Is This a Valid Performance Model?

Is a reliability growth model considered to be a valid PPM in the CMMI?


Asking this question out of context with what you do in the organization does not have a lot of meaning.  The correct answer is both yes and no.  Please remember what High Maturity is all about.  You begin with setting your business goals and objectives and use them to derive your Quality and Process Performance Objectives (QPPOs).  These QPPOs in turn will lead you to the proper measures, process performance baselines (PPBs), and process performance models (PPMs) that your organization needs to quantitatively and statistically manage your work.So, if Reliability Growth is a critical process or sub-process and you have sufficient data to analyze to determine that you have a stable and capable process, then a reliability growth model might be considered a valid PPM.

But just selecting models without performing the analysis I just sketched out is incorrect and you will not be able to demonstrate that your organization is a High Maturity organization.

Thanks for the detail. I just happen to see in CMMI v1.3 High Maturity in which the "reliability model growth" which was given as example in OPP SP1.5 (CMMI v1.2) is deleted. Does it mean that reliability growth model will not be accepted in CMMI v1.3? Or the reliability growth model is not acceptable by the experts? Or is it only good if you use CMM v1.2  and not for CMMI v1.3?

As CMMI v1.3 is an improvement and the practices are carefully analyzed by the SEI and experts, is it advisible to use the reliability growth model given in CMMI v1.2? Or there is any chance that CMMI v1.3 will include the reliability growth model as an example?


Apparently there is some misunderstanding of my answer above.  Whether the CMMI contains the reliability growth model as an example or not is irrelevant to whether or not it is a good model.  Your organization has to mathematically analyze its data, business objectives, QPPOs, PPBs, and PPMs to determine if there is a need for using a reliability growth model.  Do the following analysis:

1. Describe the reliability growth model in probabilistic terms.
2. Define the critical sub-processes (those that must be consistently and correctly followed every time) that can be managed using the reliability growth model.
3. Define how a project manager uses the reliability growth model in the context of his or her projects to predict performance, "what-if" analysis, and predict QPPO achievement.
4. Provide an equation or show by other means how the stable sub-processes that you have identified in your processes contribute to the reliability growth model.
5. List the other models that are used in conjunction with reliability growth model and why it has statistical relevance.

Once you have performed this analysis you will have enough information to answer this question yourself.

How Do We Select a High Maturity Consultant?

My friend is a Quality Manager in a company who has reached CMMI Maturity Level 3. They now want to achieve Maturity Level 5. They started taking quotes from different companies. In the selection process they found that there are 3 or 4 major players in our country who have up to 3 High Maturity Lead Appraisers. Most of these companies have submitted proposals for consulting and appraisal in a single quote. Now my friend fears that:

1. Most of them already have at least 40 High Maturity clients and at least 30 Maturity Level 3 clients. Will they have the capacity do lead the appraisal on time for my friend's company ( considering 12 SCAMPI appraisals per year per LA) ?
2. Most of them deliver the consulting and training activities , which is 70 % of the contract value and sometimes they break the contracts and not deliver the SCAMPI, which is still highly profitable, since only 30 % value is lost, and no need to deal with High Maturity appraisal needs.

In order to address this issue, does the SEI publish a list of contracts for SEI Partner? Does the SEI have a specific committee or group to look in to the capacity management and availability management of their SEI partners, so that companies will not have such concerns?

All that the SEI does is maintain a list of SEI Partners and certified High Maturity Lead Appraisers. If there is indeed a problem as you have stated, then you or your friend should contact the SEI about the SEI Partner in question as this certainly sounds like unethical behavior.

Another issue is that an SEI-certified High Maturity Lead Appraiser cannot appraise the organization if he or she has provided the consulting to the organization, unless the SEI approves the potential Conflict of Interest.

The steps taken by SEI in this area are impressive. Also I understand that the control on appraisals/per year is established by SEI. Out of curiosity i would like to ask follow up questions.

