Operationalising CMMI: integrating CMMI and CoBIT perspective

Abstract

PurposeThe use of capability maturity model integration (CMMI) on its own can be problematic for the organisation because it does not provide a roadmap to implementation or identification of key process improvement areas, but instead only provides the goals for each level of implementation. Addition of another framework such as control objectives for information and related technology (CoBIT) can add the required operational data, but poses some unique challenges for implementation. However, the integration of Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL), CoBIT, and ISO/IEC 22007 provides a roadmap to the integration of CMMI and CoBIT. The purpose of this paper is to discuss this co‐implementation and integration of the two frameworks, as well as the underlying framework of a new proposed integration model.Design/methodology/approachA literature review approach is used to address issues that have evolved from the empirical literature regarding the integration of CMMI and ITIL with other standards and determining whether this approach can be applied to the integration of CMMI and CoBIT as well. This literature review also provides insight into roadblocks to the implementation and structural improvements for CMMI.FindingsThe literature review demonstrated that the integration of CMMI and CoBIT could potentially be performed using the same techniques used in integrating ITIL and CoBIT, which provides a valuable guideline for further research into this area. However, further work will be required in order to determine the specifics of integration.Originality/valueThe paper adds to the existing literature by discussing the integration of CMMI and CoBIT and examining how these two frameworks can work together in order to create the basis for a new integration model.

Maturity Model for Cloud Computing Transformation Assessing an Information System s Functional Block Maturity

“…The CMMI repository covers several process areas or disciplines by providing a way to integrate these process areas. Each process area is associated with several components, such as the linked process areas, the specific goals, the generic goals, and the practice-to-target relationships tables [10] [11]. Table I provides a comparative overview on the staged and continuous representations.…”

“…As a referential, the CMMI may constitute a problem for an organization because it does not provide a roadmap for the implementation or identification of key process improvement areas, but it only provides goals for each implementation level [10]. The baseline assessment enables an organization to identify the areas that will bring the greatest return on investment and show where immediate action will have an impact [12].…”

PLM Maturity Evaluation and Prediction Based on a Maturity Assessment and Fuzzy Sets Theory

“…To solve the two questions we study literature works as well as experimental research. In literature studies, PLM maturity models [1,[7][8][9][10][11][12] identify different maturity growth stages that can evaluate PLM adoption; but these maturity models are still weaker to aid co mpanies in self-evaluation PLM and to recognize the gradual process of PLM acco mpaniment through time changes. Most of the PLM maturity models define several maturity levels and describe the differences between each level by using linguistic terms.…”

“…PLM maturity models provide guidelines to PLM implementation for any given company. CMMI (Capability Maturity Model Integration) [7][8][9] has the potential to significantly improve the organization "s profitability, because it has the abilities to evaluate an organization"s maturity and process area capability.…”

“…The evaluation concerns a PLM dimension called 'FunctionWare' in TIFOS framework. Five maturity levels are defined, based on 'standard' scale in PLMIG [19] and CMMI scale [7][8][9]. The maturity score on each KPI is represented by a black rectangle.…”