mapping tsp to cmmi - carnegie mellon university · 2005-04-01 · mapping tsp to cmmi james mchale...
TRANSCRIPT
Mapping TSP to CMMI James McHale Daniel S. Wall Foreword by Watts Humphrey and Mike Konrad
April 2005
TECHNICAL REPORT CMU/SEI-2004-TR-014 ESC-TR-2004-014
Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890
Mapping TSP to CMMI CMU/SEI-2004-TR-014 ESC-TR-2004-014 James McHale Daniel S. Wall Foreword by Watts Humphrey and Mike Konrad
April 2005
Software Engineering Process Management
Unlimited distribution subject to the copyright.
This report was prepared for the
SEI Joint Program Office ESC/XPK 5 Eglin Street Hanscom AFB, MA 01731-2100
The ideas and findings in this report should not be construed as an official DoD position. It is published in the interest of scientific and technical information exchange.
FOR THE COMMANDER
Christos Scondras Chief of Programs, XPK
This work is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Defense. The Software Engineering Institute is a federally funded research and development center sponsored by the U.S. Department of Defense.
Copyright 2005 Carnegie Mellon University.
NO WARRANTY
THIS CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY AND SOFTWARE ENGINEERING INSTITUTE MATERIAL IS FURNISHED ON AN "AS-IS" BASIS. CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY MAKES NO WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, AS TO ANY MATTER INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR PURPOSE OR MERCHANTABILITY, EXCLUSIVITY, OR RESULTS OBTAINED FROM USE OF THE MATERIAL. CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY DOES NOT MAKE ANY WARRANTY OF ANY KIND WITH RESPECT TO FREEDOM FROM PATENT, TRADEMARK, OR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.
Use of any trademarks in this report is not intended in any way to infringe on the rights of the trademark holder.
Internal use. Permission to reproduce this document and to prepare derivative works from this document for internal use is granted, provided the copyright and "No Warranty" statements are included with all reproductions and derivative works.
External use. Requests for permission to reproduce this document or prepare derivative works of this document for external and commercial use should be addressed to the SEI Licensing Agent.
This work was created in the performance of Federal Government Contract Number F19628-00-C-0003 with Carnegie Mellon University for the operation of the Software Engineering Institute, a federally funded research and development center. The Government of the United States has a royalty-free government-purpose license to use, duplicate, or disclose the work, in whole or in part and in any manner, and to have or permit others to do so, for government purposes pursuant to the copyright license under the clause at 252.227-7013.
For information about purchasing paper copies of SEI reports, please visit the publications portion of our Web site (http://www.sei.cmu.edu/publications/pubweb.html).
CMU/SEI-2004-TR-014 i
Table of Contents
Foreword................................................................................................................vii
Acknowledgments..................................................................................................xi
Abstract.................................................................................................................xiii
1 Introduction .....................................................................................................1
2 Methodology....................................................................................................3 2.1 Assumptions Behind the Observations......................................................4
3 TSP and the CMMI Process Categories .........................................................7 3.1 Overall.......................................................................................................7
3.2 Process Management ...............................................................................8
3.3 Project Management .................................................................................8
3.4 Engineering...............................................................................................9
3.5 Support ...................................................................................................10
4 TSP and the CMMI Maturity Levels ..............................................................13 4.1 TSP and Maturity Level 2 ........................................................................13
4.2 TSP and Maturity Level 3 ........................................................................14
4.3 TSP and Maturity Level 4 ........................................................................15
4.4 TSP and Maturity Level 5 ........................................................................16
5 TSP Process Elements..................................................................................19 5.1 Scripts .....................................................................................................19
5.2 Forms......................................................................................................20
5.3 Roles.......................................................................................................21
5.4 Other.......................................................................................................22
5.5 Training ...................................................................................................23
6 Observations by Process Categories and PAs ...........................................25 6.1 TSP and CMMI Project Management PAs...............................................25
6.1.1 Project Planning (PP) ..................................................................26
ii CMU/SEI-2004-TR-014
6.1.2 Project Monitoring and Control (PMC) ......................................... 32 6.1.3 Integrated Project Management (IPM)......................................... 37 6.1.4 Integrated Project Management (IPM SG3, SG4) – IPPD............ 42 6.1.5 Risk Management (RSKM).......................................................... 45 6.1.6 Integrated Teaming (IT) – IPPD................................................... 48 6.1.7 Quantitative Project Management (QPM) .................................... 52
6.2 TSP and Project Management Generic Practices ................................... 57
7 TSP and CMMI Process Management Process Areas ................................ 65 7.1 Scope of PROCESS ............................................................................... 65
7.1.1 Organization Process Focus (OPF)............................................. 66 7.1.2 Organization Process Definition (OPD) ....................................... 69 7.1.3 Organizational Training (OT) ....................................................... 72 7.1.4 Organizational Process Performance (OPP) ............................... 75 7.1.5 Organizational Innovation and Deployment (OID) ....................... 78
7.2 TSP and Process Management Generic Practices.................................. 81
8 TSP and CMMI Engineering PAs .................................................................. 85 8.1 Scope of Engineering Process Areas...................................................... 85
8.1.1 Requirements Management (REQM) .......................................... 86 8.1.2 Requirements Development (RD)................................................ 89 8.1.3 Technical Solution (TS) ............................................................... 94 8.1.4 Product Integration (PI) ............................................................... 98 8.1.5 Verification (VER)...................................................................... 102 8.1.6 Validation (VAL) ........................................................................ 106
8.2 TSP and Engineering Category Generic Practices................................ 109
9 TSP and CMMI Support Process Areas ......................................................117 9.1 Scope of SUPPORT ..............................................................................117
9.1.1 Configuration Management (CM) .............................................. 118 9.1.2 Process and Product Quality Assurance (PPQA) ...................... 122 9.1.3 Measurement and Analysis (MA)............................................... 126 9.1.4 Decision Analysis and Resolution (DAR)................................... 131 9.1.5 Organizational Environment for Integration – IPPD (OEI) .......... 135 9.1.6 Causal Analysis and Resolution (CAR) ..................................... 138
9.2 TSP and Support Category Generic Practices ...................................... 141
10 Summary ..................................................................................................... 147
Appendix A: Supplier Management Process Areas ........................................ 149
CMU/SEI-2004-TR-014 iii
Appendix B: Process Management Process Areas Using TSP as the Implementation Method ............................................................... 161
References........................................................................................................... 189
iv CMU/SEI-2004-TR-014
CMU/SEI-2004-TR-014 v
List of Figures
Figure 1: Summary of TSP Project Practice Coverage by Process Category .........7
Figure 2: TSP Practice Profile by Process Management PA...................................8
Figure 3: TSP Practice Profile by Project Management PA ....................................9
Figure 4: TSP Practice Profile by Engineering PA................................................10
Figure 5: TSP Practice Profile by Support PA ...................................................... 11
Figure 6: TSP Practice Profile by Maturity Level 2 PA..........................................14
Figure 7: TSP Practices Profile by Maturity Level 3 PA ........................................15
Figure 8: TSP Practice Profile by Maturity Level 4 PA..........................................16
Figure 9: TSP Practice Profile by Maturity Level 5 PA..........................................17
Figure 10: TSP Practices Profile for Supplier Management Process Areas.......... 149
Figure 11: TSP Practices Profile for Process Management PAs When TSP Is Used as the Implementation Method................................................... 161
vi CMU/SEI-2004-TR-014
CMU/SEI-2004-TR-014 vii
Foreword
The SEI produced this technical report for those interested in both CMMI and the TSP and in how these two technologies might be used together to accelerate their process improvement efforts. The report also clarifies some common misconceptions about how these two improvement frameworks support each other.
TSP-CMMI Synergies When adopting an SEI improvement technology, many organizations mistakenly view it as a stand-alone effort. However, software engineering is a rich and varied field and, as demonstrated by many other fields of engineering and science, there are often important synergistic benefits between seemingly unrelated technical disciplines. To encourage organizations to capitalize on these potential synergies, the SEI has a strategy for relating its improvement activities and for showing its partners and affiliates how its many programs can be used to support and enhance each other. This technical report is an early step in this strategy. It has been produced through the joint efforts of the CMMI and TSP project teams.
Mapping the TSP to CMMI This report is similar in nature to an earlier SEI technical report mapping TSP practices to the CMM [Davis 02]. At the time of the earlier report, the CMMI framework was well advanced, and the SEI had committed to extending the earlier CMM-TSP mapping to cover CMMI. This is the CMMI-TSP report.
When we originally developed the TSP, we built on the CMM model and established the personal and team practices needed to implement the key CMM process areas that were directly pertinent to development teams. As shown in the earlier technical report, this included a high percentage of the practices at all process maturity levels, with a heavy focus on maturity levels 3 and 4.
However, because the CMM had important gaps, we had to identify and define a family of practices that were not covered by the CMM. These included, for example, risk management, integrated teaming, and distributed engineering. With the improved coverage that CMMI provides in these areas, the close relationship of the TSP and CMMI should be clearer than before. This close relationship has advantages for TSP teams, but it should be particularly valuable to organizations that use the TSP to accelerate their CMMI improvement.
viii CMU/SEI-2004-TR-014
The CMMI-TSP Improvement Strategy Some people have the mistaken impression that TSP should not be introduced until organizations have reached CMMI level 2 or higher. It is now clear, however, that TSP can help organizations at all maturity levels, and that the sooner TSP is introduced, the better. Adopting TSP has been shown to greatly accelerate CMM process improvement. For example, SEI studies show that the mean time required for organizations to improve from CMM level 2 to CMM level 3 is 22 months and that the mean time to improve from level 3 to level 4 is 28 months. However, a NAVAIR study showed that its AV-8B Joint Systems Support Activity moved from level 2 to level 4 in only 16 months instead of the expected 50.1 They attributed this rapid pace of improvement to the organization’s prior introduction of the TSP. While studies are currently underway, there are not yet any completed studies that document the acceleration achievable in CMMI process improvement through using the TSP. Based on the work done to date, however, the improvement benefits should be at least comparable to those of CMM acceleration with TSP.
Furthermore, the move from level 3 to level 4 has been recognized as the most difficult of all CMM-based improvement steps and it probably will be the most difficult CMMI improvement step. The principal reason for this difficulty may be that the process definitions that many organizations develop for level 3 must be reworked to include process measurement when they move to level 4. Because TSP includes the extensive use of measures, its use both accelerates the level 3 process definition work and also largely eliminates the need to rewrite these processes when moving to level 4. The move from level 3 to level 4 then needs only to address the two level 4 process areas.
The objective of this report is to help process professionals, process managers, project leaders, and organizational management to establish process improvement strategies and plans. If you are not now using TSP, this report will show you why it would be helpful to introduce it in parallel with your CMMI improvement efforts. However, if your organization is already using TSP and if you are planning a CMMI process improvement effort, this report will help you to decide on the most efficient and expeditious way to proceed. In either case, we suggest the use of TSP to guide the project-centered improvements and to concentrate the CMMI improvement effort on the organization-wide responsibilities that are not as completely covered by TSP.
The rest of this foreword assumes that you have a CMMI improvement effort in the planning stages or underway and that you are considering TSP introduction.
1 NAVAIR News Release ECL200301101, “AV-8B JSSA Team Soars to Level 4.” Naval Air
Systems Command, Naval Air Warfare Center, Weapons Division, China Lake, CA, January 10, 2003.
CMU/SEI-2004-TR-014 ix
Typical Questions about TSP and CMMI People have asked many questions about the relationship between the TSP and CMMI. Some of the most common questions are the following.
I have been told that TSP should not be introduced until an organization is at level 3 or above. Is that correct?
No. As mentioned earlier, the TSP is helpful to organizations at every CMMI maturity level. Experience demonstrates significant benefits from TSP introduction before or concurrent with the move to CMMI maturity level 3.
We have a crash program underway to get to CMMI level 3 as fast as possible. Should we attempt to introduce TSP at the same time?
That depends on your objective. TSP introduction will improve organizational performance faster than anything else you do. If your objective is solely to reach a given maturity level rather than to improve performance, you may wish to defer TSP introduction. However, by concentrating exclusively on achieving a maturity level rather than focusing on performance improvement, you are likely to get disappointing results. A maturity level focus may lead to a bureaucratic process, and this generally delays real process improvement and damages a development organization's performance rather than enhancing it.
We are moving to CMMI level 2 and replacing our entire development environment. Senior management would also like to introduce TSP at the same time. Technical management is resisting. Should we push ahead with TSP anyway?
Probably not. While some level of change is normal in most organizations, there is a point beyond which change can be destructive. At that point, it is usually wise to limit the pace of change to something that people can tolerate. Remember, the organization must continue to operate productively during the change process.
We have been at CMM level 1 for 10 years and have been unable to make significant improvement progress. Would TSP help us with CMMI improvement?
It very likely would. Generally, the reason that organizations stay stuck at level 1 is that their senior management is unable or unwilling to provide adequate support or to give sufficient priority to the change activities. Since CMMI improvement generally must be implemented in parallel by most parts of an organization, large, entrenched, or highly bureaucratic groups are often extremely difficult to change. Because a TSP-based improvement effort can be focused on a relatively concentrated area, it is easier for management to provide the needed focus on process improvement. However, you still must have senior management support, or no improvement effort is likely to succeed.
Is TSP introduction always successful or does it sometimes fail?
x CMU/SEI-2004-TR-014
The TSP is not magic. When TSP introduction efforts have failed, it has been for the same reasons that CMMI improvement efforts fail: the management team does not understand or agree with the need to change. At any maturity level, the most common problems are the lack of management support, changes in senior management, or business failures and cutbacks. Generally, when the senior management champions stay in place, both TSP and CMMI improvement efforts succeed.
Final Considerations It is becoming clear that by using TSP, organizations can greatly accelerate their CMMI process improvement work. However, several additional points should also be considered when deciding whether and how to combine TSP and CMMI improvement efforts.
First, through using TSP, engineers and engineering teams can see the reasons for many of the high-maturity CMMI practices, and they will be more likely to cooperate with and support a CMMI-based process improvement effort. It is much easier to get the support of engineers who have PSP training (part of TSP introduction) and TSP experience.
Second, since the objective of any software process improvement effort is to enhance organizational performance, and since this will require changes in engineering behavior, any improvement effort should be accompanied by steps that demonstrably change engineering behavior. PSP and TSP do this.
Third, a major risk for any improvement effort is that it can become bureaucratic and can impose added demands on the engineers instead of helping them. If, as suggested by this strategy, the group charged with process improvement work treats TSP teams as its customers, this risk will be greatly reduced.
Fourth, even if all of the above points were not enough, TSP can substantially improve the performance of the organization’s software groups, even in some groups that have already achieved CMMI maturity level 5 [Brady 04].2
Finally, while introducing TSP can greatly facilitate CMMI-based process improvement, this will only be true if it is properly introduced and used. For example, each TSP team should capitalize on the organization’s existing processes and should work closely with the established quality assurance, process, configuration management, systems, requirements, and test groups. For the TSP effort to succeed, all of the team members and all of the involved management must be properly trained, the TSP activities must be led and coached by an SEI-authorized TSP coach, and the coach must be available to coach and support the team immediately after the launch. Guidance on TSP training and introduction can be found in Winning with Software: An Executive Strategy [Humphrey 02].
2 Schneider, Kent. Keynote, 3rd Annual CMMI User’s Group and Technology Conference, Denver,
CO, 2003.
CMU/SEI-2004-TR-014 xi
Acknowledgments
We hereby acknowledge the colleagues that helped in various ways to produce this report.
Detailed reviews of the specific practice observations by Mike Konrad and Suzanne Garcia improved the report tremendously. It is no exaggeration to say that we learned a lot about both CMMI and TSP in producing this report, and much of that was due to the clear feedback and insightful questions from the experts.
Our early reviewers, Watts Humphrey and Marsha Pomeroy-Huff, were instrumental in letting us know where we were on the right track and where we had gone off course. Marsha’s detailed editorial comments deserve special mention in light of our editor’s remark that the initial draft was “wonderfully well written and grammatically correct.”
In addition to Watts and Marsha, the balance of the TSP Initiative team at the SEI provided steadfast support, encouragement, and crucial schedule relief. They are: Dan Burton, Kim Campbell, Anita Carleton, Noopur Davis, Caroline Graettinger, Julia Mullaney, Jodie Spielvogle, and Alan Willett.
