CMMI in Small Settings

CMMI Made Practical
Concerns with SCAMPI-induced

overhead in small settings
A Biased Sample
April 2010
SMCMM Integration and SCAMPI are service marks of Carnegie Mellon University.
®CMMI, Capability Maturity Model, Capability Maturity Modeling, and CMM are registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office by Carnegie
Mellon University. JuanJo Cukier
SEI-Certified SCAMPI Lead Appraiser
jcukier@pragmaconsultores.com
Index
• Objectives
• Notes
• CMMI Around the World
• The Sample
• Frequent hurdles with
• Specific Practices
• Generic Practices
• Conclusions
2
© JuanJo Cukier
Objectives
• Quantify experience in 37 SCAMPI classes A, B and C appraisals, on small

(and very small) settings
• Identify model components that concentrate the greatest number of

weaknesses
• Characterize trends in these weaknesses, and suggest their causes
• Put forward a concern on model/method interface issues for small settings
3
© JuanJo Cukier
Index
• Objectives
• Notes
• The Sample
• Conclusions
4
© JuanJo Cukier
Notes
• 37 SCAMPI appraisals
• 22 Organizations
• Argentina, Chile, Spain
• 2006 – 2009
• This does not intend to be a representative

sample of appraisals around the world
• It only summarizes personal experience
• It includes a bias, introduced by the Appraisal Team Leader

• Training and professional experience cause focus in some areas more then others
• This is mitigated in SCAMPI A thanks to consensus building rules
5
© JuanJo Cukier
Index
• Objectives
• Notes
• The Sample
• Conclusions
6
© JuanJo Cukier
CMMI Around the World
7
® Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University
© JuanJo Cukier
CMMI Around the World
155
8
® Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University
© JuanJo Cukier
Index
• Objectives
• Notes
• The Sample
• Conclusions
9
© JuanJo Cukier
The Sample
Country SCAMPI A Class B Class C Total

Argentina 12 1 11 24
Spain 6 0 0 6
Chile 4 3 0 7
Total 22 4 11 37
OU Size Total
All Organizational 1 to 20 9 (24%)
Units < 100 people 20 to 50 17 (46%)
50 to 100 11 (30%)
Total 37 10
© JuanJo Cukier
About my Concern…
• An useful classification of practices:
• Work-Product Oriented
-“Specify measures”
-“Establish records”
-“Create or release baselines”
-“Establish the project plan”
√
Direct Artifacts
-“Review plans that affect the project”

√
• Action Oriented
Direct Artifacts
-“Identify inconsistencies between
project work and requirements”
-“Reconcile work and resource levels”
-“Communicate results”
X
Direct Artifacts
12
© JuanJo Cukier
Index
• Objectives
• Notes
• The Sample
• Conclusions
13
© JuanJo Cukier
The Bottom 10
# Process Area Practice Description
1 CM SP 3.2 Perform Configuration Audits

2 MA SP 1.4 Specify Analysis Procedures
3 PMC SP 1.4 Monitor Data Management
4 PP SP 3.3 Obtain Plan Commitment
5 PPQA SP 1.1 Objectively Evaluate Processes
6 MA SP 2.2 Analyze Measurement Data
7 PP SP 3.1 Review Plans That Affect the Project
8 PP SP 3.2 Reconcile Work and Resource Levels
9 REQM SP 1.2 Obtain Commitment to Requirements
10 MA SP 2.4 Communicate Results
Overhead Induced?
++ + +/- - --
More Less 14
© JuanJo Cukier
Recurrent Problems - PP
Specific Practices
• SG 1 Establish Estimates
• SP 1.1 Estimate the Scope of the Project
• SP 1.2 Establish Estimates of Work Product and Task Attributes “The purpose of Project Planning is
• SP 1.3 Define Project Lifecycle
• SP 1.4 Determine Estimates of Effort and Cost to establish and maintain plans that
• SG 2 Develop a Project Plan define project activities.”.
• SP 2.1 Establish the Budget and Schedule
• SP 2.2 Identify Project Risks
• SP 2.3 Plan for Data Management
• SP 2.4 Plan for Project Resources
• SP 2.5 Plan for Needed Knowledge and Skills
• SP 2.6 Plan Stakeholder Involvement
• SP 2.7 Establish the Project Plan
• SG 3 Obtain Commitment to the Plan
#7 • SP 3.1 Review Plans That Affect the Project SP 1.2
#8 • SP 3.2 Reconcile Work and Resource Levels
S P 3 .3
13 %
5% S P 1.3
#4 • SP 3.3 Obtain Plan Commitment 11%
SP 1.4
S P 3 .2 6%
12 %
S P 2 .1
8%
S P 3 .1 SP 2.2
12 % 6%
SP 2.3
SP 2.7 SP 2.42%
5% SP 2.6 SP 2.5 6%
6% 8%
15
© JuanJo Cukier
Recurrent Problems - PP
Specific Practices
Practice Recurrent Problems Overhead Induced?

