© 2010 carnegie mellon university benefits of cmmi within the defense industry software engineering...

© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University

Benefits of CMMI Within the Defense Industry

Software Engineering InstituteCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburgh, PA 15213

May 2010

2© 2010 Carnegie Mellon University

Outline

• Introduction• Benefits of CMMI Implementation

–Quantitative–Qualitative

• Looking Ahead• Summary

This report was created with the cooperation of the Systems Engineering Division (SED) of the National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA) and their member companies and DoD organizations.


Purpose of Presentation

Present new evidence about effective implementations of CMMI

• Examples are provided by the defense industrial base and DoD organizations.

• New examples are based upon the measures that practicing organizations use to track value to their businesses.

• Examples are provided by organizations that have tracked and measured performance improvements from using CMMI over many years.

• Many of the organizations emphasize high maturity results and show that they enabled superior performance.

• Their data indicate why CMMI is important to the DoD & its suppliers.

The new data presented in this report demonstrates that effective implementation of good practices aided by use of CMMI can improve cost, schedule, and quality performance.


CMMI: Major Benefits to DoD

“Does CMMI work?” We asked our nation’s defense contractors, as well as government agencies, to share results from their performance improvement efforts using CMMI. The results spoke for themselves: “Yes, CMMI works!”

The following slides include information from six defense organizations that responded.*

*Results reported in this presentation are not attributed to protect confidentiality.


Background on the Data for this PresentationOrganizational and project leaders decided which measures were most useful to them when tracking the results of CMMI-based improvements.

A common thread was their interest in measuring the effect CMMI had on schedule, effort and cost, and quality.

The summarized results demonstrate the wide scope of business values and goals of the participating organizations.

The source studies in this presentation used current data as follows:• 2010: Organizations 1, 2A, 3, & 6• 2009: Organizations 5 & 7• 2008: Organization 2B


Quantitative Measures: SchedulePerformance Results Summary

We all do!

Measure Used By The Organization Performance Result

On-time deliverables (Organization 2a)

On-time deliverable increase of 4.9% (organization went from 95% to 99.9% of projects delivered on time)

Earlier Defect Detection and Repair (Organization 1)

6.35 times less defect discovery and repair hours after start of system testing; potential savings of 5 – 6.5 months in schedule delay after system tests begin for average sized project

Schedule performance index (Organization 7)

Increased from .78 to .93 over three years (a 19.2% improvement in estimation and execution of schedule)


Quantitative Measures: Effort (Rework) and Cost Performance Results Summary

We all do!


Total hours for defect repair (Organization 1) 58% fewer hours needed to repair defects for ML5 versus ML3; Result: a potential cost savings of $1.9 to $2.3 M per average-sized project (defined as 233 KESLOC [Kilo Equivalent Source Lines of Code])

Hours per KLOC to find and fix defects for CMMI ML5 relative to the SW-CMMI ML3 baseline (Organization 6)

Defect find and fix cost down 22%

Effort hours needed to repair high severity defects in integration and test phases (Organization 4)

24% reduction in effort hours per defect

Cost performance index (Organization 4) Increased from .88 to .96 over two years

Overhead rates for CMMI ML5 relative to the SW-CMMI ML3 baseline (Organization 6)

Reduced by 7.3%

Software development cost for CMMI ML5 relative to the SW-CMMI ML3 baseline (Organization 6)

Reduced by 28%


Selected Results: High Maturity ReducesCosts for Repair (Organization 1)

High Maturity Projects Discover defects earlier

Early detection and repair lowers Costs

57.7% fewer hours for ML5 projects expended to repair defects versus ML3

105.3 fewer hours per defect • 88.6 fewer hours during

Testing alone• When largest risk to

schedule occurs

7.9

47.3

105.

1

22.1

182.

5

9.3

35.7

16.5

15.7

77.2

-

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Req & Design Code & UT Sys & Acpt Test Post Delivery Total Hours

Average Hours per Defect per Phase

Maturity Level 3

Maturity Level 5

57.7% Fewer HoursOverall for ML 5

Saves 105.3 hours per

defect

88.6 fewer hours in Testing

8


1,846

11,022

24,496

5,155

42,519

2,177

8,309

3,855 3,651

17,992

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

Req & Design Code & UT Sys & Acpt Test Post Delivery Total Hours

Hours to Repair Defects (by Phase)(233 KESLOC Avg Project)

Maturity Level 3

Maturity Level 5

57.7% fewer hours (24,527)expended for ML 5

6.35 times (20,641 hrs) less risk of Cost or Schedule impact late in program

Potential Cost Savings From $ 1.9 M to $2.3 M per average sized program

Selected Results: Effort to Repair Defectsby Phase (Organization 1)


Quantitative Measures: Quality Performance Results Summary

We all do!


