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.

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.

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.

Understanding How Project Planning Evolves from ML 3 to ML 5

The primary difference between project planning at Maturity Level 3 (ML 3) and Maturity Level 5 (ML 5) is how you construct the project’s defined processes. At ML 3 a new project starts from the organization’s set of standard processes and applies the appropriate tailoring criteria or guidelines for the project, based on the project requirements. At Maturity Level 4 (ML 4) and ML 5 a new project first has to define what its quality and process performance objectives are based on the organization’s quality and process performance objectives (QPPOs). Then the project looks at the organization’s set of standard processes and selects the processes or sub-processes that are capable of being quantitatively and statistically managed to achieve the project’s QPPOs using the established Process Performance Baselines and Process Performance Models. These processes and sub-processes are selected based on historical stability and capability data along with the appropriate tailoring guidelines and criteria to construct the project’s defined process.

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.