Introduction

Capability maturity models (CMM), an out growth of the decades old quality movement, and originally developed by Carnegie Mellon University's Software Engineering Institute for the US Defense Department in the 1980s as a way to improve software engineering, has become the inspiration for similar models addressing every aspect of public management by governments around the world. CMM posits several evolutionary stages that organizations must pass through to achieve increasingly higher levels of capability in achieving quality. Stages are determined by research evidence, expert opinion, best practices and evaluations. While CMM has produced some impressive gains, it has drawn criticism for lacking a theoretical underpinning, exorbitant costs, being somewhat subjective and lack of success in many organizations. The field has no universal agreed upon standards, so it may be necessary to create an organization to study and vet various CMM applications. The field as it matures presents an excellent opportunity to study public management in the context of organizations employing CMM.

The European software industry has become accustomed to the application of quality management systems (QMS) based on ISO 9000 as a strategy for software quality improvement. The Capability Maturity Model (CMM) has not seen widespread use within Europe Precisely because the CMM appears impressive in its usefulness it is worth examining its strengths and weaknesses so that we can assess its likely impact on the European software industry. The paper summarises the fundamental weaknesses of the CMM and also considers the benefits the CMM has to offer to existing ISO certified organisations. Conversely, we highlight the lack of attention to detail in the CMM to issues which are addressed in the ISO standard. We also assess the likely impact of Spice and Bootstrap, the European alternatives to the CMM.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to report the production of the key process areas (KPAs) for an e‐capability maturity model for construction organisations, based on drivers and barriers to e‐procurement.Design/methodology/approachPrevious researchers have recognised the positive consequences of possessing a model to sustain the embedment of any business process within an organisation. The capability maturity model progressed into one of the most internationally recognised since the release of the Software Capability Maturity Model (CMM) in 1991. Since then, many CMMs have been developed. This paper reports on how a CMM based on drivers and barriers to e‐procurement identified in Eadie et al. can be developed to form the KPAs in the formation of a model to gauge the maturity of an organisation in relation to e‐procurement.FindingsIt was found that factor analysis could be used as a data reduction technique to reduce the 20 drivers and 32 barriers identified as being applicable to e‐procurement in construction, to 12 KPAs: Quality management system; Cost management system; Intergroup coordination; Time management system; Operational analysis; Organisational change management system; Integrated teaming; Governance management system; Requirements development; Knowledge management system; Integration management system; and Organisational environment.Originality/valueThis paper provides particulars of a research project which uses factor analysis to produce a set of KPAs from the drivers and barriers identified in Eadie et al. These KPAs are then subjected to a mapping process linking them to maturity levels to develop a CMM to analyse the e‐procurement capability of construction organisations. This mapping will be reported in a later paper. This e‐readiness of organisations will indicate the current state of a construction organisation in terms of its readiness to carry out e‐procurement. The paper describes in detail the identification of the KPAs.

The Software Engineering Institute's Softwares Process Maturity Model was developed to provide a basis for assessing an organization's ability to perform software engineering activities. It also provides a guide for improving an organization's software engineering capability. The maturity model was designed on the basis of concepts associated with developing new, large, complex systems. This has led to difficulties in applying the model to organizations involved entirely in software maintenance. The author addresses the tailoring issues encountered in applying the software maturity model to a large maintenance organization at Paramax Space Systems Operation. It is concluded that the issues that arise when the Capability Maturity Model is applied to a software sustaining engineering organization are significant but do not prohibit the use of the model as a guide for software process improvement. Issues mainly arise with the treatment requirements and differences in project management needs. The primary tailoring issues are ones of wording as opposed to applicability to maintenance activities. >

