• Like
  • Save
An Ecological View on Process Improvement: Some Thoughts for Improving Process Appraisals
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

An Ecological View on Process Improvement: Some Thoughts for Improving Process Appraisals

on

  • 228 views

One of the strengths contributing to the diffusion and adoption during last years of Maturity Models (MMs) such as CMMI and ISO 15504 (aka SPICE) is the evolutionary path towards a continuous ...

One of the strengths contributing to the diffusion and adoption during last years of Maturity Models (MMs) such as CMMI and ISO 15504 (aka SPICE) is the evolutionary path towards a continuous improvement they provide, evolving the initial Crosby’s idea. Differently from Performance Management models (PMMs) such as the Balanced Scorecard (BSC), Malcolm Baldridge, EFQM Excellence Model or the JUSE Deming Prize, MMs seems to do not stress in their appraisal criteria the way resources are renewed, redistributing obtained ‘results’ towards the ‘enablers’. Looking at this question from an ‘ecological’ viewpoint, where the current environmental situation urgently asks to adopt renewable resources taking care from an holistic view of the state of the planet, the paper will discuss this issue translating it to the organizational management, proposing possible improvements to the process assessment model (PAM) generic structure of a MM, with the objective to provide a more confident picture of an organization from an appraisal, not overrated, as nowadays it can happen.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
228
Views on SlideShare
227
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

1 Embed 1

http://www.linkedin.com 1

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

    An Ecological View on Process Improvement: Some Thoughts for Improving Process Appraisals An Ecological View on Process Improvement: Some Thoughts for Improving Process Appraisals Presentation Transcript

