agile cmmi summary

8/14/2019 Agile CMMI Summary

1/29

Thales Research and Technology UK

I T & S A e r o s p a c e D e f e n c e

CMMI : St George or the Dragon?

Trevor Rudge, Thales Research and Technology, UK

CMMI is registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office by Carnegie Mellon University


2/29

2 Thales Research and Technology UK

Contents

Overview

Why Thales is a CMMI Early Adopter

Deployment in Thales

Pitfalls and Risks


3/29


Contents

Overview



Pitfalls and Risks


4/29


Key Points to Improve Performance

Major determinants of product cost,schedule, and quality

PEOPLE

PROCESS TECHNOLOGY

SW Products

People

Practices

Technology

Process

Process holds the elements together


5/29


Capability Maturity Model (CMM*) :

"A Capability Maturity Model (CMM) contains the

essential elements of effective processes forone or more disciplines.

It also describes an evolutionary improvement

path from an ad hoc, immature process to a

disciplined, mature process with improvedquality and effectiveness"

What Is a Capability Maturity Model ?

(R) CMMI is registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office by Carnegie Mellon University.


6/29


CMMI -Based Improvement Could Help

Improve how people work so they can make better use of tools

and technology.

Use a reference model which is based on practices already

found to be successful.

Use a reference model developed by other industry members

and which is internationally recognised

CMMI models meet this requirement.

CMMI is registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office by Carnegie Mellon University


7/297 Thales Research and Technology UK

Proliferation of CMMs ==> CMMI

SOFTWARE ENGINEERINGSOFTWARE ENGINEERINGSw-CMMSw-CMM v2.0v2.0

SYSTEMS ENGINEERINGSYSTEMS ENGINEERING

SE-CMM & SECAMSE-CMM & SECAM

CMMICMMI forfor

SE/SW/IPPD*/SS*SE/SW/IPPD*/SS*

(v1.1)(v1.1)

reducing of :

- redundancies

- additional complexity

- costs & times

- discrepancies

Sw- ASw- ACQUISITIONCQUISITION

CMMCMM

IPPD*IPPD*

* IPPD : Integrated Product and Process Development

SS : Supplier Sourcing



Overview of CMMIProcess Areas

Project Management

QPM: QuantitativeProject Management

IPM: Integrated ProjectManagement

RSKM: RiskManagement

IT*: IntegratedTeaming

ISM**: IntegratedSupplier ManagementPP: Project Planning

PMC: ProjectMonitoring and Control

SAM: SupplierAgreement

Management

Engineering

RD: RequirementsDevelopment

TS: TechnicalSolution

PI: ProductIntegration

VER: Verification

VAL: ValidationREQM: RequirementsManagement

Support

CAR: Causal Analysisand Resolution

DAR: Decision Analysisand Resolution

OEI*: OrganizationalEnvironment for

Integration

MA: Measurement andAnalysis

PPQA: Process &Product Quality

Assurance

CM: ConfigurationManagement

Process Management

OID: OrganizationalInnovation

&DeploymentOPP: OrganizationalProcess Performance

OPF: OrganizationalProcess Focus

OPD: OrganizationalProcess Definition

OT: OrganizationalTraining

Level

5 Optimizing

4 Quantitati-velyManaged

3 Defined

2 Managed

1 Initial

CMMI Options: * with Integrated Product & Process Development (IPPD)

** with Supplier Sourcing (SS)



The CMMIProject

U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force

Federal Aviation Administration

National Security Agency

Software Engineering Institute ADP, Inc.

AT&T Labs

BAE

Boeing

Computer Sciences Corporation

Motorola

Northrop Grumman

Pacific Bell

Q-Labs

Raytheon

Rockwell Collins

Sverdrup Corporation

THALES

TRW

Sponsored by the DOD and the National Defense

Industrial Association (NDIA)

1998 to 2000 Collaborative endeavour

Industry (Defense, Aerospace & Commercial)

Government

Software Engineering Institute (SEI) Carnegie Mellon

University EER Systems

Ericsson Canada

Ernst and Young

General Dynamics Harris Corporation

Honeywell

KPMG

Litton

Lockheed Martin



Some CMMIEarly Adopters

The Boeing Company Computer Sciences Corporation

(CSC)

Defense Group

Concurrent Technologies

Corporation (CTC)

National Security Division

General Dynamics Land Systems

Goddard Space Flight Center NASA

Harris Corporation Lockheed Martin

Motorola, Inc.

Northrop GrummanInformation Technology Sector

Integrated Systems Sector -

Airborne Early Warning/Electronic

Warfare Systems

Raytheon Company

TRW

United Space Alliance

U.S. Army TACOM-ARDEC

Software Enterprise

THALES



Contents

Overview



Pitfalls and Risks



In synergy with ISO 9000, Tickit, EFQM, ...

Level 3

92 0294 96 98 2000

Level 2

Level 4

SE - CMM

Hw - CMM

Sw - CMM

Transition

to CMMI

THALES Process Improvement Roadmap



What is a Low Maturity Organization?

