. The main focus of the literature review is on the implementation of Maturity Models in organizations with Project Management Offices PMOs or without. And also a focus on various maturity models to better understand our topic. The review also analyzes many aspects and elements of various project management and process improvement maturity models and show their effect on the field of project management.

2.1 Project Management Offices (PMOs)

2.1.1 Definition of Project Management Offices (PMOs)

Project Management Offices are defined globally as physical or virtual entities in an organization that deal with activities such as managing, controlling, supporting projects, defining methodologies and frameworks for project management, auditing projects and many other related activities (Dai & Wells 2004).

Project Management Institute defines a PMO as:

“An organizational body or entity assigned various responsibilities related to the centralized and coordinated management of those projects under its domain."

(Source: Project Management Institute, A Guide to Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide)- Fourth Edition, 2008, p. 11)

PMOs can deal with programs or portfolios along with projects. A project or program office can also be called as a center of excellence or center of expertise (Dai & Wells 2004). The project office (PO) is responsible for offering guidance and help for project managers, teams, and other management levels in applying project management practices, tools and techniques (Hill, 2004). It is stated that a PMO is responsible for the improvement of the "the practice and results" of project management (Kendall & Rollins, 2003).

2.1.2 Roles of Project Management Offices (PMOs)

The roles of PMOs are divided and supported by the main function of PMOs which is knowledge management- into three models: strategic, tactical and operational (Desouza & Evaristob, 2006). At the strategic level the PMO makes sure that the projects are linked with the strategic objectives of the organizations and directly related to the business unit's operational plans and processes. At the tactical level the PMO's role is to make sure that projects are integrated closely and track their progress in comparison with defined constraints. Lastly at the operational level, the PMO gets involved in the operational activities of projects such as evaluations, approvals of documents, review of status reports and collection of lessons learned reports.

(Kendall & Rollins, 2003) divide the roles of PMOs into four models: Project Repository Model: (provides methodology and standards only without monitoring of results), Coach Model: (same as Repository model plus performance is monitored), Enterprise Model: (stronger governance model on a higher level), "Deliver Now" Model: (introducing projects with measurable values within periods of 6 months).

2.1.3 Types of Project Management Offices (PMOs)

Although such an office can manage projects, programs, portfolios or all three, there are different types of each. PMOs are also sorted out into two types: the administrative type and the knowledge­intensive type (Desouzaa & Evaristob, 2006). The administrative PMOs give project managers and project teams the administrative support needed for their projects such as managing project information and reporting it.

However knowledge- intensive PMOs focus on collecting and sharing knowledge as a main function. This can include setting the standards and methodologies of project management, collecting lessons learned, improving performance, assessing maturity of project management, coaching, training and mentoring of project managers.

2.1.4 Responsibilities of Project Management Offices (PMOs)

The main responsibility of a PMO is to make sure that projects are executed successfully in the organization. Moreover, PMOs can be responsible for the alignments between projects and the strategic goals of the organization. Thirdly, PMOs are in charge of putting the standards and methodologies of project or program or portfolio management. They are also responsible for training the managers on those methodologies and ensuring their adherence to the standards (Desouzaa & Evaristob, 2006).

PMOs are responsible for the gaining of knowledge from previous projects' failures and successes though maintaining project historical archives, providing administrative support for projects and sometimes different management levels, and offering consultation and mentoring for project managers and project resources (Dai & Wells, 2004).

2.1.5 Relationship between Project Management Office and Project Performance

A research (Dai & Wells, 2004) conducted showed the relationship between project management offices and project performance. Some of the results of the research showed that the existence of project management standards was positively correlated with project performance. The research covered organizations with PMOs and organizations without PMOs. It was found that the above statement was true whether there was a PMO or not, however organizations with PMOs showed a slightly higher project performance level but this level wasn't high enough to consider it in the research (Dai & Wells, 2004).

It was argued that the PMO can promote and contribute directly to the existence of project management standards that in their turn contribute to the project performance. However, in this research, we assume that an organization does not have to have a Project Management Office to implement a maturity model (Dai & Wells, 2004).

2.1.6 Relationship between PMOs and Project Management Maturity

The concept of maturing PMOs has only been recently developed and its related literature is limited.

