The Diagnosing Phase

The case study team was divided into two mini-teams, each with responsibility for one of the projects. Each team gathered the information from the projects using a variety of means, including informal interviews, facilitated questionnaires, document review, and e-mail. This approach was chosen as the least intrusive to the participating projects.

Collecting Information

The team members compared project processes to PAs using their knowledge of the processes and collected information (e.g., documented policies, plans, procedures, and other project documentation).

PA examination was conducted using required and expected CMMI components (i.e., goals and practices). The informative material, while helpful to understand the specific and generic practices, was not explicitly reviewed for compliance as a part of this activity.

The case study team identified where the processes met or did not meet practices. A process was determined to meet the practices of the model if it was sufficiently institutionalized (i.e., is followed consistently, yields repeatable results, is used throughout the project, is known and understood by constituents, and is documented). Team members' experience with SW-CMM and assessments aided in making objective rulings about alignment of the project practices with the model.

For purposes of the organizational-based PAs and practices at maturity levels 3 through 5, the team interpreted "organization" to mean United Space Alliance because it is the level at which organizational activity is performed.

The team relied on its understanding of the model during the course of the case study and interpreted practices using the "Introduction to CMMI" course materials. The team did not rely on SEI staff, consultants, or other model experts for model interpretation issues or for further model amplification or elaboration.

Recording Observations

Using results from the review, the team members wrote observations for each specific and generic practice. They recorded whether the process met (strength) or did not meet (weakness) the intent of the practices. Team members identified no alternative practices or practices that were considered not applicable.

Team members recorded at least one observation (strength or weakness) for every specific and generic practice in the examined scope to describe what the project did to satisfy or not satisfy the practice. The team also implemented the "partial credit" technique. Team members wrote separate observations for each practice to note strengths and weaknesses associated with the practice in the event some, but not all, of a given practice was being done. There were more than 650 observations written for the practices examined.

The team documented a mapping of project processes to the model that facilitated a gap analysis between the processes and the model. This analysis resulted in recommendations for changes to processes. Teams reviewed the observations while developing the results.