You are on page 1of 44

CMMI Update V1.

2 and Beyond…

Mike Phillips Software Engineering Institute Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213 August 1, 2007

© 2007 Carnegie Mellon University

CMMI Transition Status As reported to the SEI as of 6-30-07 -1
Training Introduction to CMMI – 70,791 Intermediate CMMI – 2,549 Introduction to CMMI Instructor – 504 SCAMPI A Lead Appraiser – 731 SCAMPI B&C-Only Team Lead – 33 Understanding CMMI High Maturity Practices –120 Authorized Introduction to CMMI V1.2 Instructors – 400 SCAMPI V1.2 Lead Appraisers – 417 SCAMPI B&C V1.2Team Leads – 20
CMMI Update V1.2 and Beyond... Phillips, August 1, 2007
© 2007 Carnegie Mellon University

2

Transition from V1.1 to V1.2 Status As reported to the SEI as of 3-31-07 -2
Introduction to CMMI Students Registered for Upgrade Training Upgrades Complete Lead Appraisers and Instructors Registered for Upgrade training Upgrade Complete Authorized v1.2 Lead Appraisers Certified High Maturity Lead Appraisers – 637 – 452 – 387 – 54 – 2,387 – 1,695

CMMI Update V1.2 and Beyond... Phillips, August 1, 2007
© 2007 Carnegie Mellon University

3

CMMI Adoption, Web Views
421K views/month in Q4 2006; over 24K views on 27 Sep 2006 Most downloaded files in Q4 2006
• • •

CMMI-DEV, V1.2 CMMI V1.2 Overview Presentation “Extreme Programming (XP), Six Sigma, & CMMI: How They Can Work Together” “CMMI V1.2 Model Changes” Presentation

CMMI Update V1.2 and Beyond... Phillips, August 1, 2007
© 2007 Carnegie Mellon University

4

August 1.2 and Beyond.Intro to the CMM and CMMI Attendees (Cumulative) 6-30-07 CMMI Update V1.. Phillips. 2007 © 2007 Carnegie Mellon University 5 ..

2 Class A Number of SCAMPI v1.2 and Beyond.Number of SCAMPI v1. 2007 Reported as of 30 June 2007 1/ 05 2/ 05 3/ 05 4/ 05 1/ 06 2/ 06 © 2007 Carnegie Mellon University 3/ 06 6 .1/v1..2 Class Appraisals (Conducted by Quarter) A Appraisals Conducted by Quarter 300 275 250 225 200 175 150 125 100 75 50 25 0 2/ 02 3/ 02 4/ 02 1/ 03 2/ 03 3/ 03 4/ 03 1/ 04 2/ 04 3/ 04 4/ 04 CMMI Update V1. Phillips. August 1.1/v1..

2 and Beyond.. Phillips.6% 1 to 1 0 0 4 .8% 501 to 1000 7.9 5 % 51 to 75 12.8% 301 to 500 9.5% 2 1 to 2 0 + 0 00 3 .8% 1 6 Based on 80 organizations reporting size data CMMI Update V1.2% 101 to 200 19.5% 25 or fewer 10. 2007 © 2007 Carnegie Mellon University 7 .4% 2000+ 2..9% 76 to 100 8. August 1.Organization Size Based on the total number of employees within the area of the organization that was appraised 1001 to 2000 4.5 4 % 201 to 300 10.6% 26 to 50 13.

2 and Beyond. Phillips.. August 1..Countries where Appraisals have been Performed and Reported to the SEI Argentina Australia Austria Bahrain Belarus Belgium Braz il Canada Chile China Colombia Cz ech Republic Denmark Dominican Republic gypt E Finland France Germany Hong KongIndia IndonesiaIreland Israel Italy Japan Korea. 2007 © 2007 Carnegie Mellon University 8 . Republic of Latvia Malaysia Mauritius Mexico Morocco Netherlands New Zealand Pakistan Peru Philippines Portugal Russia SingaporeSlovakia South Africa Spain Sweden Switzerland Taiwan Thailand Turkey United Kingdom United StatesVietnam Red country name: New additions with this reporting CMMI Update V1.

. 2007 © 2007 Carnegie Mellon University 9 . R e pu b lic 8 f 7O L a tvia 1 0 or M a lay s ia 19 M a u rit iu s 1 0 or M e x ic o 15 M o ro c c o 1 0 or N eth e rla n d s 1 0 or N ew Ze a la n d 1 0 or P ak is ta n 1 0 or P eru 1 0 or P hilipp in e s 16 P ortu g a l 1 0 or R us s ia 1 0 or S in g a p o re 1 0 or S lo va k ia 1 0 or S ou th A fric a 1 0 or S pa in 31 S w e de n 1 0 or S w itz e rlan d 1 0 or Ta iw a n 46 Th a ila n d 1 0 or Tu rk ey 1 0 or U nite d K in g d o m 8 4 U nite d S tate s 7 1 8 V ie t N a m 1 0 or CMMI Update V1. August 1.Number of Appraisals and Maturity Levels Reported to the SEI by Country C o u n try M a tu r ity M a tu ri ty M a tu ri ty M a tu ri ty M a tu rity N u m b e r o f L e v e l 1 L e v e l 2 L e v e l 3 L e v e l 4 L e ve l 5 A p p ra isa l s R e p o rte dR e p o rte d R e p o rte d R e p o r te d R e p o rte dC o u n try No Y es few e r few e r few e r few e r No No No Y es few e r few e r few e r few e r No few e r Y es Y es No few e r few e r few e r Y es Y es Y es Y es Y es Y es Y es Y es Y es Y es Y es Y es Y es Y es Y es Y es Y es Y es Y es Y es Y es Y es Y es Y es Y es Y es Y es Y es Y es Y es Y es No Y es Y es Y es Y es Y es Y es Y es Y es Y es Y es Y es Y es Y es M a tu rity M a tu rity M a tu rity M a tu rity M a tu rity N um be r of L e ve l 1 Le ve l 2 Le ve l 3 L e ve l 4 Le ve l 5 A p p ra isa lsR e p o r te dR e p o rte dR e p o rte dR e p o rte dR e p o r te d Y es fe w e r No fe w e r No fe w e r fe w e r fe w e r fe w e r fe w e r No fe w e r fe w e r fe w e r fe w e r fe w e r No fe w e r fe w e r No fe w e r fe w e r Y es Y es fe w e r Y es Y es Y es Y es Y es Y es No Y es Y es Y es No Y es Y es Y es No Y es Y es Y es No Y es Y es Y es Y es Y es Y es Y es No Y es Y es Y es Y es Y es A rge n tin a 19 A u s tra lia 23 A u s tria 10 or B a h ra in 10 or B e la ru s 10 or B e lg iu m 10 or B raz il 48 Canada 26 C h ile 15 C h in a 240 C o lo m b ia 10 or C z e c h R ep u b lic 1 0 o r D e n m a rk 10 or D o m in ic a n R e p u blic r 10 o E gy pt 17 F in lan d 10 or F ra n c e 75 G e rm a n y 35 H o n g K o ng 10 In d ia 204 In d on e s ia 10 or Ire lan d 10 or Is ra el 10 Ita ly 10 or Ja pa n 172 K ore a . Phillips..2 and Beyond.

2007 © 2007 Carnegie Mellon University 10 .. Phillips. August 1..Maturity Profile by All Reporting USA and Non-USA Organizations 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% USA: 100 % = 590 Non-USA: 100 % = 1122 % of Organizations 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Not Given 93 218 346 439 189 Initial Managed Defined Quantitatively Managed Optimizing 199 70 60 11 62 16 9 1590 Based on 12 2 USA organizations and Non-USA organizations CMMI Update V1.2 and Beyond.

2007 © 2007 Carnegie Mellon University 11 . August 1.2 and Beyond...Combined Appraisal Opportunities Current ISO 9001 ISO 9001 IA SCAMPI ‘A’ & ISO 9001 Rating letter & or certificate with scope indicating “… in accordance with Level X” (Combined ISO Surveillance using Cat ‘C’ appraisal) Visit Report … continues to demonstrate compliance with ISO 9001:2000 Rating letter indicating level achieved …no behaviours inconsistent with operating at level X Current CMMI SCAMPI ‘A’ SCAMPI ‘A’ (Cat ‘C’ appraisal) CMMI Update V1. Phillips.

