Team Software Process                                    1© 2011 Carnegie Mellon University
www.strongstep.pt/steptalks2011                  Team Software Process                                                    ...
Team Software Process:      High Performance Individuals            High Performance Teams             Alan Willett       ...
Frustrated ExecutiveExecutive needs    •   New feature set to meet increasing demands of customers    •   On time delivery...
Software Industry Project Performance Standish group 2009 Chaos                Many software projects fail to meet report....
Leading Causes of Project FailureLeading causes of project failure are:    •   Unrealistic schedules, staffing, and plans ...
Why?Management Expectations              Developer Skill Set“I want to see the most aggressive   Results from over 3000 de...
SEI Engineering SolutionsIntegrates and Leverages SEI Technologies                      Team        Rapid                 ...
Case StudyBackground:   •   Bolsa Mexicana de Valores (BMV)       operates the Mexican financial markets       under licen...
The ProjectBursatec committed to deliver a trading engine in8-10 quarters:    •   High performance (as fast or faster than...
TSP+ACE: Summary of Operational Best PracticesTeam Software Process                               Architecture-Centric Eng...
Personal Software Process (PSP) Training                         Average Defects/KLOC Removed in Test            70       ...
The TSP Launch Process1. Establish                  4. Build Top-      7. Conduct            9. HoldProduct and           ...
Transparency                                                                                                              ...
Experience and ResultsThe ACE methods and architecture coaching,coupled with the discipline of the TSP, built acompetent a...
AIM and Case Study #2SEI developed AIM (Accelerated Improvement Method) to meet the goals andchallenges of  •   Rapid achi...
[StepTalks2011] Team Software Process (TSP): High Performance Individuals, High Performance Teams - Alan Willett
[StepTalks2011] Team Software Process (TSP): High Performance Individuals, High Performance Teams - Alan Willett
[StepTalks2011] Team Software Process (TSP): High Performance Individuals, High Performance Teams - Alan Willett
[StepTalks2011] Team Software Process (TSP): High Performance Individuals, High Performance Teams - Alan Willett
[StepTalks2011] Team Software Process (TSP): High Performance Individuals, High Performance Teams - Alan Willett
[StepTalks2011] Team Software Process (TSP): High Performance Individuals, High Performance Teams - Alan Willett
[StepTalks2011] Team Software Process (TSP): High Performance Individuals, High Performance Teams - Alan Willett
[StepTalks2011] Team Software Process (TSP): High Performance Individuals, High Performance Teams - Alan Willett
[StepTalks2011] Team Software Process (TSP): High Performance Individuals, High Performance Teams - Alan Willett
[StepTalks2011] Team Software Process (TSP): High Performance Individuals, High Performance Teams - Alan Willett
[StepTalks2011] Team Software Process (TSP): High Performance Individuals, High Performance Teams - Alan Willett
[StepTalks2011] Team Software Process (TSP): High Performance Individuals, High Performance Teams - Alan Willett
[StepTalks2011] Team Software Process (TSP): High Performance Individuals, High Performance Teams - Alan Willett
[StepTalks2011] Team Software Process (TSP): High Performance Individuals, High Performance Teams - Alan Willett
[StepTalks2011] Team Software Process (TSP): High Performance Individuals, High Performance Teams - Alan Willett
[StepTalks2011] Team Software Process (TSP): High Performance Individuals, High Performance Teams - Alan Willett
[StepTalks2011] Team Software Process (TSP): High Performance Individuals, High Performance Teams - Alan Willett
[StepTalks2011] Team Software Process (TSP): High Performance Individuals, High Performance Teams - Alan Willett
[StepTalks2011] Team Software Process (TSP): High Performance Individuals, High Performance Teams - Alan Willett
[StepTalks2011] Team Software Process (TSP): High Performance Individuals, High Performance Teams - Alan Willett
[StepTalks2011] Team Software Process (TSP): High Performance Individuals, High Performance Teams - Alan Willett
[StepTalks2011] Team Software Process (TSP): High Performance Individuals, High Performance Teams - Alan Willett
[StepTalks2011] Team Software Process (TSP): High Performance Individuals, High Performance Teams - Alan Willett
[StepTalks2011] Team Software Process (TSP): High Performance Individuals, High Performance Teams - Alan Willett
[StepTalks2011] Team Software Process (TSP): High Performance Individuals, High Performance Teams - Alan Willett
[StepTalks2011] Team Software Process (TSP): High Performance Individuals, High Performance Teams - Alan Willett
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

[StepTalks2011] Team Software Process (TSP): High Performance Individuals, High Performance Teams - Alan Willett

1,016

Published on

StepTalks2011 - Team Software Process (TSP): High Performance Individuals, High Performance Teams

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

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,016
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

[StepTalks2011] Team Software Process (TSP): High Performance Individuals, High Performance Teams - Alan Willett

