• Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
78
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
3
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. IntelConfidential Page 1SW development process and the “leadingindicator”F2F with Stefan & Pat – ww32’07Eyal Rozenblat
  • 2. IntelConfidential Page 2Abstract• In the past ~18 month, there is a “process improvement” activity being held in IDCand especially in CCT-E• It is driven by a w.g., led by Eyal, which reports to ext. staff and get’s it’s approval forthe next step implementation, including new processes that are applied in thedepartment. Moshe Kleyner is the “godfather” for this.• This work went through the stages of status & needs collection (Q1’06), basisconcept approval (Q4’06), pilot implementation approval (Q1’07), presentation toCCT staff (ww18’07 F2F) and eventually Q2’07 pilot, which led to the Q3’07 pilotbefore wide implementation in the department• This improvement, of defining a “SW development process” for DTS departments,and the facilitation that supports it, is in full correlation with the task of defining a“leading indicator” for the process quality, asked by Siva• This presentation is to share the concepts of the process, it’s currentimplementation, and proposed improved implementation (merging into the MPORsystem) to CCT-W process owner (Stefan?) and MPOR system owner (Pat), to getagreement on implementation of it also in CCT-W, and also of building the “leadingindicator” for DTS staff• Note: ASVS DM decided to adopt this as well, but reorg and technical difficultiesdelayed it’s deployment in ASVS-IDC in Q3’07; will be implemented in Q4’07• Other departments will follow later, and there is need to make progress gradually,focusing first on CCT-E/W, ASVS and possibly PTM (in that order)
  • 3. IntelConfidential Page 3Agenda• The process concepts – Q4’06 approval• Presentation to ext. staff – Q1’07 CCT F2F• Pilot postmortem and feedback – EOQ2’07• Extension of the pilot scope to a full blown process and indicator• Merging with the MPOR system proposal
  • 4. IntelConfidential Page 4Former work presentations• PVPD Development Process W/G Report –• CCT-E process w.g. presentation to ext. staff –ww01’07• CCT-E SW development process- ww1807 F2F.ppt• CCT-E SW development process pilot postmortem -ww2607.ppt• CCT-E SW development process pilot postmortem -after feedback .pptMicrosoftPowerPoint PresentationCCT-E process w.g.at ext. staff - ww01CCT-E SWdevelopment process pilot postmCCT-E SWdevelopment process pilot postmCCT ww1807 F2F
  • 5. IntelConfidential Page 5Pilot extension to a full blown process• Dev. process includes several activities (such as requirement specification,code review, etc) that lead to a delivery of a “desired quality”• Those activities may differ from one dev. item to another, from one team tothe other depending of the item complexity, risk, implementer capability, etc• Hence it needs to be considered and planned on a single dev. item basis -plan which become a commitment of applying these activities• The consideration of what set of activities suite best an item is totally in thehands of the implementation owner, the PL, subjected to GL review– DTS dev. item is the MPOR. We’re using the MPOR process / system.• Those activities yield artifacts which are “work material”, such as an EPSdocument, test plan document. Reviews are held to assure their quality.• Therefore the commitment for applying activities, is a commitment fordeveloping those artifacts (and making them available for tracking as part ofthe process)• Fulfilling the plan (rather than developing many artifacts) is considered ahigh quality process; gaps are considered issues in the process execution• The level of applying the plan, is the essence of the “leading indicator”
  • 6. IntelConfidential Page 6Extending “activities” from the first 2• The original pilot concentrated on two activities and artifacts1. Requirement specification - yielding “EPS”2. Test planning - yielding a “test plan”• Additional activities, as can be seen in the V model forexample, are3. SW design – yielding an IPS4. Coding – yielding “code review”5. Unit testing – yielding “test results” / “unit test scripts”• Additional activities may be defined by implementation ownersas they see fit for them• Each such activity yields an artifact which can be representedby a file, which is to be available (uploaded) to the system fortracking purposes
  • 7. IntelConfidential Page 7Localization / configuration of ones “defaultprocess”• The process / system will be released with those 5 “default”activities / artifacts, making this to be DTS “default process”• At each level, additional activities / artifacts may be defined aspart of the unit process activity, or removed from their “defaultprocess”– Example 1: in one department “code review” was defined, but a certaingroup “removed” it from their “default process”– Example 2: in one department, new activity was defined, called “testplan review”. It becomes part of all the subordinates default process,unless removed there• Once such a definition is done, by whoever in DTS, this definition as anactivity, is available for all DTS units, to define as part of their defaultprocess• Thus the result of definition at each level, results in a defaultprocess for DTS, ~7 default processes (possibly the same) forDTS departments, few dozens for DTS groups, etc.• Default process is of course inherited by the organizationstructure, allowing adaptation to the departments and groupsdifferent needs and development style
  • 8. IntelConfidential Page 8Default process hierarchical configuration
  • 9. IntelConfidential Page 9The planning stage – from “default” to “actual”process• Given a “default process” at some level, at theplanning stage, the PL needs to select, per item,weather it will be developed for this specific item ornot– By this he/she creates the “actual process” for any given MPORitem that they committed to deliver– The system will provide the option to select per each item andeach activity “document” or “waiver”– This would typically be another “folder” in the dialog opens forediting the item – the “dev. process” folder• The existing one may be called “execution” or any other reasonablename
  • 10. IntelConfidential Page 10Tracking• The system shall track items Vs. their artifacts andgive indications– When an item is marked “done” (either MPOR system orMSProject) this is the time that a missing artifact is considered aviolation to the process, and will appear in such a report– The other report will be of the amount of the already developedartifacts, normalized to %, per each type (% of EPSs, % of IPSs,etc)– The system shall build a progress line based on the deliverydates, calculating how many items should be developed at eachsuch point
  • 11. IntelConfidential Page 11Tracking graph0100200300400500600700800ww01 ww02 ww03 ww04 ww05 ww06 ww07 ww08 ww09 ww10 ww11 ww12 ww13EPSIPSCode reviewunit testtest planplaned totalActual total% completion
  • 12. IntelConfidential Page 12The indicator calculation• The indicator is of hierarchical nature• It is a simple division of the amount of developed items(uploaded via he system) by the number of those that need tobe done at a given time, by the MPOR commitment.– Say one team needed to do by ww07, 3 EPSs, 2 IPSs, 2 code reviewsand 5 test plans– All adds up to 12 artifacts– Say they did 2 EPSs, 1 IPSs, 2 code reviews and 4 test plans – total of9 artifacts (and uploaded to the system) then they get 9/12 = 75%“grade” of process completion– The group’s grade, containing this team, is calculated exactly the same,taking into account all the items from all of their teams• Up to the department level, and up to DTS level!• We’ll probably have some target of 80%-85% desiredcompletion rate
  • 13. IntelConfidential Page 13Next step• Q3’07 pilot in CCT-E• Q4’07 pilot / implementation in ASVS-IDC• CCT-W joining ???• ASVS joining after ASVS-IDC stabilizing• Go for merge with MPOR system after Q3’07 pilotcompletion (or if Moshe will surprise us)• Eyal writing full specification document – WIP. Willbe sent to participants for review.• Implementation team availability for readiness forQ4’07?
  • 14. IntelConfidential Page 14Q&A
  • 15. IntelConfidential Page 15