I belive the critical part of this entire process is that consulting and apprisal services cannot be performed by the same Lead appriser. If there is a need of separate contract for SCAMPI A appraisal activities, and it cannot be included in a consulting contract, then it can have more credibility. Also like ISO where the certification agencies are audited annually (correct me if am wrong), will SEI do an onsite audit on SEI partners? Or do they have a databse of all the contracts established by SEI partners around the world (considering 800 to 1000 appraisals per year)? Because the user community trusts the SEI more than the SEI Partners ( for most of the users it may be the first time to contract with an SEI Partner and they might not be sure of the guidelines provided by the SEI or about the SEI Ethics commitee). All this can be prevented if the SEI takes a copy of all contracts established for SCAMPI A across the countries. What are your views on it? .

Note:The intent of the question is to increase the user communities' trust on SEI to increase, but not to reduce the credibility of SEI partners/Lead Appraisers.

The SEI does not have the time or resources to perform annual on-site audits of the SEI Partners. And as an SEI Partner, I would not welcome an on-site audit by the SEI. It would be additional expense for me.

What the SEI does provide that may help with your concerns is that they perform a QA audit of the results of every appraisal submitted by a Lead Appraiser. If the appraisal results do not meet the evaluation criteria, then a more in-depth audit occurs. What can then happen is that if the problems are serious enough, the Lead Appraiser can lose his or her CMMI credentials. This has happened to a number of Lead Appraisers since this policy was put in place.

In addition, each Lead Appraiser must be certified by the SEI, which provides another layer of credibility.

The SEI Partners provide the service and the certified-Lead Appraisers deliver the service. As a buyer of CMMI services, it is your responsibility to learn about the SEI policies regarding Ethics and Conflict of Interest, as well as the credibility of the different SEI Partners and Lead Appraisers. Otherwise, you get what you pay for. In other words, buyer beware!

And depending upon what country you are in, the SEI Partners are trusted as much or more than the SEI by the user community.

Query on CMMI for Development v1.3

Our organization was appraised at CMMI ML3 in Oct, 2009 and we'll be going for ML5 in Q1 2011. Although we have been preparing ourselves for CMMI for Development v1.2, we are also aware that the CMMI for Development v1.3 will be out in January, 2011. We wish to get appraised for CMMI for Development v1.3. I have gone through some of the PPTs and PDFs on web but none of them give a clear insight into the changed expectations from the existing PAs or expectations from new PAs to be added.

It'll be a great help if anyone can provide me the draft version of v1.3 or any detailed document about the same.

One item that you may not be aware of is that the SEI would like to see at least 18 months between an ML 3 appraisal and a High Maturity appraisal. If you are planning for an appraisal in Q1 2011, that would be less than 18 months. Therefore you would have a very high probability of your appraisal results being audited by the SEI, which could take a long time before being accepted. I would encourage you to hire a High Maturity Lead Appraiser as soon as possible, if you haven’t already done so, and move your plans for your ML 5 appraisal at least 3 months or more into the future to ensure that you have enough data for performing the High Maturity practices and enough time for institutionalization of HM.

You will have to wait for the v1.3 release in November 2010. The problem with using drafts is that things can change before the release.

High Maturity Reference Books

I would like to read and understand more about High Maturity practices and I am also very keen to develop statistical skills so I will be able to construct a PPM. Can you please recommend some good reference books and/or links?

I would recommend the following books:

“Statistical Methods from the Viewpoint of Quality Control” by Walter A. Shewhart

“Understanding Variation: The Key to Managing Chaos” by Donald J. Wheeler

“Measuring the Software Process” by William A. Florac and Anita D. Carleton

“Building Continual Improvement” by Donald J. Wheeler and Sheila R. Poling

“Metrics and Models in Software Quality Engineering” by Stephen H. Kan

“Practical Software Measurement” by John McGarry, David Card, Cheryl Jones, Beth Layman, Elizabeth Clark, Joseph Dean, and Fred Hall

These are all excellent reference books to better your understanding of statistical and quantitative thinking.

