Regular Paper

Capability Maturity Model®

1
Director, Systems Supportability, Raytheon Electronic Systems Company, 2000 East El Segundo Boulevard, MS
R1/B510, El Segundo, CA 90245
2
Chair, Systems Engineering Committee, National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA)
3
Director, Interoperability, Under Secretary of Defense, Acquisition, Technology & Logistics, Washington, DC 20301

4
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, Science & Technology, Washington, DC 20301
SM
CMMI : A VIEW FROM THE SPONSORS

Received July 6, 2001; Accepted October 31, 2001

ABSTRACT
The Capability Maturity Model® Integration (CMMISM) Project is a joint Industry–Govern-
ment–Software Engineering Institute collaborative effort to develop an enterprise-wide proc-
ess improvement product suite based on existing capability models and methods. The Project
is sponsored by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense as well as by the National
Defense Industrial Association Systems Engineering Committee. The first completed CMMISM
product suite was released to the public for adoption in December 2000. This paper will
describe the origins and rationale for the CMMISM Project, providing significant and detailed
background information as well as a snapshot of current status and future plans. It will highlight
some of the documented benefits of Capability Maturity Models, with specific focus on
software engineering since this is the discipline where the greatest savings have been
documented as a result of implementation of process improvement in engineering develop-

*
Author to whom all correspondence should be addressed (e-mail:
rcrassa@west.Raytheon.com).
†
Present address: United States Naval Academy, Annapolis, Mary-
land
Capability Maturity Model® and CMM® are registered in the U S.
Patent and Trademark Office.
CMMISM is a Service Mark of the Software Engineering Institute,
Carnegie Mellon University.

Systems Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2002

3
4 RASSA, GARBER, AND ETTER

ment. The paper will describe the CMMISM product suite components, and delineate some
of the anticipated benefits from CMMISM adoption. Finally, the paper will discuss the CMMISM
Version 1.1 update. © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Syst Eng 5: 3–6, 2002; DOI 10.1002/sys.10011

Key words: Capability Maturity Model®, CMM IntegrationSM, process improvement, software
engineering

In the late 1980s, the Software Engineering Institute and software engineering. After obtaining technical
(SEI) of Carnegie Mellon University developed and validation of the concept from Roger Bate of the SEI,
fielded the Software Capability Maturity Model® (SW- Mr. Schaeffer identified the need for a concentrated
CMM®) for software process improvement, under De- effort to develop a new Capability Maturity Model that
partment of Defense funding as a Federally Funded integrated Systems Engineering, Software Engineer-
Research & Development Center (FFRDC). Over the ing, and Integrated Product & Process Development. In
last decade, as this model has been successfully imple- late 1997 he went to the Systems Engineering Commit-
mented by over 6000 companies and government or- tee (SEC) of the National Defense Industrial Associa-
ganizations worldwide, tremendous improvements in tion (NDIA) for an Industry cosponsor along with his
software cost, schedule, and delivered errors have been office, since he felt this had to be a totally collaborative
achieved and documented. These unqualified suc- development between Industry and government, with
cesses1,2 have spawned a number of similar maturity SEI participation.
models for other engineering and non-engineering dis- The resultant product is Capability Maturity Model®
ciplines, such as Systems Engineering, Integrated Prod- Integration, or CMMISM, the OSD sponsors of which
uct & Process Development, People, and Software are now the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, Sci-
Acquisition.1,2 The models have been developed by a ence & Technology, and the Director of Interoperability
number of organizations including INCOSE (SE- in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, Acqui-
CAM), the Enterprise Process Improvement Collabora- sition Technology & Logistics, along with the NDIA
tion (EPIC), and ISO (International Standards SEC. The CMMISM Project has directly involved over
Organization). As each new discipline-focused model 100 individuals from defense and commercial industry,
was implemented, additional benefits were noted2 due Department of Defense and other government agencies,
to improvements in that discipline’s processes. How- and the SEI, representing over 70 organizations and
ever, each new model was developed and deployed in a companies. The stated purpose of CMMISM is to pro-
stand-alone “stovepipe” environment with focus en- vide guidance for improving an organization’s proc-
tirely on the specific discipline, with different repre- esses and its ability to manage the development,
sentation and assessment methodology. acquisition, and maintenance of products and services.
Further improvements in software engineering were CMMISM places proven practices into a structure that
still found desirable, since it was widely recognized that helps an organization assess its organizational maturity
up to 80% of weapon system functionality, for example, and process area capability, establish priorities for im-
can be achieved via software, and it has further been provement, and guide the implementation of these im-
recognized that software issues were generally at the provements. The CMMISM Product Suite consists of a
root of problems experienced in most major Depart- framework that generates multiple integrated models,
ment of Defense (DoD) development programs. With training courses, and a combined internal assessment
the understanding that one persistent problem in soft- method and external evaluation method, now termed
ware development efforts was a lack of sound systems “appraisal.” As new material in the form of additional
engineering principles employed throughout the soft- disciplines is added to the framework, more integrated
ware development process, the then-Director of Sys- models and supporting materials will become available
tems Engineering at OSD, Mark Schaeffer (now that provide coverage for these additional disciplines.
Deputy Director, Operations, DARPA) began to focus The first full product suite, designated CMMISM-
on the importance of integrating systems engineering SE/SW/IPPD v1.02, was released in December 2000,
and contained Systems Engineering, Software Engi-
1
neering, and Integrated Product & Process Develop-
“A Business Case for Software Process Improvement Revised”,
DoD Data & Analysis Center for Software, September 30, 1999.
ment. Although this product suite can be applied in both
2
See http://www.sei.cmu.edu/activities/cmm/docs/roi.htm for full software-only and systems engineering-only environ-
bibliography. ments, the principal content is a combined SE and SW
 CMMISM: A VIEW FROM THE SPONSORS 5

