To be qualified for a certain level, 90% of the key questions and 80% of all questions for that level must be answered yes. Development organizations that adopt them will have more rigorous processes. Policies are monitored, enforced and maintained, Practice 5. A very important lesson learned is that the outcome of a maturity model should help you create the list of things you need to focus on to improve. Ask if in-process quality objectives are being met. I’ve seen maturity models go drastically bad. For each question, the SEI maturity level that the question is associated with is indicated. The TSP is built on the PSP and addresses how to apply similar engineering discipline to the full range of a team's software tasks . This is what I did before considering how to measure framework maturity. A candidate for the Baldrige award should be scoring above 70%. The overall process assessment outcome by the SPR method is also expressed in the same five-point scale: Different from SEI's five maturity levels, which have defined criteria, the SPR questions are structured so that a rating of "3" is the approximate average for the topic being explored. Organizations go from lower to higher levels as they become more capable (mature) in the area being assessed. I mentioned that my quest for a policy framework maturity model came about when I was completing a process assessment for a client. Generally, these models start with an assessment that determines the current state of maturity, sometimes called “as-is.” The next part is to determine the “to-be,” or desired state. It is meant to be used with an assessment methodology and a management system. Are you looking at your entire framework, individual policies, or the effectiveness and relevance of those policies? It is meant to be used with an assessment methodology and a management system. As of April 1996, based on assessments of 477 organizations by SEI, 68.8% were at level 1, 18% were at level 2, 11.3% were at level 3, 1.5% were at level 4, and only 0.4% were at level 5 (Humphrey, 2000). The result or outcome from this analysis will facilitate the identification of potential gaps to assist in determining where priorities should be. The process areas (PAs) are: Focuses on process standardization. SPR has also developed an automated software tool (CHECKPOINT) for assessment and for resource planning and quality projection. This blog takes the results from the last and extends my policy framework journey to the next level – creating a method to measure policy framework maturity. Applying the Seven Basic Quality Tools in Software Development, Exponential Distribution and Reliability Growth Models, Metrics and Lessons Learned for Object-Oriented Projects, Measuring and Analyzing Customer Satisfaction, Conducting In-Process Quality Assessments, Dos and Donts of Software Process Improvement, Using Function Point Metrics to Measure Software Process Improvements, Metrics and Models in Software Quality Engineering (2nd Edition), The .NET Developers Guide to Directory Services Programming, Practical Software Metrics for Project Management and Process Improvement, Managing the Testing Process: Practical Tools and Techniques for Managing Hardware and Software Testing, Applied Software Measurement: Global Analysis of Productivity and Quality, The Certified Software Quality Engineer Handbook, Introducing Microsoft Office InfoPath 2003 (Bpg-Other), Process Maturity Framework and Quality Standards, Definition, Operational Definition, and Measurement, A Closer Look at Defect Removal Effectiveness, Defect Removal Effectiveness and Quality Planning, Cost Effectiveness of Phase Defect Removal, Defect Removal Effectiveness and Process Maturity Level, Estimating the Distribution of Total Defects over Time, The PTR Arrival and Backlog Projection Model, In-Process Metrics and Quality Management, Possible Metrics for Acceptance Testing to Evaluate Vendor-Developed Software.