Why do CMMI Appraisal costs vary so widely?

"Your price is 120% higher than the last guy that was in here!" the potential client cried, "what's up with that?  Shouldn't a SCAMPI A be the same from each Lead Appraiser?  I mean, IT'S A STANDARD for heaven's sake!"

Not being my first rodeo, or nearly the first time I'd heard someone say this, I just sat back, smiled, and asked her " What are you trying to accomplish, really?  I'm not talking about the 'level," I mean what are you really trying to do here?"

That caught her a little off guard.  "What do you mean, 'accomplish?'  None of the other guys asked me that.  They just gave me a price."

Ah ha.....

There are a lot of reasons for differences in pricing.  Quality of service, obviously, is one.  Experience.  Credibility. Timing, size, and most importantly, business goals.  That last one is a little harder to predict.

"But I thought my business goal was to get ML3?" my potential (and future) client stammered.  "My boss told me I needed to get it by the end of the year or else I wouldn't get my bonus."  The poor lady seemed pretty frustrated with me, and appeared as if she was about to throw me out and hire the cheap guy from Appraisals-R-Us.

"Why do you think your boss wants you to get this? I asked.

"So we can bid on government work!" She answered.

"And the government wants you to be CMMI ML3 because.....?" I quickly added.

"uhhhh.  I'm not sure, It's just an RFP requirement" she replied.

"Look,  I'm sure the government's reason for asking you to do this has nothing to do with yet another plaque on your wall in the lobby ('Plaque Buildup'), but has EVERYTHING to do with ensuring that your company can handle what's about to happen should you win one of those sweet IDIQs.  They want to make sure your process systems can handle the stress, and deliver results."

"OK," she said. "But how does creating a bunch or process and documents help me do that?"

BINGO!  They don't!

They only help you pass an appraisal (maybe), but it's not nearly enough.  For true performance improvement, you need an expert in BOTH CMMI and Performance on your side.    The appraisal itself is perfunctory - a single event, a moment in time, a gate to get through.  The harder, more valuable stuff comes long before the appraisal.  But the time the appraisal comes you should have already won.

It's kind of like that movie "Rocky."  You could have  skipped right to the fight with no manager (which Rocky considered), participate in the fight, and get beaten badly (worse than he was!).  Or you could be more like the famed "Italian Stallion," who took his training to heart, made the hard choices, ran all his steps, and savored victory while bounding up the steps of the Philadelphia Library and doing his victory dance.

He had already won by that point!  We knew the rest.



And that's what you need to do with CMMI.  Work with someone who will take you to victory long before the appraisal event occurs.  The appraisal should be a non-event for you, not something you prepare for.  It should be more "bring it on" than "I hope we pass!"  "Passing" should never be part of your aspiration or goal - greatness should be.  Of course you're going to pass - you're now an awesome company!

There are some Lead Appraisers who don't get this - too many, actually.  They're satisfied to leave it to you, just conduct an appraisal, give you a certificate, and walk away without providing any valuable advice or insights.  But a great Lead Appraiser is an advisor and counselor, as well as a mentor, coach, and teacher who knows that the path to greatness lies on the far side of innovation, hard work, and discipline - and has the ideas you need to make it happen.

Don't waste your time with someone who doesn't get that.   That's WHY they're so cheap.

By the way, here's what to look for in a great Lead Appraiser:

- Has proven Experience
- Understands your methods, tools, and domain
- Understands your business
- Is comfortable interacting with Senior Management, as well as all levels of the company
- Freely offers ideas and techniques for improving working conditions and processes
- Is a teacher, coach, and mentor - not just a "consultant" who tells you what they think you should do
- Takes time to brainstorm ideas and solutions to your biggest problems
- Offers other valuable insight and ideas for business problems you are having

Best of luck to all of you, and here's to a great 2019!

Just the FAQs: What's the value in tailoring and tailoring guidelines?

[Dear Readers, our good friend Pat O’Toole, CMMI expert and seasoned consultant, is collaborating with us on a new monthly series of CMMI-related posts, "Just the FAQs." Our goal with these posts is to provide answers to the most frequently asked questions about CMMI, SCAMPI, engineering strategy and software process improvement. This month Pat discusses the new "Action Plan Re-Appraisal." Take it away! ~ the CMMI Appraiser]

We’re struggling with “tailoring” and “tailoring guidelines.” We think we understand the concepts, but we can’t seem to find the value. What are we missing?

[Note: Jeff addressed much of this in “Just the FAQs #06: What can we learn about process architecture from Justin Bieber?” It’s a terrific article, and if you haven’t watched the YouTube video that he included at the end, stop reading and watch it – it’s a hoot!]

PAT: I actively participate in many of the CMMI‐related Yahoo and LinkedIn forums. I’ve noticed that in many of the exchanges, participants tend to talk past, rather than to, one another, as illustrated in the following fictitious exchange:

A: Our lead appraiser said that we don’t have to perform some of the CMMI practices and we can still get our maturity level.

B: Well THAT’s not right – unless, of course, you are performing alternative practices instead.

A: Nope, he said we are not expected to have alternative practices in place either.

B: Your lead appraiser is dead wrong and should have his certification revoked!