  1. 1. Team Software Process 1© 2011 Carnegie Mellon University
  2. 2. www.strongstep.pt/steptalks2011 Team Software Process 2 © 2011 Carnegie Mellon University
  3. 3. Team Software Process: High Performance Individuals High Performance Teams Alan Willett Software Engineering Institute Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213 E-mai: awillett@sei.cmu.edu Phone: 001 607-592-7279 March 2011 © 2011 Carnegie Mellon University
  4. 4. Frustrated ExecutiveExecutive needs • New feature set to meet increasing demands of customers • On time delivery • High quality software deliverables to lower the cost of maintenanceExecutive wish list • Improved architecture to enable more product lines, new markets, and more revenue • Higher productivity Team Software Process 4 © 2011 Carnegie Mellon University
  5. 5. Software Industry Project Performance Standish group 2009 Chaos Many software projects fail to meet report.2000-2008 Project Performance key technical and business objectives. Only 30% of projects satisfy their planned cost, schedule, and feature commitments. Nearly 50% are Challenged Failed • 43% average cost overrun • 83% average schedule overrunChallenged • Only 52% of planned features are completedSuccessful 0 10 20 30 40 50 Team Software Process 5 © 2011 Carnegie Mellon University
  6. 6. Leading Causes of Project FailureLeading causes of project failure are: • Unrealistic schedules, staffing, and plans • Changing or misunderstood requirements • Inadequate or poorly implemented architecture • Test-in quality • Undisciplined practice Team Software Process 6 © 2011 Carnegie Mellon University
  7. 7. Why?Management Expectations Developer Skill Set“I want to see the most aggressive Results from over 3000 developersschedule possible!” writing a controlled sample set of programs. - On average remove 40“Hurry up and get it to test so we defects/KLOC in Unit Test.can start finding the defects.” Delivering an expected 10-20 defects/KLOC to system test.“Never slip a date until the day Estimation Erroryou miss it.” Team Software Process 7 © 2011 Carnegie Mellon University
  8. 8. SEI Engineering SolutionsIntegrates and Leverages SEI Technologies Team Rapid Architecture Six Sigma CMMI SCAMPI Software Deployment Centric toolkit Process Strategy Engineering Team Software Process 8 © 2011 Carnegie Mellon University
  9. 9. Case StudyBackground: • Bolsa Mexicana de Valores (BMV) operates the Mexican financial markets under license from the federal government. • Bursatec is the technology arm of the BMV. • BMV desired a new trading engine to replace the existing stock market engine and integrate the options and futures markets. • The BMV performed a build vs. buy analysis, and decided to replace their three existing trading engines with one in-house developed system. Team Software Process 9 © 2011 Carnegie Mellon University
  10. 10. The ProjectBursatec committed to deliver a trading engine in8-10 quarters: • High performance (as fast or faster than anything out there) • Reliable and of high quality (the market cannot go down) • Scalable (able to handle both spikes and long-term growth in trading volume)Complicating factors: • Pressure – managers replaced when commitments are not met • Inexperience – available staff talented but young • Large project – beyond the organization’s recent experience • Key implementation technologies never used together formally • Constant stream of new requirements/changes to business rules Team Software Process 10 © 2011 Carnegie Mellon University
  11. 11. TSP+ACE: Summary of Operational Best PracticesTeam Software Process Architecture-Centric EngineeringTSP is a disciplined, agile, process for software The discipline of using architecture as the focaldevelopment teams. TSP builds teams that build point for performing ongoing analyses to assurehigh-quality products at lower cost while meetingplanned costs and schedule. systems will support their missions. • Self-managed team • Quality Attribute Workshop management model • Business Thread Workshop • TSP metrics framework • Attribute-Driven Design • Team Launch process • Views and Beyond • Estimating method (PROBE) • Quality management model • Architecture Trade-off Analysis Method • Personal Software Process • Active Reviews for • Project-based deployment strategy Intermediate Design Team Software Process 11 © 2011 Carnegie Mellon University