It was covered somehow with the PMO competency continuum created by Gerard Hill in 2004 (Hill, 2004). The maturity of the PMO contributed directly to the maturity of project management practices (Hill, 2004). Kendall and Rollins in 2003 also shared the same understanding of the importance of PMOs and their maturity when it comes of the maturity of project management practices; however the technique of how to measure the PMO maturity differs between the two, as explained in the following sub sections.

2.1.6.1 The Project Management Office Competency Continuum

Hill (2004) defines five stages of PMO capabilities that contribute directly to the maturity of project management practices within the PMO and also contribute to the strategic alignment with business objectives. The following figure (Figure. 1) summarizes those five stages:

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 1 : Five stages of PMO

2.1.6.2 Kendall and Rollins PMO Maturity Model

(Kendall & Rollins 2003, p.371-381) apply PMO maturity model to measure the PMO value using the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) of Project Management Institute based Maturity model. The focus of their model is the PMO itself not only the best practices within it, where the nine knowledge areas are measured against a set of statements divided into eight levels of maturity:

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

- Level 1: PMO defining value
- Level 2: PMO organized
- Level 3: Searching for delivery value
- Level 4: Portfolio Management
- Level 5: Community buy-in
- Level 6: Project teams delivering on schedule
- Level 7: Project teams calibrated w/portfolios; more projects in fiscal year
- Level 8: Organization delivering

(Kendall & Rollins 2003, pp.371-381) explain clearly in their book (Advanced Project Portfolio Management and the PMO) how to move from one level to the next level and also a set of advises specific for each level.

2.2 Background of Project Management Maturity Models

Process maturity was first introduced in the Total Quality Management movement, where the technique of Statistical Process Control (SPC) was applied in a way that shows that improving the maturity of any technical process leads to the improving performance of that process (Cooke-Davies & Arzymanow, 2002).

Later between the years 1986 and 1993, the “Capability Maturity Model” for software organizations, was developed by the Software Engineering Institute of Carnegie-Mellon University. CMM changed the measure of performance from a process level to an organizational level, where it evaluates an organization's software process capabilities (Cooke-Davies & Arzymanow, 2002). This paper will cover the Capability Maturity Model in depth in a separate literature review section.

Cooke-Davies and Arxymanow stated that the concept of organizational project management maturity was derived from the software engineering processes, and thus applying the concept of maturity to software project management. Therefore, many project management maturity models came into view in the mid 90s and in the later years, such as “The Berkeley Project Management Processes Maturity Model”, PRINCE 2 maturity model, the "Organizational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3)", The "Project Management Process Maturity (PM)2 model" and the "Portfolio, Programme and Project Management Maturity Model (P3M3)", which will all be discussed in the next chapters of this paper.

Other maturity models -that will not be discussed in this paper- include the following:

- The PM Solutions Project Management Maturity Model Kevin P. Grant and James S. Pennypacker
- The Project Management Maturity Model (ProMMM), David Hilson 2001.
- Kerzner Project Management Maturity Model (PMMM), Harold Kerzner 2005
- McCauley's Maturity Model, Hink's Information Technology and Process Maturity model, Microframe's Project Management Maturity Model, Fincher's Project Management Maturity Model, Dooley's New Product Development Maturity Model

2.2.1 Definition of Project Management Maturity Models

The Office of Government Commerce (OGC) defines a maturity model as a "systematic framework that provides a means for benchmarking and performance improvement, it can be applied to an organization, a business unit or a team to provide a road map for performance improvement". In general maturity models will include a set of descriptions of business performance divided into a number of maturity levels. For instance, some OGC models have 5 levels:

- Level 1 -"getting started, awareness, initial"
- Level 2 -"developing, focusing, repeatable, knowledge"
- Level 3 -"complying, practicing, competence, defined"
- Level 4 -"sustaining, exploiting, managed, excellence"
- Level 5 -"advocating, transforming, optimized"
- Level 0 may exist in some other models too - "unawareness." (OGC)

Most of the other models include 5 or 6 or even 8 levels of maturity, except for Project Management Institute (PMI) Organizational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3), which relies on figures and percentages to show the results of maturity assessments for an organization when using OPM3 Product Suite. (PMI OPM3 knowledge foundation)

2.2.2 Elements of Maturity Models:

Most of OGC's models consist of two elements of maturity models: the first element is the assessment of current maturity level either done internally or externally and the second element is the plan for performance improvement based on the assessment results to move up to higher levels of maturity.