Support from our chain of command never wavered during the production of this report. Jim Over, head of the TSP Initiative, and Bill Peterson, head of the SEI’s Software Engineering Process Management (SEPM) program, have been constant believers in the importance of this work, and managed to push us along steadily without making us feel unduly pressured.
We had the extreme good fortune to have Watts Humphrey and Mike Konrad lend their time and talent to produce a foreword for this report. We hope that the reader finds the balance of the report as useful as their foreword.
Our editor, Pamela Curtis, provided a calming influence on the sometimes hectic final throes of production.
Finally, to the many colleagues in the process improvement community who provided input on specific points, and to the even larger number that have been checking our progress, we thank you for your patience.
xii CMU/SEI-2004-TR-014
CMU/SEI-2004-TR-014 xiii
Abstract
With the advent of CMMI® (Capability Maturity Model® Integration), development and maintenance organizations are faced with many issues regarding how their current practices, or new practices that they are considering adopting, compare to the new model. The Team Software ProcessSM (TSPSM), including the corequisite Personal Software ProcessSM (PSPSM), defines a set of project practices that has a growing body of evidence showing highly desirable process performance in terms of delivered product quality, schedule performance, and cost performance. TSP also has a history of favorable coverage with respect to the SW-CMM® (Capability Maturity Model for Software), a major precursor to CMMI, as well as several real-world implementations that have helped organizations to achieve high maturity levels in a relatively short period of time.
This report provides an essential element to facilitate the adoption of the TSP in organizations using CMMI, namely, a mapping of ideal TSP practices into the specific and generic practices of CMMI. By having such a mapping (also known as a gap analysis), those involved with process improvement and appraisal efforts can more easily determine how well the organization or a particular project is implementing the TSP, how well projects using TSP might rate with respect to CMMI, and where and how to fill any gaps in CMMI coverage. Organizations already following an improvement plan based on CMMI may also determine how TSP adoption might help them to achieve broader, deeper, or higher maturity implementations of CMMI goals and practices.
xiv CMU/SEI-2004-TR-014
CMU/SEI-2004-TR-014 1
1 Introduction
Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) is a reference model consisting of best practice descriptions for a broad range of engineering activities. It is the successor model to the Capability Maturity Model for Software (SW-CMM), the Systems Engineering Capability Model (SECM) from the Electronics Industries Alliance, and the Integrated Product Development Capability Maturity Model (IPD-CMM) [Chrissis 03]. As a descriptive model, CMMI is well suited for appraisal efforts seeking to determine a particular organization’s capabilities within the scope of software, systems, integrated product engineering, or acquisition and for guiding the broad direction of process improvement efforts in these areas of expertise. However, it is not unusual for organizations to struggle when attempting to define operational practices that are both effective in terms of getting the work done and that adequately cover areas of the model targeted for compliance.
The Team Software ProcessSM (TSPSM) is a set of defined operational processes originally designed to implement high-maturity project-level practices of the SW-CMM. There is a growing body of evidence showing that TSP performs well in addressing key common goals of both SW-CMM and CMMI, namely, delivery of high-quality software, schedule performance, and cost performance [McAndrews 00, Davis 03]. In addition, TSP processes have been shown on paper to compare well to SW-CMM practices [Davis 02] and also have been demonstrated to be effective in helping real organizations to achieve high maturity on an accelerated basis [Hefley 02, Pracchia 04, Switzer 04]. With the advent of CMMI, the question naturally arises as to how well the TSP compares to the newer model. The purpose of this report is to answer that question, and to do so in a way that enables TSP implementation to be closely coupled with CMMI improvement efforts. The goal is that TSP implementation will enhance and enable the achievement of higher CMMI maturity levels in considerably less time than is commonly reported [SEI 04].
The tables presented in Section 6 constitute the core of the report. These tables, one for each process area (PA), list each specific practice (SP) of CMMI-SE/SW/IPPD v.1.1 [CMMI 02a, CMMI 02b], along with references to particular TSP process elements and practices. For each practice, a score is assigned, as explained in the methodology described in Section 2, along with any relevant notes. The PA tables are grouped by process category: project management, process management, engineering, and support. At the end of each process category
CMMI and CMM are registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office by Carnegie Mellon
University. CMMI and CMM are registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office by Carnegie Mellon
University. SM Team Software Process and TSP are service marks of Carnegie Mellon University.
2 CMU/SEI-2004-TR-014
grouping, an additional table is provided to summarize how the TSP maps into the generic practices (GPs) for that process category.
Sections 3 and 4 of the report provide graphical summaries of the observation scores, grouping the PAs first by process categories per the CMMI continuous representation (Section 3), and then by maturity levels per the CMMI staged representation (Section 4). The TSP process elements referenced in the mapping tables are listed and briefly described in Section 5.
CMU/SEI-2004-TR-014 3
2 Methodology
When determining how to score TSP practices with respect to related CMMI practices, the following guidelines were used to develop scoring values.
• Avoid the use of SCAMPI class “A” appraisal terminology. The Standard CMMI Appraisal Method for Process Improvement (SCAMPISM) “A” rules of evidence clearly are not met by a paper exercise such as this, and the authors want to be unequivocal in declaring that this mapping is not a guarantee of SCAMPI compliance when appraisal time comes. Therefore, instead of “Fully/Largely/Partially/Not Implemented,” the authors opted for the terminology detailed below. It is the proper activity of the engineering process group (EPG) and the appraisal team to make the determinations required by the SCAMPI method. Readers of the earlier TSP-CMM mapping [Davis 02] will recognize a similarity in terminology between the two reports.
• Avoid problems encountered in the earlier TSP-CMM mapping. While many of the ambiguities and overlaps between organizational and project practices that were inherent in the CMM for Software v.1.1 have been resolved in CMMI, of necessity a few still remain. The authors of this report have attempted to avoid labeling clearly good things in the TSP as “Partial,” when in fact they are mature project practices that support a desirable organizational activity. Therefore, a rating of “S” for “Supports” was formulated to describe more closely how TSP relates to the model practice, while making it clear that there is more to the practice than what the TSP implements. “Fully addresses” was changed to “Directly addresses” to avoid the problems inherent in questions of whether all of the subpractices of a particular practice have been covered. “Directly” says exactly what is meant, without implying that all subpractices are necessarily implemented.
Table 1: Scoring Terminology Used in the Maps
Score Value
Description
D Directly addresses; for TSP practices that meet the intent of the CMMI practice without any significant reservations (can be project or organizational practices)
P Partially addresses; for project-oriented practices that TSP addresses, but with some significant weakness or omission
S Supports; for organizational practices that TSP is not intended to fulfill completely, but which TSP supports by providing practices that either feed into the CMMI organization-level practice (e.g., data for a measurement repository) or that create a demand for or use the output of such a practice (e.g., tailoring
SM SCAMPI is a service mark of Carnegie Mellon University.
4 CMU/SEI-2004-TR-014
Score Value
Description
criteria)
N Not addressed; for project-related practices that TSP could and possibly should address but doesn’t (i.e., a “gap”)
U Unrated; for organizational practices outside the scope of the TSP (e.g., GP 2.1 Establish an organizational policy)
2.1 Assumptions Behind the Observations The following assumptions underlie the observations detailed in Sections 6 through 9 of this report.
1. The organization in question used the SEI-recommended TSP introduction strategy for training personnel and launching projects.
2. All projects in the organization are using the TSP for all phases of a “normal” development life cycle (i.e., requirements, architecture, implementation, deployment, and maintenance). Specifically excluded are things such as business planning, business case analysis, and the like.
There is no assumption of a particular maturity level or capability level in any of the observations. However, the interpretation of whether a particular practice is rightly a project-level or organization-level practice remains open, and is one of the major issues with which an EPG must deal on an ongoing basis. The resolution of this issue is also likely to change over time as the organization and its projects work with the TSP process assets and assimilate them into their own ways of doing business.
In general, a lower maturity organization will leave more practices to the projects, but months or years later, many of the same practices for a similar project in the same organization will be performed as organization-level activities by the EPG or other designated group. A higher maturity organization with, by definition, significant experience in process improvement will naturally recognize many practices as standard organizational activities, and TSP teams will treat them as such when defining their working processes.
This report defaults to the assumption that specific practices (SPs) in the project management, engineering, and support categories are project-level activities, with exceptions noted as they occur. Specific practices within the process management category default to the assumption that they are organization level, again with exceptions as noted. All SPs are treated individually, however, with one observation block per SP in the analysis.
Generic practices (GPs) are institutionalization activities, though not necessarily organization-level activities. This report treats the GPs collectively according to the process categories, with each GP having one observation block across all the of the process areas (PAs) within its category. While this approach may be of lesser value in determining how well an idealized TSP implementation rates against CMMI, the intent of the report here is to emphasize that the GPs really are institutionalization activities, that TSP provides many
CMU/SEI-2004-TR-014 5
hooks for true institutionalization, but that the decisions of whether, and how, to push the implementation of individual generic practices down to the team rests with the organization. Also, these decisions should probably relate across the PAs within a category. The approach used here seems to make these points adequately.
6 CMU/SEI-2004-TR-014
CMU/SEI-2004-TR-014 7
3 TSP and the CMMI Process Categories
3.1 Overall TSP as written covers a large footprint of specific practices across CMMI, as shown in the charts in this section and the next. The charts each show the percentage of SPs addressed, and to what extent they are addressed, with respect to different groupings of either the staged or continuous representations of the model.
TSP as typically implemented incorporates existing practices into a defined, measured process framework. The exact mix of existing practices and TSP practices is therefore different, not only for each organization that implements TSP, but also very often for each project, even within the same organization. In order for the information in this report to be useful, it should be combined with detailed knowledge of an organization’s existing practices, possibly gained through a SCAMPI appraisal or other formal method.
Figure 1 shows a summary of TSP coverage of specific practices summarized by process category. For detailed observations of each PA, see Sections 6 through 9.
TSP and CMMI Process Categories
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Proc
ess
Man
agem
ent
Proj
ect
Man
agem
ent
Engi
neer
ing
Supp
ort
Process Category
Perc
enta
ge o
f SP
s Unrated
Not Addressed
Partially Addressed
Supported
Directly Addressed
Figure 1: Summary of TSP Project Practice Coverage by Process Category
8 CMU/SEI-2004-TR-014
3.2 Process Management The process management PAs deal with cross-project activities related to developing, sharing, and adapting processes. Most of these activities are necessarily not specific to the work of a single development project, the domain of the TSP. However, TSP practices support nearly all of these activities, either by providing data and process assets for organizational use, by providing explicit process steps for using organizational assets, or by providing detailed implementations of a group of practices that can serve as an organizational exemplar. Depending on implementation choices made by the organization’s EPG, many of these practices could be rated as directly addressed.
Figure 2 shows the percentage of process management specific practices addressed by TSP for each PA. For detailed observations of each PA, see Section 7.
Process Management
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
OPF OPD OT OPP OID
Process Area
Perc
enta
ge o
f SP
s Unrated
Not Addressed
Partially Addressed
Supported
Directly Addressed
Figure 2: TSP Practice Profile by Process Management PA
3.3 Project Management The TSP shows remarkable coverage with respect to most of the process areas in the project management category. Much of the strength of the TSP lies in the multiple assets that it brings to bear in planning and tracking a project using data gathered and analyzed by the project team on an ongoing basis. While there is relatively weak coverage with respect to Supplier Agreement Management (SAM) and Integrated Supplier Management (ISM) specific practices, a project team using the TSP and planning to acquire significant components of its delivered product from other groups would likely include such acquisition activities in its planning and engineering processes as necessary.
CMU/SEI-2004-TR-014 9
Figure 3 shows the percentage of project practices addressed by TSP for each PA in the project management category. For detailed observations of each PA, see Section 6.
Project Management
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
PP PMC
SAMIP
MRS
KM IT ISM
QPM
Process Area
Perc
enta
ge o
f SP
s Unrated
Not Addressed
Partially Addressed
Supported
Directly Addressed
Figure 3: TSP Practice Profile by Project Management PA
3.4 Engineering When a TSP team plans its engineering activities, it begins at a minimum with the core of TSP development and maintenance life-cycle process assets on which to draw. More often, however, the project team has its own practices, either from prior development cycles or from organizational process assets, to adapt into the defined, measured, and managed framework learned in PSP training and instantiated during the TSP launch. While the chart below reflects strong CMMI coverage using the TSP default development processes, the process group using this report to guide a process improvement effort should take special care to discover the actual engineering processes used.
Figure 4 shows the percentage of specific practices addressed by TSP for each PA in the engineering category. For detailed observations on each PA, see Section 8.
10 CMU/SEI-2004-TR-014
Engineering
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
REQM RD TS PI VER VAL
Process Area
Perc
enta
ge o
f SP
s Unrated
Not Addressed
Partially Addressed
Supported
Directly Addressed
Figure 4: TSP Practice Profile by Engineering PA
3.5 Support The CMMI support categories can be applied to any process area or process category, and therefore lack the central theme that the other categories possess. There is no particular pattern, therefore, in how the TSP addresses these categories. For example, Measurement and Analysis (MA) shows strong coverage, reflecting the TSP’s fundamental alignment with such activities. On the other hand, Organizational Environment for Integration (OEI) deals with activities outside the scope of the typical TSP team, and therefore reflects weak coverage by the TSP.
Figure 5 shows the percentage of project practices addressed by TSP for each PA of the support category. For detailed observations on each PA, see Section 6.
CMU/SEI-2004-TR-014 11
Support
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
CM PPQA MA DAR OEI CAR
Process Area
Perc
enta
ge o
f SP
s Unrated
Not Addressed
Partially Addressed
Supported
Directly Addressed
Figure 5: TSP Practice Profile by Support PA
12 CMU/SEI-2004-TR-014
CMU/SEI-2004-TR-014 13
4 TSP and the CMMI Maturity Levels
4.1 TSP and Maturity Level 2 At maturity level 2, the projects in an organization have ensured that requirements are being managed; processes are planned, performed, measured, and controlled to ensure meeting project commitments; suppliers are selected and managed to meet project commitments. This means that commitments are established and reviewed with stakeholders, management has visibility into the status of work products and the delivery of services, work products are appropriately controlled, and these deliverables satisfy their specified process descriptions, standards, and procedures.
The TSP provides specific guidance for Project Planning (PP), Project Monitoring and Control (PMC), Requirements Management (REQM), Measurement and Analysis (MA), and Process and Product Quality Assurance (PPQA). While Supplier Agreement Management (SAM) is not specifically addressed by TSP, the project planning, monitoring, and measurement aspects of TSP provide support for these activities. It is not unusual for an organization using the TSP to start asking their suppliers for TSP-equivalent project planning, tracking, and quality information.
Figure 6 shows the percentage of specific practices addressed by TSP for each PA at maturity level 2. For detailed observations on each PA, see Sections 6, 8, and 9.
14 CMU/SEI-2004-TR-014
TSP and CMMI ML2
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
REQM PP PM
CSAM MA
PPQA CM
Process Area
Perc
enta
ge o
f SP
s Unrated
Not Addressed
Partially Addressed
Supported
Directly Addressed
Figure 6: TSP Practice Profile by Maturity Level 2 PA
4.2 TSP and Maturity Level 3 At maturity level 2, it is not unusual for each individual project within an organization to have a different set of management and technical process descriptions, procedures, and standards. As an organization moves towards maturity level 3, a critical distinction becomes evident. At maturity level 3, the standards, process descriptions, and procedures for a project are tailored from the organization’s set of standard processes to suit the needs of each project. As a result, the processes that are performed across the organization are consistent, except for the differences allowed by the tailoring guidelines.
The TSP focus is on teams, not organizations. Even if all projects in an organization are using the TSP, there is a need for additional organizational support. (Look at Organizational Process Definition (OPD) for examples of the additional support required.) The TSP provides teams with a robust set of processes and procedures that are usually tailored to meet the team’s needs with guidance from a TSP coach. These standard TSP processes can be used to support the creation of an organization’s standard set of processes, but they do not fully address all organizational process needs. TSP teams also collect and analyze product and process data, but in order to meet the intent of this PA, there is an additional need for an organizational function that collects and reviews this data and makes it available across the organization. In fact, it is not uncommon for an organization using the TSP for product development to initiate TSP process development projects to address the “organizational PAs” of maturity level 3: Organizational Process Focus (OPF), Organizational Process Definition (OPD), and Organizational Training (OT).
