I've been doing process management and project management integration for more than 20 years. This is called Capability Maturity Modeling. CMM is fundamental to PMOs and is one of the hottest areas in project management. I've learned much about what works and what doesn't and am going to share some hard lessons learned.
A Little Background on CMM. The capability maturity model was developed in the process-quality world of the 1980s. It migrated into software and was popularized by the Software Engineering Institute at Carnegie Mellon University. CMM is based on five levels of maturity, as shown in Exhibit 1. An organization “matures” as it moves up the levels.
If you're doing or planning to do CMM or PMO or other alphabet soup initiatives, listen up!
CMM evolved from the perception that there is a “software crisis.” Software is generally believed to be the driver of the New Economy and is embedded in almost every product. Software technology was also outpacing developers’ ability to manage and control the development process. Studies indicated that up to 75 percent of software projects didn't meet their budget, schedule, scope, or satisfy stakeholders. The solution was to look at the organizational maturity and enhance project consistency through higher-level or more mature processes.
This is the typical CMM scenario: A company officer, VP or higher, is introduced to a new software methodology such as lean project management or a new process methodology such as PMO or Six Sigma. A competitor's CEO says this is the greatest thing since sliced bread. A consultant is called in, who says they can implement Six Sigma or an optimized project management office in a year. The company is at Level 0.5 or 1.0 on the CMM; and senior management, on the advice of the consultant, imposes Level 3.0 or even 4.0 processes on this Level 0.5 organization. In a year everyone wonders why this initiative failed. Duh ...
Greg Hutchins, PE, is a principal with QPE, a program, process, and project management advisory firm in Portland, Ore., USA. QPE's core competency is leading/coaching project teams to do the right things right on time. He can be reached at [email protected] or at +1-800-COMPETE.Comments on this column should be directed to [email protected].
Hutchins’ CMM Law. Like all good consultants, we put a label on this phenomenon. This is what I call “Hutchins’ CMM Law”: If the delta or distance between where an organization “is” and where it “wants to be” is within one CMM level, then a top-down, bottom-up, or outside-in (consultant driven) process initiative can be integrated into the organization fairly seamlessly. If there is more than one CMM level difference between the “is” and the “wants to be,” then a bottom-up process must be emphasized over the top-down or the outside-in.
The corollary to the above is that an organization pursuing project office, multiproject, or organizational improvement must complete each step before progressing to the next level. Huh? If your organization is a Level 0.5 on the CMM, then it can't become a Level 3 without progressing through Levels 1 and 2.
There are statistical and cultural reasons for this. A fundamental law of statistics is that statistical process control, continuous process improvement, lean, Six Sigma, or other project improvement processes must be stable before they can become capable or attain parts per million nonconformance levels (Six Sigma).
Then there are the cultural and people hurdles. CMM tools and techniques are relatively straightforward, while the cultural hurdles are monumental. CMM is an organizational process improvement model. It can be transformational or evolutionary. Whatever deployment tactics are used, people must understand, adopt, adapt, and eventually own the new project processes. And ultimately, they must develop new behaviors. This can be disruptive.
CHANGE, REGARDLESS OF the vector (direction and magnitude), must match the culture and maturity level of the organization. ■
Capability Maturity Model
Exhibit 1. This exhibit shows the five CMM levels. The delta is the distance between where an organization “wants to be” and where it presently “is” in its capability maturity.