Implementing “CMMI for Services” in the tourism industry

Table of contents

TRADEMARKS AND COPYRIGHT

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

ABSTRACT

SUMMARY

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF DEFINITIONS

1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PROCESS IMPROVEMENT IN THE SERVICE SECTOR
1.1.1 IMPORTANCE OF SYSTEMATIC PROCESS IMPROVEMENT
1.1.2 CMMI-SVC – A NEW IMPROVEMENT STANDARD FOR THE SERVICE SECTOR
1.2 RESEARCH TOPIC
1.2.1 INTERPRETING THE NEW STANDARD FOR TOURISM SERVICES
1.2.2 DERIVING RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1.3 STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS

2 THE “CMMI FOR SERVICES” (CMMI-SVC) MODEL
2.1 CAPABILITY MATURITY MODELS
2.2 ABSTRACTION LEVELS IN PROCESS IMPROVEMENT
2.3 CMMICONSTELLATIONS
2.3.1 COMMON AND SPECIFIC COMPONENTS
2.3.2 TRAINING COURSES AND APPRAISALS
2.4 CMMI-SVCCOMPONENTS
2.4.1 OVERVIEW
2.4.2 PROCESS AREAS
2.4.3 GENERIC GOALS AND GENERIC PRACTICES
2.4.4 CAPABILITY AND MATURITY LEVELS
2.4.5 KEY TERMS
2.4.6 PROCESS AREA RELATIONSHIPS
2.4.7 SERVICE LIFECYCLE

3 THE TOURISM INDUSTRY
3.1 DEFINITION
3.2 TOUR OPERATORS–THE MAIN PLAYERS
3.3 SERVICES–THE MAIN PRODUCTS
3.4 QUALITY MANAGEMENT
3.4.1 PHASES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE TOURISM INDUSTRY
3.4.2 IMPORTANCE OF PRODUCT AND SERVICE QUALITY IN TOURISM
3.4.3 CHALLENGES OF CONTROLLING QUALITY IN TOURISM
3.5 SUSTAINABLE TOURISM
3.5.1 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AS THE BASIS FOR SUSTAINABLE TOURISM
3.5.2 GLOBAL SUSTAINABLE TOURISM CRITERIA (GSTC)
3.5.3 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND QUALITY

4 INTERPRETATION METHOD
4.1 SCOPE DEFINITION
4.1.1 SELECTING A SUBSECTION OF THE TOURISM INDUSTRY
4.1.2 SELECTING A SUBSECTION OF CMMI-SVC
4.2 INTERPRETATION CONVENTIONS FORCMMI-SVC
4.2.1 PROCESSES, ROLES AND WORK PRODUCTS
4.2.2 GENERIC GOAL
4.2.3 PROCESS AREAS
4.2.4 INTERPRETATION ORDER

5 INTERPRETATION OF CMM-SVC FOR A TOUR OPERATOR
5.1 ROLES AND WORK PRODUCTS ATFTO
5.2 INTERPRETING GENERIC GOAL
5.2.1 GP 2.1 – ESTABLISH AN ORGANIZATIONAL POLICY
5.2.2 GP 2.2 – PLAN THE PROCESS
5.2.3 GP 2.3 – PROVIDE RESOURCES
5.2.4 GP 2.4 – ASSIGN RESPONSIBILITY
5.2.5 GP 2.5 – TRAIN PEOPLE
5.2.6 GP 2.6 – MANAGE CONFIGURATIONS
5.2.7 GP 2.7 – IDENTIFY AND INVOLVE RELEVANT STAKEHOLDERS
5.2.8 GP 2.8 – MONITOR AND CONTROL THE PROCESS
5.2.9 GP 2.9 – OBJECTIVELY EVALUATE ADHERENCE
5.2.10 GP 2.10 – REVIEW STATUS WITH HIGHER LEVEL MANAGEMENT
5.3 INTERPRETING PROCESS AREAS
5.3.1 STSM – STRATEGIC SERVICE MANAGEMENT
5.3.2 SSD – SERVICE SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT
5.3.3 REQM – REQUIREMENTS MANAGEMENT
5.3.4 SST – SERVICE SYSTEM TRANSITION
5.3.5 CAM – CAPACITY AND AVAILABILITY MANAGEMENT
5.3.6 SCON – SERVICE CONTINUITY
5.3.7 IRP – INCIDENT RESOLUTION AND PREVENTION
5.3.8 SD – SERVICE DELIVERY
5.3.9 SAM – SUPPLIER AGREEMENT MANAGEMENT
5.4 CONCLUSION AND CRITICAL REVIEW

6 COMBINATION OF THE GSTC AND CMMI-SVC
6.1 COMBINATION METHOD
6.1.1 COMPARING GSTC AND CMMI STRUCTURES
6.1.2 COMBINATION ALTERNATIVES
6.2 COMBINING THEGSTCANDCMMI-SVCUSING DIFFERENT TOPICS
6.2.1 POLICY HANDLING
6.2.2 PLANNING
6.2.3 TRAINING
6.2.4 STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT
6.2.5 REQUIREMENTS MANAGEMENT
6.2.6 MEASUREMENTS
6.2.7 SUPPLIER MANAGEMENT
6.3 CONCLUSION AND CRITICAL REVIEW

7 QUALITY PROGRAMS USED IN THE GERMAN TOURISM INDUSTRY
7.1 IDENTIFYING QUALITY PROGRAMS
7.2 EFQM, ISOANDSERVICEQUALITY
7.2.1 EFQM
7.2.2 ISO
7.2.3 SERVICEQUALITY (SERVICEQ)
7.3 SELECTING AN APPROPRIATE QUALITY PROGRAM
7.3.1 SELECTION BASED ON COMPARISON
7.3.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF QUALITY PROGRAMS
7.3.3 CHARACTERISTICS OF CMMI-SVC

8 CMMI-SVC AS A GERMAN TOURISM INDUSTRY QUALITY MODEL
8.1 SMALL ORGANIZATIONS DOMINATE THE TOURISM INDUSTRY
8.1.1 DEFINITION OF SMES
8.1.2 HOW APPROPRIATE ARE QUALITY PROGRAMS FOR SMES?
8.1.3 CMMI-SVC FOR SMALL ORGANIZATIONS
8.2 PAVING THE WAY FORCMMI-SVCUSINGSERVICEQ
8.2.1 CMMI-SVC AS A RECOGNIZED QUALITY PROGRAM FOR SERVICEQ LEVEL III
8.2.2 HOW CMMI-SVC AND SERVICEQ CAN COMPLEMENT EACH OTHER
8.3 SWOTANALYSIS OFCMMI-SVC
8.4 CONCLUSION AND CRITICAL REVIEW

9 CONCLUDING REMARKS
9.1 CHALLENGES FACED WHEN WRITING THE THESIS
9.2 FUTURE RESEARCH TOPICS

10 LIST OF LITERATURE

A APPENDIX A-

A.1 CMMI-SVCGOALS AND PRACTICESA-

A.2 GLOBALSUSTAINABLETOURISMCRITERIA(GSTC) A-

A.3“THE PROOF OF THE PUDDING IS IN THE EATING” –GG2IN PRACTICEA-

A.4 CMMI-SVCCHANGE REQUESTSA-

A.5“STUDENT POSTER SESSION”AT THESEPG EUROPE2009CONFERENCEA-

A.6 AUTHOR’S BIBLIOGRAPHYA-

A.7 STATUTORY DECLARATIONA-

Trademarks and copyright

This thesis has been created by Barbara Neeb-Bruckner using portions of (i) CMMI® for Development, Version 1.2, CMU/SEI-2006-TR-008, copyright 2006 by Carnegie Mellon University; (ii) CMMI® for Acquisition, Version 1.2, CMU/SEI-2007-TR-017, copyright 2007 by Carnegie Mellon University; and (iii) CMMI® for Services, Version 1.2, CMU/SEI-2009-TR-001, copyright 2009 by Carnegie Mellon University, with special permission from its Software Engineering Institute.

