Life Cycle Approach to
                            a
2001/7/18
                                                           ...
Life Cycle Approach to
                             a
2001/7/18
                                                          ...
Life Cycle Approach to
                            a
2001/7/18
                                                           ...
Life Cycle Approach to
                            a
2001/7/18
                                                           ...
Life Cycle Approach to
                                  a
2001/7/18
                                                     ...
Life Cycle Approach to
                                a
2001/7/18
                                                       ...
Life Cycle Approach to
                            a
2001/7/18
                                                           ...
Life Cycle Approach to
                            a
2001/7/18
                                                           ...
Life Cycle Approach to
                            a
2001/7/18
                                                           ...
Life Cycle Approach to
                            a
2001/7/18
                                                           ...
Life Cycle Approach to
                               a
2001/7/18
                                                        ...
Life Cycle Approach to
                               a
2001/7/18
                                                        ...
Life Cycle Approach to
                             a
2001/7/18
                                                          ...
Life Cycle Approach to
                                 a
2001/7/18
                                                      ...
Life Cycle Approach to
                                a
2001/7/18
                                                       ...
Life Cycle Approach to
                            a
2001/7/18
                                                           ...
Life Cycle Approach to
                              a
2001/7/18
                                                         ...
Life Cycle Approach to
                            a
2001/7/18
                                                           ...
Life Cycle Approach to
                            a
2001/7/18
                                                           ...
Life Cycle Approach to
                                  a
2001/7/18
                                                     ...
Life Cycle Approach to
                              a
2001/7/18
                                                         ...
Life Cycle Approach to
                                           a
2001/7/18
                                            ...
Life Cycle Approach to
                                      a
2001/7/18
                                                 ...
Life Cycle Approach to
                               a
2001/7/18
                                                        ...
Life Cycle Approach to
                            a
2001/7/18
                                                           ...
Life Cycle Approach to
                                                 a
2001/7/18
                                      ...
Life Cycle Approach to
                            a
2001/7/18
                                                           ...
Life Cycle Approach to
                               a
2001/7/18
                                                        ...
Life Cycle Approach to
                                     a
2001/7/18
                                                  ...
Life Cycle Approach to
                            a
2001/7/18
                                                           ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Life Cycle Approach To Managing Projects

1,808 views

Published on

Invited Presentation : Delivering & Measuring I/T Value & ROI), July, 2004, Toronto, Ontario.

The paper will identify where current practices need improvement and demonstrate the author’s experience in :

· Applying a Software/System Engineering life cycle model to drive project management
· Quoting, planning and delivering projects that align with corporate objectives
philosophically and practically
· Developing project criteria to link projects in a cohesive strategy
· Using project and service metrics incorporated in the model to validate the success of projects.

0 Comments
4 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,808
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
11
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
4
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Life Cycle Approach To Managing Projects

  1. 1. Life Cycle Approach to a 2001/7/18 LCAMP Managing Projects Using a Life Cycle Model to Manage Projects LCAMP July 18, 2001 Stephen W.A. MacLean, P. Eng. 06/12/2008 Stephen W.A. MacLean, P. Eng. 1 The views expressed in this paper are the author’s only author’