•Lack of evidence that the practice is actually being
++
performed.
SP 3.1
•Cross plans that are not taken into account (QA, Testing,
Holidays, etc).
•Lack of evidence that the practice is actually being
++
performed.
SP 3.2
•Lack of reconciliations after significant project changes
(replanning, turn over, scope changes, etc).
•Lack of either internal (Project’s Team) or external

SP 3.3 commitment (Client).
•Commitments that were secured but not formalized. +
16
© JuanJo Cukier
Recurrent Problems - PMC
Specific Practices
• SG 1 Monitor Project Against Plan
• SP 1.1 Monitor Project Planning Parameters
• SP 1.2 Monitor Commitments “The purpose of Project Monitoring
• SP 1.3 Monitor Project Risks and Control is to provide an
#3 • SP 1.4 Monitor Data Management
• SP 1.5 Monitor Stakeholder Involvement understanding of the project’s
• SP 1.6 Conduct Progress Reviews progress so that appropriate
• SP 1.7 Conduct Milestone Reviews
• SG 2 Manage Corrective Action to Closure
corrective actions can be taken
• SP 2.1 Analyze Issues when the project’s performance
• SP 2.2 Take Corrective Action
• SP 2.3 Manage Corrective Action
deviates significantly from the plan.
”.
S P 2 .3 SP 1.1
10 % 9%
S P 2 .2 S P 1.2
9% 10 %
SP 2.1 SP 1.3
5% 7%
S P 1.7
12 % S P 1.4
16 %
SP 1.6
12% S P 1.5
10 %
17
© JuanJo Cukier
Recurrent Problems - PMC
Specific Practices

•Inconsistencies with what was planned in PP/SP2.3.
SP 1.4 •It is commonly thought that, by doing CM, this practice is
automatically implemented.
+/-
18
© JuanJo Cukier
Recurrent Problems - MA
Specific Practices
• SG 1 Align Measurement and Analysis Activities
• SP 1.1 Establish Measurement Objectives “The purpose of Measurement and
• SP 1.2 Specify Measures Analysis is to develop and sustain a
• SP 1.3 Specify Data Collection and Storage Procedures
#2 • SP 1.4 Specify Analysis Procedures measurement capability that is used
• SG 2 Provide Measurement Results to support management information
• SP 2.1 Collect Measurement Data
#6 • SP 2.2 Analyze Measurement Data
needs”.
• SP 2.3 Store Data and Results
#10 • SP 2.4 Communicate Results
S P 2 .4 S P 1.1
15 % 13 %
SP 2.3 S P 1.2
6% 10 %
S P 1.3
S P 2 .2
10 %
17 %
SP 2.1 S P 1.4
8% 2 1%
19
© JuanJo Cukier
Recurrent Problems - MA
Specific Practices
SP 1.4 •Analysis parameters are not specified.

--
•Metrics do indicate problems, but there is no explanation
SP 2.2 of the source cause.
-
+/-
•Communication may not be recorded.
SP 2.4
•Passive, non-proactive communication.
20
© JuanJo Cukier
Recurrent Problems - REQM
Specific Practices
• SG 1 Manage Requirements
• SP 1.1 Obtain an Understanding of Requirements “The purpose of Requirements
#9 •
•
SP 1.2 Obtain Commitment to Requirements
SP 1.3 Manage Requirements Changes
Management is to manage the
• SP 1.4 Maintain Bidirectional Traceability of Requirements requirements of the project’s
• SP 1.5 Identify Inconsistencies Between Project Work and Requirements products and product components
and to identify inconsistencies
between those requirements and the
project’s plans and work products”.
SP 1.1
8%
S P 1.5
23%
S P 1.2
3 1%
S P 1.4
19 %
S P 1.3
19 %
21
© JuanJo Cukier
Recurrent Problems - REQM
Specific Practices
SP 1.2 •Lack of evidence from the Project Team’s commitment.

+/-
22
© JuanJo Cukier
Recurrent Problems - CM
Specific Practices
• SG 1 Establish Baselines
• SP 1.1 Identify Configuration Items “The purpose of Configuration
• SP 1.2 Establish a Configuration Management System Management is to establish and
• SP 1.3 Create or Release Baselines
• SG 2 Track and Control Changes maintain the integrity of work
• SP 2.1 Track Change Requests products using configuration
• SP 2.2 Control Configuration Items
• SG 3 Establish Integrity
identification, configuration control,
• SP 3.1 Establish Configuration Management Records configuration status accounting, and
#1 • SP 3.2 Perform Configuration Audits
configuration audits”.
SP 1.1
SP 1.2
4%
4%
S P 1.3
22%
S P 3 .2
53%
SP 2.1
4%
SP 2.2
SP 3.1 13%
0%
23
© JuanJo Cukier
Recurrent Problems - CM
Specific Practices
•Not all baselines are audited, nor sampling criteria

SP 3.2 exists.
--
24
© JuanJo Cukier
Recurrent Problems - PPQA
Specific Practices
• SG 1 Objectively Evaluate Processes and Work Products
#5 • SP 1.1 Objectively Evaluate Processes
• SP 1.2 Objectively Evaluate Work Products and Services
“The purpose of Process and
Product Quality Assurance is to
• SG 2 Provide Objective Insight
• SP 2.1 Communicate and Ensure Resolution of Noncompliance Issues provide staff and management with
• SP 2.2 Establish Records objective insight into processes and
associated work products”.
SP 2.2
12%
S P 1.1
36%
S P 2 .1
28%
S P 1.2
24%
25
© JuanJo Cukier
Recurrent Problems - PPQA
Specific Practices
•Not all processes are evaluated (GP2.9 is not fully

SP 1.1 supported).
--
26
© JuanJo Cukier
Index
• Objectives
• Notes
• The Sample
• Findings
• Problematic Process Areas
• Conclusions
27
© JuanJo Cukier
Recurrent Problems
Generic Practices
• GG 2 Institutionalize a Managed Process “Institutionalization: The ingrained

• GP 2.1 Establish an organizational policy way of doing business that an
• GP 2.2 Plan the process organization
• GP 2.3 Provide resources follows routinely as part of its
• GP 2.4 Assign responsibility corporate culture”.
• GP 2.5 Train People
• GP 2.6 Manage configurations
• GP 2.7 Identify and involve relevant stakeholders
• GP 2.8 Monitor and control de process
• GP 2.9 Objectively evaluate adherence
• GP 2.10 Review status with higher level management
G P 2 .1
G P 2 .10 8%
17 %
G P 2 .2
13 %
GP 2.3
G P 2 .9 1%
12 %
G P 2 .4
9%
GP 2.5
5%
G P 2 .8
G P 2 .6
18 %
6%
G P 2 .7 28
11%
© JuanJo Cukier
Recurrent Problems
Generic Practices

•Not all Project Team members have a policy
GP 2.1 knowledge adequate to their role.
-
•There is not always planning of the process in any
GP 2.2 form.
-
GP 2.4 •Responsibility for the process is not always explicit.
-
•Not all relevant process’ artifacts are under
GP 2.6 configuration management.
--
+
•Not all stakeholders are identified.
GP 2.7
•There is not always evidence of involvement.
•In general, processes are not monitored according

