Category Archives: CMMI® – SVC

SCAMPI(sm)-A Enhanced with APR – Action Plan Reappraisal

Situation before APR option was available

Prior to the December 2014 release of APR, if a SCAMPISM-A resulted in an unsatisfactory rating(s) (e.g., a lower maturity level than the target maturity level), the organizational unit had to address the issues that had negatively impacted the rating and then do a new appraisal to achieve the target level. They did not receive any credit for the first (failed) appraisal.

Organizations obviously did not want to risk the chance of a failed appraisal, because in addition to correcting the identified negative issues, they would have to do the entire planning, scoping and sampling, artifact collection, artifact review, affirmations,  characterizations, ratings, and so on. Doing another appraisal was very time-consuming and expensive.

To play “safe” and avoid any chance of failing, organizations tended to postpone their appraisal till they were absolutely sure of achieving their target rating(s). This often led to delays in initiating the SCAMPISM-A. Organizations  also conducted excessive and unnecessary mini-appraisals in different avatars (pre-appraisal, SCAMPISM-B, SCAMPISM-C) to be doubly sure.

To address this, the CMMI Institute has enhanced the SCAMPISM-A method (released in end-Dec 2014) to allow for delta appraisals, within a limited time-frame, where the ‘failed’ SCAMPISM-A can be extended. This enhancement is called APR (Action Plan Reappraisal) and is built into the SCAMPISM-A, as an additional, optional phase.

More Details on the APR (Action Plan Reappraisal)

Before the APR option was available, the SCAMPISM-A had 3 phases, namely:

  • Phase-1: Plan and Prepare for Appraisal
  • Phase-2: Conduct Appraisal
  • Phase-3: Report Results

The new, optional phase, Phase-4 added in end-Dec 2014 is:

  • Phase-4: Action Plan Reappraisal

Action Plan Reappraisal

Here are some important aspects of the APR:

  • The APR (i.e., Final Findings of the APR) must be completed within 120 days of the Final Findings of the main SCAMPISM-A.
  • Only one APR can be conducted for a SCAMPISM-A.
  • The sponsor decides whether an APR is to be conducted or not (the appraisal team may advise the sponsor, but the final call is the sponsor’s). The APR is not mandatory, even if the target rating(s) has not been achieved.
  • The same ATL (Appraisal Team Leader) should continue in the APR (the method includes ways to handle exceptions to this).
  • The same ATMs must participate in the APR. There are some additional rules which require ATMs to examine the objective evidence related to the goals being re-investigated. If all ATMs are not available for some reason, the method includes ways to handle that situation.
  • At a minimum, all practices of the goals that were rated as Unsatisfied or Not Rated must be covered in the APR. More goals can be added if the appraisal team feels that the corrections to the weaknesses may impact other goals. However, the sponsor can explicitly reduce the model scope, and exclude some maturity levels or process areas from the APR.
  • The same basic units and support functions (from the original appraisal) need to be picked up in the APR. However, the sponsor can explicitly reduce the organizational unit, and the appraisal team can investigate additional basic units (from within the organizational unit).

Listing in PARS

If the APR option is chosen, no new listing will be made in PARS till the APR is completed.

After the APR is completed, the ratings achieved (as a result of the original SCAMPISM-A and the APR) will be listed in PARS (subject to sponsor’s permission).

The date of the appraisal result will be the date of the Final Findings of the original SCAMPISM-A (not of the APR). The three year validity will start from the date of the Final Findings of the original SCAMPISM-A.

PARs will NOT indicate whether the APR option was used or not.

PARs will show the final scope for which the appraisal was successful. If the scope was reduced during the APR, the PARS will show this reduced scope.