Highly dependent on current practitioners

Improvised by practitioners and management

Not rigorously followed

Results difficult to predict

Low visibility into progress and quality

Compromise of product functionality and qualityto meet schedule

Use of new technology is risky



What is a High Maturity Organization

A disciplined approach for development andmanagement

Defined and continuously improving

Supported by management and others

Well controlled

Supported by measurement

Basis for disciplined use of technology Institutionalized



Some Typical Problems

Specifications

requirements not always identified

requirements not always verifiable

Allocation to components incomplete

Requirements traceability informal

Poor integration of disciplines

Lessons are not learned from the past The systems engineers are permanently reinventing the

wheel


16/29


Some Typical Problems

Specifications

requirements not always identified

requirements not always verifiable

Allocation to components incomplete

Requirements traceability informal

Poor integration of disciplines

Lessons are not learned from the past The systems engineers are permanently reinventing the

wheel

Look whatIve already

Invented

Well See

Well See


17/29


CMMI : the Managers Vision

Maturity Level Characteristics BusinessviewOptimising Continuous and

measurableprocessimprovement is away of lifeQuantita-

tivelyManaged

4

Business-orientedprocessmanagement, theperformance of

the process ispredictableDefined The processes

defined at theorganisation levelare tailored to theproject. Performanceis more predictable

Managed Projectmanagement ismore disciplined.

Past successescan be expectedon similarprojectsInitial Performance isdifficult to predict.Practices may notbe effective, relyon individuals

5

3

2

1

Time / CostProba

bility

Time / CostP

robability

Time / CostProbability



Target

Target

Targe

t

Target

Target

ES

ES

E S

E S

ES

Management visibility


18/29


Average CostVariance -reduced by 20%

On average lateto acceptance -divided by 24

Number ofdefects duringCustomeracceptance -divided by 20

Cost of customeracceptance -reduced by 60%

96 Level 3

-30

-20

-10

+10

+20

+30

+40

+50

+60

+70 % Cost deviation

10

20

30

40

50

60

% Project Distribution

94 Level 2

Between CMM level 1 andCMM level 3

10 software projects for eachplot

Results measured by a THALES Unit

for Software impact on cost deviation

92 Level 1


19/29


Respect of Cost and Schedule

Commitments

Practices EfficiencyImprovement

Satisfaction of business and

quality objectives

Engineering community sharing

common references & practices

facilitates : People mobility Career management Company workforce

management

On ORGANISATIONS

Change of culture Inter-personnel

relationships improvement Confidence &

Responsibility atmosphere

GLOBALLY

On PROJECTS

Impact of Process Improvement


20/29


Contents

Overview



Pitfalls and Risks


21/29


CMMI Assessments in Thales

6 SCAMPI Appraisals in Thales Units from October

2001 to June 2003 From Level 2 to Level 4

Approx. 70 assessments using CMM and CMMI in

Thales Units in 2003, of all types (launch, mini,

official,) A pool of 89 corporate assessors from Thales Units,

trained in CMMI and/or CMM and the assessment

method

Assessment needs are managed by Thales Research& Technology via a corporate database and using a

defined process


22/29


Elements for Cost/Benefit (SW experience)

Cost of PI primarily attributed to : Cost of Engineering Process Group (coord. of actions)

Cost of WG to define/optimize practices Cost of assessments Cost of training/deployment of practices

Benefits :

Primarily on the ability to meet schedule Better requirements elicitation Better Software management Higher defect detection and lower verification effort

Non measurable benefits : improved morale of the developers improved customer satisfaction (fewer post release problems in

the SW)

ROI : 6 to 1

Reference: Data & Analysis Center for Software /DOD -http://www.dacs.dtic.mil/techs/roispi2


23/29


Average cost and ROI (Thales source)

For software:

1.5% of software development effort for SEPG team 1.5% of software development effort for dissemination Key figures : aprox. 30 units; teams from 50 to 300 engineers

Measured ROI between 3 (minimum) and 6 (maximum) period from 1992 to 1997

Investment in multi-discipline Process Improvement with CMMI: 2%-3% of development effort in population affected to move

from one level to another

Factors affecting cost: Number of disciplines, number of sites, size of population, rangeof different types of project


24/29


Contents

Overview



Pitfalls and Risks


25/29


A customer Sponsorship of the Top Management

ObjectiveClear identification of business objective and

improvement scope

Responsibilities A project leader and people involved

Activities

Definition / improvement of practices

Deployment

Training

Budget / schedule Estimation / Tracking of cost and delay

Milestones Tracking of the actionsRegular mini-assessments

Final Acceptance Official assessment

ProductChange of culture and practices on projects and

in the organization

An improvement initiative must be

managed as a project

Management of the improvement initiative


26/29


Other Risks and Pitfalls

Common-sense failure:

Compliance-based process definition

Lack of focus on business benefit/improvement of

performance

Standard processes defined based on practices

which already do not work and which are nottailorable to all business needs

Change Management

Buy-in, communication not addressed

Practitioners not involved

Changing business-critical processes is risky


27/29


Some Ways Process Improvement Can Get Stuck

Shared

Objectives

Skilled

People

Maturity

Rewarded

Resources

Provided

PI Managed

as a ProjectChange

Skilled

People

Maturity

Rewarded

Resources

Provided

PI Managed

as a ProjectLack of Clear

Decisions

Shared

Objectives

Maturity

Rewarded

Resources

Provided

PI Managed

as a Project

Common

Mistakes

repeated

Shared

Objectives

Skilled

People

Resources

Provided

PI Managed

as a Project

Change

Depends

on Individuals

Shared

Objectives

Skilled

People

Maturity

Rewarded

PI Managed

as a Project Lack ofProgress

Shared

Objectives

Skilled

People

Maturity

RewardedResources

Provided

Uncoordinated

Actions

S


28/29


Summary

The CMMI model is well established and has a

credible origin Thales has been long time advocator of the model

A culture of Process Improvement is well established

within the organisation

Process Improvement needs to be managed and co-

ordinated in order to succeed


29/29

Thank You for your attention

Trevor RudgeThales Research and Technology

agile cmmi summary

Documents