Interpreting OPF SP 1.2

While reading and then interpreting SP 1.2 of OPF "Appraise the Organization's Processes" it seems that it is a mini SCAMPI (correct me if I am wrong). Now in this context I have few questions and would like answered.

Organizational Process Focus (OPF) SP 1.2 states “Appraise the organization’s processes periodically and as needed to maintain an understanding of their strengths and weaknesses.”

1. These internal appraisals to satisfy this practice will be performed by the PEG (Process Engineering Group), how much rigor is required? Can we employ the SCAMPI Class C method to satisfy this practice?
SCAMPI A, B, and C appraisals all satisfy this practice as well as any other type of appraisals or assessments that provide an understanding of the organization’s process strengths and weaknesses. There is no level of rigor implied by this practice.

2. Should we check the evidences and/or satisfaction at processes' implementation at project level or its better to keep the scope of these appraisals at OU level only?
OPF is an organizational level process. And the practice states to appraise the organization’s processes. Some of them are performed at the project level and others at the organizational level. But the focus should be at the organizational level.

3. Should we formally present the findings as normally done in SCAMPI Class A appraisals by the LA or that much rigor is not required (as it required lot of stakeholders presence like CEO if he is the sponsor)?
The rigor of the Findings Presentation is up to you. However, you should determine the level of rigor when you are in the planning phase for these evaluations. As a Lead Appraiser, I create an appraisal plan for any appraisal I conduct and I specify in the plan how the practices, projects, organization, etc. will be scored and how the results will be presented.

4. If we are appraising the organizational processes, then should we appraise all the ML 2 and ML 3 process area or we can make selection?
Since this practice covers all process appraisals conducted on the organization’s processes, depending on the appraisal, you have a lot of flexibility on the scope and conduct. It all needs to be specified in the appraisal plan. Of course a SCAMPI A appraisal using the staged representation will dictate which PAs to include depending on the Maturity Level. Other than the SCAMPI A, you have the freedom to pick and choose what you want to appraise. But keep in mind, you do need to have an overall strategy and plan for these appraisals. As a Lead Appraiser appraising this practice, I expect to see a periodic plan for your appraisals, not just the SCAMPI A appraisals I conducted.

5. If we make a checklist for all process areas, then is it a good idea that we include the Subpractices as a questions (may be not all subpractices) in checklist for all ML 2 and ML 3 PAs?
Again, you can use whatever checklists you want for your internal appraisals. In fact, it might work to your advantage to be very rigorous in an internal appraisal. But remember, when it comes time for the SCAMPI A appraisal, you will not be evaluated against the sub-practices.

Why is EPG (SEPG earlier) missing from CMMI-Dev, V 1.2?

I don't find the term Engineering Process Group or acronym EPG in the CMMI. The OPF PA where EPG was defined earlier has the reference of 'process group' in GP 2.4 and elsewhere. Is there any specific reason for which the word 'engineering' was elminated from the model?
I don’t think the EPG or SEPG for that matter was ever referenced in the CMMI. Though I could be wrong. I just checked the v1.1 book and it doesn’t mention the EPG or SEPG in OPF GP 2.4. In point of fact, there is no difference in OPF GP 2.4 between v1.1 and v1.2. You are correct in referencing GP 2.4 because that is the GP that expects a group such as the EPG or SEPG to be assigned responsibility for OPF. However, the reason the CMMI does not mention these two groups is because you don’t need a group named the EPG or SEPG to perform the OPF activities. You can call the group whatever name you choose, you just need to assign the OPF responsibilities to someone or some group. And a group can be one person.

Interpretation of GP 3.2 and Associated Evidence

GP3.2 states "Collect work products, measures, measurement results, and improvement information derived from planning and performing the process to support the future use and improvement of the organization¢s processes and process assets."

Do we need to collect measures and have measurement results for all the Process Areas or would just conducting lessons learned at the end of a milestone/phase/project be enough to satisfy the practice? Lessons learned in our case are mostly qualitative comments only and very few quantitative. We have all the planning and tracking related details available in EPM and other associated templates.

Please keep in mind that GP 3.2 is a generic practice and it applies to EVERY Process Area (PA) from Maturity Level 3 and up. It also happens to be one of those compound practices that require multiple things. In this case four different items to collect and feedback into OPF, OPD, and IPM. The advice that I give my clients when preparing the PIIDs for an appraisal is that the process work products you provide for GP 2.6 should be the same work products you are submitting for GP 3.2; the process measures that you use to monitor and control the process in GP 2.8 and the results reviewed with higher management in GP 2.10 should be the measures and measurement results you are submitting in GP 3.2. Therefore, the only additional piece of information required by GP 3.2 is improvement information from planning and performing the process. Sometimes this takes the form of lessons learned, which is an exercise focused on gathering data on what worked, what didn’t work, and what should be changed for future use. There are other ways of collecting this information without conducting a formal lessons learned meeting. But the bottom line is that you are EXPECTED to collect all of these data items for every PA in scope of your implementation and appraisal.

Another point is that these four items are independent of each other and therefore would be collected at different times. Conducting lessons learned meetings at the end of a milestone, phase, or project is a good practice and they don’t have to be quantitative in nature, unless you are at Maturity Levels 4 or 5. What you are trying to do is surface candidate process improvement suggestions from the people who have just used a process.

What is the Difference Between OPF SP 3.1 and SP 3.2?

There are some fine shades of distinction here between these two Specific Practices that can cause some confusion. Both Specific Practices concern deployment. OPF SP 3.1 covers the deployment of process assets and OPF SP 3.2 covers the deployment of the standard processes. The CMMI defines process asset as “Anything that the organization considers useful in attaining the goals of a process area.” And organizational process assets as “Artifacts that relate to describing, implementing, and improving processes.” In other words, process assets are those things that help or enable you to follow the process. Process assets include the policies, measurements, process descriptions, templates, checklists, etc. It is always best to consult the CMMI Glossary for definitions when you have interpretation questions about the CMMI. There is a lot of helpful information contained in those pages.

So, OPF SP 3.1 is concerned with deploying the process assets (new or changed) across the organization. For example, deploying a new or modified template keeping in mind that the associated process may not have changed, just the template. OPF 3.2 is concerned with deploying new or changed processes across the organization. For example, deploying a new or modified Peer Review process, keeping in mind that the associated process assets may not have changed. The model is splitting these two practices apart for clarity because it is possible, as my examples indicate, to perform them independently. Now, from a practical standpoint, most organizations do these two practices together. When beginning process improvement, organizations usually modify BOTH the process and the associated process assets at the same time. As the organization matures, they may be able to modify a process asset without a corresponding process change and vice versa.

And if you remember back to when you took the Intro to CMMI class, your instructor should have emphasized that there is no implied flow from one Specific Practice to the next. They can occur in any combination or order, just as long as the Specific Goals are satisfied. However, in the Engineering PAs there are certain practices that most everyone performs in a certain order.