    • An Ecological View on Process Improvement Some Thoughts on Improving Process Appraisals LuigiBuglione École de Technologie Supérieure (ETS) University of Québec4th World Congress for Software Quality – Bethesda, Maryland, USA – September 2008
    • Outline • Aim: to propose tips for a more refined and granular schema for process appraisals when using maturity models (MM) such as CMMI (Capability Maturity Model Integration) or ISO/IEC 15504 (aka SPICE) for a process improvement initiative• Scope: Organizational and Process Maturity • Main Issues: Maturity Models; Process Appraisals; Appraisal Criteria; Renewal; Benchmarking; Process Improvement ROIAn Ecological View [2] of [26]
    • Agenda• Introduction• Maturity Models (MMs)  a definition  a short history  appraisal criteria in PAM• Performance Management Models and MM  some well-known models  main commonalities & differences• An ‘ecological’ proposal for improving PAM  Some improvement proposals• Conclusions & ProspectsAn Ecological View [3] of [26]
    • Introduction Global Warming trend (1884-2006) Source: NASAAn Ecological View [4] of [26]
    • Introduction Q: which corrective actions to take for global warming?A1: start adopting renewable sources ofenergy (e.g. photovoltaic panels, windmachines, etc…) A2: modifying the way people to act, working on their awareness (‘I care’)An Ecological View [5] of [26]
    • Introduction Q: and what about the way Maturity Models (MM) such as CMMI or ISO 15504 evaluate the management of resources and the allocated budgets?Q: Does their PAM (Process Assessment Model)takes care of such ‘renewal’ or not? renewal Q: Are sufficiently comprehensive the current appraisal criteria (e.g. CMMI GP2.3) in order to capture the renewal issue?An Ecological View [6] of [26]
    • Maturity Models (MM) A definition (tag cloud style)A Maturity Model is:“a model the essential elements of that contains effective processes for one or more disciplines and describes an evolutionary improvement path from ad-hoc, immature processes to disciplined, with improved qualitymature processes and effectiveness(ISO/IEC FCD 24765, Systems & Software Engineering Vocabulary) An Ecological View [7] of [26]
    • Maturity Models (MM) A short history  an evolutionary viewAn Ecological View [8] of [26]
    • Maturity Models (MM) Appraisal Criteria in PAM Each MM is two-fold:  PRM (Process Reference Model)  a model comprising definitions of processes in a life cycle described in terms of process purpose and outcomes, together with an architecture describing the relationships between the processes [ISO/IEC 15504-1:2004]  PAM (Process Assessment Model)  a model describing life cycle processes, based on good engineering and process management principles and suitable for the purpose of assessing process capability [ISO/IEC 15504-1:2004] PAM defines the rating process:  Rating Scale  4-point scale (N/P/L/F) • CMMI uses quartiles • ISO 15504 (0-15; 16-50; 51-85; 86-100%) intervals  Rating Value  the value assigned to: • a goal/PA; the capability level of a PA; the ML of an organizational unitAn Ecological View [9] of [26]
    • Maturity Models (MM) Appraisal Criteria in PAM CMMI v1.2 ISO/IEC 15504-5ML/CL GP - Generic Practice PA - Process Attribute GP 5.2 – Correct Root Causes of Problems PA5.2 - Continuous improvement attribute 5 GP 5.1 – Ensure Continuous Process Improvements PA5.1 - Process change attribute GP 4.2 – Stabilize Subprocess Performance PA4.2 - Process control attribute 4 GP 4.1 – Establish Quantitatively Objectives for the Process PA4.1 - Measurement attribute GP 3.2 – Collect Improvement Information PA3.2 - Process resource attribute 3 GP 3.1 – Establish a Defined Process PA3.1 - Process definition attribute GP 2.10 – Review Status with H/L Management GP 2.9 – Objectively Evacuate Adherence GP 2.8 – Monitor and Control the Process GP 2.7 – Identify and Involve Relevant Stakeholders PAs are subdivided into 36 MP GP 2.6 – Manage Configuration (Management Practices) GP 2.5 – Train People GP 2.4 – Assign Responsibilities GP 2.3 – Provide Resources GP 2.2 – Plan the Process PA2.2 - Work product management attribute 2 GP 2.1 – Establish an Organizational policy PA2.1 - Performance management attribute 1 GP1.1 – Perform Base Practices PA1.1 - Process performance attributeAn Ecological View [10] of[26]
    • Maturity Models (MM) Appraisal Criteria in PAM: a photo example• Q: which level of control (granularity) has your PAM on processes? (a) (b) orAn Ecological View [11] of[26]
    • Maturity Models (MM) Appraisal Criteria in PAM: a map example• Q: which level of control (granularity) has your PAM on processes? (a) (b) orAn Ecological View [12] of[26]
    • Maturity Models (MM) Appraisal Criteria in PAM• Q: are the criteria in your PAM placed at the right place? CMMI v1.2ML/CL GP - Generic Practice  An example: Root-Cause Analysis GP 5.2 – Correct Root Causes of Problems (RCA) 5 GP 5.1 – Ensure Continuous Process Improvements  CAR is placed at ML5 (PRM-level) GP 4.2 – Stabilize Subprocess Performance  GP5.2 is the latest PAM criteria at Level 4 GP 4.1 – Establish Quantitatively Objectives for the 5 (PAM-level) Process GP 3.2 – Collect Improvement Information  …but… 3 GP 3.1 – Establish a Defined Process  DAR is a PA at ML3 (but it logically GP 2.10 – Review Status with H/L Management needs before CAR) GP 2.9 – Objectively Evacuate Adherence  Indicative equivalence between an ISO GP 2.8 – Monitor and Control the Process 9001:2000 certified organization and GP 2.7 – Identify and Involve Relevant Stakeholders CMMI maturity level between ML2-3  demonstration of ability in RCA is GP 2.6 – Manage Configuration mandatory for achieving the ISO GP 2.5 – Train People certification GP 2.4 – Assign Responsibilities GP 2.3 – Provide Resources  …therefore…  CAR should be move at ML2 (at least at An Ecological View 2 GP 2.2 – Plan the Process GP 2.1 – Establish an Organizational policy ML3, jointly with DAR) [13] of [26] 1 GP1.1 – Perform Base Practices
