Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Translating the business needs into an improvement programme using CMM:  a practical experience within  PHILIPS TV Guy Van...
<ul><li>History of SPI within PHILIPS </li></ul><ul><li>High End TV – why SPI ? </li></ul><ul><li>Achievements </li></ul><...
Evolution of Embedded Software:  4 Software Stages <ul><ul><li>Software Introduction  stage </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Fea...
Historic Overview <ul><li>1987 - 1991: Phase 0: Early Awareness Creation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Nov ‘87: Software Reference...
<ul><li>History of SPI within PHILIPS </li></ul><ul><li>High End TV – why SPI ? </li></ul><ul><li>Achievements </li></ul><...
High End Market High End products, High End expectations and targets
Business priorities <ul><li>Predictibility (shorter lead time, lower lead time and effort slip) </li></ul><ul><li>Product ...
Predictibility <ul><li>The world of consumer electronics is relying on introduction dates, selling seasons </li></ul><ul><...
Field call rate : what is acceptable? 4 Cylinders + 25.000 € 6 Cylinders + 40.000 € 8 Cylinders +  70.000 € 3 5 7 The high...
Expected quality in High End TV <ul><li>There is a correlation between product complexity (and size) and potential failure...
Field call rate: what about this...? Standard HIGH END Flat 16Kb SW  200 € 64Kb SW/ 50 Hz. 600 € 2Mb+  SW/100 Hz. 1200 € t...
Evolution of Embedded Software:  4 Software Stages <ul><ul><li>Software Introduction  stage </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Fea...
Software Performance Improvement SW Introduction Feature Expansion Mastering Complexity Open Systems Process Organization ...
Improvement Requirements per Stage Evolution in Embedded SW Development
How much software does a shaver contain ? Telephone exchange: 1975:  256 Kbytes 1990:  80 Mbytes High-end TV: 1985:  8 Kby...
Software Growth 1 10 100 1000 10000 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 Year Software Size (KBytes) TV VCR Double...
<ul><li>History of SPI within PHILIPS </li></ul><ul><li>High End TV – why SPI ? </li></ul><ul><li>Achievements </li></ul><...
Evolution time slip Decision making made possible: predictibility is also predicting delay. Peak in 2000 ? Product was not...
Evolution post release defects density
Software quality (measured with FCR) <ul><li>1998: top on the pareto list </li></ul><ul><li>2000: major improvement visibl...
Correlation pre-post release defects We could expect a linear correlation, but reality shows that the number of post relea...
Some achievements   based on facts and figures <ul><li>Results of SPI and of a platform approach: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Nu...
<ul><li>History of SPI within PHILIPS </li></ul><ul><li>High End TV – why SPI ? </li></ul><ul><li>Achievements </li></ul><...
CMM priorities – step 1 what to do first <ul><li>Basic processes </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Seldom an issue </li></ul></ul>...
CMM priorities – step 2 Increase control <ul><li>Basic leverage </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Process quality </li></ul></ul><ul><...
CMM priorities – step 3 Mature organization <ul><li>Extended processes :  </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>OPF-OPD – fully integr...
CMM priorities What to do in parallel ? <ul><li>To achieve the maturity levels, focus has to be put on: </li></ul><ul><ul>...
<ul><li>History of SPI within PHILIPS </li></ul><ul><li>High End TV – why SPI ? </li></ul><ul><li>Achievements </li></ul><...
New challenges <ul><li>Major new challenges for software: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Cooperation between product development an...
New challenges (continued) <ul><li>Need to keep product quality under control </li></ul><ul><li>-> Process performance nee...
<ul><li>History of SPI within PHILIPS </li></ul><ul><li>High End TV – why SPI ? </li></ul><ul><li>Achievements </li></ul><...
Software Performance Improvement SW Introduction Feature Expansion Mastering Complexity Open Systems Process Organization ...
What is the key to implement change ? <ul><li>Stepwise approach to address business needs progressively  </li></ul><ul><li...
Different aspects are related High Architecture and Technology level Organization, Staff, and Process level problematic in...
Balanced Software Performance Improvements High Architecture and Technology level Organization, Staff, and Process level p...
 
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Translating the business needs into an improvement programme using CMM: a practical experience within PHILIPS TV

674 views

Published on

This presentation has been given in 2003 at the Spider Conference to show how CMM could contribute to the business results of a large organization within Philips

  • Be the first to comment

Translating the business needs into an improvement programme using CMM: a practical experience within PHILIPS TV

