Talk:Capability Maturity Model/Archive 1

What is a "classical n+1 engineering approach"?
This phrase needs to be elaborated. I'm a software engineer and I don't know what it means. Whatever you did, do it better next time, is that it? The n'th degree plus one level of improvement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecloud (talk • contribs) 23:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Defined term in the definition?
OK, I've practiced CM for ten years, but I am no expert on CMM. What I do know is that the current first sentence of the definition contains the terms being defined! This is a rookie mistake and VERY frustrating to an outsider in any field. "The Capability Maturity Model (CMM) is a process capability maturity model ..." Can someone please fix this or revert to the previous definition? (Paz9 (talk) 16:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC))

More historical cleanup needed
I made some corrections to the history and added two important references, the CMM book and Watts original IEEE Software article on the maturity framework prior to his book. Moved the historical information from the 'Overview' to 'History' section. Did not have time to correct all of the historical issues. The original development of the maturity framework was performed by Watts along with Ron Radice and others at IBM in the early 1980s. The first description of the model was published by Ron Radice and three others in the IBM Systems Journal. There was considerable change between that early work and the final model. Watts 1989 book was not the actual CMM, but rather laid out the framework and how software development would be managed and performed at each maturity level. In the book he refered to it as the Software Maturity Framework and the Process Maturity Model. The title Capability Maturity Model was first used in 1991 when the model was formulated as process areas and practices at each maturity level in order to provide a more objective basis for assessments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billcurtis33 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Move?

 * Moved back to original name. Station1 (talk) 07:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Capability maturity model → Capability Maturity Model &mdash; There is a claim that "Capability Maturity Model" is a tradename. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The document you require listing "Capability Maturity Model" as a specific trademark of Carnegie Mellon University is available here: http://g2sebok.incose.org/refer/tmsm_info.htm - the SEI Subscriber Bulletin referenced is available at http://sei.cmu.edu. I am unclear why this move needs discussion as the previous move (going the other way, performed yesterday) occurred without any discussion and consequently ignored the fact that this was a trademark. That move should be reversed immediately and then discussed if anyone cares to support it.—Ash (talk) 06:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The links above are broken or not specific, but this one is good to keep next to this discussion. --Espoo (talk) 09:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The arcticle is confusing even for a CMM(I) practitioner, so it needs simplification
meet Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines. Hbachus (talk) 14:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am familiar with CMM yet I find this article confusing, so what hope is there for others? I don't intend to be critical, I just think that there is so much edit activity on this page and so many people correcting academic points that we are missing the wood for the trees. Over time, multiple edits may have ensured the article is technically more correct, but it has become increasingly less clear - see the section below with samples over time of the opening definition. I personally find the brief article of 15 September 2002 far more intelligible than the current article.
 * Starting the article with "The Capability Maturity Model (CMM) is a service mark and a concept" is not helpful. Imagine describing Coca-Cola as "a trademark and a manufacturing process"
 * The article needs to start by answering the question "What is it?" as clearly and simply as possible for a non-academic audience.
 * Again, the Overview section needs to be just that, and avoid lengthy details on publications.
 * Long in-line bibliographic references should be moved to the references section (with corresponding ref tags), unless they truly add to the body of the article.
 * The article reads like an advertorial for those behind CMM rather than a description of CMM,
 * E.g. the lengthy in-line references to Watts Humphrey's book in each of the Overview, History and Context sections. These need to be replaced with a single reference.
 * E.g. statements like "Humphrey's approach differed because of his unique insight" - is Humphrey's insight really unique? This doesn't seem to
 * If we cant clean this up, then the article should be tagged as POV (i.e.neutrality issues).
 * The fact that CMM has been superceeded by CMMI is mentioned, but I think this point is substantialy understated. The fact that CMM may have found a wider context and has some use apart from CMMI should be described as an extension (or some such) of CMM. But we need to emphasis that core CMM users have essentially moved on to CMMI. It would also be interesting to comment on CMM users who have yet to migrate to CMMI.
 * Historical aspects should generally be kept in the History section.
 * I will make some edits to this affect, but I welcome comments and request help in meeting these objectives. While I will avoid controversial edits if I can, I am sure that others will want to add to my edits.