CMU/SEI-2004-TR-014 15
The TSP, along with the PSP, provides specific guidance for Requirements Development (RD), Technical Solution (TS), Product Integration (PI), Verification (VER), Validation (VAL), Risk Management (RSKM), and Integrated Teaming (IT). The TSP launch process, process and product data, and weekly team meetings support and enable Integrated Project Management (IPM), RSKM, and Decision Analysis and Resolution (DAR). While Integrated Supplier Management (ISM) is not specifically addressed by TSP, the project planning, monitoring, and measurement aspects of TSP provide support for its activities. The OPF and OPD process areas are supported by the process elements, process architecture, and process and product data from the TSP. OT is enabled and must be partially implemented by the introduction of TSP, as portions of the organizational training needs are identified, planned, and executed. The TSP launch and status reporting processes support Integrated Project Management for Integrated Product and Process Development (IPM for IPPD, often shortened to IPM-IPPD) and for Organizational Environment for Integration (OEI).
Figure 7 shows the percentage of specific practices addressed by TSP for each PA of maturity level 3. For detailed observations on each PA, see Sections 6 through 9.
TSP and CMMI ML3
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
RD TS PI VER VALOPF OPD OT
IPM
RSKM IT IS
MDAR
OEI
Process Area
Perc
enta
ge o
f SP
s Unrated
Not Addressed
Partially Addressed
Supported
Directly Addressed
Figure 7: TSP Practices Profile by Maturity Level 3 PA
4.3 TSP and Maturity Level 4 At maturity level 4, the organization and projects establish quantitative objectives for quality and process performance and then use these criteria in managing the projects. Quality and process performance are understood in statistical terms and are managed throughout the life of the processes.
Organizational Process Performance (OPP) derives quantitative objectives for quality and process performance from the organization’s business objectives. TSP launch preparation calls for the team to have available the organization’s standard processes for use by the team. A typical management goal, communicated in the launch, is to meet certain specified process performance and quality standards.
16 CMU/SEI-2004-TR-014
Quantitative Project Management (QPM) applies quantitative and statistical techniques to the management of process performance and product quality. Quality and process performance objectives for the project are based on those established by the organization. The TSP provides strong support for this process area: quality and process performance are planned, tracked, managed, and understood.
Figure 8 shows the percentage of specific practices addressed by TSP for each PA of maturity level 4. For detailed observations on each PA, see Sections 6 and 7.
TSP and CMMI ML4
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
OPP QPM
Process Area
Perc
enta
ge o
f SP
s Unrated
Not Addressed
Partially Addressed
Supported
Directly Addressed
Figure 8: TSP Practice Profile by Maturity Level 4 PA
4.4 TSP and Maturity Level 5 At maturity level 5, processes are continually improved through both incremental and innovative technological improvements that are based on the quantitative understanding achieved at maturity level 4. Organizational Innovation and Deployment (OID) enables the selection and deployment of improvements that can enhance the organization’s ability to meet its quality and process performance objectives. Causal Analysis and Resolution (CAR) provides a mechanism for projects to evaluate their processes and to look for improvements that can be implemented.
The TSP explicitly addresses the practices within the Causal Analysis and Resolution (CAR) PA and strongly supports the implementation of the OID practices. Postmortem meetings consolidate and begin to analyze data gathered either during a launch or following a development cycle. Specific problems and suggestions are documented by process improvement proposals (PIPs) during the postmortem or at any time in the life cycle. Future launches and relaunches then typically make relevant adjustments to the project’s defined processes. Most organizations implementing the TSP recognize the value of such feedback
CMU/SEI-2004-TR-014 17
from the primary users of the organizational processes and create mechanisms to incorporate the lessons learned so that other project teams may benefit.
Figure 9 shows the percentage of specific practices addressed by TSP for each PA of maturity level 5. For detailed observations on each PA, see Sections 7 and 9.
TSP and CMMI ML5
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
OID CAR
Process Areas
Perc
ent
of S
Ps UnratedNot Addressed
Partially AddressedSupportedDirectly Addressed
Figure 9: TSP Practice Profile by Maturity Level 5 PA
18 CMU/SEI-2004-TR-014
CMU/SEI-2004-TR-014 19
5 TSP Process Elements
The TSP is defined by a set of process elements that includes the following:
• scripts to guide specific work processes
• forms to capture specific information generated by enacting one or more scripts or otherwise required by some part of the process
• role specifications to guide individuals on a project in performing critical but often non-scripted (possibly non-scriptable) activities
• other assets such as the TSP introduction strategy, checklists, guidelines, and specifications not related to roles
• training courses and authorization activities in the TSP and PSP technologies
These assets, summarized in the table below, are referenced in the “TSP Reference” column in the mapping tables of Section 6.
5.1 Scripts
Grouping / Name Description Notes
Launch scripts
LAU Team launch: to guide teams in launching a software-intensive project
LAU1 Launch meeting 1 - launch overview and kick-off Step 1 in script LAU
LAU2 Launch meeting 2 - roles and goals Step 2 in script LAU
LAU3 Launch meeting 3 - strategy, process, support Step 3 in script LAU
LAU4 Launch meeting 4 - overall team plan Step 4 in script LAU
LAU5 Launch meeting 5 - quality plan Step 5 in script LAU
LAU6 Launch meeting 6 - detailed next-phase plans Step 6 in script LAU
LAU7 Launch meeting 7 - risk assessment Step 7 in script LAU
LAU8 Launch meeting 8 - management meeting preparation Step 8 in script LAU
LAU9 Launch meeting 9 - wrap-up management meeting Step 9 in script LAU
LAUPM Launch postmortem meeting - postmortem on the launch Step PM in script LAU
REL Team relaunch
REL1 Relaunch meeting 1 - status and management update
Development scripts
DEV Overall new development and enhancement process
MAINT Overall maintenance and enhancement process
ANA Impact analysis process
20 CMU/SEI-2004-TR-014
Grouping / Name Description Notes
HLD High-level design process
IMP Implementation process
IMP6 Unit test and test development process Step 6 in script IMP
INS Inspection process
PM Project postmortem process
REQ Requirements process
TEST Release test process
TEST1 Product build process Step 1 in script TEST
TEST2 Integration process Step 2 in script TEST
TEST3 System test process Step 3 in script TEST
TESTD Test defect-handling process
Other scripts
MTG General meeting process Used as the basis for most meeting scripts
STATUS Management and customer status meeting
WEEK Weekly team meeting
5.2 Forms
Grouping / Name Description Notes
Launch forms Asterisked (*) items or equivalents are implemented in the TSP workbook (see Section 5.4)
GOAL * Team goals
INV Process inventory
ITL * Issue/risk tracking log
MTG Meeting report form
PIP Process improvement proposal
ROLE * Team role assignment
ROLEMX Role assignment matrix
SCHED * Schedule planning template
STRAT Strategic planning form
SUMDI * Defects injected summary
SUMDR * Defects removed summary
SUMP * Plan summary form
SUMQ * Quality summary form
SUMS * Program size summary
SUMT * Development time summary form
SUMTASK * Task plan summary
TASK * Task planning template
Development forms
DEFECT Defect reporting form
INS Inspection report
TESTLOG Test log
CMU/SEI-2004-TR-014 21
Grouping / Name Description Notes
Other forms
LOGD * Defect recording log
LOGT * Time recording log
WEEK * Weekly status report Modified versions of form WEEK are used in each launch meeting.
5.3 Roles
Grouping / Name Description Notes
Role manager specifications
The default set of roles to be assumed by members of the team: customer interface manager, design manager, implementation manager, test manager, planning manager, process manager, quality manager, and support manager
Customer interface manager
Customer interface manager responsibilities: customer focus, define requirements, manage requirement changes, establish and manage requirement standards, and reporting
A “line” role manager
Design manager Design manager responsibilities: lead the design, manage design changes, establish and manage design standards, and reporting
A “line” role manager
Implementation manager
Implementation responsibilities: lead the implementation, manage implementation changes, establish and manage the implementation standards, and reporting
A “line” role manager
Test manager Test manager responsibilities: test planning, test support, test analysis, and reporting
A “line” role manager
Planning manager Planning manager responsibilities: lead team planning, track team progress, and reporting
A “staff” role manager
Process manager Process manager responsibilities: process support, tracking, analysis, process problems and process improvement proposal handling and reporting
A “staff” role manager
Quality manager Quality manager responsibilities: quality support, quality tracking, quality analysis, and reporting
A “staff” role manager
Support manager Support manager responsibilities: tool support, configuration management, change control, reuse, and reporting
A “staff” role manager
Other role specifications
Meeting roles Meeting role descriptions: chairperson, recorder, facilitator/timekeeper, attendees
Inspection roles TSP inspection process roles and responsibilities: moderator, producer, recorder, timekeeper, reviewers
Team leader TSP team leader responsibilities: leadership, people management, team coaching, quality management, project management, team responsibilities
Team member TSP team member roles and responsibilities: personal discipline, personal management, and team responsibilities
22 CMU/SEI-2004-TR-014
5.4 Other
Grouping / Name Description Notes
Preparation checklists
PREPL Preparation for launch
PREPR Preparation for relaunch
Launch guidance
Launch coach Launch guidelines for the TSP coach
Marketing Launch guidelines for marketing management presentation
Other attendees (2) Launch guidelines for TSP coach
Senior Management Launch guidelines for senior management presentation
Team leader (2)
Launch guidelines for team leader
Team members (2) Launch guidelines for team members
Other pre-launch assets
Initial contact letter TSP launch preparation
Preparation package cover letter
TSP launch preparation material
Preparation package instructions
TSP launch preparation material
Default guidelines
Planning guidelines SEI-provided benchmark planning metrics
Quality guidelines SEI-provided benchmark quality metrics
Executive assets
Plan assessment checklist Team plan review questions; a quick start for an executive reviewing a TSP team’s plan
Quarterly review checklist
Project review questions; a quick start for senior managers to probe the status of a TSP project
TSP introduction strategy
A generic procedure and timeline for TSP implementation in an organization
These assets can be found in Winning with Software [Humphrey 02].
Other specifications and assets
NOTEBOOK Storage for project artifacts
STATUS Management status report
SUMMARY Project analysis report
TSP workbook (individual and consolidated)
Automated individual and team (consolidated) plans and actuals for size, effort, defects, and schedule; functionally equivalent versions of asterisked (*) items above under Forms are included in the TSP Workbook
Excel-based; provided by the SEI as part of the licensed TSP product suite
Checkpoint Review A review of the project to date conducted by the TSP coach or other process expert
Weekly Meeting Minutes
Minutes from weekly team meetings
CMU/SEI-2004-TR-014 23
5.5 Training
Grouping / Name Description Notes
Training and authorization
SEI training records SEI-maintained records of everyone reported by SEI-authorized instructors to have finished any of the training classes listed below
Introduction to Personal Process
Training for team members who are not software engineers (2 days)
PSP for Engineers Training for software developers (10 days)
TSP Executive Seminar Executive briefing on PSP and TSP, including benefits and the TSP introduction strategy (1 day)
Managing TSP Teams Training for people managing TSP teams (3 days)
PSP Instructor Training Training to become a PSP instructor (5 days) Offered only through the SEI; prerequisite is successful completion of PSP for Engineers
TSP Launch Coach Training
Training to become a TSP coach (5 days) Offered only through the SEI; prerequisite is successful completion of PSP Instructor Training
TSP coach observation Observation and mentoring of TSP coach during their first TSP launch (4 or 5 days)
Offered only through the SEI; successful completion necessary for SEI authorization
24 CMU/SEI-2004-TR-014
CMU/SEI-2004-TR-014 25
6 Observations by Process Categories and PAs
6.1 TSP and CMMI Project Management PAs The Project Management process areas cover the project management activities related to planning, monitoring, and controlling the project. The page numbers for each process area as listed below are from CMMI: Guidelines for Process Improvement and Product Improvement [Chrissis 03].
The Project Management category contains the following process areas.
Project Planning pages 405-428 Project Monitoring and Control pages 391-404 Integrated Project Management for IPPD pages 187-216 Risk Management pages 497-516 Integrated Teaming pages 231-246 Quantitative Project Management pages 441-464
26
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
6.1.
1 P
roje
ct P
lan
nin
g (
PP
)
The
Pro
ject
Pla
nnin
g (P
P) p
roce
ss a
rea
incl
udes
dev
elop
ing
the
proj
ect p
lan,
invo
lvin
g st
akeh
olde
rs a
ppro
pria
tely
, obt
aini
ng c
omm
itm
ent t
o th
e pl
an, a
nd m
aint
aini
ng th
e pl
an. W
hen
usin
g an
IPP
D a
ppro
ach,
sta
keho
lder
s re
pres
ent n
ot ju
st th
e te
chni
cal e
xper
tise
for
pro
duct
and
pro
cess
de
velo
pmen
t, bu
t als
o th
e bu
sine
ss im
plic
atio
ns o
f th
e pr
oduc
t and
pro
cess
dev
elop
men
t. Pl
anni
ng b
egin
s w
ith r
equi
rem
ents
that
def
ine
the
prod
uct
and
proj
ect.
The
pro
ject
pla
n co
vers
the
vari
ous
proj
ect m
anag
emen
t and
eng
inee
ring
act
iviti
es th
at w
ill b
e pe
rfor
med
by
the
proj
ect.
The
pro
ject
w
ill r
evie
w o
ther
pla
ns th
at a
ffec
t the
pro
ject
fro
m v
ario
us r
elev
ant s
take
hold
ers
and
esta
blis
h co
mm
itm
ents
wit
h th
ose
rele
vant
sta
keho
lder
s fo
r th
eir
cont
ribu
tions
to th
e pr
ojec
t.
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
SG1.
Est
imat
es o
f th
e pr
ojec
t pl
anni
ng
para
met
ers
are
esta
blis
hed
and
mai
ntai
ned.
Scri
pts:
LA
U3
For
ms:
ST
RA
T,
SU
MS
1.1.
Est
abli
sh a
top-
leve
l wor
k br
eakd
own
stru
ctur
e (W
BS
) to
est
imat
e th
e sc
ope
of th
e
proj
ect.
Rol
es: D
esig
n
man
ager
The
des
ign
man
ager
lead
s th
e te
am in
iden
tify
ing
the
prin
cipa
l pro
duct
s an
d co
mpo
nent
s of
the
proj
ect i
n L
AU
3 an
d re
cord
s th
ese
on f
orm
s
ST
RA
T a
nd S
UM
S.
D
Scri
pts:
LA
U3,
LA
U4,
LA
U5,
LA
U6
For
ms:
ST
RA
T,
SU
MQ
, SU
MS
1.2.
Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
esti
mat
es o
f th
e
attr
ibut
es o
f th
e w
ork
prod
ucts
and
task
s.
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, p
lann
ing,
desi
gn m
anag
ers
Pre
lim
inar
y es
tim
ates
are
gen
erat
ed in
LA
U3
and
refi
ned
as n
eede
d in
LA
U4
and
LA
U6.
For
m
ST
RA
T is
use
d fo
r de
velo
ping
the
esti
mat
es in
cont
ext;
form
SU
MS
reco
rds
resu
lts. I
n L
AU
5,
qual
ity
attr
ibut
es (
defe
ct d
ensi
ties
and
pha
se y
ield
s)
are
esti
mat
ed a
nd r
ecor
ded
on f
orm
SU
MQ
.
Dif
fere
nt s
teps
are
led
by th
e te
am le
ader
, des
ign
man
ager
, or
plan
ning
man
ager
.
D
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
27
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
Scri
pts:
LA
U3,
LA
U4,
LA
U6
For
ms:
ST
RA
T,
TA
SK
1.3.
Def
ine
the
proj
ect l
ife-
cycl
e ph
ases
on
whi
ch to
sco
pe th
e pl
anni
ng e
ffor
t.
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, p
roce
ss
man
ager
The
team
lead
er le
ads
the
team
in d
efin
ing
the
proj
ect d
evel
opm
ent s
trat
egy.
The
pro
cess
man
ager
lead
s th
e de
fini
tion
of th
e ov
eral
l dev
elop
men
t
proc
ess
up to
del
iver
y; r
esul
ts a
re r
ecor
ded
on f
orm
ST
RA
T a
nd r
efle
cted
in T
AS
K p
lans
gen
erat
ed in
LA
U4
and
refi
ned
in L
AU
6.