  1. 1. Translating the business needs into an improvement programme using CMM: a practical experience within PHILIPS TV Guy Van Hooveld Thanks to Hans Aerts, Baudewyn Meersseman and Geert Acke for some of the presentation material
  2. 2. <ul><li>History of SPI within PHILIPS </li></ul><ul><li>High End TV – why SPI ? </li></ul><ul><li>Achievements </li></ul><ul><li>Recommendations </li></ul><ul><li>New challenges </li></ul><ul><li>Conclusions </li></ul>
  3. 3. Evolution of Embedded Software: 4 Software Stages <ul><ul><li>Software Introduction stage </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Feature Expansion stage </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Mastering Complexity stage </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Complex Systems stage </li></ul></ul>Hardware-dominated industry Software-dominated industry
  4. 4. Historic Overview <ul><li>1987 - 1991: Phase 0: Early Awareness Creation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Nov ‘87: Software Reference Model of the new “Center for Software Technology” mentions the “project” view </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>‘ 89: “Managing the Software Process” by Watts Humphrey </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>‘ 91 - ‘92: Growing SPI awareness within Philips </li></ul></ul><ul><li>1992 - 1996: Phase 1: SPI Infrastructure Creation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Jun ‘92: First SPI Guidelines published </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Jun ‘93: First SPI Steering Committee meeting </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Dec ‘96: Uniform approach within Philips for CMM certification </li></ul></ul><ul><li>1996 - now: Phase 2: Monitor SPI Results </li></ul><ul><ul><li>1997 : </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>SPI Steering Committee with a clear assignment and budget </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>CTOs clearly showed commitment to SPI </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Dec ‘00: More than 50% of all software staff works in sites with CMM level 2 or higher </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>2003: number of CMM level 3 organizations is growing </li></ul></ul>
  5. 5. <ul><li>History of SPI within PHILIPS </li></ul><ul><li>High End TV – why SPI ? </li></ul><ul><li>Achievements </li></ul><ul><li>Recommendations </li></ul><ul><li>New challenges </li></ul><ul><li>Conclusions </li></ul>
  6. 6. High End Market High End products, High End expectations and targets
  7. 7. Business priorities <ul><li>Predictibility (shorter lead time, lower lead time and effort slip) </li></ul><ul><li>Product quality (low field call rate) </li></ul><ul><li>Featuring (extended functionality) </li></ul><ul><li>Cost (reducing development cost, increasing productivity) </li></ul><ul><li>These priorities have to be translated into an improvement programme. Software is playing a key role. </li></ul>
  8. 8. Predictibility <ul><li>The world of consumer electronics is relying on introduction dates, selling seasons </li></ul><ul><li>Being on time with the right product is paramount </li></ul><ul><li>Lead time, time slip are top priorities </li></ul><ul><li>Any delay is paid cash (market share, sales volume, …) </li></ul>
  9. 9. Field call rate : what is acceptable? 4 Cylinders + 25.000 € 6 Cylinders + 40.000 € 8 Cylinders + 70.000 € 3 5 7 The higher the price, the higher the complexity, the higher the potential failure modes… ?
  10. 10. Expected quality in High End TV <ul><li>There is a correlation between product complexity (and size) and potential failure modes -> field call rate </li></ul><ul><li>Does a BMW 7 user expect more problems than a BMW 3 user ? </li></ul><ul><li>Does he/she accept more problems ? </li></ul><ul><li>Of course not : QUALITY NEEDS ARE MUCH HIGHER in the HIGH END segment </li></ul>
  11. 11. Field call rate: what about this...? Standard HIGH END Flat 16Kb SW 200 € 64Kb SW/ 50 Hz. 600 € 2Mb+ SW/100 Hz. 1200 € to 8000 € Portable The higher the price, the higher the complexity, the higher the potential failure modes… ?
  12. 12. Evolution of Embedded Software: 4 Software Stages <ul><ul><li>Software Introduction stage </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Feature Expansion stage </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Mastering Complexity stage </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Complex Systems stage </li></ul></ul>Hardware-dominated industry Software-dominated industry
  13. 13. Software Performance Improvement SW Introduction Feature Expansion Mastering Complexity Open Systems Process Organization Product People Technology Architecture
  14. 14. Improvement Requirements per Stage Evolution in Embedded SW Development
  15. 15. How much software does a shaver contain ? Telephone exchange: 1975: 256 Kbytes 1990: 80 Mbytes High-end TV: 1985: 8 Kbytes 2000: 2 Mbytes Shaver: 2000: 4 Kbytes 2015: ?????
  16. 16. Software Growth 1 10 100 1000 10000 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 Year Software Size (KBytes) TV VCR Double every 2 years
  17. 17. <ul><li>History of SPI within PHILIPS </li></ul><ul><li>High End TV – why SPI ? </li></ul><ul><li>Achievements </li></ul><ul><li>Recommendations </li></ul><ul><li>New challenges </li></ul><ul><li>Conclusions </li></ul>
  18. 18. Evolution time slip Decision making made possible: predictibility is also predicting delay. Peak in 2000 ? Product was not on the critical path and had the appropriate quality. The potential delay was predictable and has been taken into account.
  19. 19. Evolution post release defects density
  20. 20. Software quality (measured with FCR) <ul><li>1998: top on the pareto list </li></ul><ul><li>2000: major improvement visible </li></ul><ul><li>2002: disappearing from the pareto </li></ul><ul><li>2003: very few small incidents reappearing </li></ul><ul><li>2004: ? (new platform) </li></ul>
  21. 21. Correlation pre-post release defects We could expect a linear correlation, but reality shows that the number of post release defects is in fact more or less constant while complexity is growing .
  22. 22. Some achievements based on facts and figures <ul><li>Results of SPI and of a platform approach: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Number of clusters (types of products) released has tripled since 1998 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Software product quality has significantly increased (field calls reduced by a factor 10) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>despite the following facts </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Software size and complexity have quadrupled since 1998 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No significant software headcount growth in High End TV since 1999 </li></ul></ul>
  23. 23. <ul><li>History of SPI within PHILIPS </li></ul><ul><li>High End TV – why SPI ? </li></ul><ul><li>Achievements </li></ul><ul><li>Recommendations </li></ul><ul><li>New challenges </li></ul><ul><li>Conclusions </li></ul>