ANY MATERIAL OF CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY AND/OR ITS SOFTWARE ENGINEERING INSTITUTE CONTAINED HEREIN IS FURNISHED ON AN "AS-IS" BASIS. CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY MAKES NO WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, AS TO ANY MATTER INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR PURPOSE OR MERCHANTABILITY, EXCLUSIVITY, OR RESULTS OBTAINED FROM USE OF THE MATERIAL. CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY DOES NOT MAKE ANY WARRANTY OF ANY KIND WITH RESPECT TO FREEDOM FROM PATENT, TRADEMARK, OR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.

This thesis is not endorsed by Carnegie Mellon University or its Software Engineering Institute.

Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering InstituteTM is registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademarks Office by Carnegie Mellon University.

SCAMPISM and SEPGSM are service marks of Carnegie Mellon University.¹

Acknowledgements

Thanks to my family, friends, colleagues and lecturers who encouraged me to tackle this topic and helped me to see it through.

Patrick Kirwan, Operations Manager at the Software Engineering Institute Europe and Conference Host of the SEPG Europe 2009 conference, and Gerhard Fessler, CMMI Lead-Appraiser, supported me with their substantial professional CMMI and quality management expertise. David J. Croome and Ron Munro undertook the time consuming proof-reading.

In particular I would like to thank Eileen Forrester, CMMI-SVC project lead at the Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute, and Wolfgang Strasdas, professor of the sustainable tourism management master thesis program at the Eberswalde University of Applied Sciences, for their support and technical review of my thesis.

Abstract

English

“CMMI for Services” (CMMI-SVC) is a process improvement model, published by the Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute (SEI) in 2009, providing guidance to service organizations for managing, establishing and delivering services. Tourism is a typical service industry with tour operators being one of the main players. This master thesis describes how CMMI-SVC can be implemented in the tourism industry with the use of a fictitious tour operator to provide examples. In the scenario described, the tour operator wants to focus on the expanding consumer group of LOHAS (Lifestyle of Health and Sustainability) by improving its services, making them more sustainable and adding volunteer tourism to its product portfolio. It is demonstrated how CMMI-SVC would facilitate sustainable tourism services by combining the Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria (GSTC) with CMMI-SVC in a process improvement initiative and how the German ServiceQuality program can be used as a migration path to CMMI-SVC. A SWOT (strengths-weaknesses-opportunities-threats) analysis of CMMI-SVC gives tourism organizations guidance on the rating of the model.

Deutsch

“CMMI for Services” (CCMI-SVC) ist ein Modell zur Prozessverbesserung, welches 2009 vom Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute (SEI) veröffentlicht wurde, und von Dienstleistungsunternehmen als Leitfaden bei der Verwaltung, Erstellung und Erbringung ih-rer Dienstleistungen verwendet werden kann. Tourismus ist ein typischer Dienstlei-stungssektor, in dem Reiseveranstalter einer der Hauptakteure darstellen. Diese Masterarbeit beschreibt anhand von Beispielen für einen fiktiven Reiseveranstalter, wie CMMI-SVC in der Tourismusindustrie angewendet werden kann. In dem beschriebenen Szenario möchte der Reiseveranstalter die wachsende Konsumentengruppe der LOHAS (Lifestyle of Health and Sustainability) ansprechen, indem er seine Dienstleistungen verbessert, sie nachhaltiger ge-staltet und Freiwilligenarbeit in seine Produktpalette aufnimmt. Es wird gezeigt, wie CMMI-SVC nachhaltige, touristische Dienstleistungen fördern kann, in dem die Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria (GSTC) mit CMMI-SVC in einer Prozessverbesserungsinitiative kombiniert werden, und wie das deutsche ServiceQualität Programm (ServiceQ) als Migrationspfad hin zu CMMI-SVC genutzt werden kann. Eine SWOT (Stärken-Schwächen-Chancen-Gefahren) Analyse von CMMI-SVC hilft Tourismusorganisationen bei der Bewertung des Modells.

Summary

“CMMI for Services” (CMMI-SVC) is a process improvement model, published by the Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute (SEI) in February 2009, providing guidance to service organizations for managing, establishing and delivering services. The model pro­vides a comprehensive set of best practices for all types of service organizations; tourism is a typical service industry and so it seemed appropriate to research the implementation of CMMI-SVC in this type of industry. Team members with experience in many different ser­vice types contributed to the development of CMMI-SVC; however this master thesis is the first known interpretation of it for the tourism industry. The first research question refers directly to the thesis title:

– How can CMMI-SVC be implemented in the tourism industry?

The CMMI-SVC model is described to the level of detail which is required to answer this question. The description includes an explanation of the CMMI-SVC key terms, such as Customer/End User, Service, Service Agreement, Service Incident, Service Request and Service System. A service is defined as a type of product which is intangible and non-storable and is delivered through the operation of a service system. The CMMI-SVC service lifecycle clearly shows that services, similar to tangible products, need to be designed based on requirements and then built and tested before they are transitioned into operation where they become part of the service system.

Tour operators are identified as one of the main players of the tourism industry with services as their main products. To provide typical examples of how CMMI-SVC can be implemented in the tourism industry, a fictitious tour operator (FTO) is created as a representative of this type of industry. FTO wants to focus on the expanding consumer group of LOHAS (Lifestyle of Health and Sustainability) by improving its services, making them more sustainable and adding volunteer tourism to its product portfolio. The parts of the CMMI-SVC model, which are appropriate for these particular business needs, are selected and include all services-specific process areas, i.e. Capacity and Availability Management (CAM), Incident Resolution and Prevention (IRP), Service Continuity (SCON), Service Delivery (SD), Ser­vice System Development (SSD), Service System Transition (SST) and Strategic Service Management (STSM). The interpretation, using FTO as an example, includes roles such as Requirements Manager and Volunteer Coordinator, and work products such as Incident Management System and Non-Compliance List which might exist at a typical tour operator.

It became apparent that it would involve a steep learning curve to implement CMMI-SVC in a tourism organization. However, the examples showed that the complex model, once it was understood, could help service providers to understand the reasons for problems encountered, to deal with them and to improve their service quality. Each CMMI-SVC practice could be perceived as a means to avoid a risk.

As responsible, sustainable business operations are closely related to best practices, process improvement standards, though not explicitly mentioned, may touch or even demand sustainable processes or may easily allow the incorporation of sustainability criteria. From this assessment, the second research question was determined:

– Can CMMI-SVC serve as a facilitator for sustainable tourism services?

The Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria (GSTC) are used to describe what sustainable practices in tourism are. The idea of CMMI-SVC being able to facilitate sustainable tourism services is to show that the model can act as a “vehicle” to promote the sustainability criteria described by the GSTC. Therefore it is demonstrated how the GSTC can be combined with CMMI-SVC in such a way that implementing CMMI-SVC also means implementing the GSTC. Their structure is checked in detail, because, for the combination of both approaches, it is crucial to map the different element types on corresponding levels. An exact mapping of the GSTC and CMMI element types could not be achieved because the GSTC are not consis­tently structured. However, examples show how the criteria can be combined with CMMI-SVC in a process improvement initiative on the basis that both approaches have common re­quirements, such as for policies, planning, training and stakeholder involvement. The question can be answered positively because the examples showed that a bridge could be built between the CMMI-SVC and GSTC communities.

To be able to judge the value of CMMI-SVC for the German tourism industry, the third research question is:

– How does CMMI-SVC compare with other quality programs in the tourism industry?

To answer this question, the most widely used and comparable quality programs in the Ger­man tourism industry are identified and described, i.e. EFQM, ISO and the German ServiceQuality (ServiceQ) levels I, II and III. The description of some of the main characteristics of quality programs, such as performance-based/process-based and certification types, will help tourism organizations to develop their own comparisons of programs from which they can make their choice. Using this analysis, it is shown how CMMI-SVC differs from these programs.

The German tourism industry is dominated by small organizations with less money, time and fewer skills available for their quality efforts; CMMI-SVC is considered to be more appro­priate for larger organizations considering its complexity and its origins. The implementation of CMMI in small settings is an ongoing discussion at the SEI and at CMMI users’ sites; recommendations are provided in the thesis to support small organizations with their implementation of CMMI-SVC.

