Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
© 2007 Carnegie Mellon University Highlights from Piloting ...
© 2007 Carnegie Mellon University Highlights from Piloting ...
© 2007 Carnegie Mellon University Highlights from Piloting ...
© 2007 Carnegie Mellon University Highlights from Piloting ...
© 2007 Carnegie Mellon University Highlights from Piloting ...
© 2007 Carnegie Mellon University Highlights from Piloting ...
© 2007 Carnegie Mellon University Highlights from Piloting ...
© 2007 Carnegie Mellon University Highlights from Piloting ...
© 2007 Carnegie Mellon University Highlights from Piloting ...
© 2007 Carnegie Mellon University Highlights from Piloting ...
© 2007 Carnegie Mellon University Highlights from Piloting ...
© 2007 Carnegie Mellon University Highlights from Piloting ...
© 2007 Carnegie Mellon University Highlights from Piloting ...
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

© 2007 Carnegie Mellon University Highlights from Piloting ...

604

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
604
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
14
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
  • Why technical feasibility only? First, because at the time the study was begun (spring 2003) we had only seen one presentation from a small company on using CMMI. We could find no studies that provided evidence that CMMI was or was not suitable for small companies, so establishing tech feasibility was seen as a first step. However, we also knew that any study that “stacked the deck” too far in terms of consulting would not be perceived as being a reasonable technical feasibility study.
  • Need to finish-note to self: – look up verbiage in ASI’s original handout, etc…call Bill Tillman if necessary… Participating 2 companies in Huntsville: Selected by: Formal selection process with questionnaire/application administrated by SEI and initital screening by Huntsville Chamber of Commerce Final selection based upon technical evaluation performed by core team using questionnaires and results of finalist interviews. Used the Co C to advertise for volunteer companies. ASI had Certification: 9001. contractors to AMRDEC Cirrus was going for Cert. 9001 also for manufacture, contractors to Cirrus... ASI was on a growth path. Cirrus more typical as a small business. As a result of the SCAMPI C, some things came up in PMC. Huge cash leak…. CMMI gave them time to stay in business (can’t say this)
  • We used the adoption commitment curve to help plan the events of the pilot. The pilot materials are organized this way in the toolkit so that people doing their own adoption can see what materials might be used in which sgages to promote further adoption. Only went up as far as trial use. When you are doing a pilot, may not have time for institutionalization… CMMI Business Analysis. Went through each PA in business analysis… As you listen to this content, write down on postcards, what your business problems are related to the process areas. Pick top 5, then narrowed down to 3, to be able to implement and work on those PAs. At the end of the 1.5 days, you have the problems, PAs, and the projects that are going to pilot them… Picked the top 3,,, then chose those areas to do the SCAMPI C on. Continuous SCAMPI..Levels 2-3… Map the business problems you are having with PAs…
  • This chart gives an overview of the events and durations of the various activities we engaged nin with the two pilots. 1.5 day workshop .5 day M&A SCAMPI A was their choice. They were not forced to do this… Appraisal Tool was used and populated for the PIIDS.. ARMRDEC had a lot of small businesses in it’s supply chain.. Wanted them all to be level 3.,… Technical feasibility pilot… is it really feasable to have a small company to pick up the CMMI Gave them one day a month of consulting,, on that day 2 people.. One person consultant,, one notetaker. One hour telecon a week for status Extra workshop’s here and there. 15-20 days time for the consultant..
  • Listed in Red is added benefits that were not expexted.
  • Aug o3.. On 2 projects. ISO implementation helped with OT and OPF…so it helped… AT training, and readiness reveiew and onsite period for the A was 5 days Team already had Intro…. First workshhope 1.5
  • For suggestions on affordability issues, see last year’s presentation on this subject.
  • Implementing Processes in Small Settings (IPSS) 1 : defining processes: the obvious one 2: deploying processes – also obvious But these two don’t work unless you have these others: 3: bld/sustain sponsorship 4: realistic goals 5: PI infrastructure 6: a life cycle of appraisals (small a  appraisals in terms of determining your progress)
  • Transcript

