Integrated Project Management (IPM) - SP 2.2

Could you please provide some examples of evidence for IPM Specific Practice 2.2 and some examples of a critical dependency?

Integrated Project Management (IPM) Specific Practice 2.2 states “Participate with relevant stakeholders to identify, negotiate, and track critical dependencies.” This practice is one of many compound practices in the CMMI. Therefore, to completely cover the practice, the organization would have to provide evidence that the project is participating with the relevant stakeholders. And that participation would be to identify critical dependencies, negotiate critical dependencies, and track critical dependencies. So the type of Direct Evidence that I would expect to see as a Lead Appraiser or Appraisal Team Member from the organization would be a list of critical dependencies, issues, and action items that were the result of the participation and for Indirect Evidence I would expect to see the meeting minutes or review/inspection reports that resulted in the list provided as Direct Evidence.

Now, if you read the Tips and Hints in the CMMI for IPM SP 2.2, these will provide insight into what a critical dependency is. Each project will have some constraints such as time, quality, budget, etc. that it must meet. By applying these constraints to the project schedule the Project Manager will be able to define the critical path through the project tasks and activities. The critical path contains all of the tasks and activities that have a direct impact on meeting the scheduled end date for the project. If a task on the critical path slips or runs over, then the end date of the project has a corresponding slip or overrun. Tasks that are not on the critical path can move about a bit before they impact the end date. The project tasks and activities on the critical path define the critical dependencies for the project. For example, if both Task A and Task B are on the critical path and Task B cannot begin before Task A completes, that is one critical dependency. Another example of a critical dependency is an external group is supplying a work product to the project and a Task cannot begin until the work product is received and accepted. This type of critical dependency may also be called a critical deliverable.

Hope this explanation helps.

PPQA or VER?

I have a question. When people performa a review to assure than a coding standard is being used, is it considered a PPQA audit or a verification activity (VER)?

The correct answer is, it depends upon the nature of the review. If your documented software development process states that the coding standard is used to write code. Then a process audit of the software development process would be looking at the coding standard and determining if it was indeed being used by the developers. That would be a Process and Product Quality Assurance (PPQA) audit activity. If your documented verification process stated that a code peer review involves comparing the code to the coding standard, then that would be a Verification (VER) activity. And if your documented processes specified both of these conditions, then the answer to your question is both a PPQA audit activity and a VER activity. How you view the code review against the coding standard is therefore context dependant.

If you are asking this question because you are preparing your Direct and Indirect Evidence for your PIIDs and a SCAMPI A appraisal, then you will need to explain the context so the appraisal team will be able to correctly evaluate the evidence.

Evidence for GP 2.8 and GP 2.10

I ever have problems advising my customers on direct artifacts for GP 2.8 and GP 2.10, especially in (really) small settings (groups of up to 10 or 20persons and small projects). People reading the model are highly frustrated and ask: "Well, do I have to take measurements or use checklist for everything? That's utterly useless." And I have to agree!

For me, the best way to perform day-to-day-monitoring outside of regular Stakeholder-meetings is "management by sneakers" and ask frequently intrusive questions like "Are you performing as planned?", "Do you follow the plan?", "Did you use our template?", "Why did you not follow the plan (or our process)?", "Does our process or template fit your needs?" etc. That's much more effective than scheduling a meeting and brainlessly pounding on a checklist.

But I always have problems then finding direct artifacts, when things are running smoothly. I am highly convinced, that nothing has to be produced for appraisal's sake, only. What do you think?

I find that every client I appraise, big or small, has difficulties understanding the difference between GP 2.8 and GP 2.10.

GP 2.8 is monitoring and controlling the process WHILE you are executing it, not after the fact.

Reviewing the results of having followed the process at some later time with higher manager is essentially GP 2.10.

I don’t see a difference between large or small settings when performing these two practices. The only difference would be the actual procedures. Large organizations would have more projects and procedures to monitor and control and then report on than small organizations. And for real small settings it is usually the same people performing both GP 2.8 and GP 2.10, and that is usually why small organizations have difficulties with these two GPs.

Your day-to-day monitoring questions sound much more like the questions PPQA should be asking during a process audit. And you are right, these are invasive questions for the monitoring of a process while it is being executed.

Here is what I advise clients as acceptable evidence for GP 2.8 and GP 2.10:

GP 2.8
Direct Evidence is usually the process monitoring as demonstrated in a report at some project status meeting or review.
Indirect Evidence is either a corrective action resulting from the monitoring or the meeting minutes.
MA must be used to monitor and control GP 2.8, the same way as it is used for all project measures.
The emphasis is on PROCESS measurements and PROCESS reviews NOT project monitoring.

GP 2.10
In a Maturity Level 3 and above organization, there should be organization-wide process statusing, activity reporting, etc. at the organizational level as well as the project level.
The emphasis is on PROCESS measurements and PROCESS reviews NOT project monitoring.
Direct Evidence may be the monthly project reviews that include the status of the project’s processes AND the monthly/quarterly process or SEPG reviews
Indirect Evidence would be meeting minutes and/or meeting agenda for the evidence provided as direct evidence.