  24. 24. CMM priorities – step 1 what to do first <ul><li>Basic processes </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Seldom an issue </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>(most organizations very quickly master those KPAs) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Configuration management </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Requirements management </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Basic planning and tracking (not necessarily CMM compliant) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Subcontract management (basic) if applicable </li></ul></ul></ul>
  25. 25. CMM priorities – step 2 Increase control <ul><li>Basic leverage </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Process quality </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>QA </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>High level supportive quality officer </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Escalation procedure </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Issues tracked to closure </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Subcontract management (extended) if applicable </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Estimates </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Better planning and tracking (extended) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Product quality (related to PE and PR KPAs) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Functional test team installed very early </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Peer reviewing at all levels </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Architecture </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Guidelines (coding rules, design templates, …) </li></ul></ul></ul>
  26. 26. CMM priorities – step 3 Mature organization <ul><li>Extended processes : </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>OPF-OPD – fully integrated strategy </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>ISM – PP/PT at a higher level: improve proactivity </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>IC – look outside software -> project management </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>TP – formalized </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Start thinking of CMM L4 and L5 </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Defects prevention first (focus on product quality) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Introduce statistical process control </li></ul></ul></ul>
  27. 27. CMM priorities What to do in parallel ? <ul><li>To achieve the maturity levels, focus has to be put on: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Improving the capabilities of the organization </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Install a SEPG group </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Hiring higher level people </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Organize training </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Focus on interdepartmental awareness </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Integrate in overall improvement plan </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Adapt the organization structure </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>To realize product strategy </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Define and deploy future proof concept and architecture </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Adapt the organizational model accordingly </li></ul></ul></ul>
  28. 28. <ul><li>History of SPI within PHILIPS </li></ul><ul><li>High End TV – why SPI ? </li></ul><ul><li>Achievements </li></ul><ul><li>Recommendations </li></ul><ul><li>New challenges </li></ul><ul><li>Conclusions </li></ul>
  29. 29. New challenges <ul><li>Major new challenges for software: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Cooperation between product development and IC related SW development (rely more on suppliers) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Digital” (huge increase of software size/complexity) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Leading to problems like: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Customer-supplier relationship and software ownership </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Customer-specific and common components in one architecture </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Main software/DSP software integration (technical integration of stacks and organizational cooperation between two existing large SW organizations with their own systems/structures/culture) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Requiring solutions in: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Program me definition </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Architecture </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Process </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Program me execution </li></ul></ul>
  30. 30. New challenges (continued) <ul><li>Need to keep product quality under control </li></ul><ul><li>-> Process performance needs to be quantified and analyzed: first candidates are Peer Reviews and Testing (improving the quality of defects filters at phase transitions) </li></ul><ul><li>New kinds of testing are being deployed/extended </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Home testing </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Field testing </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Stress testing </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>User perception </li></ul></ul></ul>
  31. 31. <ul><li>History of SPI within PHILIPS </li></ul><ul><li>High End TV – why SPI ? </li></ul><ul><li>Achievements </li></ul><ul><li>Recommendations </li></ul><ul><li>New challenges </li></ul><ul><li>Conclusions </li></ul>
  32. 32. Software Performance Improvement SW Introduction Feature Expansion Mastering Complexity Open Systems Process Organization Product People Technology Architecture
  33. 33. What is the key to implement change ? <ul><li>Stepwise approach to address business needs progressively </li></ul><ul><li>Know what is wrong </li></ul><ul><li>Know what has to be changed first </li></ul><ul><li>Need to “Measure”, “Detect” </li></ul><ul><li>CMM L2, L3 </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Relying on QA (quality officer) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Product quality information </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>CMM L4, L5 </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Apply statistical process control </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Also focus on the other deployment axes </li></ul>
  34. 34. Different aspects are related High Architecture and Technology level Organization, Staff, and Process level problematic inefficient high risk target High Low
  35. 35. Balanced Software Performance Improvements High Architecture and Technology level Organization, Staff, and Process level problematic inefficient high risk target High Low SPI

×