While PMI's OPM3 consists of three elements: Knowledge, assessment and improvement. Knowledge includes an introduction to the OPM3 model for the people who will be involved in applying the model either in PMOs or on higher levels. Assessment is the second step where it can be done using OPM3 online assessment (120 questions) or the full Product Suite assessment (1682 questions), which can only be conducted by a certified assessor. The improvement element includes putting the plan for improvement, conducting the improvement plan and redoing the assessment.

2.3 Portfolio. Program and Project Management Maturity Model (P3M3)

Portfolio, Program and Project Management Maturity Model (P3M3) is based on the best practices of project, program and portfolio set by the OGC and also follows the same approach of Carnegie-Melon Maturity Model. It was first introduced in the beginning of year 2006.

The main benefit behind this model is to improve portfolio, program and project management processes used in an organization. This model includes three sub-models and a self-assessment questionnaire, however OGC recommends to use an experienced assessor or (a Program and Project Management Registered Consultant) to get the best results (ogc.gov.uk & p3m3-officialsite.com, 2010).

The Model covers 3 sub-models, 5 maturity levels and 7 perspectives explained below:

The sub-models are the following:

- PfM3 - Portfolio Management Maturity Model
- PgM3 - Programme Management Maturity Model
- PjM3 - Project Management Maturity Model

The five levels of maturity defined in P3M3 are:

- Level 1: initial process
- Level 2: repeatable process
- Level 3: defined process
- Level 4: managed process
- Level 5: optimized process

The perspectives covered in the model are:

- Management control
- Benefits Management
- Financial Management
- Risk Management
- Organizational improvement
- Organization Governance
- Resource Management

OGC also recommends to use this model to identify weaknesses to obtain long term performance improvements, however the model allows organizations to obtain short-term performance improvements as well (ogc.gov.uk, 2010).

2.4 Prince 2 maturity model

PRINCE 2 is an acronym of (PRojects IN Controlled Environments), and it is the standard used to manage projects effectively in most of the UK Government sector and also used commonly in the private sector. It was first created in 1989 by the Office of Government Commerce (OGC) previously called (the central computer and telecommunications agency) (PRINCE2.com, 2010).

PRINCE 2 Maturity Model (P2MM) was created based on PRINCE 2 standard to assess the maturity of organizations using this project management method. P2MM is derived from the Project Management Maturity Model (PjMM) which is one of the sub-models of the Portfolio, Programme and Project Management Maturity Model (P3M3). The model gives a clear view of the main practices in the project management processes that should exist in an organization in order for it to manage its projects effectively. Moreover, it recognizes the main practices that need to be applied in the organization in order to improve from one level of maturity to the next level. Another use of the model is to give a clear understanding of how to do the self-assessment using the questionnaire (p3m3-officialsite.com & ogc.gov.uk, 2010).

PRINCE 2 Maturity Model (P2MM) is only conducted by a PRINCE2 Registered Consultant. It comprises of 16 key process areas with a set of key practices for each. The maturity levels in this model are matching to P3M3:

- Level 1: initial process
- Level 2: repeatable process
- Level 3: defined process
- Level 4: managed process
- Level 5: optimized process (p3m3-officialsite.com)

2.5 The Berkeley Project Management Processes Maturity Model

C. William Ibbs and Dr. Young Hoon Kwak introduced the PM2 model is to help project managers justify investments of project management by delivering value out of projects. In order to do that, well set processes and methodologies need to be defined and continuously improved (Kwak & Ibbs, 2000).

Kwak and Ibbs compared and integrated different maturity models in 2000 to improve their own model (Berkeley's Project management Process Maturity (PM)2 model which they put in 1997. Some of the models they compared their model to were: Software Engineering Institute's Capability Maturity Model (CMM), McCauley's Maturity Model, Hink's Information Technology and Process Maturity model, Microframe's Project Management Maturity Model, Fincher's Project Management Maturity Model, Dooley's New Product Development Maturity Model. The paper also talked about the importance of benchmarking and Return on Investment study on projects (Kwak & Ibbs 2000).