Process Performance Model and QPM Inquiry

We are a CMMI Maturity Level 5 organization and now we are preparing for our re-appraisal.
We have Process Performance Models (PPMs) with different X- prameters and good R^2, R (adjusted) & P(value).

We perform simulations to calculate the probability of achieving our organizational goal and the determination that the probability % is good enough to achieve the goal.

Now we are in our process of implementing the PPM. My question is: Shall we use the PPM to estimate the X- parameters in my projetct? Or what should I do with this model after that ?

Please advise.

I hate to say this, and I could be wrong, but reading your question it sounds like you are asking what do I need in order to be Maturity Level 5 (ML 5)? Is this equation sufficient? And by asking what do I do with the PPM, I may be misunderstanding you, but if you were really at ML 5 you wouldn’t be asking this question. I get the impression from your question that your organization doesn’t know why it is using a specific technique for the PPMs.

The best solution to your question is to ask your High Maturity Lead Appraiser for help and guidance as he or she should have enough understanding and knowledge of your organization to provide the answer.

But once again, the nature of your question gives me the uneasy feeling that your organization may not even be Maturity Level 4.

Rationale for Maturity Level 5

Our organization is currently at Maturity Level 3 and is now planning to go for Maturity Level 5. Our CEO is asking for the short term and long term benefits and challenges for implementing Maturity Level 5. How do we provide this information?

The question that needs to be asked is why does your organization want to achieve Maturity Level 5 (ML 5)? If the organization has already achieved Maturity Level 3 (ML 3), what is the motivation for achieveing ML 5? Most likely it is not mandated in a contract or by its customers. But achieving ML 5 is desirable to be competitive in the marketplace. Therefore, the reasons for achieving ML 5 should provide some indication of the short term and long term benefits.

The first step in becoming a High Maturity organization is defining your Quality and Process Performance Objectives (QPPOs) that are based on your business goals and objectives as well as your customer needs. The QPPOs should be stated in a form such that they specify a timeframe. And that information will provide some ideas of the short term and long term benefits.

However, the best advice that I can provide is to hire an SEI-certified High Maturity Lead Appraiser (HMLA) who will work with you to help explain the benefits of ML 5 to the CEO. The HMLA should have experience working with many different organizations at various Maturity Levels and be able to talk about the different challanges that have been faced by other organizations, as well as the challenges and risks within your organization.

At this point, it sounds like your organization is just beginning its journey to ML 5, so I would have to be convinced that your processes are stable enough to provide the data needed to quantify any short term and long term benefits. I think that the best you could do at this point is communicate this information in qualitative terms. Any quantitative information may not be accurate until you have implemented High Maturity.

Applicability of the Informative Material

I have been told that if an organization has to go for CMMI ML 5 the organization has to address all of the sub-practices even though they are informative material and if the company is only going for ML 3, then they can apply appropriate sub-practices. Is this true?

Please allow me to try to explain the model. There are at least two ways to look at the CMMI: 1) implementing the model and 2) appraising the organization against the model.

In addition, there are three CMMI components: Required, Expected, and Informative. These components only have meaning when you are talking about appraisals. The Required components are the Specific and Generic Goals, the Expected components are the Specific and Generic Practices, and everything else is an Informative Component.

When you are implementing the model, you should not be concerned about differentiating between the different types of components. From Chapter Two of the CMMI-ACQ (and this statement applies to ALL CMMI constellations): “All model components are important because the informative material helps you to understand the expected and required material. It is best to take these model components as a whole. If you understand all three types of material, you can then understand all the pieces and how they fit together to form a framework that can benefit your organization.”

When the organization is being appraised against the CMMI in a formal SCAMPI A appraisal, the organization will only be appraised against the Required and Expected components, regardless of the Maturity Level. However, the appraisal team may be evaluating the evidence and perhaps asking questions in the interview sessions at the sub-practice level just to gain a better understanding of how the organization is addressing each of the Required and Expected components. The organization will not be penalized if it is not performing one or more sub-practices. The appraisal team will be identifying and documenting weaknesses with the organization’s implementation of the goals and practices.