    • Performance Management Models Some well-known modelsAn Ecological View [14] of[26]
    • Performance Management Models Main Commonalities & Differences with MMs Rating Schema: both share an established standard rating schemain their PAM, allowing comparisons across time and organizations,based on their PRM Entities: Performance Management Models (PMM) rate a criterion tobe mapped against 1+ Quality Management System (QMS)process(es), MM rate a generic process to be mapped against 1+ QMSprocesses Rating Criteria: PMM have a % weighted distribution across theevaluation criteria, while MM appraise single processes by CL(continuous representation) or groups of processes (staged) by MLusing a NPLF scale Intangibles: PMM focus more on intangibles than MM (e.g. EFQMcriterion 3a; 4b) and the way the contribute to the final result (in a BSClogic), while MM has a more limited scope Scope: PMM have a wider scope than MM (‘Enablers’ such as‘leadership’ or ‘strategy’ are not comparable with CMMI’s GP2.7 and orGP2.10)An Ecological View [15] of[26]
    • Performance Management Models Main Commonalities & Differences with MMs• Lessons Learned:  the way resources are managed in PMM  not simply ‘acquired’ but also renewed, in a continuous lifecycle schema (limited renewed resources to be managed, and also this capability should be part of the evaluation)  the more attention paid in PMM to intangibles in the evaluation of results observing ‘objective evidences’• Potential Side Effects (not applying such lessons):  process overrating  the less granular the PAM criteria, the less accurate the representation from appraisal/assessment results of the organization unit appraised/assessed… …with particular attention for lower levels (ML2  ML3): this ability could make a sensible difference between a ‘managed’ and a ‘defined’ organization (tactic  strategy)An Ecological View [16] of[26]
    • Improving PAM An ‘ecological’ proposal• Q: how to translate this idea in a PAM?• An evaluation of an organization should analyze results fromimprovement actions at the light of its  MVV (Mission-Vision-Values)  Value chain, from a causal viewpoint• The lessons learned from the ‘global warming’ example plus theway PMM manage resources could be used also for improvingPAM in MMs  e.g. the ‘People/Employee’ fifth perspective in some ICT BSC• Some preliminary thoughts:  investments on people (reskilling, coaching, continuous training, …)  more than CMMI OT (Organizational Training) or ISO 15504 RIN.2/RIN.3 (Resource Infrastructure)  relate measurement of tangible + intangible assets  from ‘productivity’ to ‘performance’ before assessing ML4An Ecological View [17] of[26]
    • Improving PAM An ‘ecological’ proposalProposal #1: Refine the current PAM criterion on Resources adding the ‘Renewal’ concept CMMI v1.2 ML/C GP - Generic PracticeComment: this is the more conservative view. L GP 5.2 – Correct Root Causes of ProblemsReinforcing the current criterion would not modify 5 GP 5.1 – Ensure Continuous Process Improvementsa consolidated PAM architecture for benchmarks GP 4.2 – Stabilize Subprocess Performanceand comparisons. 4 GP 4.1 – Establish Quantitatively Objectives for the Process GP 3.2 – Collect Improvement Information the new way to observe how resources are 3 GP 3.1 – Establish a Defined Processmanaged and re-used will lead to more granular GP 2.10 – Review Status with H/L Managementresults and to more focused improved actions GP 2.9 – Objectively Evacuate Adherence GP 2.8 – Monitor and Control the Process GP 2.7 – Identify and Involve Relevant Stakeholders the only counterpoint for this option is about GP 2.6 – Manage Configurationthe need to mark – from a benchmarking GP 2.5 – Train Peopleviewpoint – the appraisals done before and after GP 2.4 – Assign Responsibilitiessuch modification referring to such criterion and GP 2.3 – Provide Resourcesits effects on the overall appraisal results,whatever the representation type chosen. GP 2.2 – Plan the Process 2 GP 2.1 – Establish an Organizational policy 1 GP1.1 – Perform Base Practices An Ecological View [18] of [26]
    • Improving PAM An ‘ecological’ proposalProposal #2: Introduce a new criterion (‘Renewal’) RenewalComment: this hypothesis will slightly CMMI v1.2modify the PAM architecture. More ML/C L GP - Generic Practicepossibilities about the positioning of such GP 5.3 – Renew Existing Resourcesnew GP/PA: GP 5.2 – Correct Root Causes of Problems 5 GP 5.1 – Ensure Continuous Process Improvements  (b1) at CL5, as well as the current GP 4.2 – Stabilize Subprocess Performance 4 GP 4.1 – Establish Quantitatively Objectives for the GP/PA5.2 positioning for root-cause Process GP 3.3 – Renew Existing Resources analysis within the ‘optimizing’ level; GP 3.2 – Collect Improvement Information  (b2) at CL3, as a further filter from 3 GP 3.1 – Establish a Defined Process GP 2.11 - Renew Existing Resources the ‘defined’ and ‘quantitatively GP 2.10 – Review Status with H/L Management managed’ levels; GP 2.9 – Objectively Evacuate Adherence GP 2.8 – Monitor and Control the Process  (b3) at CL2, as a further filter from GP 2.7 – Identify and Involve Relevant Stakeholders the ‘managed’ and the ‘defined’ levels. GP 2.6 – Manage Configuration GP 2.5 – Train People GP 2.4 – Assign Responsibilities GP 2.3 – Provide Resources An Ecological View 2 GP 2.2 – Plan the Process [2] of [xx] GP 2.1 – Establish an Organizational policy 1 GP1.1 – Perform Base Practices