This seemingly meaningful conversation goes back and forth for some time until…

A: Yeah, well, we are going for ML2 and he says that none of the ML3, ML4, or ML5 practices have to be performed – in fact, he won’t even be looking at them during our appraisal.

B: Oh, uh, well, never mind…

The point is that context is important!

Keeping that in mind, consider that “tailoring” can be performed at various levels of process decomposition, and you really have to understand the context in which tailoring is being discussed in order to have a meaningful dialogue. As I see it, there are four layers of tailoring:

First, there’s MEGA‐“T” tailoring – essentially, selecting a life cycle. Whether you are consciously aware of it or not, once you’ve chosen a given development life cycle, a whole lot of rituals associated with all of the other life cycles approved for use have just been tailored out. One could think of this as “tailoring with an ax.”

Next, there is CAPITAL‐“T”, or phase‐level tailoring. In very small projects, for example, the tailoring guidelines may allow the Requirements and Design phases to be combined into a single “Desirements” phase. Similarly, verification and validation activities might also be conducted in an integrated manner.

One could think of this as “tailoring with a knife.” Then there is small‐“t” tailoring – selecting among various methods within a given phase ‐ combining High Level Design and Low Level Design specs, for example, or selecting either formal inspection, desk‐check review, or buddy review for verifying a given document. This is probably what most people think about when they hear the word, “tailoring.” One might think of this as “tailoring with scissors.”

Finally, there is micro‐“t” tailoring – adjustments that are made much closer to the bottom of the food chain. For example, your formal inspection process may indicate that the work product to be inspected must be pre‐published at least 3.17 days in advance of the inspection meeting, thereby giving the participants adequate time to prepare. However, a tailoring guideline may indicate that the item can be pre‐published with less lead time provided each participant explicitly agrees that the truncated review period still provides them adequate preparation time. One might think of this as “tailoring with a needle.”

Until you establish the proper context for a given tailoring discussion, people may be doing a lot of talking, but very little communicating.

. . . . .

OK, now that I’ve (successfully?) argued that context is important to conduct a meaningful conversation about tailoring, let me set the context for what I see as one of the primary stumbling blocks with respect to deriving maximum value from the “tailoring guidelines” implemented by many/most organizations – the source of which is found in the last bit of the CMMI Glossary’s definition: “Tailoring guidelines describe what can and cannot be modified and identify components that are candidates for modification.”

Having conducted a ton of appraisals targeting ML3 or higher, I’ve noticed a couple of recurring themes when it comes to tailoring guidelines – both of which appear to align much too closely to this portion of the Glossary definition.

One of the recurring themes I see is sets of tailoring guidelines that indicate which process elements are mandatory, which are strongly encouraged, and which can be tailored out. These are clearly delineated by CMMI process area to ensure full credit is given to all GP3.1 practices when conducting an appraisal. This aligns much too closely with that bit in the Glossary that indicates “tailoring guidelines describe what can and cannot be modified.”

The other recurring theme I see is use of an Excel spreadsheet that lists every conceivable arrow in the organization’s process quiver. It includes every policy, life cycle description, process document, methodology, workflow, procedure, work instruction, guideline, template, form, checklist, metric, bathroom stall number, etc. that can be selected. The project manager is expected to meticulously mark those elements that the she intends to use. This theme aligns much too closely with that bit in the Glossary that indicates, “Tailoring guidelines… identify components that are candidates for modification.” Well, it’s more “inclusion” than “modification,” but the point still stands – explicit decisions are made regarding the project’s means of conducting its business – its “defined process.”

(Note: organizations having trouble conjuring up uses of formal decision making are likely to use DAR to make the tailoring decisions on each project – thereby bagging an appraisal twofer!)

Having a list of mandatory, suggested, and optional process elements provides some modest value, as does using the 1000+ row Excel checklist to make explicit project decisions regarding process element inclusion. But, like you, I believe there is more value to be had from the concept of tailoring.

Let me try to make the point by relying on everyone’s my favorite analogy – marathon running! Most long distance runners are concerned about the “Five H’s” – hills, heat, humidity, height (altitude), and head winds. Two of the five, hills and height, are attributes of the course and can be considered well in advance. The other three, heat, humidity, and head winds, are race day attributes – and, weather forecasts notwithstanding, you really won’t know what you’re up against until the day of the race.

Magazines like “Runner’s World” have lots of articles dedicated to such topics:

• Heat and How to Handle It
• Don’t Sweat Running in Humidity
• Running Against the Wind

These articles, written by very experienced marathoners, share secrets, hints, and tips about adjustments you may want to consider due to race‐day conditions. The author’s objective is to arm you with information based on their tried‐and‐true experience, but the decision to follow their advice or not is entirely up to you. After all, what works for them might not work for you.

So why not apply this same value‐added concept to process tailoring? In addition to following the standard script for establishing bland and boring tailoring guidelines (the one you know will pass the appraisal), why not write your own “articles” filled with tailoring guidance. Organizations that adopt such a “tips and hints” approach typically find it much more valuable than those that only follow the more mechanistic approaches above. Your project retrospectives, lesson learned sessions, or, my favorite, project post mortems (yet another project has died; let’s examine the corpse and see what we can find) will evolve from generating a repeatable list of what did and didn’t go well on the project, to lively discussions that also explore the question, “If we knew then what we know now, what might we have done differently?”

