Date post: | 05-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | henry-moore |
View: | 212 times |
Download: | 0 times |
COPYRIGHT 2010 GENERAL DYNAMICS ADVANCED INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Published and used by TwinSPIN with permission
CMMI Level 5 Journey(A.K.A. Things I Wish Others Shared With Me)
Linda SchultzFebruary 2010
2
Agenda
Why is High Maturity CMMI Important to General Dynamics?
Our CMMI Journey Why the Backslide? Lessons Learned
Quality and Process-Performance Objectives (QPPOs)
Process Performance Models (PPMs) Process Performance Baselines (PPBs) Causal Analysis and Resolution Activities (CARs) Organizational Innovations and Deployments (OIDs)
3
Importance of CMMI to General Dynamics
Organization has a strong affinity for processCMM for software since 1980s IEEE, MIL- and DoD- standards
CMMI Level 3 is a stated management expectation
We have contract requirements for certain CMMI levels
Strong belief that higher levels of CMMI maturity will make our developed products better, cheaper, and ready faster
4
CMMI Staged Representation
5
CMMI Journey
6
CMMI Journey
We are here!
7
Why the Backslide?
8
CMMI Journey
We were appraised at CMMI Level 5 in 2005
We just wanted to “renew” our credentials
before they expired in 2008 Started down the appraisal path in 2007 What we did in the past didn’t work anymore
Big changes for the Level 4 and 5 Process Areas: OPP, QPM, OID and CAR
Artifacts that were acceptable in 2005 were no longer acceptable in 2007
Needed to listen and learn . . . fast!
9
Changed Expectations QPPO Lessons Learned
A Quality and Process-Performance Objective (QPPO) is not just any well-stated goal or objective QPPOs relate back to business objectives QPPOs must be quantified and time-based
Reduce the escape of software defects by 15% prior to Integration Testing by December 31, 2010
QPPOs are impacted by 1 or more well-documented sub-processes Sub-processes must be composed of clearly defined steps Sub-processes must be under statistical process control
10
Changed ExpectationsQPPO Lessons Learned (continued)
Organizational QPPOs flow down to the programs Programs need to do some data analysis to assure that
org QPPOs are achievable If programs modify org QPPOs, they must provide
rationale based on data analysis Programs document their QPPOs in their Program QMP For each program QPPO, there should be a strategy as to
how it will be measured during the execution of the project and documented in the QMP
During program execution, if a program can’t meet a QPPO, they implement process changes to try to achieve it If it’s not possible to achieve the QPPO, programs negotiate a
change to their QMP and obtain management approval using the CAR process
11
Changed ExpectationsPPM Lessons Learned A Process Performance Model (PPM) is not a
model [at least as we knew it] It’s not an application model – like CoCoMo
It is . . . An equation that relates controllable and
uncontrollable factors of a sub-process Generated using modeling techniques (e.g.,
regression analysis) with tools such as Minitab Used throughout a program’s lifecycle to evaluate
current status and predict progress towards meeting QPPOs
12
Changed ExpectationsPPB Lessons Learned Be careful about selecting the data for Process
Performance Baselines (PPBs) PPBs need to be based on:
“Clean” data vs. “Dirty” data Data representative of current process Sufficient # of data points on which to draw
conclusions Dis-aggregated data
Don’t combine all Systems Data in a single PPB; Break separately into Requirements, Integration & Test, etc.
13
Changed ExpectationsPPB Lessons Learned (continued) Generated using a tool like Minitab Initially, a program may use organizational
PPBs until they have enough data points to calculate their own PPBs Organizational PPBs represent a rollup of many
programs’ data; programs should realize the risk of using Org PPBs
A program may use PPBs from a similar program that may be “closer” to their own (instead of using the org PPBs) until they have enough data points to calculate their own PPBs
14
Changed ExpectationsCAR Lessons Learned A Causal Analysis and Resolution (CAR) activity isn’t
just root cause analysis done on any problem It is . . .
A program process area Based on Common Cause (proactive) vs. Special
Cause Variation (reactive) Must be related to a quantitative measure on the
program -- even better if related to a QPPO Requires a measure of effectiveness
Effectiveness must be shown in terms of a process performance change in the program’s data
Not an ROI calculation
15
Changed ExpectationsOID Lessons Learned An Organizational Innovation and Deployment (OID) isn’t just any
process improvement even if it’s well-planned, been piloted and been monitored
It is . . . An organizational process area - the org version of CAR Change affects a stable process Process change requires a phased implementation (Pilot,
Deployment, etc.) Based on Common Cause Requires a measure of effectiveness in terms of a process
performance change in the program’s data - not an ROI calculation
Apply process changes across the organization – not on 1 program or function
16
Benefits From Our CMMI Journey
Lots of new training, tools, and templates being used Managing more with objective data rather than subjective
gut feel Data being collected is of higher quality; allows better
decisions to be made More rigorous statistical analysis done for the organization
and the programs as a matter of course More dramatic process improvements on the programs –
can see the difference in their charts Organizational process improvements have broader
applicability Tighter coupling between business objectives, process
improvement goals and program QPPOs
17
Questions?
Comments?
Contact Information:Linda Schultz
General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems Senior Process and Quality Manager, and
CMMI Program Manager 952-921-6338
18