Larry Dribin, Ph.D.
SOGETI, A CAP GEMINI COMPANY
Phone: (847) 807-7390 Email: [email protected] or
My Observations from SEPG 2002March 7, 2002
V1.1
© Larry Dribin, Ph.D. March 7, 2002 - v1.1 - 2 -
What Were My Most Important Lesson Learned?
It was a hard choice - 7 concurrent tracks 2 tracks on Level 2 1 tracks on Level 3 2 tracks on Special Topics 1 track on CMMI
Topics I Considered: “Do’s and Don’ts of Software Process Improvement” “What the Authors Intended at Levels 4 and 5” “Aggressively moving from CMM Level 1 to CMM Level 3 in
One Year” “What Would I Do Differently If I Wrote The SEPG Guide
Today?” “Competitive Software Teams”
I learned quite a bit in these session, but no “Ah Ha”! I learned quite a bit in these session, but no “Ah Ha”!
© Larry Dribin, Ph.D. March 7, 2002 - v1.1 - 3 -
I Had An “Ah Ha” After Attending:
Keynote: “Conversations with Watts Humphrey”, by Michael Mah
Keynote: Barry Boehm, “The Fate of Bright Ideas: Why They are Not Always Adopted”
Panel Session: “Capability Maturity Models Are Not Relevant in Modern Development Environments”
Ah Ha: Agile Processes & CMM (versus Agile or CMM)
Panel Session: “The Loyal Opposition Versus the CMMI Champions: A Frank Discussion of CMMI Models”
Ah Ha: The CMM May Still Live (versus CMM CMMI)
After attending these sessions I felt as though major changes may be underway in software process improvement.
After attending these sessions I felt as though major changes may be underway in software process improvement.
© Larry Dribin, Ph.D. March 7, 2002 - v1.1 - 4 -
First Remember the CMM-SW Vision
“ I wanted to get software organizations to adopt Deming’s approach to continuous improvement, but I realized it had to be done in stages.”
• Watts Humphrey, creator of the CMM-SW
Eliminate chaos (Level 2) Establish common processes
(Level 3) Understand process capability
and control variation in process performance (Level 4)
Continuously improve capability of critical processes (Level 5)
© Larry Dribin, Ph.D. March 7, 2002 - v1.1 - 5 -
First Remember the CMM-SW Vision, but …
“ I wanted to get software organizations to adopt Deming’s approach to continuous improvement, but I realized it had to be done in stages.”
• Watts Humphrey, creator of the CMM-SW
Eliminate chaos (Level 2) Establish common processes
(Level 3) Understand process capability
and control variation in process performance (Level 4)
Continuously improve capability of critical processes (Level 5)
Source: Pat O’Toole, “The Do’s and Don’ts of Software Process Improvement”
Source: Pat O’Toole, “The Do’s and Don’ts of Software Process Improvement”
© Larry Dribin, Ph.D. March 7, 2002 - v1.1 - 6 -
Agile Processes & CMM (versus Agile or CMM) Pro CMM: CMMs are Relevant because they work!
Source: Stan Rifkin, “CMMs are Relevant to Modern Software Development”
Source: Stan Rifkin, “CMMs are Relevant to Modern Software Development”
© Larry Dribin, Ph.D. March 7, 2002 - v1.1 - 7 -
Agile Processes & CMM (versus Agile or CMM) Con CMM: People oriented “Barely Sufficient Methodology”
Source: Jim Highsmith, Cutter Consortium,“Is the CMM: Is It Relevant Today?”
Source: Jim Highsmith, Cutter Consortium,“Is the CMM: Is It Relevant Today?”
© Larry Dribin, Ph.D. March 7, 2002 - v1.1 - 8 -
Agile Processes & CMM (versus Agile or CMM) Con CMM: CMM Supports Waterfall and not Modern Iterative Development Processes
Source: Walker Royce, Rational Software, “Are Capability Maturity Models Relevant in Modern Development Environments?”
Source: Walker Royce, Rational Software, “Are Capability Maturity Models Relevant in Modern Development Environments?”
© Larry Dribin, Ph.D. March 7, 2002 - v1.1 - 9 -
Agile Processes & CMM (versus Agile or CMM) My Take Away
CMM experts are talking about agile approaches to software development
Too often these experts “demonize” the new agile approaches
Each may have its own home space Source: Interpretation of Barry Boehm’s keynote
The key is that the dialog has begun
This dialog is healthy and should generate improvements in Software Process Improvement!
This dialog is healthy and should generate improvements in Software Process Improvement!
© Larry Dribin, Ph.D. March 7, 2002 - v1.1 - 10 -
The CMM May Still Live (versus CMM CMMI)
Background
Source: “The Loyal Opposition Versus the CMMI Champions: A Frank Discussion of CMMI Models” (Panel Discussion, Marilyn Bush Moderator)
Source: “The Loyal Opposition Versus the CMMI Champions: A Frank Discussion of CMMI Models” (Panel Discussion, Marilyn Bush Moderator)
© Larry Dribin, Ph.D. March 7, 2002 - v1.1 - 11 -
The CMM May Still Live (versus CMM CMMI) Pro CMMI
CMMI explicitly links to business objectives vs. implicit in CMM
CMMI Incorporates learning from CMM-SW (CMM v2c was the starting point)
It includes Product Engineering
It Covers Standards and Business Strategies
Applies well to small organizations
Adapts to different improvement approaches Staged vs. continuous
Expands to incorporate new disciplines
Source:Mike Konrad - Software Engineering InstituteTim Kasse - Kasse Initiatives
Source:Mike Konrad - Software Engineering InstituteTim Kasse - Kasse Initiatives
© Larry Dribin, Ph.D. March 7, 2002 - v1.1 - 12 -
The CMM May Still Live (versus CMM CMMI) Pro CMM – Pro Choice
The CMM serves the un-served majority (Commercial non-DOD, non-Systems Engineers)
CMMI is TOO BIG
CMMI is TOO EXPENSIVE
CMMI is hard to tailor and forces unnecessary complexity It buries known vital things Compromised and confusing representations
CMM is Being Suppressed (a.k.a. Sunsetting of the CMM-SW at the end of 2003 (2005)
Source: Judah Mogilensky - Process Enhancement PartnersMark Servello - ChangeBridge
Source: Judah Mogilensky - Process Enhancement PartnersMark Servello - ChangeBridge
© Larry Dribin, Ph.D. March 7, 2002 - v1.1 - 13 -
The CMM May Still Live (versus CMM CMMI) Pro CMM Proposal: Free V2
CMM v2.0c – October 1997 was almost ready to be released An enhancement to CMM-SW v1.1 Smaller and “lighter” than the CMMI
Movement started to release CMM version 2 (which was about to be released when the project was shut down in favor of CMMI three years ago) If SEI will not release it, possible release it as a “freeware” document Provide training courses in CMM v2.0 Provide an assessment approach similar to the CBA-IPI for CMM-SW
v2.0
Key issue is funding
Let the market decide between CMM-SW and CMMILet the market decide between CMM-SW and CMMI
© Larry Dribin, Ph.D. March 7, 2002 - v1.1 - 14 -
Summary
We are in exciting times
New ideas – Agile Programming
New Products – CMMI v1.1 (and CMM v2.0?)
Thought provoking. Let’s watch what happens.
Renewed energy and new choices which will improve the state of Software Process Improvement.
Renewed energy and new choices which will improve the state of Software Process Improvement.