    • 1. Highlights from Piloting CMMI with 2 Small Companies SuZ Garcia channeled by Maggie Glover (with additions) Software Engineering Institute
    • 2. Huntsville Pilot Project Overview (2003/2004) <ul><li>A joint project performed by the partnership between the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) and Army Materiael Research Development and Engineering Command (AMRDEC) Software Engineering Division (SED) to establish the technical feasibility of developing guidance and other special-purpose transition mechanisms to support adoption of CMMI by small and medium enterprises (25 to 250 employees in Huntsville) </li></ul><ul><li>Selected 2 Pilot companies: Analytical Services, Inc. (ASI) and Cirrus Technology, Inc. (CTI) </li></ul><ul><li>Pilot artifacts available at the SEI website: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Toolkit ( www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/publications/toolkit ) (Sec 3 company profile, Sec 6 step by step process des) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Presentations on the Pilot </li></ul></ul>
    • 3. Huntsville (HSV) CMMI-SME Pilots: Selected Pilot Companies’ Characteristics <ul><ul><li>Both pilots are involved in product development for Government or engineering services to support product development </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>One pilot company has a manufacturing element </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Both had recent experience with ISO 9000, but in different ways </li></ul></ul>Companies selected via formal process administrated by HSV Chamber of Commerce, SEI, and AMRDEC SED
    • 4. Summary of Materials Provided by Pilot Contact Names Awareness Buzzwords Understanding Concepts Trial Use Possibilities Internalization Assumption Time Adoption Unintended Uses Institutionalization Synergy Commitment Adapted from Patterson & Conner, “Building Commitment to Organizational Change”, 1982. Pilot Executive Brief Model-Based Improvement Overview Pilot Kickoff CMMI Education Pilot CMMI Business Analysis Initial CMMI Gap Analysis Process Guidance Tutorial Measurement/Analysis Workshop Action Planning/Implementation SCAMPI A Workshop Generic Practices Workshop SCAMPI A Appraisal
    • 5. Initial CMMI Gap Analysis Sept ‘03 Aug ‘03 July ‘03 Interim Progress Reviews CMMI Overview Education Improvement Plan Preparation Process (Re)Description Pilot Executive Overview CMMI Business Analysis Meas & Analysis Workshop Process Guidance Tutorial Oct ‘03 Dec ‘03 Nov ‘03 Jan ‘04 Feb ‘04 Mar ‘04 Apr ‘04 May ‘04 SCAMPI A Workshop Appraisal Tool Training Generic Practices Workshop Appraisal Tool Guidelines <ul><ul><li>Appraisal Tool Population </li></ul></ul>Quick Looks SCAMPI A Appraisal Conduct Lessons Learned Workshop Contact/Awareness Understanding Trial Use 9
    • 6. ASI’s Experience of Benefits
    • 7. <ul><li>Initiated CMMI Pilot Project – Aug ’03 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Project Planning (PP) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Requirements Management (REQM) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Measurement and Analysis (M&A) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Completed Pilot in May ‘04 – Culminated with SCAMPI A Appraisal </li></ul><ul><li>Appraisal of 3 process areas above with addition of: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Organizational Training (OT) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Organizational Process Focus (OPF) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Achieved Target Capability Level Profile </li></ul>ASI CMMI Pilot Summary <ul><li>2 projects across Engineering Services Business Unit </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Database Upgrade—4 people </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Logistics Deployment – 1 person managing external team </li></ul></ul>