More Material

Links with more material:

  • The APR has been explained in simple, lucid terms by Pat O’Toole and Jeff Dalton. It is hosted on Jeff Dalton’s Blog – Ask the CMMI Appraiser. Read it!
  • The SCAMPI Method Definition Document (also called MDD) V1.3b, Dec 2014 includes the APR phase. Register and download the pdf from here (if you like to wallow in legalese)
  • Discussions between lead appraisers on the positive and negative aspects related to APR on a LinkedIn Group

By the way, this provides an opportunity for organizations and lead appraisers to be first in something 🙂

  • First successful APR
  • First unsuccessful APR
  • First APR with reduced model scope
  • …. and many more… 🙂

SM-SCAMPI is a service mark of Carnegie Mellon University.

Please feel free to to share your views, experiences, and queries, using the “comments” feature available.
You may also forward the link to this post to your friends, colleagues, and anyone else who may be interested.

Notes:

Nothing Official About It! – The views presented above are in no manner reflective of the official views of any organization, community, group, institute, country, government, or association. They may not even be the official views of the author of this post :-).

 


I am Rajesh Naik. I am an author, management consultant and trainer, helping IT and other tech companies improve their processes and performance. I also specialize in CMMI® (DEV and SVC), People CMM® and Balanced Scorecard. I am a CMMI Institute certified/ authorized Instructor and Lead Appraiser for CMMI® and People CMM®. I am available on LinkedIn and I will be glad to accept your invite. For more information please click here. To get email alerts for new posts, click here to subscribe.

Probability/ Stats Puzzles – 2 & 3 (Solutions)

If you’ve not seen/ attempted the puzzles, the links are here: puzzle-2 and puzzle-3. These were presented in earlier posts.

Both these puzzles are adopted from a delightful little book by John Allen Paulos titled A Mathematician Reads the Newspaper.

I will provide more details about the book next week. For now, here are the solutions to the two puzzles.

Puzzle-2

You need to call the throw of a dice a 1000 times. Like all dices, in each throw, this dice also gives you a number between 1 and 6. You are also told that the dice is slightly distorted / damaged – the probability of getting the six results is as follows: 1- 20%; 2- 10%; 3- 25%; 4-15%; 5-15%; 6-15%.

What strategy would you use to call the answers for the 1000 throws? Your objective is to get the right answer for a maximum of the throws.

Solution:

Call 3, 3, 3, 3…. all the 1000 times. This will get you aprroximately 250 right calls.

Or better still, tell the dice roller that your call is 3 all the thousand times, go for a coffee, or do something useful, come back after some time.

Puzzle-3

Two contestants are to decide on the winner of 10 mn by flipping a coin. The winner will be the one who reaches six (6) correct calls first.

After 8 flips, contestant A has 5 correct calls, and contestant B has 3 correct calls. At this stage they agree NOT to continue with the flipping of the coin. Here are some proposals on how the money should be shared:

  1. Contestant A says that since he is leading, he should get the 10mn.
  2. Contestant B says that since the flipping was called off before the final result, the 10mn should be shared equally.
  3. The show-host says that TV quiz program sponsors should retain the 10mn, since both the contestants agreed to call off the contest.
  4. Someone from the audience suggests that the prize money be split in the 5:3 ratio (5 for A and 3 for B), in line with the number of right calls
  5. A mathematician calls in to suggest that the money be split A7:B1 (try and guess the logic here, it is related to the probability of winning from this point, if the flipping had continued)

Solution:

The question on how the money is to be shared is not a mathematical /statistical problem at all! It is a matter of fairness and justice, and each solution proposed (and some yet to be proposed) has its own merit.

However, if you have not yet worked out the logic of why the mathematician proposed option # 5 above, here it is:

For contestant B to win 6 calls in a row, he/ she needs to call ALL of the next three calls correctly (even if he / she calls one incorrectly, A will reach 6 right calls. So the probability of B winning is (0.5) x (0.5) x (0.5) = 0.125; which means A has a probability of 0.875 – that is 7:1.

Next week, I will cover the source of these puzzles, a book titled A Mathematician Reads the Newspaper by John Allen Paulos.

Please feel free to to share your views, experiences, and queries, using the “comments” feature available.
You may also forward the link to this post to your friends, colleagues, and anyone else who may be interested.