Like the “Runner’s World” articles, tailoring guidance is intended to provide experiential insight for future projects’ consideration. Codifying the secrets, hints, and tips of how to tailor project activities to overcome the inevitable hills, heat, humidity, height, and head winds will arm the next project team with advice that should make it easier for them to go the distance, and hopefully that’s the value that you were looking for.

Like this post?  Please forward to your nearest engineering or software professional!

© Copyright 2015: Process Assessment, Consulting & Training and Broadsword Solutions

“Just the FAQs” is written/edited by Pat O’Toole and Jeff Dalton. Please contact the authors at PACT.otoole@att.net and jeff@broadswordsolutions.com to suggest enhancements to their answers, or to provide an alternative response to the question posed. New questions are also welcomed!

Just the FAQs: SPECIAL EDITION! CMMI Institute Announces "Action Plan Re-Appraisal!"

[Dear Readers, our good friend Pat O’Toole, CMMI expert and seasoned consultant, is collaborating with us on a new monthly series of CMMI-related posts, "Just the FAQs." Our goal with these posts is to provide answers to the most frequently asked questions about the CMMI, SCAMPI, engineering strategy and software process improvement. This month Pat discusses the new "Action Plan Re-Appraisal." Take it away! ~ the CMMI Appraiser]

I heard that the CMMI Institute just released this thing called an “Action Plan Reappraisal.” What is it and why should I care?

PAT: Imagine that your organization just completed a maturity level 4 (ML4) SCAMPI A appraisal, but because you failed a goal in Organizational Process Performance (OPP) at ML4 and had an “Not Rated” goal in Risk Management (RSKM) at ML3, the SCAMPI A appraisal resulted in an ML2 rating. As Maxwell Smart might say, “You missed it by that much!”

Let’s assume that the ML4 rating was important to your team as a formal recognition of accomplishment and/or because a strategically important client requires it. In either case, you would want to remediate the goal‐impacting weaknesses, institutionalize the associated behavior changes, and be re‐appraised as soon as possible. Prior to the Action Plan Reappraisal being released, your organization would have to undergo another soup‐to‐nuts ML4 SCAMPI A appraisal – a very expensive and disruptive undertaking.

Now, however, the Appraisal Sponsor can elect to conduct an Action Plan Reappraisal (APR) – essentially a “delta appraisal.” An action plan is generated and executed by the organization to remediate the weaknesses and institutionalize the behavior changes, after which the appraisal team re‐evaluates the failed or not rated goals. If any of these goals are now rated “Satisfied,” the maturity level is regenerated. In the happiest of scenarios, both the OPP and RSKM goals would now be rated “Satisfied,” and ML4 will have been achieved!

Any questions?

Is there a time limit in which the Action Plan Reappraisal (APR) must be conducted?
The APR must conclude within 4 months of the SCAMPI A Final Findings presentation.

Why 4 months?
4 months was selected as an appropriate time frame for remediating minor goal‐threatening weaknesses; the APR is not intended for use when remediating major or systemic weaknesses.

Is there a limit regarding how many APRs may be conducted?
Only one APR can be conducted for a given SCAMPI A appraisal.

What happens if our current maturity level expires during this 4‐month period?
An appraisal result that exceeds its 3‐year validity period is no longer published on PARS. If the current SCAMPI A was completed and the associated APR is concluded within the 4‐month time limit, the Appraisal Sponsor can authorize the current results to be published in PARS. Publication in PARS would start after the ARP has been submitted to the CMMI Institute via the SCAMPI Appraisal System (SAS) and the CMMI Institute has concluded its Quality Audit.

How is the 3‐year validity period established for a SCAMPI A that had an APR?
Such an appraisal would expire 3 years after the delivery of the SCAMPI A Final Finding presentation.

Is it now required to conduct an APR if the target maturity level/capability level profile was not achieved in the SCAMPI A appraisal? If not required, who makes the decision to conduct an APR or not?
No, the APR is not required; it is an option available to the Appraisal Sponsor. The Lead Appraiser provides a good‐faith recommendation on whether an APR might be successful if pursued, but the final decision rests with the Appraisal Sponsor. If proceeding with an APR, this decision must be communicated to the CMMI Institute prior to submitting the SCAMPI A appraisal via SAS.

Typically, a goal fails due to one or more practices being characterized as “partially implemented.” or “not implemented.” Does the APR evaluate just these practices? Goals? Process area? Maturity level?
The APR appraises all of the “Unsatisfied” and “Not Rated” goals in the APR appraisal scope in the same manner as in a SCAMPI A: for each practice that supports the goal, documents are reviewed and interviews conducted to determine if that practice is fully, largely, partially, or not implemented on that project. These project‐level characterizations are then used to characterize the practice overall for the organization, or what’s referred to as the “OU practice characterization.” These OU practice characterizations are then used to rate the goal as “Satisfied” or “Unsatisfied.”

Note that it may be determined that additional goals need to be put in scope for the APR to properly evaluate the remediation. For example, if a Project Planning goal was rated “Unsatisfied” in the SCAMPI A, it might be appropriate to evaluate one or more goals from the Project Monitoring and Control process area as well. This decision is made by the Lead Appraiser.

