Wednesday, October 20, 2010

What PIIDs should we be using for CMMI-ACQ?

Dear Appraiser,

We are involved with helping a group prepare themselves for a CMMI for Acquisition Appraisal. I’m looking for a set of PIIDs that provide examples of acceptable artifacts/evidence for two of the process areas, which are Agreement Management & Acquisition Requirements Development. We are fairly familiar with the artifacts needed, but would like to see from an appraisers point of view, what are acceptable type artifacts/evidence  for each of the SPs in this these process areas. Where can I get PIIDs similar to CMMI for Dev, that provides detail examples of Direct & Indirect artifacts/evidence.

If I just had those dang documents we'd be Level 5!

And before I forget, the idea of "Direct and Indirect" is going away in v1.3, replaced by "Artifact."  Problem half solved!

Like the CMMI-DEV, there are no "accepted" PIIDs that are good for everyone and that all Lead Appraisers would agree with.  This is because every organization is unique, and has their way of doing business.  Some examples exist for DEV commercially because of its relative maturity in the market, but since ACQ is so recent, there isn't much available out there - even for a price.  Even if there were, I'd stay away from them if it were me.

You knew I couldn't end there :)

Isn't focusing on the PIIDs the opposite of what is good for your company?  I'm sure you're not just "trying to achieve a level (cough cough)" so if you are using work products that support behaviors that completely serve your needs, and you use the SPs and Sub Practices to perform a loose "gap analysis" on your behaviors and work products, then everything should "just work" (to borrow a phrase from Apple).  And your Lead Appraiser will be happy too.  BONUS!

The CMMI is a behavioral model, not a documentation requirement, and PIIDs are useful as a natural outcome of a certain behavior.  All the examples you should need are in the book - and if what you're using already is meeting your needs, it's probably just fine (and better than an outsiders suggestion).

No comments: