Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [CMMi Process Improvement] Core vs Non-core PAs & Generic vs Specific Practices & MLs vs CLs

Expand Messages
  • Patrick OToole
    Orhan, And I believe they shouldn t. So, where does that leave us? Regards, Pat ... From: orhankalayci2001 To: cmmi_process_improvement@yahoogroups.com Sent:
    Message 1 of 15 , Sep 1, 2009
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
       
      Orhan,
       
      And I believe they shouldn't.  So, where does that leave us?
       
      Regards,
       
      Pat
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 3:16 PM
      Subject: Re: [CMMi Process Improvement] Core vs Non-core PAs & Generic vs Specific Practices & MLs vs CLs

       

      Pat,

      Thanks for asking:
      > Before you continue proposing an alternative rating scheme, let me suggest that you try to convey precisely what is wrong with the rating scheme we have today.

      What is wrong with the rating scheme we have today:
      I believe, Eng PAs should be in each and every ML in CMMI-DEV
      Just like there exist SPs in each CL.

      In other words:

      None-core PAs should be treated as SPs in CLs where SPs are repeated in each and every CL. Just like that non-core PAs should be repeated in each and every ML.

      For example, in managed maturity level, it makes sense to manage noncore PAs eg Eng PAs otherwise management for the sake of management is nonsense.