D
Scri
pts:
LA
U3,
LA
U4,
LA
U6
For
ms:
ST
RA
T,
TA
SK
, TS
P
wor
kboo
ks
1.4.
Est
imat
e th
e pr
ojec
t eff
ort a
nd c
ost f
or
the
wor
k pr
oduc
ts a
nd ta
sks
base
d on
esti
mat
ion
rati
onal
e.
Rol
es: P
lann
ing,
desi
gn
man
ager
s, te
am
mem
ber
Pre
lim
inar
y es
tim
ates
are
mad
e in
LA
U3
and
refi
ned
as n
eede
d an
d to
the
nece
ssar
y le
vel o
f
deta
il in
LA
U4
and
LA
U6.
For
ms
ST
RA
T a
nd
TA
SK
rec
ord
resu
lts.
The
des
ign
or p
lann
ing
man
ager
lead
s th
e w
ay in
LA
U3
and
LA
U4.
Indi
vidu
al te
am m
embe
rs m
ake
adju
stm
ents
bas
ed
on p
erso
nal h
isto
rica
l dat
a if
ava
ilab
le, o
ther
wis
e
on p
erso
nal e
stim
ated
pro
duct
ivity
.
D
Dol
lar-
base
d co
st e
stim
ates
are
not
exp
lici
tly
call
ed f
or; h
owev
er, i
n pr
acti
ce, t
eam
s
gene
rate
thes
e if
req
uire
d by
the
orga
niza
tion
.
SG2.
A p
roje
ct p
lan
is e
stab
lishe
d an
d
mai
ntai
ned
as t
he b
asis
for
man
agin
g th
e
proj
ect.
28
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
Scri
pts:
LA
U4,
LA
U6
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
SC
HE
DU
LE
,
TS
P w
orkb
ooks
2.1.
Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
the
proj
ect’
s
budg
et a
nd s
ched
ule.
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, p
lann
ing
man
ager
, tea
m
mem
ber
Scr
ipt L
AU
4 de
velo
ps a
n ov
eral
l sch
edul
e, w
hile
scri
pt L
AU
6 de
velo
ps d
etai
led
indi
vidu
al s
ched
ules
for
the
enti
re te
am. T
hese
are
cap
ture
d fi
rst o
n th
e
team
’s o
vera
ll T
AS
K a
nd S
CH
ED
for
ms
(LA
U4)
and
then
on
each
indi
vidu
al’s
TA
SK
and
SC
HE
D
form
(L
AU
6), a
nd th
e in
divi
dual
pla
ns a
re r
olle
d up
in th
e T
SP
con
soli
date
d w
orkb
ook
(LA
U6)
. The
team
lead
er o
r pl
anni
ng m
anag
er le
ads
the
disc
ussi
ons.
D
A b
udge
t is
not s
peci
fica
lly
addr
esse
d in
mon
etar
y te
rms;
exp
endi
ture
s ar
e ge
nera
lly
expr
esse
d in
term
s of
per
son-
hour
s on
task
. In
prac
tice
, tea
ms
gene
rate
a m
onet
ary
budg
et if
man
agem
ent a
sks
for
it.
Scri
pts:
LA
U7
For
ms:
IT
L,
team
and
indi
vidu
al T
SP
wor
kboo
ks
2.2.
Ide
ntif
y an
d an
alyz
e pr
ojec
t ris
ks.
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er
Scr
ipt L
AU
7 gu
ides
the
team
exp
lici
tly
thro
ugh
iden
tify
ing
and
mak
ing
a pr
elim
inar
y an
alys
is o
f
proj
ect r
isks
, cap
turi
ng th
em o
n th
e is
sue
trac
king
log
(IT
L),
and
fil
ing
sam
e in
the
proj
ect
NO
TE
BO
OK
. The
team
lead
er le
ads
the
disc
ussi
on.
D
Rol
es: P
lann
ing,
supp
ort
man
ager
s
2.3.
Pla
n fo
r th
e m
anag
emen
t of
proj
ect
data
.
Oth
er:
SU
MM
AR
Y
NO
TE
BO
OK
The
pla
nnin
g m
anag
er is
res
pons
ible
for
mai
ntai
ning
the
proj
ect N
OT
EB
OO
K th
at h
olds
both
laun
ch a
nd o
ngoi
ng p
roje
ct p
roce
ss d
ata.
The
SU
MM
AR
Y s
peci
fica
tion
det
ails
a p
erio
dic
or
even
t-dr
iven
rol
lup
of p
roje
ct d
ata.
P/S
D
etai
ls o
f ho
w d
ata
man
agem
ent i
s
acco
mpl
ishe
d ar
e no
t spe
cifi
ed b
y th
e T
SP. I
f
ther
e is
no
orga
niza
tion
al s
tand
ard
in p
lace
,
the
plan
ning
or
supp
ort m
anag
er u
sual
ly s
ets
up a
com
pute
r-ac
cess
ible
ver
sion
of
the
proj
ect N
OT
EB
OO
K a
nd k
eeps
wee
kly
snap
shot
s of
sam
e.
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
29
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
Scri
pts:
PR
EP
L,
PR
EP
R, L
AU
(esp
. LA
U4,
LA
U6,
LA
U8,
LA
U9)
, RE
L
For
ms:
TS
P
wor
kboo
ks
2.4.
Pla
n fo
r ne
cess
ary
reso
urce
s to
per
form
the
proj
ect.
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, t
eam
mem
ber
Iden
tifi
cati
on o
f th
e te
am le
ader
and
pro
ject
team
prio
r to
the
laun
ch r
epre
sent
s m
anag
emen
t’s
init
ial
thou
ghts
on
the
nece
ssar
y re
sour
ces.
The
laun
ch
itse
lf is
the
vehi
cle
for
the
team
to d
eter
min
e th
e
nece
ssar
y re
sour
ces,
dev
elop
alt
erna
tive
pla
ns if
nece
ssar
y, a
nd o
btai
n m
anag
emen
t com
mit
men
t to
a pa
rtic
ular
pla
n w
ith
part
icul
ar r
esou
rces
.
D
Scri
pts:
PR
EP
L, P
RE
PR
LA
U3,
LA
U4,
LA
U6,
LA
U7
For
ms:
Tea
m
and
indi
vidu
al
TS
P w
orkb
ooks
2.5.
Pla
n fo
r kn
owle
dge
and
skil
ls n
eede
d to
perf
orm
the
proj
ect.
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, t
eam
mem
ber
Man
agem
ent i
s re
spon
sibl
e fo
r as
sign
ing
a
com
pete
nt te
am le
ader
and
ade
quat
e st
aff
to a
proj
ect.
The
team
lead
er h
as a
spe
cifi
c
resp
onsi
bili
ty to
ens
ure
that
indi
vidu
als
on th
e te
am
have
the
requ
ired
kno
wle
dge
and
skil
ls to
per
form
thei
r as
sign
ed ta
sks.
Ind
ivid
ual t
eam
mem
bers
are
resp
onsi
ble
for
arra
ngin
g fo
r th
e ed
ucat
ion
and
trai
ning
nec
essa
ry to
do
supe
rior
wor
k.
D
30
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
Scri
pts:
LA
U,
LA
U1,
LA
U9,
RE
L, S
TA
TU
S
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
2.6.
Pla
n th
e in
volv
emen
t of
iden
tifi
ed
stak
ehol
ders
.
Rol
es:
Tea
m le
ader
,
role
man
ager
s
Man
agem
ent i
s ex
plic
itly
invo
lved
, beg
inni
ng w
ith
the
laun
ch a
nd c
onti
nuin
g w
ith
regu
lar
ST
AT
US
repo
rts,
incl
udin
g th
e re
sult
s of
rel
aunc
hes.
The
team
lead
er a
nd r
ole
man
ager
s ar
e re
spon
sibl
e fo
r
invo
lvin
g ot
her
stak
ehol
ders
as
nece
ssar
y an
d
appr
opri
ate.
P
The
re is
no
expl
icit
gui
danc
e in
the
laun
ch to
plan
for
sta
keho
lder
invo
lvem
ent,
nor
is th
ere
a de
sign
ated
pla
ce to
rec
ord
such
info
rmat
ion.
How
ever
, in
prac
tice
, ens
urin
g th
e
invo
lvem
ent o
f re
leva
nt p
arti
es is
a s
tren
gth
of
TS
P te
ams.
Lau
nche
s an
d re
laun
ches
are
a
com
mon
poi
nt o
f in
volv
emen
t for
rel
evan
t
stak
ehol
ders
.
Scri
pts:
LA
U,
RE
L
For
ms:
WE
EK
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, p
lann
ing
man
ager
2.7.
Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
the
over
all
proj
ect p
lan
cont
ent.
Oth
er:
NO
TE
BO
OK
The
ent
ire
laun
ch s
eque
nce
and
subs
eque
nt
rela
unch
es c
reat
e, u
pdat
e, a
nd e
xten
d pr
ojec
t pla
n
artif
acts
for
incl
usio
n in
the
proj
ect N
OT
EB
OO
K.
The
pla
n is
oft
en r
evis
ed d
urin
g ex
ecut
ion,
bot
h at
the
indi
vidu
al a
nd te
am le
vels
. For
exa
mpl
e, th
e
wee
kly
team
mee
ting
s (s
crip
t and
for
m W
EE
K)
resu
lt in
fre
quen
t pla
n ad
just
men
ts in
res
pons
e to
the
team
’s p
rogr
ess
and
unde
rsta
ndin
g of
the
wor
k.
D
See
Not
es a
bove
for
SP
2.3
.
SG3.
Com
mit
men
ts t
o th
e pl
an a
re
esta
blis
hed
and
mai
ntai
ned.
Scri
pts:
LA
U6,
LA
U7,
LA
U8,
LA
U9
3.1.
Rev
iew
all
pla
ns th
at a
ffec
t the
pro
ject
to u
nder
stan
d pr
ojec
t com
mit
men
ts.
For
ms:
SU
MQ
,
SU
MP
, SU
MS
,
TA
SK
, SC
HE
D
The
qua
lity
pla
n is
rev
iew
ed in
LA
U6
afte
r
indi
vidu
al p
lans
hav
e be
en c
reat
ed a
nd
cons
olid
ated
into
a te
am p
lan.
The
team
rev
iew
s it
s
plan
aga
inst
the
team
’s a
nd m
anag
emen
t’s
desi
red
goal
s in
LA
U6
and
LA
U8
and
crea
tes
alte
rnat
ive
plan
s if
nec
essa
ry. D
urin
g L
AU
9, th
e te
am p
rese
nts
D
If th
ere
are
any
anci
llar
y pl
ans
that
aff
ect t
he
team
’s p
lan,
suc
h as
fac
ilit
ies
issu
es o
r a
supp
ort g
roup
, the
team
wil
l eit
her
secu
re
nece
ssar
y co
mm
itm
ents
bef
ore
they
pre
sent
to
man
agem
ent o
r m
ake
the
case
for
thei
r ne
eds
duri
ng L
AU
3.
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
31
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, t
eam
mem
ber
the
plan
and
any
alt
erna
tive
s an
d as
ks f
or
man
agem
ent’
s ap
prov
al o
f a
spec
ific
pla
n.
Man
agem
ent r
evie
ws
the
plan
acc
ordi
ng to
the
plan
asse
ssm
ent c
heck
list
.
Scri
pts:
LA
U4,
LA
U6,
LA
U7,
LA
U8,
LA
U9
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
SC
HE
D
3.2.
Rec
onci
le th
e pr
ojec
t pla
n to
ref
lect
avai
labl
e an
d es
tim
ated
res
ourc
es.
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, t
eam
mem
ber
The
TS
P te
am c
ompa
res
and
adju
sts
its
plan
s
freq
uent
ly a
gain
st e
xist
ing
and
pote
ntia
l res
ourc
es
duri
ng th
e la
unch
(L
AU
4, L
AU
6, L
AU
7, a
nd
LA
U8)
. Thi
s in
clud
es p
repa
rati
on o
f al
tern
ativ
e
plan
s, w
here
app
ropr
iate
, tha
t mak
e di
ffer
ent
assu
mpt
ions
abo
ut a
vail
able
res
ourc
es, c
riti
cal
mil
esto
ne d
ates
, and
del
iver
ed f
unct
iona
lity
. In
LA
U9,
man
agem
ent c
hoos
es a
pla
n ba
sed,
am
ong
othe
r co
nsid
erat
ions
, on
reso
urce
ava
ilab
ilit
y.
D
Scri
pts:
LA
U, R
EL
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
3.3.
Obt
ain
com
mit
men
t fro
m r
elev
ant
stak
ehol
ders
res
pons
ible
for
per
form
ing
and
supp
ortin
g pl
an e
xecu
tion
.
Rol
es:
Tea
m le
ader
,
role
man
ager
s
The
ent
ire
laun
ch p
roce
ss e
lici
ts c
omm
itm
ent b
y
the
proj
ect t
eam
for
the
team
’s p
lan
(bui
lt in
LA
U2
to L
AU
8) to
mee
t man
agem
ent’
s pr
esen
ted
goal
s
and
by m
anag
emen
t to
one
of th
e pl
an a
lter
nati
ves
pres
ente
d by
the
team
(L
AU
9). R
elau
nche
s re
visi
t
all c
omm
itm
ents
for
fea
sibi
lity
, pot
enti
al a
lter
nate
appr
oach
es, a
nd, i
f ne
cess
ary,
ren
egot
iati
on w
ith
man
agem
ent.
P
TS
P p
roje
cts
freq
uent
ly in
vite
sig
nifi
cant
stak
ehol
ders
to p
arti
cipa
te in
laun
ches
and
typi
call
y ch
eck
wit
h ex
tern
al g
roup
s as
nece
ssar
y du
ring
the
plan
ning
pro
cess
;
how
ever
, get
ting
com
mit
men
ts f
rom
oth
er
“rel
evan
t sta
keho
lder
s” is
not
exp
lici
tly
call
ed
for.
For
TSP
mul
ti-t
eam
s, th
e co
mpo
nent
team
s of
a la
rger
pro
ject
exp
lici
tly n
egot
iate
com
mit
men
ts to
sup
port
eac
h ot
her.
32
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
6.1.
2 P
roje
ct M
on
ito
rin
g a
nd
Co
ntr
ol (
PM
C)
The
Pro
ject
Mon
itori
ng a
nd C
ontr
ol (
PMC
) pr
oces
s ar
ea in
clud
es m
onit
orin
g ac
tivi
ties
and
taki
ng c
orre
ctiv
e ac
tions
. The
pro
ject
pla
n sp
ecif
ies
the
appr
opri
ate
leve
l of
proj
ect m
onit
orin
g, th
e fr
eque
ncy
of p
rogr
ess
revi
ews,
and
the
mea
sure
s us
ed to
mon
itor
pro
gres
s. P
rogr
ess
is p
rim
arily
de
term
ined
by
com
pari
ng p
rogr
ess
to th
e pl
an. W
hen
actu
al s
tatu
s de
viat
es s
igni
fica
ntly
fro
m e
xpec
ted
valu
es, c
orre
ctiv
e ac
tions
are
take
n as
ap
prop
riat
e. T
hese
act
ions
may
incl
ude
repl
anni
ng.
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
SG1.
Act
ual p
erfo
rman
ce a
nd p
rogr
ess
of t
he p
roje
ct a
re m
onit
ored
aga
inst
the
proj
ect
plan
.
Scri
pts:
WE
EK
,
PM
, RE
L1,
ST
AT
US
For
ms:
WE
EK
,
TS
P w
orkb
ooks
1.1.
Mon
itor
the
actu
al v
alue
s of
the
proj
ect
plan
ning
par
amet
ers
agai
nst t
he p
roje
ct
plan
.
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, p
lann
ing
man
ager
, oth
er
role
man
ager
s
TS
P te
ams
typi
call
y ex
amin
e ac
tual
val
ues
duri
ng th
e w
eekl
y st
atus
mee
ting
, pos
tmor
tem
s,
and
mee
ting
1 o
f re
laun
ches
. The
team
lead
er o
r
plan
ning
man
ager
lead
s th
e te
am in
com
pari
ng
thes
e da
ta to
est
imat
es (
for
prod
ucti
vity
and
tim
e
on ta
sk)
and
the
actu
al w
ork
prod
ucts
(fo
r si
ze
and
defe
ct d
ensi
ty).