Defect density by severity, ML5 compared to ML3 (Organization 1)

62.5% fewer high-severity defects with ML5 projects

Defect density in circuit board design (Organization 2a)

65% improvement

Defect containment by phase (Organization 3)

The fix of defects within the phase they were injected increased by 240%

Defect containment, ML5 compared to ML3, by phase per KLOC (thousands of lines of code) (Organization 2b)

Defect containment improved 13%

User acceptance test defects per KLOC (Organization 7)

Less than 0.15 defects per KLOC

% of defects removed prior to system test (Organization 7)

>85%


Selected Results: Quality Performance (Organization 3)


Quantitative Measures: Productivity Results Summary

We all do!


Productivity Gain with ML5 (Organization 1)

42% gain with ML5 organizational practices over 9 years

Organizational productivity vs. Galorath SEER SEM Estimation Model (Organization 1)

Production hours reduction: 33.0% at ML3; 37.4% at ML5

Productivity for CMMI ML5 relative to the SW-CMM ML3 baseline (Organization 6)

Productivity up 25.2%


0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

9 Year ML5 Org Other Projects

Productivity Gain with Long Term ML 5

42% Gain with ML 5Organizational Practices

Average project size was 233 KESLOC

Largest = 1,360 KESLOCSmallest = 29 KESLOC

Average customer project savings due to increased productivity • Equivalent of 406 work months per project (33.8 work years)

Selected Results: Software Productivity(Organization 1)


Quantitative Measures: Customer Satisfaction Results Summary

We all do!


Award fee (used as an indicator of customer satisfaction) for CMMI ML5 relative to the SW-CMM ML2 baseline (Organization 6)

50% of potential additional award fee achieved

Cost savings to customer in a cost-plus contract (Organization 1)

Rose from 5.7 M to 7.1 M (25%)


Selected Results: Award Fee (Organization 6)

Customer Satisfaction Continues to Improve

Potential Additional Award Fee Available

SW CMM L2 SW CMM L3 SW CMM L4 SW CMM L5 CMMI L5 CMMI L5

Percent

50% of Potential Additional Award FeeAchieved


Quantitative Result: Return on Investment (Organization 2a)

Organization 2a reported their quantified ROI from CMMI Maturity Level 5 activity to be 24 : 1.

These results are a consequence of meaningful process improvement aligned with the business and engineering objectives.

Using the data in Performance Results of CMMI ® -Based Process Improvement (CMU/SEI-2006-TR-004) they were able to compare their ROI performance to others in industry:

• Median ROI 4 : 1• Lowest ROI 1.7 : 1• Organization 2a 24 : 1• Highest ROI 27.7 : 1


• Reduced overtime and less intense pressure

• Clear roles and responsibilities for business execution

• Common language (i.e., defined processes, measures) across business units

• Decrease in replanning• Products with lower levels of defects and lower risk; one organization offers a lifetime warranty on products

CMMI Provides Many QualitativeBenefits as Well*

Organizations also gathered various qualitative measures to compliment their quantitative measurements. They found qualitative benefits such as:

• Improved program insight, control, and tracking• Reduced training: process documentation enables knowledge transfer to new generation of workers• Process transformation (via consistency, integration, coordination)• Personnel retention and job satisfaction

*based on published benefits from a wide variety of organizations


The Bottom Line

Why improve processes? - Because processes are the foundation for all other business improvements, and critical for

• lasting improvements• successful technology insertion

If a performance management system is not in use, leadership is unaware of what is and is not working.

CMMI is a proven approach to performance management – with more than a decade of results showing it does work.

Organizations have provided data that shows CMMI• enables the delivery of lower-defect products, with predictable

cost, schedule, and quality• improves business performance • serves as competitive discriminator


Results Depend on Implementation

Simply deciding to “do CMMI” is not enough to achieve benefits.

Defining good processes, using them, measuring the results, and making improvements based on what you learn are all key to reaping the benefits described in this presentation.

The CMMI models are a foundational part of a comprehensive approach to process improvement that helps organizations understand • why they should improve• what frameworks and tools would best fit their needs• how to implement them


Recent Research on CMMI: Just the Tipof the Iceberg!