(CMMISM-SE/SW) model and a combined CMMISM- The December V1.1 release also initiated a 2-year
SE/SW/IPPD model. It is interesting to note that the SE countdown to the start of the final phase-out of SW-
and SW versions are identical in primary content, with CMM and EIA/IS-731, which were source models for
only a few minor differences, underscoring the com- CMMISM, thus defining the sunset period for these
mon-process success of CMMISM in terms of these two models.
disciplines. Further, there are two representations in- CMMISM is a powerful process improvement
cluded—continuous (based on process capability) and mechanism that is anticipated to provide further in-
staged (based on organizational maturity)—that pro- creases in productivity and reductions in cost, schedule,
vide implementation options for organizations. The overall program risk, and delivered errors. Many major
CMMISM Project gets the bulk of its questions on why aerospace and commercial companies have stated pub-
there are two representations, instead of the Project just licly that the integration of systems engineering and
picking one as the preferred representation. The software practices is anticipated to reduce the cost of
CMMISM Steering Group (SG) that manages the overall implementing process improvement by providing com-
Project agrees with the notion of a single representation, mon process areas, appraisal methodology, training,
but had to consider user preferences in making the and lexicon for organizations, as well as provide further
decision on which representation to choose. The improvements in systems and software development by
CMMISM SG, consisting of four defense industry, one truly infusing a systems engineering approach to soft-
commercial industry, three DoD services, one OSD, ware engineering. Jack Kelble, Vice President of Engi-
one non-DoD government, and two SEI repre- neering for Raytheon Electronic Systems, stated:
sentatives, wanted the user community to pick the one “Raytheon is totally committed to implementing
representation it desired. Every time an opinion poll CMMISM. We believe that implementation of the inte-
was solicited, the vote came back split 50–50. Since grated maturity model, including Software, Systems
there is no clear mandate, and in order to offer maxi- Engineering, and IPPD will further improve our pro-
mum implementation flexibility for organizational
ductivity, and provide more predictable product devel-
needs, staged and continuous representations are both
opment schedules and improved overall product
offered at this time. It should be recognized that actual
performance. This will be a ‘win–win’ for our company
model content for these two representations is essen-
and our customers, with a bonus ‘win’ for our employ-
tially the same. It is in the appraisal process where there
ees who we strongly believe will enjoy working on
are differences in the method depending on whether a
programs with an orderly and relatively problem-free
maturity level or capability profile is desired. See
integration & test activity.” Additionally, Malcolm
“CMMISM—The Evolution Continues” in this issue for
O’Neill, Vice President and Chief Technical Officer,
additional explanation of the two representations.
The CMMISM Product Suite underwent a minor Lockheed Martin, has stated: “We have seen the busi-
update to clean up the initial version and was released ness value of process improvement based on the SW-
in December 2001 as V1.1, becoming the stable version CMM and EIA/IS 731… As a result, CMMISM is a
of the product suite for the foreseeable future. Content critical driver of our Lockheed Martin Integrated Engi-
update is being controlled by a formal Configuration neering Process Standard…for world-class engineering
Control Board formed during early 2001, with Industry excellence and Mission Success.”
and government representatives, and also a designated To facilitate the overall management of CMMISM,
INCOSE representative. CMMISM V1.1 also includes the CMMISM Steering Group (SG) recommended that
the combined assessment (internal) and evaluation (ex- OSD designate the SEI as the CMMISM steward, and
ternal) method noted earlier, with a greatly improved that the SEI take its direction regarding CMMISM from
Method Description Document and detailed Implemen- the SG. The SEI has also implemented a Transition
tation Guides for application to internal and external Partner program similar to that implemented for SW-
appraisals. Since the CMMISM Product Suite contains CMM, to help organizations with their transition activi-
this formal “Class A” appraisal method, and many ties to CMMISM (see “The SEI Transition Partner
organizations use Class B and Class C (quick-look) Program for CMMISM” in this issue). Training courses
appraisals prior to going for the Class A, INCOSE is are offered monthly by the SEI, and by the Transition
working on developing both Class B and Class C meth- Partners. Further, the NDIA Systems Engineering
ods. A “supplier sourcing” discipline, oriented toward Committee, in conjunction with the SEI, hosted the first
the supplier acquisition activity performed by develop- annual CMMISM Technology Conference & User
ment programs, is currently under final development Group, on November 13–15, 2001 in Denver, CO. For
and will be released in early 2002. This had previously additional information on CMMISM, the Technology
been released as V1.02d (for draft) of the product suite. Conference/User Group, CMMISM Product Suite, Tran-
6 RASSA, GARBER, AND ETTER

sition Partners and related materials, readers may visit Spruill, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Ac-
the official website, at http://www.sei.cmu.edu/CMMI. quisition, Technology & Logistics), Director, Acquisi-
Note: After completion of this article, Dr. Delores tion Resources & Analysis. Dr. V. Garber remains the
Etter retired from her position at OSD. Replacing her Systems Engineering OSD CMMISM sponsor.
as the Software OSD CMMISM sponsor is Ms. Nancy

Robert C. (Bob) Rassa is the Director of System Supportability at Raytheon Electronic Systems Company
(formerly Hughes Aircraft), in El Segundo, California, where he is responsible for enhancing the
supportability of Raytheon defense products and DoD weapon systems. He is founder and Chairman of
the National Defense Industry Association (NDIA) Systems Engineering Committee (SEC) which is the
overall Industry sponsor of the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMISM) Project. Mr. Rassa
serves as the Co-Chairman (representing Industry) of the CMMISM Steering Group. A Senior Member of
IEEE, Mr. Rassa is currently Chairman, Technical & Standards Activities for the IEEE I & M Society, is
a member of the I & M Society Administrative Committee, and a member of the IEEE Aerospace &
Electrical System Society (AESS) Board of Governors. He is currently Chairman of the AUTOTESTCON
Board of Directors. Mr Rassa holds a BSEE from the University of California, and has many published
papers and delivered presentations to his credit. He holds the US Patent for a satellite-based Advanced
Maintenance System for Aircraft & Military Weapons, issued in August 1999.

Vitalij Garber is Director Interoperability, Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, &
Logistics). Previously Dr. Garber was CEO of GIA (Garber International Associates, Inc.) which he
founded in December 1983. He has started several successful companies and has extensive industrial
experience in forming international partnerships and joint ventures. He served on many Defense Science
Board task forces dealing with future operations and interoperability. From January 1981 through
November 1983, Dr. Garber was the Assistant Secretary General at NATO for Defense Support.Dr. Garber
served as the permanent Chairman of the Conference of National Armaments Directors and the Senior
NATO C2Committee. He was responsible for promoting cooperation among nations in harmonizing the
concepts and requirements for future equipment, coordinating procurement and replacement plans, and
identifying priorities. From December 1977 to January 1981, Dr. Garber was the Deputy Under Secretary
of Defense for International Programs and Technology. He was responsible for all Department of Defense
international activities in research, development, and acquisition. From May 1975 to December 1977, Dr.
Garber was the Technical Director and Deputy Assistant Administrator for field operations, with the
Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA), now the U.S. Department of Energy.He was
responsible for oversight of the National Laboratories (Brookhaven, Argonne, Los Alamos, Livermore,
Berkley, etc.) working to establish technological centers of excellence and effective project management.
From March 1971 to May 1975, Dr. Garber was Advisor for Developments, Department of the Army,
concerned with the full spectrum of science, technology, and engineering in advising on the development
of future army systems. For three years before joining the Department of the Army, Dr. Garber was with
the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) where he was Assistant Director of the Systems Research Depart-
ment, heading systems effectiveness and technology assessment studies. He was also responsible for all
of SRI work in support of future ballistic missile defense. Dr Garber received his BS and MS Degrees in
Physics from the University of Minnesota (1959 and 1962), his Ph.D. from the University of Alabama
(1966), and performed post-doctoral work at Harvard University (1966-67). He served as an ArmyOfficer,
and completed the U.S. Army Infantry Officer’s Leadership, the Airborne, and the Armor Officers’ Career
Courses. After his military service, Dr. Garber was with the Army Missile Command Laboratories in
Huntsville, Alabama, where he specialized in optimum control theory.

Delores Etter (photograph and biography not available)