Recommendations to Avoid Problems and Difficulties in Implementing CMMI High Maturity Levels

0 views

Published on

Presentation done at SEPG Europe 2013 in Amesterdam, organised by the CMMI Institute. This presentation gives valuable lessons that can be applied by any organisation that wants to improve processes.

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
0
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
17
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Recommendations to Avoid Problems and Difficulties in Implementing CMMI High Maturity Levels

  1. 1. Isabel Lopes Margarido isabel.margarido@gmail.com Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto Recommendations to Avoid Problems and Difficulties in Implementing CMMI® High Maturity Levels SEPG Europe 2013: 15th of November | Amsterdam, Netherlands João Pascoal Faria FEUP/INESC TEC Marco Vieira FCTUC/CISUC Raul Moreira Vidal FEUP
  2. 2. agenda  introduction  methodology  problems and recommendations  conclusions 15th of November, 2013 ©Isabel Lopes Margarido, SEPG Europe 2/22
  3. 3. introduction method 15th of November, 2013 problems conclusions ©Isabel Lopes Margarido, SEPG Europe 3/22
  4. 4. introduction method problems conclusions Campo, SEPG EU 2011 15th of November, 2013 ©Isabel Lopes Margarido, SEPG Europe 4/22
  5. 5. introduction method problems conclusions objectives learn solutions to avoid them understand problems and difficulties gain additional knowledge about CMMI 15th of November, 2013 ©Isabel Lopes Margarido, SEPG Europe 5/22
  6. 6. introduction method problems conclusions motivation  typically organisations using CMMI improve performance  many programs failed in CMMI level 5 organisations  SEI was concerned with high maturity 15th of November, 2013 ©Isabel Lopes Margarido, SEPG Europe 6/22
  7. 7. introduction method problems conclusions high maturity levels dependencies     dependent on lower maturity levels maturity Level (ML) 2 M&A building blocks for ML4: QPM, OPP (PPM, PPB) knowledge base for quantitative continuous improvement at ML5 (CAR, OPM) 15th of November, 2013 ©Isabel Lopes Margarido, SEPG Europe 7/22
  8. 8. introduction method problems conclusions case studies  3 organisations appraised at CMMI-DEV ML 5:   2 organisations, 1 business unit real problems and difficulties from industry     documents, tools, interviews how CMMI implementation was conducted and the processes were defined what processes, metrics and tools were developed how people were actually using them 15th of November, 2013 ©Isabel Lopes Margarido, SEPG Europe 8/22
  9. 9. introduction method problems conclusions analysis analysed an SEI report (McCurley and Goldenson 2010)   verified which problems were common   to the case study, literature and SEI survey verified which of the recommendations were sustained by literature and SEI survey 15th of November, 2013 ©Isabel Lopes Margarido, SEPG Europe 9/22
  10. 10. introduction method problems conclusions problems (p) and recommendations (r) entry conditions P1: avoid underestimation R1: plan: maturing levels, analysing and understanding HML, building and maturing PPB and PPM P2: don’t begin the house by the roof R2: ML 2 and 3 need to mature P3: understand quantitative nature of level 4 R3: involve statistician R4: six sigma R5: review goals 15th of November, 2013 ©Isabel Lopes Margarido, SEPG Europe 10/22
  11. 11. introduction method problems conclusions process definition and implementation P4: copied processes R6: reflect organisation culture R7: involve experts and process users P5: multicultural environments R8: share processes, lessons learnt P6: impose processes R8 and R9: goals specific for business units related to organisation business goals R10: indicators at different report levels 15th of November, 2013 ©Isabel Lopes Margarido, SEPG Europe 11/22
  12. 12. introduction method problems conclusions process definition and implementation P7: dissemination problems R11: commitment from entire organisation R12: training contents, specialised training R13: coaching and monitoring P8: lack of institutionalisation R14: top management set goals for gradual institutionalisation, monitor and reward R13 and R15: give time for metrics and processes to mature 15th of November, 2013 ©Isabel Lopes Margarido, SEPG Europe 12/22
  13. 13. introduction method problems conclusions metrics definition P9: meaningless uncorrelated metrics P10: metrics definition (collect and analyse data) R16: use goal question metric or equivalent R17: unambiguous, repeatable, understandable R18: size metrics according with work product R19: interpret in context R20: variables normalisation 15th of November, 2013 ©Isabel Lopes Margarido, SEPG Europe 13/22
  14. 14. introduction method problems conclusions metrics definition P11: first data uncorrelated P12: metrics categorisation P13: baselines not applicable R21: several cycles R22: let PPM and PPB become stable R23: categorise data R24: aggregate normalised data 15th of November, 2013 ©Isabel Lopes Margarido, SEPG Europe 14/22
  15. 15. introduction method problems conclusions metrics usage P14: abusive elimination of outliers R25: quarantine R26: maintain data points that are unique but recurrent P15: not all projects are measurable R27: specific based measures normalised to get derived measures; R14 15th of November, 2013 ©Isabel Lopes Margarido, SEPG Europe 15/22
