Process Maturity ProfileProcess Maturity Profile: Software CMM 2004 Mid-Year Update 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER 5b. GRANT NUMBER 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER

Carnegie Mellon UniversitySoftware Engineering Institute Software CMM - CBA IPI, SPA and SCAMPI Appraisal Results

August 2004 Process Maturity Profile - Page 1© 2004 by Carnegie Mellon University

Software Engineering InstituteCarnegie Mellon University

Process Maturity Profile

Software CMM®

2004 Mid-Year Update

August 2004

We could not produce this report without the support of the organizations and lead appraisers who reported their appraisal results to the SEISM.

Our many thanks for their continuing cooperation with our data collection and analysis efforts.

CMMI Appraisal Program

The Software Engineering Institute is a federally funded research and development center sponsored by the U.S. Department of Defense and operated by Carnegie Mellon® University

® CMM and Carnegie Mellon are registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office by Carnegie Mellon UniversitySM SEI is a service mark of Carnegie Mellon University

© 2004 by Carnegie Mellon University

Report Documentation Page Form ApprovedOMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering andmaintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, ArlingtonVA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if itdoes not display a currently valid OMB control number.

1. REPORT DATE AUG 2004 2. REPORT TYPE

3. DATES COVERED 00-00-2004 to 00-00-2004

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Process Maturity Profile: Software CMM 2004 Mid-Year Update

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) Carnegie Mellon University,Software Engineering Institute,Pittsburgh,PA,15213

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATIONREPORT NUMBER

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S)

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT NUMBER(S)

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for public release; distribution unlimited

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT

15. SUBJECT TERMS

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT Same as

Report (SAR)

18. NUMBEROF PAGES

31

19a. NAME OFRESPONSIBLE PERSON

a. REPORT unclassified

b. ABSTRACT unclassified

c. THIS PAGE unclassified

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98) Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18



OutlineIntroduction

Current Status

Community Trends

Organizational Trends

Summary

This briefing is based solely on the number of appraisals reported to the SEI. It cannot be used as a source for an exact indicator of all organizations in the world using SEI models or appraisal methods nor can it be used for certification or verification purposes.

The SEI does not certify organizations. The SEI only licenses SEI partners and SEI authorized lead assessors to conduct appraisals. Neither the SEI nor any other organization is a “certifying authority” of the results from an appraisal. Therefore requests to the SEI to provide information to be used for this purpose can not be fulfilled. Information provided by the SEI, such as this briefing, is to demonstrate use of its products and services only.

Organizations performing source selection or verification should consider performing an evaluation appraisal. For more information on appraisal methods and for a directory of authorized lead appraisers who can perform them, visit: http://www.sei.cmu.edu/managing/app.directory.html



Introduction - 1: Purpose and SourceCharacterize the process maturity of the software community

This briefing uses information from appraisals using the SW-CMM in:

• CMM®-Based Appraisals for Internal Process Improvement (CBA IPIs) and

• Software Process Assessments (SPAs) and

• Standard CMMI® Appraisal Method for Process Improvement (SCAMPISM), v1.1

Please visit:

http://www.sei.cmu.edu/sema/profile_about.html

for additional information or to answer questions you may have about this briefing



Introduction - 2: Briefing ContentsThis briefing includes three primary sections:

1. Current Status- Snapshot of the software community based on the most

recent appraisal, since , of reporting organizations

2. Community Trends- Global distribution of appraisals- Growth in the number of appraisals performed - Shifts in the maturity profile over time

3. Organizational Trends- Analysis of Key Process Area (KPA) satisfaction - Time to move up in maturity based on change in maturity

level and time between appraisals

2000



Section 1: Current StatusAppraisals conducted from throughand reported to the SEI by

• organizations• participating companies• projects• Non-USA organizations

Please refer to: Terms Used in this Report on page 29

1,543741

7,84859.2%

June 20042000July 2004



Based on most recent appraisal, since , of organizations reporting a maturity level rating

Maturity Profile by All Reporting Organizations

% o

f Org

aniz

atio

ns

1,5432000

9.6%

42.6%

30.1%

8.1% 9.6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Initial Repeatable Defined Managed Optimizing



