This presentation explains the structure of a CMMI-styled maturity model using a toy example: a small maturity model developed especially for this presentation called the Teaching CMM. This toy example models typical university teaching (lectures, exams) and should therefore be recognisable for academic audiences.

1. CMMI overview taken from “Agile/lean development and CMMI”, SEPG'06 presentation by Jeffrey L. Dutton and Richard S. McCabe www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/adoption/pdf/dutton.pdf Pascal van Eck Information Systems University of Twente IS Seminar June 9, 2009 What's really in a CMMI-styled maturity model? The “Teaching CMM” as an example

2. ML 5: Optimizing ML 5: Quantitatively Managed ML 3: Defined ML 2: Managed Four categories of processes Requiremens Definition Requiremens Management A CMMI-styled maturity model is much more than only a set of process names in a table

3. The toy example: The Teaching CMM (TCMM) TCMM: continuous representation TCMM: staged representation This presentation explains the structure of a CMMI-styled maturity model using a toy example

4. The Teaching CMM (TCMM) is a very unofficial and very small maturity model, developed just for this presentation Course is `unit of analysis' Courses have `learning objectives' Link to VIST printout

5. (unnamed) ML 5 ML 4 ML 3 LOD ML 2 ID AD Instruction Delivery (ID) Assessment Delivery (AD) Learning Objective Development (LOD) The `Teaching Capability Maturity Model' (TCMM) has three process areas in one (unnamed) category

6. In the continuous representation, each process area gets a capability level Link to appraisal result Grouped in categories Description usually includes list of typical work products

15. AD: is an exam scheduled?

17. AD, GG 2, SP 2.1 (Policy): is there an assessment policy? Almost: currently being implemented in MB

18. LOD, GG 3, SP 3.1 (Describe process): ...

19. CL ID 2 AD 2 LOD 1 Instruction Delivery (ID): CL 2 Assessment Delivery (AD): CL 2 Learning Objective Dev. (LOD): CL 1 Appraisal results of typical UT courses: capability level 2 for ID and AD, but capability level 1 for LOD

20. The staged representation groups process areas in maturity levels: we get a 2D grid (with the grouping in categories) Link to appraisal result Grouped in categories and in maturity levels

24. TCMM: where do the learning objectives come from? They are only developed at level 3! CMMI-DEV v1.2: where do the requirements come from that are managed at level 2? They are only developed at level 3! In the continuous representation, process areas are not `at a level' -> no implied order See UT example: ID and AD (ML 2 process area) are performed at a higher level than LOD (ML 3 process area) The staged representation does enforce order: all goals of PAs at ML 2 have to be met to be at ML 3 Does CMMI enforce any order on activities?

25. Actually, CMMI-DEV v1.2 suggests many relations between process areas, not just causal order

26. Do not attach too much semantics to the names of the process areas only (it is just the name for a handful of goals) In principle, in the continuous representation, CMMI does not enforce any order of processes In the staged representation, CMMI does enforce some order In summary, the real content of a CMMI-styled MM is represented by the goal specifications, not by a grid