Notes:

Nothing Official About It! – The views presented above are in no manner reflective of the official views of any organization, community, group, institute, country, government, or association. They may not even be the official views of the author of this post :-).


I am Rajesh Naik. I am an author, management consultant and trainer, helping IT and other tech companies improve their processes and performance. I also specialize in CMMI® (DEV and SVC), People CMM® and Balanced Scorecard. I am a CMMI Institute certified/ authorized Instructor and Lead Appraiser for CMMI® and People CMM®. I am available on LinkedIn and I will be glad to accept your invite. For more information please click here. To get email alerts for new posts, click here to subscribe.

Probability/ Stats Puzzle – 3

I encountered another problem in the same book (I will disclose the name of the book in a later post along with the answer). Here is the problem:

Coin FlipTwo contestants have reached the last round of a TV quiz contest and one of them is hoping to be the winner of a prize of 10 mn (currency deliberately left vague) via a tie-breaker. Even after the tie-breaker, neither of them has beaten the other.

The show-host offers to break the tie with a coin (my guess is that the show host did not have any more questions left :-)). However, to maintain the suspense and gain more TRP, he proposes that the winner will be one who reaches six (6) correct calls first.

After 8 flips, contestant A has 5 correct calls, and contestant B has 3 correct calls. At this stage both the contestants agree NOT to continue with the flipping of the coin (maybe the coin is lost or it breaks or falls into something disgusting – use your imagination). They have to decide on the winner based on result of the 8 flips.

Here are some proposals:

  1. Contestant A says that since he is leading, he should get the 10mn.
  2. Contestant B says that since the flipping was called off before the final result, the 10mn should be shared equally.
  3. The show-host says that TV quiz program sponsors should retain the 10mn, since both the contestants agreed to call off the contest.
  4. Someone from the audience suggests that the prize money be split in the 5:3 ratio (5 for A and 3 for B), in line with the number of right calls
  5. A mathematician calls in to suggest that the money be split A7:B1 (try and guess the logic here, it is related to the probability of winning from this point, if the flipping had continued)
  6. Any other…

It is interesting to note so many options to a simple situation.

Please share your suggestions in the “comments” feature available below.


I am Rajesh Naik. I am an author, management consultant and trainer, helping IT and other tech companies improve their processes and performance. I also specialize in CMMI® (DEV and SVC), People CMM® and Balanced Scorecard. I am a CMMI Institute certified/ authorized Instructor and Lead Appraiser for CMMI® and People CMM®. I am available on LinkedIn and I will be glad to accept your invite. For more information please click here. To get email alerts for new posts, click here to subscribe.

Probability/ Stats Puzzle – 2

I encountered this simple problem in a book (I will disclose the name of the book in a later post along with the answer).

Here is the problem:

You need to call the throw of a dice a 1000 times. Like all dices, in each throw, this dice also gives you a number between 1 and 6. You are also told that the dice is slightly distorted / damaged – the probability of getting the six results is as follows: 1- 20%; 2- 10%; 3- 25%; 4-15%; 5-15%; 6-15%.

What strategy would you use to call the answers for the 1000 throws? Your objective is to get the right answer for a maximum of the throws.

Green Dice

Here are some answers that I have heard:

  1. Call the number ‘3’ all the 1000 times – this is the most common answer I have heard.
  2. Call the numbers in the same pattern as the probability: 1- 200 times; 2- 100 times; 3- 250 times; 4-150 times; 5-150 times; 6-150 times.
  3. Call the numbers randomly, ignoring the distortion in the dice.
  4. A variation of 2 above is to call the numbers in the same pattern, but also taking into account the answers to the past throws, so that we try and keep the probabilities similar to the expected patterns. So if in the first 100 throws, 1 has already rolled more than 20% and 2 has been rolled less than 10%, then in the 101st throw, call 2 instead of 1, and so on.
  5. There are other possible answers too – and the right one may not be listed above (this is not a mutiple choice question 🙂 )

Work out the reasons for your choice, not just make a choice. The reasons are more important.

