Progressing from CMMI Maturity Level 3 to Level 5

Progressing from CMMI maturity level 3 to maturity level 5 requires significant effort on the part of any organization. The journey to attaining maturity level 5 is a challenging one for any level 3 organization. What does it take to move up from level 3 to level 5? Why it becomes difficult to implement four more process areas (PAs) when a level 3 organization has already implemented eighteen PAs successfully in its level 3 journey?

First and foremost, attaining level 5 means the organization will need to implement the four PAs which are called "high maturity" PAs, and rightly so. High maturity requires a paradigm shift in the way an organization conducts its business and impacts how the organization performs engineering, project management and process improvement. It follows from here that this paradigm shift requires changes in the organization's thought processes, working styles, conceptual understanding of its employees and  emphasis on "fact-based" management over "feeling-based" management.

Since CMMI level 5 signifies an organization has become "high maturity" it is important to understand what is meant by high maturity. A good way to understand high maturity is assume that high maturity is equivalent to an organization demonstrating the following characteristics:

• Processes must help achieve business expectations. Business strategy drives business objectives which in turn drive and are closely linked to an interrelated set of "business-critical" processes, process performance measures and objectives.
• The capability and actual performance of "business-critical" processes is quantitatively known.
• Day to day work is managed quantitatively using the capability and actual performance data supplemented by usage of quantitative models for predicting and proactively managing process outcomes instead of mere reliance on monitoring and correcting process outcomes.
• Improvements to processes are identified and carried out in case the actual performance of a "business-critical" process doesn't help achieve business expectations.

The second aspect that needs to be appreciated is that the high maturity PAs depend upon the level 2 and 3 PAs for their implementation. In a way level 2 and 3 are foundational elements for high maturity. High maturity is difficult to achieve if level 2 and 3 implementation is weak or not effective. It follows from here that refinement of the definition and deployment of level 2 and 3 PAs is a must before embarking on the level 4 and 5 journey.

The refinements and adjustments to level 2 and 3 PAs will generally require following changes at the minimal:

• A good, hard look at the existing metrics and measurement system (MA -> QPM, OPP)
• Refinement of tailoring guidelines to incorporate tailoring based on quantitative considerations (IPM -> QPM)
• Use of data, baselines and models for project planing, monitoring and control (PP, PMC -> QPM)
• Use of data, baselines and models for process improvement (OPF -> OPM)
• Re-looking into the remaining PAs due to the impact of the above

Another aspect that needs to be considered is the need to have appropriate tools and templates for data collection, quantitative/statistical analysis, metrics-based reporting and action identification and quantitative assessment of impact of action closure. The existing tools and templates for capturing data (such as size, effort, schedule, cost, defects, etc.) may need complete overhaul or significant changes in functionality or usage to enable the implementation of high maturity practices. CMMI model expectations from a high maturity implementation lays heavy emphasis on data quality which may lead to complete overhaul of the operational definition of the both derived and base measures.

Last but not the least, level 4 and 5 implementation needs level 2 and 3 to be sustained. This means that the organization must ensure that the focus is on all the twenty two PAs. Level 4 and 5 achievement in this way gets built upon the level 2 and 3 foundation. It is a known fact that for rising higher and higher the foundation has to become stronger and stronger. Thus a level 5 journey needs higher concentration and significantly higher effort.

Six Sigma, Martial Arts and Belts

The pervasiveness of "belts" in the corporate world is a strange phenomenon. In some organizations the talk of any typical day is around and about yellow belts, green belts (GBs), black belts (BBs) and master black belts (MBBs). There is yet another convoluted layer in these talks - there are those who are DMAIC fans and then there are those who are DFSS fans.

In many organizations, forums and conferences the six sigma champions (MBBs, BBs, GBs and XBs, where X could be anything) prance around like magicians as if they hold the silver bullet for any and every conceivable problem faced by the organization. In fact some of them come across as super experts who can propose solutions even when there is no problem to be solved. At times some of them also project themselves as black cat commandos on the mission to save dollars for the organizations. Most of the XBs would rattle off mouthful of terms like hypothesis testing, minitab, chi-square test, normality testing, etc., etc., etc.  to show off how sounding difficult and different can create the right marketing impact. In fact, some of the organizations and obviously their executive leaders seem to be puppets in the hands of the six sigma God and the six sigma champions!

The concept of belts originated in the field of martial arts. Belts signify the level of proficiency achieved by a student of martial arts. Proficiency in this context is usually measured in terms of the complexity and toughness of movements and postures the student is able to demonstrate. The intent of awarding different belts at different proficiency levels was probably two fold - act as a grading of students and also act as a positive motivation for students to continuously improve upon their proficiency.

Originators of six sigma were smart enough to figure out that to make this concept popular they had to have something catchy in there and for six sigma initiatives to stick the benefit to the individual had to be clearly articulated. Belts seems to fit the bill perfectly - its catchy and those worshiping the six sigma God are bestowed divine blessings in the form of belts.

The success of six sigma in terms of buzz it has managed to create is its failure in some sense. In many organizations the six sigma champion (usually an MBB) will happily announce the increasing number of GBs and BBs in the organization in the monthly or quarterly staff meetings. Some of the projects completed for these certifications may not be really meaningful and value-adds but are done to produce an army of GBs amd BBs. The MBBs in most of these organizations believe in producing XBs more than the anything else.

Why the belts in martial arts is probably not a good idea for six sigma programs:

1. In martial arts everyone is a student even one having the highest belt. The pecking order promotes humility and healthy respect for belt others wear. The belt is a means to an end where the journey to the end is actually endless. In six sigma the pecking order promotes a guru or champion culture in an organization where MBBs are the kings, BBs are the generals, GBs are the soldiers and the rest don't matter. The focus is on how to become an XB.

2. In martial arts belt is actually worn both figuratively and literally. This promotes respect for the art and is a powerful expression of earning a belt rather than becoming one. In six sigma the belts are figurative and fuzzy as well. The focus for a GB is to become a BB and then a MBB. Attending a training, passing a test and doing six sigma projects is enough to become an XB but there may be lack of any focus on earning the belts in a true sense.

Six sigma is essentially a problem solving methodology based on the PDCA concept combined with statistical tools with the aim of continual process improvement. There's nothing new in it other than the branding and marketing around it. In a way six sigma's popularity can be attributed to the branding and marketing rather than any original thinking.

What matters in the end is that a method is perceived as working and hence adopted widely. With six sigma that has probably been the case. PDCA, statistical tools and continual process improvement concepts were always useful and with six sigma they have penetrated the corporate world in a much more profound way. Six sigma has made this possible and that is its real success - a catchy slogan for good old concepts packaged nicely for branding and marketing.