      Peace
      Orhan
      Toronto

      --- In cmmi_process_ improvement@ yahoogroups. com, "Patrick OToole" <PACT.otoole@ ...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > Orhan,
      >
      > You suggest that "there should be a ML0 (similar to CL0) where none of non-core PAs are satisfied in CL1 or above"
      >
      > So, according to your alternative definition, if ANY non-core PA is satisfied at CL1 then the organization is ML1???
      >
      > But that doesn't jive with your very next statement, "similarly, the ML1 should be redefined as all the non-core PAs are implemented in CL1, and ML2 is where all the non-core PAs are implemented in CL2 and so on."
      >
      > And what about those pesky core PAs? Apparently, you feel that we don't even need to focus on them whatsoever because, according to the alternative rating scheme you have provided, they have absolutely no bearing on the maturity level - which is based solely on the results of the non-core PAs.
      >
      > And, according to your scheme - at least if I am to believe "and so on" - to achieve ML4, all non-core PAs would have to achieve CL4 - meaning that we'd have to quantitatively manage something in each non-Core PA whether or not it provided business value? That seems a bit onerous.
      >
      > I think your new scheme needs some more work.
      >
      > - - - - -
      >
      > Before you continue proposing an alternative rating scheme, let me suggest that you try to convey precisely what is wrong with the rating scheme we have today. I don't know that I have ever heard you say, precisely, why the current scheme is so flawed that it must be scrapped and a new one designed. Even the rating scheme that are proposing above relies on capability levels - so is your chief concern limited solely to the staged representation?
      >
      > - - - - -
      >
      > Let me run with your analogy of "Core PAs are like Generic Practices" and "Non-Core PAs are like Specific Practices" for a minute and see if I can't explain my view of the world in your terms. Equating this to the educational system here in the USA, we can think of the Core PAs as "general studies" and Non-Core PAs as "your major field of study."
      >
      > Note that some "general studies" (i.e., Core PAs) are positioned very early in your educational lifecycle - we need to get fundamental skills in reading, writing, and arithmetic REGARDLESS of our future major field of study (i.e., DEV, ACQ, SVC). They provide the foundation for continued learning. These fundamental "general studies" roughly equate to the Core PAs at ML2. They establish a framework that allow us to make additional progress in the future (and therefore should not be skipped!)
      >
      > Some other "general studies" are a bit more advanced. Learning how to navigate the library system (electronic or hard copy), learning how to make presentations, learning the fundamentals of the scientific method, etc. prepare us with more advanced skills that will enable us to pursue our major field of study more effectively and efficiently. These "general studies" roughly equate to the Core PAs at ML3. They provide us with a more robust tool kit to pursue our major field of study.
      >
      > Finally, there are some "advanced general studies" like learning how to do academic research, and how to write and defend academic papers, etc. These "advanced general studies" roughly equate to the Core PAs at ML4 and ML5.
      >
      > OK, so in addition to the "general studies," we also select a major field of study - whether it be Political Science, Mathematics, Engineering, Music, whatever (i.e., DEV, ACQ, SVC). Associated with our major, is a whole set of classes that we can take to gain deeper knowledge into our selected area of interest. Some of these courses will be at the "101" (or basic) level - roughly equating to ML2; others will be much more advanced - roughly equating to ML3.
      >
      > But in order to graduate, we'll need courses in BOTH general studies and our major. Perhaps thinking of our Bachelors degree as ML2, our Masters degree as ML3, and our PhD as ML4, and our profession as ML5 might be another way to think about this. But remember, these are simply analogies, and very imperfect ones at that, so let's not debate the fine points of the analogy, OK?
      >
      > - - - - -
      >
      > Personally, I LIKE the way the maturity levels are currently structured and feel no compelling need to change it in the radical way that you are proposing. Unless there is some MAJOR defect in the current approach, which, to date, you have not adequately conveyed, then I think you are simply howling at the wind.
      >
      > (Having said that bit about liking the maturity levels, I do have to admit that I am much more likely to encourage my clients to use the continuous representation. Although I believe the staged representation is good, I feel that it needs to be "tailored" to make it the best possible fit for the unique reality of each organization. Granted, this must be done with thoughtful consideration, but I'd much rather have the organization make explicit choices that align with their reality than simply accept that the current staged representation is a perfect one-size-fits- all solution.
      >
      > Furthermore, I'm not opposed to taking the continuous representation to an even finer level of granularity. If it benefits the organization, why not focus on RD SG1 (getting good customer requirements) , TS SG2 (doing good designs), and VER SG2 (conducting peer reviews) rather than on ALL of RD, TS, and VER? Heck, maybe the organization could get benefit from focusing on singular practices!
      >
      > But I digress....
      >
      > Regards,
      >
      > Pat
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: orhankalayci2001
      > To: cmmi_process_ improvement@ yahoogroups. com
      > Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 12:59 AM
      > Subject: [CMMi Process Improvement] Core vs Non-core PAs & Generic vs Specific Practices & MLs vs CLs
      >
      >
      > Henry,
      >
      > Thanks for the input:
      > It is good to know there are already two groups of PAs:
      > 16 core PAs are generic to any constellation just like generic goals which are generic to any PA.
      > And there are specific PAs for each constellation such as Eng PAs are specific PAs for CMMI-DEV.
      >
      > So, in short, there are generic PAs which are applicable to any constellations and there are specific PAs which are applicable to only specific constellation.
      >
      > Can you see the similarity between practices and PAs are both grouped into two: Specific and non-specific
      >
      > Practices are grouped as generic and specific
      > PAs are grouped as core and non-core
      >
      > Can we say:
      > Generic practices are similar to core PAs
      > Specific practices are similar to non-core PAs.
      >
      > In fact, the similarity has already been explained in CMMI-DEV v1.2 in Table 6.2 Generic Practice and Process Area Relationships.
      >