It is shown how the ServiceQ program can be used as a migration path to CMMI-SVC, so that organizations of all sizes can take advantage of both approaches. An organization could start parallel activities to fulfill CMMI-SVC once basic quality management practices are in place as demonstrated by attaining ServiceQ level I; CMMI-SVC could become a recognized quality program for ServiceQ level III. Examples illustrate how CMMI-SVC and ServiceQ can benefit from each other.

A strengths/weaknesses/opportunities/threats (SWOT) analysis of CMMI-SVC for the Ger­man tourism market gives German tourism organizations guidance on the rating of the model and summarizes its characteristics. The thesis ends with a list of possible future research topics.

The topic “Implementing ‘CMMI for Services’ in the tourism industry” was submitted, ac­cepted and presented as a “student poster session” by the author of this thesis at the SEPG Europe 2009 conference in Prague.

List of abbreviations

illustration not visible in this excerpt

List of figures

FIGURE1: GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION OF THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS5

FIGURE2: STRUCTURE OF THE MAIN PART OF THE THESIS6

FIGURE3: ABSTRACTION LEVELS IN PROCESS IMPROVEMENT9

FIGURE4: COMMON AND SPECIFIC COMPONENTS OFCMMI 11

FIGURE5: CMMI-SVCMODEL COMPONENTS13

FIGURE6: CMMI-SVCPROCESS AREAS14

FIGURE7: DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CUSTOMER AND END USER20

FIGURE8: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ACQUIRER AND SUPPLIER24

FIGURE9: PROCESS AREA RELATIONSHIPS FOR SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT AND DELIVERY25

FIGURE10: PROCESS AREA RELATIONSHIPS FOR SERVICE MANAGEMENT26

FIGURE11: CMMI-SVCLIFECYCLE27

FIGURE12: TOURISM INDUSTRY AS PART OF THE TOURISM ECONOMY28

FIGURE13: KEY PROCESSES OF A TOUR OPERATOR30

FIGURE14: BUSINESS RHYTHM OF SERVICES33

FIGURE15: PHASES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE TOURISM INDUSTRY34

FIGURE16: REASONS WHY CUSTOMERS SWITCH TO COMPETITORS35

FIGURE17: THE TOURISM INDUSTRY'S THREE-LEGGED STOOL OF CUSTOMER SATISFACTION41

FIGURE18: THEFICTITIOUSTOUROPERATOR'S ORG CHART43

FIGURE19: EFQM EXCELLENCEMODEL105

FIGURE20: EXAMPLES OFSERVICEQLOGOS(BAYERN/BRANDENBURG/GERMANY/EUROPE) 108

FIGURE21: THE THREESERVICEQLEVELS109

FIGURE22: PATH TOSERVICEQLEVELICERTIFICATION110

FIGURE23: PATH TOSERVICEQLEVELIICERTIFICATION111

FIGURE24: SUSTAINABLE COVERAGE OF QUALIFICATION PROGRAMS117

FIGURE25: NUMBER OF TOURISM ORGANIZATIONS’EMPLOYEES120

FIGURE26: PARALLEL IMPLEMENTATION OFSERVICEQANDCMMI-SVC 126

List of tables

TABLE1: CMMI-SVCPROCESS AREAS ORDERED BY ACRONYM

TABLE2: GENERIC GOALS

TABLE3: GENERIC PRACTICES OF GENERIC GOAL2

TABLE4: CMMI-SVCPROCESS AREAS BYMLAND CATEGORY

TABLE5: MAPPING OFCMMI-SVCCOMPONENTS TO TOUR OPERATOR KEY PROCESSES

TABLE6: TOUROPERATORS’MAIN CONTRACTED PRODUCTS AND SUPPLIERS

TABLE7: EXAMPLES OFGSTCELEMENTS

TABLE8: CMMI-SVCPROCESS AREAS SELECTED FOR THE THESIS

TABLE9: TEMPLATE FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF THEGPS OFGG 2

TABLE10: TEMPLATE FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF THE PROCESS AREAS

TABLE11: ROLES ATFTO (ALPHABETICAL ORDER)

TABLE12: WORK PRODUCTS ATFTO (ALPHABETICAL ORDER)

TABLE13: ALTERNATIVES FOR COMBINING THEGSTCWITHCMMI-SVC

TABLE14: RECOGNIZED QUALITY PROGRAMS FORSERVICEQLEVELIII

TABLE15: SERVICEQFIGURES(AS OFAUGUST2009)

TABLE16: SWOTOFCMMI-SVCFOR THE TOURISM INDUSTRY

TABLE17: CHANGE REQUESTS RAISED WITH THESEI

List of definitions

DEFINITION: CAPABILITY MATURITY MODEL

DEFINITION: CUSTOMER(CMMI)

DEFINITION: ENDUSER(CMMI)

DEFINITION: PROJECT(CMMI)

DEFINITION: SERVICE(CMMI)

DEFINITION: SERVICEAGREEMENT(CMMI)

DEFINITION: SERVICEINCIDENT(CMMI)

DEFINITION: SERVICEREQUEST(CMMI)

DEFINITION: SERVICESYSTEM(CMMI)

DEFINITION: SUPPLIERAGREEMENT(CMMI)

DEFINITION: TOUROPERATOR

DEFINITION: SUSTAINABLEDEVELOPMENT

DEFINITION: QUALITY

1 Introduction

It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you'll do things differently.

(Warren Buffett, *1930)

1.1 Process improvement in the service sector

1.1.1 Importance of systematic process improvement

Process improvement is a series of actions taken to identify, analyze and improve existing processes within an organization in order to produce higher quality goods or to deliver higher quality services. According to a book about systematic process improvement, “Evidence is overwhelming that successful organizations continuously improve their processes. Although process improvement is time-consuming and expensive, the evidence shows that the return on investment is high.”² The organizations may be of any type, such as for-profit businesses, non-profit organizations or government agencies, delivering either goods or services and, in many cases, a combination of both.

The book also explains that improvements can be implemented on an ad hoc basis, but that systematic process improvement, guided by models or standards, would be the most effective and efficient approach. Many models or standards for process improvement exist on the mar­ket; they will either target specific industry sectors, for example, health care, automotive, tourism, or have a general character and be applicable to all kinds of industries. Some may target specific sector types, such as the service sector or the manufacturing sector.

1.1.2 CMMI-SVC–a new improvement standard for the service sector

The Reuters news agency reports that “The services sector represents about 80 percent of U.S. economic activity, including businesses such as banks, airlines, hotels and restaurants.”³ This figure is also stated in the article “Service Organizations Jump on the CMMI Bandwagon!” along with the comment “that demand for process improvement in services will most likely grow in the coming years.”⁴

In response to the growing demand, the Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute (SEI) in the US published a standard which, for the first time, was not specifically for the IT sector but is appropriate for all types of service industries. The new standard is called “CMMI for Services” (CMMI-SVC) and was launched at the SEPG (System Engineering Process Group) North America 2009 conference, an annual conference for software process improvement activities with a focus on CMMI:

“‘Today, we are excited to celebrate the launch of CMMI for Services,’ said Paul Nielsen, director and CEO of the SEI, in his opening remarks at the conference. ‘The SEI has seen a growing demand for process improvement in the services sector. With the SEI’s experience, the input of our community, and the support of the CMMI Steering Group, we are helping organizations to address the challenges they face in the services sector.”⁵

CMMI-SVC provides a comprehensive set of best practices for providing guidance to service organizations for managing, establishing and delivering services to meet the needs of their customers. Services have many common characteristics (ref. chapter 3.3), but also show a great variability such as the number and type of

- services requested
- incidents or disruptions encountered
- resources needed (for a single request, over time).

To ensure that the model covered a wide range of services, team members with experience in more than 75 service types, such as legal services, research, and maintenance, and from 20 different industry sectors, such as aerospace, finance, and government, were used for the model’s creation.⁶ From within this rage of experience, the industry sector which was most closely related with tourism was hotel and lodging. CMMI-SVC is described in a document⁷ which is freely available for download from the SEI web site; in this thesis this document is referred to as the “CMMI-SVC document” and its glossary in Appendix D is referred to as the “CMM-SVC glossary”.

