• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Dar in real worldsepg 2008 alcatel lucent
 

Dar in real worldsepg 2008 alcatel lucent

on

  • 410 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
410
Views on SlideShare
410
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Dar in real worldsepg 2008 alcatel lucent Dar in real worldsepg 2008 alcatel lucent Presentation Transcript

    • DAR in the Real WorldWar Stories and Practical HelpSteven ThomasMarch, 2008
    • Outline• Overview of DAR Process Area and core principles• When to use DAR – Can, Should and Should Not• If DAR is so simple, why is it so Hard?• War Stories - Resistance to DAR• Fast Consensus-oriented decision process based on wide- band Delphi• Summary 2 | DAR in the Real World | March 2008 All Rights Reserved © Alcatel-Lucent 2008, #####
    • DAR Overview• Purpose of Decision Analysis and Resolution (DAR) (from CMMI V1.2) is to: Analyze possible decisions Using a formal evaluation process that Evaluates identified alternatives Against established criteria.• Like other support process areas (MA, CM, …) Don’t think of DAR as a separate process. Think of it as a procedure which is used in executing other processes.• DAR is one of the easiest CMMI Process Areas to understand, document and train people to use• The challenges are determining when to apply this procedure and how to overcome the natural resistance. 3 | DAR in the Real World | March 2008 All Rights Reserved © Alcatel-Lucent 2008, #####
    • DAR – Planning and Doing• Planning to use a formal evaluation procedure (DAR) During Project planning, identify and plan which decisions or types of decisions need a formal evaluation process and will use the DAR procedure and which do not need this. Establish guidelines (organizational and/or project) for when unplanned decisions should also use a formal evaluation process• Using the DAR procedure Identify and document the “issue” including identifying owner and stakeholders Identify the selection criteria and the evaluation method (SP1.2, 1.4) Identify and document the alternative solutions (SP1.3) Evaluate alternative solutions against the selection criteria (SP1.5) Select the desired alternative and document the decision (SP1.6) Communicate the decision to the relevant stakeholders 4 | DAR in the Real World | March 2008 All Rights Reserved © Alcatel-Lucent 2008, #####
    • DAR – Scalability• Any DAR procedure should be scalable. The effort and rigor invested should make sense for the type of decision. A formal evaluation of alternatives can be done in a few hours or it can take months… “It Depends”, “You Decide”. Involve only top criteria or look at all criteria Evaluation can be quantitative or qualitative Evaluation can be by subjective opinion, consensus or modeling and analysis Combining different people’s analysis can be done formally, mathematically or informally Documentation can be a few slides or a full report 5 | DAR in the Real World | March 2008 All Rights Reserved © Alcatel-Lucent 2008, #####
    • When to use DAR – First know WHY• Starting point: Know WHY you want to use a formal decision / evaluation procedure. Some reasons include: So the project plans each decision including the schedule and effort So there is a clear method for how to decide each issue So decisions are made based on agreed upon business and technical criteria So Decisions are made once and made correctly So all decisions and their rationales are recorded So decisions are communicated to all relevant stakeholders So decisions are not undermined 6 | DAR in the Real World | March 2008 All Rights Reserved © Alcatel-Lucent 2008, #####
    • When to use DAR – You SHOULD use DAR:• An organization or project SHOULD use a DAR procedure for major technical decisions and for some tactical organizational decisions. (These are the places in the CMMI V1.2 model which reference DAR.) Technical Decisions Organizational Decisions • Architectural Decisions • Process Improvement Proposals • Design Decisions • Selecting approaches for • Interface Design Decisions training or developing organizational expertise • Source Selection Decisions • Selecting work tools for the • Tool Selection Decisions standard work environment • Make/Source/Buy Decisions • Product Integration Sequence Decisions 7 | DAR in the Real World | March 2008 All Rights Reserved © Alcatel-Lucent 2008, #####
