Standard CMMI Appraisal Method for Process Improvement (SCAMPI)

2.2.1 Verify Objective Evidence (continued)
Optional
Practices
Implementation
Guidance
At the discretion of the appraisal team leader, verification of practices at the
instantiation level may be carried out solely by the mini-teams. Team-wide
review and consensus on practice implementation can then focus on the
aggregate-level characterizations.
At the discretion of the appraisal team leader, the verification of practice
implementation at the project level can be reviewed for consensus by the
entire team. Each mini-team provides an overview of practice implementation
indicators for each project sampled to represent the organizational unit.
A mix of the two strategies above can be used, selectively reviewing targeted
PAs in different ways, or gradually changing from one strategy to the other as
the team gains familiarity with the data and the process.
The typical work products listed in CMMI models provide examples of
artifacts that can be used as indicators of practice implementation. However,
the model does not distinguish between direct and indirect artifacts, and these
are examples only and are not required; alternatives can be used for both
direct and indirect artifacts.
Typically, much of the objective evidence required to perform this
verification is provided in advance of the on-site period. The primary focus of
data collection is to permit the team to verify that the intended practices are
implemented across the organizational unit. Where the implemented practices
differ from the intended practices, the objective evidence provided at the start
of the appraisal process is annotated to more accurately reflect the
implemented process in the organization. These annotations are typically
statements describing a gap in the implementation of a model practice, some
of which will eventually become findings.
Where gaps exist in the objective evidence provided in advance, the appraisal
team is forced to undertake data collection activities to populate the data set
from scratch. An organization that has a substantial process improvement
infrastructure in place is expected to have documented its implementation of
the model in detail. For organizations with relatively little experience using
CMMI, the cost of this discovery process may be so great that undertaking an
ARC Class A appraisal, such as SCAMPI, is not cost-effective. For such
organizations, a Class B appraisal may be more appropriate.
Only after team members have a clear understanding of the implemented
practices can they compare them to the model to characterize the extent to
which the organization implements the practices in the model or acceptable
alternatives. It is expected that artifacts that result from the performance of the
practice will be available for viewing by the team. These artifacts, as well as
face-to-face interactions with members of the organization enacting the
practice, help to verify that the practice was enacted as the maintainers of the
organizational process intended.
CMU/SEI-2001-HB-001
Page II-89