    • Improving PAM An ‘ecological’ proposalProposal #2a: Introduce a new criterion (‘Renewal’) at CL5 Renewal CMMI v1.2Comment: The lower the level it will be ML/C L GP - Generic Practiceintroduced, the larger number of GP 5.3 – Renew Existing Resourcesorganizational units that will consider it during GP 5.2 – Correct Root Causes of Problemsappraisals, producing a more accurate 5 GP 5.1 – Ensure Continuous Process Improvementspicture of the ‘real’ organizational maturity GP 4.2 – Stabilize Subprocess Performance 4 GP 4.1 – Establish Quantitatively Objectives for the Process GP 3.2 – Collect Improvement Information  this positioning will be agreed by a more 3 GP 3.1 – Establish a Defined Process conservative audience, being included at the GP 2.10 – Review Status with H/L Management ‘optimizing’ level GP 2.9 – Objectively Evacuate Adherence GP 2.8 – Monitor and Control the Process  no matter the representation type adopted GP 2.7 – Identify and Involve Relevant Stakeholders GP 2.6 – Manage Configuration (staged/continuous), few organizations would GP 2.5 – Train People apply for it. GP 2.4 – Assign Responsibilities GP 2.3 – Provide Resources GP 2.2 – Plan the Process 2 GP 2.1 – Establish an Organizational policy An Ecological View 1 [2] of [xx] GP1.1 – Perform Base Practices
    • Improving PAM An ‘ecological’ proposalProposal #2b: Introduce a new criterion (‘Renewal’) at CL3 RenewalComment: it represents a further filter ML/C CMMI v1.2 GP - Generic Practicefrom the ‘defined’ and ‘quantitatively Lmanaged’ levels. GP 5.2 – Correct Root Causes of Problems 5 GP 5.1 – Ensure Continuous Process Improvements here the rationale is that till CL2 a process GP 4.2 – Stabilize Subprocess Performanceconsumes resources, but it is not planned 4 GP 4.1 – Establish Quantitatively Objectives for the Processtheir regeneration. From CL3 on the GP 3.3 – Renew Existing Resourcesorganization should start to adopt a tactical GP 3.2 – Collect Improvement Informationapproach to ‘renewal’. When arriving at CL5 3 GP 3.1 – Establish a Defined Processthis ‘way of acting’ should be fully absorbed in GP 2.10 – Review Status with H/L Managementthe organizational DNA. its introduction from GP 2.9 – Objectively Evacuate AdherenceLevel 3 would explain better the GP 2.8 – Monitor and Control the Processorganizational vision at the mid-long term GP 2.7 – Identify and Involve Relevant Stakeholders GP 2.6 – Manage Configuration GP 2.5 – Train People placed here, it could be not applied by GP 2.4 – Assign ResponsibilitiesSMEs with a target on CL2 GP 2.3 – Provide Resources GP 2.2 – Plan the Process 2 GP 2.1 – Establish an Organizational policy An Ecological View 1 [2] of [xx] GP1.1 – Perform Base Practices
    • Improving PAM An ‘ecological’ proposalProposal #2c: Introduce a new criterion (‘Renewal’) at CL2 Renewal CMMI v1.2Comment: it represents a further filter ML/C L GP - Generic Practicefrom the ‘managed’ and the ‘defined’ levels. GP 5.2 – Correct Root Causes of Problems 5 GP 5.1 – Ensure Continuous Process Improvements GP 4.2 – Stabilize Subprocess Performance  separately from GP2.3, the distinct rating 4 GP 4.1 – Establish Quantitatively Objectives for the Process for this issue would make aware people about GP 3.2 – Collect Improvement Information specific corrective/improvement actions. 3 GP 3.1 – Establish a Defined Process GP 2.11 - Renew Existing Resources GP 2.10 – Review Status with H/L Management  the risk, introducing such criterion yet at GP 2.9 – Objectively Evacuate Adherence Level 2, could be to ask too much evidences GP 2.8 – Monitor and Control the Process here, with the consequence of an GP 2.7 – Identify and Involve Relevant Stakeholders underestimation, while such level should GP 2.6 – Manage Configuration demonstrate the ‘repeatability’ at the project GP 2.5 – Train People level . GP 2.4 – Assign Responsibilities GP 2.3 – Provide Resources GP 2.2 – Plan the Process 2 GP 2.1 – Establish an Organizational policy An Ecological View 1 [2] of [xx] GP1.1 – Perform Base Practices
    • Improving PAM Verify & Validate• V&V:  compare results from an appraisal performed both with the traditional PAM rules and with the modified rules (according to one of the variants above presented)  determine with ‘picture’ seems to be more adherent to the observed realityAn Ecological View [23] of[26]
    • Conclusions & Prospects Maturity Models adoption is growing more and more in the ICTcompanies from the mid ’90s on at the worldwide level Analyzing current PAMs, some thoughts and lessons learned fromEcology could be adapted & adopted, in particular the attention torenewal of (whatever) resources, in particular people/employees The more granular the appraisal criteria, the more valid therepresentational level of the observed entity (organizational unit by itsprocesses) Rethinking the criteria used for rating processes can help in a betterunderstanding of where (and how) creating new value for theorganization, focusing on the ability to ‘renew’ resources used in aprocess and the capability to manage them Few hypothesis about where placing this new criteria were presented,with main pros & cons for its eventual adoption in MMs.An Ecological View [24] of[26]
    • Thanks for Your attention!An Ecological View [25] of[26]
    • An Ecological View on Process Improvement Some Thoughts on Improving Process Appraisals LuigiBuglione École de Technologie Supérieure (ETS) University of Québec luigi.buglione@computer.org