I might be making too many assumptions now, but I always thought that the Capability Maturity Model (CMM) was originally created by/for the Department of Defense. It seems that they never used the model to come to the conclusions they are making now.

On a seperate note, the FDA seems to start asking some questions. During one of the conferences with FDA participation, attended by my peers, the FDA people indicated that they wonder why medical devices have so many problems.
My answer to the FDA would be that their own guidance would be a direct cause of the issue the are investigating. As far as I know the FDA guidance does not address skill nor training. I believe that both elements should be a key for any guidance document.

During that same conference FDA also revealed the issue about document approvals
There seems to be a systemic problem of too many reviewers and approvers on documentation, and that too many lessens the constructive criticism from the review process. An informal study by an FDA inspector inferred that the quality of a document was inversely proportional to the number of signatures when that number was greater then three.

[James’ Reply: The SEI, which created the CMM, was funded by the Department of Defense for years. I don’t know whether they still are. The great traction that the CMM received has nothing to do with its merit. Adoption of it is limited almost exclusively to companies who gain a specific marketing benefit from it, or who seek preferred treatment on military contracts, which lamely require CMM “maturity”.

I have seen people who seem to have fire in their eyes about the CMM despite no obvious economic benefit to themselves due to CMM PR, but they are few and far between.]

It was with great interest I read your experiences of the military plannng process. It seems to me that whenever you get involved with large governent based institutions, (such as the NHS - National Health Service in the UK) that you are often faced with reams of beurocratic process and adherence to convoluted, overly complex and out of date procedures no matter how insane. (I wonder when “Mil-std-499″ was written.) This in some sense counterpoints my experiences with most commercial businesses who seem to have problems enforcing an adhereing to good practice and process. Maybe its because these processes have been given to them rather than developed and matured from within.

What do you think, any ideas on why we seem have such extremes of bad practice.

Perhaps the process of change for government institutions is just much slower than a commercially driven business. Perhaps the commercail world has been driven to run before it can walk ,where as the other doesnt want to walk unless it has too.

Leading on from that, does rigoursly applied process narrow the mind and just give people an excuse for not thinking outside the box.

Mike Doel

[James’ Reply: Any sufficiently large institution, like a sufficiently large landform, creates its own weather. People working in very large organizations, especially if there is little turnover, tend to see their own experiences as defining the very limits of the world. Add money and ambition to this equation, and process work becomes something akin to a medieval landscape. Fiefdoms are established. Feudal lords reign. Learning, innovation, and high achievement take a back seat to bombast and ritual.

To counteract this effect takes a strong personality– someone like Kelly Johnson, who created Lockheed’s Skunkworks in order to escape the stultifying organization that would otherwise have prevented his crew from creating such masterpieces as the U2, the SR-71, and the stealth fighter.]