Um modelo de implementação do capability maturity model integration nível 2

Apesar de o CMMI (Capability Maturity Model Integration) prover uma cobertura mais detalhada do ciclo de vida dos produtos que o uso isolado de outros processos de melhoria, ainda assim não pode ser visto como uma metodologia pronta para ser utilizada pelas organizações. Cada organização deve mapear as áreas de processo do nível CMMI desejado (caso a opção seja a representação por estágios, como veremos adiante) à sua metodologia, aos seus métodos e técnicas de desenvolvimento de produtos e sistemas, levando também em consideração os objetivos de negócio da organização. Tanto o CMMI como as demais normas e modelos de qualidade, dizem “o que” e não “como” fazer. Determinar este “como” é um trabalho adicional bastante grande que as organizações devem realizar quando da adoção destas normas. Para isto, normalmente as organizações buscam no mercado empresas de consultoria que possuem experiência na área. Essas consultorias são bastante indicadas porque aumentam significativamente a qualidade e a velocidade dos resultados. Este trabalho pretende facilitar as organizações interessadas na implementação de um modelo de qualidade, fornecendo descrições sobre alguns dos modelos de qualidade mais utilizados atualmente, bem como modelos de processos, guias e formulários que podem ser utilizados diretamente ou como uma base para a implementação do modelo desejado. Embora se aplique à implementação de qualquer modelo de qualidade, mais especificamente, este trabalho destina-se a auxiliar organizações que visem implementar o modelo CMMI nível 2 (doravante usaremos também a abreviação CMMI-N2). Para tanto, descreve de forma mais detalhada este modelo e fornece um caminho para a implementação do mesmo, incluindo a descrição de um processo mínimo de desenvolvimento de software, com base no RUP (Rational Unified Process) e o uso de um modelo de ciclo de vida de melhoria de processos, o IDEAL. Neste trabalho, propõe-se que seja utilizado o modelo IDEAL para a implementação do modelo de qualidade devido ao fato de este modelo ter sido concebido originalmente como um modelo de ciclo de vida para melhoria de processos de software com base no SW-CMM (Capability Maturity Model for Software). Associado a esse modelo, é sugerido que se utilize algumas técnicas e processos de gerência de projetos para cada área de processo do CMMI-N2, visando implantar cada área de processo através de um projeto. Para a implementação são propostos guias, modelos (formulários) de implementação e uma tabela que mapeia todas as áreas de processo do CMMI-N2, seus objetivos, práticas, produtos de trabalho e as ferramentas associadas.

Using a Capability Maturity Model to build on the generational approach to student engagement practices

The generational approach to conceptualising first year student learning behaviour has made a useful contribution to understanding student engagement. It has an explicit focus on student behaviour and we suggest that a capability maturity model interpretation may provide a complementary extension of that understanding as it builds on the generational approach by allowing an assessment of institutional capability to initiate, plan, manage, evaluate and review institutional student engagement practices. The development of a Student Engagement, Success and Retention Maturity Model (SESR-MM) is discussed along with its application in an Australian higher education institution. In this case study, the model identified first, second and third generation approaches and in addition achieved a ‘complementary extension’ of the generational approach, building on it by identifying additional practices not normally considered within the generational concept and indicating the capability of the institution to provide and implement the practices.

A capability maturity model to assess supply chain performance

In an overcapacity world, where the customers can choose from many similar products to satisfy their needs, enterprises are looking for new approaches and tools that can help them not only to maintain, but also to increase their competitive edge. Innovation, flexibility, quality, and service excellence are required to, at the very least, survive the on-going transition that industry is experiencing from mass production to mass customization. In order to help these enterprises, this research develops a Supply Chain Capability Maturity Model named S(CM)2. The Supply Chain Capability Maturity Model is intended to model, analyze, and improve the supply chain management operations of an enterprise. The Supply Chain Capability Maturity Model provides a clear roadmap for enterprise improvement, covering multiple views and abstraction levels of the supply chain, and provides tools to aid the firm in making improvements. The principal research tool applied is the Delphi method, which systematically gathered the knowledge and experience of eighty eight experts in Mexico. The model is validated using a case study and interviews with experts in supply chain management. The resulting contribution is a holistic model of the supply chain integrating multiple perspectives, and providing a systematic procedure for the improvement of a company’s supply chain operations.

