Process Improvement in Turbulent Times — Is CMM Still an Answer?

  • Karl Lebsanft
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2188)


In the volatile internet and e-business markets with a dominating factor 'speed' we have to face rapidly changing market and user requirements. Subsequently we have to give up development guidance by traditional — ‘heavy weight’ — processes to be able to react quickly enough. The big challenge is to find the right balance between clear orientation towards quality and reliability goals on the one hand and improving the ability to deliver to the market with higher frequency. Process improvement based on the Capability Maturity Model has demonstrated its benefit all over the world, but in these times there are voices claiming that CMM is no longer suited to the fast-paced, flexible, and innovative development required in the internet age. Experience at Siemens shows a changing world of IT business with consequences concerning process improvement. When properly used, CMM is still an excellent guide for successful software development —also in these ‘agile times’.


Innovation Capability Turbulent Time Improve Software Process Process Documentation Capability Maturity Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Kent Beck, “eXtreme Programming Explained” Addison-Wesley, 2000Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Martin Fowler, “Put your Process on a Diet”, Software Development, December 2000Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bodo Hasubek, “Whoever stands still falls behind: The Innovation Cockpit-Measurement and Control of the Innovation Capability”, Software @ Siemens, March, 2001,
  4. 4.
    Steve McConnell, “Rapid Development: Taming Wild Software Schedules, Microsoft Press, 1996Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mark Paulk, “XP from a CMM Perspective”, IEEE Dynabook on “eXtreme Programming: Pros and Cons-What Questions Remain?”, 2000Google Scholar
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
    Judy Rothman, “Applying System Thinking to the Issues of Software Product Development”, Systems Dynamics Conference, Cambridge, MA, 1996Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Werner Mellis, “Software Quality Management in Turbulent Times-Are there Alternatives to Process Oriented Software Quality Management?”, CONQUEST 1999, Nuremberg, Sept. 1999Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Frances Paulisch and Axel Völker, “Best Practices for Software and Quality: The Techniques and their Business Benefit”, The Second World Congress for Software Quality, Yokohama, Japan, 2000Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Axel Völker, Karl Lebsanft, Frances Paulisch, “ Agility-The Key to Success in Changing Markets and Technologies”, ESEPG 2001, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Michael Cusumano, Sloan School of Management, MIT “Etablierte Firmen haben den Vertrauensvorschuss!”, SiemensWelt 6/2001, pp. 44–45Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bill Curtis, William E. Hefley, Sally Miller, “People Capability Maturity Model”, Software Engineering Institute, September 1995Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karl Lebsanft
    • 1
  1. 1.Siemens AG, Corporate Technology — Software & EngineeringMünchenGermany

Personalised recommendations