Oth
er r
ole
man
ager
s w
eigh
in a
s ap
prop
riat
e.
D
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
33
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
Scri
pts:
WE
EK
,
ST
AT
US
For
ms:
GO
AL
,
WE
EK
, PM
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, t
eam
mem
ber,
rol
e
man
ager
s
1.2.
Mon
itor
com
mit
men
ts a
gain
st th
ose
mad
e in
the
proj
ect p
lan.
Oth
er:
Qua
rter
ly
revi
ew c
heck
list
Tea
m m
embe
rs, u
sual
ly in
ass
ocia
tion
wit
h th
eir
desi
gnat
ed r
ole
man
ager
res
pons
ibil
itie
s an
d as
capt
ured
on
form
GO
AL
, mon
itor
the
team
’s
stat
us w
ith
resp
ect t
o it
s go
als
and
com
mit
men
ts
wee
kly
(WE
EK
).
D
Scri
pts:
WE
EK
,
ST
AT
US
For
ms:
IR
TL
1.3.
Mon
itor
risk
s ag
ains
t tho
se id
enti
fied
in
the
proj
ect p
lan.
Rol
es: R
ole
man
ager
s
Tea
m m
embe
rs, u
sual
ly in
con
junc
tion
wit
h on
e
or m
ore
role
ass
ignm
ents
as
capt
ured
on
form
IRT
L, m
onit
or th
e st
atus
of
iden
tifie
d pl
an r
isks
wee
kly
and
repo
rt to
the
team
wee
kly
and
man
agem
ent r
egul
arly
.
D
The
team
ass
igns
ris
k m
onito
ring
resp
onsi
bili
ties
in L
AU
7.
Scri
pts:
WE
EK
For
ms:
WE
EK
,
Tea
m a
nd
indi
vidu
al T
SP
wor
kboo
ks
1.4.
Mon
itor
the
man
agem
ent o
f pr
ojec
t
data
aga
inst
the
proj
ect p
lan.
Rol
es: P
lann
ing
man
ager
The
pla
nnin
g m
anag
er is
res
pons
ible
for
ensu
ring
that
indi
vidu
al p
rogr
am p
lans
are
upda
ted
wee
kly
and
revi
sed
as n
eede
d an
d fo
r
cons
olid
atin
g th
ese
data
wee
kly
into
a te
am
view
.
P/S
D
etai
ls o
f ho
w d
ata
is m
anag
ed o
n an
ongo
ing
basi
s ar
e no
t spe
cifi
ed b
y th
e T
SP;
how
ever
, thi
s is
cle
arly
a p
lann
ing
man
ager
resp
onsi
bili
ty.
34
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
Scri
pts:
PM
,
ST
AT
US
1.5.
Mon
itor
stak
ehol
der
invo
lvem
ent
agai
nst t
he p
roje
ct p
lan.
Rol
es: A
ll r
ole
desc
ript
ions
,
esp.
team
lead
er
In a
ddit
ion
to th
e la
unch
, the
team
obt
ains
stak
ehol
der
eval
uati
ons
duri
ng th
e po
stm
orte
m.
The
team
lead
er r
egul
arly
pro
vide
s st
atus
to
man
agem
ent a
nd o
ther
des
igna
ted
stak
ehol
ders
.
Rol
e m
anag
ers
invo
lve
rele
vant
sta
keho
lder
s
duri
ng e
xecu
tion
of
the
plan
, as
requ
ired
.
P
As
in P
P S
P 2
.6 a
nd 3
.3, o
ppor
tuni
ties
for
stak
ehol
der
invo
lvem
ent a
re o
bvio
us a
nd
impl
icit
ly e
ncou
rage
d, b
ut n
ot e
xpli
citl
y
call
ed f
or o
utsi
de o
f th
e P
M a
ctiv
ity.
Scri
pts:
WE
EK
For
ms:
WE
EK
,
ST
AT
US
,
SU
MM
AR
Y
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, p
lann
ing
man
ager
, tea
m
mem
ber
1.6.
Per
iodi
call
y re
view
the
proj
ect’
s
prog
ress
, per
form
ance
, and
issu
es.
Oth
er:
Qua
rter
ly
revi
ew c
heck
list
The
team
rev
iew
s it
s st
atus
wee
kly.
The
team
lead
er r
epor
ts te
am d
ata
and
issu
es r
egul
arly
,
usua
lly
wee
kly,
to m
anag
emen
t. M
anag
emen
t
hold
s qu
arte
rly
revi
ews
of p
roje
ct s
tatu
s.
D
Scri
pts:
PM
,
RE
L1
For
ms:
ST
AT
US
1.7.
Rev
iew
the
acco
mpl
ishm
ents
and
resu
lts
of th
e pr
ojec
t at s
elec
ted
proj
ect
mile
ston
es.
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, r
ole
man
ager
s
The
team
lead
er r
evie
ws
curr
ent s
tatu
s w
ith
the
team
dur
ing
RE
L1
and
wit
h m
anag
emen
t as
requ
este
d. T
he te
am le
ader
and
sev
eral
of
the
role
man
ager
s le
ad a
thor
ough
rev
iew
of
the
team
’s p
erfo
rman
ce, p
roce
sses
, and
oth
er
impo
rtan
t asp
ects
of
the
proj
ect d
urin
g
post
mor
tem
s fo
r ea
ch la
unch
cyc
le a
nd a
t the
end
of th
e pr
ojec
t.
D
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
35
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
SG2.
Cor
rect
ive
acti
ons
are
man
aged
to
clos
ure
whe
n th
e pr
ojec
t’s
perf
orm
ance
or r
esul
ts d
evia
te s
igni
fica
ntly
fro
m t
he
plan
.
Scri
pts:
WE
EK
For
ms:
WE
EK
,
asso
ciat
ed
wee
kly
mee
ting
min
utes
, IR
TL
,
TS
P w
orkb
ooks
2.1.
Col
lect
and
ana
lyze
the
issu
es a
nd
dete
rmin
e th
e co
rrec
tive
act
ions
to a
ddre
ss
the
issu
es.
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, r
ole
man
ager
s, te
am
mem
ber
Sig
nifi
cant
dev
iati
ons
from
the
plan
, cha
nges
in
the
stat
us o
f id
enti
fied
ris
ks, a
nd a
ny o
ther
rele
vant
issu
es a
re f
lagg
ed d
urin
g w
eekl
y st
atus
mee
ting
s. T
he e
ffec
t on
the
achi
evem
ent o
f te
am
goal
s is
of
para
mou
nt c
once
rn. T
eam
con
sens
us
is ty
pica
lly
soug
ht f
or c
orre
ctiv
e ac
tion
s w
here
the
solu
tion
is n
ot o
bvio
us f
rom
the
data
.
D
Scri
pts:
WE
EK
2.
2. T
ake
corr
ecti
ve a
ctio
n on
iden
tifi
ed
issu
es.
For
ms:
WE
EK
and
wee
kly
mee
ting
min
utes
, TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
The
team
lead
er, a
des
igna
ted
role
man
ager
, or
othe
r te
am m
embe
rs ta
ke c
orre
ctiv
e ac
tion
s as
nece
ssar
y, u
sual
ly a
s a
resu
lt o
f de
cisi
ons
mad
e
at th
e w
eekl
y m
eeti
ng (
WE
EK
) an
d re
cord
ed a
s
acti
on it
ems
in th
e m
inut
es.
D
36
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, r
ole
man
ager
s, te
am
mem
ber
Scri
pts:
WE
EK
,
mee
ting
min
utes
For
ms:
IR
TL
,
TA
SK
, LO
GT
,
LO
GD
2.3.
Man
age
corr
ecti
ve a
ctio
ns to
clo
sure
.
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, r
ole
man
ager
s, te
am
mem
ber
The
team
, led
by
the
team
lead
er o
r th
e
appr
opri
ate
role
man
ager
, mon
itor
s on
at l
east
a
wee
kly
basi
s ho
w e
ffec
tive
its
corr
ecti
ve a
ctio
ns
are
and
whe
ther
or
not t
hey
need
to b
e ad
just
ed.
Dec
isio
ns a
re r
ecor
ded
eith
er in
mee
ting
min
utes
or o
n th
e IR
TL
.
D
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
37
6.1.
3 In
teg
rate
d P
roje
ct M
anag
emen
t (I
PM
)
The
Int
egra
ted
Proj
ect M
anag
emen
t (IP
M)
proc
ess
area
est
abli
shes
and
mai
ntai
ns th
e pr
ojec
t’s
defi
ned
proc
ess
that
is ta
ilore
d fr
om th
e or
gani
zati
on’s
set
of
stan
dard
pro
cess
es. T
he p
roje
ct is
man
aged
usi
ng th
e pr
ojec
t’s d
efin
ed p
roce
ss. T
he p
roje
ct u
ses
and
cont
ribu
tes
to th
e or
gani
zati
on’s
pro
cess
ass
ets.
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
SG1.
The
pro
ject
is c
ondu
cted
usi
ng a
defi
ned
proc
ess
that
is t
ailo
red
from
the
orga
niza
tion
’s s
et o
f st
anda
rd p
roce
sses
.
Scri
pts:
LA
U3,
PM
For
ms:
IN
V,
TA
SK
1.1.
Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
the
proj
ect’
s
defi
ned
proc
ess.
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, p
roce
ss
man
ager
The
team
def
ines
its
wor
king
pro
cess
es d
urin
g
LA
U3,
and
for
mal
ly e
valu
ates
pro
cess
effe
ctiv
enes
s du
ring
the
post
mor
tem
. Any
proc
esse
s to
be
crea
ted,
ada
pted
, or
docu
men
ted
for
the
team
’s w
ork
are
capt
ured
on
form
IN
V.
Tas
ks th
at r
efle
ct th
ese
proc
esse
s ar
e in
clud
ed in
one
or m
ore
team
mem
ber’
s T
AS
K p
lans
. The
team
lead
er a
nd p
roce
ss m
anag
er e
nsur
e th
at th
e
plan
s re
flec
t the
team
’s d
efin
ed p
roce
sses
and
that
the
plan
s an
d pr
oces
ses
are
adju
sted
as
nece
ssar
y to
ref
lect
how
the
wor
k is
act
uall
y
bein
g do
ne.
D
38
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
Scri
pts:
LA
U3,
LA
U4,
LA
U5,
LA
U6
For
ms:
SU
MS,
SU
MP
, TA
SK
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, t
eam
mem
ber
1.2.
Use
the
orga
niza
tiona
l pro
cess
ass
ets
and
mea
sure
men
t rep
osito
ry f
or e
stim
atin
g
and
plan
ning
the
proj
ect’
s ac
tivi
ties
.
Oth
er: L
aunc
h
prep
arat
ion
guid
elin
es,
plan
ning
and
qual
ity
guid
elin
es
The
TS
P u
ses
its
own
defi
ned
proc
esse
s an
d
guid
elin
es f
or p
lann
ing
and
qual
ity in
des
igna
ted
plac
es in
LA
U3
thro
ugh
LA
U6.
The
pre
para
tion
guid
elin
es f
or b
oth
the
team
lead
er a
nd te
am
mem
bers
cal
ls f
or th
em to
“br
ing
any
rele
vant
proc
ess
defi
niti
on m
ater
ials
you
thin
k yo
u w
ill
need
for
this
pro
ject
,” a
nd to
“ag
ree
on w
hich
team
mem
ber
wil
l bri
ng a
cop
y of
the
orga
niza
tion
’s d
efin
ed p
roce
ss if
ther
e is
one
,
any
rele
vant
eng
inee
ring
sta
ndar
ds, a
nd th
e
conf
igur
atio
n an
d ch
ange
con
trol
man
agem
ent
proc
esse
s.”
Rel
evan
t org
aniz
atio
nal d
ata,
if
avai
labl
e, a
re u
sed
inst
ead
of th
e pl
anni
ng a
nd
qual
ity
guid
elin
es in
LA
U4,
LA
U5,
and
LA
U6.
D/S
T
his
CM
MI
prac
tice
ass
umes
the
exis
tenc
e
of a
n or
gani
zati
onal
pra
ctic
e or
pra
ctic
es.
TS
P a
s fo
rmal
ly d
efin
ed is
a s
tand
-alo
ne
proc
ess,
but
one
whi
ch s
peci
fica
lly
call
s fo
r
team
s to
use
or
build
on
orga
niza
tiona
l
proc
esse
s an
d fa
cili
ties
, if
avai
labl
e.
Scri
pts:
LA
U3,
LA
U4,
LA
U6,
LA
U8,
RE
L
For
ms:
SU
MS,
SU
MP
, TA
SK
1.3.
Int
egra
te th
e pr
ojec
t pla
n an
d th
e ot
her
plan
s th
at a
ffec
t the
pro
ject
to d
escr
ibe
the
proj
ect’
s de
fine
d pr
oces
s.
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, p
lann
ing
and
proc
ess
man
ager
s
The
ove
rall
pro
ject
pla
n co
nsol
idat
es in
divi
dual
proj
ect p
lans
, a to
p-do
wn
over
all p
roje
ct p
lan,
a
proc
ess
plan
for
dev
elop
ing
need
ed p
roce
sses
,
and,
if n
eces
sary
, tra
inin
g pl
ans.
Typ
ical
ly th
e
team
lead
er, i
n co
mbi
nati
on w
ith
the
plan
ning
and
proc
ess
man
ager
s, d
eals
wit
h va
riou
s as
pect
s
of th
ese
acti
viti
es.
D/S
P
lans
of
rele
vant
sta
keho
lder
s ar
e no
t
expl
icit
ly a
ddre
ssed
but
are
typi
call
y
coor
dina
ted
by th
e te
am le
ader
or
appr
opri
ate
role
man
ager
.
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
39
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
Scri
pts:
WE
EK
,
ST
AT
US
For
ms:
WE
EK
and
asso
ciat
ed
mee
ting
min
utes
, tea
m
and
indi
vidu
al
TS
P w
orkb
ooks
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, p
lann
ing
and
proc
ess
man
ager
s
1.4.
Man
age
the
proj
ect u
sing
the
proj
ect
plan
, the
oth
er p
lans
that
aff
ect t
he p
roje
ct,
and
the
proj
ect’
s de
fine
d pr
oces
s.
Oth
er:
NO
TE
BO
OK
The
pro
ject
team
, led
by
the
team
lead
er,
man
ages
itse
lf a
s ev
iden
ced
by th
e w
eekl
y
cons
olid
atio
n of
indi
vidu
al d
ata,
sta
tus
mee
ting
s,
note
s, a
nd m
eeti
ng m
inut
es. T
he p
lann
ing
man
ager
is r
espo
nsib
le f
or th
e co
nsol
idat
ion
and
mee
ting
min
utes
, and
cap
ture
s th
is d
ata
wee
kly
in th
e pr
ojec
t NO
TE
BO
OK
. The
pro
cess
man
ager
rep
orts
as
need
ed o
n th
e st
ate
of th
e
proj
ect’
s pr
oces
s as
sets
.
D/S
T
SP
add
ress
es th
e pr
ojec
t pla
n an
d th
e
proj
ect’
s de
fine
d pr
oces
s, b
ut n
ot e
xpli
citl
y
“the
oth
er p
lans
.” T
hese
issu
es a
re ty
pica
lly
coor
dina
ted
by th
e te
am le
ader
or
the
appr
opri
ate
role
man
ager
.
Scri
pts:
PM
,
LA
UP
M
For
ms:
TS
P w
orkb
ooks
Rol
es: T
eam
mem
ber,
rol
e
man
ager
s
1.5.
Con
trib
ute
wor
k pr
oduc
ts, m
easu
res,
and
docu
men
ted
expe
rien
ces
to th
e
orga
niza
tion
al p
roce
ss a
sset
s.
Oth
er:
SU
MM
AR
Y,
NO
TE
BO
OK
In a
ddit
ion
to d
eliv
erab
le w
ork
prod
ucts
, the
TSP
team
gat
hers
and
ana
lyze
s it
s pr
oces
s da
ta
regu
larl
y at
pos
tmor
tem
s. T
he S
UM
MA
RY
repo
rt a
nd p
roje
ct N
OT
EB
OO
K p
rovi
de
abun
dant
pro
cess
dat
a an
d do
cum
enta
tion
suit
able
for
an
orga
niza
tion
al m
easu
rem
ent
repo
sito
ry a
nd p
roce
ss a
sset
libr
ary.