      > If we assume the similarity between generic practices and core PAs & specific practices and non-core PAs is valid then what we should conclude is:
      > There should be a ML0 (similar to CL0) where non of non-core PAs are satisfied in CL1 or above. similarly, the ML1 should be redefined as all the non-core PAs are implemented in CL1, and ML2 is where all the non-core PAs are implemented in CL2 and so on.
      >
      > In other words, just like specific practices are there in each CL, non-core PAs should be there in each ML.
      >
      > Does it make sense?
      >
      > Peace,
      > Orhan
      > Toronto
      >
      > --- In cmmi_process_ improvement@ yahoogroups. com, "Henry Schneider | PPQC" <henry@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Hi Orhan,
      > >
      > > Thanks for your definition. However, the SEI has already made this
      > > separation in the CMMI Constellations. The 16 core PAs are what fall into
      > > your non-specific grouping. Then there are the specific Engineering PAs for
      > > the CMMI-DEV, the specific Acquisition PAs for the CMMI-ACQ, and the
      > > specific Services PAs for the CMMI-SVC.
      > >
      > > Best Regards,
      > >
      > > Henry Schneider
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Henry Schneider
      > > President/Senior Principal Consultant
      > >
      > > http://www.linkedin .com/img/ signature/ bg_bluegel_ 385x42.jpg
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Work: 281-218-6682
      > > Mobile: 832-628-2486
      > >
      > > SEI_Partner_ CMU_1Line_ Black copy
      > >
      > > SEI-Certified SCAMPI Lead Appraiser (CMMI-DEV, CMMI-ACQ, CMMI-SVC)
      > >
      > > SEI-Certified High Maturity Lead Appraiser
      > >
      > > SEI-Authorized Intro to CMMI Instructor
      > >
      > > SEI-Authorized Acquisition Supplement for Intro to CMMI Instructor
      > >
      > > SEI-Authorized Services Supplement for Intro to CMMI Instructor
      > >
      > > Email: <mailto:henry@ > henry@
      > > http://www.linkedin .com/img/ signature/ icon_in_blue_ 14x14.gif
      > > <http://www.linkedin .com/in/henrysch neider>
      > > http://www.linkedin .com/in/henrysch neider
      > >
      > > <http://www.chandler hill.com/ view/?7693> Video Handshake
      > >
      > > <http://www.ppqc. net/> Slightly Bigger PPQC logo gel
      > >
      > > <http://www.ppqc. net/> Process and Product Quality Consulting
      > >
      > > Facilitating your process journey ...
      > >
      > >
      > > <http://www.linkedin .com/e/wwk/ 8492427/> See who we know in common
      > >
      > > <http://www.linkedin .com/e/sig/ 8492427/> Want a signature like this?
      > >
      > > Visit the PPQC web site <http://www.ppqc. net/> www.ppqc.net and read the
      > > PPQC blog <http://ppqc. blogspot. com/> PPQC.blogspot. com
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > From: Orhan Kalayci [mailto:orhan. kalayci@]
      > > Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2009 11:33 AM
      > > To: cmmi_process_ improvement@ yahoogroups. com
      > > Subject: [CMMi Process Improvement] Re: What is functional, what is not in
      > > CMMI-Dev ?
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Here is my definition for functional and non functional:
      > >
      > > Please see the hospital example in the below post. As you can see,
      > > what I call functional is directly related to the specific domain,
      > > such as for hospital functional means medical and non functional means
      > > non medical.
      > >
      > > May be, a better term specific and non specific.
      > >
      > > So, I would like to divide PAs into two as specific and non specific
      > > to development for CMMI-Dev.
      > >
      > > Eng PAs are specific PAs for CMMI-Dev
      > > PM, Support, and Process Management PAs are non specific for CMMI-Dev
      > >
      > > Practices are already grouped as specific and generic within a PA.
      > >
      > > So in fact, we can group PAs as specific and generic PAs, as well.
      > >
      > > I will explain how it is useful to group PAs as specific and generic
      > > PAs in my next post for the topic.
      > >
      > > Cheers,
      > > Orhan
      > > Toronto
      > >
      > > Sent from my iPhone
      > >
      > > On 2009-08-23, at 10:16, "orhankalayci2001" <orhan.kalayci@
      > > <mailto:orhan. kalayci%40gmail. com> >
      > > wrote:
      > >
      > > > --- In cmmi_process_ improvement@ yahoogroups. com
      > > <mailto:cmmi_ process_improvem ent%40yahoogroup s.com> , Orhan Kalayci
      > > > <orhan.kalayci@ > wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Hi Ed,
      > > >
      > > > I do not want get into who is right who is wrong & who understood what
      > > > and who not.
      > > >
      > > > Thank to your message though, I will try to express my view in another
      > > > way, hopefully a better one :))
      > > >
      > > > It is not surprising that you do not understand what I am saying
      > > > because what I am saying does not exist in the CMMI right now. I am
      > > > suggesting fundamental changes. In this regard, Galileo and I have
      > > > some similar responses from most people who prefer to trust the
      > > > current model. In other words. I am either a stupid or an genious :)
      > > > in either case I do not want to disagree or quarrel with me for
      > > > long:)))
      > > >
      > > > Anyway, let me try to explain my view about how earth is revolving
      > > > around sun!
      > > >
      > > > To understand the bigger picture let us look at some components of an
      > > > hospital: especially in big hospitals there are so many things
      > > > inside.
      > > > There are so many services provided including non medical ones such as
      > > > restaurants, car parks, room services like hotels, etc. We can group
      > > > them into functional and non functional services. For an hospital we
      > > > can
      > > > say medical services are functional and non medical services are non
      > > > functional.
      > > >
      > > > We should note that however if we focus only on a restaurant in a
      > > > hospital then functional and non functional services will change. For
      > > > a restaurant, functional services will be services directly related to
      > > > cooking and serving. Other services in the restaurant will be non
      > > > functional such as accounting. If than one wants to focus only on the
      > > > accounting services with in the restaurant we will see another set of
      > > > functional and non functional services with in the accounting
      > > > department of the restaurant.
      > > >
      > > > Now, I want you to think about which PAs are functional and which ones
      > > > are non functional in CMMI-Dev & than functional and non functional
      > > > goals and practices with in a PA.
      > > >
      > > > Peace.
      > > > Orhan
      > > > Toronto
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Sent from my iPhone
      > > >
      > > > --- End forwarded message ---
      > > >
      > > >
      > >
      > > Sent from my iPhone
      > >
      >