    • 8. Initial Conclusions on Technical Feasibility of Using CMMI in Small Businesses <ul><li>CMMI provides a set of best practices from which small businesses can benefit, when used appropriately </li></ul><ul><li>The continuous representation of CMMI allows small companies to focus on improvements that have the highest payoff for the company while learning about benefits of other elements of the model </li></ul><ul><li>Aligning improvement with business goals is particularly important for small businesses, and in this case was easily achieved </li></ul><ul><li>Simple CMMI-based improvements can have a significant impact in small organizations </li></ul><ul><li>“ Changing” the practices within the model isn’t necessary in most cases; finding alternative practices and being creative in work products is often more relevant </li></ul><ul><li>Both CMMI and SCAMPI A (the CMMI appraisal method) scale down to fit small settings </li></ul><ul><li>The greatest challenge for small businesses is the affordability of Subject Matter Experts, and the infrastructure and appraisal costs </li></ul>
    • 9. Process Improvement Competencies That Support Any Context, Including Small Settings From Garcia & Turner, CMMI Survival Guide: Just Enough Process Improvement, 2006. Building and Sustaining Sponsorship Deploying New or Improved Processes Establishing and Measuring Against Realistic Goals Establishing and Sustaining Process Improvement Infrastructure Managing an appraisal Life Cycle Defining and Describing Processes & Their Guidance
    • 10. Applying the PI Competencies in Small Settings (1) <ul><li>Take advantage of the fact that your sponsorship probably equals ownership! </li></ul><ul><li>Don’t take for granted that because you’re small, communication will automatically happen; agree on communication approaches and frequency with your sponsor </li></ul><ul><li>Make sure that your PI goals directly support your business’ goals. “Maturity Level 3” is rarely an appropriate PI goal! 1 Pick the model/framework that aligns most closely with your business problems as your starting point </li></ul><ul><li>Collecting measures is often more difficult in small settings because basic business infrastructure like effort reporting systems are often missing. Try to find synergy between investments needed for PI progress measurement and other business needs. </li></ul>1 See CMMi Survival Guide pp.135-136 for my soapbox on this topic! Building and Sustaining Sponsorship Establishing and Measuring Against Realistic Goals
    • 11. Applying the PI Competencies in Small Settings (2) <ul><li>Don’t try to duplicate the infrastructure of the large organizations, but look for places where you can leverage elements of your business infrastructure for process improvement purposes </li></ul><ul><li>Decide whether you need to plan your infrastructure around staying small, or growing fast – it makes a huge difference in how much PI infrastructure you need to invest in </li></ul><ul><li>Keep it simple, both in content and representation! Processes in small settings should be simpler because of the small # of communication paths </li></ul><ul><li>Leverage process guidance documentation’s ability to provide “backup” for critical people in your project/organization who are probably performing multiple roles </li></ul>Establishing and Sustaining Process Improvement Infrastructure Defining and Describing Processes & Their Guidance
    • 12. Applying the PI Competencies in Small Settings (3) <ul><li>Take advantage of the small # of people you have to deploy new processes/techniques to. If you leverage definition and deployment activities well, you can almost get “self-deploying” processes </li></ul><ul><li>Small settings often draw people who thrive on change – if this is the case, leverage that quality! </li></ul><ul><li>“ Apprasial” here is not meant to imply CMMI-based appraisals – we just mean events that help you determine your progress in conforming to your chosen model/framework </li></ul><ul><li>If you look at this as a cycle, then you’re more likely to plan multiple interventions instead of just one; we all need progress measures to stay motivated when changing; so you’ll need multiple points where you perform these kinds of activities </li></ul>Deploying New or Improved Processes Managing an Appraisal Life Cycle
    • 13. Applying the PI Competencies in Small Settings Summary: Conclusion <ul><li>Total number of days for the ‘consultant’ was somewhere around 18 (workshops, SCAMPI, and 1 day a month, etc.) </li></ul><ul><li>Kept the cost down and affordable for small business. </li></ul><ul><li>2 kinds of ROI you can get </li></ul><ul><ul><li>One against established baselines </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Have I solved the problem ? Was it worth the solving of the problem? Is your quality of work better? </li></ul></ul>Meets the needs of the small business cost ROI

    ×