Performance Results Summary Improvements Median # of data points 21 19 16 18 6 14 Low High Cost Schedule Productivity Quality 20% 37% 67% 50% 3% 2% 11% 29% -4% 2:1 87% 90% 255% 132% 55% 27.7 : 1 Customer Satisfaction 14% Return on Investment 4. Phillips.. 2007 © 2007 Carnegie Mellon University 12 . August 1.8 : 1 • N = 25.2 and Beyond.. as of 15 December 2005 • Organizations with results expressed as change over time CMMI Update V1.

CMMI Books… A Guide to the CMMI: Second Edition CMMI: A Framework… CMMI Assessments CMMI Distilled: Second Edition CMMI SCAMPI Distilled CMMI Survival Guide CMMI: Un Itinéraire Fléché: Second Edition De kleine CMMI Interpreting the CMMI Making Process Improvement Work Practical Insight into CMMI Real Process Improvement Using the CMMI Systematic Process Improvement Using ISO 9001:2000 and CMMI CMMI Update V1. Phillips. August 1... 2007 © 2007 Carnegie Mellon University 13 .2 and Beyond.

cmu. August 1.edu/cmmi/results) CMMI Update V1. 2007 © 2007 Carnegie Mellon University 14 .2 and Beyond..How About SEI Publications? Technical notes and special reports: • Interpreting CMMI: — — — — for Operational Organizations for COTS Based Systems for Service Organizations for Business Development Team Software Process (TSP) Earned Value Management Product Line Practices Six Sigma • Using CMMI with: — — — — • • Supplementing CMMI for Safety Critical Development (“+Safe”) Demonstrating the Impact and Benefits of CMMI (and Web pages – http://www.. Phillips.sei.

.2 and Beyond.CMMI V1.. © 2007 Carnegie Mellon University .

2 and Beyond.CMMI Today Version 1. 2007 © 2007 Carnegie Mellon University 16 . Phillips. • • • CMMI Web site visits average over 20. August 1..000/day Over 66..1 CMMI Product Suite was released January 2002.000 people have been trained Over 1800 “class A” appraisals have been reported to the SEI — Annual rate now over 800/year Now we want to continuously improve… CMMI Update V1.

Phillips. 2007 © 2007 Carnegie Mellon University 17 . August 1.2 and Beyond..Major Themes Reduce complexity & size Increase coverage Increase confidence in appraisal results CMMI Update V1..

.2 IPPD Organizational Goal (OPD) Project Goal (IPM) SE Related Examples SW Related Examples SW Related Examples SE Related Examples HW Related Examples CMMI Core CMMI Core (now includes SS) CMMI Update V1.2 and Beyond. August 1. 2007 © 2007 Carnegie Mellon University 18 .1 Supplier Sourcing Integrated Product and Process Development V 1..CMMI Model Combinations V 1. Phillips.

. August 1.1 t r oppu S ssec o P r s AP tgM s AP V1.2 and Beyond. Phillips..IPPD Changes V1.2 SG1 SG2 SG1 I EO SG2 SG1 SG2 SG3 SG4 SG1 SG1 SG2 SG3 MP I MP I DP O SG2 = Enable IPPD principles SG3 = Apply IPPD principles T I e ga na M ce o P t j r SG2 CMMI Update V1. 2007 © 2007 Carnegie Mellon University 19 .

2007 © 2007 Carnegie Mellon University 20 . Phillips. given 1 year of V1.1 and V1. August 1.2 ADS will reflect these as of Nov 2006 Lead Appraisers must be “certified” to lead high maturity appraisals Maturity level and capability level shelf life – 3 years.2 availability CMMI Update V1..2 and Beyond.2 Method implementation clarifications • • • interviews in “virtual” organizations practice characterization rules organizational unit sampling options Appraisal Disclosure Statement (ADS) improvements • • • • • reduce redundancy with other appraisal documents improve usability for sponsor and government require sponsor’s signature on the ADS require all team members to show agreement on findings both V1.SCAMPI A Changes for V1..

2007 © 2007 Carnegie Mellon University 21 ..Published Appraisal Results CMMI Update V1.2 and Beyond. Phillips.. August 1.

2 Schedules Version 1.1 appraisals (3-year validity) Last V1. 2006 December.CMMI V1.2 and Beyond. 2007 © 2007 Carnegie Mellon University 22 . 2007 CMMI Update V1. 2006 November.1 Intro training First expiration of V1. 2006 October.. 2006 August 25. Phillips.1 appraisal August 25. 2006 August 25.2 CMMI Product Suite release Update material available Upgrade course available on-line First Lead Appraiser “face to face” First high maturity “oral exam” V1. 2006 August 25. 2006 October.2 ADS required for all SCAMPIs Last V1. 2007 August 31. August 1..

