Hank
You speak of the Capability Maturity Model. It seeems to me to be a highly
mechanistic, production-line inspired techology misapplied to innovative
human systems. Is there any basis for this conclusion, or has CMM proven its
worth? I would be very interested in discussing it further and detailing my
analysis.
-----
Host's Note: Hank can you (or anyone else) say a few words about the CMU
Capability Maturity Model. I know it's about software development and I
suspect it has relevance to org performance, not just software.
I'm thinking that if level 1 is "ad-hoc" in systems development, then it
would be "reactive fire-fighting" in general org performance, and that
the analogies with the other levels might be useful.
-- Rick Karash, rkarash@karash.com, host for learning-org
-----
>To use the Carnegie-Mellon Capability Maturity Model, for
>instance, the organization has to move at least from level 1 (ad hoc) to
>level 3 (defined), and preferably to level 4 (managed) to even think of
>implementing object technology in any meaningful way. [If you are
>unfamiliar with this model, email me for a synopsis.]
Gray Southon
-- Gray Southon Consultant in Health Management Research and Analsysis 15 Parthenia St., Caringbah, NSW 2229, Australia Ph/Fax +61 2 524 7822 em gsouthon@ozemail.com.au