    • Patrick OToole
      Orhan, It seems to me that the SEI has already provided a perfectly good means by which your clients can improve their processes by addressing the engineering
      Message 2 of 15 , Sep 1, 2009
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
         
        Orhan,
         
        It seems to me that the SEI has already provided a perfectly good means by which your clients can improve their processes by addressing the engineering process areas early and often - it's called the continuous representation.
         
        So why would you impose your view of the STAGED representation on everyone else when you should simply be advocating that your clients use the CONTINUOUS representation?
         
        Perhaps it is due to your long-time advocacy of "not skipping maturity levels" and yet, what you are advocating now, is a direct violation of that oft-stated position.  Would you really make us all suffer through a major model restructuring just because you cannot live with cognitive dissonance?
         
        Regards,
         
        Pat
         
         
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 3:16 PM
        Subject: Re: [CMMi Process Improvement] Core vs Non-core PAs & Generic vs Specific Practices & MLs vs CLs

         

        Pat,

        Thanks for asking:
        > Before you continue proposing an alternative rating scheme, let me suggest that you try to convey precisely what is wrong with the rating scheme we have today.

        What is wrong with the rating scheme we have today:
        I believe, Eng PAs should be in each and every ML in CMMI-DEV
        Just like there exist SPs in each CL.

        In other words:

        None-core PAs should be treated as SPs in CLs where SPs are repeated in each and every CL. Just like that non-core PAs should be repeated in each and every ML.

        For example, in managed maturity level, it makes sense to manage noncore PAs eg Eng PAs otherwise management for the sake of management is nonsense.

