Premium
2.5.3 Two Approaches to CMM SM Integration
Author(s) -
Sheard Sarah A.,
Ibrahim Linda,
Rose Susan,
Makhlouf Wafa
Publication year - 1998
Publication title -
incose international symposium
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
ISSN - 2334-5837
DOI - 10.1002/j.2334-5837.1998.tb00088.x
Subject(s) - maturity (psychological) , variety (cybernetics) , aviation , capability maturity model , process (computing) , process management , government (linguistics) , operations research , computer science , engineering , systems engineering , management science , political science , artificial intelligence , linguistics , philosophy , software , law , programming language , aerospace engineering , operating system
The number of process improvement models and standards is vast. [Sheard 1997], [Quagmire 1997]. Even restricting consideration to official Capability Maturity Models SM (CMM SM ) 1 leaves a large enough number of models that an organization attempting to mature its processes has a variety to choose from, each with a different focus. The decision of which model to select may be difficult, as there may be parts of two or more models that are needed to meet all of the organization's improvement objectives. In these cases, perhaps the best choice is not to choose, but to integrate. Two U.S. government organizations, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and U.S. Army Simulation, Training and Instrumentation Command (STRICOM) have consolidated existing CMMs into integrated models that best fit each organization's needs. This paper describes the two approaches used to accomplish the CMM integration.