Software process management of top companies in Taiwan: A comparative study

work of W. Edwards Deming has convinced industry that must first measure quality and then emphasise process to improve quality. In response to Deming's arguments and in light of perception that software industry is unable to produce quality products on schedule, and within budget, more software development organisations are now emphasising process measurement, monitoring, and assessment. This paper describes what is meant by software process and discusses an approach for its measurement and improvement. INTRODUCTION Unreliable software makes big news, from emergency services disasters to social security payment blunders. Improved software quality is essential to ensure reliable products and services, and gain customer satisfaction. While software development has existed for more than four decades, we failed so far to make as an industry and as an engineering discipline rather than craft. Developing reliable and usable software that is delivered on and within budget still represents difficult endeavour for many organisations. As role of software becomes increasingly critical for businesses as well as for human lives, problems caused by software products that are late, over budget, or that do not work, become magnified. If lives are lost or people inconvenienced due to incapable computer software, news media is there to make big stories. Organisations are realising that their fundamental problems is immaturity of their software process. Robert Lai (1993) proposes that process improvement is second maturity wave of software industry. He states that the first wave of software was developed using waterfall model in 1970's. Today we are Transactions on Information and Communications Technologies vol 8, © 1994 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3517 216 Software Management in midst of second wave maturity movement as we attempt to formally define development process and best ways to continuously improve it (Lai 1993). Taking lead in this area has been Watts Humphrey (Humphrey 1989, 1990, 1991), and Software Engineering Institute (SEI) at Carnegie Mellon University. SEI started in 1986 to develop process maturity framework to help organisations appraise maturity of their software process, and to provide guidance for organisations to improve their software process capability. A brief description of framework was released in September 1987, including maturity questionnaire. SEI evolved model and questionnaire into 5 -Level Capability Maturity Model (CMM) in 1991. In February 1993, released CMM version 1.1 (Paulk et al 1993). This paper discusses software process and describes capability maturity model (CMM). It also shows how CMM can be used as basis to measure maturity of software process of an organisation and plan its improvement. SOFTWARE QUALITY AND PROCESS IMPROVEMENT In his book Quality is Free Phil Crosby states that: Quality is free. It is not gift, is free. What cost money are unqualify of things all actions that involve not doing jobs right first time (Crosby 1980). If such statement is true for many disciplines, is particularly true for evidence is abundant in number of software products which exceeded their budget, were produced late, failed to satisfy user requirements, and are full of bugs. demand for improved software quality is increasing to ensure reliable products and services. benefits of improved quality comes in form of reduction in failure costs. For software projects failure costs include (DTI 1992): • costs of correcting defects, both before and after delivery • overruns against and budget • unnecessary high maintenance costs • indirect costs which users incur due to poor quality software link between process maturity and software quality is expressed in premise that The quality of software system is governed by quality of process used to develop and maintain it. One stumbling block to improving software quality seems to be that not enough attention is paid to overall development process itself. While software professionals typically devote their to developing, testing or documenting software products, no one has prime responsibility for improving software process. Experience has shown that if Transactions on Information and Communications Technologies vol 8, © 1994 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3517 Managing Systems 217 no one is working on software process, orderly improvement is unlikely. process certainly won't improve itself, rather, most likely, will deteriorate over time. Continuous improvement can occur only if process infrastructure is in place. Watts Humphrey argues in an early article published in Datamation, April 1989 that: Without work on process, there will be little or no progress in improving software. THE SOFTWARE PROCESS Adopting process view of software development represents revolutionary change in perspective. A process orientation to software development involves elements of structure, focus, measurement, ownership, skills, and supporting technology. In this section we investigate what is meant by software process. What Is Software Process According to Webster's dictionary, process is a system of operations in producing something .. series of actions, changes, or functions that achieve an end result. Chambers Concise Dictionary defines process as a series of actions or events .. sequence of operations or changes undergone. IEEE defines process as a sequence of steps performed for given purpose. In general business context, process is defined as a structured, measured set of activities designed to produce specified output for particular customer or market (Davenport 1993). These definitions put strong emphasis on HOW work is done, in contrast to product focus's emphasis on WHAT. Accordingly, process can be considered as a specific ordering of work activities across and place, with beginning, an end, and clearly identified inputs and outputs: structure for action. In this paper we will adopt following definitions quoted in (Humphrey 1990, Paulk et al 1993) are intended to encompass software throughout its life, which covers new development, enhancement, and repair. software process is The set of activities, methods, and practices used in production and evolution of software. software engineering process is The total set of software engineering activities needed to transform user's requirements into software. Transactions on Information and Communications Technologies vol 8, © 1994 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3517 218 Software Management People and Software Process Software development is still people-intensive activity. Talented people are most important element in any software organisation. Even if you get best people available, if they do not follow common process, if everyone wrote in different programming languages, used different conventions, or didn't co-ordinate their design and code changes with their peers, results will be chaos. Successful software organisations have learned that even best professionals need structured and disciplined environment in which to do cooperative work. Software organisations that do not establish such disciplines condemn their people to endless hours of repetitively solving technically trivial problems. obvious fact is that attracting best people is vital, but is also essential to support them with an effectively managed software process. Technology and Software Process Another myth is widespread belief that some technologically advanced tool or method will provide magic answer to software crisis. This is not only wrong, but is dangerous. Organisations which jumped on bandwagon of CASE tools, and ended up in failure and wasted and effort have learned their lesson hard way. Just ask yourself before introducing technology: What do I want to automate? In absence of defined, practised, and managed process, introducing automation can lead to increased chaos. There are several factors which limit effective use of software technology: an illdefined process, inconsistent process implementation, and poor process management. Software technology cannot be fully effective until these problems have been properly addressed. Need for Defined Process If no effort is made to define and enhance software development process across whole organisation, each software development project latches on to its own tools, methods, and practices with little guidance available on how to use them. This ad hoc approach will not be sufficient to tackle task of developing complex software systems. goal of software process management is to enable organisations to produce software that meets cost, schedules, and quality objectives. principles are same that underpins statistical process control-principles that have been successfully used in controlling scientific experiments and in high -volume manufacturing operations. Statistical concepts have been found to be just as applicable to software development as they are to production of manufactured goods such as motor cars. Applying such concepts will only be possible if there is defined and managed process. Software Process Models Transactions on Information and Communications Technologies vol 8, © 1994 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3517