Beyond V1.g. Phillips.2 and Beyond. 2007 © 2007 Carnegie Mellon University 23 . August 1. CMMI Acquisition) — CMMI Update V1. Outsourcing/Acquisition) could expand use of a common organizational framework: — allows coverage of more of the enterprise or potential partnering organizations adapts model features to fit non-developmental efforts (e..2 expansion.. CMMI Services.2 Improved architecture will allow post-V1.. • Extensions of the life cycle (Services.

2007 © 2007 Carnegie Mellon University 24 . August 1.. monitoring and managing development processes CMMI-SVC 16 Core Process Areas. common to all CMMI-ACQ provides guidance to enable informed and decisive acquisition leadership CMMI-DEV CMMI-ACQ CMMI Update V1.3 Complementary “Constellations” CMMI-Services provides guidance for those providing services within organizations and to external customers CMMI-Dev provides guidance for measuring..2 and Beyond. Phillips.

.. Technical & Management Skill Low Supplier High CMMI Update V1. August 1. Phillips.2 and Beyond.Acquirer/Supplier Mismatch High Mismatch mature acquirer mentors low maturity supplier outcome not predictable Matched acquirer and supplier are both high maturity highest probability of success Acquirer Disaster Low no discipline no process no product Mismatch immature acquirer mature supplier Customer encourages short cuts. 2007 © 2007 Carnegie Mellon University 25 .

2007 © 2007 Carnegie Mellon University 26 .2 and Beyond.Initial CMMI-ACQ Key Acquisition Processes Solicitation & Supplier Agreement Development Agreement Management Core Acquisition Validation Project Management Processes Acquisition Requirements Development Acquisition Verification Acquisition Technical Management *based on initial CMMI-ACQ model developed by General Motors/SEI CMMI Update V1.. August 1. Phillips..

Phillips. Division A Division B Division N mature acquirer mentors low maturity supplier acquirer and supplier are both high maturity Matched PMO highest probability of success Low Project 1 MLs usually apply HERE based upon appraisals of THESE … Project 2 Project 3 Project 4 Project 5 Project 6 … but your project is HERE or HERE Project 7 Project x Project y Project z Disaster no discipline no process less mature acquirer derails mature supplier. encourages short cuts Mismatch no product Low supplier compromises processes Contractor High Technical & Management Skill CMMI Update V1.Acquisition Improvement is Needed…. August 1.2 and Beyond. 2007 © 2007 Carnegie Mellon University 27 . Acquirers cannot ensure that mature processes are applied to their programs High Acquirers need more internal process focus Mismatch outcome not predictable XYZ Corp...

. 2007 © 2007 Carnegie Mellon University 28 . August 1.. Phillips.2 and Beyond.Guidebook Concept Provide a “process toolbox” for the acquirer • • • • Include practical guidance on how to recognize the real practitioners… Encourage the use of capability and maturity profiles vice "single level" approach Improve acquisition organizations' understanding of the meaning of high maturity (levels 4 and 5) and equivalent staging Include multiple tools and guidance that may be used throughout the acquisition lifecycle CMMI Update V1.

2 GM IT Sourcing CMMI-AM CMMI-ACQ SA-CMM CMMI Update V1..Planned Sequence of Models CMMI-SVC CMMI V1.1 CMMI-DEV V1. August 1.2 and Beyond. 2007 © 2007 Carnegie Mellon University 29 .. Phillips.

.e. August 1.2 Constellation Strategy the right approach? Can we identify "next-generation" process improvement methodology? Can CMMI be harmonized with other continuous process improvement efforts? Can repeatability. consistency and overall model and appraisal methodology be improved? Are there "breakthrough" concepts that we can apply to overall process improvement? CMMI Update V1. CMMI Level 4 & 5)? How can we "slim down" the CMMI models while still preserving integrity? Can we likewise "slim down" the Appraisal method? Can we eliminate the Staged representation? Is the CMMI v1. Phillips.2 and Beyond.Questions to Guide Discussion Do we need something different or additional to define High Maturity (i.. 2007 © 2007 Carnegie Mellon University 30 .