  16. 16. introduction method problems conclusions metrics usage P16: effort estimates R28: use expert judgment when needed R29: any related historical data R30: iterative planning, real time sampling P17: people behaviour R12, R13 and R31: personal data not used to evaluate people 15th of November, 2013 ©Isabel Lopes Margarido, SEPG Europe 16/22
  17. 17. introduction method problems conclusions tools setup P18: tools setup R32: give time for tool setup R33: do not use data collected when defects affect metrics P19: overhead P20: tools requirements R34: only collect necessary data R35: automated and unperceptive data collection R36: discipline people, change mentality 15th of November, 2013 ©Isabel Lopes Margarido, SEPG Europe 17/22
  18. 18. introduction method problems conclusions problems analysis     59% found in the case studies, literature and survey several problems shared between the studied organisations 37,5% found in literature were found in the case studies 53,3% found in the survey were found in the case studies  16,7% also found in literature “the percentage of problems shared in more than one organisation/source indicates that they can occur when implementing HML, so organisations should be aware of them.” (Lopes Margarido et al., December 2013, SQP) 15th of November, 2013 ©Isabel Lopes Margarido, SEPG Europe 18/22
  19. 19. introduction method problems conclusions summary and future research    wide variety of implementation methods variance of performance results SCAMPI:    evaluates a sample does not evaluate performance future research   framework to evaluate quality of implementation of CMMI practices definition published in PROFES 2012 15th of November, 2013 ©Isabel Lopes Margarido, SEPG Europe 19/22
  20. 20. introduction method problems conclusions think about... 15th of November, 2013 ©Isabel Lopes Margarido, SEPG Europe 20/22
  21. 21. questions   http://paginas.fe.up.pt/~pro09003/ partially sponsored by: 15th of November, 2013 ©Isabel Lopes Margarido, SEPG Europe 21/22
  22. 22. references         C. Hollenbach and D. Smith. (2002) A portrait of a CMMI level 4 effort Systems Engineering. 52-61. J. McCurley and D. R. Goldenson (2010) Performance Effects of Measurement and Analysis: Perspectives from CMMI High Maturity Organizations and Appraisers. CMU/SEI. Lopes Margarido et al. “Lessons Learnt in the Implementation of CMMI® Maturity Level 5”, presented at QUATIC, Lisbon, Portugal, 2013. Lopes Margarido et al. “Towards a Framework to Evaluate and Improve the Quality of Implementation of CMMI® Practices”, presented at PROFES, Madrid, Spain, 2012. M. Campo. “Why Maturity Level 5?”, Crosstalk, January/February 2012. 15-18. M. Schaeffer, "DoD Systems Engineering and CMMI," presented at the CMMI Technology Conference and User Group, 2004. P. Leeson, "Why the CMMI® does not work," presented at the SEPG Europe, Prague, Czech Republic, 2009. R. Radice, "Statistical Process Control in Level 4 and Level 5 Software Organizations Worldwide," presented at the Software Technology Conference, 2000. 15th of November, 2013 ©Isabel Lopes Margarido, SEPG Europe 22/22
  23. 23. acronyms CMMI – Capability Maturity Model Integration FEUP – Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto M&A – Measurement and Analysis ML – Maturity Level OPM – Organisational Performance Management OPP – Organisational Process Performance P – Problem PPB – Process Performance Baselines PPM – Process Performance Models QPM – Quantitative Project Management R - Recommendation SEI – Software Engineering Institute SQP – Software Quality Professional 15th of November, 2013 ©Isabel Lopes Margarido, SEPG Europe 23/22
  24. 24. images http://api.ning.com/files/hpf*xOTebDs- F23o6FETZ3j*3sNiONWjfXjTJCzprPjU5bS1 WJoGgWBjMPIOiQkm3SbZ41ijncrJ4K2aT-6dM9QURwHK3led/Dissemination2.jpg -26-06-2010 http://blog.pmtech.com.br/wp-content/uploads/Square-Paradox.jpg – 29-04-2011 http://www.signsexpressshop.co.uk/prodpics/1103.gif – 29-04-2011 Benjamin Haas/Shutterstock, http://cynthiayildirim.posterous.com/how-can-we-measure-the-size-ofthe-universe – 29-04-2011 http://ryanstephensmarketing.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/one_size_fits_all.JPG http://evolvingwe.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/image3.png – 29-04-2011 http://www.screenhog.com/sketch/LightbulbIdea.jpg – 21-04-2010 http://igraduatedwhatnow.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/thank_you_small.jpg – 02-05-2010 http://www.articulate.com/rapid-elearning/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/summary-objectives450.gif – adapted, 25-05-2011 http://www.braxtechconsulting.com/Portals/22771/images/cmmi_certificate.jpg.png - 10-04-2012 http://erikhatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/no_time_1_.jpg - 31-08-2012 http://blog.inktechnologies.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Statistics.jpg - 31-08-2012 http://images.yourdictionary.com/images/definitions/lg/erase.jpg -31-08-2012 https://earlychildcare.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/child-misbehaving.jpg - 31-08-2012 http://www.thaiworldview.com/jpg/img024.jpg - 31-08-2012 http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/5880/5880,1268065242,15/stock-photobackground-concept-wordcloud-illustration-of-scientific-method-research-glowing-light-48226942.jpg 02-09-2012 http://scm-l3.technorati.com/11/04/08/31079/slow-computer.jpg?t=20110408013303 - slow computer 18-10-2013 15th of November, 2013 ©Isabel Lopes Margarido, SEPG Europe 24/22

×