Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
07 caelum-cmmi-multimodel-scamp iv2
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

07 caelum-cmmi-multimodel-scamp iv2

86

Published on

Published in: Business, Real Estate
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
86
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Lessons learned about multiple model appraisals (CMMI for Services and CMMI for Development) How to get costs reduction Ramiro Carballo Certified SCAMPI Lead Appraiser Caelum, Information & Quality Technology Madrid, 13-11-2013
  • 2. Lessons learned about multiple model appraisals How to get costs reduction © 2013 CAELUM – All Rights reserved. Abstract Most of the companies that had an appraisal experience using CMMI-DEV as reference model in the past, considered out of the scope an important part of the company, related with service delivery. During a multiple model (or multi-model) appraisal, consultancy services, software maintenance or IT management areas can be included in the same organizational scope as software development areas, reducing the effort and cost of multiple appraisals. raisal: esses by a SCAMPI app or more proc on of one ppraisal An examinati ls using an a rofessiona ining, at a ed team of p train sis for determ el as the ba , using the ference mod re weaknesses ngths and inimum, stre m D. SCAMPI MD 2
  • 3. Lessons learned about multiple model appraisals How to get costs reduction © 2013 CAELUM – All Rights reserved. Agenda – – – – – – – – CMMI DEV vs. CMMI SVC How to define the organizational scope How to select appropriate objective evidence Practices interpretation from services point of view Appraisal participants Appraisal team members The evidence database Quantifying savings 3
  • 4. CMMI DEV vs. CMMI SVC © 2013 CAELUM – All Rights reserved. The constellations CMMI for Development and CMMI for Services have a common set of 17 process areas. The 5 engineering process areas are exclusive from development activities, so they are only included in CMMI-DEV. In the same way, typical services process areas are focused on continuity (SCON), capacity and availability (CAM), incidents (IRP), transition (SST), strategy (STSM), delivery (SD) and development (SSD). d use are hat and t st nts ials, tere in ne r mpo mate area of n: g I co atio f CMM trainin for an ices). ll te , v s ons ction o odels ument nt, ser C lle tm oc me A co onstruc lated d velop e to c isal re ition, d ra s app , acqui . (e.g 4
  • 5. Identifying services © 2013 CAELUM – All Rights reserved. It is easy to identify which company activities could be improved applying the benefits of these process areas, because most of the companies implement some kind of services model as part of their business model. 5
  • 6. Organizational Scope © 2013 CAELUM – All Rights reserved. It is important to identify which services should be included in the organizational scope of a multiple model appraisal, because they should be representative of the organizational improvement. The information about selected services is detailed in the public record of the CMMI Institute, and, usually, marketing departments are very interested in increasing the visibility of the principal services the company offers to its customers. it: l Un na atio e e iz gan of th here th e r O b e w piec ation lts can A iz u rgan isal res o . ra app ralized e gen e: cop lS ona cts or ati aniz of proje vides Org set pro f e that ence o tion. Th ices nta v id serv ctive e pleme obje tices im prac 6
  • 7. Effort related with the number of selected services © 2013 CAELUM – All Rights reserved. One consideration about this services selection is that each kind of service is usually considered a subgroup. So, one or more basic units of each kind of service will be sampled, and the appraisal effort will increase as the number of samples does. Consultancy services, software maintenance or testing services are usually included inside the organizational scope, together with the software development projects, reducing the effort of multiple SCAMPI appraisals. so ject pro up: gro imilar Sub t of s A se ices serv r 7
  • 8. Appropriate Objective evidence © 2013 CAELUM – All Rights reserved. Objective evidence must be provided for each sampled basic unit, considering that they have been collected to provide evidence on the instantiation of a service practice or a development practice. Each objective evidence must be analyzed according to the meaning of the model practice we are evaluating. 8
  • 9. How to discover the services point of view © 2013 CAELUM – All Rights reserved. It is a failure when, after passing a CMMI DEV appraisal, someone comments: now, we are going to implement CMMI SVC maturity level 2, because, it is only one more process area (SD, service delivery), and we have all others fully implemented, recently. The right interpretation is that SD is the unique new process area that is only applicable to services basic units. But the rest of maturity level 2 process areas must be objectively evidenced for services basic units and also for development basic units. Twice ! 9
  • 10. Discovering basic units that are service and project at the same time © 2013 CAELUM – All Rights reserved. Some synergies of service management and project management could help the organization to identify a set of projects that are directly related with a set of services, trying to reduce the number of artifacts in the appraisal. But the use of these artifacts must be evaluated twice: from the services perspective and from the development one. ce nit: Servi U a asic ect or B roj AP 10
  • 11. Multi-purpose appraisal participants © 2013 CAELUM – All Rights reserved. Using the same point of view, the selection of the appraisal participants should consider the role of each person in each basic unit, from the service and the development perspective. For example, a project management activity can solve a capacity requirement, a project monitoring activity can solve an incident management issue, and a risk management activity can be considered part of a service continuity plan. 11