CMMI Research - References

Bibliographic information cited in this presentation:

• Gibson, Diane; Goldenson, Dennis R.; and Kost, Keith. Performance Results of CMMI-Based Process Improvement (CMU/SEI-2006-TR-004). Pittsburgh, PA: Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, August 2006.

Journal Issue: “Performance Results from Process Improvement.” SoftwareTech News. Vol. 10, Number 1. March 2007.

Goldenson, Dennis R. and Gibson, Diane L. Demonstrating the Impact and Benefits of CMMI®: An Update and Preliminary Results. (CMU/SEI-2003-SR-009). Pittsburgh, PA: Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, October 2003.

Journal Issue: “CMMI: Getting a Handle on Process.” CrossTalk. Vol. 23, Number 1. Jan/Feb 2010.

Herbsleb, James D.; Carleton, Anita; Rozum, James A.; Siegel, Jane; and Zubrow, David. Benefits of CMM-Based Software Process Improvement: Initial Results* (CMU/SEI-94-TR-013). Pittsburgh, PA: Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, August 1994. (*Also see SEI Special Report: Benefits of CMM-Based Software Process Improvement: Executive Summary of Initial Results, CMU/SEI-94-SR-013)

Stoddard II, Robert W. and Goldenson, Dennis R. Approaches to Process Performance Modeling: A Summary from the SEI Series of Workshops on CMMI High Maturity Measurement and Analysis (CMU/SEI-2009-TR-021). Pittsburgh, PA: Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, January 2010.

Jones, Capers. Assessment and Control of Software Risks. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1994 (ISBN 0-13-741406-4).

Website about CMMI at the Software Engineering Institute: <http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/index.cfm>


Looking AheadThe road ahead for CMMI implementation

• A continued focus on high maturityMore and more organizations are striving for and achieving high maturity – and are collecting data demonstrating the benefits. Once at ML 4 or 5, organizations must maintain their focus on good implementation practices for continuous improvement.

• Implementation of CMMI for Services (CMMI-SVC)CMMI-SVC extends the benefits of CMMI to a new audience. Service providers can use the model concept that has proven useful in the development community to specifically address their interests and concerns.

• Implementation of CMMI for Acquisition (CMMI-ACQ)CMMI-ACQ helps organizations improve relationships with their suppliers and improve acquisition processes. The model can enable increased control of projects, better management of global sourcing of products and services, and more successful acquisition solutions.

• Integration with other improvement paradigms (e.g., TSP, ISO, Lean Six Sigma)Organizations are finding that integrated improvement initiatives can produce outstanding results. Choosing CMMI doesn’t mean discontinuing improvement efforts already in place or avoiding new ones that show promise.


Summary

Many stakeholders are involved in the development and maintenance of CMMI models, with participants from commercial industry, government, and the DoD. Broad adoption has occurred worldwide. Adopters range from small and midsize organizations (these are the majority) to large and very large organizations.

Organizations that provide products and services to the DoD use CMMI to improve programs, systems, product and service management, systems and software engineering, work processes, and training solutions.

Quantitative and qualitative results have been documented by defense contractors and others, as shown in this report. There is a great deal of additional data showing the benefits of CMMI from a broad range of industries, including banking and finance, manufacturing, medical, and others.

CMMI enables performance improvement focused on business objectives, but the level of success depends on the implementation.


Who Benefits from CMMI Today?

We all do!


Background Slides if Needed


Background: The Achievement of Excellence

CMMI leads the way to high performance through improved processes.

The management of the development and delivery of software systems must be guided by quantitatively managed processes.

Performance comes from processes that arepredictable, repeatable, and continuously improving in terms of product quality, cost and schedule performance,process performance, and customer satisfaction.

82

9261

TSP Fidelity

Project PerformanceOrganizational Coverage

84

115 69

126

100

Schedule

Cost & effort

QualityFunctional Completion

Cust. Satisfaction


Results Overview – Quantitative Measures

We received data/information showing performance improvements in the following categories:

• Schedule

• Effort/cost

• Quality

• Customer satisfaction

• Business growth


Background: Leadership, Stewardship, and Evolution of Maturity Models

41

Many stakeholders have been involved in the development and evolution of the maturity models published by the SEI, with hundreds of people contributing their time and expertise over the years.