A Capability Maturity Model to Assess Supply Chain Performance

In an overcapacity world, where the customers can choose from many similar products to satisfy their needs, enterprises are looking for new approaches and tools that can help them not only to maintain, but also to increase their competitive edge. Innovation, flexibility, quality, and service excellence are required to, at the very least, survive the on-going transition that industry is experiencing from mass production to mass customization. In order to help these enterprises, this research develops a Supply Chain Capability Maturity Model named S(CM)2. The Supply Chain Capability Maturity Model is intended to model, analyze, and improve the supply chain management operations of an enterprise. The Supply Chain Capability Maturity Model provides a clear roadmap for enterprise improvement, covering multiple views and abstraction levels of the supply chain, and provides tools to aid the firm in making improvements. The principal research tool applied is the Delphi method, which systematically gathered the knowledge and experience of eighty eight experts in Mexico. The model is validated using a case study and interviews with experts in supply chain management. The resulting contribution is a holistic model of the supply chain integrating multiple perspectives, and providing a systematic procedure for the improvement of a company’s supply chain operations.

Using a maturity model to move student engagement practices beyond the generational approach

This paper proposes that the generational approach to conceptualising first year student learning behaviour, while it has made a very useful contribution to understanding that behaviour, can be expanded upon. The generational approach has an explicit focus on student behaviour and it is suggested that a capability maturity model interpretation may provide a complementary extension of that as it allows an assessment of institutional capability to initiate, plan, manage and evaluate institutional student engagement practices. The development of a Student Engagement, Success and Retention Maturity Model (SESR-MM) is discussed along with Australasian FYE generational data and Australian SESR-MM data.

Quality Assurance in Extreme Programming

Our previous research about possible quality improvements in Extreme Programming (XP) led us to a conclusion that XP supports many good engineering practices but there is still place for refinements. Our proposal was to add dedicated Quality Assurance (QA) measures, which should be sufficiently effective and at the same time simpler enough in the context of XP. This paper intends to analyze the possibilities for an effective way for applying approved quality assurance practices to XP. The last should not affect negatively to the process and in the meantime must lead to better quality assurance. We aim to make changes to XP that even if would slow down a bit the development process, will make it more suitable for widest range of projects including large and very large projects as well as life critical and highly reliable systems.

An exploration of the maturity model concept as a vehicle for higher education institutions to assess their capability to address student engagement : a work in progress

Gaining a competitive edge in the area of the engagement, success and retention of commencing students is a significant issue in higher education, made more so currently because of the considerable and increasing pressure on teaching and learning from the new standards framework and performance funding. This paper introduces the concept of maturity models (MMs) and their application to assessing the capability of higher education institutions (HEIs) to address student engagement, success and retention (SESR). A concise description of the features of maturity models is presented with reference to an SESR-MM currently being developed. The SESR-MM is proposed as a viable instrument for assisting HEIs in the management and improvement of their SESR activities.

The maturity model concept as framework for assessing the capability of higher education institutions to address student engagement, success and retention : new horizon or false dawn?

While the engagement, success and retention of first year students are ongoing issues in higher education, they are currently of considerable and increasing importance as the pressures on teaching and learning from the new standards framework and performance funding intensifies. This Nuts & Bolts presentation introduces the concept of a maturity model and its application to the assessment of the capability of higher education institutions to address student engagement, success and retention. Participants will be provided with (a) a concise description of the concept and features of a maturity model; and (b) the opportunity to explore the potential application of maturity models (i) to the management of student engagement and retention programs and strategies within an institution and (ii) to the improvement of these features by benchmarking across the sector.