Do we have to evaluate the remediated goals on the same projects, or can we do so on others?
The expectation is that the same projects will be evaluated. However, there may be cases where this is not feasible – for example, the project terminated prior to the remediation being applied, or the project is beyond the point in the lifecycle where the remediated practices are executed. In such cases, replacement projects with the same sampling characteristics may be evaluated instead.

What happens if some of the goals are still rated “Unsatisfied” or “Not Rated” at the end of the ARP?
In the example above, if the previously failed OPP goal was now rated “Satisfied” but the previously unrated RSKM goal was still “Not Rated,” the maturity level would be regenerated but the outcome would be the same – ML2. On the other hand, if the RSKM goal was now rated “Satisfied” and the OPP goal was still rated “Unsatisfied,” the regenerated maturity level rating would be ML3.

Must the organization have all failed and unrated goals re‐evaluated as part of the APR?
No, the Appraisal Sponsor can elect to conduct the APR on a subset of these. In the example above, the sponsor may decide to include only the unrated RSKM goal in the APR scope and, if the goal is successfully remediated, institutionalized, and rerated as “Satisfied,” ML3 will have been achieved.

Can the organization include new process areas in the APR? That is, in the example above, could they expand the model scope to include some or all of the ML5 process areas?
No, the model scope of the APR cannot be greater than that of the original SCAMPI A appraisal.

Do we have to use the same Lead Appraiser for the APR, and do all of the original appraisal team members have to be involved?
Yes, but... The original Lead Appraiser must be involved in all evaluation‐related APR activities, and with the exception of documentation review, these activities must be conducted onsite. In addition, for each failed or unrated goal in the APR model scope, to achieve continuity at least one member of the SCAMPI A mini‐team that evaluated the detailed evidence associated with that goal must also be involved in all of these onsite appraisal activities. In other words, there will be at least two members of the original SCAMPI A appraisal team, and maybe more, involved throughout. The other SCAMPI A appraisal team members must also be involved in OU practice characterizations and goal/capability/maturity level ratings, but they may participate remotely (e.g., via teleconference).

So in our example, if separate mini‐teams were responsible for evaluating the evidence and characterizing the practices for OPP and RSKM, then the Lead Appraiser and at least one member of each of these mini‐teams must participate in all evaluation‐related APR activities. All of the original appraisal team members must be involved in generating the OU practice characterizations and rating the goals.
Special provisions must be made with the CMMI Institute if any of the original appraisal team members, including the Lead Appraiser, cannot participate in the APR.

If there a limit on the number of failed goals that may be evaluated in an APR?
No, however, the Lead Appraiser must make a recommendation to the Appraisal Sponsor regarding the feasibility of achieving the objective. This may include reminding the sponsor that, for a goal to be rated “Satisfied,” the weaknesses have to be rectified AND the behavior changes have to be institutionalized.

Will the appraisal posting on PARS indicate that an APR was conducted?
No, the SCAMPI A and APR are considered a single appraisal event. The posting on PARS only indicates the final outcome of the appraisal; there is no indication that an APR was, or was not, conducted.

What do YOU perceive to be “the good, the bad, and the ugly” regarding Action Plan Reappraisals?
[Author’s note: Prior to this question, all answers were based on the changes introduced in the SCAMPI MDD v1.3b to accommodate the APR. In response to this question, Pat is providing his own opinion, which may or may not align with that of the CMMI Institute or his fellow Lead Appraisers!]

The Good:

Some organizations insist on being “rock solid” going into a SCAMPI A appraisal, as the fear and cost of failure is very high – in both financial and political terms. These organizations may conduct a series of Class C and Class B “dress rehearsals” until they have achieved 99.9% confidence that they will “pass” the SCAMPI A. The Action Plan Reappraisal option will allow such organizations to lower the overall cost by embracing more rating risk. The organization may forego one or more “dry run” appraisals if they know they can address any last potential goal threatening weaknesses over the ensuing four months.

Currently, some Lead Appraisers may struggle with the ethical decision to “flunk” an organization based on one or two marginal practices. They are torn between staying true to the model and method, and forcing the organization to incur the significant cost and disruption of another full SCAMPI A appraisal. The APR option makes the right decision much more palatable (for all “relevant stakeholders!”)

The Bad and the Ugly:

Some perceive that the introduction of the APR “tarnishes the brand.” That is, the SCAMPI A appraisal method is a rigorous evaluation of current organizational outputs and behaviors to determine if a predetermined set of CMMI goals is being satisfied. Appraisals bring focus to organizations that might otherwise be easily distracted. And since the SCAMPI A is typically perceived as the “gold standard” of appraisal methods, anything less, like the APR, is, well, less.

Some organizations may decide to accept too much risk. That is, rather than simply foregoing their 16th pre‐SCAMPI A dry run appraisal, they may throw prudence and caution to the wind and do NO pre‐ appraisal preparation, trusting that they can address any and all issues during their four month “grace period.” Damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead!

Finally, some CMMI‐adopting organizations may fear that an unscrupulous Lead Appraiser may see the Action Plan Reappraisal as a means of extracting even more revenue from them. “Oh gee, you failed a goal, I guess you’ll just have to pay me for another 4 or 5 days of service to get your level!”

