Pushing the Rope Harder

 

There is absolutely no truth to the rumor that I’m paying Cameron under the table to proscribe our monthly themes based on subjects that I’ve extensively researched while writing my books.

None whatsoever.

However, I am, once again, thrilled at the selection of Methods and Frameworks as May’s theme, because my first book, Things Your PMO Is Doing Wrong (PMI Publishing, 2008), was largely predicated on a project management adaptation of Watts Humphries’ seminal book in software management framework, Managing the Software Process (Addison-Wesley Professional, 1989). In it, Humphries introduced the concept of the Capability Maturity Model®, upon which Carnegie Melon University’s Software Engineering Institute® would base its further research on the subject. (Incidentally, in my opinion, PMI®’s attempt at adapting the CMM® to a project management environment, the vaunted Organizational Project Management Maturity Model®, or OPM3®, was just dopey. I was actually in attendance at a PMI® Congress where a member of the OPM3® committee was selling the inchoate mess to the masses. He actually said “We’re developing a structure that will allow people to go where they want to go.” And that was the intellectually insightful highlight of his remarks!)

The Capability Maturity Model®, or CMM®, posits that organizations seeking to advance a capability typically go through five “levels”:

·         Level 1 is represented by chaos. Everybody is doing their own thing, or nothing at all, so that, paradoxically, you can actually have areas of advanced expertise in a Level 1 organization.

·         Level 2 is very basic, but at least everybody is doing the same thing. Same forms, same process, etc.

·         Level 3 is known as “defined.” If the proverbial beer truck hits the heroes who got you to this point, then the capability advances your organization has enjoyed don’t unravel. The written procedures and training are in place to ensure that the macro organization’s capability doesn’t reverse itself.

·         Level 4, known as “managed,” is characterized by your organization being so darned good at the capability that you are in a position to export it to other organizations.

·         Level 5 – “optimizing” – nobody ever really gets to Level 5. Here, your organization is so good at the capability that you are routinely discovering long-standing problems in the industry.

Originally the CMM® was directed at the development of software projects, but other management science specialties and arenas took a look, and basically said “Hey! That’s exactly what happens when we’re trying to advance a capability in our areas!” And, before  you knew it, Carnegie Melon University’s Software Engineering Institute had patented, copyrighted, and just generally legally protected the daylights out of the idea (which is why I’m having to constantly insert the little ® symbol).

Now, the problem with the Capability Maturity Model®, brilliant as it is, is that it doesn’t actually tell you how to advance from Level® to Level® (think I’m being excessive? SEI actually made the word “level” a protected term in the model.). This is where I focused my research for the first book: assuming that the Capability Maturity Model® was applicable to project management, how does one actually advance from Level to Level? I discovered the answer quite by accident, hiding in the realm of Game Theory – specifically, the game entitled The Prisoner’s Dilemma, and its optimal strategy for resolution, Tit for Tat. The way it works is…

Oops! Out of room for this week. I’ll dive in deeper next week, but for the full analysis (and the surprising implications that stem from it), you should probably buy either of my books – or make comments on this blog page along the lines of “hurry up and get us the rest of the 411 on this stuff!”