Based on organizations reporting organization categories

Reporting Organization Categories

3.8%

18.9%

77.3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Military/Federal

DoD/Fed Contractor

Commercial/In-house

% of Organizations

1,543



Based on most recent appraisal, since , of

Maturity Profile by Reporting Organization Categories

% o

f Org

aniz

atio

ns

2000 1,543

9.7%

43.5%

27.5%

8.5%10.7%

7.2%

36.1%

44.0%

6.2% 6.5%

18.6%

57.6%

13.6%

8.5%

1.7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Commercial/In-house DoD/Fed Contractor Military/Federal

organizations reporting categories and a maturity level rating



Based on organizations reporting SIC code. For more information visit: http://www.osha.gov/oshstats/sicser.html

Chemicals And Allied Products0.3%

Printing And Publishing0.5%

Primary Metal Industries0.3%

Fabricated Metal Products0.9%

Food And Kindred Products0.2%

Furniture And Fixtures0.2%

Finance, Insurance and Real Estate13.3%

Amusement & Recreation Services

0.2%

Services, Nec0.2%

Health Services0.3%

Public Administration (Including Defense)

9.1%

Transportation, Communication, Electric, Gas

and Sanitary Services5.4%

Wholesale Trade0.6%

Retail Trade0.8%

Industrial Machinery And Equipment

4.5%

Transportation Equipment5.6%

Electronic & Other Electric Equipment

5.9%

Instruments And Related Products

6.2%

Engineering & Management Services10.8%

Business Services34.8%

Organization TypeBased on Primary Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code

Manufacturing24.3%

Services46.3%

646



2000+1.1%1001 to 2000

1.7%501 to 10004.8%

301 to 5007.8%

26 to 5017.1%

51 to 7513.2%

76 to 1009.6%

201 to 3009.7%

101 to 20021.6%

25 or fewer13.4%

Based on organizations reporting size data

Organization SizeBased on the total number of employees within the area of the organization that was appraised

201 to 2000+25.1%

1 to 10053.3%

1,512



12.9

%

9.3% 11

.0%

12.4

%

7.1% 8.2% 8.5%

4.1%

12.0

%

5.9%

66.3

%

54.4

%

45.0

%

35.9

%

37.4

%

35.4

%

27.1

%

21.9

%

16.0

%

23.5

%

18.3

%

27.0

%

30.0

%

30.3

% 34.0

%

29.9

%

39.0

%

38.4

%

52.0

%

29.4

%

1.0%

5.8%

6.0%

11.7

%

12.0

%

9.5%

6.8%

16.4

%

4.0%

11.8

%

1.5% 3.

5%

8.0% 9.

7%

9.5%

17.0

%

18.6

%

19.2

%

16.0

%

29.4

%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

25 or fewer 26 to 50 51 to 75 76 to 100 101 to 200 201 to 300 301 to 500 501 to 1000 1001 to 2000 2000+


Maturity Profile by Organization SizeBased on the total number of employees within the area of the organization that was appraised

Based on organizations reporting size data and a maturity level rating

The number of organizations for the 2000+ category is small which inflates the maturity level bars. Please see page 9 and take this into account. The purpose of this chart is to indicate that all sizecategories contain most, if not all, maturity levels.

1,512

% o

f Org

aniz

atio

ns



USA and Non-USAReporting Organization Categories

5.4%

53.7%

3.8%

13.4%

23.6%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Military/Federal

DoD/Fed Contractor

Commercial/In-house

% of Organizations

USA

Non-USA

Based on U.S. organizations and Non-USA organizations reporting organization categories913630



Based on U.S. organizations and Non-USA organizations reporting categories and a maturity level rating

Maturity Profile by All Reporting USA and Non-USA Organizations

% o

f Org

aniz

atio

ns

15.2%

48.7%

28.4%

4.3% 3.3%5.7%

38.4%

31.2%

10.7%13.9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


USA Non-USA

913630



CBA IPIs , SPAs and SCAMPI v1.1 using the SW-CMM conducted since 1987 through and reported to the SEI by

• appraisalsCBA IPIsSPAsSCAMPIs

• organizations• participating companies• reappraised organizations• projects


Section 2: Community Trends

June 2004July 2004

3,3602,853

2,561922630

14,126

48423



Countries Where Appraisals have been Performed and Reported to the SEI

Argentina Australia Austria Barbados Belgium Brazil CanadaChile China Colombia Costa Rica Cyprus Czech Republic DenmarkEgypt Finland France Germany Greece Hong Kong HungaryIndia Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea, Republic of LatviaMalaysia Mauritius Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway PakistanPeru Philippines Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Russia Saudi ArabiaSingapore South Africa Spain Sweden Switzerland Taiwan ThailandTurkey Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay VenezuelaViet nam



Number of Appraisals and Maturity Levels Reported to the SEI by Country

The organization maturity profile, page 8, can be created for certain countries using the Interactive Maturity Profile availablein the Software Engineering Information Repository Web site. Please visit: http://seir.sei.cmu.edu. If you are not already a member of the SEIR web site, please register to join. Registration and use of the site are free.