Concluding Note
The SCAMPI Method Definition Document v1.3b, Section 4 is the Action Plan Reappraisal’s “official rule book.” If you would like a copy of this section, a copy of the full MDD, or if you have any additional questions or “Good, Bad, and Ugly” insights, please feel free to contact Pat at PACT.otoole@att.net.
Over time, I suspect that what “Dear Abby” said about birth control may also apply to the APR – “It’s better to have and not need than to need and not have.”

© Copyright 2015: Broadsword Solutions and Process Assessment, Consulting & Training
“Just the FAQs” is written/edited by Pat O’Toole and Jeff Dalton. Please contact the authors at pact.otoole@att.net and jeff@broadswordsolutions.com to suggest enhancements to their answers, or to provide an alternative response to the question posed. New questions are also welcomed! 

The Art of CMMI: Tactical Dispositions

[Our good friend Shawn Rapjack, CMMI expert and seasoned consultant, is back with a another installation on CMMI based on Sun Tzu's "The Art of War: Tactical Dispositions."  We're excited that Shawn has agreed to share segments of his article with you here on "Ask the CMMI Appraiser"]

Continuing the ‘Art of CMMI’ discussion, let’s join the battle with the Art of War’s fourth chapter, ‘Tactical Dispositions’ and alternately named, ‘Positioning’.  A theme for this chapter is ‘defense’, and specifically: ‘not creating opportunities for the enemy’.  But what does this mean for us CMMI practitioners?

It means playing it safe, being anticipatory, and addressing risk.  Sun Tzu summarizes:

Making no mistakes is what establishes the certainty of victory, for it means conquering an enemy that is already defeated.

And,

Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory

Such cautionary forethought is captured throughout the CMMI.   For example, managing risk provides a mechanism to anticipate possible roadblocks. As with battlefield tactics, risks are identified and plans are implemented to counteract or mitigate their impact. 

Project planning also requires significant ‘defensive posturing’.  Managers need to consider future ‘attacks’ on their project well into the future.  These could be:  scheduling conflicts, resource allocation conflicts, budget issues, etc.  Remember that:

To see victory only when it is within the ken of the common herd is not the acme of excellence.

To lift an autumn hair is no sign of great strength; to see the sun and moon is no sign of sharp sight; to hear the noise of thunder is no sign of a quick ear.

And hence the modern saying:  ‘You have a fine grasp of the obvious.’ If a manager only anticipates the obvious hurdles (‘uh oh! Budgets!’), they will miss the countless obscure ‘gotchas’ (weather-related delays, delivery schedule conflicts, etc.) that could befall their program.

Like this blog? Forward to your nearest engineering or software exec!

Jeff Dalton is a Certified SCAMPI Lead Appraiser, Certified CMMI Instructor, author, and consultant with years of real-world experience with the CMMI in all types of organizations. Jeff has taught thousands of students in CMMI trainings and has received an aggregate satisfaction score of 4.97 out of 5 from his students.

Visit www.broadswordsolutions.com for more information about running a successful CMMI and performance improvement program.

Meet an agile legend

Hey, readers. I have a question for YOU today. How many times in life do you get to meet someone who changed the course of your industry? ~ The CMMI Appraiser

Jim Highsmith, an outstanding author, and one of the original signatories of the Agile Manifesto, is such a man. And we all get a chance to meet him. Jim will be the Keynote Speaker at AgileDC 2012 on October 23.

Are you getting excited? This is a great opportunity to learn something new for those of you who work in the federal government sector. And it’s a great opportunity to meet Jim for agilistas, ScrumMasters, engineers, and software executives whose careers and lives have been shaped – like mine – by Jim’s work.

This CMMI Appraiser will be presenting at AgileDC as well. All are invited to come and learn about ways to make agile survive and thrive in the Federal Government.

If you’ve been reading Ask the CMMI Appraiser’s recent posts, you know how passionate I am about making agile survive by making it stronger. I think the way to make it stronger is with CMMI.

One point I emphasize in my presentation is that agile methods and values – indeed, every part of the agile architecture except for the techniques – are applicable to both agile and Waterfall. And CMMI is applicable to those also! This means, no matter what approach you take to developing software engineering solutions, the CMMI helps you get better at what you are ALREADY doing.

Here’s the link to register for the AgileDC conference, October 23, 2012, in Washington DC.

Come learn more!

Like this blog? Forward to your nearest engineering or software exec!

Jeff Dalton is a Certified SCAMPI Lead Appraiser, Certified CMMI Instructor, author, and consultant with years of real-world experience with the CMMI in all types of organizations. Jeff has taught thousands of students in CMMI trainings and has received an aggregate satisfaction score of 4.97 out of 5 from his students.

Visit www.broadswordsolutions.com for more information about running a successful CMMI program.

How do we strengthen our agile approach when the Federal Government keeps changing what we're doing?

Dear CMMI Appraiser,

Just found your blog.  We’re a Virginia-based contractor to the Federal Government and a “Waterfall” lifecycle company. For the past two years we’ve been switching some of our projects over to agile methods like Scrum, but so far we haven’t been able to scale it beyond the smallest projects. Part of the problem is that our government clients keep trying to change what we’re doing so it looks more "waterfall."  How would you deal with this? ~ Pete McC.

Pete, welcome to Ask the CMMI Appraiser. It’s good to have new readers. Thanks for your question.