PurposeThe manner in which information is used and communicated in the medical environment has been revolutionized by the introduction of electronic storage, manipulation and communication of information. This change has brought with it many challenges in information security. This research seeks to propose a practical application, the capability maturity model (CMM), to meet the needs of medical information security practice.Design/methodology/approachThis paper builds on previous work by the author using the Tactical Information Governance for Security model developed for the medical setting. An essential element of this model is the ability to assess current capability of a practice to meet the needs of security and to identify how improvements can be made. Existing CMM models are reviewed to inform construction of an operational framework for capability assessment.FindingsAn operational capability framework for assessing security capability in medical practice, based on CMM principles, is presented. An example of the use of this framework is modelled using backup to provide proof of concept.Practical implicationsIn an environment that is reliant on doctors and non‐technical staff to implement security, an operational framework to improve practice though capability evaluation is needed. The framework presents activities in simple, non‐technical terms and separates these activities into discrete sections resulting in improvement that can be easily managed and implemented.Originality/valueThe operational framework developed demonstrates how practical security practice improvement can be achieved in a medical environment, whilst meeting strategic objectives, best practice and external validation. This paper develops this process through exploration and application of existing CMMs.

In November 1998, the CSC SEAS Center became the sixth organization in the world ever to have attained the rating of Capability Maturity Model (CMM) CMM Level 5.This achievement was the culmination of an aggressive process improvement initiative which began in mid-1994. The Software Engineering Institute (SEI) CMM(Reference 1) is a worldwide recognized benchmark for software organizations, used to assess the maturity and quality of an organization's software process. The SEAS Center has twice reaffirmed its high maturity performance by independent assessments. Since the start of the focused improvement program in 1994, detailed records of cost, impacts, activities and overall approach have been captured, tracked, and analyzed so that other CSC programs could capitalize on the SEAS efforts and experiences. This paper is a direct result of the collection and analysis of that process experience data.After a brief overview of the SEAS organization and its aggressive process improvement approach, this paper describes the coordination of improvement initiatives, the role of goals and industry benchmarks, the organizational strategy, and the use of key documents in measuring improvements. Additional discussion covers the investment and benefits of an improvement program. Finally, based on the SEAS experience, the paper presents seven key recommendations for any organization planning to initiate a process improvement program.

The capability maturity model (CMM), developed to present sets of recommended practices in a number of key process areas that have been shown to enhance software-development and maintenance capability, is discussed. The CMM was designed to help developers select process-improvement strategies by determining their current process maturity and identifying the issues most critical to improving their software quality and process. The initial release of the CMM, version 1.0, was reviewed and used by the software community during 1991 and 1992. A workshop on CMM 1.0, held in April 1992, was attended by about 200 software professionals. The current version of the CMM is the result of the feedback from that workshop and ongoing feedback from the software community. The technical report that describes version 1.1. is summarised. >