        Peace
        Orhan
        Toronto

        --- In cmmi_process_ improvement@ yahoogroups. com, "Patrick OToole" <PACT.otoole@ ...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > Orhan,
        >
        > You suggest that "there should be a ML0 (similar to CL0) where none of non-core PAs are satisfied in CL1 or above"
        >
        > So, according to your alternative definition, if ANY non-core PA is satisfied at CL1 then the organization is ML1???
        >
        > But that doesn't jive with your very next statement, "similarly, the ML1 should be redefined as all the non-core PAs are implemented in CL1, and ML2 is where all the non-core PAs are implemented in CL2 and so on."
        >
        > And what about those pesky core PAs? Apparently, you feel that we don't even need to focus on them whatsoever because, according to the alternative rating scheme you have provided, they have absolutely no bearing on the maturity level - which is based solely on the results of the non-core PAs.
        >
        > And, according to your scheme - at least if I am to believe "and so on" - to achieve ML4, all non-core PAs would have to achieve CL4 - meaning that we'd have to quantitatively manage something in each non-Core PA whether or not it provided business value? That seems a bit onerous.
        >
        > I think your new scheme needs some more work.
        >
        > - - - - -
        >
        > Before you continue proposing an alternative rating scheme, let me suggest that you try to convey precisely what is wrong with the rating scheme we have today. I don't know that I have ever heard you say, precisely, why the current scheme is so flawed that it must be scrapped and a new one designed. Even the rating scheme that are proposing above relies on capability levels - so is your chief concern limited solely to the staged representation?
        >
        > - - - - -
        >
        > Let me run with your analogy of "Core PAs are like Generic Practices" and "Non-Core PAs are like Specific Practices" for a minute and see if I can't explain my view of the world in your terms. Equating this to the educational system here in the USA, we can think of the Core PAs as "general studies" and Non-Core PAs as "your major field of study."
        >
        > Note that some "general studies" (i.e., Core PAs) are positioned very early in your educational lifecycle - we need to get fundamental skills in reading, writing, and arithmetic REGARDLESS of our future major field of study (i.e., DEV, ACQ, SVC). They provide the foundation for continued learning. These fundamental "general studies" roughly equate to the Core PAs at ML2. They establish a framework that allow us to make additional progress in the future (and therefore should not be skipped!)
        >
        > Some other "general studies" are a bit more advanced. Learning how to navigate the library system (electronic or hard copy), learning how to make presentations, learning the fundamentals of the scientific method, etc. prepare us with more advanced skills that will enable us to pursue our major field of study more effectively and efficiently. These "general studies" roughly equate to the Core PAs at ML3. They provide us with a more robust tool kit to pursue our major field of study.
        >
        > Finally, there are some "advanced general studies" like learning how to do academic research, and how to write and defend academic papers, etc. These "advanced general studies" roughly equate to the Core PAs at ML4 and ML5.
        >
        > OK, so in addition to the "general studies," we also select a major field of study - whether it be Political Science, Mathematics, Engineering, Music, whatever (i.e., DEV, ACQ, SVC). Associated with our major, is a whole set of classes that we can take to gain deeper knowledge into our selected area of interest. Some of these courses will be at the "101" (or basic) level - roughly equating to ML2; others will be much more advanced - roughly equating to ML3.
        >
        > But in order to graduate, we'll need courses in BOTH general studies and our major. Perhaps thinking of our Bachelors degree as ML2, our Masters degree as ML3, and our PhD as ML4, and our profession as ML5 might be another way to think about this. But remember, these are simply analogies, and very imperfect ones at that, so let's not debate the fine points of the analogy, OK?
        >
        > - - - - -
        >
        > Personally, I LIKE the way the maturity levels are currently structured and feel no compelling need to change it in the radical way that you are proposing. Unless there is some MAJOR defect in the current approach, which, to date, you have not adequately conveyed, then I think you are simply howling at the wind.
        >
        > (Having said that bit about liking the maturity levels, I do have to admit that I am much more likely to encourage my clients to use the continuous representation. Although I believe the staged representation is good, I feel that it needs to be "tailored" to make it the best possible fit for the unique reality of each organization. Granted, this must be done with thoughtful consideration, but I'd much rather have the organization make explicit choices that align with their reality than simply accept that the current staged representation is a perfect one-size-fits- all solution.
        >
        > Furthermore, I'm not opposed to taking the continuous representation to an even finer level of granularity. If it benefits the organization, why not focus on RD SG1 (getting good customer requirements) , TS SG2 (doing good designs), and VER SG2 (conducting peer reviews) rather than on ALL of RD, TS, and VER? Heck, maybe the organization could get benefit from focusing on singular practices!
        >
        > But I digress....
        >
        > Regards,
        >
        > Pat
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: orhankalayci2001
        > To: cmmi_process_ improvement@ yahoogroups. com
        > Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 12:59 AM
        > Subject: [CMMi Process Improvement] Core vs Non-core PAs & Generic vs Specific Practices & MLs vs CLs
        >
        >
        > Henry,
        >
        > Thanks for the input:
        > It is good to know there are already two groups of PAs:
        > 16 core PAs are generic to any constellation just like generic goals which are generic to any PA.
        > And there are specific PAs for each constellation such as Eng PAs are specific PAs for CMMI-DEV.
        >
        > So, in short, there are generic PAs which are applicable to any constellations and there are specific PAs which are applicable to only specific constellation.
        >
        > Can you see the similarity between practices and PAs are both grouped into two: Specific and non-specific
        >
        > Practices are grouped as generic and specific
        > PAs are grouped as core and non-core
        >
        > Can we say:
        > Generic practices are similar to core PAs
        > Specific practices are similar to non-core PAs.
        >
        > In fact, the similarity has already been explained in CMMI-DEV v1.2 in Table 6.2 Generic Practice and Process Area Relationships.
        >
        > If we assume the similarity between generic practices and core PAs & specific practices and non-core PAs is valid then what we should conclude is:
