Bob notes: "Once SEI established a maturity measure, it's a slam dunk organizations will go for the number. They'll only achieve the underlying goal (a) by accident, or (b) because the number is so well correlated with the goal that you can't achieve one without the other."

Fair 'nuf. And very true that "ratings" and "levels" certainly have had plenty of unwanted consequences... I can't say they were "unexpected" because there was much contention at SEI over whether or not to define the model in terms of "levels" for this very reason... For what it's worth, the sponsor (then, only DOD) insisted on it.

On the other hand, again, it's not the model that forces this measure, it's the assessment/appraisal process that focuses attention on levels and the abuse by contracting officials who've insisted on them for nearly 20 years.

It is truly a mature organization that can look beyond the ratings and levels who gain the most from the model and the appraisal process.

Bob,

Bah. It's not the rule of measurement that applies in this case it's the rule of human behavior.

SEI established a model. Or another way to put it a framework. The model presents a complete view of all the things an organization should consider when implementing an engineering organization. It provides guidance, best practice standards and completeness in the sense that if you did everything the model framed you would have an all inclusive solution. But the model isn't one size fits all, it doesn't dictate your processes, it doesn't require specific approaches, it doesn't require you achieve a number.

What organizations do with the model is up to them. That some organizations create bureaucratic, inefficient processes and then blame them on the model is a sign of poor management, lack of creativity and probably just general laziness. We have implemented CMMI and all our results show that we are now more disciplined, reponsive, and our teams more purposeful than ever before.

David