Status

Complete

Purpose and Origin

The People Capability Maturity Model (People CMM) is an organizational change model designed on the premise that improved workforce practices will not survive unless an organization's behavior changes to support them. It was developed to guide systems and software organizations in attracting, motivating, and retaining talented technical staff. The practices in the model help an organization develop the workforce required to execute business strategies, characterize the maturity of workforce practices, set priorities for improving workforce capability, integrate improvements in process and workforce capability, and become an employer of choice.

Employing the process maturity framework of the CMM for Software (SW-CMM), the People CMM describes best practices for managing and developing an organization's entire workforce. It was developed as a companion to the SW-CMM when organizations attempting to conduct improvement efforts discovered that the workforce practices required for enabling software projects were organizational in scope and required specific attention in order to remove barriers to achieving higher levels of SW-CMM maturity.

Although it still supports the SW-CMM, the People CMM has adopted some of the advances made in the CMM Integration^SM (CMMI^SM) and has tried to ensure that People CMM improvement programs can integrate with improvement programs guided by the CMMI models. Enhancing the focus on process abilities in workforce competencies at maturity level 3, and quantitative performance management practices at maturity level 4, makes integrating these various models much easier. Also because of its subject matter, the People CMM presents a more detailed framework for the development of workgroups (or teams) which support the use of CMMI models having Integrated Product and Process Development (IPPD) extensions.

People CMM is intended for executives and managers, systems and software professionals, those responsible for improving workforce management practices, human resource professionals, Software Engineering Process Group members who want to accelerate the achievement of higher CMM maturity levels, and those who aspire to be managers of technical professionals.

Technical Detail

The primary objective of the People CMM is to improve the capability of the entire workforce. This can be defined as the level of knowledge, skills, and process abilities available for performing an organization's current and future business activities.

The People CMM consists of five maturity levels. Each maturity level is an evolutionary plateau at which one or more domains of the organization's processes are transformed to achieve a new level of organizational capability. The five levels are as follows:

Maturity Level	Focus	Process areas
5 Optimizing	Continuously improve and align personal, workgroup, and organizational capability	Continuous Workforce Innovation Organizational Performance Alignment Continuous Capability Improvement
4 Predictable	Empower and integrate workforce competencies and manage performance quantitatively.	Mentoring Organizational Capability Management Quantitative Performance Management Competency-Based Assets Empowered Workgroups Competency Integration
3 Defined	Develop workforce competencies and workgroups, and align with business strategy and objectives	Participatory Culture Workgroup Development Competency-Based Practices Career Development Competency Development Workforce Planning Competency Analysis
2 Managed	Managers take responsibility for managing and developing their people.	Compensation Training and Development Performance Management Work Environment Communication and Coordination Staffing
1 Initial	Workforce practices applied inconsistently.

At Level 1, an organization has no consistent way of performing workforce practices. Most workforce practices are applied without analysis of impact.

At Level 2, organizations establish a foundation on which they deploy common workforce practices across the organization. The goal of Level 2 is to have managers take responsibility for managing and developing their people. For example, the first benefit an organization experiences as it achieves Level 2 is a reduction in voluntary turnover. The turnover costs that are avoided by improved workforce retention more than pay for the improvement costs associated with achieving Level 2.

At Level 3, the organization identifies and develops workforce competencies and aligns workforce and workgroup competencies with business strategies and objectives. For example, the workforce practices that were implemented at Level 2 are now standardized and adapted to encourage and reward growth in the organization's workforce competencies.

At Level 4, the organization empowers and integrates workforce competencies and manages performance quantitatively. For example, the organization is able to predict its capability for performing work because it can quantify the capability of its workforce and of the competency-based processes they use in performing their assignments.

At Level 5, the organization continuously improves and aligns personal, workgroup, and organizational capability. For example, at Maturity Level 5, organizations treat continuous improvement as an orderly business process to be performed in an orderly way on a regular basis.

Usage Considerations

The People CMM was designed initially for knowledge-intense organizations and workforce management processes. However, it can be applied in almost any organizational setting, either as a guide in implementing workforce improvement activities or as a vehicle for assessing workforce practices.

The companion product suite for the People CMM includes:

• A three-day Introduction to the People CMM course
• The People CMM Assessment Method Description
• Two Maturity Questionnaires - one for managers and one for individual contributors

To ensure useful and credible results are obtained from People CMM assessments, a certification and authorization process has been developed for People CMM Lead Assessors.

Several types of People CMM-based assessments can be performed. Each type of assessment method is most appropriate for distinct situations. Organizations select the type and class of assessment appropriate to their needs.

