I am trying to explain to a organization that they need to look at the sub-practice areas and make sure that the artifacts for the SCAMPI A also answer the subpractice areas. I understand that the subpractice area are a detailed description that provides guidance.
Has the organization been trained on the SEI’s 3-day Intro to CMMI class? The CMMI instructor should have explained and emphasized the role of the informative material (e. g., sub-practices). And in the words of Rusty Young, this material is “informative” NOT “ignorative.” Another way to look at the informative material is if it has no value to the model, there is no point in including it. Then the model would only consist of goal and practice statements, which would only take about 10 pages to document. The sub-practices are provided to help the reader understand the intent of the practice and goal statements.
HOWEVER, in a SCAMPI A appraisal the appraisal team will only be evaluating the required (goals) and expected (practices) components of the model, NOT the informative material (sub-practices et. al.) So you would be mistaken if you required the organization to provide evidence (Direct and Indirect) for the sub-practices. The organization only provides evidence for the goals and practices in a SCAMPI A.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
CMMI Novice Question
I would like to know if all the Maturity Level 2 Process Areas must be completed for a Maturity Level 2 appraisal? There are some process areas which are not applicable to our organization.
For the CMMI for Development (CMMI-DEV) there is only one Process Area (PA) that can be designated Not Applicable (N/A), SAM. Therefore, at a minimum, REQM, PP, PMC, MA, PPQA, and CM are required for a Maturity Level 2 (ML 2) appraisal. And if the organization has outsourced some work, then SAM is also applicable.
I find it hard to believe that you can state that one or more of these PAs are not applicable to your organization. Every project has requirements to manage from the janitor to the President. Everyone works on a project. You just have to define what a project is. And then you manage the project. Everyone can define specific measures that can be used to manage the project. Everyone has some sort of configuration items or documents that have to be managed. And everyone needs some sort of objective evaluation of the process and project compliance. For a small organization, you may have combined one or more of these PAs under one person. But that does not mean these PAs are not applicable.
Now if you said that you had problems with the engineering PAs (RD, TS, PI, VER, and VAL), then I would suggest that the CMMI-DEV may not be the appropriate model constellation for your use and you should look at the CMMI for Services (CMMI-SVC) or CMMI for Acquisition (CMMI-ACQ).
For the CMMI for Development (CMMI-DEV) there is only one Process Area (PA) that can be designated Not Applicable (N/A), SAM. Therefore, at a minimum, REQM, PP, PMC, MA, PPQA, and CM are required for a Maturity Level 2 (ML 2) appraisal. And if the organization has outsourced some work, then SAM is also applicable.
I find it hard to believe that you can state that one or more of these PAs are not applicable to your organization. Every project has requirements to manage from the janitor to the President. Everyone works on a project. You just have to define what a project is. And then you manage the project. Everyone can define specific measures that can be used to manage the project. Everyone has some sort of configuration items or documents that have to be managed. And everyone needs some sort of objective evaluation of the process and project compliance. For a small organization, you may have combined one or more of these PAs under one person. But that does not mean these PAs are not applicable.
Now if you said that you had problems with the engineering PAs (RD, TS, PI, VER, and VAL), then I would suggest that the CMMI-DEV may not be the appropriate model constellation for your use and you should look at the CMMI for Services (CMMI-SVC) or CMMI for Acquisition (CMMI-ACQ).
Friday, July 24, 2009
Reducing the Time it Takes to Review a Document
I have problem. Currently we are taking 12 minutes to summarize articles that are published in our newsletter. Can you suggest how can we reduce the processing time to 8 minutes?
Without having any insight at all into your process, I cannot provide you a solution. However, if you want to shorten the process time, here are the steps I would follow:
Without having any insight at all into your process, I cannot provide you a solution. However, if you want to shorten the process time, here are the steps I would follow:
- First answer the question why you want to shorten the process time. Is this desire driven by your business goals and objectives and/or your process goals and objectives?
- If the answer is yes, then define and document your process.
- Define, collect, and analyze appropriate process measures that can be used to understand your process time.
- Analyze the process to determine which step or steps are the major drivers for the current process time of 12 minutes.
