CMM G4 Institutionalig Process Improvement

GTECH Corporation Copyright 20061Version 7 – Practical CMMI, April 2006

Institutionalizing Process Improvement: Is it a

Lottery?

Paul Morgan

Jurek Malecki

GTECH – Technology Process Group

April 24th, 2006

!


! Incorporated in 1980, headquartered in Rhode Island, USA with 5,300

employees worldwide in more than 50 countries and $1.25 billion in total

revenue in FY 2005.

! The leading provider to the world’s lottery industry with market share of more

than 70% and more than 438,000 point-of-sale devices linked to GTECH central

systems.

! Handles more transactions a year than all of the leading credit card companies

combined (50 billion transactions in FY04).

! In 2003 and 2005 software development organizations located in Austin,

Chennai, and Warsaw were formally assessed at CMM Level 3. Updated

CMMI/SW Level 4 processes were deployed in 2005.

! In 2006 it was announced that Lottomatica S.p.A. (Milan: LTO) and GTECH

have entered into an agreement pursuant to which Lottomatica will acquire

GTECH.

GTECH Corporate Profile


0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

ATC CTC WTC Global

2004

2005

Defect Density(Defects Found per 100 GFP)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

DRE

Std Dev

Defect Removal Efficiency

Over the course of its process improvement journey

GTECH has enjoyed:

" 60% Increase in requirements stability

" 55% Improvement in defect removal efficiency

(DRE)

" 40% Reduction in rework

" 80% increase in cost and schedule estimation

accuracy and predictability

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Inspection & Unit Test System Test CAT

Defe

ct D

ete

ction

2000

2005

Defect Detection Profile

Process Improvement Journey: Tangible Results


! The ingrained way of doing business that an organization follows routinely as

part of its corporate culture.

CMU/SEI-2002-TR-012 Capability Maturity Model® Integration (CMMIsm), Version

1.1 (Staged Representation). Appendix C Glossary, page 579

Institutionalization: CMMI Viewpoint

! In CMMI appraisals, institutionalization is judged by achievement of generic goals at the

appropriate capability level / maturity level.ARC Definition

Level 3 to 5

5.7%

Level 3 to 4

3.1%

Level 2 to 5

2.2%

Level 2 to 4

3.6%

Level 2 to 3

27.7%

Level 1 to 5

0.7%

Level 1 to 4

2.0%

Level 1 to 3

11.4%

Level 1 to 2

21.0%

Moved Down

2.9%Level 4 to 5

7.0%

Reappraisals – Change in Maturity LevelSEI Process Maturity Profile

September 2005


Is All What It Seems?: Process Stability and Capability

BatchLiveDate

Prod

uctiv

ity(G

FPs/

100 H

r s) _

1

1-Sep-20051-Jul-20051-May-20051-Mar-20051-Jan-20051-Nov-20041-Sep-2004

50

40

30

20

10

0

27

17

7

18-Jan-2005

Austin

Benelux

Chennai

Warsaw

Hub

Scatterplot of Productivity(GFPs/100 Hrs)_1 vs BatchLiveDate

Process has

become Stable

and Capable

Actual Project Size (GFPs)

Total Project Effort (100 Hrs)

Process is Not

Stable and Not

Capable

BatchLiveDate

ReqV

ol

1-Sep-051-Aug-051-Jul-051-Jun-051-May-051-Apr-051-Mar-05

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

0.3

0.45

Austin

Chennai

Warsaw

Hub

Scatterplot of ReqVol vs BatchLiveDate

Total Number of Requirements Changed, Added, Deleted

Original Number of Requirements


! Conscious Competence Learning Model

‘There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say,there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don'tknow we don't know.’

- Donald Rumsfeld

! Mental Models

‘The Map is not the territory’

- Alford Korzybski

! Theory of Actions

! Single and Double Loop Learning

! Systems Thinking

‘Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world ’

- Arthur Schopenhauer

! Systems Mapping

! Leverage Points

Institutionalization: Alternative Viewpoints


‘There are known knowns. These

are things we know that we

know….’

Skills acquired to overcome

the weakness but needs full

focus or supervision to

undertake activity.

‘……..……’

Skill becomes second nature

and can be successfully

accomplished without

conscious awareness.

‘…there are also unknown

unknowns. There are things we

don't know we don't know.’