In order to improve transparency and stabilise health care costs, several countries have decided to reform their healthcare system on the basis of diagnosis-related groups (DRG). DRGs are not only used for classifying medical treatments, but also for case-based reimbursement, hence induce active competition among hospitals, forcing them to become more efficient and effective. In consequence, hospitals are investing considerably in process orientation and management. However, to date there is neither a consensus on what capabilities hospitals need to acquire for becoming process-oriented, nor a general agreement on the sequence of development stages they have to traverse. To this end, this study proposes an empirically grounded conceptualisation of process management capabilities and presents a staged capability maturity model algorithmically derived on the basis of empirical data from 129 acute somatic hospitals in Switzerland. The five capability maturity levels start with ‘encouragement of process orientation’ (level 1), ‘case-by-case handling’ (level 2), and ‘defined processes’ (level 3). Ultimately, hospitals can reach the levels ‘occasional corrective action’ (level 4) and ‘closed loop improvement’ (level 5). The empirically derived model reveals why existing, generic capability maturity models for process management are not applicable in the hospitals context: their comparatively high complexity on the one hand and their strong focus on topics like an adequate IT integration and process automation on the other make them inadequate for solving the problems felt in the hospital sector, which are primarily of cultural and structural nature. We deem the proposed capability maturity model capable to overcome these shortcomings.

The Capability Maturity Model (CMM) was developed by the Software Engineering Insitute (SEI) at Carnegie Mellon University to provide a methodology for assessing an organization's capability in software engineering. The paper presents an attempt to generalize the CMM from software engineering to systems engineering. Starting from an overview and comparison of systems and software engineering disciplines, a brief summary of the original CMM is provided. The authors analyze if and how its criteria and key areas are transferrable to systems engineering. Allowing for the differences between the systems and software engineering processes, they propose the modifications necessary to adapt and generalize the SEI methodology accordingly. As a result the outline of a Systems Engineering Maturity Model is presented.

Supplementing the capability maturity model with the personal software process

The Capability Maturity Model ® Integration (CMMI SM ) Project is a joint Industry—Government—Software Engineering Institute collaborative effort to develop an enterprise‐wide process improvement product suite based on existing capability models and methods. The Project is sponsored by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense as well as by the National Defense Industrial Association Systems Engineering Committee. The first completed CMMI SM product suite was released to the public for adoption in December 2000. This paper will describe the origins and rationale for the CMMI SM Project, providing significant and detailed background information as well as a snapshot of current status and future plans. It will highlight some of the documented benefits of Capability Maturity Models, with specific focus on software engineering since this is the discipline where the greatest savings have been documented as a result of implementation of process improvement in engineering development. The paper will describe the CMMI SM product suite components, and delineats some of the anticipated benefits from CMMI SM adoption. Finally, the paper will discuss the CMMI SM Version 1.1 update. © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Syst Eng 5: 3–6, 2002; DOI 10.1002/sys.10011

BackgroundThe African Health Professions Regulatory Collaborative (ARC) was launched in 2011 to support countries in East, Central, and Southern Africa to safely and sustainably expand HIV service delivery by nurses and midwives. While the World Health Organization recommended nurse initiated and managed antiretroviral therapy, many countries in this region had not updated their national regulations to ensure nurses and midwives were authorized and trained to provide essential HIV services. For four years, ARC awarded annual grants, convened regional meetings, and provided technical assistance to country teams of nursing and midwifery leaders to improve national regulations related to safe HIV service delivery. We examined the impact of the program on national regulations and the leadership and organizational capacity of country teams.MethodsData was collected to quantify the level of participation in ARC by each country (number of grants received, number of regional meetings attended, and amount of technical assistance received). The level of participation was analyzed according to two primary outcome measures: 1) changes in national regulations and 2) improvements in leadership and organizational capacity of country teams. Changes in national regulations were defined as advancement of one “stage” on a capability maturity model; nursing and midwifery leadership and organizational capacity was measured by a group survey at the end of the program.ResultsSeventeen countries participated in ARC between 2012 and 2016. Thirty-three grants were awarded; the majority addressed continuing professional development (20; 61%) and scopes of practice (6; 18%). Fourteen countries (representing approximately two-thirds of grants) progressed at least one stage on the capability maturity model. There were significant increases in all five domains of leadership and organizational capacity (p < 0.01). The number of grants (Kendall’s tau = 0.56, p = 0.02), duration of technical assistance (Kendall’s tau = 0.50, p = 0.03), and number of learning sessions attended (Kendall’s tau = 0.46, p = 0.04) were significantly associated with improvements in in-country collaboration between nursing and midwifery organizations.ConclusionsThe ARC program improved national nursing regulations in participating countries and increased reported leadership, organizational capacity, and collaboration among national nursing and midwifery organizations. These changes help ensure national policies and professional regulations underpin nurse initiated and managed treatment for people living with HIV.

IQM-CMM: A Framework for Assessing Organizational Information Quality Management Capability Maturity