The Berkeley Project Management Process Maturity (PM)2 Model is an efficient and organized approach to help organizations achieve higher project management maturity levels. The advantage of this model, identified by the authors is that it does not target specific audiences; it can be implemented for any organization applying project management processes and practices (Kwak & Ibbs 2000).

The model in 2000 included more features than the original model such as measuring financial effectiveness of project management, identifying relationships between project performance and project management effectiveness and project management return on investment calculation (Kwak & Ibbs 2000).

The model is structured into 5 levels of maturity (Likert Scale) where each level is broken down into the nine knowledge areas (Integration, Scope, Time, Cost, Quality, Human Resource, Communications, Risk and Procurement) from the project management book of knowledge (PMBOK 1996) from PMI (kwak & Ibbs 2000).

Below, Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3 show the key project management processes under each level, major organizational characteristics under each level and the characteristics of the Berkeley PM2 model consecutively.

Table 1: Key Project Management Processes

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Table 2: Major Organizational Characteristics

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Table 3: Characteristics Of The Berkeley (Pm) 2 Model

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

2.6 Project management process maturity (PM)2 model

An improvement to the Berkeley Project management process maturity model was introduced in 1997 and revisited in 2000 (Kwak & Ibbs 2000). The authors found out that the model was not detailed and comprehensive enough and they also wanted to improve the model further more by adapting updated Project management practices and researches (Kwak & Ibbs 2002).

The following Figure (Figure 2.) shows how the improved model looks like:

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 2: Levels of PM2

(Kwak and Ibbs, 2002, p.152)

2.7 Capability Maturity Model (CMM)

2.7.1 Background of CMMs

The Capability Maturity Model (CMM) was based on the principles of statistical quality control put together by Walter Shewhart in the 1930s. W. Edwards Deming, Joseph Juran and Philip Crosby improved Shewhart's principals further more (Chrissis, Levine, Shrum (2009). CMM focused on process improvement based on (Plan, Do, Check, Act or PDCA cycle) process improvement approach developed by Walter Shewhart (Mutafelija & Stromberg 2003).

Then the Software Engineering Institute (Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA) carried on broad exploration on improving the quality of the software development process based on those previous principals. As a result, the Capability Maturity Model for software (SW-CMM) was developed as a progressive standard to help an organization continuously improve its software processes (Kwak & Ibbs 2000).

More models were derived from the SW- CMM and they were targeted for other categories such as, systems engineering, software acquisition, human resource management, and integrated product and process development. Therefore, in general CMMs are sets of best practices used to improve organizations' performance (Chrissis, Levine & Shrum 2009).

2.8 CMMI

2.8.1 Background of CMMI

As we mentioned in the previous section, Software Capability Maturity Model was the basis of development of new CMM models in different categories. Creating such CMMs created many challenges for organizations. There was an increased cost and difficulty when one organization decided to adapt different CMMs; therefore it was difficult to improve in the same way across the same organization. The main reason behind such challenges is that the models had more differences than similarities, some of the differences were related to the structure of the model, the vocabulary used and they included conflicting parts with other CMMs. Moreover, many activities were repeated for each CMM used such as training, assessments and improvement steps (Chrissis, Levine & Shrum 2009).

The Software Engineering Institute decided to find a solution for the above challenges in 1997, by starting the CMM integration project, which was managed by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. The experiences of many experts from different organizations and CMM experts were utilized to create an improved and integrated model that will solve the issues of duplication of work and repetition (Chrissis, Levine & Shrum 2009).

As a result of the improvement project of CMM back in 1997, the developed CMMI still shared the same main objective of CMMs, which is to recognize best practices to improve business processes of organizations. Moreover, the developed CMMI included a set of integrated models covering three disciplines, which were software engineering, systems engineering and integrated product and process development. However, currently the CMMI Product Suite covers those three disciplines plus two more disciplines covering supplier management and acquisition (Chrissis, Levine & Shrum 2009).

[...]

• Université: British University in Dubai
• Auteur: Heba AlShehhi (Auteur)
• Année de publication: 2011
• Pages: 82
• N° de catalogue: V387681
• ISBN (ebook): 9783668660625
• ISBN (Livre): 9783668660632
• Langue: anglais
• mots-clé: implementation, maturity, models, united, arab, emirates