  2. 2. Life Cycle Approach to a 2001/7/18 LCAMP Managing Projects Ensuring that projects meet expectations on schedule and budget is a complex challenge for any I/T project manager. At the CIO level, doing so for a range of simultaneous projects and enterprise-wide initiatives can often be a major headache. The paper will identify where current practices need improvement and demonstrate the author’s experience in : • Applying a Software/System Engineering life cycle model to drive project management • Quoting, planning and delivering projects that align with corporate objectives philosophically and practically • Developing project criteria to link projects in a cohesive strategy • Using project and service metrics incorporated in the model to validate the success of projects. 06/12/2008 Stephen W.A. MacLean, P. Eng. 2 The views expressed in this paper are the author’s only author’
  3. 3. Life Cycle Approach to a 2001/7/18 LCAMP Managing Projects The CIO’s new ‘Ride’ !! Straight from Kars by Komponents, Inc. - your VIRTUAL car company !!! 06/12/2008 Stephen W.A. MacLean, P. Eng. 3 The views expressed in this paper are the author’s only author’
  4. 4. Life Cycle Approach to a 2001/7/18 LCAMP Managing Projects What’s Wrong with This Picture? Time, Money or Requirements - PICK ANY 2 ????? ? ? ? ? 06/12/2008 Stephen W.A. MacLean, P. Eng. 4 The views expressed in this paper are the author’s only author’
  5. 5. Life Cycle Approach to a 2001/7/18 LCAMP Managing Projects Patterns of Software Systems Failure and Success In his thorough 1996 treatise on software management practices, Jones makes the following observation : It is both interesting and significant that the first six out of “ sixteen {sic}… factors associated with software disasters are specific failures in the domain of project management, and three of the other … deficiencies can be indirectly assigned to poor management practices. “ 1 1 [Jones,1996] Jones, Capers : “Patterns of Software Systems Failure & Success” (International Thomson Computer Press, Boston, MA, 1996) 06/12/2008 Stephen W.A. MacLean, P. Eng. 5 The views expressed in this paper are the author’s only author’
  6. 6. Life Cycle Approach to a 2001/7/18 LCAMP Managing Projects I would go further to say that all of the items highlighted reflect the use or lack of use of a formal, Life Cycle Methodology and the incorporation of same into formal Project Plans. Approaches used on Unsuccessful Projects Approaches used on Successful Projects 1 No historical software management data Accurate Software Measurement 2 Failure to use Automated testing tools Early use of estimating tools 3 Failure to use Automated planning tools Early use of planning tools 4 Failure to monitor progress or milestones Formal progress reporting 5 Failure to use effective architecture Formal architecture planning 6 Failure to use effective development methods Formal development methods 7 Failure to use design reviews Formal design reviews 8 Failure to use code reviews Formal code reviews 9 Failure to include formal risk management Formal risk management 10 Informal, inadequate testing Formal testing methods 11 Manual design and specification Automated design and specification 12 Failure to use formal configuration control Automated configuration control 13 More than 30% creep in user requirements Less than 10% creep in user requirements Inappropriate use of 4GL's Use of suitable languages 14 Excessive and unmeasured complexity Controlled and measured complexity 15 Little or no reuse of certified materials Significant reuse of certified materials 16 17 Failure to define database elements Formal database planning 06/12/2008 Stephen W.A. MacLean, P. Eng. 6 The views expressed in this paper are the author’s only author’
  7. 7. Life Cycle Approach to a 2001/7/18 LCAMP Managing Projects There are, of course, a myriad of other factors that can result in a negative of a project, including : Other factors found on Unsuccessful Projects 1 Lack of user involvement 2 Lack of Executive support 3 Lack of competent staff resources 4 Excessive schedule pressure 5 Rejection of estimates by Executive 6 Destabilising corporate politics 7 Poor/untried technology choices 8 Failure to control unrealistic expectations 9 Lack of clear vision and objectives 10 Significant friction with client(s) 11 Poor team dynamics/communications 06/12/2008 Stephen W.A. MacLean, P. Eng. 7 The views expressed in this paper are the author’s only author’
  8. 8. Life Cycle Approach to a 2001/7/18 LCAMP Managing Projects Principles to be embodied in the life cycle approach : • Architecture-first : achieve a balance between requirements and significant design/architecture decisions. • Incorporate iterative, RAD prototype-based approach. • Emphasise component-based development, based upon OO technologies. • Incorporate formal configuration control & change management practices. • Use automated tools to support round-trip Engineering (synchronise requirements changes, resulting in design/architecture changes and code changes). • Rigorous Quality Control and testing processes, with early definition of test plans. • Prioritise requirements and weight them if possible. • Practice incremental delivery, based upon a formal Release management process. • Practice a demonstration-based review process, both for working prototypes and incremental releases. • Get the system working properly before trying to improve performance. 06/12/2008 Stephen W.A. MacLean, P. Eng. 8 The views expressed in this paper are the author’s only author’
