Org Name Org Site CMM Assessment Kick-off Meeting Dates of assessment

Kick-off Meeting Agenda Assessment Team Introductions Assessment Purpose & Definition Assessor Qualifications On-site Assessment Process Assessment Scoring Assessment Outputs On-site schedule Questions

Assessment Team Introductions Team Leader: Name, Org, x years Software Team Member: Name, Org x years Software

Assessment Purpose Assessment of organization’s software development process and improvement process Independent Progress Check Drives continuous improvement Effectiveness of continuous improvement team Institutionalization of processes created (since the last assessment) Findings drive action plan Sharing of best practices

What the assessment team needs from you A Candid Discussion with all the Assessment Participants (All Interview Groups, etc.) covering Goals and Expectations and some other key issues: No Punishment, no personal attribution for opinions and findings discussed during group interview sessions, positive attitudes Openness and honesty is expected Collaborative effort to assess the organization

Assessment Definition Appraisal of software development processes by objective team (4 assessors) 3 external assessors & 1 internal assessor Self-assessment for organizations to internally measure improvement progress

Assessor Qualifications Collectively, assessment team must have 25 years of software development experience At least one member with 6 years project management experience Lead Assessors must have 10 years software development experience Direct experience in multiple KPAs Three external assessors & 1 internal assessor, each with CMM knowledge training, & experience

Assessment Scoring KPAs scored on a 0-10 scale Scored on 18 CMM KPAs Score is based on KPA Goal Satisfaction CMM “Score” is a Maturity Level (2,3,4, or 5)

On-site Scoring Rating System(s) Explanations Satisfied: The organization’s practices associated with the CMM component are implemented and institutionalized either as defined in the CMM or with an adequate alternative. Not satisfied There are significant weaknesses in the organization's implementation and institutionalization of practices associated with the CMM component, as defined, and no adequate alternative is in place Not applicable The CMM practices associated with the CMM component are not applicable in the organization environment Not rated The associated assessment findings do not meet coverage criteria, or the CMM component falls outside the scope of the assessment

KPAs for Maturity level 2 Repeatable KPAsGoal 1Goal 2Goal 3Goal 4 Fully Satisfied Not Satisfied Not Applicable Not Rated Requirements management Project planning Project tracking and oversight Software subcontract management Software quality assurance Configuration management

KPAs for Maturity Level 3 Defined KPAsGoal 1Goal 2Goal 3Goal 4 Fully Satisfied Not Satisfied Not Applicable Not Rated Organisation process focus Organisation process definition Training program Integrated software management Software product engineering Intergroup co-ordination Peer reviews

KPAs for Maturity Level 4 Managed KPAsGoal 1Goal 2Goal 3Goal 4 Fully Satisfied Not Satisfied Not Applicable Not Rated Quantitative Process Management Software Quality Management

KPAs for Maturity Level 5 Optimising KPAsGoal 1Goal 2Goal 3Goal 4 Fully Satisfied Not Satisfied Not Applicable Not Rated Defect Prevention Technology Change Management Process Change Management

Motorola KPAs Goal 1Goal 2Goal 3Goal 4 Fully Satisfied Not Satisfied Not Applicable Not Rated Security & Disaster Recovery Motorola Quality Metrics

Ratings of Assessment The CMM level is: Level A MAJOR ACHIEVEMENT!

Assessment Outputs CMM maturity Level Strengths of Organization Findings for Organization (Opportunities) For each KPA: referenced to KPA goal Subsequent action plan addresses the findings Recommendations All Outputs aggregated at organization level

Findings Summary Level 2 KPAs: Level 3 KPAs: Level 4 KPAs: Level 5 KPAs:

On-site Assessment Process Functional area discussions (typically 4 groups) Project Leaders (PLs), Engineers/developers/Testers (FAR1), Sponsors or Managers & other key people affecting software process (Mgrs & other key people) Software process Engineering (SEPG)/ SQA/Configuration Management (CM), & System Administration (FAR2)

On-site Assessment Process (cont.) Functional area discussions Covers Goals, expectations, & other key issues Cross sample of representatives Groups of 6-10 representatives 2 to 3 hour discussions with opinions & findings Collaborative effort with organization Review of defined & documented process Review of evidence (application of defined process)

On-Site Schedule

Managers Software Quality Assurance Organization Process Focus Organization Process Definition Training Program Intergroup Coordination Quantitative Process Management Software Quality Management Motorola Quality Metrics Project Leaders Requirements Management Software Project Planning Software Project Tracking and Oversight Software Configuration Management Integrated Software Management Software Product Engineering Peer Reviews Defect Prevention CMM KPAs to Consider for Groups

FAR1 Requirements Management Software Project Planning Software Project Tracking and Oversight Training Program Integrated Software Management Software Product Engineering Intergroup Coordination Peer Reviews FAR2 Software Quality Assurance Software Configuration Management Organization Process Focus Organization Process Definition Quantitative Process Management Software Quality Management Technology Change Management Process Change Management Motorola Quality Metrics CMM KPAs to Consider for Groups