Because there has been a misunderstanding of what High Maturity means (ML 4 and ML 5), the SEI has been emphasizing that the proper implementation of the goals and practices for OPP, QPM, OID, and CAR means reading, understanding, and implementing the types of activities described in the Informative material. So, for a ML 4 or ML 5 SCAMPI, the organization will not be evaluated against the OPP. QPM, OID, and CAR sub-practices, but weaknesses will be noted at the goal and practice level if the organization has not properly implemented these Process Areas to meet the intent, which is gained by understanding the Informative material.

PPM - Data Analysis

We are a CMMI ver 1.1 level 5 assessed software company and we are in the process of ver 1.2 assessment. As part of this, we are developing the Process Performance Models. We would like to get input on the following points.

1. What kind of statistical analysis are required on the data that is collected for the PPM development?.
2. Do we need to perform Gage R&R test on the data that is collected?. As mentioned, since we are a software company and not a manufacturing company, i am not too sure about the data collection that needs to happen at multiple instances by the same person on the same tool and different person on the same tool.

For example, to check for Repeatability, if I am considering Schedule Variance of various feature development as a measure, there might not be any difference in the schedule variance that will be measured by different people, if the operational definition is clear for the metric.
Now to check for Reproducibility, if competency of the resource for code development is considered as a measure, this could be changing from period to period, as unlike in manufacturing industry where the activities are of repetitive nature. So the reproducibility will be minimal in this scenario.
If its mandatory to perform Gage R&R analysis on the data, can you throw some ideas on the different areas where this can be applied and how the analysis can be performed. Please share your thoughts on this.

It sounds like the Process Performance Models (PPMs) were overlooked for your organization when it was appraised to CMMI v1.1 3 years ago. I would like to make several points regarding PPMs.

1. The CMMI does not specify any required statistical analysis technique for PPM development. Based on your data, your QPPOs, PPBs, the organization has to decide the proper analytic techniques to use. There is a wide variety available for use.
2. What is the reason you are considering Repeatability and Reproducibility? Are you led to these items by your Quality and Process-Performance Objectives (QPPOs)?
3. There is no CMMI requirement to use Gage R&R.
4. It sounds to me that it would be a good idea for you and your organization to have someone facilitate a Measurement and Analysis workshop for you to properly identify your measures, PPBs, and PPMs.
5. You are asking some questions that cannot be properly answered on this blog unless we are working directly with your organization and have some knowledge of your business.

Moving to Maturity Level 4

Our company achieved Maturity Level 3 (ML 3) this year. Now we want to go for Maturity Level 4 (ML 4). Would you please give us some suggestions on what we have to do for ML 4?

I can give you a list of items and practices that you need to have in place, but that is not enough. I highly recommend that you and your company hire a High Maturity Lead Appraiser and/or consultant and have them work with you to implement OPP and QPM. I also suggest that you take the SEI’s Understanding CMMI High Maturity Concepts or equivalent. This class will greatly help your understanding of ML 4 and ML 5. You will need to have someone on your staff that has a good understanding of statistics and statistical methods to help you build your Process Performance Baselines (PPBs) and Process Performance Models (PPMs) that support your Quality and Process Performance Objectives (QPPOs). In addition, in order for all this to work, your processes have to be stable so you can perform meaningful statistical analyses. This also means having a repository of historical data from the stable processes. So not only do you need expert help, you also need a sufficient amount of historical data, which could range from months to years in order to achieve ML 4.

CMMI v1.3 Query

I have few questions about the release of CMMI v1.3 expected next year.