This is a simple question, and you should get the right answer.

The answer will be posted later.

Please share your views in the “comments” feature available.

 


I am Rajesh Naik. I am an author, management consultant and trainer, helping IT and other tech companies improve their processes and performance. I also specialize in CMMI® (DEV and SVC), People CMM® and Balanced Scorecard. I am a CMMI Institute certified/ authorized Instructor and Lead Appraiser for CMMI® and People CMM®. I am available on LinkedIn and I will be glad to accept your invite. For more information please click here. To get email alerts for new posts, click here to subscribe.

Extension Appraisals and Delta Appraisals – Planned changes in SCAMPI(sm)

Some months ago, a new version of the MDD (v1.3a) was released. One of the reactions to the announcement was “does it have provision for extending current appraisal results beyond 3 years?” Or “Is there some kind of surveillance being added to increase the validity?” or “is there a SCAMPISM – M (M for maintenance) in this new version?” Well, the version released in Oct 2013 (v1.3a) does not have it.

However, the draft of a new version contains proposals for extension of appraisal results.

There are two key proposed enhancements in the SCAMPISM method. These are a part of the draft version (v1.4 draft) of the MDD and have been circulated for review comments. The two key enhancements are:

  1. SCAMPISM A Extension (SCAMPISM-E, also known as SCAMPISM-M – maintenance). If approved, this will be an option available to entities that are already appraised on SCAMPISM-A and would like to extend the validity/ expiry date of their appraisal rating(s) beyond the 3 year period, at a lower cost, effort, on-site period, and disruption.
  2. Action Plan Reappraisals (Delta appraisals). Note: Action Plan Reappraisals have been incorporated in the SCAMPI method since Dec 2014. Read more about it here.
    At present, if an organization “fails” their target rating(s), we have to carry out a full SCAMPISM-A reappraisal after fixing the weaknesses. This means a high cost, effort, on-site period, and disruption, even if the re-appraisal is within a short period of the original failed appraisal. Action Plan Reappraisals (if approved) provides an option for the organization to do a reappraisal that is focussed in and around the offending areas (areas of weaknesses responsible for the unsatisfactory ratings), with lower appraisal overhead.

As expected, these two enhancements come with their conditions and parameters and limits and their own methods/ processes. Please note that these two additions/ enhancements are in the draft/ pilot/ review stages and what is finally released may be significantly different.

Read on if these are of interest to you…

Extension Appraisals

Present versions of the MDD do not include any form of surveillance audits (like ISO 9001). The proposal introduces the concept of performing an appraisal to extend the validity period of SCAMPISM A ratings with a significantly reduced cost while maintaining the integrity of the SCAMPISM A results. Here are some highlights of the proposed enhancement:

  1. SCAMPISM-A Extension (let us call it SCAMPISM-E) can be used to extended the validity of the SCAMPISM-A by 2 years.
  2. The SCAMPISM-E needs to be conducted before the expiry of SCAMPISM-A validity
  3. SCAMPISM-E can be used only once for a SCAMPISM-A to extend the validity. That means a second extension cannot be done. So, after the validity period (2 years) of the extension, a full SCAMPISM-A needs to conducted for a fresh rating (or a set  of ratings).
  4. For SCAMPISM-E eligibility, the OU should not have undergone changes in their sampling factors and sampling factor values (type of work, locations, organization structure, etc.) between the SCAMPISM-A and the SCAMPISM-E.
  5. The OU and the model scope (e.g., target maturity level, PAs, capability levels) cannot be increased from that used the original SCAMPISM-A  (though the SCAMPISM-E scope can decrease from the original SCAMPISM-A)
  6. Along with other conditions, the SCAMPISM-E investigation must cover at least 1/3 of the model sope applicable (1/3 of the specific goals and 1/3 of the generic practices). This aspect is expected to bring in significant savings in effort, and cycle time during the onsite period.
  7. The subset of specific goals and generic practices proposed for investigation need to be reviewed by the CMMI Institute. The CMMI Institute can select additional specific goals and generic practices.

