The Capability Maturity Model Integrated as a Market Engineering Maturity Model

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 175-196
Author(s):  
Daniel Adrian Doss ◽  
Russ Henley ◽  
David Hughes McElreath ◽  
Steve L. Mallory ◽  
Balakrishna Gokaraju ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Process Improvement ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Capability Maturity Model ◽  
Maturity Model ◽  
Engineering Process ◽  
Maturity Level ◽  
Significance Level ◽  
Capability Maturity ◽  
Market Engineering ◽  
First Maturity

This article examined a variant of the capability maturity model integrated (CMMi) through the lens of market engineering process improvement. The population and sample represented a national array of U.S. marketing organizations. Using ANOVA, a 0.05 significance level, and a stratification of urban marketing organizations versus rural marketing organizations, the study showed three statistically significant differences representing the second (p = 0.00; M = 2.90), fourth (p = 0.01; M = 3.22), and sixth hypotheses (p = 0.04; M = 3.15). The second hypothesis corresponded to the first maturity level (ad hoc, random processes), the fourth hypothesis corresponded to the third maturity level (characterized and expressed processes), and the sixth hypothesis corresponded to the fifth maturity level (optimized processes).

scholarly journals Investigating Process Maturity Modeling as an Advertising Process Improvement Paradigm

2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-26
Author(s):  
Daniel Adrian Doss ◽  
Russ Henley ◽  
Qiuqi Hong ◽  
Trey Pickett
Keyword(s):  
Process Improvement ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Service Marketing ◽  
Maturity Model ◽  
Maturity Level ◽  
Process Maturity ◽  
Capability Maturity ◽  
Product Marketing ◽  
Marketing Firms ◽  
First Maturity

Summary This article examined a variant of the Capability Maturity Model integrated (CMMi) through the lens of advertising process improvement. The population and sample were taken from a national array of U.S. marketing organizations. Using ANOVA, a 0.05 significance level, and a stratification of service marketing organizations versus product marketing organizations, the study showed a statistically significant difference (F(1, 304) = 4.03; p = 0.04; ω2 = 0.00) regarding the hypothesis representing the notion that processes were potentially sporadic, chaotic, and ad hoc. This notion corresponded to the first maturity level of the examined process maturity framework. With respect to the Likert-scale data representing the first maturity level, the successive means analysis showed that both service marketing firms (M = 2.99) and product marketing firms (M = 2.74) reported neutrality regarding whether processes were deemed sporadic, chaotic, and ad hoc. Thus, the respondents perceived no evidence of the first maturity level among the queried work settings. Future studies may examine different stratifications of marketing firms (e.g., for-profit versus non-profit; domestic versus international; and so on) to better explore the proposed advertising maturity model.

Requirements Engineering Process Improvement and Related Models

2011 ◽  
pp. 18-33
Author(s):  
Badariah Solemon ◽  
Shamsul Sahibuddin ◽  
Abdul Azim Abd Ghani
Keyword(s):  
Requirements Engineering ◽  
Process Improvement ◽  
Process Model ◽  
Good Practice ◽  
Capability Maturity Model ◽  
Maturity Model ◽  
Engineering Process ◽  
Principal Characteristics ◽  
Capability Maturity ◽  
Requirements Engineering Process

Requirements Engineering (RE) is a key discipline in software development, and several standards and models are available to help assess and improve RE processes. However, different standards and models can also help achieve different improvement goals. Thus, organizations are challenged to select these standards and models to best suit their specific context and available resources. This chapter presents a review of selected RE-specific and generic process improvement models that are available in the public domain. The review aims to provide preliminary information that might be needed by organizations in selecting these models. The chapter begins with analyses of how RE maturity is addressed in the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) for Development. Then, it describes the principal characteristics of, and the assessment and improvement framework applied in four RE-specific process assessment and improvement models: the Requirements Engineering Good Practice Guide (REGPG), the Requirements Engineering Process Maturity(REPM), the Requirements Capability Maturity Model (R-CMM), and the Market-Driven Requirements Engineering Process Model (MDREPM). This chapter also examines the utility and lesson learned of these models.

scholarly journals The Library Assessment Capability Maturity Model: A Means of Optimizing How Libraries Measure Effectiveness

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 31-49
Author(s):  
Simon Hart ◽  
Howard Amos
Keyword(s):  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Design Science ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Assessment Process ◽  
Capability Maturity Model ◽  
Maturity Model ◽  
Maturity Level ◽  
Activity Data ◽  
Capability Maturity ◽  
Library Assessment

Abstract Objective – This paper presents a Library Assessment Capability Maturity Model (LACMM) that can assist library managers to improve assessment. The process of developing the LACMM is detailed to provide an evidence trail to foster confidence in its utility and value. Methods – The LACMM was developed during a series of library benchmarking activities across an international network of universities. The utility and value of the LACMM was tested by the benchmarking libraries and other practitioners; feedback from this testing was applied to improve it. Guidance was taken from a procedures model for developing maturity models that draws on design science research methodology where an iterative and reflective approach is taken.  Results – The activities decision making junctures and the LACMM as an artifact make up the results of this research. The LACMM has five levels. Each level represents a measure of the effectiveness of any assessment process or program, from ad-hoc processes to mature and continuously improving processes. At each level there are criteria and characteristics that need to be fulfilled in order to reach a particular maturity level. Corresponding to each level of maturity, four stages of the assessment cycle were identified as further elements of the LACMM template. These included (1) Objectives, (2) Methods and data collection, (3) Analysis and interpretation, and (4) Use of results. Several attempts were needed to determine the criteria for each maturity level corresponding to the stages of the assessment cycle. Three versions of the LACMM were developed to introduce managers to using it. Each version corresponded to a different kind of assessment activity: data, discussion, and comparison. A generic version was developed for those who have become more familiar with using it. Through a process of review, capability maturity levels can be identified for each stage in the assessment cycle; so too can plans to improve processes toward continuous improvement. Conclusion – The LACMM will add to the plethora of resources already available. However, it is hoped that the simplicity of the tool as a means of assessing assessment and identifying an improvement path will be its strength. It can act as a quick aide-mémoire or form the basis of a comprehensive self-review or an inter-institutional benchmarking project. It is expected that the tool will be adapted and improved upon as library managers apply it.