        > There should be a ML0 (similar to CL0) where non of non-core PAs are satisfied in CL1 or above. similarly, the ML1 should be redefined as all the non-core PAs are implemented in CL1, and ML2 is where all the non-core PAs are implemented in CL2 and so on.
        >
        > In other words, just like specific practices are there in each CL, non-core PAs should be there in each ML.
        >
        > Does it make sense?
        >
        > Peace,
        > Orhan
        > Toronto
        >
        > --- In cmmi_process_ improvement@ yahoogroups. com, "Henry Schneider | PPQC" <henry@> wrote:
        > >
        > > Hi Orhan,
        > >
        > > Thanks for your definition. However, the SEI has already made this
        > > separation in the CMMI Constellations. The 16 core PAs are what fall into
        > > your non-specific grouping. Then there are the specific Engineering PAs for
        > > the CMMI-DEV, the specific Acquisition PAs for the CMMI-ACQ, and the
        > > specific Services PAs for the CMMI-SVC.
        > >
        > > Best Regards,
        > >
        > > Henry Schneider
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Henry Schneider
        > > President/Senior Principal Consultant
        > >
        > > http://www.linkedin .com/img/ signature/ bg_bluegel_ 385x42.jpg
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Work: 281-218-6682
        > > Mobile: 832-628-2486
        > >
        > > SEI_Partner_ CMU_1Line_ Black copy
        > >
        > > SEI-Certified SCAMPI Lead Appraiser (CMMI-DEV, CMMI-ACQ, CMMI-SVC)
        > >
        > > SEI-Certified High Maturity Lead Appraiser
        > >
        > > SEI-Authorized Intro to CMMI Instructor
        > >
        > > SEI-Authorized Acquisition Supplement for Intro to CMMI Instructor
        > >
        > > SEI-Authorized Services Supplement for Intro to CMMI Instructor
        > >
        > > Email: <mailto:henry@ > henry@
        > > http://www.linkedin .com/img/ signature/ icon_in_blue_ 14x14.gif
        > > <http://www.linkedin .com/in/henrysch neider>
        > > http://www.linkedin .com/in/henrysch neider
        > >
        > > <http://www.chandler hill.com/ view/?7693> Video Handshake
        > >
        > > <http://www.ppqc. net/> Slightly Bigger PPQC logo gel
        > >
        > > <http://www.ppqc. net/> Process and Product Quality Consulting
        > >
        > > Facilitating your process journey ...
        > >
        > >
        > > <http://www.linkedin .com/e/wwk/ 8492427/> See who we know in common
        > >
        > > <http://www.linkedin .com/e/sig/ 8492427/> Want a signature like this?
        > >
        > > Visit the PPQC web site <http://www.ppqc. net/> www.ppqc.net and read the
        > > PPQC blog <http://ppqc. blogspot. com/> PPQC.blogspot. com
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > From: Orhan Kalayci [mailto:orhan. kalayci@]
        > > Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2009 11:33 AM
        > > To: cmmi_process_ improvement@ yahoogroups. com
        > > Subject: [CMMi Process Improvement] Re: What is functional, what is not in
        > > CMMI-Dev ?
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Here is my definition for functional and non functional:
        > >
        > > Please see the hospital example in the below post. As you can see,
        > > what I call functional is directly related to the specific domain,
        > > such as for hospital functional means medical and non functional means
        > > non medical.
        > >
        > > May be, a better term specific and non specific.
        > >
        > > So, I would like to divide PAs into two as specific and non specific
        > > to development for CMMI-Dev.
        > >
        > > Eng PAs are specific PAs for CMMI-Dev
        > > PM, Support, and Process Management PAs are non specific for CMMI-Dev
        > >
        > > Practices are already grouped as specific and generic within a PA.
        > >
        > > So in fact, we can group PAs as specific and generic PAs, as well.
        > >
        > > I will explain how it is useful to group PAs as specific and generic
        > > PAs in my next post for the topic.
        > >
        > > Cheers,
        > > Orhan
        > > Toronto
        > >
        > > Sent from my iPhone
        > >
        > > On 2009-08-23, at 10:16, "orhankalayci2001" <orhan.kalayci@
        > > <mailto:orhan. kalayci%40gmail. com> >
        > > wrote:
        > >
        > > > --- In cmmi_process_ improvement@ yahoogroups. com
        > > <mailto:cmmi_ process_improvem ent%40yahoogroup s.com> , Orhan Kalayci
        > > > <orhan.kalayci@ > wrote:
        > > >
        > > > Hi Ed,
        > > >
        > > > I do not want get into who is right who is wrong & who understood what
        > > > and who not.
        > > >
        > > > Thank to your message though, I will try to express my view in another
        > > > way, hopefully a better one :))
        > > >
        > > > It is not surprising that you do not understand what I am saying
        > > > because what I am saying does not exist in the CMMI right now. I am
        > > > suggesting fundamental changes. In this regard, Galileo and I have
        > > > some similar responses from most people who prefer to trust the
        > > > current model. In other words. I am either a stupid or an genious :)
        > > > in either case I do not want to disagree or quarrel with me for
        > > > long:)))
        > > >
        > > > Anyway, let me try to explain my view about how earth is revolving
        > > > around sun!
        > > >
        > > > To understand the bigger picture let us look at some components of an
        > > > hospital: especially in big hospitals there are so many things
        > > > inside.
        > > > There are so many services provided including non medical ones such as
        > > > restaurants, car parks, room services like hotels, etc. We can group
        > > > them into functional and non functional services. For an hospital we
        > > > can
        > > > say medical services are functional and non medical services are non
        > > > functional.
        > > >
        > > > We should note that however if we focus only on a restaurant in a
        > > > hospital then functional and non functional services will change. For
        > > > a restaurant, functional services will be services directly related to
        > > > cooking and serving. Other services in the restaurant will be non
        > > > functional such as accounting. If than one wants to focus only on the
        > > > accounting services with in the restaurant we will see another set of
        > > > functional and non functional services with in the accounting
        > > > department of the restaurant.
        > > >
        > > > Now, I want you to think about which PAs are functional and which ones
        > > > are non functional in CMMI-Dev & than functional and non functional
        > > > goals and practices with in a PA.
        > > >
        > > > Peace.
        > > > Orhan
        > > > Toronto
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > Sent from my iPhone
        > > >
        > > > --- End forwarded message ---
        > > >
        > > >
        > >
        > > Sent from my iPhone
        > >
        >