1.2 Research topic

1.2.1 Interpreting the new standard for tourism services

The first official version of the CMMI-SVC standard was published a few weeks before the final decision had to be made about the research topic for this thesis. Tourism is a typical service industry and so it seemed appropriate to research the implementation of CMMI-SVC in this type of industry.

The idea first came about in 2007 at the SEPG Europe conference in Amsterdam and was in­spired by two presentations: in one of the presentations Eileen Forrester, the project lead for CMMI-SVC, gave an overview of a draft version of CMMI-SVC; another presentation dealt with “CMMI for small settings”, where the characteristics of small organizations were described as “simplicity in processes and limited people resources”. These are typical characteristics of many tourism organizations, such as small hotels and tour operators.

When it became apparent that Eileen Forrester would be available as second reviewer, the de­cision on the master thesis topic was made – interpreting CMMI-SVC for the tourism industry. To ensure the feasibility of the topic, the author checked it against the attributes for “good topics” as described in the book “Research methods for business students”⁸.

The first “working title” of this thesis was “Applying CMMI-SVC to the tourism industry”. However, on reflection of an SEI Technical Note⁹ the author realized that CMMI-SVC should be “implemented” and not “applied” because there is a fundamental difference between “applying a standard” and “implementing a standard”:

“All too often, CMMI has been applied rather than implemented. ... The key difference between applying and implementing CMMI is that applying usually appears as a superimposition (or overlay) of model practices onto existing activities with an expectation of producing the example work products found in the model, rather than seeking the natural products of the organization’s processes. … In contrast, implementing CMMI is using the model ... as a learning tool, a communication tool, and a means of organizing thoughts.”

On that basis, the thesis title was changed to “Implementing ‘CMMI for Services’ in the tourism industry”.

1.2.2 Deriving research questions

What research questions can be derived from the thesis title?

1. The first research question directly referred to the thesis title and was obvious to formu­late: “How can CMMI-SVC be implemented in the tourism industry?”

2. As process improvement always needs a direction or goal, one possibility for this was sustainability and in particular to take a closer look at sustainable tourism services. This would not only complement the sustainable tourism management course at the university but, in particular, pick up on a trend in the tourism industry where “sustainable tourism is on the rise: consumer demand is growing, travel industry suppliers are developing new green programs, and governments are creating new policies to encourage sustainable prac­tices in tourism.”¹⁰ As responsible and sustainable business operations are closely related to best practices and common sense, process improvement standards, though not explicitly mentioned, may touch or even demand sustainable processes or may easily allow the in­corporation of sustainability criteria. From this assessment, the second research question was determined as: “Can CMMI-SVC serve as a facilitator for sustainable tourism servic­es?” and the thesis subtitle as: “CMMI – a facilitator for sustainable tourism services?”.

3. To be able to judge the value of CMMI-SVC for the tourism industry, it must be compared to other improvement standards; this was the basis of the third research question “How does CMMI-SVC compare with other quality programs in the tourism industry?”

For easier reference, the three research questions, along with their motivations, are listed in the following diagram:

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Figure 1: Graphical representation of the research questions

What could not be included in this thesis because of time and length constraints?

1. It was not possible to apply the whole CMMI-SVC model to the entire tourism industry so representative selections from both were taken.
2. Not all aspects of sustainable tourism could be covered, instead examples are given.
3. There could not be any in-depth comparisons with existing quality programs so the focus was on giving tourism organizations guidance on the rating of CMMI-SVC.

1.3 Structure of the thesis

Abstracts in English and German, the summary, trademarks, acknowledgements, lists of abbreviations, figures, tables and definitions all precede the main part of the thesis. The struc­ture of the main part is illustrated in the following diagram, Figure 1, and is organized as follows:

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Figure 2: Structure of the main part of the thesis

- Chapter 1 (this chapter) starts with the motivation for the chosen research topic followed by an explanation of the derived research questions and ends with the description of the structure of the thesis.
- The CMMI-SVC standard is described in chapter 2, to the level of detail which is required for this thesis. The chapter ends with the explanation of the key terms of CMMI-SVC and the illustration of its inherent service lifecycle.
- The tourism industry, with the tour operators as one of their main players and services as their main products, are described in chapter 3. This is supplemented by an explanation of what service quality in tourism means and how sustainable tourism can be characterized using the Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria (GSTC).
- Chapter 4, with regard to research question #1, explains and justifies which parts of the tourism industry and which parts of CMMI-SVC have been selected for describing the implementation of CMMI-SVC in the tourism industry. The tourism industry will be represented by, and examples will be given for, a fictitious tour operator (FTO).
- Research question #1 is continued in Chapter 5 by interpreting the selected CMMI com­ponents for FTO’s business. The chapter ends with a conclusion and critical review of research question #1.
- Chapter 6 deals with research question #2 by explaining the method for combining CMMI-SVC and the GSTC and exemplifying the combination using different topics. The chapter ends with a conclusion and critical review of research question #2.
- To answer research question #3, quality programs in the German tourism market are identified and described in chapter 7 along with their characteristics that can be used as a basis for program selection.
- Research question #3 is continued in chapter 8 with the focus on the use of CMMI-SVC as a quality model in the German tourism industry taking into account that it is dominated by small organizations. This chapter also describes how the German ServiceQuality program and CMMI-SVC can complement each other. The chapter ends with a SWOT analysis of CMMI-SVC and a conclusion and critical review of research question #3.
- The concluding remarks in chapter 9 describe the challenges faced when writing this the­sis and identify possible future research topics.
- The main part of the thesis ends with chapter 10 – the list of literature used. The appendix contains the following parts:
- A.1 (CMMI-SVC goals and practices) contains an excerpt from the original CMMI documentation listing the CMMI-SVC elements which were considered in this thesis. To make the reading of the thesis easier, it is suggested that appendix A.1 is printed as a reference.
- A.2 (Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria (GSTC)) lists the GSTC for reference purposes.
- A.3 (“The proof of the pudding is in the eating”) describes how CMMI generic practices supported the creation of the thesis.
- A.4 (CMMI-SVC change requests ) lists the change requests that have been sent to the SEI to report errors, omissions and ambiguities, as identified in the CMMI-SVC by the author.
- A.5 (“Student poster session” at the SEPG Europe 2009 conference) contains the author’s application for the student poster at the SEPG Europe 2009 conference in Prague.
- A.6 (Author’s bibliography) shows selected publications of the author of this thesis.
- A.7 (Statutory declaration) contains the statutory declaration required by the university.

2 The “CMMIfor Services”(CMMI-SVC) model All models are wrong, but some are useful. (George E. P. Box, *1919)

2.1 Capability maturity models

Before describing the CMMI-SVC model in more detail, it is useful to explain what a “capability maturity model” (CMM) is. The following definition is taken from the CMMI-SVC glossary:

Definition: Capability maturity model

“A model that contains the essential elements of effective processes and describes an evolutionary improvement path from ad hoc, immature processes to disciplined, mature processes with improved quality and effectiveness.”

Models, in this context, are summaries of the best practices of effective, successful organiza­tions and help to portray the reality without having to build it.

The SEI first published a CMM like framework in 1989. CMMI is the acronym for “Capability Maturity Model Integration”; the last character “I” for “Integration” was appended to CMM in 2002 when several CMMs were integrated into one model and reconciled with other standards such as the ISO 9000 family of standards. The complete history of the CMMs/CMMI is described in the CMMI-SVC document¹¹.

2.2 Abstraction levels in process improvement

The SEI also refers to the CMMI as a “process model” which “is a structured collection of practices that describe the characteristics of effective processes. Practices included are those proven by experience to be effective.”¹²

A process is a serious of activities that help to solve a problem. Processes need to be docu­mented to describe the activities or steps to go through to perform the work; CMMI uses the term “process description” to refer to a documented process.

CMMI guides process improvement across a team, project, division, or an entire organization. Throughout the thesis, in the sections about the “implementation of CMMI in an organization”, the term “organization” is used in a general sense to mean the organization, group or division that performs the improvement initiative.