D/S
T
he in
tent
of
this
pra
ctic
e, n
amel
y th
e
avai
labi
lity
of
wor
k pr
oduc
ts, m
easu
res,
and
docu
men
ted
expe
rien
ces,
see
ms
to b
e
fulf
ille
d, r
egar
dles
s of
the
form
of
the
orga
niza
tion
al r
epos
itory
.
40
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
SG2.
Coo
rdin
atio
n an
d co
llabo
rati
on o
f
the
proj
ect
wit
h re
leva
nt s
take
hold
ers
is
cond
ucte
d.
Scri
pts:
LA
U
(esp
. LA
U1
and
LA
U9)
, WE
EK
,
RE
L
For
ms:
ST
AT
US
2.1.
Man
age
the
invo
lvem
ent o
f th
e re
leva
nt
stak
ehol
ders
in th
e pr
ojec
t.
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, r
ole
man
ager
s
As
the
prin
cipa
l sta
keho
lder
s, m
anag
emen
t and
the
proj
ect t
eam
kee
p ea
ch o
ther
info
rmed
of
proj
ect s
tatu
s an
d of
cha
nges
in p
lans
and
/or
com
mit
men
ts v
ia th
e la
unch
/rel
aunc
h
mec
hani
sms,
reg
ular
sta
tus
repo
rtin
g, a
nd
repl
anni
ng a
s ne
cess
ary.
The
rol
e m
anag
ers,
espe
cial
ly th
e te
am le
ader
, dea
l wit
h ot
her
stak
ehol
ders
as
nece
ssar
y.
D/S
Scri
pts:
WE
EK
For
ms:
ST
AT
US
2.2.
Par
tici
pate
wit
h re
leva
nt s
take
hold
ers
to id
enti
fy, n
egot
iate
, and
trac
k cr
itic
al
depe
nden
cies
.
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, r
ole
man
ager
s
The
team
lead
er is
res
pons
ible
for
res
olvi
ng
issu
es w
ith
man
agem
ent a
nd o
ther
team
s or
depa
rtm
ents
. Som
e sp
ecif
ic s
take
hold
ers
are
hand
led
by th
e re
leva
nt r
ole
man
ager
s (e
.g.,
qual
ity
man
ager
wit
h Q
A, t
est m
anag
er w
ith
a
test
gro
up, o
r cu
stom
er in
terf
ace
man
ager
wit
h
an in
tern
al o
r ex
tern
al c
usto
mer
). T
eam
mem
bers
repo
rt w
eekl
y to
the
team
on
any
spec
ial
depe
nden
cies
.
D/S
Lau
nch
prep
arat
ions
incl
ude
defi
ning
who
,
asid
e fr
om s
enio
r m
anag
emen
t and
mar
keti
ng, a
re r
elev
ant s
take
hold
ers
for
the
proj
ect i
n qu
esti
on, b
ut o
nly
man
agem
ent
and
mar
keti
ng a
re s
ingl
ed o
ut b
y T
SP
as
“sig
nifi
cant
.” D
epen
ding
on
the
part
icul
ars
of th
e pr
ojec
t and
the
orga
niza
tion,
TSP
may
com
plet
ely
(D)
addr
ess
thes
e pr
acti
ces
or p
rovi
de a
con
veni
ent p
roje
ct f
ram
ewor
k
for
doin
g so
(S)
.
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
41
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
For
ms:
ST
AT
US
2.3.
Res
olve
issu
es w
ith
rele
vant
stak
ehol
ders
.
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, r
ole
man
ager
s
The
team
lead
er is
res
pons
ible
for
res
olvi
ng
issu
es w
ith
man
agem
ent a
nd o
ther
team
s or
depa
rtm
ents
. The
rel
evan
t rol
e m
anag
ers
may
hand
le s
ome
stak
ehol
der
inte
ract
ions
(e.
g.,
qual
ity
man
ager
wit
h Q
A, t
est m
anag
er w
ith
a
test
gro
up, c
usto
mer
inte
rfac
e m
anag
er w
ith
an
inte
rnal
or
exte
rnal
cus
tom
er).
D/S
42
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
6.1.
4 In
teg
rate
d P
roje
ct M
anag
emen
t (I
PM
SG
3, S
G4)
– IP
PD
The
Int
egra
ted
Proj
ect M
anag
emen
t for
IPP
D p
roce
ss a
rea
also
cre
ates
the
shar
ed v
isio
n fo
r th
e pr
ojec
t. T
his
shar
ed v
isio
n sh
ould
alig
n bo
th
hori
zont
ally
and
ver
tical
ly w
ith
both
the
orga
niza
tion’
s an
d th
e in
tegr
ated
team
’s s
hare
d vi
sion
s, c
reat
ed in
the
Org
aniz
atio
nal E
nvir
onm
ent f
or
Inte
grat
ion
(OE
I) a
nd I
nteg
rate
d Te
amin
g (I
T)
proc
ess
area
s, r
espe
ctiv
ely.
The
se s
hare
d vi
sion
s co
llect
ivel
y su
ppor
t the
coo
rdin
atio
n an
d co
llabo
ratio
n am
ong
stak
ehol
ders
. Fin
ally
, the
Int
egra
ted
Proj
ect M
anag
emen
t for
IPP
D p
roce
ss a
rea
impl
emen
ts a
n in
tegr
ated
team
str
uctu
re to
pe
rfor
m th
e w
ork
of th
e pr
ojec
t in
deve
lopi
ng a
pro
duct
. Thi
s te
am s
truc
ture
is ty
pica
lly b
ased
on
the
deco
mpo
sitio
n of
the
prod
uct i
tsel
f, m
uch
like
a
wor
k br
eakd
own
stru
ctur
e. T
he a
ctiv
ity is
acc
ompl
ishe
d in
con
junc
tion
with
the
Inte
grat
ed T
eam
ing
proc
ess
area
.
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
SG3.
The
pro
ject
is c
ondu
cted
usi
ng t
he
proj
ect’
s sh
ared
vis
ion.
Scri
pts:
PR
EP
L,
PR
EP
R, L
AU
1,
LA
U
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, t
eam
mem
ber
3.1.
Ide
ntif
y ex
pect
atio
ns, c
onst
rain
ts,
inte
rfac
es, a
nd o
pera
tion
al c
ondi
tions
appl
icab
le to
the
proj
ect’
s sh
ared
vis
ion.
Oth
er: S
enio
r
man
agem
ent
and
mar
keti
ng
disc
ussi
on
guid
elin
es
The
dis
cuss
ion
guid
elin
es f
or m
anag
emen
t and
mar
keti
ng g
o be
yond
a d
iscu
ssio
n of
goa
ls. I
n
addi
tion,
con
stra
ints
on
sche
dule
, bud
get,
and
reso
urce
s, a
cces
s to
cus
tom
ers
or o
ther
dom
ain
expe
rts,
and
oth
er r
elev
ant o
pera
tion
al c
ondi
tion
s
are
pres
ente
d. T
he te
am q
uest
ions
the
pres
enta
tion
s to
ens
ure
that
they
und
erst
and
both
the
goal
s an
d co
nstr
aint
s. O
ther
con
stra
ints
beco
me
appa
rent
as
plan
s ar
e w
orke
d ou
t ove
r
the
bala
nce
of th
e la
unch
(L
AU
).
D
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
43
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
Scri
pts:
LA
U2,
RE
L1,
WE
EK
For
ms:
GO
AL
3.2.
Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
a sh
ared
vis
ion
for
the
proj
ect.
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, r
ole
man
ager
s, te
am
mem
bers
In L
AU
2, th
e te
am d
iscu
sses
man
agem
ent’
s
goal
s an
d ob
ject
ives
for
the
proj
ect a
nd c
omes
to
cons
ensu
s on
the
team
’s g
oals
, doc
umen
ted
on
form
GO
AL
. Fol
low
ing
the
laun
ch a
nd a
t
rela
unch
es, t
he te
am le
ader
rep
rese
nts
man
agem
ent t
o th
e te
am, a
nd th
e te
am to
man
agem
ent,
to e
nsur
e th
at th
e sh
ared
vis
ion
from
the
init
ial l
aunc
h is
mai
ntai
ned
and
to
com
mun
icat
e ch
ange
s to
the
visi
on a
s ne
cess
ary.
Wee
kly
team
mee
ting
s th
at r
evie
w g
oals
and
stat
us e
nsur
e re
info
rcem
ent o
f th
e vi
sion
that
was
esta
blis
hed
duri
ng th
e la
unch
.
D
SG4.
The
inte
grat
ed t
eam
s ne
eded
to
exec
ute
the
proj
ect
are
iden
tifi
ed,
defi
ned,
str
uctu
red,
and
tas
ked.
4.1.
Det
erm
ine
the
inte
grat
ed te
am s
truc
ture
that
wil
l bes
t mee
t the
pro
ject
obj
ecti
ves
and
cons
trai
nts.
TS
Pm
* pr
oces
s
asse
ts
For
larg
er p
roje
cts
(def
ined
as
havi
ng m
ore
than
12 to
15
mem
bers
), T
SP
m la
unch
pre
para
tion
s
incl
ude
the
deve
lopm
ent o
f a
proj
ect s
trat
egy
that
allo
ws
prel
imin
ary
esti
mat
es o
f th
e nu
mbe
r, s
ize,
and
tech
nica
l res
pons
ibil
ities
of
each
par
t of
an
inte
grat
ed te
am.
D
Use
of
the
TS
Pm
ass
ets
prob
ably
bec
omes
a
nece
ssit
y so
mew
here
in th
e ra
nge
of 2
0 to
30 p
eopl
e. B
elow
that
num
ber,
fai
rly
obvi
ous
adap
tatio
ns o
f th
e T
SP (
e.g.
,
brea
king
off
sub
team
s to
dea
l wit
h la
rge
func
tion
al c
hunk
s of
the
syst
em o
r al
ong
44
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
4.2.
Dev
elop
a p
reli
min
ary
dist
ribu
tion
of
requ
irem
ents
, res
pons
ibil
itie
s, a
utho
riti
es,
task
s, a
nd in
terf
aces
to te
ams
in th
e se
lect
ed
inte
grat
ed te
am s
truc
ture
.
TS
Pm
* pr
oces
s
asse
ts
The
TS
Pm
pro
duct
str
ateg
y ca
ptur
es
arch
itec
ture
, sys
tem
inte
grat
ion,
incr
emen
tal
deve
lopm
ent,
prot
otyp
ing,
and
tech
nolo
gy is
sues
that
are
then
use
d to
mak
e in
itia
l tea
m
assi
gnm
ents
for
req
uire
men
ts a
nd in
terf
aces
.
Man
agem
ent a
lso
deci
des
if a
dditi
onal
rol
es a
nd
resp
onsi
bili
ties
bey
ond
the
basi
c T
SP
rol
es a
re
nece
ssar
y.
D
4.3.
Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
team
s in
the
inte
grat
ed te
am s
truc
ture
.
TS
Pm
* pr
oces
s
asse
ts
The
team
s de
velo
p in
tegr
ated
pla
ns a
nd w
orki
ng
proc
edur
es d
urin
g th
e T
SPm
laun
ch, w
hich
incl
udes
add
itio
nal m
eeti
ngs
dail
y du
ring
the
laun
ch to
coo
rdin
ate
plan
s an
d ra
ise
com
mon
issu
es. W
eekl
y m
eeti
ngs
by e
ach
of th
e te
ams,
betw
een
each
of
the
team
lead
ers
and
an o
vera
ll
inte
grat
ed p
roje
ct m
anag
er (
the
lead
ersh
ip te
am),
and
betw
een
like
rol
e m
anag
ers
from
eac
h te
am
deal
wit
h ov
eral
l pro
ject
sta
tus
and
issu
es.
D
func
tion
al s
peci
alti
es)
can
mee
t the
inte
nt o
f
thes
e pr
acti
ces.
As
of th
is w
riti
ng, t
he
TS
Pm
ass
ets
are
avai
labl
e fr
om th
e S
EI
on a
case
-by-
case
bas
is.
* T
SP
m: T
he T
SP
ext
ensi
on f
or m
ulti
ple
team
s. T
SP
m is
rec
omm
ende
d be
ginn
ing
whe
n a
sing
le te
am g
row
s la
rger
than
12
to
15 p
eopl
e. T
hese
pro
cess
ass
ets
are
not
refe
renc
ed e
lsew
here
for
two
reas
ons:
(1)
they
are
not
nec
essa
ry f
or u
nder
stan
ding
how
the
“sin
gle
team
” T
SP
rel
ates
to
CM
MI
and
(2)
wit
h th
e ex
cept
ion
of th
is
goal
and
its
prac
tice
s, th
e T
SPm
supp
lem
ents
TS
P c
over
age
of s
peci
fic
prac
tice
s ra
ther
than
rep
laci
ng it
. (S
ee a
lso
IT S
P 2
.5.)
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
45
6.1.
5 R
isk
Man
agem
ent
(RS
KM
)
The
Ris
k M
anag
emen
t (R
SKM
) pr
oces
s ar
ea ta
kes
a m
ore
cont
inui
ng, f
orw
ard-
look
ing
appr
oach
to m
anag
ing
risk
s w
ith a
ctiv
itie
s th
at in
clud
e id
entif
icat
ion
of r
isk
para
met
ers,
ris
k as
sess
men
ts, a
nd r
isk
hand
ling.
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
SG1.
Pre
para
tion
for
ris
k m
anag
emen
t is
cond
ucte
d.
Scri
pts:
LA
U7
For
ms:
IR
TL
1.1.
Det
erm
ine
risk
sou
rces
and
cat
egor
ies.
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, t
eam
mem
ber
LA
U7
defi
nes
a ri
sk a
s so
met
hing
that
may
or
may
not
occ
ur. T
he p
roje
ct te
am b
rain
stor
ms
risk
s in
this
mee
ting
. Whi
le c
ateg
orie
s ca
n be
as
broa
d as
the
imag
inat
ion
of th
e pr
ojec
t tea
m, t
he
team
gen
eral
ly f
ram
es r
isks
in te
rms
of th
e
pote
ntia
l eff
ect o
n th
e go
als
set a
nd th
e pl
ans
mad
e du
ring
the
laun
ch.
P/S
S
tand
ard
risk
taxo
nom
ies,
eit
her
from
indu
stry
or
the
orga
niza
tion
, are
oft
en
refe
renc
ed d
urin
g th
e la
unch
, but
thes
e ar
e
not c
alle
d fo
r sp
ecif
ical
ly in
the
TSP
scr
ipts
.
Scri
pts:
LA
U7,
WE
EK
For
ms:
IR
TL
1.2.
Def
ine
the
para
met
ers
used
to a
naly
ze
and
cate
gori
ze r
isks
and
the
para
met
ers
used
to c
ontr
ol th
e ri
sk m
anag
emen
t eff
ort.
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, t
eam
mem
ber
In L
AU
7, r
isks
are
cat
egor
ized
as
high
, med
ium
,
or lo
w in
term
s of
like
liho
od o
f oc
curr
ence
and
as h
avin
g po
tent
iall
y hi
gh, m
ediu
m, o
r lo
w e
ffec
t
on th
e ac
hiev
emen
t of
the
team
’s d
efin
ed g
oals
.
In g
ener
al, t
eam
con
sens
us is
use
d to
det
erm
ine
thes
e li
keli
hood
s an
d ef
fect
s. D
urin
g th
e w
eekl
y
team
mee
ting
, ris
ks a
re r
evie
wed
for
cha
nges
in
like
liho
od o
r li
kely
eff
ect o
n th
e pr
ojec
t’s
plan
s.
D
46
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
Scri
pts:
LA
U7,
WE
EK
,
ST
AT
US
For
ms:
IT
L
1.3.
Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
the
stra
tegy
to
be u
sed
for
risk
man
agem
ent.
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, t
eam
mem
ber
The
team
iden
tifi
es a
nd d
ocum
ents
ris
ks d
urin
g
each
laun
ch a
nd r
elau
nch
and
assi
gns
sign
ific
ant
risk
s to
a te
am m
embe
r fo
r tr
acki
ng a
nd
deve
lopi
ng o
f m
itig
atin
g ac
tion
s (L
AU
7). E
ach
team
mem
ber
assi
gned
to a
ris
k is
res
pons
ible
for
deve
lopi
ng a
mit
igat
ion
plan
for
the
risk
,
mon
itor
ing
and
repo
rtin
g on
the
risk
as
appr
opri
ate
at th
e w
eekl
y te
am m
eeti
ng, a
nd
reco
mm
endi
ng a
ctio
n to
the
team
, usu
ally
dur
ing
the
wee
kly
team
mee
ting
(W
EE
K).