      • belgiansqa
        Orhan, Remember that all models are wrong; the practical question is how wrong do they have to be to not be useful. George Edward Pelham Box. For me CMMI is
        Message 3 of 15 , Sep 1, 2009
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Orhan,

          "Remember that all models are wrong; the practical question is how wrong do they have to be to not be useful." George Edward Pelham Box.

          For me CMMI is very useful with, amongst other, its possibility to choose between the staged and continuous representation, and its equivalent staging.
          The moment I reach its real limits, meaning I can't help a certain company improving using the CMMI, then... I'd probably select another model instead of trying to change this one given its merits.

          Kind regards,
          Steven

          --- In cmmi_process_improvement@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick OToole" <PACT.otoole@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          > Orhan,
          >
          > It seems to me that the SEI has already provided a perfectly good means by which your clients can improve their processes by addressing the engineering process areas early and often - it's called the continuous representation.
          >
          > So why would you impose your view of the STAGED representation on everyone else when you should simply be advocating that your clients use the CONTINUOUS representation?
          >
          > Perhaps it is due to your long-time advocacy of "not skipping maturity levels" and yet, what you are advocating now, is a direct violation of that oft-stated position. Would you really make us all suffer through a major model restructuring just because you cannot live with cognitive dissonance?
          >
          > Regards,
          >
          > Pat
          >
          >
          >
          > ----- Original Message -----
          > From: orhankalayci2001
          > To: cmmi_process_improvement@yahoogroups.com
          > Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 3:16 PM
          > Subject: Re: [CMMi Process Improvement] Core vs Non-core PAs & Generic vs Specific Practices & MLs vs CLs
          >
          >
          > Pat,
          >
          > Thanks for asking:
          > > Before you continue proposing an alternative rating scheme, let me suggest that you try to convey precisely what is wrong with the rating scheme we have today.
          >
          > What is wrong with the rating scheme we have today:
          > I believe, Eng PAs should be in each and every ML in CMMI-DEV
          > Just like there exist SPs in each CL.
          >
          > In other words:
          >
          > None-core PAs should be treated as SPs in CLs where SPs are repeated in each and every CL. Just like that non-core PAs should be repeated in each and every ML.
          >
          > For example, in managed maturity level, it makes sense to manage noncore PAs eg Eng PAs otherwise management for the sake of management is nonsense.
          >
          > Peace
          > Orhan
          > Toronto
          >
          > --- In cmmi_process_improvement@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick OToole" <PACT.otoole@> wrote:
          > >
          > >
          > > Orhan,
          > >
          > > You suggest that "there should be a ML0 (similar to CL0) where none of non-core PAs are satisfied in CL1 or above"
          > >
          > > So, according to your alternative definition, if ANY non-core PA is satisfied at CL1 then the organization is ML1???
          > >
          > > But that doesn't jive with your very next statement, "similarly, the ML1 should be redefined as all the non-core PAs are implemented in CL1, and ML2 is where all the non-core PAs are implemented in CL2 and so on."
          > >
          > > And what about those pesky core PAs? Apparently, you feel that we don't even need to focus on them whatsoever because, according to the alternative rating scheme you have provided, they have absolutely no bearing on the maturity level - which is based solely on the results of the non-core PAs.
          > >
          > > And, according to your scheme - at least if I am to believe "and so on" - to achieve ML4, all non-core PAs would have to achieve CL4 - meaning that we'd have to quantitatively manage something in each non-Core PA whether or not it provided business value? That seems a bit onerous.
          > >
          > > I think your new scheme needs some more work.
          > >
          > > - - - - -
          > >
          > > Before you continue proposing an alternative rating scheme, let me suggest that you try to convey precisely what is wrong with the rating scheme we have today. I don't know that I have ever heard you say, precisely, why the current scheme is so flawed that it must be scrapped and a new one designed. Even the rating scheme that are proposing above relies on capability levels - so is your chief concern limited solely to the staged representation?
          > >
          > > - - - - -
          > >
          > > Let me run with your analogy of "Core PAs are like Generic Practices" and "Non-Core PAs are like Specific Practices" for a minute and see if I can't explain my view of the world in your terms. Equating this to the educational system here in the USA, we can think of the Core PAs as "general studies" and Non-Core PAs as "your major field of study."
          > >
          > > Note that some "general studies" (i.e., Core PAs) are positioned very early in your educational lifecycle - we need to get fundamental skills in reading, writing, and arithmetic REGARDLESS of our future major field of study (i.e., DEV, ACQ, SVC). They provide the foundation for continued learning. These fundamental "general studies" roughly equate to the Core PAs at ML2. They establish a framework that allow us to make additional progress in the future (and therefore should not be skipped!)
          > >
          > > Some other "general studies" are a bit more advanced. Learning how to navigate the library system (electronic or hard copy), learning how to make presentations, learning the fundamentals of the scientific method, etc. prepare us with more advanced skills that will enable us to pursue our major field of study more effectively and efficiently. These "general studies" roughly equate to the Core PAs at ML3. They provide us with a more robust tool kit to pursue our major field of study.
          > >
          > > Finally, there are some "advanced general studies" like learning how to do academic research, and how to write and defend academic papers, etc. These "advanced general studies" roughly equate to the Core PAs at ML4 and ML5.
          > >
          > > OK, so in addition to the "general studies," we also select a major field of study - whether it be Political Science, Mathematics, Engineering, Music, whatever (i.e., DEV, ACQ, SVC). Associated with our major, is a whole set of classes that we can take to gain deeper knowledge into our selected area of interest. Some of these courses will be at the "101" (or basic) level - roughly equating to ML2; others will be much more advanced - roughly equating to ML3.
          > >
          > > But in order to graduate, we'll need courses in BOTH general studies and our major. Perhaps thinking of our Bachelors degree as ML2, our Masters degree as ML3, and our PhD as ML4, and our profession as ML5 might be another way to think about this. But remember, these are simply analogies, and very imperfect ones at that, so let's not debate the fine points of the analogy, OK?
          > >
          > > - - - - -
          > >
          > > Personally, I LIKE the way the maturity levels are currently structured and feel no compelling need to change it in the radical way that you are proposing. Unless there is some MAJOR defect in the current approach, which, to date, you have not adequately conveyed, then I think you are simply howling at the wind.
          > >
          > > (Having said that bit about liking the maturity levels, I do have to admit that I am much more likely to encourage my clients to use the continuous representation. Although I believe the staged representation is good, I feel that it needs to be "tailored" to make it the best possible fit for the unique reality of each organization. Granted, this must be done with thoughtful consideration, but I'd much rather have the organization make explicit choices that align with their reality than simply accept that the current staged representation is a perfect one-size-fits-all solution.
          > >
          > > Furthermore, I'm not opposed to taking the continuous representation to an even finer level of granularity. If it benefits the organization, why not focus on RD SG1 (getting good customer requirements), TS SG2 (doing good designs), and VER SG2 (conducting peer reviews) rather than on ALL of RD, TS, and VER? Heck, maybe the organization could get benefit from focusing on singular practices!
          > >
          > > But I digress....
          > >
          > > Regards,
          > >
          > > Pat
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > ----- Original Message -----
          > > From: orhankalayci2001
          > > To: cmmi_process_improvement@yahoogroups.com
          > > Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 12:59 AM