1. We are implementing CMMI v1.2 level 5 this year (first quarter). When the SEI releases v1.3 will there be any changes again in expectation and understanding as it was done in v1.2 for the High Maturity practices.
2. How will the release of v1.3 affect the ongoing and planned appraisals based on v1.2?
3. When v1.3 is released next year, can a company directly go from ML5 v1.1 to ML5 v1.3? If so,what will be the impacts?
4. If the v1.3 updates all three constellations (CMMI-DEV, CMMI-ACQ, and CMMI-SVC) then appraisals based on v1.2 will again be 'NON COMPLIANT with the latest CMMI model version. How will the SEI accomodate the differences?
5. Is there any pre-release material available?

These are good questions, but they are questions that can only be addressed by the SEI at this time. The SEI Partners and Lead Appraisers only know what the SEI told us in October, which was in general terms. We don’t have any specific information on the contents of v1.3. All that we know is that v1.3 is triggered by the changes necessary to the core CMMI framework to accommodate CMMI-ACQ and CMMI-SVC. The SEI is also include changes to the HM PAs. There will most likely be other changes rolled in as well. But as v1.3 is probably a year in the future, it doesn’t help to speculate on the impacts of v1.3 today.

As with previous model updates, I would fully expect that when the SEI releases v1.3 that there will be a sunset period for v1.2 to address the kinds of issues that you have brought up.

For question #1, it is my impression that there is no change in the HM expectations, just clearer statements of the HM expectations.

And keep in mind that all CMMI Ratings are only good for three years and if the results are posted on the SEI’s site, the model version used for the appraisal is indicated. So for question #4, the appraisal results are not invalidated because the model is updated. It is incumbent upon the organization to remain current on model changes and be prepared to be appraised to the correct version at the renewal date.

The SEI also just made this announcement:

CMMI Version 1.3 News

The Software Engineering Institute is now planning Version 1.3 of the CMMI Product Suite. CMMI Version 1.3 will include updates to the models in all three constellations: Development, Acquisition, and Services. These updates will synchronize the architecture and content of the models as members of the CMMI Product Suite and clarify the high maturity material in all three models. Change requests submitted before March 2, 2009 for CMMI-DEV, CMMI-ACQ, and CMMI-SVC will be reviewed as part of this project. As plans are finalized, more information about CMMI Version 1.3 will become available on the SEI website. The date of the Version 1.3 release is not yet definite, but is likely in 2010.

If you wish to submit a change request for a CMMI model, download and complete the appropriate form and email it to cmmi-cr@sei.cmu.edu. For more information about the CMMI User Feedback process and change request forms, see http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/models/change-requests.html.

In addition, the SEI announced today a webinar on v1.3 scheduled for Feb 10, 2009.

Special Event in the SEI Webinar Series: CMMI Version 1.3 Product Suite

Join us for a Webinar on February 10

Presented by Mike Konrad and Rusty Young

In this webinar session, Mike Konrad, manager of the CMMI Model Team and CMMI Chief Architect, and Rusty Young, manager of the SCAMPI Appraisal Team, will discuss CMMI Version 1.3. Version 1.3 will include updates to the entire CMMI Product Suite and will focus on, but not be limited to:

1. Clarity of high maturity
2. More effective generic practices
3. Appraisal efficiencies
4. Commonality across the constellations: Development, Acquisition, and Services

This webinar will be the final in-depth communication on Version 1.3 before the change request period is closed. Change requests that are submitted before March 2, 2009 for CMMI-DEV, CMMI-ACQ, and CMMI-SVC constellations will be reviewed as part of this project. As plans are finalized, more information about CMMI Version 1.3 will become available on the SEI website. The date of the Version 1.3 release is not yet definite, but is likely in 2010. SPACES ARE LIMITED! SO, REGISTER NOW!
Title:

Special Event in the SEI Webinar Series: CMMI Version 1.3 Product Suite
Date:
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Time:
9:30 AM - 12:30 PM EST
After registering you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the Webinar.

System RequirementsPC-based attendeesRequired: Windows® 2000, XP Home, XP Pro, 2003 Server, Vista
Macintosh®-based attendeesRequired: Mac OS® X 10.4 (Tiger®) or newer

Space is limited.Reserve your Webinar seat now at:https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/258250327

Techniques used at High Maturity?

