SEARCH
0-9 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
Prev | Current Page 203 | Next

Margaret K. Kulpa, Kent A. Johnson

"Interpreting the CMMI: A Process Improvement Approach, Second Edition"

Once again, we are not attempting to teach the CMMI. We simply offer a
condensed version of the various areas and key points to consider.
Mo ing from le el 2 to le el 3
Maturity Level 3 differs from Level 2 in that now an organizational way of doing
business has been developed. What that means is that the best practices and lessons
learned from the projects have bubbled up to the organizational level to create an
organizational identity. There are common, shared approaches for performing daily
tasks on each project. For example, estimating the size of a project may be done
using the Delphi Technique (basically subject matter experts discussing best-case
and worst-case estimates), a standard metric may have been institutionalized (such
as using function points instead of lines of code), and a standard tool may be in use
to actually calculate the size.
This organizational way of doing business is documented in the Organization??™s
Set of Standard Processes (OSSP). However, should a project need to tailor this
OSSP to more adequately fit its needs, then that tailoring request is bought to
a decision-making body (usually the Engineering Process Group [EPG]), and if
82 n Interpreting the CMMI
appropriate, the request is granted.


Pages:
191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215