AT&TAutomatic Data ProcessingBAE SystemsBoeingComarco SystemsComputer Sciences CorporationDNV IT Global ServicesEER SystemsEricssonGeneral DynamicsGeneral MotorsHarris CorporationHewlett-Packard CompanyHoneywell CorporationIBMIntegrated System Diagnostics, Inc.JP Morgan ChaseKPMG Consulting

MotorolaNational Defense Industrial AssociationNorimatsu Process Engineering LabNorthrop Grumman CorporationPacific BellQ-Labs, IncRaytheonRockwell CollinsSAICSiemensSoftware Productivity ConsortiumSpirulaSRA InternationalSystems and Software ConsortiumTata Consultancy ServicesTeraQuest, IncTHALESTRWUniversity of Pittsburgh Medical Center

Industry participants

Government participantsDefense Logistics AgencyDepartment of Homeland SecurityFederal Aviation AdministrationInstitute for Defense AnalysesNational Reconnaissance OfficeNational Security AgencyOffice of the Secretary of DefenseRD&E CommandUS Air ForceUS ArmyUS Navy


CMMI Adoption Knows No Borders

There are 33 countries with more than ten appraisals as of March 2010:

USA 1582 China 1229 India 524 Japan 306 Spain 180 France 168 Korea (ROK) 165 Brazil 144 Taiwan 134 U.K. 113Mexico 86 Argentina 77 Germany 76 Malaysia 71 Canada 59 Egypt 43 Italy 43Thailand 38 Chile 37Australia 36

Also: Colombia, Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore, Israel, Hong Kong, Vietnam, Turkey, Netherlands, Portugal, Sri Lanka, Ireland and Russia

An estimated 1.8 million people work in organizations that have had at least one SCAMPI A appraisal since April 2002.


CMMI Works for Organizations of All Sizes

25 or fewer13.6%

26 to 5015.6%

51 to 7512.8%

76 to 1008.9%

101 to 20019.8%

201 to 3009.0%

301 to 5007.4%

501 to 10006.8%

1001 to 20003.7%

2000+2.5%

201 to 2000+23.8%

1 to 10058.2%

Source for these statistical analyses: http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/casestudies/profiles/cmmi.cfm

http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/casestudies/profiles/cmmi.cfm


Retail Trade0.3%

Wholesale Trade0.1%

Transportation, Communication, Electric, Gas

and Sanitary Services3.6%

Finance, Insurance and Real Estate5.5%

Public Administration (Including Defense)

3.2%

Fabricated Metal Products0.2%

Primary Metal Industries0.3%

Industrial Machinery And Equipment

0.7%

Electronic & Other Electric Equipment

10.4%

Instruments And Related Products

1.0%

Transportation Equipment2.4%

Other Manufacturing Industries

1.2%Health Services

1.3%

Other Services10.7%

Engineering & Management Services24.2%

Business Services35.0%

CMMI Adoption Is Multi-Sector

Manufacturing16.3%

Services71.1%

Source for these statistical analyses: http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/casestudies/profiles/cmmi.cfm

http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/casestudies/profiles/cmmi.cfm


Why Care about Improving Software Engineering Performance?

• To improve software engineering cost, schedule, and quality performance

• To improve competitive economic and military advantage


CMMI: A Strong Partner for DoD and theDefense Industrial Base

Large or small, organizations that provide products and services to the DoD share common challenges, from meeting defense software specifications and requirements, to securing networks, to developing and retaining a talented workforce.

CMMI helps the defense industrial base create better systems management, improved software engineering, more efficient processes, and tailored training solutions.

CMMI’s worldwide growth even in tough economic times indicates the value of the framework.


What Happens When EffectiveProcesses are Applied in an Organization?

-Defects-Cost-Time-Risk

-Quality-Time to Market-Customer Satisfaction-Performance

CMMI


The CMMI Mission & Vision at the SEI

Mission • Improve the development and acquisition of software through research, and the transition

to practice, of new, breakthrough, but proven engineering management methods. [by proven we mean having hard data and evidence]

Vision • Systems and software engineering management are guided by facts, models, and data

that are shown to predictably improve performance and results well beyond the limits of current practice.

• The practice of managing engineering work is recognized to be not just the responsibility of management, but of professionals at all levels and in every related activity.

• Professionals that are developing or acquiring systems think and manage quantitatively.


Improving Performance Requires Knowledgeand Expertise

The “What” – Quality Principles

The “How” – Appraisal Methods, Operational Practices, Improvement Techniques, Measurement and Analysis Tools


Quantitative Project

Management

Organizational Process

Performance

Organizational Innovation and

Deployment

Causal Analysis and Resolution

What processes characterizehigh maturity organizations?