The way this CMMI Appraiser sees it, you're fighting a two-headed monster.  And it's an ugly one, at that.

The first head of the monster that you face in adopting Scrum, or any of the agile methods, is internal. While you are off trying to be a Scrum team, your company’s leaders are off trying to be a Waterfall team.  In fact, I bet if I were to look through all of your departments, not just software engineering, but accounting, marketing and sales, operations, I would find that your CEO, CIO and COO are off living in a Waterfall world.  That's one reason Scrum projects can’t scale and why you might feel you're not getting much traction. 

The second head of the monster is external. By trying to change what you are doing, the Federal Government is actively, but probably un-knowingly, weakening your agile values. And if it’s a struggle between the Federal Government and agile, we all know who is going to win!

Both of these challenges are fixable, Pete.  But neither is going to get solved this year. The problem is bigger than you and I. I recommend that you start working on techniques you can use to strengthen Agile, and build a process integration layer to get your agile teams to talk to the business leaders. The CMMI is the perfect tool for that.

By using CMMI as a framework (as opposed to slavishly adhering to practices) you’ll be in a position to deal with BOTH heads of the monster. Consider:

First, the CMMI provides a framework for your agile teams to talk to the business leaders, helping them understand how well agile methods are working for THEM, and to communicate important information to other stakeholders like middle management, customers, and accounting. And when you're ready to test it - go ahead and have a CMMI Appraisal.

Yes, I said it.  CMMI Appraisals can be very beneficial for Agile organizations - assuming the Lead Appraiser you're working with gets it - not necessarily an easy task!

Second, the practices that CMMI makes available to you include those that help bring greater clarity and strength to the Scrum ceremonies themselves (the “Specific Practices” in the CMMI), and those that help strengthen the understanding, adoption, and continuous improvement of the Agile values and behaviors (the “Generic Practices” in the CMMI).  So, the way to make agile survive and flourish in the Federal Government is to make it stronger. And the way to make agile stronger is with CMMI.

Don't CHANGE it - make it better!

Now that you found us, keep checking this blog for updates, Pete.  I will be posting much more on the topic of using the CMMI to strengthen agile, so that you will be in a better position to defeat the two-headed monster once and for all.

Like this blog? Forward to your nearest engineering or software exec!

Jeff Dalton is a Certified SCAMPI Lead Appraiser, Certified CMMI Instructor, author, and consultant with years of real-world experience with the CMMI in all types of organizations. Jeff has taught thousands of students in CMMI trainings and has received an aggregate satisfaction score of 4.97 out of 5 from his students.

Visit www.broadswordsolutions.com for more information about running a successful CMMI program.

So your boss asked you to look into CMMI and Agile - but you’re not sure he gets it. How do you brief him?

Hey, software and engineering professionals –

Regular followers of Ask the CMMI Appraiser know that this CMMI Appraiser gets a wide range of questions about engineering strategy, performance innovation and process improvement. But we also get questions about executive leadership – sometimes from people who don’t want to go “on record” asking the question, for fear of making their boss look bad.

For example, after one of my CMMI training classes recently, a software developer from a large Michigan-based automotive company (you’ve heard of them) approached me somewhat timidly. She confided in me that she had orders from her boss to get "certified at CMMI ML3" while also transitioning them to be "an agile shop."

She was concerned that her boss didn’t know what he was asking her to do. She said, “Now that I’ve taken the Introduction to CMMI training, I understand that adopting the CMMI is about taking on a large-scale business transformation initiative. What can I do to help my boss understand how big it is?”

I responded the same way I’d respond to anyone who said their boss told them to “go get certified” at CMMI ML3, become agile, or any other major culture change. I said he was showing signs that he needed some help - a little remedial training, if you will.  We call it a CMMI Executive Briefing.

What are the signs that your boss may need an Executive Briefing? Here are a few:

• You walk out of a meeting with your boss, and you suspect he doesn’t know what he’s just asked for;
• The leaders asking the question don’t understand that CMMI and Agile are game-changers, which means changing the way people behave, not the forms they fill out; 
• The boss asks for a CMMI certification or CMMI appraisal or some other "achievement,"– without saying why or how he thinks it will help; 
• You’ve been assigned a task that is impossible to complete, given the time and the money they’ve allocated toward accomplishing it; 
• They ask you to change all of your projects over to agile this week; 
• They tell you to “get a level.”

The source of confusion for executives is understandable. The CMMI does indeed have “levels” associated with it, which in retrospect may have been a mistake because it’s too easy for companies to say, “Three is more than two so Level 3 is better than Level 2,” which does a great disservice to the organization.

What your boss really should be saying is, “I want to completely change the way people behave in our company,” which is the same as asking for a massive re-engineering of the organization. Getting “CMMI certified” has zero to do with that outcome.

The important thing to remember is that adopting the CMMI is all about solving business problems. It’s not about documents, forms, certificates or ratings. It’s about adopting a model that's about how great organizations perform. Transitioning to "agile" is not much different. It's also about solving business problems, changing behaviors, and not about documents or ratings.

So that’s why we recommend the Executive Briefing. We want to help executives understand the size and complexity of what they’ve asked for. The Executive Briefing gives them the tools they need to help their teams be successful in adopting the CMMI and Agile together.