    • When to use DAR – You CAN use DAR:• In addition to the above, an organization or project CAN use a DAR procedure for any decision that involves multiple alternatives which can be evaluated against multiple Process Decisions criteria. • Process Design Decisions • Manufacturing Process Design Product Decisions • Work environment or tool • Product Feature Selection change or replacement Decisions • Product Release Contents and Schedules Project Decisions • Product Roadmap Decisions • Life cycle model selection • Process Tailoring Decisions Business Decisions • Risk Mgmt Mitigation Decisions • Product Trial Selection • Project Management Corrective • Proposal Generation Action re-planning Decisions • Outsourcing Decisions • Testing Strategy Decisions • Project Selection • Deployment Strategy Decisions 8 | DAR in the Real World | March 2008 All Rights Reserved © Alcatel-Lucent 2008, #####
    • When to use DAR – You SHOULD NOT use DAR:• There are some decisions for which the organization COULD use DAR (they involve multiple solutions evaluated by criteria) but generally SHOULD NOT use DAR (at least in the conventional way) General Decisions Business Decisions • Decisions with only 1 viable • Personnel Decisions (Hiring / alternative Force Reduction, Promotions, • Go/No go Checkpoint Decisions Raises, etc.) • Business Strategy Decisions • Decisions driven by a formula which are based on belief as rather than by criteria (e.g. much or more than analysis some process tailoring decisions) • Organizational structure Decisions 9 | DAR in the Real World | March 2008 All Rights Reserved © Alcatel-Lucent 2008, #####
    • WHEN should Your Organization Implement DAR?• DAR procedures CAN probably benefit any class of decision, but if they will benefit your organization depends on: The leadership style of the organization The past organizational culture for making this type of decision What value does the organization want from a DAR procedure• Other Decision methods can be just as effective and more efficient Leadership / Decision Styles• Select types of decision where • Strong Leader driven the value of DAR is clear • Intuition / Expertise driven • Network or Consensus driven • Data Driven 10 | DAR in the Real World | March 2008 All Rights Reserved © Alcatel-Lucent 2008, #####
    • If DAR is so SIMPLE, then why is it so HARD?11 | DAR in the Real World | March 2008 All Rights Reserved © Alcatel-Lucent 2008, #####
    • DAR is Threatening• Organizationally How an organization makes Decisions is at the soul of how the organization operates. DAR means moving toward a data-driven, engineering analysis culture• Individually Decision owners are challenged in how they make their decision Owners must involve relevant stakeholders and consider all criteria A “Process” questions their ability to make good decisions• To Peers (In Network or Consensus cultures) It empowers decision owners• Threats felt at all levels (engineering, project management, organization management, executives) 12 | DAR in the Real World | March 2008 All Rights Reserved © Alcatel-Lucent 2008, #####
    • Overcoming Resistance – Preparing for Resistance• The manager and peers of the decision owner must be persuaded first• Understand what the previous decision making model was• Pick the DAR benefits (slide 6) that will most help this situation• It is not necessary to move to a data-driven, engineering analysis orientation for all types of decisions• The predominant decision culture will remain until/unless the executive team changes.• The resistance scenario involves the decision owner, the type of decision and the evaluation methodology• Need to plan the consequences of not following the DAR procedure 13 | DAR in the Real World | March 2008 All Rights Reserved © Alcatel-Lucent 2008, #####
    • Resistance Techniques (1)• We have no major decisions on this project, so no DAR decisions are planned. • Suggestion: Re-examine the areas where DAR SHOULD be applied and then reconsider the project plan• The boss (or somebody else) already made the decision, we just have to document it • Suggestion: Follow the “decision” upstream to make that type of decision correctly next time • Warning: Beware of the “Hot Potato” game where everyone believes that someone else is really making the decision• We can’t decide that without checking with the boss • Suggestion: Clear communication is needed to set expectations and empowerment 14 | DAR in the Real World | March 2008 All Rights Reserved © Alcatel-Lucent 2008, #####