Action Plan Reappraisal

At present, if a SCAMPISM-A results in an adverse rating (lower than the target level(s)), the organization needs to go through the whole SCAMPISM-A process to get the desired rating. This could mean a different sample of projects, and hence collection of data, and sometimes interviewing the same set of people and asking similar questions all over again. The Action Plan Reappraisal provides the organization the option of addressing the weaknesses and subsequently performing a reappraisal that will, if successful, result in obtaining targeted appraisal ratings. Some highlights:

  1. If approved, the action plan reappraisal (Delta reappraisal) option will be available for a SCAMPISM-A as well as a SCAMPISM-A Extension (SCAMPISM-E) discussed above
  2. To be valid, this reappraisal needs to be completed within a defined period (4 months) of the ‘failed’ appraisal
  3. In the reappraisal, the goals that were determined as not satisfied need to be re-examined
  4. Only one such action plan reappraisal is permitted

Please note that these two additions/ enhancements are in the draft/ pilot/ review stages and what is finally released may be significantly different, or may not get approved at all for some time.

You can get more information in the links below:

Discussions on linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/SCAMPI-Maintenance-Appraisal-SCAMPI-M-54046.S.176296625

A presentation from Nov 2012 @ NDIA Conference: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2012CMMI/W15024_Campo.pdf

SM-SCAMPI is a service mark of Carnegie Mellon University.

Please feel free to to share your views, experiences, and queries, using the “comments” feature available.
You may also forward the link to this post to your friends, colleagues, and anyone else who may be interested.

Notes:

Nothing Official About It! – The views presented above are in no manner reflective of the official views of any organization, community, group, institute, country, government, or association. They may not even be the official views of the author of this post :-).


I am Rajesh Naik. I am an author, management consultant and trainer, helping IT and other tech companies improve their processes and performance. I also specialize in CMMI® (DEV and SVC), People CMM® and Balanced Scorecard. I am a CMMI Institute certified/ authorized Instructor and Lead Appraiser for CMMI® and People CMM®. I am available on LinkedIn and I will be glad to accept your invite. For more information please click here. To get email alerts for new posts, click here to subscribe.

Probability/ Stats Puzzle – 1 (Solution)

If you have not tried to solve the puzzle, click here for the problem. The problem was discussed in an earlier post.

This is a famous puzzle, called the “Monty Hall Problem”. Monty Hall was a host in the early episodes of the game show Let’s Make a Deal.

The common version of the the puzzle used three doors (instead of 3 boxes) and a car and two goats (instead of gold and garbage).

The problem was originally posed by Steve Selvin and became famous when it was quoted by Marilyn vos Savant in Parade magazine in 1990.

The answer: You increase the probability of winning the gold if you change your choice of the box to open. The probability of winning the gold is only 1/3 if you continue with your original choice and 2/3 if you change your choice.

Here is a brief explanation of why:

When you initially selected a box, you had a 1/3 probability of being right. The host knowingly opened a box with garbage in it, so that eliminated one of the wrong choices.  You still have a 1/3 probability that you initially chose the right box; this means that the other unopened box has a 2/3 probability of containing the gold.

Amit Bhattacharjee, Satish K Mariyappagoudar, and Patrick OToole got it right.

Better explanations are provided on the wikipedia page here.

Or you can watch the youtube video.

If the video does not load, the link is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhlc7peGlGg.

You can also search the internet for the keywords “Monty Hall Problem” – you will get lots of hits.

Please feel free to to share your views, experiences, and queries, using the “comments” feature available.
You may also forward the link to this post to your friends, colleagues, and anyone else who may be interested.

Notes:

Nothing Official About It! – The views presented above are in no manner reflective of the official views of any organization, community, group, institute, country, government, or association. They may not even be the official views of the author of this post :-).