Like this blog? Forward to your nearest engineering or software exec!

Jeff Dalton is a Certified SCAMPI Lead Appraiser, Certified CMMI Instructor, author, and consultant with years of real-world experience with the CMMI in all types of organizations. Jeff has taught thousands of students in CMMI trainings and has received an aggregate satisfaction score of 4.97 out of 5 from his students.

Visit www.broadswordsolutions.com for more information about running a successful CMMI program.

Why CMMI?

Hey CMMI Appraiser, I found your blog via a Google search for “Maryland CMMI.” We are a Maryland manufacturing company that uses both Waterfall and agile methods. Quick question: Why CMMI? ~ Todd L.

Hey, Todd - Why CMMI? Well, let me ask YOU quick question … Why dance?

The point is that, like dancing, adopting the CMMI can be a liberating experience. I find it fascinating that the misperception continues, even among CMMI appraisers today, that the CMMI is this heavy, command and control, document-centric cauldron of hard, dreary work and pure nonsense.

CMMI has none of that. It doesn’t tell you how to do anything. It doesn’t “require” anything. The CMMI says, “Here’s what great companies do.” That’s all it essentially says.

Let’s break it down a little more. Here’s what the CMMI is and does:

• The CMMI is a tool to help solve business problems.
• The CMMI helps you change and improve requirements churn and volatility, so that you can spend less time and money on requirements.
• The CMMI helps you be on-time and on-budget.
• The CMMI helps you motivate your staff, and make them better at what they do.
• The CMMI helps you understand and deal with risk, before it hurts you
• The CMMI helps you avoid having too many meetings, unhappy customers and unpredictable projects.

And the CMMI can do this whether you choose agile, waterfall, and any other set of methods.

Why CMMI?  Back to you, Todd: Why not?

Like this blog? Forward to your nearest engineering or software exec! 

Jeff Dalton is a Certified SCAMPI Lead Appraiser, Certified CMMI Instructor, author, and consultant with years of real-world experience with the CMMI in all types of organizations. Jeff has taught thousands of students in CMMI trainings and has received an aggregate satisfaction score of 4.97 out of 5 from his students.

Visit www.broadswordsolutions.com for more information about running a successful CMMI program.

What's the different between a non-compliance and an observation?

Hey Appraiser,

We have internal auditors in our company, and they're always ranting on and on about "non-complaince" and "observations."  I don't get it, what's the difference?  ~Vib

Dear Vib,

You'll likely get different answers to this question since these words have different meanings depending on which process model or audit method you are employing.  Since this is a CMMI and agile blog, I'll use that as my baseline.  But if you are adopting ISO15504, 9001, or ITIL, these have their own meanings.

When I conduct SCAMPI Appraisals the findings fall into 3 categories - Strengths, Weaknesses, and Observations.  I typically don't use the "compliance" or "audit" words as I find them counter to the meaning and purpose of CMMI.  CMMI is not a standard we are "compliant" with, and a SCAMPI appraisal is not an "audit."

I suppose you could think about a weakness in a SCAMPI appraisal as something that is "non-compliant," but it is more complicated than that.  We consider the performance of the projects/individuals (the Specific Practices) and the characteristics and performance of the organization and process itself (the so-called Generic Practices), as well as the information from the community (through interviews with the extended organization).  It's entirely possible for a project to be fully-compliant with a specific practice, but we find a weakness within a Process Area due to a deficiency that is indicated by an interview with the extended community.  So are they compliant?  Non-compliant?  That just gives me a headache.

In reality there is a continuum of strength and weakness, and the information we gather in appraisals helps us identify where on that continuum the organization is performing.  

An Observation can be either an illumination of great strength, or a recommendation for improvement in performance (or in the process) that is not a weakness.  It is arrived at through the interpretation of the data by the appraisal team after a complex set of interactions that are both data-intensive and interpersonal.

Hope this helps!

Like this blog? Forward to your nearest engineering or software exec!

Laura Adkins is a Senior CMMI Consultant with Broadsword Solutions Corporation. She has years of real world experience using pilot testing strategies and tactics to help her clients achieve their goals. Laura also uses the CMMI, in partnership with her clients, to set-up, monitor, and sustain process improvement programs.

Visit www.broadswordsolutions.com for more information about running a successful CMMI program.

We're everywhere you are! Ask the CMMI Appraiser all over the web!

Dear Readers,

Want a daily tip on CMMI and Engineering Performance?  Follow us on Twitter at:

Want to join our community for discussion and CMMI information?  Join our group on Linkedin at:

Like pictures and daily news about CMMI events?  "Like" us on Facebook at:

G+ Fan?  Join us on G+ for CMMI information, pictures, and commentary at:

Like Tumblr?  This blog is mirrored over there.

And for your all-around CMMI information source, join us on our website at:

See you ..... out there!

Like this blog? Forward to your nearest engineering or software exec!

Jeff Dalton is a Certified SCAMPI Lead Appraiser, Certified CMMI Instructor, author, and consultant with years of real-world experience with the CMMI in all types of organizations. Jeff has taught thousands of students in CMMI trainings and has received an aggregate satisfaction score of 4.97 out of 5 from his students.

Visit www.broadswordsolutions.com for more information about running a successful CMMI program.