Verifying a Student Engagement, Success and Retention Maturity Model (SESR-MM): A reality check of the model using data derived from three universities

Australian higher education institutions (HEIs) have entered a new phase of regulation and accreditation which includes performance-based funding relating to the participation and retention of students from social and cultural groups previously underrepresented in higher education. However, in addressing these priorities, it is critical that HEIs do not further disadvantage students from certain groups by identifying them for attention because of their social or cultural backgrounds, circumstances which are largely beyond the control of students. In response, many HEIs are focusing effort on university-wide approaches to enhancing the student experience because such approaches will enhance the engagement, success and retention of all students, and in doing so, particularly benefit those students who come from underrepresented groups. Measuring and benchmarking student experiences and engagement that arise from these efforts is well supported by extensive collections of student experience survey data. However no comparable instrument exists that measures the capability of institutions to influence and/or enhance student experiences where capability is an indication of how well an organisational process does what it is designed to do (Rosemann & de Bruin, 2005). We have proposed that the concept of a maturity model (Marshall, 2010; Paulk, 1999) may be useful as a way of assessing the capability of HEIs to provide and implement student engagement, success and retention activities and we are currently articulating a Student Engagement, Success and Retention Maturity Model (SESR-MM), (Clarke, Nelson & Stoodley, 2012; Nelson, Clarke & Stoodley, 2012). Our research aims to address the current gap by facilitating the development of an SESR-MM instrument that aims (i) to enable institutions to assess the capability of their current student engagement and retention programs and strategies to influence and respond to student experiences within the institution; and (ii) to provide institutions with the opportunity to understand various practices across the sector with a view to further improving programs and practices relevant to their context. Our research extends the generational approach which has been useful in considering the evolutionary nature of the first year experience (FYE) (Wilson, 2009). Three generations have been identified and explored: First generation approaches that focus on co-curricular strategies (e.g. orientation and peer programs); Second generation approaches that focus on curriculum (e.g. pedagogy, curriculum design, and learning and teaching practice); and third generation approaches—also referred to as transition pedagogy—that focus on the production of an institution-wide integrated holistic intentional blend of curricular and co-curricular activities (Kift, Nelson & Clarke, 2010). Our research also moves beyond assessments of students’ experiences to focus on assessing institutional processes and their capability to influence student engagement. In essence, we propose to develop and use the maturity model concept to produce an instrument that will indicate the capability of HEIs to manage and improve student engagement, success and retention programs and strategies. The issues explored in this workshop are (i) whether the maturity model concept can be usefully applied to provide a measure of institutional capability for SESR; (ii) whether the SESR-MM can be used to assess the maturity of a particular set of institutional practices; and (iii) whether a collective assessment of an institution’s SESR capabilities can provide an indication of the maturity of the institution’s SESR activities. The workshop will be approached in three stages. Firstly, participants will be introduced to the key characteristics of maturity models, followed by a discussion of the SESR-MM and the processes involved in its development. Secondly, participants will be provided with resources to facilitate the development of a maturity model and an assessment instrument for a range of institutional processes and related practices. In the final stage of the workshop, participants will “assess” the capability of these practices to provide a collective assessment of the maturity of these processes. References Australian Council for Educational Research. (n.d.). Australasian Survey of Student Engagement. Retrieved from http://www.acer.edu.au/research/ausse/background Clarke, J., Nelson, K., & Stoodley, I. (2012, July). The Maturity Model concept as framework for assessing the capability of higher education institutions to address student engagement, success and retention: New horizon or false dawn? A Nuts & Bolts presentation at the 15th International Conference on the First Year in Higher Education, “New Horizons,” Brisbane, Australia. Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. (n.d.). The University Experience Survey. Advancing quality in higher education information sheet. Retrieved from http://www.deewr.gov.au/HigherEducation/Policy/Documents/University_Experience_Survey.pdf Kift, S., Nelson, K., & Clarke, J. (2010) Transition pedagogy - a third generation approach to FYE: A case study of policy and practice for the higher education sector. The International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education, 1(1), pp. 1-20. Marshall, S. (2010). A quality framework for continuous improvement of e-Learning: The e-Learning Maturity Model. Journal of Distance Education, 24(1), 143-166. Nelson, K., Clarke, J., & Stoodley, I. (2012). An exploration of the Maturity Model concept as a vehicle for higher education institutions to assess their capability to address student engagement. A work in progress. Submitted for publication. Paulk, M. (1999). Using the Software CMM with good judgment, ASQ Software Quality Professional, 1(3), 19-29. Wilson, K. (2009, June–July). The impact of institutional, programmatic and personal interventions on an effective and sustainable first-year student experience. Keynote address presented at the 12th Pacific Rim First Year in Higher Education Conference, “Preparing for Tomorrow Today: The First Year as Foundation,” Townsville, Australia. Retrieved from http://www.fyhe.com.au/past_papers/papers09/ppts/Keithia_Wilson_paper.pdf

Understanding the Main Phases of Developing a Maturity Assessment Model

Practitioners and academics have developed numerous maturity models for many domains in order to measure competency. These initiatives have often been influenced by the Capability Maturity Model. However, an accumulative effort has not been made to generalize the phases of developing a maturity model in any domain. This paper proposes such a methodology and outlines the main phases of generic model development. The proposed methodology is illustrated with the help of examples from two advanced maturity models in the domains of Business Process Management and Knowledge Management.

