Discussion of “Managing Knowledge Capability and Maturity”

1. Discussion of“Managing Knowledge Capability and Maturity” Paper by Richard Baskerville & Jan Pries-Heje Discussion by John R. Venable

2. Strengths • Nice overview of history and relevance of CMM to software SMEs • Very fruitful discussion of problems confronting software SMEs (rapid depreciation of workforce knowledge and developer turnover) and hence need for useful techniques for KM • Excellent ideas for how to improve KM in the software SME: knowledge strategy and knowledge organisation and specific goals and techniques for each Discussion of “Managing Knowledge Capability and Maturity” Discussion by John R. Venable

3. Research Methodology • Would have liked a slightly richer description of the research methodology • What was the nature of the relationship between the researcher and the client? • Were suggestions made from the KM literature? • Who was interviewed? How often? • Were any steps taken to triangulate the findings? Discussion of “Managing Knowledge Capability and Maturity” Discussion by John R. Venable

4. Weaknesses and Suggestions “We also suggest an alternative mechanism for managing software development in small or medium sized software enterprises (software SMEs). … The purpose of this paper is to report several potential key process areas (KPAs) that may be more suitable for software SMEs than KPAs proposed with an orientation toward large organizations.” (p. 178) (italics added) • The paper proposes new/supplemental KPAs, but doesn’t refute existing CMM KPAs. Discussion of “Managing Knowledge Capability and Maturity” Discussion by John R. Venable

5. To be fair, the proposed techniques don’t actually address the ‘software process’ • Actually addresses the difficulties of knowledge depreciation and developer turnover (which also loses organisational knowledge) • Not really stated up front, but it is more than just maintaining the knowledge level; it’s identifying and developing new knowledge • This is resource acquisition • Some of the CMM KPAs were addressed • Requirements management (implicit in table 1) • Project planning and tracking (PERT, Gantt charts) • Organisation process definition (e.g. table 1 itself) • Organisation process focus (developed process in table 1) • Quality assurance (e.g. ‘approval by customer’, test strategy) • To me, the main point is that they had other, more pressing problems than achieving repeatability Discussion of “Managing Knowledge Capability and Maturity” Discussion by John R. Venable

6. “The existing CMM structure may be most appropriate for large, stable enterprises, while knowledge capability management may be more appropriate for unstable or small organizations.” p. 192 (italics added) • It seems to me that it isn’t important that the organisations were unstable, but rather more relevant that the products and the technologies used to develop and implement them were • Would have liked to see the two new KPAs related back to the CMM more strongly and integrated within it • need to enhance the theory within the CMM • but this might be difficult if not really the same kind of KPA Discussion of “Managing Knowledge Capability and Maturity” Discussion by John R. Venable

7. Not demonstrated that these techniques will work in other software SMEs (but seems likely) - future research • Not demonstrated that these techniques will scale up to the larger organisation - future research Discussion of “Managing Knowledge Capability and Maturity” Discussion by John R. Venable

8. Final Observations • Very useful techniques identified for KM in software SMEs • Doesn’t replace CMM, but supplements or addresses areas not addressed by CMM • Software process maturity may not be a software SME’s most pressing need! • Possibly transferable to SMEs where the product requirements and technologies are unstable • Another viewpoint is that of integrating R&D with the rest of the organisation -- which was done in this case Discussion of “Managing Knowledge Capability and Maturity” Discussion by John R. Venable