Requirements Engineering Process Improvement and Related Models

2014 ◽  
pp. 203-218
Author(s):  
Badariah Solemon ◽  
Shamsul Sahibuddin ◽  
Abdul Azim Abd Ghani
Keyword(s):  
Requirements Engineering ◽  
Process Improvement ◽  
Process Model ◽  
Good Practice ◽  
Capability Maturity Model ◽  
Maturity Model ◽  
Engineering Process ◽  
Principal Characteristics ◽  
Capability Maturity ◽  
Requirements Engineering Process

Requirements Engineering (RE) is a key discipline in software development, and several standards and models are available to help assess and improve RE processes. However, different standards and models can also help achieve different improvement goals. Thus, organizations are challenged to select these standards and models to best suit their specific context and available resources. This chapter presents a review of selected RE-specific and generic process improvement models that are available in the public domain. The review aims to provide preliminary information that might be needed by organizations in selecting these models. The chapter begins with analyses of how RE maturity is addressed in the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) for Development. Then, it describes the principal characteristics of, and the assessment and improvement framework applied in four RE-specific process assessment and improvement models: the Requirements Engineering Good Practice Guide (REGPG), the Requirements Engineering Process Maturity(REPM), the Requirements Capability Maturity Model (R-CMM), and the Market-Driven Requirements Engineering Process Model (MDREPM). This chapter also examines the utility and lesson learned of these models.

scholarly journals Practices and Techniques for Engineering Process Capability Models

2010 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Clenio F. Salviano ◽  
Márcia R. M. Martinez ◽  
Alessandra Zoucas ◽  
Marcello Thiry
Keyword(s):  
Process Improvement ◽  
Software Process ◽  
Process Capability ◽  
Software Process Improvement ◽  
Maturity Model ◽  
Engineering Process ◽  
Current Version ◽  
Maturity Level ◽  
Capability Maturity ◽  
Initial Validation

Software Process Improvement, based on a Maturity Level or a Process Capability Profile, from a Capability Maturity Model or an ISO/IEC 15504-based model, is well established in the software industry as a successful practical means for improving software intensive organizations. In consequence there is an opportunity to understand how these models have been developed and consolidate this knowledge to support the development of new models by a broader community including the industry. This article introduces practices and techniques of a Method Framework for Engineering Process Capability Models as an element of a methodology on a Process Capability Profile to drive Process Improvement. This method framework is based on previous experiences to develop different process capability models. Its current version is composed of sequential practices, customization rules, guidelines for using the framework, a repository for examples of utilization and another repository for examples of techniques. This method framework is part of a methodology. An initial validation indicates a first confidence that this method framework is a useful proposal for developing methods and processes for engineering process capability models.

Benefits of CMM and CMMI-Based Software Process Improvement

2014 ◽  
pp. 1385-1400 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maged Abdullah ◽  
Rodina Ahmad ◽  
Lee Sai Peck ◽  
Zarinah Mohd Kasirun ◽  
Fahad Alshammari
Keyword(s):  
Process Improvement ◽  
Software Process ◽  
Software Process Improvement ◽  
Capability Maturity Model ◽  
Maturity Model ◽  
Software Products ◽  
Capability Maturity ◽  
Development Organizations ◽  
Prior Literature ◽  
Maintenance Activities

Software Process Improvement (SPI) has become the survival key of numerous software development organizations who want to deliver their products cheaper, faster, and better. A software process ultimately describes the way that organizations develop their software products and supporting services; meanwhile, SPI on the other hand, is the act of changing the software process and maintenance activities. This chapter purposefully describes the benefits of software process improvement. The Capability Maturity Model (CMM) and the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) are briefly surveyed and extensively discussed. Prior literature on the benefits and impacts of CMM and CMMI-based software process improvement is also highlighted.

Organizational Cognition in the Industrial Case Study

2010 ◽  
pp. 122-132
Author(s):  
Farley Simon Nobre ◽  
Andrew M. Tobias ◽  
David S. Walker
Keyword(s):  
Process Improvement ◽  
Capability Maturity Model ◽  
Maturity Model ◽  
Process Maturity ◽  
Industrial Case Study ◽  
Organizational Cognition ◽  
Capability Maturity ◽  
Organization Process ◽  
And Performance

This chapter is concerned with the implementation of The Capability Maturity Model in the organization of study. In this application, we define measures of organization process improvement and we propose correlations between them and organizational cognition. Among these measures are included organization process maturity, capability, and performance. Therefore, we define correlations between organizational cognition and organization process maturity, and also between organizational cognition and organization process capability and performance. From such correlations, we also define an association between organizational cognition and organizational learning. Hence, we outline new directions to the development of approaches to assess, to evaluate and to measure the degree of organizational cognition from appraisal methods of The Capability Maturity Model and of other organization process improvement models. Moreover, Chapter IX is complemented by Appendix I which summarizes concepts and characteristics about the five maturity levels of The Capability Maturity Model.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document