For a correct interpretation of a process model like CMMI it is important to understand that the model describes “‘what’ should be done in an organization to achieve business objectives and deliver high quality services on time and within budget.”¹³ The detailed descriptions of processes and supporting procedures, including the sequence of activities, roles and work products, belong to the “method” which describes “how” it should be done. The “what” and the “how” can be considered to reside on two different abstraction levels as illustrated in the following diagram:

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Figure 3: Abstraction levels in process improvement

CMMI is located on the upper level; the method, on the lower level, repre­sents the inter­pretation of CMMI for a specific orga­nization and de­scribes the way how real life orga­nizations manage their work.

The CMMI-SVC document names some generic roles, for example, stakeholder, senior man­agement, process owner, practitioner, supplier, and customer; these have to be interpreted for the specific organization. Similarly, this also applies to the examples of typical work products which may be named differently in the organization. For example, CMMI-SVC suggests a typical work product “training records”, but how is it named in the organization? Is it a separate document or is it embedded into another document? Is it an EXCEL spreadsheet or a WORD document?

CMMI does not prescribe, nor imply, any “out-of-the box” processes to use that may be appropriate for any organization. Instead, the model describes the minimal criteria necessary to plan and implement processes, selected by the organization, for improvement based on business objectives. ¹⁴ CMMI purposely uses non specific phrases such as “relevant”, “appropriate”, “adequate” and “as necessary” to accommodate the needs of different organizations.

The drafting of the specific processes and supporting work material is part of an organiz-ation’s process improvement effort and can be done in various ways, there is not just “one interpretation” option, there are many. As described in the book “Interpreting the CMMI”, undertaking this task is easier said than done. Most organizations, at the initial stages of process improvement, do not have clearly defined business objectives¹⁵ and it can take them a considerable amount of time to formulate these.

Goals like – to make more money, to get a certificate, or to reduce the number of staff, are not acceptable as objectives for process improvement; they certainly would not fulfill the SMART (Specific/Measurable/Attainable/Realistic/Timely) criteria¹⁶ for acceptable goals. Although not mentioned in CMMI-SVC, the SMART method is an effective way to set goals for projects and businesses. Acceptable business goals, in the tourism services area, could be – to improve customer satisfaction by 10% in the next fiscal year, to increase online booking to account for a third of all bookings by the end of this year, to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of all tours by 30% in the next two years. Apart from SMART, other techniques are available on the market to help define business goals.

For a correct interpretation of a process model such as CMMI, it is important to understand that the translation into an organization’s specific business processes, based on its business objectives, is not part of the role of a model. However, this flexibility does mean a lot of in­terpretation work for specific organizations with the added danger of possible misinterpreta­tions. There is a balance to be achieved across organizational, project, and individual preroga­tives and responsibilities.

2.3 CMMI constellations

2.3.1 Common and specific components

With version 1.2 of CMMI, released in 2006, a new architecture was introduced which al­lowed the creation of CMMI variants that were relevant to improvements in a particular area of interest; these variants have been called “constellations”.

The latest constellation released was “CMMI for Services” (CMMI-SVC) in February 2009; this extended the “CMMI for Development” (CMMI-DEV) and the “CMMI for Acquisition” (CMMI-ACQ) constellations to the practices that were needed for organizations to deliver services, whether as their main business or part of their business. Within a constellation one or more CMMI models can exist; in the services constellation there is only one model: CMMI-SVC, which is therefore both the name of the constellation and the model.

The CMMI components which are common to all CMMI models are called the “CMMI Model Foundation” (CMF); the CMMI components that are included in two or more models are called the “Shared CMMI Material”. This is illustrated in the following diagram:

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Figure 4: Common and specific components of CMMI

Constellations are not only used to construct CMMI models, but also to construct training and appraisal materials in an area of interest. More information on CMMI constellations is availa­ble in the SEI Technical Note “Introduction to the Architecture of the CMMI Framework”¹⁷.

2.3.2 Training courses and appraisals

For each constellation, a set of training courses and appraisal methods accompany the models:

- The model components include process areas, goals, practices, and informative material about the use of the models and its components; they are described in chapter 2.4.
- The training components include guidebooks on implementing the models and audio­visuals to support teaching on how to use the models.
- The appraisal components describe the process of appraising the organization’s processes
against the goals and practices described in the models. They also include training for per­forming the appraisal process.¹⁸

Currently a one-day CMMT-SVC training course is available from the SET or from SET Partner organizations. The SET Partner Network¹⁹ represents a group of organizations and individuals that are selected, trained, and licensed by the SET to deliver authentic SET services. Prerequisites for the CMMT-SVC course include the successful completion of the three-day “Introduction to CMMI, v1.2” course that currently only covers CMMT-DEV. A new three-day course is being developed that will have no prerequisites and will focus entire­ly on CMMT-SVC; it will be available later in 2009.

Accompanying CMMT there is a formal appraisal method called “Standard CMMT Appraisal Method for Process Tmprovement” (SCAMPI) which operates at one of three levels A, B or C, according to the needs of the organization. Only “SCAMPT Class A” appraisals can pro­vide an official SET rating and these can be published on the SET web site. SCAMPT Class B and C appraisals are more flexible and are used, for example, for readiness reviews prior to conducting Class A appraisals, for supplier selection or for progress checking of process im­provement. The appraisal can be considered as a story of a day in an organization’s life. De­tailed information on appraisals can be found in various SET documents, for example, in their FAQs²⁰. SCAMPT A appraisals for CMMT-SVC will only be accepted with an on-site start date of 26 August 2009 or later.²¹

What differentiates CMMI from ISO 9000 are, amongst other factors, training and appraisal; ISO 9000 does not provide an approved training or audit methodology.

2.4 CMMI-SVC components

2.4.1 Overview

This chapter should be considered as an overview of CMMI-SVC with only the elements which are relevant for this thesis being explained. The following diagram, Figure 5, from the CMMI-SVC document²² illustrates the CMMI-SVC model components and their relation­ships:

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Figure 5: CMMI-SVC model components

2.4.2 Process areas

Process areas constitute the primary structural element of a CMMI model; they describe fields of interest that organizations need to focus on when implementing CMMI.

As illustrated in Figure 6, CMMI-SVC includes 24 process areas composed of:

- 16 core process areas belonging to the CMF
- 1 shared process area which is included in the CMMI-SVC and in the CMMI-DEV con­stellation
- 7 services-specific process areas, one of which is an addition emphasizing the develop­ment of services.

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Figure 6: CMMI-SVC process areas²³

The following table lists the names of all 24 process areas together with their acronyms and types:

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Table 1: CMMI-SVC process areas ordered by acronym

The CMMI-SVC glossary defines a process area as “a cluster of related practices in an area that, when implemented collectively, satisfies a set of goals considered important for making improvement in that area.” Process areas have a common structure and are described by a number of specific goals (SGs) and specific practices (SPs). SPs are activities that must be performed to satisfy the SGs of a process area. For example:

- “Establish Service Agreements” is the first specific goal (SG 1) of the Service Delivery (SD) process area, abbreviated as SD SG 1
- “Analyze Existing Agreements and Service Data” is the first specific practice (SP 1.1) of this specific goal, abbreviated as SD SP 1.1.

Appendix A.1 lists the relevant process areas along with their SGs and SPs.

2.4.3 Generic goals and generic practices

The term “generic” indicates that generic goals (GG) apply to all process areas. GGs belong to the CMF and are used to institutionalize a process across the organization. The CMMI-SVC glossary defines institutionalization as “the ingrained way of doing business that an organization follows routinely as part of its corporate culture.” According to R. Kneuper, a CMMI Lead Appraiser, one of the main strengths of CMMI, compared to other quality management models, is the strong emphasis on institutionalization. It makes CMMI-based improvement more difficult and more expensive, but this is an investment that pays off.²⁴

In the German book “Nachhaltige Entwicklung durch Qualität” (Sustainable development through quality)²⁵ the term “Institutionalisierung” (institutionalization) is used with the same meaning.

Table 2 lists all the GGs of CMMI:

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Table 2: Generic goals

In the same way as SGs consist of SPs, GGs consist of generic practices (GPs). Table 3 lists all the GPs of GG 2 which is about the institutionalization of managed processes:

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Table 3: Generic practices of generic goal 2

Each GP is accompanied by “elaborations” that are informative CMMI components providing guidance on how the GPs should be applied uniquely to the different process areas. For example, the IRP elaboration for “Plan the Process” (GP 2.2) deals with the application of GP 2.2 to the Incident Resolution and Prevention (IRP) process area.

2.4.4 Capability and maturity levels

Levels are used in CMMI to describe a recommended evolutionary path for organizations that want to improve their processes. CMMI can be viewed from two perspectives, both involving levels:

- Continuous representation

which enables organizations to select an individual process area or a group of process areas and to incrementally improve them. When selecting process areas, interdependen­cies between them should be taken into consideration. The levels are called “capability levels” (CL) and range from 0 to 5, 5 being the highest level. Each CL characterizes the degree of institutionalization of a single process area and is the foundation for the next level. The focus of the Continuous representation is on process capability.

- Staged representation

which enables organizations to incrementally improve pre-defined sets of related process areas. The levels are called “maturity levels” (ML) and range from 1 to 5, 5 being the highest level. Each ML characterizes the degree of service delivery maturity of an organi­zation and is the foundation for the next level. Each process area belongs to one ML. The focus of the Staged representation is on organizational maturity.

Each capability level (CL) has one generic goal (GG) associated with it, i.e. the application of a GG to a process area increases its CL. For example, by applying GG 1 to a process area, it will reach CL 1, by applying GG 1 and GG 2, it will reach CL 2. To support the continuous representation, process areas are organized into “process area categories”. As these categories emphasize some of the key relationships among the process areas, they should also be kept in mind when using the continuous representation.

The concept of levels in quality models is not unique to CMMI. For example, the SPICE framework²⁶ also uses capability levels (0 to 5), the author of the German book “Nachhaltige Entwicklung durch Qualität” (Sustainable development through quality)²⁷ creates his own levels from 0 “Chaos” (chaos) to 5 “Weltklasse Leistung” (world class performance) and the Green Deal sustainable tourism certification program²⁸ provides a system of “sustainable levels” on a scale of 1 to 5. It is noticeable that all of these programs use five or six levels for representing the maturity of an organization.

According to an SEI Technical Note for CMMI-DEV, “the staged representation is the most used representation, although the continuous representation is commonly perceived to be a more flexible option.”²⁹ The note goes on to explain that potential CMMI users do not select the continuous representation because they find it difficult to pick the right set and correct or­der of process areas for their particular situation, “Potential users may then choose the staged representation because they don’t know where to start in the continuous representation.” The note also presents several CMMI “roadmaps” for the continuous representation, i.e. goal-driven approaches to selecting and deploying relevant process areas from the CMMI-DEV model, each with a specific set of improvement goals. Criteria for selecting a representation, which best fits an organization’s improvement effort, can be also found in the “CMMI for Development” book³⁰.

Table 4 lists all CMMI-SVC process areas; they are grouped under the appropriate categories (the column headers in the first row) with the services-specific process areas shown in bold. The Support category process areas describe support functions for the other process areas, for example, managing changes (CM), measuring results (MA) and structured decision making (DAR). The table is further expanded to show to which MLs (first column) the process areas belong to.

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Table 4: CMMI-SVC process areas by ML and category

The table shows that all services-specific process areas are located in the “Project Management” and “Service Establishment and Delivery” categories on ML 2 and 3.

2.4.5 Key terms

The concepts and terms of process areas, CLs, and MLs are common to all CMMI models. However, there are some additional terms that are particularly significant and need to be defined and explained for the correct interpretation of CMMI-SVC. The definitions are taken from the CMMI-SVC glossary and are marked with “(CMMI)” to identify them as such in the “List of definitions” (page xiv). For a further discussion of these terms, see the chapter “Understanding Key Concepts in the Use of CMMI for Services” in the CMMI-SVC document³¹. The following key terms are defined and explained below:

- Customer/End User
- Project
- Service
- Service Agreement
- Service Incident
- Service Request
- Service System
- Supplier Agreement.

Definitions

Definition: Customer (CMMI)

“The party (individual, project, or organization) responsible for accepting the product

or for authorizing payment.”

Definition: End User (CMMI)

“A party (individual, project, or organization) that ultimately receives the benefit of a delivered service.”

All CMMI models differentiate between customer and end user because they may have differing needs. The example in Figure 7, and the subsequent text, illustrates the difference:

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Figure 7: Difference between customer and end user

Assume that a tour operator is the service provider of tourism services that involves accom­modation in a hotel. From the hotel’s perspective, the tour operator negotiates and buys ser­vices (accommodation, food) from the hotel and therefore is a customer. The tourist utilizes the hotel’s services without paying for them directly to the hotel and is therefore an end user with regard to the hotel. Generally, details of the agreement between the tour operator and the hotel are not known to the tourist. A tourist has a relationship with the tour operator via a ser­vice agreement (ref. definition, page 22) and pays the tour operator accordingly; thus the tour­ist is a customer of the tour operator. A tourist can also be a customer of the hotel if they pay for services directly to the hotel, e.g., for additional meals, a room upgrade or luggage transport.

This example illustrates two things: If a party is an end user or a customer depends on the context; with the possibility of end users also being customers. End users may be distin­guished from customers if the parties that directly receive the value of services (i.e. end users) are not the same as the parties that arrange for, pay for, or negotiate service agreements. In the context where customers and end users are essentially the same parties, the term “customer” may encompass both types.

Definition: Project (CMMI)

“In the CMMI Product Suite, a managed set of interrelated resources that delivers one or more products or services to a customer or end user.”

According to the CMMI-SVC document³², it may be helpful to use “goods” in the definition instead of “products” because products already cover services, but for historical reasons, the above definition is still used in the CMMI documents.

The term “project” is used across all CMMI models and the question is how to interpret it in the services context. In the classical definition of a project, a project has a definite beginning and a definite end and a project plan guides the project execution and control. Examples of classical projects, in the service environment, comprise the development of service systems or the handling of major incidents. Although service providers may not be accustomed to dealing with these issues as projects, it makes a lot of sense to apply the typical project management practices, such as planning, controlling and risk management to these kinds of tasks.

For CMMI-SVC, the limitation of a definite end for projects was deliberately eliminated to allow the term to be used across all CMMI models and for the ease of applying it to the full range of service types, for example, the delivery of electricity will never conceivably end and therefore the limitation of a definite end had to be dropped.

Discussions with CMMI specialists revealed slightly different opinions on what a project in the service context actually is. Suggestions made included that a project is a service system in action or describes the delivery of a service. At the “Ask the experts” round table at the SEPG Europe 2009 conference³³, there was the opportunity to further discuss this issue with the resulting opinion being that a project in the services context could be assumed to be the opera­tional service delivery. In general, it is questionable how beneficial it is to classify operational service deliveries as projects. In the CMMI-SVC context, the planning of all service activities is already covered by GP 2.2 “Plan the Process”. The outcome would not be classified as a plan of a project, but might be called a “room cleaning roster” for a “room service operation”. For bigger service requests, such as those for organizing a wedding party, it might make more sense to call it a project and treat it as such.

The CMMI-SVC document does not provide any examples of a project in the service environment, but – beside giving the definition above, it associates a project with a service agreement, “the CMMI-SVC model explicitly interprets the term ‘project’ to encompass all of the resources required to satisfy a service agreement with a customer. … Planning the effort to satisfy a service agreement may take the form of work structures, …, and other typical project planning work products and processes. If you think of a service agreement as outlining the scope of a project in this way, the use of ‘project’ in a service context becomes less of a problem.”³⁴

The broader definition of a project not having a definite end can make sense in the context of service delivery, but still this is unusual. It could be considered a weakness of CMMI-SVC and might be addressed in future revisions of the model after some “real life” experiences have been documented and reported.

Definition: Service (CMMI)

“A product that is intangible and non-storable.”

In CMMI models, products and services are not disjoint categories: a service is considered to be a special variety of product. Any reference to products can be assumed to refer to services as well. In CMMI models, processes are activities, while services are a useful result of per­forming those activities. Services may be delivered through combinations of manual and au­tomated processes. Services can be more episodically or more continually; this implies differ­ences in the way of dealing with them, for example, with regard to monitoring or training.

Definition: Service Agreement (CMMI)

“A binding, written record of a promised exchange of value between a service provider and a customer.”

A service agreement is the foundation of the joint understanding between a service provider and a customer of what to expect from their mutual relationship. The “promised exchange of value” implies that each party to the agreement commits to providing the other party or par­ties with something they need or want. A service agreement is about agreeing on requirements, but this is not handled as formally as in Requirements Management (REQM).

Services and non-services products may be delivered as part of a single agreement, for exam­ple, training courses that include training materials.

A Service Level Agreement (SLA) can be considered a part or a specialization of a service agreement and is the preferred term when describing distinct levels of acceptable services.

Although not a requirement of CMMI-SVC, SLAs can help service providers and customers to further clarify the coverage of the services.

Definition: Service Incident (CMMI)

“An indication of an actual or potential interference with a service.”

Like service requests (ref. definition, page 23), service incidents require some recognition and response by the service provider. However, unlike requests, incidents are unintended events, although some types of incidents may be anticipated. The use of the word “potential” in the definition of service incident is deliberate; it means that incidents do not always have to in­volve actual interference with or failure of service delivery. Indications that a service may have been insufficient or unsuccessful in the past or may be in the future are also incidents. Customer complaints are an example of this type of incident because they indicate that service delivery may have been inadequate. These complaints are likely to eventually lead to actual interference.

Definition: Service Request (CMMI)

“A communication from a customer or end user that one or more specific instances of service delivery are desired. These requests are made within the context of a service agreement.”

Customers/end users use service requests to notify the service provider of their needs for ser­vice delivery. All types of concerns or demands might be service requests. The service agreement (ref. definition, page 22) can be described as the framework for all service requests. In cases where services are to be delivered continuously or periodically, service re­quests may be explicitly identified in the service agreement itself.

Definition: Service System (CMMI)

“An integrated and interdependent combination of component resources that satisfies service requirements.”

A service can only become operational if it has a platform on which it can be performed; this platform is the service system. Services are delivered through the operation of a service system which encompasses everything required for service delivery, including work products, processes, tools, facilities, consumable items, and human resources.

Definition: Supplier Agreement (CMMI)

“A documented agreement between the acquirer and supplier (e.g., contract, license, memorandum of agreement).”

The example in Figure 8, and the subsequent text, illustrates the role of a supplier agreement in an acquirer – supplier relationship:

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Figure 8: Relationship between acquirer and supplier

As an example, assume that a tour operator negotiates with a hotel to be part of their service system; consequently the tour operator sets up a supplier agreement with the hotel specifying the conditions for the products and/or services to be supplied. From the perspective of the ho­tel, the tour operator is the customer who pays for the delivered products.

2.4.6 Process area relationships

To supplement the process area relationships defined by the process area categories, the CMMI-SVC document contains two process area relationship diagrams³⁵ that illustrate the relationships and data flows between the process areas; the data flows contain some of the “key terms” defined in the previous chapter.

In the following diagrams, Figure 9 and Figure 10, the red symbols represent the services-specific process areas while the blue symbols represent the customer/end user who plays both the role of a recipient and an initiator of services’ related data.

Figure 9 shows the process areas which are the most closely associated with the establishment and delivery of services. They are all from the Service Establishment and Delivery category with Service Delivery (SD) playing a central role in these relationships.

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Figure 9: Process area relationships for service establishment and delivery

Figure 10 shows the process areas which are most closely involved in service management. With the exception of SD, all process areas are in the Project Management category. SD could not be dropped, because it plays an important role in the communication with the customer/end user and is the recipient of all kinds of management information, such as plans and requirements for the service delivery.

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Figure 10: Process area relationships for service management

When reviewing these two diagrams in detail, it was apparent that they gave a very good overview of how process areas were related but it also showed that the terms used for the flows and artifacts were not always consistent with the terms used in the descriptions of the respective process areas in the CMMI-SVC document. Two examples of this:

- In Figure 9, the input to IRP from the customer/end user side is “Service Issues”; however, this term does not appear anywhere else in the CMMI-SVC document. The explanation for this could be that “Service Issues” also include “Service Incidents” (ref. definition, page 23) and that not every issue is an incident. A change request has been raised at the SEI for clarification (ref. #5, appendix A.4).
- “Stakeholder Requirements” and “Service System Requirements” are developed in SSD (ref. SSD SG 1, chapter 5.3.2). However, the only types of input and output requirements that are listed for SSD in Figure 9 are “Service Requirements”.

The SEI’s response was that these diagrams were not intended to illustrate the model in detail and therefore did not contain all relationships; they were for teaching purposes to help support the understanding of CMMI-SVC and they could also be considered as an example of the im­plementation of the model in a specific organization.

2.4.7 Service lifecycle

The following diagram, Figure 11, illustrates the service lifecycle approach

illustration not visible in this excerpt

which is inherent in CMMI-SVC. This lifecycle is not part of the CMMI-SVC document but has been created by the author, based on a similar lifecycle in an SEI presentation³⁶, because it provides a very good overview of the model. The numbers indicate the order in which the process areas will be presented in chapter 5.2.

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Figure 11: CMMI-SVC lifecycle

The diagram clearly shows that services, similar to software or tangible products, need to be designed based on requirements and then built and tested before they are transitioned into op­eration. Operations are responsible for the delivery of services and therefore have to take care of incidents, the availability of required resources and the continuity of service in case of major disruptions. Experiences gained from Operations are input to service improvement activities which create new requirements for the development and improvement of services. Thus the service lifecycle is a closed loop.

3 The tourism industry

3.1 Definition

Who or what is meant when referring to the tourism industry, which is well-known for the multiplicity of its component parts? A paper published by the European Parliament divides the tourism sector “into the tourism industry and the tourism economy” thus revealing the ex­tent to which the tourism industry is seamlessly integrated into other economic sectored activ­ities, such as transport, manufacturing and energy.³⁷ This is shown in the following diagram:

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Figure 12: Tourism industry as part of the tourism economy

At the same time, the diagram lists the players that contribute to the tourism supply chain which consists of all of the steps needed to turn “raw material” into a finished product or ser­vice ready for sale. The report “Tourism Supply Chain”, published by the Leeds Metropolitan University, describes the tourism supply chain in more detail: “The supply chain comprises the suppliers of all the goods and services that go into the delivery of tourism products to con­sumers. It includes all suppliers of goods and services whether or not they are directly con­tracted by tour operators or by their agents ... . Tourism supply chains involve many compo- nents – not just accommodation, transport and excursions, but also bars and restaurants, handicrafts, food production, waste disposal, and the infrastructure that supports tourism in destinations.”³⁸ It is interesting to note that the authors of this report use the term “goods and services”, which is also the preferred one in the CMMI terminology (ref. definition of “Project”, page 21).

Many other sources point out that tourism can be an important or substantial part of a coun-try’s economy. A publication by the Assembly of European Regions (AER) from February 2009 states: “Mainly dominated by SMEs, the tourism sector accounts for 4% of the EU’s GDP and approximately 8 million jobs. When the links to other sectors are taken into account, the contribution of tourism to GDP is estimated to be around 11%, providing employment to more than 12% of the European labour force, the equivalent of 24 million jobs.”³⁹ (SME: Small and medium-sized enterprise, GDP: Gross domestic product)

Applying these AER figures to the definition in Figure 12 would mean that the first set of fig­ures would probably apply to the tourism industry and the second set to the tourism economy. This example shows that the terms are not consistently used in literature and publications.

Throughout this thesis the terms “tourism sector” and “tourism economy” are used synonym­ously and include all players in the tourism supply chain as described in Figure 12.

3.2 Tour operators–the main players

The previous chapter, defining the tourism industry, indicates that tour operators play a cen­tral role. This is confirmed by the Leeds Metropolitan University report cited above: “tour operators have enormous influence over activities throughout the tourism supply chain, since they direct and influence the volume of tourism, the tourist destinations and facilities that are used.”⁴⁰

It is also stressed in a research paper by the Ovidus University of Constanta: of all the tourism players, the tour operators are described as differentiating themselves through their impor­tance, their size and their financial power to influence the evolution of the tourism market and, because of these factors, the tour operators have the key-role in the supply-delivery chain management.⁴¹

For the above reasons the tour operator was chosen to represent the tourism industry in this thesis. The remainder of this chapter gives a definition of tour operator, shows their key processes, Figure 13, and their main contracted products and suppliers, Table 6.