Quality and Process Performance Objectives

The engine that drives project performance

The engine that drives business performance

The engine that drives high maturity

Productivity

Defect Containment

CPI

SPI

Requirements Volatility

Defect Density


Organizational Process Performance (OPP)

The purpose of Organizational Process Performance (OPP) is to establish and maintain a quantitative understanding of the performance of selected processes within the organization’s set of standard processes in support of achieving quality and process-performance objectives, and to provide process-performance data, baselines, and models to quantitatively manage the organization’s projects.


Quantitative Project Management (QPM)

The purpose of Quantitative Project Management (QPM) is to quantitatively manage the project’s defined process to achieve the project’s established quality and process-performance objectives.


Causal Analysis and Resolution (CAR)

The purpose of Causal Analysis and Resolution (CAR) is to identify causes of selected outcomes and take action to improve process performance.


Organizational Innovation and Deployment (OID)The purpose of Organizational Innovation and Deployment (OID) is to proactively seek, identify, select and deploy incremental and innovative improvements that measurably improve the organization’s processes and technologies. The improvements support the organization’s quality and process-performance objectives as derived from the organization’s business objectives.


CMMI Transition StatusReported to the SEI as of April 30, 2010Training

Introduction to CMMI 115,371

Intermediate Concepts of CMMI 3,049

Understanding CMMI High Maturity Practices 595

Introduction to CMMI V1.2 Supplement for ACQ 1,172

Introduction to CMMI V1.2 Supplement for SVC 1,774

Introduction to CMMI for Services, V1.2 217

CMMI Level 2 for Practitioners 71


Certifications

Introduction to CMMI V1.2 Instructors 444

CMMI-ACQ V1.2 Supplement Instructors 63

CMMI-SVC V1.2 Supplement Instructors 124



SCAMPI V1.2 Lead Appraisers 497

SCAMPI V1.2 High Maturity Lead Appraisers 166

CMMI-ACQ V1.2 Lead Appraisers 72

CMMI-SVC V1.2 Lead Appraisers 134


SCAMPI v1.1/v1.2 Class A AppraisalsConducted by Quarter Reported as of 4-30-10

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Q1/0

4

Q1/0

5

Q1/0

6

Q1/0

7

Q1/0

8

Q1/0

9

Q1/1

0

Q2/0

4

Q2/0

5

Q2/0

6

Q2/0

7

Q2/0

8

Q2/0

9

Q2/1

0

Q3/0

4

Q3/0

5

Q3/0

6

Q3/0

7

Q3/0

8

Q3/0

9

Q4/0

4

Q4/0

5

Q4/0

6

Q4/0

7

Q4/0

8

Q4/0

9


Countries where Appraisals have been Performed and Reported to the SEI

Argentina Australia Austria Bahrain Bangladesh Belarus Belgium BrazilBulgaria Canada Chile China Colombia Costa Rica Czech Republic DenmarkDominican Republic Egypt Finland France Germany Greece Guatemala Hong KongHungary India Indonesia Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea, Republic OfLatvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malaysia Mauritius Mexico Morocco NepalNetherlands New Zealand Norway Pakistan Panama Peru Philippines PolandPortugal Romania Russia Saudi Arabia Singapore Slovakia South Africa SpainSri Lanka Sweden Switzerland Taiwan Thailand Tunisia Turkey UkraineUnited Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Viet Nam


