Talk:Capability Maturity Model Integration/Archives/2011

You are kidding me
Seriously, why not link directly to their homepage with a short section "Praise & Glory" preceeding? This is ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.103.134.249 (talk) 10:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, you should at least provide a citation mark for the introductory paragraph - wouldn't want to end up with a plagiarism lawsuit, now would we? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.103.134.249 (talk) 10:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

While appraising your current process, I realised you need a bit of process improvement here - perhaps you haven't yet reached the "Quantitaviely Managed" (says so in the marvellously enlightening graphic)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.103.134.249 (talk) 11:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

more details about the model?
the spanish version has more details about the model, like the 5 leves, the 2 models, etc can someone help me translate it? thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.114.255.237 (talk) 03:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Company references
Rather than list commercial companies providing CMMI consultancy, the SEI Partner List has been included and commercial cross-references deleted. -- Ashley VH 08:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the SCAMPI list of companies as linking to their commercial sites seemed to add very little value to someone finding out about CMMI. If you want to add another external link to a commercial site (especially your own organization) please think about WP:ADS and WP:EL first and preferably add some justification to this talk page. --Ashley VH (talk) 10:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

How do we get a citation for "overly bureaucratic" ?
I tried to find a reference for the "overly bureaucratic" statement in the history section, and Google had 74 links.

However, all of them seem in some way to be derived from Wiki.

What's to be done now? cojoco 23:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * AFAIK, CMMi is about controlling the deviation from self-defined process aka rules. So, it is obviously bureaucratic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rrjanbiah (talk • contribs) 06:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

July 2008 Commercial spam links removed
In accordance with WP:ADS I have weeded out some of the obvious promotional links added by desperate companies: domain:        cmmi.hu org:            org_name_eng: SQI Ltd. org:            org_name_hun: SQI Kft. address:       Pr�ter utca 63 address:       1083 Budapest address:       HU phone:          +3613280914
 * mini CMMI-survey A free CMMI questionnaire for Project Managers. This site is owned by SQI Ltd and appears to be a way of getting company details:


 * . This is a commercial offer by Lamri and has been removed previously. Please check WP:ADS before adding it again.


 * This was a surplus link to wibas.com (a German company).


 * This was another surplus link to wibas.com


 * Removed as it is not an authoritative source. The contact is a free yahoo account.

Domain Name.......... lamri.com Organisation Name.... Lamri Limited Organisation Address. 19, Silver Meadows Organisation Address. Barton Organisation Address. DL10 6SL Organisation Address. North Yorkshire Organisation Address. GREAT BRITAIN (UK)
 * Lamri removed from Organizations as it is a limited company rather that a CMMI impartial organization. Details:


 * Removed as it seems to be a fishing site for Entinex Inc.


 * Sample applications of CMMI to IT governance, risk management, internal controls, processes, etc Capability Matury Model samples Yet another desperate consultancy fishing on wikipedia.

—Ashleyvh (talk) 09:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I have read the rules around SPAM on here and I believe that links I have add are pertinent and relevant. It appears to me these rules are inconsistently applied and some removed links are actually useful and relevant (NOT JUST THE ONES I ADDED). Just because you are a commercial organisation it does not mean you are irrelevant. Ideally I would like to know how I complain about this inconsistent application of the rules here and who is the ultimate arbiter of these. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.235.215.68 (talk) 19:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You can complain here, though I suggest you consider why your unique commercially sponsored links add better value to a Wikipedia page than the SEI library or other public domain information and do not constitute free advertising for Lamri. You may find your comments are better received if you set up an account rather than stay as an anonymous IP. As well as WP:SPAM I suggest you consider WP:COI before you justify adding further links to your company's websites.—Ashleyvh (talk) 23:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