The
team
lead
er r
epor
ts o
n si
gnif
ican
t ris
ks to
man
agem
ent
(ST
AT
US)
.
D
SG2.
Ris
ks a
re id
enti
fied
and
ana
lyze
d to
dete
rmin
e th
eir
rela
tive
impo
rtan
ce.
Scri
pts:
LA
U7,
WE
EK
For
ms:
IT
L
2.1.
Ide
ntif
y an
d do
cum
ent t
he r
isks
.
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, t
eam
mem
ber
In L
AU
7, th
e te
am le
ader
gui
des
the
team
in th
e
syst
emat
ic id
enti
fica
tion
and
doc
umen
tati
on o
f
proj
ect r
isks
on
ITL
. Ris
ks a
lso
ofte
n ar
ise
and
are
docu
men
ted
duri
ng o
ther
laun
ch m
eeti
ngs
and/
or a
rise
dur
ing
the
proj
ect a
nd a
re
docu
men
ted
at th
e w
eekl
y te
am m
eeti
ng
(WE
EK
).
D
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
47
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
Scri
pts:
LA
U7
For
ms:
IT
L
2.2.
Eva
luat
e an
d ca
tego
rize
eac
h id
enti
fied
risk
usi
ng th
e de
fine
d ri
sk c
ateg
orie
s an
d
para
met
ers
and
dete
rmin
e it
s re
lati
ve
prio
rity
.
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, t
eam
mem
ber
The
team
lead
er le
ads
eval
uati
on a
nd
cate
gori
zati
on o
f ea
ch r
isk
in te
rms
of h
igh,
med
ium
, or
low
like
liho
od a
nd h
igh,
med
ium
, or
low
eff
ect o
n th
e pr
ojec
t pla
n. S
imil
ar r
isks
are
gene
rall
y cl
uste
red
or c
olla
psed
toge
ther
.
D
SG3.
Ris
ks a
re h
andl
ed a
nd m
itig
ated
,
whe
re a
ppro
pria
te, t
o re
duce
adv
erse
impa
cts
on a
chie
ving
obj
ecti
ves.
Scri
pts:
LA
U7
For
ms:
IT
L
3.1.
Dev
elop
a r
isk
mit
igat
ion
plan
for
the
mos
t im
port
ant r
isks
to th
e pr
ojec
t, as
defi
ned
by th
e ri
sk m
anag
emen
t str
ateg
y.
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, t
eam
mem
ber
All
ris
ks r
ated
“hi
gh”
or “
med
ium
” in
term
s of
both
like
liho
od a
nd im
pact
are
ass
igne
d to
a
team
mem
ber
or th
e te
am le
ader
for
dev
elop
men
t
of a
mit
igat
ion
plan
and
for
trac
king
as
appr
opri
ate
duri
ng th
e pr
ojec
t.
D
Scri
pts:
WE
EK
For
ms:
IT
L,
ST
AT
US
3.2.
Mon
itor
the
stat
us o
f ea
ch r
isk
peri
odic
ally
and
impl
emen
t the
ris
k
mit
igat
ion
plan
as
appr
opri
ate.
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, t
eam
mem
ber
Eac
h te
am m
embe
r de
velo
ps a
mit
igat
ion
plan
for
and
mon
itor
s as
sign
ed r
isks
, rep
orts
as
nece
ssar
y du
ring
wee
kly
team
mee
ting
s, a
nd
reco
mm
ends
ena
ctm
ent o
f m
itig
atio
n ac
tions
as
appr
opri
ate.
The
team
lead
er r
epor
ts th
e st
atus
of
sign
ific
ant r
isks
to m
anag
emen
t as
nece
ssar
y.
D
48
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
6.1.
6 In
teg
rate
d T
eam
ing
(IT
) –
IPP
D
The
Int
egra
ted
Team
ing
(IT
) pr
oces
s ar
ea p
rovi
des
for
the
form
atio
n an
d su
stai
nmen
t of
each
inte
grat
ed te
am. P
art o
f su
stai
ning
the
team
is th
e de
velo
pmen
t of
the
inte
grat
ed te
am’s
sha
red
visi
on, w
hich
mus
t ali
gn w
ith th
e pr
ojec
t’s a
nd th
e or
gani
zati
on’s
sha
red
visi
ons,
dev
elop
ed in
the
Inte
grat
ed P
roje
ct M
anag
emen
t for
IPP
D a
nd O
rgan
izat
iona
l Env
iron
men
t for
Int
egra
tion
(O
EI)
pro
cess
are
as. T
he s
peci
fic
prac
tice
s in
the
OE
I an
d IT
pro
cess
are
as th
en s
et th
e en
viro
nmen
t for
ena
blin
g in
tegr
ated
team
wor
k. I
n ad
ditio
n, th
e In
tegr
ated
Tea
min
g pr
oces
s ar
ea in
tera
cts
with
oth
er
Proj
ect M
anag
emen
t pro
cess
es b
y su
pply
ing
team
com
mit
men
ts, w
ork
plan
s, a
nd o
ther
info
rmat
ion
that
for
m th
e ba
sis
for
man
agin
g th
e pr
ojec
t and
su
ppor
ting
risk
man
agem
ent.
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
SG1.
A t
eam
com
posi
tion
tha
t pr
ovid
es
the
know
ledg
e an
d sk
ills
requ
ired
to
deliv
er t
he t
eam
’s p
rodu
ct is
est
ablis
hed
and
mai
ntai
ned.
Scri
pts:
LA
U3,
LA
U4,
LA
U6
For
ms:
SU
MS,
SU
MQ
, TA
SK
1.1.
Ide
ntif
y an
d de
fine
the
team
’s s
peci
fic
inte
rnal
task
s to
gen
erat
e th
e te
am’s
expe
cted
out
puts
.
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, t
eam
mem
ber
Out
puts
are
iden
tifie
d in
LA
U3,
alo
ng w
ith
a
gene
ral s
trat
egy
and
high
-lev
el p
roce
ss to
prod
uce
them
. The
pro
cess
is in
stan
tiat
ed a
t the
team
leve
l in
LA
U4
and
at th
e in
divi
dual
leve
l in
LA
U6.
D
Scri
pts:
PR
EP
L,
PR
EP
R, L
AU
1,
LA
U3
1.2.
Ide
ntif
y th
e kn
owle
dge,
ski
lls,
and
func
tion
al e
xper
tise
nee
ded
to p
erfo
rm te
am
task
s.
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er
The
TS
P in
trod
uctio
n se
quen
ce r
equi
res
appr
opri
ate
trai
ning
in T
SP
pro
cess
es a
nd
prin
cipl
es, w
hile
ens
urin
g th
at th
e tr
aini
ng h
as
been
del
iver
ed is
on
the
PR
EP
L/P
RE
PR
chec
klis
ts. T
he te
am is
enc
oura
ged
to a
sk a
bout
D
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
49
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
Oth
er: T
SP
intr
oduc
tion
sequ
ence
“exp
ert a
ssis
tanc
e” d
urin
g L
AU
1. T
he te
am
lead
er is
cha
rged
wit
h en
suri
ng th
at th
e te
am
mem
bers
’ sk
ills
and
abi
liti
es a
re c
onsi
sten
t wit
h
thei
r re
spon
sibi
liti
es. I
n L
AU
3, th
e te
am o
ften
iden
tifi
es s
peci
fic
expe
rtis
e or
trai
ning
nee
ded.
Scri
pts:
PR
EP
L,
PR
EP
R
For
ms:
TA
SK
1.3.
Ass
ign
the
appr
opri
ate
pers
onne
l to
be
team
mem
bers
bas
ed o
n re
quir
ed
know
ledg
e an
d sk
ills
.
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, t
eam
mem
ber
Pre
para
tion
for
laun
ch a
nd r
elau
nch
incl
udes
assi
gnin
g ca
pabl
e pe
rson
nel a
nd e
nsur
ing
that
they
all
rec
eive
app
ropr
iate
PSP
and
TSP
trai
ning
. The
team
lead
er m
anag
es p
roje
ct
staf
fing
, rec
ruit
ing,
and
trai
ning
and
con
side
rs
team
mem
bers
’ in
tere
sts
and
abil
ities
in m
akin
g
job
assi
gnm
ents
. Ind
ivid
ual t
eam
mem
bers
arra
nge
for
and
get t
he e
duca
tion
and
trai
ning
need
ed to
do
supe
rior
wor
k. B
oth
the
assi
gnm
ents
and
add
ition
al p
rofe
ssio
nal t
rain
ing
typi
call
y ar
e re
flec
ted
in in
divi
dual
TA
SK
pla
ns.
D
SG2.
Ope
rati
on o
f th
e in
tegr
ated
tea
m is
gove
rned
acc
ordi
ng t
o es
tabl
ishe
d
prin
cipl
es.
Scri
pts:
PR
EP
L,
PR
EP
R, L
AU
1,
LA
U2
2.1.
Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
a sh
ared
vis
ion
for
the
inte
grat
ed te
am th
at is
ali
gned
wit
h
any
over
arch
ing
or h
ighe
r le
vel v
isio
n.
For
ms:
GO
AL
As
sugg
este
d by
the
prep
arat
ion
guid
elin
es, i
n
LA
U1
man
agem
ent a
nd m
arke
ting
pre
sent
the
team
wit
h th
e pr
ojec
t’s
goal
s fo
r th
e or
gani
zati
on
and
the
prod
uct,
resp
ecti
vely
. The
team
ask
s
D
50
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, t
eam
mem
ber
Oth
er: L
aunc
h
prep
arat
ion
guid
elin
es
ques
tion
s to
ens
ure
that
they
und
erst
and
thes
e
goal
s. I
n L
AU
2, th
e te
am a
chie
ves
cons
ensu
s
unde
r th
e gu
idan
ce o
f th
e te
am le
ader
and
laun
ch
coac
h an
d fo
rmal
izes
its
unde
rsta
ndin
g of
thes
e
goal
s an
d do
cum
ents
them
on
form
GO
AL
.
Scri
pts:
LA
U,
LA
U2,
WE
EK
For
ms:
WE
EK
,
GO
AL
2.2.
Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
a te
am c
hart
er
base
d on
the
inte
grat
ed te
am’s
sha
red
visi
on
and
over
all t
eam
obj
ecti
ves.
Rol
es:
Tea
m le
ader
,
team
mem
ber
The
team
lead
er a
nd te
am m
embe
r ro
le
spec
ific
atio
ns f
orm
the
grou
ndw
ork
for
team
inte
ract
ions
. The
laun
ches
and
wee
kly
mee
ting
s
esta
blis
h an
d re
info
rce
the
proc
ess
orie
ntat
ion
of
usin
g th
e T
SP. T
he s
peci
fic
goal
sta
tem
ents
prod
uced
by
the
team
in L
AU
2 an
d do
cum
ente
d
on th
e G
OA
L f
orm
pro
vide
dir
ectio
n an
d fo
cus
for
dail
y ac
tivi
ties
.
D
Scri
pts:
LA
U2,
RO
LE
,
RO
LE
MX
,
WE
EK
, IN
S
For
ms:
WE
EK
,
GO
AL
2.3.
Cle
arly
def
ine
and
mai
ntai
n ea
ch te
am
mem
ber’
s ro
les
and
resp
onsi
bili
ties.
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, t
eam
mem
ber,
rol
e
man
ager
s
The
team
lead
er is
ass
igne
d by
man
agem
ent.
All
othe
r “m
anag
er”
role
s ar
e ne
goti
ated
dur
ing
LA
U2
and
are
capt
ured
on
RO
LE
and
RO
LE
MX
. Add
itio
nal t
eam
rol
es m
ay b
e
defi
ned.
Som
e st
anda
rd p
roce
sses
incl
ude
spec
ial
role
s (W
EE
K, I
NS)
.
D
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
51
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
Scri
pts:
LA
U3,
WE
EK
For
ms:
IN
V,
MT
G, I
NS
2.4.
Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
inte
grat
ed te
am
oper
atin
g pr
oced
ures
.
Rol
es:
Tea
m le
ader
,
proc
ess
man
ager
Lau
nche
s an
d w
eekl
y te
am m
eeti
ngs
form
the
basi
s of
the
team
’s o
pera
ting
pro
cedu
res.
The
need
s fo
r ot
her
proc
esse
s ar
e id
enti
fied
dur
ing
the
laun
ch a
nd r
ecor
ded
on I
NV
. Cer
tain
stan
dard
pro
cess
es s
uch
as M
TG
and
IN
S
prov
ide
base
line
s to
be
used
and
ada
pted
for
the
team
’s n
eeds
.
D
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
2.5.
Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
coll
abor
atio
n
amon
g in
terf
acin
g te
ams.
Rol
es:
Tea
m
lead
er, r
ole
man
ager
s
The
team
lead
er is
exp
lici
tly
resp
onsi
ble
for
inte
rfac
ing
wit
h ot
her
team
s, d
eleg
atin
g w
ell-
defi
ned
issu
es to
the
appr
opri
ate
role
man
ager
s,
and
deal
ing
wit
h ot
hers
as
nece
ssar
y.
D/S
W
hile
sta
ndar
d T
SP p
ract
ice
seem
s
adeq
uate
for
this
spe
cifi
c pr
acti
ce, T
SP
m
(the
TS
P e
xten
sion
for
mul
tipl
e te
ams)
has
muc
h m
ore
expl
icit
sup
port
for
cro
ss-t
eam
coll
abor
atio
n. (
See
IP
M –
IP
PD
SG
4 no
tes
for
mor
e in
form
atio
n.)
52
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
6.1.
7 Q
uan
tita
tive
Pro
ject
Man
agem
ent
(QP
M)
The
Qua
ntita
tive
Proj
ect M
anag
emen
t (Q
PM)
proc
ess
area
app
lies
qua
ntita
tive
and
stat
istic
al te
chni
ques
to th
e m
anag
emen
t of
proc
ess
perf
orm
ance
an
d pr
oduc
t qua
lity.
Qua
lity
and
proc
ess
perf
orm
ance
obj
ectiv
es f
or th
e pr
ojec
t are
bas
ed o
n th
ose
esta
blis
hed
by th
e or
gani
zatio
n. T
he p
roje
ct’s
de
fine
d pr
oces
s co
mpr
ises
, in
part
, pro
cess
ele
men
ts a
nd s
ubpr
oces
ses
who
se p
roce
ss p
erfo
rman
ce c
an b
e pr
edic
ted.
At a
min
imum
, the
pro
cess
va
riat
ion
expe
rien
ced
by s
ubpr
oces
ses
that
is c
ritic
al to
ach
ievi
ng th
e pr
ojec
t’s q
ualit
y an
d pr
oces
s pe
rfor
man
ce o
bjec
tives
is u
nder
stoo
d. C
orre
ctiv
e ac
tion
is ta
ken
whe
n sp
ecia
l cau
ses
of p
roce
ss v
aria
tion
are
iden
tifie
d.
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
SG1.
The
pro
ject
is q
uant
itat
ivel
y
man
aged
usi
ng q
ualit
y an
d pr
oces
s-
perf
orm
ance
obj
ecti
ves.
Scri
pts:
LA
U2,
LA
U4,
LA
U5,
LA
U6,
RE
L
For
ms:
GO
AL
,
TS
P w
orkb
ook
1.1.
Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
the
proj
ect’
s
qual
ity
and
proc
ess-
perf
orm
ance
obj
ecti
ves.
Rol
es:
Tea
m
lead
er, p
roce
ss
and
qual
ity
man
ager
In th
e la
unch
, the
team
est
abli
shes
qua
ntit
ativ
e
qual
ity
obje
ctiv
es f
or d
efec
t den
siti
es in
late
test
ing
phas
es a
nd/o
r ac
tual
use
, alo
ng w
ith
plan
s
for
revi
ew r
ates
and
yie
lds.