I came to know that these techniques (listed below) were used in SEIs' case studies for high maturity. Does it mean that ALL organisations are expected to use these when operating or appraised at ML 5?

This looks quite exhaustive, please advise.

• ANOVA Reliability Growth Modeling
• Chi-Square Response Surface Modeling
• Regression Time Series Analysis
• Logistic Regression Hypothesis Testing
• Dummy Variable Regression Logit
• Bayesian Belief Network Monte Carlo Simulation
• Designed Experiments Optimization
• Discrete Event Simulation
• Reliability Growth Modeling
• Response Surface Modeling
• Time Series Analysis
• Hypothesis Testing
• Logit
• Discrete Event Simulation

No, neither the CMMI nor the SEI expect that all organizations must use these techniques. This is a list of example techniques. However, it is expected that High Maturity organizations use these types of techniques. The organization has to determine which technique(s) work best for them to understand the special and common causes of variation, etc. The organization has to build Process Performance Baselines (PPBs) and Process Performance Models (PPMs). To build these things, the organization has to analyze their historical data. This analysis can be done in many different ways and the list of techniques include some of the typical data analysis methods.

So what would be very helpful for you is to either get some training on data analysis and statistical techniques or hire a statistician to help you with your High Maturity efforts. Then you will figure out which quantitative analysis technique(s) are appropriate for your data and your organization.

And, to quote Pat O'Toole: "High maturity is NOT just about statistical techniques. Rather, it is about performing your critical processes so consistently that the information to be gleaned from the use of these techniques contain more signal than noise. You can use the data streaming off the critical processes to detect abnormal performance, and to predict (in a statistical sense) future outcomes of interest."

Help! I am Totally Lost When Interpreting the QPM Specific Practices

QPM SP 1.1 states “Establish and maintain the project’s quality and process-performance objectives.” When you are starting to implement the Maturity Level 4 PAs you won’t have a Process Capability Baseline, that is ultimately the goal of being at ML 4 so the organization can then move to ML 5. One of the main thrusts of ML 4 is to analyze the process data looking for Special Causes of Variation. Once those have been analyzed, then it is possible to determine the process capability. For SP 1.1 the project’s quality and process-performance objectives (QPPOs) are set by management and are based, in part, on the organization’s objectives (OPP SP 1.3). The Process Performance Models (PPMs) are then used to determine if the QPPOs can be met. If not, the QPPOs should be appropriately adjusted.

QPM SP 1.2 states "Select the sub-processes that compose the project's defined process based on historical stability and capability datat." One of the key words in this practice statement is "historical". Sources of historical stability and capability data include the organization’s process performance baselines (PPBs) and PPMs (OPP SP 1.4 and SP 1.5). And the intent of this practice is to tailor the organization’s standard processes (OSSP) so the project’s processes will support the project’s QPPOs defined in SP 1.1.

QPM SP 1.3 states “Select the sub-processes of the project’s defined process that will be statistically managed.” The model does not say that these sub-processes MUST be statistically managed, but these WILL be statistically managed. And this practice focuses more on than just selecting sub-processes. It also focuses on identifying the attributes of each sub-process that will be used to statistically manage the sub-process.

People appear to get confused with Maturity Level 4 (ML 4) sounds when trying to understand QPM independently from the rest of the model. You cannot do that. You have to consider OPP and QPM together when looking at ML 4. OPP provides the analysis of the historical data to build the PPBs and PPMs which are then used by the projects to help them appropriately tailor the OSSP to what will meet the project’s QPPOs. QPM SP 1.2 uses the word "compose", which may contribute to some of the confusion. Since compose is not in the CMMI Glossary, then the dictionary definition is applicable. The Webster definition of compose is “To form by putting together two or more things or parts; to put together; to make up; to fashion.” So for this practice, compose means going to the OSSP and selecting the processes and sub-processes that will meet the QPPOs and then applying the necessary tailoring criteria. What this practice implies is that the OSSP may have several different processes for each Process Area (PA) so the project manager can choose the most appropriate one when composing the project's defined process.

