Standard CMMI Appraisal Method for Process Improvement (SCAMPI)

2.4.1 Derive Findings and Rate Goals
Activity
Description
Required
Practices
Parameters
and Limits
The judgments made about goal satisfaction are driven by the findings that
were documented by the appraisal team and validated by appraisal
participants. The preliminary findings focus on gaps in the implementation of
practices. When performing goal ratings, the team must judge whether or not
these gaps in the implementation of practices (in aggregate) threaten the
organization’s ability to satisfy the goals associated with the practices.
• Derive final findings using preliminary findings statements, feedback
from validation activities, and any additional objective evidence collected
as a result of the validation activity.
• Rate each specific goal and generic goal within the reference model scope
of the appraisal, based on the practice implementation characterizations at
the organizational unit level, as well as the aggregation of weaknesses
associated with that goal.
• Obtain appraisal team consensus on the practice implementation
characterizations, findings statements, and ratings generated for the
organizational unit level.
When deriving final findings, the aim is to create goal-level statements that
summarize the gaps in practice implementation. These statements must be
abstracted to the level of the organizational unit, and cannot focus on
individual projects (unless the tailoring option for project-specific findings
has been agreed upon during planning).
If there are no findings that document the weaknesses associated with a goal,
the goal must be satisfied.
The goal is rated Satisfied if
• all associated practices are characterized at the organizational unit level as
either Largely Implemented or Fully Implemented, and
• the aggregation of weaknesses associated with the goal does not have a
significant negative impact on goal achievement.
For a goal to be rated as Unsatisfied, the team must be able to describe how
the set of weaknesses (or single weakness) led to this rating.
Continued on next page
Page II-114
CMU/SEI-2001-HB-001