632 (Systems Engineering). Sarbanes-Oxley. FAA Standard (Aviation Critical Safety Items).Can CMMI be harmonized with other standards and continuous process improvement efforts? Agree that harmonization should be a goal. Phillips. but should not slow progress too much Harmonization efforts take time • (This may be the only formal harmonization effort) Currently.. 2007 © 2007 Carnegie Mellon University 31 . 1220. There is a move to say “either or”. Malcolm Baldridge. 15504. Six Sigma [not all standards here are at the same level of abstraction]. August 1. 14000 (environmental standard).2 and Beyond. COBIT. 15288. 12207. ITIL. PM BOK and OPM3 Are there “standards” we want to focus on? • • • CMMI Update V1.. Standards Process Improvement Methods 9001.15288 being harmonized with 12207 (ongoing several years). Recent work in this area to come out soon. AS 9100.

August 1. intermediate and advanced volumes Consider architectural views for appropriate for the different using communities Consider streamlining the generic practices and look at measures for institutionalization • Consider folding the GPs into PAs [note risk of losing integrity] CMMI Update V1. project size.2 and Beyond. Phillips.. PoP.. 2007 © 2007 Carnegie Mellon University 32 .How can we "slim down" the CMMI models while still preserving integrity? How can we make this more user friendly? Can we slim down for small projects? Can the model have some scalability according to various factors (e..g. organization size)? How do extensions fit in with the model? Consider options for packaging (remove redundant stuff or repackage better) Consider fundamental.

August 1. if we tie level 4 and 5 to business objectives this may need to be a practice If there are additional requirements for the model these can be turned into practices..g. 2007 © 2007 Carnegie Mellon University 33 .Do we need something different or additional to define High Maturity? -1 Focus on the best practices. E.2 and Beyond. High maturity body of knowledge and high maturity training Risk: adds more to the model CMMI Update V1.. not focus on the high maturity aspects Consider combining level 4 and 5 into one level because of their close tie 4 and 5 are not adequately elaborated for implementation so these may needs more detail to drive proper behavior • • • For example.. Phillips.

g.. Phillips. August 1.g. 2007 © 2007 Carnegie Mellon University 34 .2 and Beyond. six sigma for high maturity) CMMI Update V1.. project management PAs for each level) Consider better interfacing approaches with other methodologies (e...Do we need something different or additional to define High Maturity? -2 Consider redistributing practices across the levels to even out effort and expectation Atlas study items that impact the model and results Consider maturity levels within PAs (e.

Transition to operations. coverage (scope) and consistency of the model be improved? Coverage (Scope) • Areas for consideration — Operations. environmental Strategic planning. training Better coverage of maintenance and technical reviews Safety. Deployment.. Disposal. Pre-project. finance Work force management and development IR&D. systems assurance. Proposal.. August 1. enterprise investment strategies. 2007 © 2007 Carnegie Mellon University 35 .2 and Beyond. enterprise management.How can repeatability. Support. sustainment. production/manufacturing. transition to production. enterprise architectures. security. advanced technology test bed or lab environment Small settings Product lines Business practices Information management (both enterprise and project) “Systems of systems” and their acquisition — — — — — — — — — — CMMI Update V1. Phillips. dependability. Advanced technology.

six sigma.. Lean. Phillips. (e.What are the "next-generation" process improvement methodology? Are there "breakthrough" concepts that we can apply to overall process improvement? Consider how CMMI could interface with other process improvement methodologies (e. efficiency LEAN) How do we measure program health? • Need for “leading indicators” CMMI Update V1. then what? • Consider an emphasis on process performance effectiveness and efficiency. TSP/PSP Consider optimizing measurements When everyone is level 5. next generation IDEAL) Integration of how people use the various methodologies (same list as above) • Agile techniques (extreme programming). August 1.2 and Beyond. theory of constraints. effectiveness 6 sigma. PMBOK. 2007 © 2007 Carnegie Mellon University 36 .g..g..

Phillips. August 1..2 and Beyond. but we need to get the integrity of the level back up Provides a roadmap for projects to break PI into pieces Guidance for where improvement is needed • Risk: has 5 been around so long that getting rid of it will have unintended consequences? Maybe we have a 5 level model that only really has 3.What representation should we have (e.g. Staged. Redesign the model to address this CMMI Update V1.. Continuous)? -1 Is the question really level-mania? (root cause?) • • Level-mania is about doing the minimal work to achieve a level ignoring what you did to achieve the grade Levels are not bad. 2007 © 2007 Carnegie Mellon University 37 ..

