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 751 | Next

Margaret K. Kulpa, Kent A. Johnson

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

For an internal evaluation, the team must have included
members internal to the organization under review.
The IPI was led by an SEI-certified Lead Assessor. The Lead Assessor, as part
of the method, had to train the members of the team (even if they had already
participated on an IPI). The team had to consist of members of the organization
being assessed.
Similarities and differences
Both SCEs and IPIs sought to understand how an organization operated compared
to the CMM. Both looked for strengths, weaknesses, and consistency across the
organization by reviewing project activities. Both were used for software process
improvement. Both conducted site visits and reviewed existing documentation. Both
resulted in developing Action Plans (except for Acquisition SCEs; for Acquisition
SCEs, Action Planning was left up to the vendor awarded the contract). For maturitylevel
ratings, both assessed organizations. Both methods had a trained leader, either
an SEI-authorized Lead Assessor or an SEI-authorized Lead Evaluator.
Originally, SCEs only evaluated three to five projects in a five-day onsite visit,
while CBA IPIs usually looked at four to eight projects in a five- to ten-day onsite
period.


Pages:
739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763