Abstract
The Capability Maturity Model specifies several hundred key practices that must be implemented as a team moves from Level 1 to Level 5 of the model. However, the model does not specify within each level the optimal sequence in which to implement the practices. Level 2 contains 121 such practices grouped under six key process areas (KPAs) which are further subdivided into five common feature areas (CFAs). Although the KPA/CFA structure has a logical fit with the organizational structure of very large software development teams, it does not correspond to the reality of small teams. Using Level 2 audit data collected on 10 small software development teams, the authors try to determine whether the data itself can point to a more appropriate implementation strategy for small teams. The data is analyzed using Guttman scaling techniques (scalogram analysis). The results indicate that there is a single underlying, orderable dimension at Level 2 which lays out a step-by-step path upward from Level 1. The order of the items is found to map well to the familiar Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle widely used by project managers to organize and control work efforts. The extracted scale can be used as an assessment tool to provide management with a quick snapshot of a team's current position relative to Level 2.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Borg, I., and Shye, S. 1995. Facet Theory: Form and Content. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Brodman, J. G., and Johnson, D. I. 1996. Return on investment from software process improvement as measured by U.S. industry. Crosstalk 9(4).
Gorden, R. L. 1977. Unidimensional Scaling of Social Variables: Concepts and Procedures. New York: The Free Press.
Guttman, L. L. 1944. A basis for scaling qualitative data. American Sociological Review 9: 139–150.
Johnson, D. I., and Brodman, J. G. 1996. Realities and rewards of software process improvement. IEEE Software 29(11): 99–101.
Johnson, D. I., and Brodman, J. G. 1997. Tailoring the CMM for small businesses, small organizations, and small projects. Software Process Newsletter 8: 1–6.
Lawlis, P. K., Flowe, R. M., and Thordahl, J. B. 1995. A correlational study of the CMM and software development performance. Crosstalk 8(9).
McIver, J. P., and Carmines, E. G. 1981. Unidimensional Scaling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Paulk, M. C., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M. B., and Weber, C. V. 1993. Capability Maturity Model for Software, Version 1.1. Pittsburgh, PA: Software Engineering Institute.
Piaget, J., and Inhelder, B. 1969. The Psychology of the Child. New York: Basic Books.
Shye, S. 1978. Theory Construction and Data Analysis in the Behavioral Sciences. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Weller, S. C., and Romney, A. K. 1990. Metric Scaling: Correspondence Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Weller, S. C., and Romney, A. K. 1988. Systematic Data Collection. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bilotta, J.G., McGrew, J.F. A Guttman Scaling of CMM Level 2 Practices: Investigating the Implementation Sequences Underlying Software Engineering Maturity. Empirical Software Engineering 3, 159–177 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008084231983
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008084231983