The United States of Tour Operators Association (USTOA)⁴² defines a tour operator as Definition: Tour Operator

“An entity whose primary purpose is to plan, arrange and market tours and/or vacation packages featuring domestic and/or worldwide destinations. The cost of such tour and vacation packages generally includes air and/or land transportation, ground arrangements, such as accommodations, meals, local guides and other related services. The tour and vacation packages are commissionable to retail travel agents, who, in turn, sell the product to the public.”

The typical key processes of a tour operator are shown in Figure 13, a translation of a diagram from the German book “Der integrierte Touristikkonzern” (The integrated tourism group)⁴³:

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Figure 13: Key processes of a tour operator

[...]

---

¹ See SEI Contracts Office (14/8/2009): Agreement between Barbara Neeb-Bruckner and Carnegie Mellon University; pp. 3-4

² Mutafelija, Boris; Stromberg, Harvey (2003): Systematic Process Improvement Using ISO 9001:2000 and CMMI; Artech House Publishers; p. 1

³ Reuters (7/2009): U.S. service sector activity strongest since Sept; http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSTRE5653DH20090706; 23 Jul 2009

⁴ CM Crossroads (3/2009): Service Organizations Jump on the CMMI Bandwagon!; http://www.cmcrossroads.com/content/view/12785/120/; 23 Jul 2009

⁵ SEI: Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute Launches CMMI for Services Model at SEPG North America 2009; http://www.sei.cmu.edu/about/press/releases/cmmisvc.html; 16 Jul 2009

⁶ See Forrester, Eileen (no date): Rationale for the CMMI for Services; White Paper; http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/tools/upload/CMMI-for-Services-white-paper-by-Forrester.pdf

⁷ SEI (2/2009): CMMI for Services, Version 1.2; http://www.sei.cmu.edu/reports/09tr001.pdf

⁸ Saunders, Mark N.K.; Lewis, Philip; Thornhill, Adrian (2006): Research methods for business students; Fourth Edition; Prentice Hall; pp. 19-20

⁹ SEI (11/2008): CMMI® or Agile: Why Not Embrace Both!; Technical Note; http://www.sei.cmu.edu/reports/08tn003.pdf; p. 12

¹⁰ GSTC: Preamble; http://www.sustainabletourismcriteria.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=58&Itemid=1 88; 18 Apr 2009

¹¹ See SEI (2/2009): CMMI for Services, Version 1.2; http://www.sei.cmu.edu/reports/09tr001.pdf; p. 6

¹² SEI (2007): Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) Version 1.2 Overview; http://www.sei.cmu.edu/library/assets/cmmi-overview071.pdf; p. 10

¹³ Carnegie Mellon University and wibas GmbH (2009): CMMI-SVC version 1.2 poster; Poster Version 2.0

¹⁴ See SEI (2/2009): CMMI for Services, Version 1.2; http://www.sei.cmu.edu/reports/09tr001.pdf; p. 51

¹⁵ See Kulpa, Margaret K.; Johnson, Kent A. (2008): Interpreting the CMMI: A Process Improvement Approach; Second Edition; CRC Press; p. 25

¹⁶ See description of SMART in Frost, Greg: The S.M.A.R.T. Way to Set Goals; http://www.chargedaudio.com/resources/Smart_Way_Set_Goals.html; 28 Jul 2009

¹⁷ See SEI (7/2007): Introduction to the Architecture of the CMMI Framework; Technical Note; http://www.sei.cmu.edu/reports/07tn009.pdf

¹⁸ See SET (7/2007): Introduction to the Architecture of the CMMI Framework; Technical Note; http://www.sei.cmu.edu/reports/07tn009.pdf; p. 1

¹⁹ See SET: SEI Partner Network; http://www.sei.cmu.edu/partners/; 16 Aug 2009

²⁰ See SET: Frequently Asked Questions – CMMI Appraisals; http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/start/faq/appraisals-faq.cfm; 31 Aug 2009

²¹ See SET (2/2009): CMMI for Services – SCAMPI Appraisals; http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/tools/svc/appraisals.cfm; 31 Aug 2009

²² SEI (2/2009): CMMI for Services, Version 1.2; http://www.sei.cmu.edu/reports/09tr001.pdf; p. 10

²³ Forrester, Eileen (10/2008): CMMI-SVC Overview Presentation; SEI; http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/tools/upload/cmmi_svc.pdf; slide 11

²⁴ See Kneuper, Ralf (6/2009): Capability Maturity Model Integration Is About Improvement; interviewed by L. Bentley, IT Business Edge; http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/community/features/interviews/blog/capability-maturity-model-integration-is-about-improvement/?cs=33470; 17 Jul 2009

²⁵ See Bauer, Andreas (2006): Nachhaltige Entwicklung durch Qualität; Springer Wien NewYork; p. 35

²⁶ See ISO.SPICE: SPICE Project; http://www.isospice.com/categories/SPICE-Project/; 16 Jul 2009

²⁷ See Bauer, Andreas (2006): Nachhaltige Entwicklung durch Qualität; Springer Wien NewYork; p. 31

²⁸ See Sustainable Tourism Network of the Americas (6/2007): Certification Programs; p. 125

²⁹ SEI (11/2008): CMMI Roadmaps; Technical Note; http://www.sei.cmu.edu/reports/08tn010.pdf; p.1

³⁰ See Chrissis, Mary Beth; Konrad, Mike; Shrum, Sandy (2007): CMMI: Guidelines for Process Integration and Product Improvement; Second Edition; Addison-Wesley; pp. 22-26

³¹ See SEI (2/2009): CMMI for Services, Version 1.2; http://www.sei.cmu.edu/reports/09tr001.pdf; pp. 38-44

³² See SEI (2/2009): CMMI for Services, Version 1.2; http://www.sei.cmu.edu/reports/09tr001.pdf; p. 39

³³ SEPG Europe 2009 (Prague, 8-12 Jun 2009): Ask the experts; roundtable

³⁴ SEI (2/2009): CMMI for Services, Version 1.2; http://www.sei.cmu.edu/reports/09tr001.pdf; p. 44

³⁵ See SEI (2/2009): CMMI for Services, Version 1.2; http://www.sei.cmu.edu/reports/09tr001.pdf; chapter 4

24 © Barbara Neeb-Bruckner

³⁶ See Phillips, Mike (5/2009): CMMI for Services; SEI; http://www.lamri.co.uk/resources/CMMI-SVC%20Mike%20Phillips.pdf; slide 48

³⁷ See European Parliament (2/2002): European union action in the tourism sector – Improving support measures for sustainable tourism; quoted from The tourism economy and industry towards a sustainable Nordic tourism, Proposal for a Common Nordic Sustainable Tourism Strategy, 2001, Nordic Council of Ministers; http://www.europarl.europa.eu/stoa/publications/studies/stoa103_en.pdf; p. 4

³⁸ Tapper, Richard; Font, Xavier (no date): Tourism Supply Chain: Report of a Desk Research Project for the Travel Foundation; Leeds Metropolitan University http://www.leedsmet.ac.uk; p. 1

³⁹ AER dossier (2009): Sustainable tourism; Thematic Dossier of the Assembly of European Regions; http://www.aer.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/PressComm/Publications/AER-ARE-VRE-Dossier/2009/ARE_dossier_GB_N20.pdf; p. 1

⁴⁰ Tapper, Richard; Font, Xavier (no date): Tourism Supply Chain: Report of a Desk Research Project for the Travel Foundation; Leeds Metropolitan University; http://www.leedsmet.ac.uk; p. 1

⁴¹ See Muhcina, Silvia; Popovici, Veronica (6/2008): Logistics and Supply Chain Management in Tourism; Ovidus University of Constanta;http://www.amfiteatrueconomic.ase.ro/arhiva/pdf/no24/articol_fulltext_pag122.pdf; p. 126

⁴² USTOA (no date): USTOA Fact Sheet; http://www.ustoa.com/pressroom/newsreleases/factsheet.pdf; p.1

⁴³ See Born, Karl; Bastian, Harald (2004): Der integrierte Touristikkonzern; Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag; p. 36