Image via WikipediaThanks for the comment to my previous entry on REQM and PA Categories, Narayan. My apologies for taking so long to respond. I’ve had a lot to do lately, so I haven’t been as diligent about following the blog as I should. Then there’s the problem that getting my ideas sorted out and written down takes a lot of effort. I'm responding in a new entry, rather than a comment, to take advantage of the increased editing capability I have in this mode.
Among other things, the points you've made show how difficult it can be to neatly categorize many CMMI components. REQM's SPs can be particularly difficult. Before going further, let me say that I agree with the coupling you’ve made between SP 1.1 and 1.2. It’s an important one, and I’ve been teaching people about it for years.
I lean toward Engineering for SP 1.1 for a couple of reasons. First, it’s the one REQM practice that I could see fitting smoothly into RD. It seems to me that the existing RD SP 3.5 could become 3.6, with REQM SP 1.1 sliding right into the vacated space. I don’t really think that would be a good idea. I’m only saying that it *could* fit there without being conspicuous. For this reason, if no other, considering it to be an Engineering SP seems arguable.
A second reason I like the Engineering connection better than Project Management is that the work described by the other five PAs in that
No comments:
Post a Comment