No awareness that a

weakness exists or of the

need to develop new skills.

‘There are known unknowns. That

is to say, there are things that we

know we don't know….’

Awareness that an

improvement opportunity

exists and that new skills

need to be acquired.

Unconscious

Conscious

Competence Incompetence

Blissfully unaware that

anything is wrong or that

tying her shoelaces has any

benefits

After falling over a few times

recognises that shoelaces

should be tied but does not

know how to do it.

Can manage to tie them

perfectly, but needs to

concentrate each time on the

process.

Is able to tie her laces

without consciously paying

any attention to the process.

Conscious Competence Learning Matrix


Unconscious

Conscious

Competence Incompetence

Applicability to Process Improvement

Training

Redesign

Processes

Organizational

Appraisal

Mentoring Quality

Assurance

Unawareness

Discovery

Institutionalization

Repetition


Mental Models: The Theory of Actions

Espoused Theory

! The world view and values people

and organizations believe their

behaviour is based upon.

! Derived from politically correct

values an individual or organisation

wants others to accept as its guiding

principles, governance, or social

responsibility.

Theory-in-Use

! The world view and values implied

by the behaviour of a person or

organization.

! Determined by the unconscious

‘maps’ or ‘ mental models’ that filter

feedback and reinforce actions that

conform with the model and sabotage

those in conflict with it.

Maps TerritoryActions


Size allows us to better

estimate and control ourprojects.

The SEPG knowwhat they’re doing

and always make

the correct

decisions.

Size estimation is a

requirement of CMMI so I

do it as part of my job.

This sizing method is just

overhead and adds novalue. I only do it for a

quiet life and to keep

standards compliance off

my back.

Espoused Theory

Theory in Use(2)

(3)

Institutionalization: Theory of Actions and Learning

This size estimation is a waste

of time and adds no value toour existing way of working.

Next they’ll be

measuring

productivity and I’llrun the risk of

loosing my

reputation within the

company.

(1)

Mental Map Action Strategy Consequences

Single Loop

Double Loop


System Mapping: Process Improvement

Performance

Driver

Actual

Performance

Gap

Corrective

Action

Desired

State

Goal Seeking

Loop

Employee Motivation

Process

Capability

CMMI

Compliance

Training

Successful

Process Initiative

s

s

s

o

Compliance

Checks

Project Bonus

Shared Vision

s

s

o

“S” means an influence in

the “Same” direction

“O” means an influence in

the “Opposite” direction

Process


NoBonus

NoTargets

o


Size Estimation: So What Went Right?

BatchLiveDate

Prod

ucti

vity

(GFP

s/10

0 H

rs)_

1

1-Sep-20051-Jul-20051-May-20051-Mar-20051-Jan-20051-Nov-20041-Sep-2004

50

40

30

20

10

0

27

17

7

18-Jan-2005

Austin

Benelux

Chennai

Warsaw

Hub

Scatterplot of Productivity(GFPs/100 Hrs)_1 vs BatchLiveDate

Process has

become Stable

and Capable


June 2002: Introduction of Size Estimation Methodology

Project

Requirements

System

Architecture

Complexity

rating

! June 2002 GTECH

Function Points

(GFP) introduced.

! Excel based tool.

! Estimation

responsibility of

project manager

but typically

delegated to design

personnel.


Estimated DRE: 95%Estimated DRE: 95%

Planning Requirements

Analysis

Design Code & Unit

Test

Integration

Test

System Test Customer

Test

Num

ber

of D

efe

cts

Dete

cte

d

Plan

Actual

Low

High

November 2004: Standard Project Process (SPP) Version 2.2

! Version 2.2 of SPP released in

November 2004 and contained for

the first time size based estimation

utilities.

Defect

Profile

Effort

Estimation


Employee Motivation

Process

Capability

CMMI

Compliance

Training

Successful

Process Initiative

s

s

s

o

Compliance

Checks

Project Bonus

Project Peer

Pressure

s

s

o

“S” means an influence in

the “Same” direction

“O” means an influence in

the “Opposite” direction

NoBonus

NoTargets

o

Process


System Mapping: Sizing Process

Quantitative

Project Management

sS


! The concept of software size estimation is not intuitive for most technical personnel.

! Individuals, teams, and organizations operate within the unconscious incompetence zone of the learningmatrix.