  • 12. © 2013 CAELUM – All Rights reserved. Practices Interpretation issues Depending on the experience of the process team, the appraisal team could discuss some practices interpretation issues during the appraisal: how to estimate software versus how to estimate services, differences between software configuration management and service configuration management, and the relationship with a CMDB (Configuration Management DataBase), and others... 12
  • 13. Experience of appraisal team members © 2013 CAELUM – All Rights reserved. Because of that, it is required that the appraisal team members have enough training and experience in development and in services, so they can evaluate the correct implementation of both kind of practices in the appropriate environment. ence: Experi bers m Mem l Tea as t praisa ge of at le Ap • An avera f ld ts: Constrain up) (as a gro The team of at 25 e a total gate of m us t hav f • An aggre n years o eld least te years of fi to ent relating ch o of fie managem experience f each of mbers, ea six years nd at least luding of to l team me erience, a exp m us t dividua o years ence exc e conten In th ls t tw experi member of the of nce mode ve at leas one team whom ha experience ader, the refere ix years g the type the ast s performin the al team le have at le excluding experience ed in each apprais sa appraisal s ontent of of the erience a res the c of exp This experience work add relating to xcluding ader. included. ce –e model team le e referen has field manager appraisal reference m em be r each of th s t the al team sures tha each team d model. odels. This ensure e apprais th clude This en means m ole has a leader. ith each in ers with w wh memb team as a experience e that team experienc ely limited bstantial su relativ their are to support experience thers who base by o dgments balanced vel of ju greater le have a . experience . 13
  • 14. Sharing the PIID with both models The CMMI Institute provides a structured spreadsheet that is the usual way to implement the evidence database, named PIID. (Practice Implementation Indicator Description) PIID: http://cmmiinstitute.com/assets/SVC_PIIDs_20110608.xlsx Each page contains the set of evidence of an individual process area. The appraisal team can use the same page for both process areas with the same name in both models. Source of OE Document (s) Comments Artifact Key Practice / Notes Affirmation Status Estadisticas ORG © 2013 CAELUM – All Rights reserved. Configuration Management Information Needed Rating (FI, LI, PI, NI, NY) SG1 Baselines of identified work products are established. Identify configuration items, components, and related work products to be placed under FI SP1.1 configuration management. 1 2 Appraisal Considerations: - Be sure to consider configuration items representative of all disciplines and processes within the assessment scope and context. In a sense, this SP specifies the constraints under which the remaining SPs should be considered and assessed - See model for definition and description of configuration item and its work product components - See model for typical examples of work products that may be part of a configuration item (e.g. process Artifact Examples: - Identified configuration items - Configuration management lifecycle for controlled items (e.g., owner, point at which placed under control, degree of control, change approval.) - Configuration management plan Elementos bajo gestión de la configuración del proyecto: Plan de Proyecto, apartado datos y configuración. Items con sus respectivas lineas bases SCRUM Plan de Proyecto SCRUM x x x X 14
  • 15. Work vs. Project © 2013 CAELUM – All Rights reserved. The same criterion can be used for WMC (Work Monitoring and Control) versus PMC (Project Monitoring and Control) and WP (Work Planning) versus PP (Project Planning), but special consideration must be taken for this last case, because WP has one more specific practice that PP. ates h Estim Strategy stablis v ic e G1 : E S Work he Ser WP blish t Scope of the Esta Work SP 1.1 stimate the ates of E SP 1.2 stablish Estim tes E ib u SP 1.3 nd Task Attr Phases ta le Produc efine Lifecyc nd Cost D ta SP 1.4 stimate Effor E SP 1.5 tegy he stra following egy :T e Strat eration of the Servic consid el of ate lev d es propri includ t an ap bjectives an ble a factors eo ssi tion: Th e service. Po abstrac ts for th se ting tho he strain co n to mee aints. T aches t, str appro nd con , environmen es a v objecti s (e.g., skills will be e s) that these c logie resour techno ciated with ew tools, n Risks asso essed e addr r . needed d how they a an factors 15
  • 16. Summarizing Process Areas (ML3 example) So, the evidence database will manage 25 process areas, where 13 are specific for services or development, and 12 are common for both models, but they have to be evaluated from both points of view. © 2013 CAELUM – All Rights reserved. SSD (addition) CMM for Services CMMI for Development SAM (optional) 16
  • 17. Quantifying costs reduction Some numbers about experiences: Saved effort if your organization goes to a multiple model SCAMPI instead of two separated single model appraisals. © 2013 CAELUM – All Rights reserved. SAVED EFFORT AT MULTIPLE MODEL CMMI SCAMPI CLASS A Saving 42,86% 34,62% 35,00% Multiple Model DEV SVC ML2 DEV SVC ML3 DEV ML3 SVC ML2 Single Model 1 DEV ML2 DEV ML3 DEV ML3 Additional effort if your organization decides to include CMMI SVC in the next CMMI DEV SCAMPI Single Model 2 SVC ML2 SVC ML3 SVC ML2 INCREASED EFFORT FROM SINGLE TO MULTIPLE MODEL SCAMPI Incr. 14,29% 30,77% 7,69% Multiple Model DEV SVC ML2 DEV SVC ML3 DEV ML3 SVC ML2 Single Model 1 DEV ML2 DEV ML3 DEV ML3 17
  • 18. © 2013 CAELUM – All Rights reserved. Ramiro Carballo Gutiérrez Certified SCAMPI v.1.3 Lead Appraiser ( ID# 1201018-03 ) CMMI for Development CMMI for Services ramiro_carballo@caelum.es Móv.: 639078817 www.linkedin.com/in/ramirocarballo Caelum Information & Quality Technologies, S. L. Párroco Eusebio Cuenca 50. 28045 Madrid www.caelum.es www.CalidaddelSoftware.com Tlf.: 918312029 18

×