Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Intellectual ...

Ronny Gey
“[...] <strong>the</strong> first thing I was asked is, use <strong>the</strong> CMMI in your background but don't ever utter
<strong>the</strong> word CMMI. Ok. This is how CMMI was received in <strong>the</strong> business. […] So it
died.”(C1:53)
5. Discussion and conclusion
While analysing our findings we can draw several conclusions so far. There are two main reasons for
a CMMI certification in <strong>the</strong> studied companies (see Table 2). First, organisations wish to introduce a
s<strong>of</strong>tware process improvement technology to enhance quality <strong>of</strong> processes and to assure a continuous
improvement. Within A-Suppliers this reason can be clearly identified (++). The o<strong>the</strong>r two case
companies also referred to this intention but not first and foremost (+). Here, <strong>the</strong> second factor played
a more significant role, <strong>the</strong> external pressure from ei<strong>the</strong>r customers demanding <strong>the</strong> certification and
CMMI as a reaction, C-Bankers (++) and A-Suppliers (+), or from sensing that staying successful in
<strong>the</strong> market demands a certificate to prove <strong>the</strong> organisations' maturity, B-Retailers (++) and C-Bankers
(++).
Table 2: Reasons for <strong>the</strong> implementation <strong>of</strong> CMMI in <strong>the</strong> case organisations
Reasons for CMMI A-Suppliers B-Retailers C-Bankers
Improvement aspect ++ + +
External
pressure
proactive o ++ ++
reactive + o ++
(++) applies fully, (+) applies partly, (o) doesn't apply at all
After implementation, <strong>the</strong> history <strong>of</strong> CMMI in <strong>the</strong> organisation and <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> it as SPI tool differed. A-
Suppliers holds no certification nowadays but still uses <strong>the</strong> CMMI conform processes as means to
continuous improvement. They actually do not necessarily need a certificate to prove <strong>the</strong>ir quality to
<strong>the</strong> customers but still see <strong>the</strong> advantages <strong>of</strong> process improvement. They are aligned with what <strong>the</strong>
creators <strong>of</strong> CMMI originally intended, to implement a culture <strong>of</strong> improvement within an organisation. A-
Suppliers use mode reflects <strong>the</strong> intended design mode.
B-Retailers and C-Bankers stand in contradiction to this setting. C-Bankers are not certified any more
and <strong>the</strong>y, as a whole organisation, do not make use <strong>of</strong> CMMI any more. Still, some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> interviewees
reported that on a personal level <strong>the</strong>y still use what <strong>the</strong>y learnt about process improvement where
it is applicable but <strong>the</strong>y would never <strong>of</strong>ficially announce it. However, B-Retailers are still CMMI certified
but, as what we discovered so far, do not apply it in <strong>the</strong> sense <strong>of</strong> an elaborated process improvement
tool. Both organisations emphasised <strong>the</strong> importance <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> certification to <strong>the</strong>ir role in <strong>the</strong>
market and <strong>the</strong> improvement <strong>of</strong> processes was not <strong>the</strong> main driver <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> CMMI campaign. To focus
on <strong>the</strong> certification itself ra<strong>the</strong>r than on improving <strong>the</strong> processes is a practice which was not intended
by <strong>the</strong> SEI, <strong>the</strong> fa<strong>the</strong>rs <strong>of</strong> CMMI. The appropriation <strong>the</strong>refore shows an unfaithful character in <strong>the</strong>
sense <strong>of</strong> Poole and DeSanctis (1990).
As a consequence, <strong>the</strong> reasons why <strong>the</strong> analysed organisations introduced CMMI influenced <strong>the</strong> daily
work <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> employee and also <strong>the</strong>ir perception on CMMI. Interviewees <strong>of</strong> B-Retailers and C-Bankers
had <strong>the</strong> impression that process was more important than <strong>the</strong> product in <strong>the</strong> end. They felt that it was
more important to absolutely comply to <strong>the</strong> process (“A tick in <strong>the</strong> box”) no matter whe<strong>the</strong>r it will result
in improvements in <strong>the</strong> product or not. CMMI was perceived as <strong>the</strong> “process monster” which is dictated
from <strong>the</strong> top and questioning processes and as a result improving <strong>the</strong> processes was not intended.
As a conclusion, our analysis leads us to <strong>the</strong> following qualified hypo<strong>the</strong>ses:
The more CMMI is interpreted and implemented as a process improvement approach, <strong>the</strong> more its
actual use is likely to continue.
The more CMMI is interpreted and implemented as a process improvement approach, <strong>the</strong> more employee
alignment to process improvement it creates.
188