Capability Maturity Model (CMM) and Knowledge Management (KM)

Software development can be one of the most complex activities within the information technology (IT) field. Software development can also be one of the most costly endeavors as well. Development projects are rarely finished on time or within budget. “…the discipline of software development is immature. Schedule and budget overruns are typical, low quality and functionally never delivered are other signs of immaturity” (Baskerville & Pries-Heje, 1999, p.26).

Carnegie Mellon’s Software Engineering Institute (SEI) developed the Capability Maturity Model (CMM) to provide a systematic methodology to help firms identify and improve the maturity level of their developmental processes. The core model is based on five levels of maturity: initial, repeatable, defined, controlled, ad optimizing. Each level is comprehensively defined by characteristics moving from the chaotic, intuitive, qualitative, quantitative, and feedback states of development.
SEI’s CMM method provides a solid benchmark for development assessment. However, not all firms have embraced the model. “But critics believe that CMM structures may encourage a rigid bureaucracy that can stifle creativity and innovation, and demoralize the workforce. Highly competitive and innovative software developers exemplified by Borland, Claris, Apple, Symantec, Microsoft, and Lotus did not plunge into the CMM along with early adopters (Bach, 1994b)” (Baskerville & Pries-Heje, 1999, p.28). Developments within knowledge management have offered new possibilities in CMM utilization.

A small Danish company, Proventum, develops highly sophisticated e-commerce websites. The strength of their organization came from a highly fluid and innovative style of programming development. “Proventum rapidly grew to 20 employees during its first year, including project managers, designers, programmers, and database specialists” (Baskerville & Pries-Heje, 1999, p.32). For three years the entrepreneurial spirit nurtured a cultural of innovation and informality. As with many entrepreneurial firms, Proventum ran into serious growing pains. “…during their third year the typical problems of software development organizations began to threaten the firm’s survival. Amid the chaotic development milieu, disputes arose over how to run projects and which technologies were important, and programmers began to quit. The firm dwindled to twelve employees. Proventum seemed unable to repeat or build on its success” (Baskerville & Pries-Heje, p.33).

The Proventum case is an excellent example illustrating two fundamental knowledge management processes: “linkage between knowledge management and organizational goals, and an active organizational, behavioral and technical knowledge infrastructure (Davenport et al. 1998)” (Baskerville & Pries-Heje, p.35). Proventum was able to turn their organization around utilizing a hybrid CMM – KM approach.

Reference

Baskerville, R., & Pries-Heje, J. (1999, Spring). Knowledge Capability and Maturity in Software Management. The DATA BASE for Advances in I