! Training is ineffective in this situation. What is required is recognition of the relevance of the skill areabeing taught, and an awareness that a skill deficiency exists.

! Even where such conditions existed unsupportive mental models were impeding the institutionalization of thesizing methodology.

! Size estimation was perceived as bureaucratic and not seen as necessary by ‘experienced’ technicalpersonnel.

! The new method challenged the standing of senior technical personnel who traditionally providedestimates based upon ‘expert judgment’.

! Sizing was perceived as a management tool to enable productivity comparisons and to enforceaccountability.

! At best sizing was perceived to produce data for ‘post mortem’ investigations by which time practitionerswere already working on their next project.

! Introduction of the size based utilities produced dramatic results because:

! Benefits of size estimation became visible to all and surfaced unconscious incompetence.

! Size estimation was reframed from bureaucratic overhead to a professionally justified element of thetechnical engineering function.

! The new method was now seen to be complementary to ‘expert judgement’ estimation and not a threat.

! New utilities made ‘real time’ benefits visible at the individual, team, and organizational level.

! Productivity was measured and reported was seen to be non-attributable to individuals or teams.

Size Estimation – So What Went Right?


! When implementing process change select methods appropriate to the position of the

people, teams, and organization on the learning matrix.

! People and organizations have mental models which drive behavior. These models are

usually unconscious and self-protect against change.

! To institutionalize effective and sustainable change the mental models need to be updated

to drive the required behavior.

! Change agents should practice a systemic approach to problem solving wherein a

organization is analyzed as a whole rather than focusing in on individual component parts.

! Consideration should be given that cause and effect tend not to be closely related in time

and space and are often counter-intuitive.

! Small changes can produce big results via the identification of leverage points.

! Even expert change agents have areas of unconscious incompetence and are constrained by

the blind-spots in their mental models.

Take Home Thoughts


Thank You

Any Questions

Contact Information: [email protected]

[email protected]

GTECH website: http://www.gtech.com


Software Process Improvement and Dynamics Modelling

• Tarek Abdel-Hamid/Stuart E. Madnick: SOFTWARE PROCESS DYNAMICS, AN INTEGRATEDAPPRAOCH, Prentice Hall Software Series

• John D. Sterman: BUSINESS DYNAMICS, Systems Thinking and Modelling for a Complex World, IrwinMcGraw-Hill

• Gerald M. Weinberg: QUALITY SOFTWARE MANAGEMENT Volume 1: SYSTEMS THINKING;Dorset House Publishing

• Gerald M. Weinberg: QUALITY SOFTWARE MANAGEMENT Volume 3: CONGRUENT ACTION;Dorset House Publishing

• Gerald M. Weinberg: QUALITY SOFTWARE MANAGEMENT Volume 4: ANTICIPATING CHANGE;Dorset House Publishing

Systems Thinking

• Peter M. Senge: THE FIFTH DISCIPLINE, The Art & Practice of the Learning Organisation, RandomHouse

• Peter Senge (an others): THE DANCE OF CHANGE, The Challenges of Sustaining Momentum inLearning Organisations; Nicholas Brealey Publishing

• Peter Senge (and others): THE FIFTH DISCIPLINE FIELDBOOK, Nicholas Brealey Publishing

• Peter Senge (and others): PRESENCE, Exploring Profound Change in People, Organisations and Society;Nicholas Brealey Publishing

Sources and Further Reading (Part One)


Mental Maps and Organizational Change

• Chris Argyris: ON ORGANISATIONAL LEARNING, Second Edition, Blackwell Publishing

• Chris Argyris: KNOWLEDGE FOR ACTION: A Guide to Overcoming Barriers to Organisational Change;Jossey-Bass Publushers

• Chris Argyris: REASONS AND RATIONALISATION, The Limits to Organisational Knowledge; OxfordUniversity Press

Organizational Structures and Aspects of Culture

• Gerry Johnson, Kevan Scholes, Richard Whittington: EXPLORING CORPORATE STRATEGY, Text andCases; Prentice Hall, Financial Times, Seventh Edition

• David Bucanan, Andrzej Huczynski: ORGANISATIONAL BEHAVIOUR, Third Edition, Prentice Hall

Sources and Further Reading (Part Two)

Date post:	23-Apr-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	radius-cerebral
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

CMM G4 Institutionalig Process Improvement

Documents