Cited by 1,263Software Engineering Techniques and PracticesSoftware Engineering ResearchSafety Systems Engineering in Autonomy

Capability maturity model, version 1.1

Open access
Paulk, M.C., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M.B., Weber, C.V.·1993·IEEE Software

Abstract

The capability maturity model (CMM), developed to present sets of recommended practices in a number of key process areas that have been shown to enhance software-development and maintenance capability, is discussed. The CMM was designed to help developers select process-improvement strategies by determining their current process maturity and identifying the issues most critical to improving their software quality and process. The initial release of the CMM, version 1.0, was reviewed and used by the software community during 1991 and 1992. A workshop on CMM 1.0, held in April 1992, was attended by about 200 software professionals. The current version of the CMM is the result of the feedback from that workshop and ongoing feedback from the software community. The technical report that describes version 1.1. is summarised.>

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/52.219617

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The most common maturity models delineate five levels: initial, managed, defined, quantitatively managed, and optimising.

    “As posited by Paulk et al. (1993) and de Bruin et al. (2005), the most common models delineate five levelsinitial, managed, defined, quantitatively managed, and optimisingagainst which firms benchmark their digital capabilities and identify targeted improvements.”

    From Digital transformation: a comparative analysis of SME digital maturity models (2025) · cites this paper as Paulk et al. (1993)

  • Capability Maturity Models (CMMs) offer staged diagnostic frameworks that chart the progression from ad-hoc digital activity to optimised, continuously improving practice.

    “Capability Maturity Models (CMMs) offer staged diagnostic frameworks that chart the progression from adhoc digital activity to optimised, continuously improving practice (Paulk et al., 1993;Wendler, 2012;Becker et al., 2009).”

    From Digital transformation: a comparative analysis of SME digital maturity models (2025) · cites this paper as Paulk et al., 1993

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Paulk, M. C., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M. B., & Weber, C. V.
Affiliations
  • Software Engineering Institute (US)
  • IBM (United States) (US)
Venue
IEEE Software
Published
1993-07
Volume
10
Issue
4
Pages
18-27
ISSN
0740-7459 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2073275508
Cited by
1,263
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 80 · 2025: 55 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 57 · 2022: 52 · 2021: 53 · 2020: 59 · 2019: 42 · 2018: 39 · 2017: 40 · 2016: 29 · 2015: 40 · 2014: 37 · 2013: 48 · 2012: 35
FWCI
108.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Software (publishedVersion)
  • KiltHub Repository (submittedVersion)
  • KiltHub Repository
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Safety Systems Engineering in Autonomy
Keywords
capability maturity model, software process improvement, software quality, process areas, software maintenance, process improvement strategies, software engineering practices

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review