          > > Subject: [CMMi Process Improvement] Core vs Non-core PAs & Generic vs Specific Practices & MLs vs CLs
          > >
          > >
          > > Henry,
          > >
          > > Thanks for the input:
          > > It is good to know there are already two groups of PAs:
          > > 16 core PAs are generic to any constellation just like generic goals which are generic to any PA.
          > > And there are specific PAs for each constellation such as Eng PAs are specific PAs for CMMI-DEV.
          > >
          > > So, in short, there are generic PAs which are applicable to any constellations and there are specific PAs which are applicable to only specific constellation.
          > >
          > > Can you see the similarity between practices and PAs are both grouped into two: Specific and non-specific
          > >
          > > Practices are grouped as generic and specific
          > > PAs are grouped as core and non-core
          > >
          > > Can we say:
          > > Generic practices are similar to core PAs
          > > Specific practices are similar to non-core PAs.
          > >
          > > In fact, the similarity has already been explained in CMMI-DEV v1.2 in Table 6.2 Generic Practice and Process Area Relationships.
          > >
          > > If we assume the similarity between generic practices and core PAs & specific practices and non-core PAs is valid then what we should conclude is:
          > > There should be a ML0 (similar to CL0) where non of non-core PAs are satisfied in CL1 or above. similarly, the ML1 should be redefined as all the non-core PAs are implemented in CL1, and ML2 is where all the non-core PAs are implemented in CL2 and so on.
          > >
          > > In other words, just like specific practices are there in each CL, non-core PAs should be there in each ML.
          > >
          > > Does it make sense?
          > >
          > > Peace,
          > > Orhan
          > > Toronto
          > >
          > > --- In cmmi_process_improvement@yahoogroups.com, "Henry Schneider | PPQC" <henry@> wrote:
          > > >
          > > > Hi Orhan,
          > > >
          > > > Thanks for your definition. However, the SEI has already made this
          > > > separation in the CMMI Constellations. The 16 core PAs are what fall into
          > > > your non-specific grouping. Then there are the specific Engineering PAs for
          > > > the CMMI-DEV, the specific Acquisition PAs for the CMMI-ACQ, and the
          > > > specific Services PAs for the CMMI-SVC.
          > > >
          > > > Best Regards,
          > > >
          > > > Henry Schneider
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > Henry Schneider
          > > > President/Senior Principal Consultant
          > > >
          > > > http://www.linkedin.com/img/signature/bg_bluegel_385x42.jpg
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > Work: 281-218-6682
          > > > Mobile: 832-628-2486
          > > >
          > > > SEI_Partner_CMU_1Line_Black copy
          > > >
          > > > SEI-Certified SCAMPI Lead Appraiser (CMMI-DEV, CMMI-ACQ, CMMI-SVC)
          > > >
          > > > SEI-Certified High Maturity Lead Appraiser
          > > >
          > > > SEI-Authorized Intro to CMMI Instructor
          > > >
          > > > SEI-Authorized Acquisition Supplement for Intro to CMMI Instructor
          > > >
          > > > SEI-Authorized Services Supplement for Intro to CMMI Instructor
          > > >
          > > > Email: <mailto:henry@> henry@
          > > > http://www.linkedin.com/img/signature/icon_in_blue_14x14.gif
          > > > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/henryschneider>
          > > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/henryschneider
          > > >
          > > > <http://www.chandlerhill.com/view/?7693> Video Handshake
          > > >
          > > > <http://www.ppqc.net/> Slightly Bigger PPQC logo gel
          > > >
          > > > <http://www.ppqc.net/> Process and Product Quality Consulting
          > > >
          > > > Facilitating your process journey ...
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > <http://www.linkedin.com/e/wwk/8492427/> See who we know in common
          > > >
          > > > <http://www.linkedin.com/e/sig/8492427/> Want a signature like this?
          > > >
          > > > Visit the PPQC web site <http://www.ppqc.net/> www.ppqc.net and read the
          > > > PPQC blog <http://ppqc.blogspot.com/> PPQC.blogspot.com
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > From: Orhan Kalayci [mailto:orhan.kalayci@]
          > > > Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2009 11:33 AM
          > > > To: cmmi_process_improvement@yahoogroups.com
          > > > Subject: [CMMi Process Improvement] Re: What is functional, what is not in
          > > > CMMI-Dev ?
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > Here is my definition for functional and non functional:
          > > >
          > > > Please see the hospital example in the below post. As you can see,
          > > > what I call functional is directly related to the specific domain,
          > > > such as for hospital functional means medical and non functional means
          > > > non medical.
          > > >
          > > > May be, a better term specific and non specific.
          > > >
          > > > So, I would like to divide PAs into two as specific and non specific
          > > > to development for CMMI-Dev.
          > > >
          > > > Eng PAs are specific PAs for CMMI-Dev
          > > > PM, Support, and Process Management PAs are non specific for CMMI-Dev
          > > >
          > > > Practices are already grouped as specific and generic within a PA.
          > > >
          > > > So in fact, we can group PAs as specific and generic PAs, as well.
          > > >
          > > > I will explain how it is useful to group PAs as specific and generic
          > > > PAs in my next post for the topic.
          > > >
          > > > Cheers,
          > > > Orhan
          > > > Toronto
          > > >
          > > > Sent from my iPhone
          > > >
          > > > On 2009-08-23, at 10:16, "orhankalayci2001" <orhan.kalayci@
          > > > <mailto:orhan.kalayci%40gmail.com> >
          > > > wrote:
          > > >
          > > > > --- In cmmi_process_improvement@yahoogroups.com
          > > > <mailto:cmmi_process_improvement%40yahoogroups.com> , Orhan Kalayci
          > > > > <orhan.kalayci@> wrote:
          > > > >
          > > > > Hi Ed,
          > > > >
          > > > > I do not want get into who is right who is wrong & who understood what
          > > > > and who not.
          > > > >
          > > > > Thank to your message though, I will try to express my view in another
          > > > > way, hopefully a better one :))
          > > > >
          > > > > It is not surprising that you do not understand what I am saying
          > > > > because what I am saying does not exist in the CMMI right now. I am
          > > > > suggesting fundamental changes. In this regard, Galileo and I have
          > > > > some similar responses from most people who prefer to trust the
          > > > > current model. In other words. I am either a stupid or an genious :)
          > > > > in either case I do not want to disagree or quarrel with me for
          > > > > long:)))
          > > > >
          > > > > Anyway, let me try to explain my view about how earth is revolving
          > > > > around sun!
          > > > >
          > > > > To understand the bigger picture let us look at some components of an
          > > > > hospital: especially in big hospitals there are so many things
          > > > > inside.
          > > > > There are so many services provided including non medical ones such as
          > > > > restaurants, car parks, room services like hotels, etc. We can group
          > > > > them into functional and non functional services. For an hospital we
          > > > > can
          > > > > say medical services are functional and non medical services are non
          > > > > functional.
          > > > >
          > > > > We should note that however if we focus only on a restaurant in a
          > > > > hospital then functional and non functional services will change. For
          > > > > a restaurant, functional services will be services directly related to
          > > > > cooking and serving. Other services in the restaurant will be non
          > > > > functional such as accounting. If than one wants to focus only on the
          > > > > accounting services with in the restaurant we will see another set of
          > > > > functional and non functional services with in the accounting
          > > > > department of the restaurant.
          > > > >
          > > > > Now, I want you to think about which PAs are functional and which ones
          > > > > are non functional in CMMI-Dev & than functional and non functional
          > > > > goals and practices with in a PA.
          > > > >
          > > > > Peace.
          > > > > Orhan
          > > > > Toronto
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > > > Sent from my iPhone
          > > > >
          > > > > --- End forwarded message ---
          > > > >
          > > > >
          > > >
          > > > Sent from my iPhone
          > > >
          > >
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.