CMMI Online Browser
Re-added the CMMI Online Browser as it is a helpful browser of the CMMI document. The browser's navigation helps to understand the structure of CMMI, it helps to navigate to the right part of CMMI, and it makes CMMI easier by delivering CMMI in small digestable pieces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malte Foegen (talk • contribs) 18:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is this OK and other information is not? I guess it just proves commercial organisations to provide some relevant data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.235.215.68 (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You are right, it is not okay to refer to sites that target you with text such as If you have any question regarding CMMI, our team of 	 consultants and SEI partners will be there to help 	you. We can also help you improve your organization by our 	portfolio of          IT 	  Maturity Services. If you have any 	improvement suggestions, write to .... I have removed the link in accordance with WP:ADS.—Ashleyvh (talk) 23:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I note that Malte Foegen, who appears to have re-added the CMMI browser is a member of the board of directors of Wibas, the company that own the website CMMI.de, and so WP:COI would seem to apply and of itself a good enough reason to remove the link.—Ashleyvh (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Bitter comment
This article has been prefixed by the opinion of someone obviously not happy with the CMMI and severely bisaed. There is a place for such comment - his/her own blog perhaps, but such comment brings Wikipedia into general disrepute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.189.28.130 (talk) 09:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The "bitter comment" text has been moved from the article (where it was hidden in a comment field) to here:

"The Department of Defense could save the American taxpayers a tremendous amount of money if they would just cancel this program and stop funding the SEI. This program has really shown ZERO benefit to any of the large software intensive systems they have funded over the past 20 years.  In fact, the same large defense contractors that purport themselves to be level 4 or 5 certified have failed to deliver quality software on time and within budget.  The list is much too large for this wiki page.

When I asked the Chief Technology Officer at Microsoft in September 2001 at a conference in Oslo if MS followed the CMM(I), Mr. Craig Mundie responded "what's that?". Microsoft is the DoD's largest supplier of software products."


 * It seems that the comment was made by anonymous IP user 69.140.194.124 on September 17, 2008. Truthanado (talk) 02:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

NICE BLATANT ADVERTISING FOR CMMI. I THOUGHT WIKIPEDIA REQUIRED A NOTICE FOR BLATANT ADVERTISING? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.151.16.15 (talk) 17:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Further reading - Move list to talk page
The following unjustified list of random sources have not been integrated in the text of the article (to become footnotes for example) and so no positive rationale has been given for listing them. As the number of CMMI books and articles is immense, it is unclear why these represent a unique contribution to the article. If you love one of these sources, I suggest you think of why it is unique and integrate it into the body of the article in some fashion rather than leaving to languish in a trivia list.


 * Books and journals

Thanks Ash (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the cleanup job you did Ash, made the article much more cleaner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pm master (talk • contribs) 21:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

More marketing blurb removed
changed

The Software Engineering Institute’s (SEI) Team Software Process methodology and the Capability Maturity Modeling framework have been successfully employed to accelerate progress from Maturity Level 1 to Maturity Level 4. They’ve demonstrated progressing from Level 1 to Level 4 in 30 months, which is less than half of the average time it has taken traditionally.

to

The Software Engineering Institute’s (SEI) Team Software Process methodology and the Capability Maturity Modeling framework can be used to raise the maturity level.

Reason: One case study boasting the success of a method published by the author of the method is not neutral and not a representative statistical method to indicate the value of the methodologie applied. Pleass stay ethical when modifying wikipedia.

Criticism?
How come there is no criticism section? Oh right, because this article is clearly maintained by pro CMMI people who make loads of money scamming businesses into being certified in "advanced bureaucracy." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.59.181 (talk) 04:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Why don't you add a section about this yourself and reference it? Pm master 14:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Come again?
The thing I like about Wikipedia is it's ability to answer questions like "but what IS it, really?" in about 1/10th of the time I could from reading the marketing speel. Unfortunately this article provoked no such eureka moment :-( 172.203.199.18 19:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This article does not provide a good overview for a reader who is not familiar with the subject. - Davidfstr (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe it serves it purpose of what it is intended for. It cannot be detail, if it does, it may be overwelming for the reader. The user of that particular topic must first be familiar with the reference topic. Therefore, Wikipedia is a good reference source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.20.30 (talk) 03:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Mostly my oppinion here, but from what I've learned in my software engineering course at university, CMMI can be summarised as follows: CMMI is a set of guidelines for "best practices" for software engineering firms. These guidelines include a loose form of metrics which allow the company's software development process to be certified. This certification can then be recognised when placing a tender for a project.

The first line of this article is really not a good definition of CMMI. " Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) is a process improvement approach whose goal is to help organizations improve their performance. " I would say instead: " Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) is a process improvement approach whose goal is to help organizations improve their quality and process security and sometime performance. " because it is clearly not the goal first goal to improve performances by adding check points and reviews in your process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corendiel (talk • contribs) 15:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)