  12. 12. Personal Software Process (PSP) Training Average Defects/KLOC Removed in Test 70 60 50 C++ Def/KLOC 40 C C# 30 Java VB 20 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Program Number Team Software Process 12 © 2011 Carnegie Mellon University
  13. 13. The TSP Launch Process1. Establish 4. Build Top- 7. Conduct 9. HoldProduct and down and Risk ManagementBusiness Next-Phase Assessment ReviewGoals Plans 8. Prepare2. Assign Roles 5. Develop Management Launchand Define the Quality Briefing and PostmortemTeam Goals Plan Launch Report3. Produce 6. Build Bottom- The TSP launch process produces necessaryDevelopment up and planning artifacts, e.g. goals, roles,Strategy Consolidated estimates, task plan, milestones, quality plan, Plans risk mitigation plan, etc. The most important outcome is a committed team. Team Software Process 13 © 2011 Carnegie Mellon University
  14. 14. Transparency Cumulative Earned ValueVisible artifacts from every team, 100.0 90.0 Cumulative Planned and Actual Hours per Weekevery six weeks. 80.0 70.0 2500.0 Planned and Actual Hours per Week 200.0 Earned Value Earned Value 60.0 2000.0 Cumulative Planned Value 180.0On-going reviews of all artifacts 50.0 Cumulative EV Cummulative Hours 14.0 1500.0 160.0 Cumulative Predicted Earned Value 40.0 140.0 12.0 Cumulative Planned Hoursensures technical quality. 30.0 Cumulative Actual Hours 120.0 20.0 1000.0 10.0 Hours Planned Hours 100.0 10.0 Earned Value Actual Hours 80.0 8.0 Planned Value 0.0 500.0Project status Earned Value 2/24/2003 4/7/2003 5/5/2003 12/2/2002 1/13/2003 1/27/2003 2/10/2003 2/24/2003 3/10/2003 2/10/20033/24/2003 3/10/20034/21/2003 12/16/2002 12/30/2002 60.0 6.0 Predicted Earned Value 40.0 0.0 4.0 Percent Defect Free 4/7/2003 5/5/2003 12/2/2002 1/13/2003 1/27/2003 3/24/2003 4/21/2003 12/16/2002 12/30/2002 20.0 Weeks • To-date effort and schedule 100.0% 0.0 2.0 4/7/2003 5/5/2003 12/2/2002 1/13/2003 1/27/2003 2/10/2003 2/24/2003 3/10/2003 3/24/2003 4/21/2003 12/16/2002 12/30/2002 Defects Removed by Phase for Assembly SYSTEM 90.0% Weeks 0.0 4/7/2003 5/5/2003 12/2/2002 1/13/2003 1/27/2003 2/10/2003 2/24/2003 3/10/2003 3/24/2003 4/21/2003 12/16/2002 12/30/2002 Predicted effort and schedule 80.0% • 500.0 Weeks Defect Density by Phase for Assembly SYSTEM 70.0% 450.0 Percent Defect Free Defects Removed by Phase 400.0 60.0% Weeks 350.0 25.00 • Resource utilization 50.0% 40.0% 300.0 250.0 20.00 Cumulative Defects Removed by Phase for Assembly SYSTEM Plan 1400 Actual Cumulative Defects Removed by Phase 200.0 Defects/KLOC 30.0% • Process and plan fidelity 20.0% 150.0 100.0 15.00 1200 Plan Actual 10.00 1000 10.0% 50.0 0.0 800 • Pre-test, post-test, and release quality 0.0% 5.00 Plan n st le t n n n e st w w es ti o tio tio Actual tio Te od In Compile In Unit Test In Build and In System Test In Acceptance Test In Product Life pi ie Te ie 600 tT ec om ec ec ev ec C ev n em sp ni Integration Test io sp sp sp R R C U at In D In In In st de gr w DL Sy EQ 0.00 400 LD LD e w Co t T Inte Phase od R H D C Cycle and phase entry and exit criteria d • st le t n n st an es tio tio Te pi ie Te ie 200 om ec ev ec i ld ev n em ni io sp Bu sp R R C U at LD In In st e gr od Sy 0 LD n de D de te Phase Te nts C tio o od Co In D ec C d n n n t Bue t sp n H Tes n ng sp le i o st on In Uni n es st w en w an ti o In Pla la ig LD sig tio pi gr t Te ie Te ie i ld ti ni Sy n T P pm es e ec om c De ev ec e ev m an t EQ st em D D D el o sp sp R re R C Pl d g r vel at In Sy qui In In st e le v n em ai Le LD LD io e e D te Phase od et R C at h- st st R D C ig Te d te H an In i ld Bu Phase Team Software Process 14 © 2011 Carnegie Mellon University
  15. 15. Experience and ResultsThe ACE methods and architecture coaching,coupled with the discipline of the TSP, built acompetent architecture team quickly.The project objectives were met. • Schedule – finished early • Quality – early trials and quality metrics suggest that reliability and quality goals were met. • Performance – a day’s worth of transactions can be processed in seconds. • Total test effort was less than 15% of total development effort. • Architecture development effort was less than 15% of total development effort. Team Software Process 15 © 2011 Carnegie Mellon University
  16. 16. AIM and Case Study #2SEI developed AIM (Accelerated Improvement Method) to meet the goals andchallenges of • Rapid achievement of maturity levels • High performance projects • Rapid return on investment Team Rapid CMMI SCAMPI Software Deployment Process Strategy Accelerated Improvement Method Team Software Process 16 © 2011 Carnegie Mellon University

×