Abstract
A maturity level 3 organization has standard organization-wide processes in place that are well understood and are defined in terms of procedures and standards. These standard processes ensure consistency in the way in which projects are conducted across the organization, and best practices have been generalized for use at the organization level.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
It is usual to define several categories of project (e.g. large, medium, and small). Each category is defined by criteria, and the project will fall into one of the categories. Each category of project generally has an associated set of deliverables that reflect the tailoring of the process.
- 2.
This will need to be done for all projects within the scope of the appraisal.
- 3.
The names of the project category may vary and the size of the project is only one factor in the category.
- 4.
This may be a part-time role in the organization.
- 5.
The feedback may be provided by a tool.
- 6.
This may include a customized-off-the-shelf (COTS) solution.
- 7.
This may be done with use cases.
- 8.
There is a strong economic case for finding defects as early as possible, as the cost of correction increases the later the defect is found.
- 9.
For example, the verification environment required for peer reviews may be simply the inspection material, reviewers, and a room. A testing environment may require dedicated test tools and simulators.
- 10.
It may be argued that to build quality into the software product that a formal review of all deliverables should be conducted, and several organizations actually do this. Clearly, formal reviews of requirements are essential as requirements are the foundation for the remainder of the project and if these are incorrect then the delivered software will be incorrect.
- 11.
The decision on whether another review is required is based on the number and severity of the issues noted.
- 12.
Other approaches might be to determine the impact in terms of a monetary value.
References
Fagan, M.: Design and code inspections to reduce errors in software development. IBM Syst. J. 15(3), 182–211 (1976)
Gilb, T., Graham, D.: Software Inspections. Addison Wesley (1994)
Office of Government Commerce: Managing Successful Projects with PRINCE2 (2004)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer-Verlag London Limited
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
O’Regan, G. (2011). CMMI Level 3 Implementation. In: Introduction to Software Process Improvement. Undergraduate Topics in Computer Science. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-85729-172-1_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-85729-172-1_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, London
Print ISBN: 978-0-85729-171-4
Online ISBN: 978-0-85729-172-1
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)