GP 2.8 to their planning (GP2.2).
+
•Relevant sub-processes and deliverables are not
GP 2.9 always evaluated.
--
•There is no evidence of the review beyond the
GP 2.10 crafting of a report on process status.
++ 29
© JuanJo Cukier
Temario
• Objectives
• Notes
• The Sample
• Findings
• Problematic Process Areas
• Conclusions
30
© JuanJo Cukier
Conclusions
“Let’s record
our review,
even if there
Effort put on the “internal sell”
Degree of “true” institutionalization

weren’t any
issues”
Inefficiencies?
PP/SP3.1
Method
•Need to simplify the appraisal method (ie:
“Let’s review“all practice should have a direct artifact”)
other plans
that may affect •Input standardization
our project”
Model
•Variability reduction
PP/SP2.7 •Preserve SCAMPI A as a benchmark method
“Let’s plan our
projects”
Organization
31
© JuanJo Cukier
Conclusions
• Some potential pointers…
• Add an essential characteristic to SCAMPI A?

Accuracy
Repeatability
Cost/Resource Effectiveness
Meaningfulness
ARC Compliance
• Non-intrusion: The appraisal method’s minimum objective evidence requirements
does not influence the organization’s process design
• Tailor the method further for small/micro settings?
• Review conflicting “conditional” practices?
• Align interpretation of meaningful direct artifacts for “conditional” practices?
• More than 50% of the current CMMI market might be interested .
32
© JuanJo Cukier
Visite our WEBSITE:
www.pragmaconsultores.com
-
Contact us:
• Spain: Santa Hortensia 15, Of. A3 | (28002) Madrid | Tel (+ 34) 91-515-0558 | practia@practia.es
• Argentina: San Martín 575 • 2º | (C1004AAK) Buenos Aires | Tel (+54-11) 4327-1999 | pragma@pragma.com.ar
Córdoba 524 1er Piso | (Q8300BLL) Neuquén | TE: (0299) 4424044
• Chile: Luis T. Ojeda 0191 • Piso 7 | Providencia, Santiago | Tel (+56-2) 334-3361 | practia@practia.cl
• Mexico: Prol. Corregidora No. 338 Oficina 3 y 4 | Fracc. Alamos 3ra. Sección | Querétaro, Qro. C.P. 76160 |
Tel. 442 245 2151/52
HQ Homero, Homero 203 • Piso 10 | Col. Chapultepec Morales | México DF, C.P. 11570 |
Tel. 55 3300 5361
© JuanJo Cukier

CMMI in Small Settings

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

CMMI in Small Settings

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

CMMI Made Practical

Concerns with SCAMPI-induced

• Quantify experience in 37 SCAMPI classes A, B and C appraisals, on small

• Identify model components that concentrate the greatest number of

• Characterize trends in these weaknesses, and suggest their causes

• Put forward a concern on model/method interface issues for small settings

• This does not intend to be a representative

• It includes a bias, introduced by the Appraisal Team Leader

Country SCAMPI A Class B Class C Total

• An useful classification of practices:

-“Review plans that affect the project”

1 CM SP 3.2 Perform Configuration Audits

Practice Recurrent Problems Overhead Induced?

•Lack of evidence that the practice is actually being

•Lack of either internal (Project’s Team) or external

Practice Recurrent Problems Overhead Induced?

Practice Recurrent Problems Overhead Induced?

SP 1.4 •Analysis parameters are not specified.

Practice Recurrent Problems Overhead Induced?

SP 1.2 •Lack of evidence from the Project Team’s commitment.

Practice Recurrent Problems Overhead Induced?

•Not all baselines are audited, nor sampling criteria

Practice Recurrent Problems Overhead Induced?

•Not all processes are evaluated (GP2.9 is not fully

• GG 2 Institutionalize a Managed Process “Institutionalization: The ingrained

Practice Recurrent Problems Overhead Induced?

•In general, processes are not monitored according

Degree of “true” institutionalization

• Some potential pointers…

• Add an essential characteristic to SCAMPI A?

• More than 50% of the current CMMI market might be interested .

Вам также может понравиться