Abstract
The Capability Maturity Model (CMM) of the Software Engineering Institute has played a seminal role in the field of software process improvement (SPI). Most companies actively interested in SPI will have some familiarity with the model, and indeed CMM assessments are now legally required in the US for government software procurement. The model was, however, developed for defence contract work involving large organisations, and its generalisation to other software development contexts is therefore problematic (e.g. in-house projects, small software houses). This paper concerns the experiences of a representative sample of UK companies, untypical of the traditional application domain of the CMM, who have actively considered the adoption of the CMM. All but one rejected the model. The results are analysed in terms of Roger’s seminal work on technology transfer. The main reason for rejection was the lack of a prior engineering culture in the companies, compounded by the failure to achieve short-term gains. External imposition of the CMM was another inauspicious factor. It is concluded that, for the CMM to achieve wider adoption, it must be made simpler, more easily tailored and more readily linked to business goals.
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
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.
References
Bell (1992). TRILLIUM - Telecom software product development capability assessment model, draft 2. 1, Bell Canada, July 1992.
Broadman, J. G. and Johnson, D. L. (1994) What small businesses and small organisations say about the CMM. In 16th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 331–340.
Earl, M. J. (1989) Management Strategies for Information Technology. Prentice Hall International (UK) Ltd.
Humphrey, W.S. (1987a) Characterizing the software process: A maturity framework. Technical Report CMU/SEI-87-TR-11, Software Engineering Institute.
Humphrey, W.S. (1987b) A method for assessing the software engineering capability of contractors. Technical Report CMU/SEI-87-TR-23, Software Engineering Institute.
Humphrey, W. S. (1990) Managing the Software Process. Addison Wesley Publishing Company Inc.
Humphrey, W. S., Snyder, T. R., and Willis, T. R. (1991) Software process improvement at Hughes aircraft. IEEE Software, 8 (4): 11–23.
Humphrey, W. S. (1996) Using a Defined and Measured Personal Software Process. IEEE Software, 13 (3): 77–88.
Hayes, W. and Zubrow, D. (1995) Moving on up: Experience doing CMM based process improvement. Technical Report CMU/SEI-TR-95–008, Software Engineering Institute.
Joseph M. Juran. (1988) Juran’s Quality Control Handbook. McGraw-Hill Inc., 4th edition.
Kitson, D. H. and Masters, S. (1992) An analysis of SEI process improvement assessment results: 1987–1991. Technical Report CMU/SEI-92-TR-24, Software Engineering Institute.
Kolind, J. P. (1996). The Capability Maturity Model in the United Kingdom. Master’s thesis, University of Manchester.
Lequesne, P. N. (1988). Individual and organisational factors in the design of IPSEs. Computer Journal 31 (5): 391–397.
McMaster, T. and Kautz, K. (1993). The failure to introduce system development methods: a factor-based approach. In Proceedings of the IFIP conference on Diffusion, Transfer and Implementation of Information Technology Pittsburgh.
Paulk, M. C., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M. B., and Weber, C. V. (1993a) Capability Maturity Model for software, Version 1.1. Technical Report CMU/SEI-93-TR24, Software Engineering Institute.
Paulk, M. C., Weber, C. V., Garcia, S. M., Chrissis, M. B., and Bush, M. (1993b) Key practices of the Capability Maturity Model, version 1.1. Technical Report CMU/SEI-93-TR-25, Software Engineering Institute.
Rogers, E. M. (1971) Communication of Innovations: A Cross-cultural approach. The Free Press, New York.
Sherdil, K. and Mahhavji, N.H. (1996) Human-oriented improvement in the software process. Lecture Notes In Computer Science 1149: 145–166.
Saeidain, H. and Kuzara, R. (1995) SEI Capability Maturity Model’s impact on contractors. Computer, 28 (1): 16–26.
Wastell, D. G. and Sewards, A. (1995) An information system profile of the UK manufacturing sector. Journal of Information Technology, 10 (3): 179–189.
Wastell, D.G. (1996). The fetish of technique: methodology as a social defence.Information Systems Journal, 6 (1): 25–40.
Zelkowitz, M. V. (1996) Software engineering technology infusion within NASA. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 43 (3): 250–261.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1997 IFIP International Federation for Information Processing
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kolind, J.P., Wastell, D.G. (1997). The SEI’s Capability Maturity Model: a critical survey of adoption experiences in a cross-section of Typical UK companies. In: McMaster, T., Mumford, E., Swanson, E.B., Warboys, B., Wastell, D. (eds) Facilitating Technology Transfer through Partnership. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-35092-9_20
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-35092-9_20
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-5041-2956-5
Online ISBN: 978-0-387-35092-9
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive