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 595 | Next

Margaret K. Kulpa, Kent A. Johnson

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

This validation is
required to prevent the granting of high maturity ratings for trivial improvements.
The Appraisal Team Leader documents in the Appraisal Disclosure
Statement (ADS) that all SCAMPI A requirements were satisfied.
reusing Pre ious Appraisal results
Organizations often want to use previous appraisal results when beginning a CMMI
initiative. This has proven to be extremely diffi cult for many organizations, and in
our experience, has led to inappropriate actions. By previous appraisals, we mean
results from non-CMMI appraisals (CBA IPIs, SCEs, EIA 732, etc.). The reason
for these problems in reuse include the following:
288 n Interpreting the CMMI
Different levels of detail in appraisal approach
Some appraisals did not consider institutionalization of practices
Not all weaknesses were documented
Don??™t assume that since you did not have a weakness, that you have a strength.
Often only level-threatening weaknesses are documented. A threat to a level is
only known after hours of consensus and team negotiations.


Pages:
583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607