  9. 9. Life Cycle Approach to a 2001/7/18 LCAMP Managing Projects Employ Capability Maturity Management The SEI Capability Maturity Model provides a set of requirements for use in setting up the processes used to control software product development and software acquisition. Optimising 5 4 Managed 3 Defined 2 Repeatable 1 Initial (Ad-hoc) 06/12/2008 Stephen W.A. MacLean, P. Eng. 9 The views expressed in this paper are the author’s only author’
  10. 10. Life Cycle Approach to a 2001/7/18 LCAMP Managing Projects SEI - CMM Level 2 At a minimum, move from Level 1 (Ad-hoc) to Level 2 • Repeatable • Requirements Management • Software Project Planning • Software Project Tracking and Oversight • Software Subcontract Management • Software Quality Assurance • Software Configuration Management 06/12/2008 Stephen W.A. MacLean, P. Eng. 10 The views expressed in this paper are the author’s only author’
  11. 11. Life Cycle Approach to a 2001/7/18 LCAMP Managing Projects CMM Level 2 KPA’s Requirements Management of requirements allocated to software to resolve issues KPA1 Management before they are incorporated into the software project Software Project Developing estimates for the work to be performed, establishing the KPA2 Planning necessary commitments and defining the plan to perform the work Tracking and reviewing the software accomplishments and results Software Project against documented estimates, commitments and plans and Tracking and KPA3 adjusting these plans based on the actual accomplishments and Oversight results Selecting a software subcontractor, establishing commitments with Software Subcontract KPA4 the subcontractor and tracking and reviewing the subcontractor's Management performance and results Reviewing and auditing the software products and activities to verify Software Quality that they comply with the applicable procedures and standards and KPA5 Assurance providing the software project and other appropriate managers with the results of these reviews and audits Identifying the configuration of selected software work products at Software Configuration given points in time, systematically controlling changes to the KPA6 Management configuration and maintaining the integrity and traceability of the configuration throughout the software life cycle KPA = Key Process Area, as defined by SEI 06/12/2008 Stephen W.A. MacLean, P. Eng. 11 The views expressed in this paper are the author’s only author’
  12. 12. Life Cycle Approach to a 2001/7/18 LCAMP Managing Projects Rapid Configuration Requirements Definition Prototyping Controlled Items & Project Plan Review & Sign-off Develop Requirements REQUIREMENTS FROZEN Requirements Project Plan Develop Estimating Project Plan Develop Conceptual Review Conceptual Design & Sign-off Design Develop Standard Detailed Detailed Component DESIGN FROZEN Design Design Library Review & Sign-off 1 1 of 2 06/12/2008 Stephen W.A. MacLean, P. Eng. 12 The views expressed in this paper are the author’s only author’
  13. 13. Life Cycle Approach to a 2001/7/18 LCAMP Managing Projects 1 Develop First First Cut Test Configuration Cut Test Plans Plan Review Controlled Items Deliver to QA Group Develop Code Code Code FROZEN & & Test Test Plans released to QA Plans Review & Sign-off Development Standard Production Integration Test Test & System Review Test Component Release & Sign-off Library Develop Text for Manuals : Training Methodology & Create User Implementation Commercial Validation Quality Systems Docs. Manuals Review 2 of 2 Documentation & Sign-off 06/12/2008 Stephen W.A. MacLean, P. Eng. 13 The views expressed in this paper are the author’s only author’
  14. 14. Life Cycle Approach to a 2001/7/18 LCAMP Managing Projects % er 4th Quarter 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quar Project Management time embedded in each phase Simplified Total Status Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Project or Task r r & D Project (if Required) &DProjectIFREQUIRED) ( %VAR %VAR System Development :Version___ _ 100% 100% System Development (Ver.: ___) The Life Cycle PrototypingSpecification & 15% Prototyping & Requirements 15% Model drives the structure & Design 25% Design 40% phases of the project plan. Development 26% Coding 15% NOT the other way Testing 26% 25% Testing around! Documentation 19% (//) User Manuals 5% SQA 8% Production Release RSC Training & Implementation %VAR Customer Release 96/05/24 3:30 PM Customer Release 06/12/2008 Stephen W.A. MacLean, P. Eng. 14 The views expressed in this paper are the author’s only author’
