CIMM

CIMM is a parody acronym, a semi-serious effort to provide a contrast to CMM, otherwise known as the Capability Maturity Model. CMM is a five point scale of capability in an organization, ranging from random processes at level 1 to fully defined, managed and optimized processes at level 5. The ability of an organization to carry out its mission on time and within budget is claimed to improve as the CMM level increases.

The Capability Im-Maturity Model asserts that organizations can and do occupy levels below CMM level 1. An original article by Capt. Tom Schorsch USAF as part of a graduate project at the Air Force Institute of Technology [Original [http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/crosstalk/1996/11/xt96d11h.asp CIMM article] . T. Schorsch, "The Capability Im-Maturity Model (CIMM)", U.S. Air Force, 1996. Also in http://www.grisha.ru/cmm/cimm.htm] provides the definitions for CIMM. He cites Prof. Anthony Finkelstein's ACM paper [A. Finkelstein, [http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/A.Finkelstein/papers/immaturity.pdf A Software Process Immaturity Model] , SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 1992.] as an inspiration. The article describes situations that arise in dysfunctional organizations.

The CIMM levels

Finkelstein defined levels 0 (foolish), -1 (stupid) and -2 (lunatic). Schorsch changed the names and added level -3.

0 : Negligent

The organization pays lip service, often with excessive fanfare, to implementing software engineering processes, but lacks the will to carry through the necessary effort. Whereas CMM level 1 assumes eventual success in producing software, CIMM level 0 organizations generally fail to produce any product, or do so by abandoning regular procedures in favor of crash programs.

-1 : Obstructive

Processes, however inappropriate and ineffective, are implemented with rigor and tend to obstruct work. Adherence to process is the measure of success in a Level -1 organization. Any actual creation of viable product is incidental. The quality of any product is not assessed, presumably on the assumption that if the proper process was followed, high quality is guaranteed.

Paradoxically, Level -1 organizations believe fervently in following defined procedures, but lacking the will to measure the effectiveness of the procedures they rarely succeed at their basic task of creating software.

-2 : Contemptuous

While processes exist, they are routinely ignored by engineering staff and those charged with overseeing the processes are regarded with hostility. Measurements are fudged to make the organization look good. This is not a good environment to work in or be associated with.

-3 : Undermining

Not content with faking their own performance, undermining organizations routinely work to downplay and sabotage the efforts of rival organizations, especially those successfully implementing processes common to CMM level 2 and higher. This is worst where company policy causes departments to compete for scarce resources, which are allocated to the loudest advocates.

References