Maturity Model for Supply Chain Relationships in Construction

This study explores the special characteristics of the construction industry and develops a maturity model for measuring and improving the relationships between the key players of a construction supply chain. The model adopts the capability maturity methodology and defines four maturity levels of construction supply chain relationships. It is in a matrix format, consisting of 24 assessment criteria in eight categories at each maturity level. It also provides three different ways of using the model. The model is evaluated through a series of expert interviews. A case study is also presented to demonstrate the application of this model in practice.

The capability-affordance model: a method for analysis and modelling of capabilities and affordances

Existing capability models lack qualitative and quantitative means to compare business capabilities. This paper extends previous work and uses affordance theories to consistently model and analyse capabilities. We use the concept of objective and subjective affordances to model capability as a tuple of a set of resource affordance system mechanisms and action paths, dependent on one or more critical affordance factors. We identify an affordance chain of subjective affordances by which affordances work together to enable an action and an affordance path that links action affordances to create a capability system. We define the mechanism and path underlying capability. We show how affordance modelling notation, AMN, can represent affordances comprising a capability. We propose a method to quantitatively and qualitatively compare capabilities using efficiency, effectiveness and quality metrics. The method is demonstrated by a medical example comparing the capability of syringe and needless anaesthetic systems.

Método para avaliação de ambientes de desenvolvimento de software combinando CMM e GQM

Este trabalho de conclusão apresenta um método e uma ferramenta para avaliação da maturidade e da capacitação de ambientes de desenvolvimento de software baseado no uso da abordagem Goal/Question/Metric-GQM combinada aos métodos tradicionais de avaliação já existentes para o modelo Capability Maturity Model-CMM. A aplicação deste método através da ferramenta proposta permitirá a organização avaliada estabelecer o grau de conformidade preliminar dos seus processos em relação às exigências do modelo CMM. Esta avaliação poderá ser utilizada como ponto de partida para o estabelecimento de um processo de melhoria. O modelo CMM descreve uma série de estágios de maturidade que são atingidos através da satisfação de metas estabelecidas para áreas-chave do processo de desenvolvimento de software da organização. A evolução deste modelo, chamada de CMMI, Capability Maturity Model Integrated, possibilita que as organizações optem pela forma de implementação do modelo. Esta opção pode se dar através do uso do CMMI em estágios, vertical utilizando os níveis tradicionais do modelo, ou contínua; horizontal baseada nas áreas-chave de processo. Da mesma forma, a avaliação pode ser realizada sobre qualquer modelo escolhido. O modelo GQM descreve uma estrutura hierárquica baseada na existência de metas de melhoria preestabelecidas das quais são extraídas métricas e questões que as satisfazem. O nível de satisfação dessas metas é obtido através da análise das métricas relativas às questões aplicadas ao foco da avaliação Algumas ferramentas para avaliação dos processos relativos ao modelo CMM são apresentadas, tais como o questionário da maturidade e os modelos existentes para a criação de métodos de avaliação, CMM Apraisal Framework-CAF e Apraisal Requirements for CMMI-ARC. O diferencial apresentado é o estabelecimento de métricas objetivas e regras de interpretação dessas para a definição da satisfação de uma determinada área-chave de processo, ACP, do nível 2 do modelo CMMI. Além dessas contribuições vale destacar o estabelecimento de questões adicionais ao questionário da maturidade com o objetivo de capturar essas métricas e a criação de grafos GQM para cada ACP do nível 2 do CMMI. Esses grafos permitem a visualização do relacionamento existente entre cada ACP do nível 2 do CMMI com suas metas, questões e métricas. A aplicação do método e da ferramenta será demonstrada através da utilização de um estudo de caso aplicado na empresa DWA Informática Ltda.