Another ML 4 concept that may be the cause of confusion is the notion of Quantitative Management vs. Statistical Management. QPM SG 1 is all about quantitatively managing the project, which means the Project Manager must be periodically reviewing progress, performance, and risks using the PPMs to determine/predict if the project will meet its QPPOs. If not, then appropriate correctives actions must be taken to address the deficiencies in achieving the project’s QPPOs (QPM SP 1.4) Statistical Management is covered by QPM SG 2. The intent is for the project to statistically manage those sub-processes that are critical to achieving the project’s QPPOs. There are only a small set of sub-processes that are critical to achieving the project’s QPPOs. If the organization were to statistically manage all processes, that would be insane. This approach would mean that the organization would need PPBs and PPMs for EVERY process, regardless of their importance to the QPPOs. And then the shear overhead of collecting, analyzing, and reporting data on every process would most likely bring the organization to its knees. Work would come to a standstill because it was taking far too much time to statistically manage each process and taking corrective actions that may not be necessary. Unless you have an infinite budget and dedicated staff to perform these analyses, that is why the model states to statistically manage SELECTED sub-processes.

2008 SEPG Summary

Well, the 2008 SEPG Conference is now a thing of the past. This SEPG was a very informative conference this year. There were many excellent presentations on a variety of topics. Highlights for me were Pat O'Toole's and Herb Weiner's presenation of the ATLAS results for the suggested changes to the High Maturity Process Areas, the keynote speeches on Wednesday by Major General Curtis M. Bedke/Commander of the Air Force Research Laboratory and Karthik and Guha Bala/Vicarious Visions on their use of the Team Software Process (TSP), and the Booz Allen Hamilton presentation on aiding Small Disadvantaged Businesses in achieving Maturity Level 2. Major General Bedke spoke on the increasing importance of software to the Air Force's various applications. And it was a little scary calling up images of Skynet, T2000, and "Judgement Day" since he talked about intelligent robots repairing themselves and learning from their mistakes. The Bala brothers were energetic and fun to listen to. And I was very pleased to see that the gaming industry has matured enough now that they realize the need for discipline in their processes. It apparently only took one bad experience in delivering a game for them to realize that they needed help and TSP was their answer. Their presentation was a great segue after the Air Force as the games they produce include Call of Duty, Guitar Hero, and Spiderman. And of course there was the exhibit hall with several news vendors at the conference this year. The biggest improvement at the 2008 SEPG was the SEI not requiring the attendees to wear the iTag anchors around our necks in order to track attendance at the various sessions. All that you had to do this year was scan a bar code on your badge when you entered a session. And everyone had to revert to the tried and true method of exchanging business cards when you met new people.

Mumbai's Dabbawalas

Mumbai's Dabbawalas - Amazing Management Success Story India

From: targetseo, 1 year ago

View Upload your own

Mumbai's Dabbawalas - An Entrepreneurial Management Success Story of India - Presentaional Modified by Paavan Solanki, SEO Ahmedabad - One of the Fan of Dabbawals in India.


SlideShare Link

This presentation tells an impressive story. But as an SEI-certified High Maturity Lead Appraiser, I feel compelled to comment on some of the information contained in this presentation. Firstly, slide two makes a statement that this company is CMMI Level 6. This is a meaningless designation. The CMMI only has five Maturity Levels. I do not know what the author means be Level 6. In addition, none of the information provided is indicative of the company's Maturity Level. There is no information provided to indicate that the company has collected and analyzed project and process data to establish Process Performance Baselines and build Process Performance Models, the necessary elements for a High Maturity (Maturity Levels 4 & 5) organization. If you want to see if this company has been appraised and it's resulting Maturity or Capability Level, the official results are contained on the Software Engineering Institute's (SEI's) web site at http://sas.sei.cmu.edu/pars/.