Assessment Type	People CMM-Based Assessment Method	Joint Assessment	Questionnaire-Based Assessment	Gap Analysis
Assessment Class	Class A	Class A	Class B	Class C
Usage Mode	1. Rigorous and in-depth investigation of workforce practices    2. Basis for improvement activities	1. Rigorous and in-depth investigation of practices, both for workforce practices and the process in the joint domain    2. Basis for improvement activities	1. Initial (first-time)    2. Incremental (partial)    3. Self-assessment	1. Initial (first-time)    2. Self-assessment
Advantages	Thorough coverage; strengths and weak-nesses for each PA investigated; robust-ness of method with consistent, repeatable results; provides objective view	Thorough coverage; strengths and weak-nesses for each PA investigated across multiple domains; robustness of method with consistent, repeatable results; provides objective view	Organization gains insight into own capability; focuses on areas that need most attention; pro-motes awareness and buy-in	Organization gains insight into own capability; provides a starting point to focus on areas that need most attention; promotes buy-in and ownership of results through participation in analysis and planning; typically inexpensive; short duration; rapid feed-back
Disadvantages	Demands significant resources	Demands significant resources	Does not emphasize depth of coverage and rigor and cannot be used for maturity level rating	Risk of participant biases influencing results; not enough depth to ensure completeness; does not emphasize rigor and cannot be used for maturity level rating
Sponsor	Executive management of the organization	Executive management of the organization	Any internal manage	Any internal manager sponsoring an improvement effort
Team Size	4-10 persons + assessment team leader	4-10 persons per domain + assessment team leader(s)	1-6 persons + assessment team leader	3-12 (recommended) + facilitator
Team Qualifications	Experienced	Experienced	Moderately experienced	Limited experience, except for the facilitator
Assessment Team Leader Requirements	Lead assessor	Lead Assessors	Lead assessor	Person trained in People CMM and method

From the perspective of the People CMM, an organization's maturity is derived from the workforce practices it routinely performs, and the extent to which these practices have been institutionalized. A maturity level is, therefore, an evolutionary plateau at which existing processes have been transformed to achieve a level of organizational ability. The transformation and implementation methods may be different at each maturity level, but moving to the next maturity level always requires capabilities established at earlier levels. Consequently, each maturity level establishes a foundation on which higher levels of maturity are built.

Maturity

Since its initial release in 1995, the People CMM has been used throughout the United States, Canada, Europe, Australia, and India to guide and conduct organizational improvement activities. Small and large commercial organizations, as well as government organizations are using People CMM. Moreover, once executives identify an organization's strategic objectives, the People CMM provides guidance that improves the organization's ability to satisfy those objectives through a competent, capable workforce.

Costs and Limitations

There are several concerns or issues that should be addressed by anyone considering People CMM. When a company reaches Level 3, it has developed workforce competencies and workgroups that are aligned with its business strategies. Without constant updating and renewal, workforce competencies can become obsolete and no longer match business strategies. Therefore, it is imperative to maintain an active program of competency definition and development even if higher maturity levels are not attained.

Another issue is the temptation to skip maturity levels. Although tempting, experience indicates that this practice normally leads to a failed improvement program. In fact, it can actually damage the organization if the workforce builds expectations that are not met because foundational process areas have not been adequately addressed.

Finally, some organizations get "level fever." In these cases, attaining a particular maturity level becomes more important than achieving the business benefits attained through improved practices. Organizations must ensure that the practices implemented in pursuit of higher maturity levels create beneficial change. Otherwise, the organization is just adding a level of bureaucracy that will eventually have to be dismantled.

Complementary Technologies

Complimentary technologies of the People CMM include: CMMI, SW-CMM, Integrated Product Process Development (IPPD), Integrated Project Management (IPM), Integrated Teaming, Organizational Environment for Integration, and Total Quality Management (TQM).

Index Categories

This technology is classified under the following categories. Select a category for a list of related topics.

References and Information Sources

[CMMI 00] CMMI Product Development Team. CMMI^SM for Systems Engineering/Software Engineering/Integrated Product and Process Development, Version 1.02, Staged Representation (CMU/SEI-2000-TR-030). Pittsburgh, PA: Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, 2000.
http://www.sei.cmu.edu/publications/documents/00.reports/00tr030.html

[Curtis 95] Curtis, B.; Hefley, W.E.; & Miller S. People Capability Maturity Model (CMU/SEI-95-MM-002), Pittsburgh, PA: Software Engineering Institute. Carnegie Mellon University, Sept. 1995.
http://www.sei.cmu.edu/publications/documents/95.reports/95.mm.002.html

[Curtis 01] Curtis, Bill; Hefley, W.E; & Miller, SA. The People Capability Maturity Model: Guidelines for Improving the Workforce, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 2001.

[Hefley 98] Hefley, W. E. & Curtis, B. People CMM-Based Assessment Method Description (CMM/SEI-98-TR-012 ADA354685). Pittsburgh, PA: Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, 1998.
http://www.sei.cmu.edu/publications/documents/98.reports/98tr012/98tr012abstract.html

[Paulk 95] Paulk, M.C.; Weber, C.; Curtis, B.; & Chrissis, M.B. The Capability Maturity Model: Guidelines for Improving the Software Process. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1995.

Current Author/Maintainer