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 756 | Next

Margaret K. Kulpa, Kent A. Johnson

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

Most smaller organizations
and less mature organizations have indicated that this is a good PA, but far
too diffi cult to implement at Level 2. So with the increased scope of the
model including the various disciplines (systems engineering, hardware engineering,
etc.), plus the additional PAs, the two models and the two levels are
dissimilar.
2. The process areas and practices for Levels 4 and 5 do not significantly raise
the bar, as higher maturity organizations helped devise this model.
374 n Appendix B: Myths and Legends of the CMMI
Reports from earlier appraisals done by the Ministry of Defence in Australia
have specifically reported that the CMMI has made achieving Level 4
and 5 much more diffi cult. Whereas in the previous CMM for Software, the
recommendation was to ???keep it simple,??? now the implementation of these
areas requires much more training and quantitative measurement techniques
to be instituted in the organization. Responses heard at industry conferences
have also mentioned that the CMMI focuses too heavily on sophisticated
measurement techniques.


Pages:
744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768