- Pilot different process step changes that could result in shortening your process time to 8 minutes and still meet your business goals and objectives and your process goals and objectives.
- Based on this analysis, change your process.
Cut Off Time for Updating Documents Prior to a SCAMPI
What is the normal time-frame an organization is allowed to continue making changes to their documentation prior to a SCAMPI?
There is no hard and fast rule for this practice. You need to work this time frame out with your Lead Appraiser to see what he or she is comfortable with. But, think about what you are asking for a minute. Are you talking about process changes? Changes to artifacts? Or both?
If you are talking about process changes, then you need to consider the purpose of the SCAMPI. One of the jobs of the appraisal team is to determine the amount of institutionalization. In order to determine the degree of institutionalization (GGs and GPs), changes to the processes and procedures need to be minimized so there is sufficient time for institutionalization and to collect and present the proper Direct and Indirect Evidence. To be on the safe side and mitigate this risk, organizations may decide to have no process changes for six months before the SCAMPI.
If you are talking about the artifacts, then you need to keep in mind the definition of Focus and Non-Focus Projects and work with your Lead Appraiser to determine your evidence needs. In my experience, my clients have taken the risk mitigation approach of “freezing” the evidence about a month before the Readiness Review to build the PIIDs and then only allow changes after that point if there are weaknesses in the PIIDs that need to be addressed before the SCAMPI.
Please keep in mind that I am not advocating freezing the processes 6 months before an appraisal, it just has been my experience that as a risk mitigation some clients have held off making changes until after their appraisal. This behavior is typical for a first time SCAMPI A in a risk averse organization who wants to do everything possible to have a successful SCAMPI A. After all the CMMI is a set of process improvement guidelines, so I as a Lead Appraiser would expect to see evidence of continuous process improvement. But the org has to take an intelligent approach when rolling out new changes. The workforce gets frustrated with chasing a moving target if the processes and assets are frequently changing, i.e. major updates.
There is no hard and fast rule for this practice. You need to work this time frame out with your Lead Appraiser to see what he or she is comfortable with. But, think about what you are asking for a minute. Are you talking about process changes? Changes to artifacts? Or both?
If you are talking about process changes, then you need to consider the purpose of the SCAMPI. One of the jobs of the appraisal team is to determine the amount of institutionalization. In order to determine the degree of institutionalization (GGs and GPs), changes to the processes and procedures need to be minimized so there is sufficient time for institutionalization and to collect and present the proper Direct and Indirect Evidence. To be on the safe side and mitigate this risk, organizations may decide to have no process changes for six months before the SCAMPI.
If you are talking about the artifacts, then you need to keep in mind the definition of Focus and Non-Focus Projects and work with your Lead Appraiser to determine your evidence needs. In my experience, my clients have taken the risk mitigation approach of “freezing” the evidence about a month before the Readiness Review to build the PIIDs and then only allow changes after that point if there are weaknesses in the PIIDs that need to be addressed before the SCAMPI.
Please keep in mind that I am not advocating freezing the processes 6 months before an appraisal, it just has been my experience that as a risk mitigation some clients have held off making changes until after their appraisal. This behavior is typical for a first time SCAMPI A in a risk averse organization who wants to do everything possible to have a successful SCAMPI A. After all the CMMI is a set of process improvement guidelines, so I as a Lead Appraiser would expect to see evidence of continuous process improvement. But the org has to take an intelligent approach when rolling out new changes. The workforce gets frustrated with chasing a moving target if the processes and assets are frequently changing, i.e. major updates.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Responsibilities of the Configuration Control Board (CCB)
Would you please tell me the usual responsiblilities for a Configuration Control Board (CCB)? Does the project need to get an approval from CCB before creating a new baseline?
Basically the CCB is responsible for baselining specific configuration items: documents, designs, requirements, products, product components, etc. Once a configuration item has been baselined, the CCB is then responsible for reviewing and approving Change Requests to a baselined configuration item. If the CCB approves a change to a configuration item, after the item and other associated changes have been updated, then there is a new baseline version.
Basically the CCB is responsible for baselining specific configuration items: documents, designs, requirements, products, product components, etc. Once a configuration item has been baselined, the CCB is then responsible for reviewing and approving Change Requests to a baselined configuration item. If the CCB approves a change to a configuration item, after the item and other associated changes have been updated, then there is a new baseline version.
Levying CMMI Requirements on Your Suppliers
I would like to know whether or not an acquirer can specify a CMMI Maturity Level (ML) as a requirement in a call for tenders or invitation to public bidding. What the ML is required? What is the domain ? and for what kind of projects?
The answer is yes. The acquirer can specify any requirements they want the vendors to meet. In my experience, I have seen acquirers specifying that the bidders be either at ML 2 or ML 3. What this means though is that the acquirer has done its homework and appropriately determined the necessary Maturity Level for the vendor to support the acquirer’s business and quality goals and objectives. There should be a good match between the ML of the acquirer and the ML of the vendor, to work well it may be best if both organizations are at the same ML. Otherwise, there can be problems.
As the acquirer, you probably would find benefit from implementing the CMMI for Acquisition (CMMI-ACQ). The CMMI-ACQ provides a lot of guidance for tenders and contracts that meet the acquirer’s needs.
The answer is yes. The acquirer can specify any requirements they want the vendors to meet. In my experience, I have seen acquirers specifying that the bidders be either at ML 2 or ML 3. What this means though is that the acquirer has done its homework and appropriately determined the necessary Maturity Level for the vendor to support the acquirer’s business and quality goals and objectives. There should be a good match between the ML of the acquirer and the ML of the vendor, to work well it may be best if both organizations are at the same ML. Otherwise, there can be problems.
As the acquirer, you probably would find benefit from implementing the CMMI for Acquisition (CMMI-ACQ). The CMMI-ACQ provides a lot of guidance for tenders and contracts that meet the acquirer’s needs.
Can the Same Firm Provide CMMI Consulting & SCAMPI A Services?
I have been hearing that the SEI has stringent rules stating that the consulting firm cannot perform a SCAMPI A appraisal as it results in conflict of interest and the appraisal may lose it's objectivity. Couold you please throw light on this issue and give me the correct information? It would be great if you can refer to any documents listing these rules e.g. SEI audit policies.
Yes, the same COMPANY and same LEAD APPRAISER can provide both CMMI consulting and SCAMPI A appraisal services to the same client. However, the Lead Appraiser and SEI Partner must notify the SEI if there is a Conflict of Interest. The situation to avoid is the Lead Appraiser appraising his or her own work in a SCAMPI A appraisal. The Code of Professional Conduct (CoPC) spells out the policy and the steps that must be taken if there is an indentified Conflict of Interest. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/partners/copc.html
The primary issue concerns the type of consulting provided by the Lead Appraiser. If the consulting consists of writing processes and process assets for the client, then there is a clear Conflict of Interest. But if the consulting consists of training on different ways to implement a Process Area, reviewing documents and identifying strengths and weaknesses, reviewing evidence for inclusion in the PIIDs, etc. then there is no Conflict of Interest.
So most Lead Appraisers will try their best to remain ethical and either just provide the hands-on consulting and have another Lead Appraiser lead the SCAMPI A appraisal OR lead the SCAMPI A appraisal and help the organization get prepared for the appraisal.
Yes, the same COMPANY and same LEAD APPRAISER can provide both CMMI consulting and SCAMPI A appraisal services to the same client. However, the Lead Appraiser and SEI Partner must notify the SEI if there is a Conflict of Interest. The situation to avoid is the Lead Appraiser appraising his or her own work in a SCAMPI A appraisal. The Code of Professional Conduct (CoPC) spells out the policy and the steps that must be taken if there is an indentified Conflict of Interest. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/partners/copc.html
The primary issue concerns the type of consulting provided by the Lead Appraiser. If the consulting consists of writing processes and process assets for the client, then there is a clear Conflict of Interest. But if the consulting consists of training on different ways to implement a Process Area, reviewing documents and identifying strengths and weaknesses, reviewing evidence for inclusion in the PIIDs, etc. then there is no Conflict of Interest.
So most Lead Appraisers will try their best to remain ethical and either just provide the hands-on consulting and have another Lead Appraiser lead the SCAMPI A appraisal OR lead the SCAMPI A appraisal and help the organization get prepared for the appraisal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)