CountryNum be r of Appraisals

Maturity Level 1

Reporte d

Maturity Level 2

Reported

M aturity Level 3

Reported

Maturity Level 4

Reported

Maturity Leve l 5

Reported CountryNum ber of Appraisals

Maturity Level 1

Reported

M aturity Le vel 2

Re ported

M aturity Level 3

Reported

Maturity Level 4

Reported

Maturity Level 5

Reporte d

Argentina 10 or few er Mauritius 10 or few erAustralia 35 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Mexico 23 Yes Yes Yes Yes YesAustria 10 or few er Netherlands 23 Yes Yes Yes No YesBarbados 10 or few er New Zealand 10 or few erBelgium 11 Yes Yes Yes No No Norw ay 10 or few erBrazil 26 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Pakistan 10 or few erCanada 73 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Peru 10 or few erChile 15 Yes Yes Yes No No Philippines 10China 182 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Poland 10 or few erColombia 10 or few er Portugal 10 or few erCosta Rica 10 or few er Puerto Rico 10 or few erCyprus 10 or few er Russia 10 or few erCzech Republic 10 or few er Saudi Arabia 10 or few erDenmark 10 or few er Singapore 22 Yes Yes Yes No YesEgypt 10 or few er South Africa 10 or few erFinland 10 or few er Spain 18 No Yes Yes No YesFrance 135 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Sw eden 10 or few erGermany 56 Yes Yes Yes No No Sw itzerland 10 or few erGreece 10 or few er Taiw an 10 or few erHong Kong 10 or few er Thailand 14 Yes Yes Yes No NoHungary 10 or few er Turkey 10 or few erIndia 359 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ukraine 10 or few er

Ireland 11 Yes Yes Yes No NoUnited Arab Emirates 10 or few er

Israel 30 Yes Yes Yes No No United Kingdom 135 Yes Yes Yes No NoItaly 32 Yes Yes Yes No Yes United States 1896 Yes Yes Yes Yes YesJapan 131 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Uruguay 10 or few erKorea, Republic of 64 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Venezuela 10 or few erLatvia 10 or few er Vietnam 10 or few erMalaysia 10 or few er



Based on appraisals conducted through and reported to the SEI by

Number of SW-CMM Appraisals Reported to the SEI by Year

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

First Appraisal Reappraisal

3,360 June 2004 July 2004

*

*

Num

ber o

f App

rais

als



Based on appraisals reporting organization categories

Number of SW-CMM Appraisals Reported to the SEI by Organization Categories and Year

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Commercial/In-house DoD/Fed Contractor Military/Federal

Num

ber o

f App

rais

als

3,358



80.3

%

12.1

%

7.6%

64.4

%

21.9

%

12.0

%

1.4%

0.3%

37.3

%

33.8

%

20.2

%

4.5%

4.3%

32.2

% 35.7

%

20.9

%

5.9%

5.3%

27.5

%

37.1

%

23.0

%

5.9% 6.5%

26.2

%

37.0

%

24.2

%

6.0% 6.6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


1987-19911992-19961997-2001200220032004

Trends in the Community Maturity Profile%

of O

rgan

izat

ions

Based on a cumulative view of the most recent appraisals of organizations up through the year indicated. This accounts for the difference from the figures on page 6.

Year Orgs132635

1,6621,9982,4202,561



Section 3: Organizational TrendsAppraisals conducted through and reported to the SEI by

• Key Process Area (KPA) profiles- satisfaction of KPAs by maturity level for organizations

appraised at levels 1 and 2

• reappraised organizations- accounting for appraisals- although some organizations conducted multiple

reappraisals, only the first and latest appraisals were used in creating the charts on pages 23 & 24


630

1,748

June 2004

1,439

July 2004



Based on CBA IPI and SCAMPI with SW-CMM appraisals reporting a maturity level rating

Key Process Area Profiles - 1Organizations Appraised at Level 1

% of Appraisals

571

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

PCM

TCM

DP

SQM

QPM

PR

IC

SPE

ISM

TP

OPD

OPF

SCM

SQA

SSM

PTO

SPP

RM

FullySatisfiedRated

Repeatable

Defined

Managed

Optimizing

Software Subcontract Management (SSM) is not applicable/not rated in many assessments. Please take that into account when interpretingits Fully Satisfied rating.