Number of Appraisals and Maturity LevelsReported to the SEI by Country

CountryNumber of Appraisals

Maturity Level 1

Reported

Maturity Level 2

Reported

Maturity Level 3

Reported

Maturity Level 4

Reported

Maturity Level 5

Reported CountryNumber of Appraisals

Maturity Level 1

Reported

Maturity Level 2

Reported

Maturity Level 3

Reported

Maturity Level 4

Reported

Maturity Level 5

Reported

Argentina 77 50 18 2 4 Malaysia 71 22 43 6Australia 36 1 8 7 2 4 Mauritius 10 or fewerAustria 10 or fewer Mexico 86 36 39 3 6Bahrain 10 or fewer Morocco 10 or fewerBangladesh 10 or fewer Nepal 10 or fewerBelarus 10 or fewer Netherlands 14 5 7 1Belgium 10 or fewer New Zealand 10 or fewerBrazil 144 1 71 57 1 11 Norway 10 or fewerBulgaria 10 or fewer Pakistan 28 1 21 4 1Canada 59 1 16 24 5 4 Panama 10 or fewerChile 37 22 12 2 Peru 10 or fewerChina 1229 1 135 987 36 48 Philippines 23 2 11 8Colombia 34 12 13 3 2 Poland 10 or fewerCosta Rica 10 or fewer Portugal 14 5 7 1Czech Republic 10 or fewer Romania 10 or fewerDenmark 10 or fewer Russia 11 3 3 4Dominican Republic 10 or fewer Saudi Arabia 10 or fewerEgypt 43 1 22 12 2 3 Singapore 21 4 11 1 4Finland 10 or fewer Slovakia 10 or fewerFrance 168 4 98 53 1 2 South Africa 10 or fewerGermany 76 9 37 15 1 1 Spain 180 1 108 54 3 4Greece 10 or fewer Sri Lanka 14 2 12Guatemala 10 or fewer Sweden 10 or fewerHong Kong 18 2 11 5 Switzerland 10 or fewerHungary 10 or fewer Taiwan 134 1 76 51 2 2

India 524 17 278 24 189 Thailand 38 12 24 1

Indonesia 10 or fewer Tunisia 10 or fewerIreland 11 2 4 Turkey 16 14 2Israel 19 3 11 3 Ukraine 10 or fewer

Italy 43 19 20 United Arab Emirates10 or fewerJapan 306 18 86 140 13 17 United Kingdom 113 3 50 35 1 4Korea, Republic Of 165 1 55 75 15 8 United States 1582 30 564 610 23 141Latvia 10 or fewer Uruguay 10 or fewerLithuania 10 or fewer Viet Nam 17 12 2 3


Why do we need improved performanceand better processes? - Because there is STILL a management crisis in software! A recent Standish report confirms that the number of troubled projects rises each year

The result?

• Losses in the millions for the government agencies and companies affected • Leadership can be unaware of what is and is not working • Without a robust performance management system, management is

operating without needed data to make quality decisions

Source: http://www.projectsmart.co.uk/docs/chaos-report.pdf

http://www.projectsmart.co.uk/docs/chaos-report.pdf


Measurement Challenges

There are challenges in measuring return on investment in a traditional sense when correlating the CMMI framework to predictable performance improvement in a given organization

• Companies that wanted to adopt CMMI had little data related to their conditions before starting and generally took no data to record their investments in applying the framework

• They rarely had any data on their organizations performance until after they were well along the path to adherence

• As a result, the ROI data published was generally notional and unsupported


The Cost of Quality - Before and AfterCMMI Transition


Time History- Cost


Time History- Schedule


“Cost” to Implement CMM

Company J

Company I

Company F

Company MCompany C

Company A


Recurring Costs for PI

Company I

Company H

Company D

Company B

Company O

Company M

Company C


CMM Cost Details

• Company A: $4.5M, 18 Months, 350 People, Level 2• Complete Outsourcing of CMM Support

• Company C: NTE 5% of Budget; 1 Year, 30 People, Level 3 (SW)• Extensive Capture of Cost to Implement

• Company B: 2% of Budget, 1 Year, 560 People, Level 2, Then 3• Extensive Outsourcing of CMM Support

• Company O: 1.5-2.5%, 18 Months, 180 People, Level 2 (SW)• Company J: $900K, 2 Year, 400 People, Level 3 (SW)• Company D: 2% of Annual Budget, 150 People, No Assessment

• 5 Years to Best Productivity; All Costs Not Captured• Company F: $1M, 150 People, Level 2, Then 3• Company M: Staffing at 3-5%; Up to 5% for Metrics Expense• Company H: 2% of Budget, 60% of Company at Level 4• Company I: Implement costs: $2.5M, 2.5 years, Level 3 (SW/SE), not all costs

included, 15% workforce initial pilot. Sustainment costs: 15.25 work-years government, 4 full and part-time contractors. 3600 employees.

50% of Costs Devoted to Training


• This material is considered SEI-Proprietary and is distributed by the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) to SEI Staff ONLY.

• This material SHALL NOT be reproduced or used for any other purpose without requesting formal permission from the SEI at [email protected].

• THE MATERIAL IS PROVIDED ON AN “AS IS” BASIS, AND CARNEGIE MELLON DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, IMPLIED OR OTHERWISE (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, RESULTS OBTAINED FROM USE OF THE MATERIAL, MERCHANTABILITY, AND/OR NON-INFRINGEMENT).

mailto:[email protected]

© 2010 carnegie mellon university benefits of cmmi within the defense industry software engineering...

Documents

results of cmmi

use of cmmi

defense organizations

cmmi work

effect cmmi

dod organizations

participating organizations

execution of schedule