    • Resistance Techniques (2)• Just make the decision, “easier to get forgiveness …” • Suggestion: Are the value justifications for using DAR correct and well-understood? • Suggestion: Check if the non-compliance consequences are sufficient• “There is really only 1 alternative to consider” • Suggestion: Helps to have an independent person check this (Project Mgr or PPQA)• “The answer is obvious” • Suggestion: If the task of implementing the decision is transitioned to a new team, will they think the decision was obvious?• We discuss pros and cons and reach a consensus decision • Suggestion: Pros and Cons are usually the decision criteria, capture them, but conduct a formal evaluation 15 | DAR in the Real World | March 2008 All Rights Reserved © Alcatel-Lucent 2008, #####
    • Resistance Techniques (3)• Process is for the engineering staff, not for management • Suggestion: Examine if the organization is ready to use DAR for these decision types. If so it will be driven from above.• “We don’t look at multiple alternative, we just confirm that the selected / identified alternative is acceptable” • Suggestion: Streamline the entire decision process.• “The loudest, last voice wins” • Suggestion: Either use a strong facilitator or use a method which eliminates complete sharing of information (see example later)• We can’t document how we decided this… (security, privacy or legal concerns) • Suggestion: A secure repository for these decision types may help • Suggestion: Re-examine the expected benefits of documenting the decision 16 | DAR in the Real World | March 2008 All Rights Reserved © Alcatel-Lucent 2008, #####
    • Fast Wide-Band Delphi tool for Consensus - Overview• This decision making methodology brings together a group of people knowledgeable on the decision issue and reaches a consensus decision with minimal time, effort and discussion.• Preparation – Identify the following as usual: Decision Description Alternative Solutions Decision Criteria• Decision Method Based on the Wide-Band Delphi estimating methodology Uses multiple rounds of voting to establish consensus ratings Limits discussion to only what is necessary to get consensus A moderator is recommended to manage the votes. 17 | DAR in the Real World | March 2008 All Rights Reserved © Alcatel-Lucent 2008, #####
    • Fast Wide-Band Delphi tool for Consensus - Principles• Diversity of Opinion – Team should represent multiple functional areas• Minimal Sharing – The team does a first round of voting without discussion. Later voting rounds use minimal feedback and sharing• Independence & Anonymity – Each team member votes independently and should not be influenced by how others vote• Consensus – For each evaluation score, the team must reach consensus. The tool helps evaluate the level of consensus.• Feedback – If the team does not have consensus, 2 verbal presentations are made for why the score should be higher and lower (1 of each) 18 | DAR in the Real World | March 2008 All Rights Reserved © Alcatel-Lucent 2008, #####
    • Fast Wide-Band Delphi Decision Tool Snapshot Alternative 3 - Consensus The shoebox Score # Criteria Weight Alternative 1 Alternative 2 alternative 1 Height 3 4.0 8.3 7.3 3 2 Weight 5 5.3 7.0 6.3 3 3 Cost 10 9.5 5.3 6.3 0 4 Life Expectancy 6 3.8 8.0 9.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL Weighted SCORE 156 160 170 Consensus Techniques• Standard Deviation of scores• Difference between High/Low scores• Comparison of Ranking 19 | DAR in the Real World | March 2008 All Rights Reserved © Alcatel-Lucent 2008, #####
    • Summary - Hoped for Take-aways• Understand why you face opposition in implementing DAR – It is not you, it is a simple process – but it affects the soul of how the organization operates• Tips for developing a Strategy for which decisions to include in a formal decision process framework• Game plan for overcoming the natural resistance to using a formal evaluation technique for making decisions• Techniques for overcoming people’s resistance to following a formal decision process 20 | DAR in the Real World | March 2008 All Rights Reserved © Alcatel-Lucent 2008, #####
    • Contact Info & Biography• Steve Thomas Alcatel-Lucent stevethomas@alcatel-lucent.com• Mr. Thomas is an authorized Intro to CMMI Instructor and an authorized SCAMPI B/C Team Leader. He has over 25 years experience in software development, project management and quality management. He has a BS in Computer Science from Carnegie-Mellon University and an MS in Computer Science from The Ohio State University.• Mr. Thomas is the creator and owner of the “DAR” process for a business division of Alcatel-Lucent with over 3,000 R&D staff distributed around the globe 21 | DAR in the Real World | March 2008 All Rights Reserved © Alcatel-Lucent 2008, #####