Achieving CMMI Level 2 with Enhanced Extreme Programming Approach

  • Tuomo Kähkönen
  • Pekka Abrahamsson
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3009)


The relationship between agile methods and Software Engineering Institute’s CMM approach is often debated. Some authors argue that the approaches are compatible, while others have criticized the application of agile methods from the CMM perspective. Only few CMM based assessments have been performed on projects using agile approaches. This paper explores an empirical case where a project using Extreme Programming (XP) based approach was assessed using the CMMI framework. The results provide empirical evidence pointing out that it is possible to achieve maturity level 2 with approach based on XP. Yet, the results confirm that XP, as it is defined, is not sufficient. This study demonstrates that it is possible to use the CMMI for assessing and improving agile processes. However, the analysis reveals that assessing an agile organization requires more interpretations than normally would be the case. It is further concluded that the CMMI model does not always support interpretations in an agile context.


Configuration Management Change Request User Story Agile Method Planning Team 
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.
    Capability Maturity Model® Integration (CMMI), Version 1.1: Carnegie Mellon University (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beck, K.: Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change. Addison-Wesley, Upper Saddle River (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Paulk, M.: Agile Methodologies and Process Discipline. CrossTalk The Journal of Defense Software Engineering, 15–18 (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fowler, M.: Is Design Dead. In: Succi, G., Marchesi, M. (eds.) Extreme Programming Examined, pp. 3–18. Addison-Wessley, Reading (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Henderson-Sellers, B.: Agile or Rigorous OO Methodologies: Getting the Best of Both Worlds. Cutter IT Journal 15, 25–33 (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boehm, B.: Get Ready for Agile Methods, with Care. IEEE Computer, 64–69 (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boehm, B., Turner, R.: Balancing Agility and Discipline. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Turner, R., Jain, A.: Agile Meets CMMI: Culture Clash or Common Cause? Presented at 2nd XP and 1st Agile Universe Conference, Chigago, IL (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Highsmith, J.: What Is Agile Software Development? CrossTalk The Journal of Defense Software Engineering, 4–9 (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Reifer, D.: XP and the CMM. IEEE Software, 14–15 (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Glass, R.: Agile Versus Traditional: Make Love, Not War! Cutter IT Journal 14, 12–18 (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Glazer, H.: Dispelling the Process Myth: Having a Process Does Not Mean Sacrificing Agility or Creativity. CrossTalk The Journal of Defense Software Engineering, 27–30 (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Martinsson, J.: Maturing XP Through the CMM. Presented at XP2003, Genova, Italy (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vriens, C.: Certifying for CMM Level 2 and ISO9001 with XP@Scrum. Presented at Agile Development Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wagner, L.: Extreme Requirements Engineering. Cutter IT Journal 14, 34–38 (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Paulk, M.: Extreme Programming from a CMM Perspective. IEEE Software, 19–26 (2001)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Allen, P.: Light Methodologies and CBD. Component Development Strategies XI, 1–16 (2001)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nawroski, J., Jainski, M., Walter, B.: Extreme Programming Modified: Embrace Requirements Engineering Practices. Presented at IEEE Joint International Conference on Requirements Engineering, RE 2002 (2002)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Humphrey, W.S.: Comments on eXtreme Programming (2000),
  20. 20.
    Nawrocki, J.R., Walter, B., Wojciechowski, A.: Comparison of CMM level 2 and eXtreme programming. In: Presented at 7th European Conference on Software Quality, Helsinki, Finland (2002)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jeffries, R.: Extreme Programming and Capability Maturity Model (2000),
  22. 22.
    Martinsson, J.: Maturing Extreme Programming Through the CMM. Department of Computer Science. Lund University, Lund (2002)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chrissis, M.B., Konrad, M., Shrun, S.: CMMI Guidelines for Process Integration and Product Improvement. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2003)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Royce, W.: CMM vs. CMMI: From conventional to Modern Software Management,Rational Edge (2002)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Crosby, P.: Quality is Free. McGraw-Hill, New York (1979)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Deming, W.: Out of the Crisis. MIT Center for Advanced Engineering, Cambridge (1986)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Juran, J.M.: Juran on Planning Quality. MacMillan, New York (1988)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Humphrey, W.S.: Managing the Software Process. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1989)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Paulk, M.: Using the Software CMM in Small Organizations. Presented at The Joint 1998 Proceedings of the Pacific Northwest Software Quality Conference and the Eighth International Conference on Software Quality, Portland, Oregon (1998)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Abrahamsson, P.: Extreme Programming: First Results from a Controlled Case Study. Presented at 29th Euromicro Conference, Belek, Antalaya, Turkey (2003)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Standard CMMI Appraisal Method for Process Improvement (SCAMPI), Version 1.1: Method Definition Document. Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburg (2001)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Appraisal Requirements for CMMI (ARC) V1.1. Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburg (2001)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lippert, M., Becker-Pechau, P., Breitling, H., Koch, J., Kornstädt, A., Roock, S., Schmolitzky, A., Wolf, H., Züllighoven, H.: Developing Complex Projects Using XP with Extensions. IEEE Computer, 67–73 (2003)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Beck, K.: Embracing Change With Extreme Programming. IEEE Computer 32, 70–77 (1999)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Jeffries, R., Anderson, A., Hendrickson, C.: Extreme Programming Installed. Addison-Wesley, Upper Saddle River (2001)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Humphrey, W.S.: A discipline for software engineering. Addison Wesley, Reading (1995)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Dingsøyr, T., Hanssen, G.K.: Extending Agile Methods: Postmortem Reviews as Extended Feedback. Presented at 4th International Workshop on Learning Software Organizations, Chicago, Illinois, USA (2002)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Prusak, L.: Knowledge in organizations. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford (1997)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Robertson, M., Sørensen, C., Swan, J.: Survival of the leanest: Intensive knowledge work and groupware adaptation. Information Technology & People 14, 334–352 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kähkönen, T., Abrahamsson, P.: Digging into the Fundamentals of Extreme Programming - Building the Theoretical Base for Agile Methods. Presented at Euromicro 2003, Belek, Antalaya, Turkey (2003)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Cockburn, A.: Agile Software Development Joins the “Would-Be” Crowd. Cutter IT Journal 15, 6–12 (2002)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Polyani, M.: The Tacit Dimension. Anchor, New York (1967)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H.: The Kowledge Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford University Press, Inc., New York (1995)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Tuomi, I.: Corporate Knowledge: Theory and Practice of Intelligent Organizations. Metaxis, Helsinki (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tuomo Kähkönen
    • 1
  • Pekka Abrahamsson
    • 2
  1. 1.Nokia Research CenterNOKIA GROUPFinland
  2. 2.VTT Technical Research Centre of FinlandOuluFINLAND

Personalised recommendations