A Technical History of the SEI

tion University. Federal agencies, such as the Department of Homeland Security, also participated.
A GAO 18 analyst provided insights to ensure that the final product would assist the GAO in
its reviews of acquisition programs across the federal domain.
Throughout the development project, the team sought to maintain as much commonality as possible
with the CMMI for Development [CMMI Team
2000]. Approximately three-quarters of the model content
was virtually identical to the predecessor model.
This offers at least two advantages. One is that the commonality
often means that understanding is easily transferred
from the development domain to its sponsoring
agents, the organizations seeking to acquire a well-developed
system. The second is that the potential of
shared commitment to process improvement by both
sides of the contractual relationship offers many potential
benefits for teamwork. As some observers had long
noted, “a low-maturity acquirer who has contracted with
a high-maturity supplier can still deliver lower quality
systems to its customers.” (This is often caused by ineffective
requirements engineering and the resulting “requirements
creep.”)
The View from Others
I believe CMMI-ACQ could have
made a considerable difference in
the [failed program] and allowed
it to continue successfully. Just
by reading the purpose of each
process area and reflecting on
what could have been if the [program]
had followed it…, it would
undoubtedly be in the Army and
Navy inventories today.
— Hon. Claude Bolton,
previously Assistant Secretary
of the Army [Gallagher 2011]
The team also recognized that the fit was not exact. A When the US Air Force (AF) consolidated
various systems engi-
significant portion of an acquisition team member’s time
is spent creating requests for proposals, reviewing the neering assessment models into a
competitive proposals, selecting a development organization,
and then monitoring both the business and techtire
AF, the effort was made signif-
single model for use across the ennical
aspects of the developer’s progress, often for several
years after contract award. Upon acceptance of the model used to build the expanded
icantly easier by the fact that every
initial products, the acquirer often has to ensure effective AF model was based on Capability
transition of the new systems into the business environment.
Because many other systems are likely to be af-
(CMMI) content and concepts.
Maturity Model Integration
fected by the new product’s arrival, significant attention — George Richard Freeman,
to interfaces with them is a particular concern for the acquirer;
often only some of the interfaces could be identi-
Center for Systems
Technical Director, USAF
fied within the contractual requirements. Concerns like
Engineering [Gallagher 2011]
these, and the variety of contractual mechanisms available,
pointed to the need for creating and maintaining an
effective acquisition strategy, another difference between the two domains.
One of the first pilots of the acquisition model occurred in the international realm. In Australia,
the equivalent to the U.S. DoD is called the Defence Materiel Organization, or DMO. One of the
18 At the time this was the General Accounting Office; it is now the Government Accountability Office.
CMU/SEI-2016-SR-027 | SOFTWARE ENGINEERING INSTITUTE | CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY 134
Distribution Statement A: Approved for Public Release; Distribution is Unlimited.