Blending Scrum practices and CMMI project management process areas

Abstract

Software development organizations that have been employing capability maturity models, such as SW-CMM or CMMI for improving their processes are now increasingly interested in the possibility of adopting agile development methods. In the context of project management, what can we say about Scrum's alignment with CMMI? The aim of our paper is to present the mapping between CMMI and the agile method Scrum, showing major gaps between them and identifying how organizations are adopting complementary practices in their projects to make these two approaches more compliant. This is useful for organizations that have a plan-driven process based on the CMMI model and are planning to improve the agility of processes or to help organizations to define a new project management framework based on both CMMI and Scrum practices.Keywords Scrum · Agile development methods · CMMI · Agile project management MotivationAccording to Software Engineering Institute (SEI), during the last several years, organizations have been increasingly motivated to adopt quality models focused on maturity of software process, such as the capability maturity model for software (SW-CMM) and capability maturity model integration (CMMI) [23]. One of the possible reasons for this motivation is related to the fact these organizations have discovered that improvements in software quality are broadly associated with adequacy and adherence of their processes to the highest levels of these models, providing benefits related to project performance, quality of products and services as well as an increase in client satisfaction [3].As Boehm [7] stated, so far, this decade has seen a continuation in the trend toward rapid application development and an acceleration of the pace of change in information technology, in organizations, in competitive countermeasures, and also in the environment. This rapid change of pace has caused increasing frustration to the heavyweight plans, specifications, and other documentation imposed by contractual inertia and maturity model compliance criteria.

Scrum in Practice: an Overview of Scrum Adaptations

“…Some studies argue for an underlying goal behind their combination efforts (i.e., increased efficiency), others simply aim to assess the possibility of their coexistence while identifying potential synergies that can be gained through meaningful combination [31].…”

A Systematic Literature Review of Agile Maturity Model Research

“…Examples of the coexistence of agile and CMMI are found in Fritzsche and Keil (2007), Glazer et al (2008), and Łukasiewicz and Miler (2012). The latter sub theme is addressed in research concentrating on specific process areas, for example, Marçal et al (2008) focussing only on project management process areas, Potter and Sakry (2009) researching a number of process areas across maturity levels, and Sutherland et al (2008) providing a case study of introducing Scrum into a CMMI level five organisation. The sub theme "Merging of Agile and CMMI", representing 39% (9 articles) in theme 1, is primarily concerned with how agile methods can coexist with CMMI in practice without concern for the maturity level.…”

“…The sub theme "Mapping of Agile to CMMI" is primarily concerned with the use of agile to either attain or maintain a predetermined CMMI maturity level. The emerging consensus conclusion from the articles is that there is a correlation between agile practices and CMMI process areas, particularly at lower maturity levels (Al-tarawneha, Abdullahb, & Alic, 2012; Bass et al, 2013;Cintra & Price, 2006;Fritzsche & Keil, 2007;Łukasiewicz & Miler, 2012;Marçal et al, 2008;Omran, 2008;Paulk, 2001). At higher maturity levels there tends to be disagreement with some finding a complete lack of compatibility (Al-tarawneha et al, 2012;Cintra & Price, 2006;Fritzsche & Keil, 2007;Łukasiewicz & Miler, 2012) whilst others find partial compatibility (Bass et al, 2013;Marçal et al, 2008;Omran, 2008;Paulk, 2001).…”

“…The emerging consensus conclusion from the articles is that there is a correlation between agile practices and CMMI process areas, particularly at lower maturity levels (Al-tarawneha, Abdullahb, & Alic, 2012; Bass et al, 2013;Cintra & Price, 2006;Fritzsche & Keil, 2007;Łukasiewicz & Miler, 2012;Marçal et al, 2008;Omran, 2008;Paulk, 2001). At higher maturity levels there tends to be disagreement with some finding a complete lack of compatibility (Al-tarawneha et al, 2012;Cintra & Price, 2006;Fritzsche & Keil, 2007;Łukasiewicz & Miler, 2012) whilst others find partial compatibility (Bass et al, 2013;Marçal et al, 2008;Omran, 2008;Paulk, 2001). The primary reason proposed for the lack of compatibility at higher levels is the different focus areas, with agile methods focussing on project delivery and CMMI focussing more on the organisational level (Fritzsche & Keil, 2007;Łukasiewicz & Miler, 2012).…”

“…It would thus be expected that more research effort would be present to address the use of agile in achieving higher levels of CMMI maturity. Though research exists which depicts successful implementation of agile methods in highly mature environments (Bass et al, 2013;Marçal et al, 2008;Omran, 2008;Paulk, 2001), future research could focus on advising how to use agile to mature beyond CMMI maturity level three. Furthermore, whilst the lack of compatibility is attributed to agile not being able to address corporate wide concerns such as governance (Laanti, 2014), little or no research was found on how to address governance in an agile implementation, which presents another possible future research topic.…”