Key Process Area Profiles - 2Organizations Appraised at Level 2

Based on CBA IPI and SCAMPI With SW-CMM appraisals reporting a maturity level rating1177

% of Appraisals

Defined

Managed

Optimizing

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

PCM

TCM

DP

SQM

QPM

PR

IC

SPE

ISM

TP

OPD

OPF

FullySatisfiedRated



Maturity Level of First and Latest Appraisal

% o

f Org

aniz

atio

ns

42.2%39.5%

10.0%7.6%

0.6%

7.6%

26.3%

42.1%

8.1%

15.9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


First Latest

Based on reappraised organizations using their first and latest appraisal630



No Change12.1%

Moved Down2.7%

Level 4 to 57.0%

Level 3 to 55.6%

Level 3 to 42.5%

Level 1 to 41.9%

Level 1 to 312.4%

Level 2 to 52.1%

Level 1 to 221.6%

Level 2 to 43.2%

Level 1 to 50.8%

Level 2 to 328.3%

ReappraisalsChange in Maturity Level

Based on reappraised organizations using their first and latest appraisal630

Level 1 to 1 5.6%Level 2 to 2 4.4%Level 3 to 3 1.1%Level 4 to 4 0.5%Level 5 to 5 0.5%



Time to Move Up

Number of months to move to nextmaturity level

Largest observed value that is not an outlier

75th Percentile

25th PercentileMedian

Smallest observed value that is not an outlier

Recommended time between appraisals {

100

30

18

0

50

All (1987 to Present)

1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5189 254 53 59

1992 to Present

1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5164 242 51 59

Pre-1992

1 to 2 2 to 325 12

75

2224

39 40

Time Period of Initial Appraisal

LevelOrgs

2519 20

25

13 13



Summary of Current Status

Commercial and in-house organizations reporting most appraisals

Of U.S. organizations, the services and manufacturing industries reported most appraisals

Half of the organizations reporting size have 100 or fewer software personnel

More Non-USA appraisals reported than U.S. in this 5 year snapshot



Summary of Organizational Trends - 1

Software Quality Assurance is the least frequently satisfied level 2 KPA among organizations* appraised at level 1

Integrated Software Management is the least frequently satisfiedlevel 3 KPA among organizations* appraised at level 2

Higher maturity has been reached among those organizations reporting reappraisals

*Adjusted for number of organizations rating the KPA



Summary of Organizational Trends (continued) - 2For organizations that began their CMM-based SPI effort in 1992 or later, the median time to move from:

• maturity level 1 to 2 is 22 months• maturity level 2 to 3 is 19 months• maturity level 3 to 4 is 25 months• maturity level 4 to 5 is 13 months

Note: The median time to move from maturity level 2 to 3 dropped from 21 month to 19 month



Terms Used in this ReportAppraisal - The appraisal methods used in this report are the Software Process

Assessment (SPA), CMM-Based Appraisal for both Internal Process Improvement (CBA IPI) and Standard CMMI® Appraisal Method for Process Improvement (SCAMPI). We do request and receive other Software CMM-based appraisals such as Software Capability Evaluations (SCE) and Interim Profiles. As our sampling size of these other methods increase, they will be reported here.

Company - Parent of the appraised entityA company can be a commercial or non-commercial firm, for-profit or not for-profit business, a research and development unit, a higher education unit, a government agency, or branch of service, etc.

Organization - a.k.a. Appraised entity The organization unit to which the appraisal results apply. An appraised entity can be the entire company, a selected business unit, units supporting a particular product line or service, etc.

Non-USA - Appraised entity whose geographic location is not within the United States. The parent of the appraised entity may or may not be based within the United States.



Report your Appraisal Results to the SEIThe briefing is only possible due to the cooperation of organizations and individuals sending in their appraisal results to the SEI

In order to provide this information and service in the future, it will depend on this continued cooperation

Please visit:

http://www.sei.cmu.edu/sema/report.html

for forms, information, and instructions on how to report appraisals to the SEI



Contact InformationPlease visit:

http://www.sei.cmu.edu/sema/profile_about.html

and review the information provided before contacting:

SEI Customer Relations (412) 268-5800SEI FAX number (412) 268-5758

Internet [email protected]

Mailing AddressCustomer RelationsSoftware Engineering InstituteCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburgh, PA 15213-3890

Documents

Process Maturity ProfileProcess Maturity Profile: Software CMM 2004 Mid-Year Update 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER 5b. GRANT NUMBER 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER