CMMI or Agile: Why Not Embrace Both! (CMU/SEI-2008-TN-003)第7頁, 3.1 Misuse 中提到：

不論是分析CMM或CMMI，有件事是兩作品(works，指CMM與CMMI)所共有，且使之具有獨特性—它們是模型，而非標準，用來改善產品品質與過程效能。

然而，在將近二十年間，軟體業界歷經人們誤將評鑑評等當作(取得契約的)進入準則(entry criteria)、混淆評鑑評等為業務績效測量(measures of business performance)、以及誤將模型當作標準，適用在產生符合契約需求之產品的環境中等的後果。
以這種方式來使用，CMM與CMMI最佳常規被錯誤解讀及誤用。絲毫不誇張地說，任何的作法，在這種環境下，要改善組織業務目標的達成，在克服對RFP需求與對多年契約的熱切競逐的強調方面，是有困難的。

Whether analyzing the CMM or CMMI, there is one thing shared by both works that makes them unique—they are models, not standards, for improving product quality and process performance.
However, for nearly two decades, the software industry has experienced the result of people misusing appraisal ratings as entry criteria, confusing appraisal ratings for measures of business performance, and misapplying a model as a standard in an environment in which products are created to meet contractual requirements.
Used in this way, CMM and CMMI best practices were misinterpreted and misused. It is not an exaggeration to say that any approach to improve an organization’s achievement of business objectives in such an environment would have difficulty overcoming an emphasis on RFP requirements and keen competition for multi-year contracts.

----------------
引文: