Cmm/cmmi is not the only option for software companies

Cmm/cmmi currently in the country seems very hot, large and small companies are scrambling to apply for CMM assessment and the government's financial, human and material support, some companies only spent 2 years of time passed the CMMI 5!

Is this good news or bad news?

This is not good news!

Cmm/cmmi came to China has gone bad. As long as you spend money, as long as you entertain, you may get a certificate. Although the certificate was obtained, the software enterprise did not get any benefits. For example, the software enterprise's efficiency, process capacity is still the same as before, because Cmm/cmmi in the same time, they are still in accordance with the original method, the original system is running. This caused a few skin phenomenon, one side according to Cmm/cmmi do various needs of documents, while still in accordance with the old tradition do what research, design, debugging, and Cmm/cmmi not in tune. This is one of the problems.

Cmm/cmmi is a basis for evaluation and a framework for process improvement, not a standard. But domestically it is used to make standards. For example, the Ministry of Information industry standard SJ/T 11235 and some military standards. There is a problem with CMMI as a standard itself, not to mention using this standard to assess enterprise competency maturity and to issue certificates to them. Moreover, such a certificate is not necessarily internationally recognized. On this issue, you can see the "Chinese Software Enterprises encounter CMM certification trap CMMI, row standard aggravating" article. http://www.e-works.net.cn/ewkarticles/category114/article14098.htm--This is the second problem.

Cmm/cmmi came to China acclimatized. Cmm/cmmi embodies the western idea of "three-power division". The SEPG is equivalent to the legislature, and the software project team is equivalent to an administrative body, and the SQA person is the judicial institution. The three of them restrict each other. SEPG specifications need to be approved by the software project team, the specification needs to be further combined with the actual project team to improve the implementation process, while SQA personnel are required to monitor whether the software process is carried out in accordance with the specifications to determine whether or not to make a non conformance NCI. In addition, system testers also need to be quite independent and not under the control of project developers. All this is impossible in a company that is technically capable of deciding everything. For example, a software project manager has the responsibility for requirements analysis, design, coding, and testing to what extent the project plan, schedule, and tracking work can be done. How can this kind of software project manager and technical supervisor's position and responsibility unclear be able to do CMMI well? This is the third problem.

Cmm/cmmi is not designed for software research projects, but is designed for product projects. For those research projects, the CMM is tantamount to putting himself on death row. Research projects require innovative thinking, more experimentation and thinking, more creative space for researchers, rather than being able to produce products in a short period of time, rather than requiring more documentation and processes. So, need to make clear that your project is research sex, or product sex, do not follow blindly cmm/cmmi. This is the question of four.

Cmm/cmmi cannot be carried out in a power manner. According to the normal procedure, the software enterprise does the Cmm/cmmi first starts from the two level, first each project according to own actual formation project process, therefore, in two level different project's process may be "various". At level three, we begin to analyze and summarize the process of different projects and form an organizational process standard. Therefore, the author believes that two level can not be less, can not leapfrog to do Cmm/cmmi, and can not do three-level method to do two-level process, that is, the first to do a CMM2 level of enterprise norms, and then forcibly to the project team to promote, which clearly violates the principle of cmm/cmmi process improvement. Therefore, it is necessary to collect the process experience of different projects and embody a kind of "democracy" thought, which can form the process of organization through summarizing and analyzing. Using the reverse method to promote the implementation of CMM/CMMI, can only get the result of failure. Now many enterprises in doing Cmm/cmmi always first set up a SEPG group, first set up a set of enterprise process specifications, forced to the software project team to promote; sometimes, direct leapfrog assessment, directly on the level three, four, the haste, makes the suspicion of its implementation cmm/cmmi motives: In the end is to improve, Or to get the card. This is the question of the five.

Synthesize the above question, the author thinks, do not have a head to Cmm/cmmi hot. Software enterprise can choose Cmm/cmmi, also can choose 6Sigma, also can choose ISO9001. Small companies also do not rush to cmm/cmmi or more process to improve the framework, so as not to put on their own, spent money does not count, bound their hands and feet.