My boss said we need to choose between Agile and CMMI. Which should we choose?

Hey Jeff,


My boss is a software guy, and he seems to know a lot of life-cycles and software development processes.  The other day he was having an all-hands meeting and he said to us "look, you guys gotta choose.  It's either Agile or CMMI - but not both.  So let's cut the crap and get our act together." 


We need to do SOMETHING.  What should it be - Agile or CMMI? ~Ross

To CMMI or to Agile - that is the question.... to paraphrase Billy Shakespeare.

Well Ross, your boss is right, you've gotta choose.  But the question is, choose what?   We COULD spend some time choosing between two completely different concepts, or we could make the right choice.

Choosing between CMMI and Agile is like choosing between a hamburger and a tractor.  One is good if you're hungry, the other is good if you need to plow some dirt.  Huh?

Agile is a philosophy that stems from a set of guiding principles known as the "Agile Manifesto."  It is purposely vague so as to allow people to make the right decisions based on their individual projects.  CMMI is a model that suggests a set of best-practices you might use to improve what you are doing.  It's a "what to" not a "how to" set of suggestions.  So if "what you are doing" is using an Agile method like "Scrum" you could use the CMMI to make it better.  If you are approaching life in a waterfall fashion, then CMMI could make that better.  And don't let any CMMI Consultant tell you otherwise!

CMMI is not a collection of methods, and Agile is not a best-practices model.  See?  A hamburger and a tractor.

So instead of choosing between CMMI and Agile, choose between being a good company or being a great company.  If that were my choice, I would not be choosing between CMMI and Agile, I would be embracing both CMMI and Agile even more!  Except be sure you understand what they both mean.

As Mr. Shakespeare liked to say "Let me embrace thee, sour adversity, for wise men say it is the wisest course"

Agile methods are an excellent way to manage software project using iterative and incremental techniques such as Scrum, Spiral, and XP.  CMMI is an excellent tool to both improve upon HOW you adopt those methods, and to fill in any gaps you (or your management) might have.

CMMI is also an excellent tool to help you understand how well Agile methods are working for you, and to communicate important information to other stakeholders like Management, Customers, and Accounting. And if you want to test it - go ahead and have a CMMI Appraisal.

Many of my Agile purista friends argue that all that matters is what goes on inside a Scrum team. As a matter of fact some insist that no one else is allowed into their daily standup.  This just is not realistic in the real world - and it's not useful.  Customers, management, accounting, and marketing all have a legitimate stake in software projects - no matter how annoying software developers believe them to be.

To paraphrase the Bard again - "me thinks they know not from where they're paid.  Perhaps a bodkin is in order."

So make the right choice Ross.  Choose to be a great company.    Wrap your arms around both and hold on tight!

Like this blog? Forward to your nearest engineering or software exec.

Jeff Dalton is a Certified SCAMPI Lead Appraiser, Certified CMMI Instructor, author, and consultant with years of real-world experience with the CMMI in all types of organizations. Jeff has taught thousands of students in CMMI trainings and has received an aggregate satisfaction score of 4.97 out of 5 from his students.

Visit www.broadswordsolutions.com for more information about running a successful CMMI program.

Can Issue Management be it's own Process Area?

Dear Appraiser, I am  currently working in Chrysler LLC as process engineer with 5+  years of experience in Project Management and as a CMMI Consultant.  I've met you in your capacity as a CMMI Appraiser and CMMI Instructor.  It will be great if you can answer the following.

In the CMMI model, why is issue management part of PMC, whereas Risk Management (RSKM) is it's own separate process area?  Can issue management be made it's own separate process area to help it be better managed? ~Sri

Sri,

It COULD be.  Maybe I should add an issue to the issue log on this.  It might read:

Issue #101: People still think process areas are processes.  Resolutions: write a post about how Process Areas are not Processes!

Seriously though, if you're going to create Process Areas for your own organization (good idea), they don't have to be the same as the CMMI Process Areas.  For instance, practices from PP, PMC, RSKM, and IPM can all be part of a  home-grown Process Area called "Project Management," or in your example, you could have your own PA named "issue management" if you'd like.  That's the beauty of process - you can make it your own (and you should).

But if you think of this in CMMI terms, risk management exist in BOTH PP/PMC and RSKM.  For companies who have not yet considered ML3, PP and PMC provide an entree' to Risk - with a little less structure.

On the issue of issues (now I'm sounding like the CMMI with it's circular references), practices exist in both ML2 and ML3.  For ML2 we see it in PP/PMC, and in ML3 we see it in Integrated Project Management (IPM) SG2 "Coordinate and Collaborate with Relevant Stakeholders," albeit indirectly.

But after it's all said and done, you need to make the process your own.  If you think having a better focus on issue management will help you, create your own - and use PMC SG2, IPM SG2, and a little dash of PP to create it and *poof!* instance process area!

Like this blog? Forward to your nearest engineering or software exec.

Jeff Dalton is a Certified SCAMPI Lead Appraiser, Certified CMMI Instructor, author, and consultant with years of real-world experience with the CMMI in all types of organizations. Jeff has taught thousands of students in CMMI trainings and has received an aggregate satisfaction score of 4.97 out of 5 from his students.

Visit www.broadswordsolutions.com for more information about running a successful CMMI program.