Advertisement

Analysis of Dependencies between Specific Practices in CMMI Maturity Level 2

  • Xi Chen
  • Mark Staples
  • Paul Bannerman
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 16)

Abstract

CMMI contains a collection of Process Areas (PAs), each of which contains many Specific Practices (SPs). However, the CMMI specification does not provide any explicit recommendation about which individual SPs can or should be implemented before other SPs. In this paper we identify dependencies between CMMI SPs in PAs in maturity level 2, and between the PAs. We analyzed the text of the CMMI specification to identify every Work Product (WP) produced and used by every SP in maturity level 2. Our analysis was validated by independent researchers and comparison with an existing dependency analysis shown in CMMI training materials. Our results have significance as a reference model of SP and PA dependencies for both SPI researchers and practitioners. For researchers we have provided an explicit representation of SP and PA dependencies that were previously only implicit in the CMMI specification. For practitioners, our results may provide guidance on the order of implementation of SPs and PAs. Our dependency analysis has limitations in being derived from the text of the CMMI specification – we have no direct evidence that these dependencies are valid in practice.

Keywords

SPI CMMI Specific Practice Work Products Dependency 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Chrissis, M.B., Konrad, M., Shrum, S.: CMMI: Guidelines for Process Integration and Product Improvement, 2nd edn. Addison-wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Goldenson, D., Gibson, D.: Demonstrating the Impact and Benefits of CMMI – An Update and Preliminary Results. Technical Report, CMU/SEI-2003-SR-009, Software Engineering Institute, CMU (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gibson, D.L., Goldenson, D.R., Kost, K.: Performance Results of CMMI-Based Process Improvement. Technical Report, CMU/SEI-2006-TR-004, Software Engineering Institute, CMU (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Reifer, D.J.: The CMMI: it’s formidable. The Journal of Systems and Software 50, 97–98 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Staples, M., Niazi, M., Jeffery, R., Abrahams, A., Byatt, P., Murphy, R.: An Exploratory Study of Why Organizations Do Not Adopt CMMI. Journal of Systems and Software 80(6), 883–893 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Turgeon, J.: CMMI on the Sly for the CMMI Shy - Implementing Software Process Improvement in Small Teams and Organizations. In: SEPG (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wilkie, F.G., McFall, D., McCaffery, F.: An Evaluation of CMMI Process Areas for Small-to Medium-sized Software Development Organizations. Software Process: Improvement and Practice 10(2), 189–201 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Phillips, M.: CMMI V1.1 and Appraisal Tutorial (February 16, 2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chen, X., Staples, M.: Using Practice Outcome Areas to Understand Perceived Value of CMMI SPs for SMEs. In: Abrahamsson, P., Baddoo, N., Margaria, T., Messnarz, R. (eds.) EuroSPI 2007. LNCS, vol. 4764, pp. 59–70. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xi Chen
    • 1
  • Mark Staples
    • 1
  • Paul Bannerman
    • 1
  1. 1.NICTA, Australian Technology Park, Eveleigh, NSW 2015, Australia School of Computer Science and EngineeringUniversity of New South WalesAustralia

Personalised recommendations