I am Rajesh Naik. I am an author, management consultant and trainer, helping IT and other tech companies improve their processes and performance. I also specialize in CMMI® (DEV and SVC), People CMM® and Balanced Scorecard. I am a CMMI Institute certified/ authorized Instructor and Lead Appraiser for CMMI® and People CMM®. I am available on LinkedIn and I will be glad to accept your invite. For more information please click here. To get email alerts for new posts, click here to subscribe.

New SCAMPI MDD (v1.3a) Released on Oct, 2013

The CMMI Institute has released a new version of the SCAMPISM MDD in October 2013. The full title is Standard CMMI Appraisal Method for Process Improvement (SCAMPI) Version 1.3a: Method Definition Document for SCAMPI A, B, and C.

The new version may be downloaded from the CMMI Institute site.

From January 1, 2014, all appraisal submissions (including SCAMPISM Class B and C) must comply with the new document.

So, what are the key changes in the new method?

  1. The main change has been to upgrade the Class B and Class C methods to v1.3. The earlier version of MDD addressed only the Class A method. Till the release of v1.3a, Class B and C were covered by a Handbook whose version was v1.1. This handbook was not compatible with version 1.3 of ARC. And the current SAS (appraisal database) was out of sync in its terminology with the handbook. All that seems to be now rectified. SCAMPISM Class B and C methodolgy will be compatible with the current SAS and ARC v1.3.
  2. A quick scan of the new MDD did not show any change to the SCAMPISM  Class A method. It remains the same as in the earlier version of the MDD (v1.3). So, no significant change is needed if you have started planning a Class – A SCAMPISM  appraisal in the near future. However, it will be better to download the new document and confirm for yourself.

Download the new version from here.

SM-SCAMPI is a service mark of Carnegie Mellon University.

Please feel free to to share your views, experiences, and queries, using the “comments” feature available.
You may also forward the link to this post to your friends, colleagues, and anyone else who may be interested.

Notes:

Nothing Official About It! – The views presented above are in no manner reflective of the official views of any organization, community, group, institute, country, government, or association. They may not even be the official views of the author of this post :-).


I am Rajesh Naik. I am an author, management consultant and trainer, helping IT and other tech companies improve their processes and performance. I also specialize in CMMI® (DEV and SVC), People CMM® and Balanced Scorecard. I am a CMMI Institute certified/ authorized Instructor and Lead Appraiser for CMMI® and People CMM®. I am available on LinkedIn and I will be glad to accept your invite. For more information please click here. To get email alerts for new posts, click here to subscribe.

Probability/ Stats Puzzle – 1

This problem was presented to me by Swapna (my wife) on last Friday – I could not work out the right answer even after considerable struggle.

You are participating in a TV show contest. You have reached the last round. If you win this round, you get take home a pure gold brick of 5 KG (5KG = 11.02 lbs); if you lose you have to take away an equivalent quantity of stinking garbage.

Here is the problem in the last round:

There are 3 closed boxes (let us say B1, B2, B3). Inside two of the boxes is garbage. Inside one of the boxes is the gold. You have to open one box and take home whatever is in that box. You decide to open B1. The show-host/ quiz-master asks you to stop, and as a hint opens one of the other two boxes, and inside that box there is garbage. The show-host gives you the option of changing your choice. Would you still go for your original choice or switch to the other unopened box?

Three Boxes

 

Here are some relevant assumptions/ hints/ guidances:

  1. Most important: you would prefer to take home the gold instead of the garbage :-).
  2. You will not be able to smell the garbage or gold without opening the boxes, or in any way be able to “know” what is inside the unopened boxes.
  3. You do not know the show host’s motivation. The show-host may be trying to help you or trick you, or trying to increase hir (his/her) popularity rating, or just following a script. So, do not consider the show host’s motivation in trying to solve the problem (when Swapna presented me the problem, I went on the motivation track, and could not approach it as a problem of probability, even after she told me to ignore the show host’s motivation 🙁 ).
  4. There is no “trick” in the problem or the solution – so, approach it as a problem of probability/ statistics.
  5. Do not be lazy and search the internet to find a solution. That is cheating. I have changed some things in the problem so that is not easy to search. However, this is not a test of how quickly and ingeniously you can search the internet.
  6. You will have to work out the reasons for your choice, not just make a choice. The reasons are more important.