Continuous)? -2 How can we make two representations fit the same model? If the model is expanded to handle additional scope. August 1.. do you need to abstract concepts versus mega model? [Scope. then we may need to consider changes in the way appraisal results are presented due to sponsor driven time constraints [packaging] • • • How do we slim at the same time as providing better understanding and cover all the things that are need? As you expand scope. slimming] Need a vision and plan for model evolution — Consider a “fixed size” approach and looking at ways to present the remaining information Consider pulling out OPF and coupling it with levels 4 and 5 Don’t need to cover everything in the same model (packaging) CMMI Update V1. Staged. Phillips.g.What representation should we have (e. 2007 © 2007 Carnegie Mellon University 38 .2 and Beyond...

Phillips.2 Constellation Strategy the right approach? Alternative approach: Start with a CMMI Model Framework (CMF) and add where you need to expand scope (+ concept) Are there differentiators for constellations? Instead of creating constellations.Is the CMMI v1.. encourage projects to do what makes sense with respect to what they are doing using the parent model • • Consider looking at lifecycle and what is needed at each phase Can the unsophisticated tailor the parent model for their perspective? How multiple constellations can be used in an organization for improvement and appraisal? CMMI Update V1. 2007 © 2007 Carnegie Mellon University 39 ..2 and Beyond. August 1.

could start with IPM for a level 3. 2007 © 2007 Carnegie Mellon University 40 . but don’t look at PP specifically unless you see something out of place in PMC..How can we "slim down" the CMMI appraisals while still preserving integrity? How do we eliminate non-value add in appraisal and appraisal preparation? How do we make appraisals more efficient and effective? Consider making the appraisal be focused on goals Add an appendix for application practices Lead Appraiser and the Appraisal Team should have enough experience to review company implementations Make some assumptions that some processes are in place (e. Phillips.g.. or QPM for a level 4) • Need more guidance on where and how you might be able to do this More official or formal mechanisms for sampling coverage • Consider cost implications… CMMI Update V1. August 1. assume project planning has happened. similarly..2 and Beyond.

. using measures to judge satisfaction.2 and Beyond. 2007 © 2007 Carnegie Mellon University 41 .. incremental. August 1.Can we identify "next-generation" appraisal methodology? Are there "breakthrough" concepts that we can apply to overall appraisals? Delta appraisal. OSP separate from projects CMF separate from model components unique to constellations Certify processes instead of model (e. Phillips.g. continuous. program health (versus process health). EV or SEMP) — Sponsor commits to ongoing process improvement CMMI Update V1. leading indicators. effectiveness of generic attributes) Data reuse from previous appraisals Appraisal by parts • • • Example. process performance measures. 15504 (SPICE). EIA 732 (percentage of practices performed..

. August 1..How do we improve the trust and believability in the results of the appraisals? Process enactment tools can help with approval (workflow management) Need to define consistent process for OSP tailoring approval Requiring the appraisal be redone every three years will help with believability (already in place) • • Consider notion of visits or interim steps (like ISO surveillance audits) Six month assessments focus on correlation between results and performance (process reviews) — Doesn’t interrupt the program and not as expensive • What if you could extend the life of your appraisal if you did interim review? What is in it for the organization to provide incentive for the use of reviews? — Would the customer accept the results of the interim review? CMMI Update V1. Phillips.2 and Beyond. 2007 © 2007 Carnegie Mellon University 42 .

.How do we improve the trust and believability in the results of the appraisals? • • What should the results of a bad review be? Should you lose your level? Could you use the delta appraisal here? How are organization changes that may impact the process capability tracked? — Consider adding a practice to the model for these changes • Would interim reviews impact the capability profile — Might “red flag” the program or organization • What happens if you miss by one practice in the full appraisal? — Do I get rewarded if I fix it? Consider delta approach Consider a more formal mechanism to track changes that may impact the process capability or level CMMI Update V1.. Phillips.2 and Beyond. 2007 © 2007 Carnegie Mellon University 43 . August 1.

CMMI Update V1. 2007 © 2007 Carnegie Mellon University 44 ...Next Steps… Send us your ideas • • Form available on-line from SEI Submit like a Change Request Open Discussion….2 and Beyond. August 1. Phillips.