  15. 15. Life Cycle Approach to a 2001/7/18 LCAMP Managing Projects Project Rev 1.2.0 Estimating Estimating Spreadsheet Duration 100.00% 100.00 Spreadsheet Project Management 10.50% 10.50 Ongoing project review 6.30 - uses life cycle Change Management 3.15 Management Review 1.05 metrics. Requirements Planning 12.00% 12.00 Review existing system 1.15 Model process 1.44 Identify user requirements 2.53 Prototyping (iterative) 3.28 Prepare Software Requirements Specification 3.11 Software Requirements Review(s) 0.50 Requirements Frozen 0.00 Design : Conceptual & Detailed 37.00% 37.00 Prepare Design 25.55 Document design 7.30 Prepare Software Test Plan 3.65 Design Review(s): PDR & CDR 0.50 Design Frozen 0.00 Programming 13.50% 13.50 Develop Programmes/Assemble Components 7.80 Test Programmes (complete test plan) 2.60 Document code & prepare for code review(s) 2.60 Code review(s) 0.50 Programming Complete 0.00 Development Functionality testing 9.00% 9.00 Prepare Software Test Plan 2.13 Functionality Test 6.38 Test review 0.50 Functionality Testing Complete 0.00 Development Integration Test 13.00% 13.00 Enhance test plan 3.13 Integration Test 9.38 Test review 0.50 Coverage Testing Complete 0.00 User Documentation 5.00% 5.00 Customer UAT 7.00 Conduct Software Acceptance Review 0.50 06/12/2008 Stephen W.A. MacLean, P. Eng. 15 The views expressed in this paper are the author’s only author’
  16. 16. Life Cycle Approach to a 2001/7/18 LCAMP Managing Projects Prototyping Objective : To be able to rapidly construct a working prototype which is able to serve as a proof of concept and high-level demonstration tool to the end-user. Provides input to and facilitates the process of detailed requirements definition and conceptual design. Static : Visio (or similar) prototype consisting of : Process diagrams, with data flows Linked screens showing data flow. Working. : Simple screens + simple database + simplified control system. Further steps, if required, will result from feedback from the Requirements Definition and will result in enhanced prototypes and/or simulations. 06/12/2008 Stephen W.A. MacLean, P. Eng. 16 The views expressed in this paper are the author’s only author’
  17. 17. Life Cycle Approach to a 2001/7/18 LCAMP Managing Projects Develop Conceptual Design Objective : To establish the functional, performance, interface, design and verification requirements. To provide a basis for the design and development of the software. Contents Review Operational concepts PDR - Preliminary (Conceptual) Operational timelines Design Review & sign off. Operational configurations Operational control Major function (module) design Approval Sizing & timing estimates Process/Data flow diagrams Customer Module interfaces Director, Development Method/processing sequence Sub-contractor mgmt. I/O definition Major screens, reports. Conceptual Design Document Database design Algorithm/methodology limitations User interface definition Control Standard UI functions Class II (under control, but not released) before PDR Class 1 (released) after PDR. 06/12/2008 Stephen W.A. MacLean, P. Eng. 17 The views expressed in this paper are the author’s only author’
  18. 18. Life Cycle Approach to a 2001/7/18 LCAMP Managing Projects Business Drivers Business Model Strategic Inputs • Business Principles Architectural Principles Organisation Information Application Model Model Model • Org Charts • Data Models • Application • Maturity Path Models Portfolio • Process Models Technology Model Architecture • Technology Stds Matrix First! • Refresh Model 06/12/2008 Stephen W.A. MacLean, P. Eng. 18 The views expressed in this paper are the author’s only author’
  19. 19. Life Cycle Approach to a 2001/7/18 LCAMP Managing Projects Principles for Architecture First! & Life Cycle Management. • Quality must be a given. • Drive out requirements and major design constraints early in the life cycle. • Track requirements traceability and use metrics to measure the quality of the architecture as the system moves from a working prototype to a full product. • Use automated tools to support round-trip Engineering and integrated Configuration/Change Management. • Use Demonstration-based evaluations to provide early insight to architectural limitations and/or performance problems. • Practice incremental release management - don’t compromise quality or architecture for the sake of banging functionality into a release at the last minute. 06/12/2008 Stephen W.A. MacLean, P. Eng. 19 The views expressed in this paper are the author’s only author’
  20. 20. Life Cycle Approach to a 2001/7/18 LCAMP Managing Projects Common User Interface (Browser--based) Line of Business Applications Document Management, Data Warehouse, Desktop, ... Bar indicates level of risk to integration ERP strategy. Example Strategy : Integration Silo 5 Silo 1 Silo 4 Silo 2 Silo3 Degree of coverage across the business 06/12/2008 Stephen W.A. MacLean, P. Eng. 20 The views expressed in this paper are the author’s only author’
  21. 21. Life Cycle Approach to a 2001/7/18 LCAMP Managing Projects • Expanding the model! Level of risk for for a given Strategy Degree of integration across a Line of business for all Strategies Degree of integration across the corporation for a given Strategy ER P In tegr Lin atio e of n Bus ine ss Inte gra tion 06/12/2008 Stephen W.A. MacLean, P. Eng. 21 The views expressed in this paper are the author’s only author’
  22. 22. Life Cycle Approach to a 2001/7/18 LCAMP Managing Projects A Cohesive Strategy based upon Project Criteria Integration Strategy Project Criteria Required Resources Criteria : 1. Number of Interfaces between discrete applications 2. Resources (time, money people, tools …) required to support Number of Interfaces interfaces. Integration Strategy Legacy Environment 06/12/2008 Stephen W.A. MacLean, P. Eng. 22 The views expressed in this paper are the author’s only author’
