TEAM Zarate Tarrani Notes From the Field

Culture and Process. One of the most interesting articles I've read in a long time is Cultural Obstacles to Measurement and Process Maturity. This article validates the assertions Mike has made here in previous entries, but I am not entirely sure I concur with all of the author's conclusions. In a nutshell, the article posits that,

[I]t's easier to implement CMM in a "prescriptive" culture. Professionals from cultures with a history of British dominance tend to embrace prescriptive models with far less resistance than their American counterparts.

I personally believe the thesis that there is a difference between prescriptive and the ad hoc nature of the U.S. culture. I'm not quick to buy into the history of British dominance part. Is it a coincidence that CMM level 1 is defined as ad hoc and the cultural nature in the United States can be described as such? I think not.

That said, I do agree with the intent of the article, to show that there are cultural gaps and the implied message that we need to become more procedure-oriented. What I see as the root of the problem is that we in the U.S. are more focused on management, when it takes leadership to establish and maintain a culture of process maturity. I believe a closer examination of the problem will reveal insights that this article to another level. Regardless of my disagreement with portions of the article, however, I hope it gets read by a wide audience (which is why I chose it as my topic), and the cultural barriers to implementing process maturity in the U.S. as the rule rather than the exception fall.