What is the Difference Between the SEPG and a PAT?

There can be several different groups responsible for process improvement within an organization. At the top level there is the need for someone to provide strategic direction for the process improvement efforts, removing obstacles to process improvement, providing funding for process improvement, and management oversight of the effort. This function is sometimes performed by the Management Steering Group (MSG).

The next level down is responsible for planning and executing the organization's process improvement initiatives. This role is what we usually see fulfilled by the Software Engineering Process Group (SEPG) or the Engineering Process Group (EPG). If there is something like the MSG, then the SEPG reports to the MSG and sometimes the SEPG chair is a member of the MSG.

The third level is responsible for establishing the process and process assets if they don't exist, or improving existing processes and process assets. This role is many times done by the Process Action Teams (PATs). Sometimes the PATs are permanent teams, or there is so much work for them to do that their life span is quite long. Ideally PATs should be small temporary teams consisting of experts that are assigned a specific process improvement task. The PAT activities may also include piloting a candidate process improvement,developing or updating the process training material, and deploying the processes and process assets to the organization, but these activities could also be done by the SEPG.

The SEPG should be orchestrating all of the process improvement efforts and charter the PATs with their assignments. The PATs report to the SEPG and many times the PAT lead is a member of the SEPG. SEPG and PAT membership should include people who are:

• Genuinely interested in and motivated to improve the organization's processes.
• Able to effectively communicate with their peers and management.
• Respected by their peers and management and considered credible.
• Experts in one or more the organization's processes (engineering,project management, process management, and support).
• Etc.

A good practice that I have seen in a number of organizations is to, once the SEPG has been established and operating for a year, rotate the SEPG membership with other interested parties in the organization as well as periodically change the SEPG Chair. This rotation or change of responsibilities allows others in the organization to participate and aids with greater buy-in throughout the organization.

This is only one way to structure the organization for process improvement. Many times the lines are blurred between the MSG/SEPG/PATs and one group may be performing all of the roles described above. Jeff Dalton's Ask the CMMI Appraiser blog describes 4 or 5 different SEPG configurations that work. http://askthecmmiappraiser.blogspot.com/2007/02/what-in-world-is-sepg.html

Challenges With SEPG Staffing

Amir Shahzad Khan posted these two fairly realistic scenarios to the CMMI discussion group.

Scenario 1
We have resources that are on the bench waiting to start a new project and/or new billable work. We have decided to draw on this pool of idle resources to staff the SEPG and the ML 3 process teams. Each person has accepted these new responsibilities and they are working their assigned SEPG tasks. Suddenly, there is new billable work or a new project starts. Now management reassigns these resources that were on the bench to the new work leaving their assigned SEPG tasks incomplete, severely impacting the SEPG schedule. How to do tackle this kind of situation?

Scenario 2
People are selected from the organization to staff the SEPG. They are assigned to Process Areas that match their area of expertise. However, most people are reluctant to work on their assigned SEPG tasks and they either don’t deliver or deliver much less than expected, which impacts the SEPG schedule. The primary reason of their reluctance to deliver is that they don’t consider their assigned SEPG tasks as their core area of responsibility. Since the SEPG support will not affect their performance appraisal they don’t take it seriously. They only receive verbal appreciation. What kind of reward or penalty can be introduced in this regard so that people deliver what they have committed?

What is described in both scenarios is a serious lack of Management Commitment to process improvement, the SEPG, and the CMMI. Lack of Management Commitment is your worst enemy and will effectively kill all of your efforts, despite your best intentions. What is necessary is for management at ALL levels in the organization to actively support these initiatives, not just pay lip service.

Scenario One
First off it is a bad idea to assign people on the bench some SEPG “busy work” just to keep them occupied until a billing opportunity comes along. You should have recognized this problem as one of your major risks in the Process Improvement Plan and defined a Risk Mitigation strategy to use when people are reassigned and removed from their SEPG duties. The SEPG should report these issues to the Management Steering Group (MSG), who should be held accountable for allowing key SEPG resources to be reassigned. If these resources are also key people for billable work, they should have never been assigned to the SEPG. Instead they could be considered as Subject Matter Experts that can be called upon from time to time to consult with the SEPG. There should be a core set of dedicated people on the SEPG. Others who have “signed up” to work on the SEPG should be allowed by management to support the meetings, even if they have been reassigned. Look at the IPPD practices in OPD and IPM for guidance on establishing these types of management mechanisms.

Scenario Two
This scenario sounds like management has not given clear direction as to the importance of the SEPG to its members and the organization as a whole. If management doesn’t clearly think that the SEPG is important, then why should anyone else? The Process Improvement Plan should have identified this problem as a major risk as well. If someone has been assigned to the SEPG, their SEPG role should be part of their job and they should be held accountable for their performance of their assigned duties. The SEPG is effectively the project team and the MSG the project manager. The MSG should be taking a major role in reviewing the progress to the plan and resolving issues in both scenarios.

Process Improvement - A Twelve Step Process

1. We admitted we were powerless over quality/on-time delivery/estimates/project management/etc. – that our projects had become unmanageable.
2. We came to believe that a model greater than ourselves (the CMMI) could restore us to sanity.
3. We made a decision to turn our processes and procedures over to the care of Software Engineering Institute.
4. We conducted a searching and fearless gap analysis of our organization.
5. We admitted to our Lead Appraiser, to ourselves, and to our executive management the exact nature of our process weaknesses and gaps.
6. We were entirely ready to have our Lead Appraiser help us address these weaknesses and gaps.
7. We humbly asked our Lead Appraiser to help us remove our weaknesses.
8. We made a list of all projects that had suffered because of our bad practices, and became willing to take corrective actions to address the issues, as applicable.
9. We made direct modifications to our processes wherever possible, except when to do so would jeopardize the success a project.
10. We continued to appraise the organization, and when we had weaknesses we promptly admitted them.
11. We sought through the Engineering Process Group (EPG) and the Management Steering Group (MSG), to improve our direct contact with our Lead Appraiser and the SEI, asking only for their knowledge and expertise to guide us on our process improvement journey.
12. We have recognized the benefits of process improvement as the result of these twelve steps; we have tried to carry this message to other internal groups and external organizations and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

Process Improvement in Small Organizations

On the final day of the 2008 SEPG Conference in Tampa this year there was a very interesting practitioner discussion by two small companies on their experiences in implementing CMMI Maturity Level 2. Their biggest challenge was funding the effort. Fortunately for them, they had three funding streams to draw on:
1. Internal funding
2. Contract funds
3. Funding from their mentor/protege partner
What was significant for these two companies was their levels of senior management commitment. The President of one of the companies was actively engaged with their efforts. He sat in the same office with the team and reviewed the documentation. He had a very hands-on approach that led to rapid implementation. This type of approach won't always work. Senior management has to have the proper attitude towards process improvement and be very supportive.

Other steps these companies took to rapidly improve were to establish a Management Steering Group (MSG) and Engineering Process Group (EPG) very early on as well as provide detailed training on a Process Area (PA) by PA basis, about every two weeks. They had discovered that the Introduction to CMMI class was a great introduction, as indicated by the course title, but the information did not sink in at first. They needed more in-depth discussions, which then led the teams to become more proficient in their PA roles. They also engaged with their mentor/protege (in other words, their CMMI consultant) early on as well who provided guidance and how to implement the model and avoid known pitfalls.

It was interesting to note that the lessons learned by these two small companies are the same lessons learned by much larger organizations and align with what we CMMI consultants and Lead Appraisers always tell our clients. But these lessons are much harder to "sell" to small companies that are seriously resource constrained.