  23. 23. Life Cycle Approach to a 2001/7/18 LCAMP Managing Projects Web Portal * Vendors * Customers E-Business (need STRATEGY) High-Level Architecture ot w & n e io A evi at Integration Strategy R AD nn C AD E C Purchasing Document Materials Manage- Manage- ment ment Human Resources Corporate Data FINANCE Benefits; Time & A/R, A/P, G/L, Pension System Attendance, Fixed Assets Payroll, Job Costing, etc. Training, etc. Scheduling & Capacity WorkFlow Planning s C pp n es us li io in A to ca at us m tio lic f B ng pp o ki A ne ac ce m n Li an o Tr st en u nt C ai Data M Warehouse Standardised Integration Handheld Hub or API Layer Devices EIS Executive Information System Sample : not a complete picture 06/12/2008 Stephen W.A. MacLean, P. Eng. 23 The views expressed in this paper are the author’s only author’
  24. 24. Life Cycle Approach to a 2001/7/18 LCAMP Managing Projects Project and service metrics • Quality : • Rework : % items reworked out of total items delivered • Quality : % specifications/requirements achieved • Delivery performance : Projects, Service Requests - % deliverables on time • Budget performance : % Budget variance • Customer satisfaction : # Customer Complaints by Project or System • Process Quality : % Processes Meeting Project/Systems needs - normalised measure of the number of Corrective Action Requests (CARS) raised. • Uptime : % Systems and applications Available : (Available time (out of 7x24)/Total time : 7 x 24 ) • Planned Maintenance : % Systems and applications Maintained : ( Maintenance time out of 7x24)/Total time : 7 x 24 ) • Incident/Problem resolution : % calls resolved, by project or system • Service Request Resolution : % Service Requests resolved, by project or system 06/12/2008 Stephen W.A. MacLean, P. Eng. 24 The views expressed in this paper are the author’s only author’
  25. 25. Life Cycle Approach to a 2001/7/18 LCAMP Managing Projects • Build a Solid Foundation for the future • Deliver on-time, on-budget Solutions, that meet Business Requirements. Why do it? • Killer Processes !!! • Powerful Tools & Technologies • A team that has no peers!! 06/12/2008 Stephen W.A. MacLean, P. Eng. 25 The views expressed in this paper are the author’s only author’
  26. 26. Life Cycle Approach to a 2001/7/18 LCAMP Managing Projects Normalised Incremental Change Cost by Stage $ 1,000 Incremental Change Cost Post Roll Out Business Testing $ 100 Drivers. $ 10 Coding Design $1 Life Cycle Stage 06/12/2008 Stephen W.A. MacLean, P. Eng. 26 The views expressed in this paper are the author’s only author’
  27. 27. Life Cycle Approach to a 2001/7/18 LCAMP Managing Projects What does your staff get out of this? • Reduced Stress - on and off the job! • Increased job satisfaction • Happier Customers • Training and use of modern tools & technologies 06/12/2008 Stephen W.A. MacLean, P. Eng. 27 The views expressed in this paper are the author’s only author’
  28. 28. Life Cycle Approach to a 2001/7/18 LCAMP Managing Projects Resulting Improvements • Iterative, rapid prototyping, when combined with demonstration based evaluation, results in a significant reduction in rework and costs because any significant changes are caught in the requirements and design phases. • Considerably improved delivery performance by quoting and managing the project in the way the work is actually being done (the life cycle model), thus time for design, testing and documentation is included from the start, as opposed to being an afterthought. • Rework, as well problem/incident occurrence reduced due to avoidance of unplanned and uncoordinated changes. • Overall Quality considerably improved by active Scope/Change control and strict adherence to the Architecture First principles. Fewer initial performance problems as well. • Uptime and Customer Satisfaction improved due to improved quality and reduced rework. 06/12/2008 Stephen W.A. MacLean, P. Eng. 28 The views expressed in this paper are the author’s only author’
  29. 29. Life Cycle Approach to a 2001/7/18 LCAMP Managing Projects In Conclusion • While this paper has focused on software and application system process improvement, software engineering and delivery, the principles involved are directly transferable to infrastructure and hardware projects. • Like any other significant process improvement effort, faith, money and management commitment are all required in substantial doses. It is particularly important that the organisation and the team understand the ‘J’ curve concept : Productivity + Productivity Level @ Start of - Improvement Initiative Time • Process Improvement is a journey - it never ends. In addition, the SEI CMM methodology, which has only been touched on herein, provides a framework for external evaluation/audit, but like all such frameworks, should never be taken as a ‘Holy Grail’. 06/12/2008 Stephen W.A. MacLean, P. Eng. 29 The views expressed in this paper are the author’s only author’
  30. 30. Life Cycle Approach to a 2001/7/18 LCAMP Managing Projects THANK YOU !!! QUESTIONS? 06/12/2008 Stephen W.A. MacLean, P. Eng. 30 The views expressed in this paper are the author’s only author’

×