Nurturing the acorn: helping a small software company onto the CMM ladder

We report on an interaction between a University and a small software development company within the framework of a Teaching Company Scheme. By exploiting the peculiar environment offered by a TCS, the University was able to help the company introduce measures to improve their software development process. Not only have these measures moved the company from level 1 to level 2 of the Capability Maturity Model; they are doubtless also responsible, at least in part, for the company's survival. The fundamental features of the environment which supported this success are discussed, and it is suggested how the approach might be applied elsewhere, either within or independently of a funding framework such as TCS

Identification of key process areas in the production on an e-capability maturity model for UK construction organisations

Uptake of e-procurement by construction organisations has been slow (Martin, 2008). Positive e-business achievements in other industries, point towards the potential for the construction industry to accomplish similar results. Since the Modernising Government White paper set targets through best value indicator BV157 for implementation in the public sector, Government has supported many initiatives encouraging e-procurement. These are based on documented efficiency and cost savings (Knudsen, 2003; Minahan and Degan, 2001; McIntosh and Sloan, 2001; Martin, 2008). However, Martin (2003, 2008) demonstrates only a modest increase in the uptake of e-procurement in the UK construction industry. Alshawi et al (2004) identified the significance of possessing a model to sustain the embedment of any business process within an organisation. Saleh and Alshawi (2005) describe a number of model types used to gauge maturity in an organisation. One of these models is the capability maturity model. Paulk et al (1993) released the Software Capability Maturity Model (CMM) in 1991. Since then many CMM’s have evolved. This paper reports on how a CMM based on Drivers and Barriers to e-procurement identified in Eadie et al (2009) can be developed to gauge the maturity of an organisation in relation to e-procurement. This paper presents details of a research project which used factor analysis to produce a set of Key Process Areas (KPA) from the drivers and barriers identified in Eadie et al (2009). These KPAs were then subjected to a mapping process linking them to maturity levels to develop a CMM to analyse the e-procurement capability of construction organisations. The mapping will be reported in a later paper. This termed as e-readiness of organisations will indicate the current state of a construction organisation in terms of its readiness to carry out e-procurement. The paper describes in detail the identification of the KPA’s

CEG 468/668: Managing the Software Development Process

This course covers the challenges and issues associated with software project management. Emphasis will occur on two fronts: (1) the software project manager’s view (i.e., “What considerations and obstacles confront project managers during software development?”), and (2) the organizational view (i.e., “How can organizations can foster a climate where software project management is performed effectively throughout an organization?)

Controlling Curriculum Redesign with a Process Improvement Model

A portion of the curriculum for a Management Information Systems degree was redesigned to enhance the experiential learning of students by focusing it on a three-semester community-based system development project. The entire curriculum was then redesigned to have a project-centric focus with each course in the curriculum contributing to the success of students’ learning experiences. Implementation of this new design involved an evolutional enhancement from an existing traditional curriculum with modifications proceeding in stages over a four-year period. Early on, it was recognized that the curriculum redesign was progressing through a series of stages similar to that encountered in software engineering processes. As a result, the general guidelines and framework developed for continuous improvement in software engineering: the Capability Maturity Model were adopted and modified for guiding the curriculum redesign. This paper presents a description of the authors’ experiences in implementing a curriculum redesign from one based on a traditional course-based design to a project-centric design using the Capability Maturity Model as a process improvement tool. Our successful experience with using this tool suggests a need for the development of a specialized process improvement tool for future use on similar curriculum redesign

Conceptualization and Measurement of the Capability Maturity Model (CMM): An Examination of Past Practices and Suggestions for Future Applications

The Capability Maturity Model (CMM) has obtained world-wide status as a premier process improvement framework. This influence has not gone unnoticed by the academic community who has utilized the CMM as a key construct representing a firm’s IT project management and development capabilities. However, an examination of the current state of research reveals no consensus on how to best operationalize CMM-based process capability; therefore, this study seeks to start a dialog in the academic community about how CMM-based process capability should be conceptualized and measured. While the results do suggest that CMM-based process capability is multidimensional, and that a process structure rather than a level structure may be the most appropriate; the main intent of this research is to call attention to the need for greater rigor in the measurement and conceptualization of CMM-based process capability in the academic literature. The hope is this research represents a first step in developing a fully refined and validated CMM-based process capability measure

Infosys Technologies Ltd.: Improving Organizational Knowledge Flows

Knowledge is being discussed as one of the most important organizational resources. But these resources exist in specialized pockets dispersed across the organization, and dedicated knowledge management (KM) programs are required to improve their flow. However, high failure rates of such programs raise serious doubts about their ability to improve knowledge flows. This case traces the KM program of Infosys Technologies, Ltd – a Global Most Admired Knowledge Enterprise. The case describes how, in 1999, Infosys’ top management detected a severe lack of organizational knowledge flows while implementing a program aimed at continuously improving their core business processes. A more detailed examination exposed that the lack of knowledge flows stifled the effectiveness of their organizational structure and their business model. Alarmed by these critical findings, Infosys initiated their KM program. A five-stage knowledge maturity model (KMM) was conceptualized to aid KM implementation. With people, processes, and technology as the three pillars of Infosys’ KM program, KMM identified specific capabilities Infosys needed to develop in each of the five levels. Things worked fine till 2004 when Infosys began moving towards KMM Level 4, which required developing clear metrics to measure KM effectiveness, that is, improvements in knowledge flow. In the absence of such metrics, Infosys’ Board of Directors started questioning company's financial investment in the KM program. The CEO, who championed the KM program, knew that he faced two key challenges – to convince the Board of future revenue prospects of the KM program, and to identify metrics for assessing improvements in organizational knowledge flows

Infosys Technologies: Improving Organizational Knowledge Flow

Nandan Nilekani, the chief executive officer (CEO) of Infosys Technologies (Infosys), sat at his desk at the company’s headquarters in Bangalore, India, reading an email from one of his account managers in his North American operations. The manager, Vivek Pradhan, had just landed a project with a major Detroit automobile manufacturer, and was commenting to Nandan on how instrumental the company’s knowledge management (KM) program was in his securing the project. Vivek told Nandan that his client had given him 48 hours to develop a pre-proposal on upgrading its nationwide sales and order operations. He added that his technical team had never seen such a project. Vivek felt he could never meet his pre-proposal deadline, but that evening he received an email from Nandan announcing the launch of a new Domain Competency Group (DCG) as part of the company’s nascent knowledge management (KM) initiative. As stated in the email: DCG would serve as a centralized think-tank to provide round-the-clock knowledge support on various industrial domains to our practice units around the world. Vivek further explained that a quick call to the DCG contact number helped him locate a similar project completed for a German automotive company. He was sent the necessary materials, including a client presentation, which proved very similar to what his client had in mind. After reading the email, Nandan sat back in his chair feeling quite pleased at the success of the five-year-old KM program. Infosys’ KM implementation was guided by the KM Maturity Model (KMM) (see Exhibit 1). 2 Infosys was currently working towards attaining the fourth level of KM maturity. However, one requirement was seriously lacking and would impede progress to the next level: Infosys did not have robust metrics for assessing productivity benefits of the KM program