Talk:Capability Maturity Model

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Capability Maturity Model article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 3 months

Computing: Software

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.

Systems: Software engineering Mid‑importance

	Systems science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the field of Software engineering.

Changes to Context sub-topic

I have expanded the Context sub-topic to provide a better feel for the history of software development and especially the drive to create a software development profession.

There probably should be something about the "wicked problems" and how the overhead involved in the CMMI is designed to help software development solve these types of complex problems.

Also, the CMMI is part of the drive to professionalize software development much as the modern medical system is considered a profession due to a large body of knowledge which is based on scientific investigation.

Richard Chambers

merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The various specializations of this model do not seem to be appropriately covered in separate article . They would be, I think, much more understandable as sections here.

There's another possibility for a much more readable and non-duplicative article: rewrite the whole subject in the way followed to the German WP article--in fact, a direct translation would seem clearer. (I know German technical description has a reputation for being extremely unreadable--which I think is undeserved--to me, it just takes some sympathy & familiarity with the spirit and syntax of the language. This may be true in some areas, but I think that as compared to English language management jargon, it is superior. DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed: I think a better solution would be to create a high-quality page for each maturity model, and then create an overall page listing maturity models, explaining the relationships among them, and linking to them. This creates greater clarity in a growing field. The maturity models to include might be: CMM, CMMI, others already listed at the bottom of the CMM page, Project Management Maturity Model (PM3) from PMI. If people know of other models to include, that would be useful. SidKemp (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Sid Kemp, Sid@SidKemp.com[reply]

Opposed The CMM article can easily reference the CIM article which does provide a useful description of subversive techniques generally applied to developing projects. However I believe a merger would serve to generally reduce the clarity of the CMM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biofuel (talk) 00:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General Agreement: CMM, CMMI etc are all related, theory then how to apply the theory. If there was a relationship diagram that might facilitate the correct linking of the existing sections that might make things clearer to a reader who is new to the subject matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gexxie (talk • contribs) 15:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article Reads Like News Release

Could someone provide clarification as to what parts of this article seem "overly promotional"?

Bill Cupp (talk) (cool ASCII art ship missing here) 03:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to know why the article was tagged "overly promotional". If there is no rationale for the tag, I would like to get the tag removed. - Johnlogic (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Back in May 2012 (!) someone added an inappropriate link to a supplier site. The article then contained much more (C) Carnegie and other commercial references which subsequently appear to have been toned down or edited out. Second removing the tag as it denigrates the overall article MaryEFreeman (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've fixed for this and CIMM. Lycurgus (talk) 05:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redact

I think the cite flagging in the § I just edited is for the unsubstantiated thing about decomposition. I think what was trying to be said and what it is perfectly valid and reasonable to say, is that work is divided into requirements analysis, design and implementation. Comically in the current common culture with "agile" and what not, even having this, let alone having them at some known quality level, is a tremendous step. Nonetheless it's not supported by the defining document or anything else, and technically it is distinct from and not specifically mandated by CMM. So removing the cite flag as the rest is regurgitation. Decomposition is common sense which the capitalist juggernaut generally blows past but it's still in the nature of a specific prescription. Lycurgus (talk) 06:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History section OR-ish

The History section is pretty good (if a bit wordy), but it's more a new (or at very least unsourced) commentary on existing facts, than existing facts per se. Please add more history details for CMM, then this section can be closed. TinaFromTexas (talk) 23:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]