Don’t feel bad if you don’t get the answer right, many renowned statisticians have got it wrong.

The answer is available in another post here.

Please share your views in the “comments” feature available.

 


I am Rajesh Naik. I am an author, management consultant and trainer, helping IT and other tech companies improve their processes and performance. I also specialize in CMMI® (DEV and SVC), People CMM® and Balanced Scorecard. I am a CMMI Institute certified/ authorized Instructor and Lead Appraiser for CMMI® and People CMM®. I am available on LinkedIn and I will be glad to accept your invite. For more information please click here. To get email alerts for new posts, click here to subscribe.

HMBP Conference 2013 on 24th Sept in Pune and 27th in Bangalore, India

The HMBP Conference (an annual event in its 4th year), showcases what leading organizations are doing and are planning to do in their implementation of high maturity practices.

This year, the HMBP Conference theme is “High Maturity Impacts: Interweaving Services and People” and it is also being held in two cities.

  • at a new venue – Pune on September 24th, 2013
  • in its regular den – Bangalore on September 27th, 2013

Since nobody could figure out the difference between a “Colloquium” and a “Conference”, I believe the organizers decided to stick to the more traditional word. 🙂


I am Rajesh Naik. I am an author, management consultant and trainer, helping IT and other tech companies improve their processes and performance. I also specialize in CMMI® (DEV and SVC), People CMM® and Balanced Scorecard. I am a CMMI Institute certified/ authorized Instructor and Lead Appraiser for CMMI® and People CMM®. I am available on LinkedIn and I will be glad to accept your invite. For more information please click here. To get email alerts for new posts, click here to subscribe.

Quiz Book: CMMI® – SVC (V1.3) available on Amazon Kindle – with 3 Quizzes of 35 questions each

Quiz Book: CMMI® - SVC (v1.3) Book Cover

Title: Quiz Book: CMMI® – SVC (v1.3)

Authors: Rajesh Naik and Swapna Kishore

ASIN: B00EIC3WEW

This eBook includes 3 tests, each with 35 objective-type questions.

These quizzes are suitable for:

  • Process/ Quality Assurance/ EPG/ PEG professionals
  • CMMI® – SVC specialists, consultants, and trainers
  • Appraisal Team Members (ATMs)
  • Candidate lead appraisers and instructors
  • Process compliance auditors

The Kindle eBook is available here: Amazon.com and Amazon.in

Note: You can read Kindle eBooks on laptops, tablets, and phones by installing free apps available from Amazon .

[These quiz products have been built with valuable inputs from Prakash Hegde, Atanu Das, D Sankararaman, Neha Chouhan, Chinmay Pradhan, Channaveer Patil, and V Seshadri]

 

Use the Look Inside! feature at Amazon for a sample.

 

Please feel free to to share your views, experiences, and queries, using the “comments” feature available.
You may also forward the link to this post to your friends, colleagues, and anyone else who may be interested.

Notes:

Nothing Official About It! – The views presented above are in no manner reflective of the official views of any organization, community, group, institute, or association. They may not even be the official views of the author of this post :-).


I am Rajesh Naik. I am an author, management consultant and trainer, helping IT and other tech companies improve their processes and performance. I also specialize in CMMI® (DEV and SVC), People CMM® and Balanced Scorecard. I am a CMMI Institute certified/ authorized Instructor and Lead Appraiser for CMMI® and People CMM®. I am available on LinkedIn and I will be glad to accept your invite. For more information please click here. To get email alerts for new posts, click here to subscribe.