Some historical definitions of CMM
Peeling back the history of some edits can help illustrate how the article is becoming more confusing over time. Here are some samples over time of the opening definition of CMM: I prefer the version from 5 January 2006. History shows that there are many differences of opinion, so rather than starting an edit war, I'd like more comment/alternative suggestions/vote before I revert back to the 2006 definition. (To be clear, I am intending to revert the first sentence of the article to the first sentence from 2006, not the whole article!) Hbachus (talk) 14:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The Capability Maturity Model (CMM) is a service mark and a concept that was developed in the field of software development that provides a model for understanding the capability maturity of an organization's software development business processes. (10 October 2009)
 * The Capability Maturity Model (CMM) in software engineering is a model of the maturity of the capability of certain business processes. (31 May 2009)
 * The Capability Maturity Model (CMM) is a process capability maturity model which aids in the definition and understanding of an organization's processes. (5 August 2008)
 * The Capability Maturity Model (CMM), also sometimes referred to as the Software CMM (SW-CMM), was first described by Watts Humphrey in his book Managing the Software Process . The CMM is a process capability model based on software development organisation processes/practices. (5 January 2008)
 * The Capability Maturity Model (CMM), first described by Watts Humphrey in his book Managing the Software Process (Addison Wesley Professional, Massachusetts, 1989), provides a process model based on software best-practices effective in large-scale, multi-person projects. (1 August 2007)
 * Capability Maturity Model (CMM) broadly refers to a process improvement approach that is based on a process model. CMM also refers specifically to the first such model, developed by the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) in the mid-1980s, as well as the family of process models that followed. (1 January 2007)
 * The Capability Maturity Model (CMM) is a method for evaluating and measuring the maturity of the software development process of organizations on a scale of 1 to 5. (5 January 2006)
 * Background to the Capability Maturity Model (CMM): Humphrey's Capability Maturity Model (CMM) was described in the book Managing the Software Process (1989). (5 January 2005)
 * The Capability Maturity Model (CMM) of the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) describes the maturity of software development organisations on a scale of 1 to 5. (12 January 2004)
 * The Capability Maturity Model (CMM) describes the maturity of software development organisations on a scale of 1 to 5. (16 December 2001 - Initial version)

Removed text
I removed the following:

"(Note: The author of this paragraph is assuming that the CMM is a process.  It's not, it is only a model of practices that successful project typically perform (e.g. Risk Management)"

A Wikipedia article is not a discussion board. Also, this comes from a section listing actual criticism. It does not support or refute such criticism. Jeroen 12:49, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Sections needing references
These are some points that require clarification or references: Hbachus (talk) 18:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * When was the term "Capability Maturity Model" first used/published? The text suggests that it was used by Humphrey in his publications, but the references suggest it was used first by others in later publications.
 * "Humphrey began developing his process maturity concepts during the later stages of his 27 year career at IBM" - what evidence is there of this? The statement should be removed if there are no references.
 * What happened between Humphrey's book and the definitive CMM '93 paper & '95 book, neither of which include Humphrey as an author of CMM? The article repeatedly describes CMM as "Humphrey's CMM" yet he is not one of the authors of the definitive publications. This may suggest that Humphrey contributed to the development of but is not an author of the CMM.

Heroic
There has been some to'ing and fro'ing over the inclusion of the term heroic for level 1
 * 1) Initial (chaotic, ad hoc, heroic) - the starting point for use of a new process.

I thought it would be useful to explain why some people feel it belongs here, and try to understand why others want it removed (i.e. more than just using the word with a question mark in the edit summary).

Organisations at CMMI#1 are basically a mess, but they achieve certain levels of success through the actions of some outstanding individuals, who seem to carry the team, department, or whole company on their shoulders (hence heroes). Many publications on or relating to CMMI refer to organisations at CMMI#1 being marked by chaos, ad-hoc-ness, and heroic efforts by individuals. Note quote below from official SEI definition of CMMI maturity level 1 from CMMI for Development (v1.2)


 * Maturity Level 1: Initial
 * At maturity level 1, processes are usually ad hoc and chaotic. The organization usually does not provide a stable environment to support the processes. Success in these organizations depends on the competence and heroics of the people in the organization and not on the use of proven processes. In spite of this chaos, maturity level 1 organizations often produce products and services that work; however, they frequently exceed their budgets and do not meet their schedules.

On that basis, I invite comment back on whether this is nonsense and not a widely held position in prominent publications. Until then I am reverting the change. Please discuss that here before reverting the reversion. Thanks. Greyskinnedboy  Talk  21:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Inaccuracies
CMU and Monmouth Unviersity offered a graduate degree prior to 1989. (Monmouth's first graduating class may have been in 1989). Either other events preceded the dates in the first section or the dates are incorrect. As topics go, this one cannot be "objective" in the true sense of the word. Academic and industry research have created an abundant supply of sources but the majority are published by the SEI. What isn't published by the SEI references work that is published by the SEI.

Note too, that "CERT" is a registered mark owned by CMU that is licensed to the Department of Homeland Security. The SEI is part of CMU and the first CERT, to which the registered mark refers, is owned also by CMU. Kernel.package (talk) 20:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 13:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Capability Maturity Model → Capability maturity model –

Per WP:CAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization") and WP:TITLE, this is a generic, common term, not a propriety or commercial term, so the article title should be downcased. In addition, WP:MOS says that a compound item should not be upper-cased just because it is abbreviated with caps. Lowercase will match the formatting of related article titles. Tony  (talk)  02:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now. This is a service mark. Is there any evidence this is commonly written in lowercase in the relevant literature? —Ruud 19:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose – as much as I dislike over-capitalization, this one is a registered service mark and is hard to find in lower case. Dicklyon (talk) 03:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose with same motivation as Ruud and Dicklyon. SchreyP (messages) 13:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for feedback. I'd like to withdraw this one. Tony   (talk)  14:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.