LA
U2
may
als
o
form
ulat
e ot
her
qual
ity
obje
ctiv
es. A
ll p
lans
are
subj
ect t
o re
visi
on a
s th
e pr
ojec
t pro
gres
ses,
espe
cial
ly d
urin
g re
laun
ches
. In
LA
U4,
LA
U5,
and
LA
U6,
the
proj
ect p
lan
is b
uilt
aro
und
para
met
ers
cons
iste
nt w
ith
achi
evem
ent o
f th
e
qual
ity
obje
ctiv
es a
nd p
erfo
rman
ce g
oals
set
in
LA
U2.
GO
AL
doc
umen
ts p
arti
cula
r
resp
onsi
bili
ties
(ty
pica
lly
for
the
team
lead
er,
proc
ess
man
ager
, or
qual
ity m
anag
er)
for
trac
king
per
form
ance
aga
inst
thes
e ob
ject
ives
duri
ng th
e pr
ojec
t.
D
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
53
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
Scri
pts:
LA
U3,
LA
U4,
LA
U5,
LA
U6,
RE
L
For
ms:
TS
P
wor
kboo
k, e
sp.
SU
MQ
, TA
SK
,
and
WE
EK
Rol
es: A
ll r
ole
man
ager
s
1.2.
Sel
ect t
he s
ubpr
oces
ses
that
com
pose
the
proj
ect’
s de
fine
d pr
oces
s ba
sed
on
hist
oric
al s
tabi
lity
and
cap
abil
ity
data
.
Oth
er: P
lann
ing
and
qual
ity
guid
elin
es
By
defa
ult,
TS
P id
enti
fies
ear
ly d
efec
t rem
oval
and
cont
inuo
us m
anag
emen
t of
tim
e on
task
as
crit
ical
sub
proc
esse
s. T
he te
am m
ay id
enti
fy
othe
rs to
rep
lace
or
supp
lem
ent t
hese
dur
ing
the
laun
ch o
r as
the
proj
ect p
rogr
esse
s. T
he te
am’s
defi
ned
proc
ess
from
LA
U3,
as
inst
anti
ated
in
LA
U4
(TA
SK
), L
AU
5 (S
UM
Q),
and
LA
U6
(ind
ivid
ual T
AS
K p
lans
) fo
cus
on e
arly
def
ect
rem
oval
. Bot
h co
nsol
idat
ed a
nd in
divi
dual
WE
EK
for
ms
prov
ide
the
focu
s fo
r m
anag
ing
tim
e on
task
thro
ugho
ut th
e pr
ojec
t. In
the
abse
nce
of h
isto
rica
l dat
a (a
s in
a f
irst
-tim
e
laun
ch in
an
orga
niza
tion
), th
e pl
anni
ng a
nd
qual
ity
guid
elin
es a
re u
sed
to e
stab
lish
reas
onab
le p
lans
and
exp
ecta
tion
s.
D
Scri
pts:
LA
U2,
LA
U3,
LA
U4,
LA
U5,
LA
U6
For
ms:
GO
AL
,
TS
P w
orkb
ook
1.3.
Sel
ect t
he s
ubpr
oces
ses
of th
e pr
ojec
t’s
defi
ned
proc
ess
that
wil
l be
stat
istic
ally
man
aged
.
Rol
es: R
elev
ant
role
man
ager
s,
team
mem
ber
Goa
ls e
stab
lish
ed in
LA
U2
and
docu
men
ted
in
GO
AL
dri
ve s
ched
ule
and
qual
ity
plan
ning
thro
ugh
LA
U3,
LA
U4,
LA
U5,
and
LA
U6.
Sch
edul
e go
als
typi
call
y gu
ide
both
sch
edul
e an
d
effo
rt p
lann
ing,
whi
le q
uali
ty g
oals
gui
de th
e
qual
ity
plan
and
indi
vidu
al p
lans
to m
aint
ain
such
thin
gs a
s re
view
rat
es (
for
both
per
sona
l
revi
ews
and
team
insp
ecti
ons)
and
pha
se r
atio
s at
D
54
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
Oth
er: P
lann
ing
and
qual
ity
guid
elin
es
hist
oric
ally
“go
od”
leve
ls. I
ndiv
idua
l pla
nnin
g
call
s fo
r P
SP-l
evel
pla
ns f
or im
plem
enta
tion
acti
viti
es. R
ole
man
ager
s en
sure
that
the
subj
ects
for
whi
ch th
ey a
re r
espo
nsib
le a
re a
dequ
atel
y
addr
esse
d.
Scri
pts:
WE
EK
,
PM
, ST
AT
US
For
ms:
WE
EK
and
mee
ting
min
utes
, PIP
,
SU
MM
AR
Y
1.4.
Mon
itor
the
proj
ect t
o de
term
ine
whe
ther
the
proj
ect’
s ob
ject
ives
for
qua
lity
and
proc
ess
perf
orm
ance
wil
l be
sati
sfie
d,
and
iden
tify
cor
rect
ive
acti
on a
s
appr
opri
ate.
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, r
ole
man
ager
s (e
sp.
qual
ity,
pla
nnin
g
man
ager
s)
Wee
kly
stat
us a
t the
indi
vidu
al a
nd te
am le
vels
mon
itor
s pr
ogre
ss a
gain
st te
am g
oals
, inc
ludi
ng
proc
ess
and
qual
ity
perf
orm
ance
. The
team
lead
er a
nd p
lann
ing
and
qual
ity
man
ager
s
typi
call
y ha
ve p
arti
cula
r re
spon
sibi
liti
es f
or
trac
king
per
form
ance
aga
inst
def
ined
mea
sura
ble
obje
ctiv
es d
urin
g th
e pr
ojec
t. C
orre
ctiv
e ac
tion
s
are
disc
usse
d in
this
con
text
and
take
n as
nece
ssar
y. D
urin
g th
e ph
ase
post
mor
tem
, the
plan
ning
and
qua
lity
man
ager
s le
ad th
e te
am in
revi
ewin
g a
wid
e ra
nge
of p
roce
ss a
nd q
uali
ty
met
rics
, eva
luat
ing
perf
orm
ance
aga
inst
team
goal
s, d
evel
opin
g P
IPs,
and
iden
tifyi
ng n
eede
d
proc
esse
s, tr
aini
ng, t
ools
, sup
port
, or
man
agem
ent a
ctio
ns n
eede
d to
impr
ove
perf
orm
ance
in th
e ne
xt p
hase
of
the
proj
ect.
D
SG2.
The
per
form
ance
of
sele
cted
subp
roce
sses
wit
hin
the
proj
ect’
s de
fine
d
proc
ess
is s
tati
stic
ally
man
aged
.
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
55
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
Scri
pts:
LA
U2,
LA
U3,
IN
S,
WE
EK
For
ms:
GO
AL
,
TS
P w
orkb
ook
2.1.
Sel
ect t
he m
easu
res
and
anal
ytic
tech
niqu
es to
be
used
in s
tati
stic
ally
man
agin
g th
e se
lect
ed s
ubpr
oces
ses.
Rol
es: P
lann
ing,
proc
ess,
and
qual
ity
man
ager
s
A s
et o
f ba
se m
easu
res
com
es w
ith
use
of th
e
TS
P (
size
by
com
pone
nt, e
ffor
t by
task
and
phas
e, ta
sk c
ompl
etio
n da
te, d
efec
ts in
ject
ed a
nd
rem
oved
by
com
pone
nt a
nd p
hase
). S
crip
t IN
S
and
its
asso
ciat
ed f
orm
sup
port
cap
ture
/rec
aptu
re
calc
ulat
ions
that
est
imat
e re
mai
ning
def
ects
in a
mod
ule.
The
TS
P to
ol p
rovi
des
data
col
lect
ion
for
thes
e pa
ram
eter
s, a
long
wit
h a
set o
f ba
sic
anal
yses
. The
team
dec
ides
, eit
her
duri
ng th
e
laun
ch o
r at
the
wee
kly
team
mee
ting
, whi
ch
othe
r m
easu
res
and
anal
yses
may
be
usef
ul. T
he
role
man
ager
s, e
spec
iall
y th
e pl
anni
ng, p
roce
ss,
and
qual
ity
man
ager
s, m
ay d
evis
e ad
ditio
nal
anal
yses
in r
espo
nse
to s
peci
fic
issu
es.
D
In g
ener
al, t
he T
SP b
ase
mea
sure
s an
d th
e
stan
dard
ana
lyse
s m
ade
by th
e T
SP
wor
kboo
k pr
ovid
e m
ore
info
rmat
ion
than
the
team
nee
ds to
man
age
itse
lf. I
t is
up to
the
team
to d
eter
min
e w
hat s
ubse
t of
the
data
it u
ses
to m
anag
e cr
itic
al s
ubpr
oces
ses.
Scri
pts:
PM
,
WE
EK
For
ms:
SU
MM
AR
Y,
TA
SK
, LO
GT
,
LO
GD
2.2.
Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
an
unde
rsta
ndin
g of
the
vari
atio
n of
the
sele
cted
sub
proc
esse
s us
ing
the
sele
cted
mea
sure
s an
d an
alyt
ic te
chni
ques
.
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, p
lann
ing,
proc
ess,
and
qual
ity
man
ager
s
The
var
ious
rol
e m
anag
ers
are
char
ged
wit
h
anal
yzin
g an
d re
port
ing
to th
e te
am w
eekl
y, a
nd
in s
umm
ary
at th
e po
stm
orte
m, o
n th
eir
resp
ecti
ve v
iew
s of
the
proc
ess
data
. The
TS
P
tool
pro
vide
s w
eek-
by-w
eek
char
ting
for
pla
nned
vs. a
ctua
l dat
a on
ear
ned
valu
e an
d ta
sk h
ours
and
by-p
hase
cha
rtin
g fo
r m
any
othe
r pr
oces
s
para
met
ers.
P/S
W
hile
ther
e is
no
expl
icit
req
uire
men
t for
“an
unde
rsta
ndin
g of
the
vari
atio
n…”
in th
e
role
des
crip
tions
, the
cha
rts
prov
ided
by
the
TS
P to
ol p
rovi
de u
sefu
l dat
a th
at a
re
com
mon
ly u
sed
as th
e ba
sis
for
the
team
to
unde
rsta
nd n
orm
al v
aria
tion
s in
thei
r w
ork
proc
esse
s.
56
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
Scri
pts:
WE
EK
, PM
,
ST
AT
US
For
ms:
SU
MM
AR
Y
2.3.
Mon
itor
the
perf
orm
ance
of
the
sele
cted
sub
proc
esse
s to
det
erm
ine
thei
r
capa
bili
ty to
sat
isfy
thei
r qu
alit
y an
d
proc
ess-
perf
orm
ance
obj
ecti
ves,
and
iden
tify
cor
rect
ive
acti
on a
s ne
cess
ary.
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, p
lann
ing
man
ager
,
proc
ess
man
ager
, qua
lity
man
ager
See
QP
M S
P 1
.4, a
bove
. D
Scri
pts:
PM
For
ms:
SU
MM
AR
Y
2.4.
Rec
ord
stat
istic
al a
nd q
uali
ty
man
agem
ent d
ata
in th
e or
gani
zatio
n’s
mea
sure
men
t rep
osito
ry.
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, p
lann
ing
man
ager
,
proc
ess
man
ager
, qua
lity
man
ager
The
pos
tmor
tem
con
soli
date
s th
e av
aila
ble
data
.
The
SU
MM
AR
Y s
peci
fica
tion
pro
vide
s a
conv
enie
nt f
ram
ewor
k fo
r m
akin
g th
e da
ta
avai
labl
e to
man
agem
ent a
nd to
the
rest
of
the
orga
niza
tion
. The
team
lead
er a
nd p
lann
ing
man
ager
, and
the
vari
ous
othe
r ro
le m
anag
ers
as
appr
opri
ate,
are
res
pons
ible
for
ens
urin
g th
e
capt
ure
and
stor
age
of s
tand
ard
TSP
dat
a an
d
othe
r re
leva
nt in
form
atio
n.
P/S
T
his
prac
tice
ass
umes
the
exis
tenc
e of
an
orga
niza
tion
al m
easu
rem
ent r
epos
itor
y.
Whi
le th
e in
tent
of
this
spe
cifi
c pr
acti
ce
(nam
ely,
to r
ecor
d th
e re
leva
nt d
ata)
see
ms
to b
e fu
lfil
led
by th
e T
SP p
ract
ices
cit
ed, i
t
is d
iffi
cult
to “
reco
rd”
data
in (
as o
ppos
ed
to “
cont
ribu
te”
to)
a re
posi
tory
that
doe
s no
t
exis
t. S
ee n
otes
for
IP
M S
P 1
.5 a
bove
.
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
57
6.2
TS
P a
nd
Pro
ject
Man
agem
ent
Gen
eric
Pra
ctic
es
The
gen
eric
pra
ctic
es o
f th
e pr
ojec
t man
agem
ent P
As
are
pres
ente
d he
re c
olle
ctiv
ely,
rat
her
than
sep
arat
ely
wit
h ea
ch in
divi
dual
PA
, bot
h to
aid
in
unde
rsta
ndin
g ho
w th
e di
ffer
ent T
SP p
roce
ss a
sset
s w
ork
toge
ther
acr
oss
rela
ted
proc
ess
area
s an
d to
em
phas
ize
that
eff
icie
nt C
MM
I im
plem
enta
tion
s of
ten
addr
ess
mul
tiple
mod
el p
ract
ices
wit
h fe
wer
act
ual p
ract
ices
.
Gen
eric
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Pro
cess
Are
as a
nd O
bser
vatio
ns
Rat
ing
GP
2.1
. Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
an
orga
niza
tion
al p
olic
y fo
r pl
anni
ng a
nd
perf
orm
ing
the
proc
ess.
A
ll P
roje
ct M
anag
emen
t PA
s: O
rgan
izat
iona
l pol
icie
s ar
e be
yond
the
scop
e of
TS
P.
U
Scri
pts:
All
laun
ch s
crip
ts
For
ms:
WE
EK
,
ST
AT
US
,
cust
omiz
ed
MT
G f
orm
s fo
r
each
laun
ch
mee
ting
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er
GP
2.2
. Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
the
plan
for
perf
orm
ing
the
proc
ess.
Oth
er:
PR
EP
L,
PR
EP
R, a
ll
laun
ch g
uida
nce,
all o
ther
pre
-
laun
ch a
sset
s
All
: T
he la
unch
and
rel
aunc
h pr
epar
atio
n gu
idel
ines
add
ress
all
of
the
spec
ific
s of
pla
nnin
g fo
r th
e
laun
ch. S
crip
ts L
AU
and
RE
L c
onta
in a
gen
eric
sch
edul
e fo
r a
laun
ch a
nd r
elau
nch
resp
ecti
vely
;
thes
e ar
e ty
pica
lly
cust
omiz
ed to
the
size
of
the
team
, the
sco
pe o
f th
e pr
ojec
t, an
d or
gani
zati
onal
cons
trai
nts.
The
re is
an
MT
G f
orm
for
eac
h la
unch
mee
ting
con
tain
ing
a no
min
al a
gend
a an
d
sche
dule
that
cor
resp
onds
to th
e sc
ript
for
that
mee
ting
.
PM
C:
The
wee
kly
team
mee
ting
s (W
EE
K)
and
regu
lar
stat
us m
eeti
ngs
wit
h m
anag
emen
t (S
TA
TU
S)
are
the
regu
lar
mec
hani
sms
for
mon
itori
ng a
nd c
ontr
ollin
g th
e pr
ojec
t man
agem
ent p
roce
sses
. The
team
lead
er ty
pica
lly
esta
blis
hes
the
sche
dule
for
thes
e du
ring
the
laun
ch.
RSK
M:
The
age
nda
for
LA
U7
and
the
WE
EK
and
ST
AT
US
scr
ipts
pla
n fo
r id
enti
fyin
g an
d tr
acki
ng
proj
ect r
isks
.
D
58
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
Gen
eric
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Pro
cess
Are
as a
nd O
bser
vatio
ns
Rat
ing
Scri
pts:
All
laun
ch s
crip
ts,
WE
EK
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, t
eam
mem
ber
GP
2.3
. Pro
vide
res
ourc
es f
or p
erfo
rmin
g
the
proc
ess,
dev
elop
ing
the
wor
k pr
oduc
ts,
and
prov
idin
g th
e se
rvic
es o
f th
e pr
oces
s.
Oth
er:
All
laun
ch g
uida
nce
All
: L
aunc
h gu
idan
ce m
ater
ials
and
the
laun
ch s
crip
ts r
epea
tedl
y st
ress
the
impo
rtan
ce o
f ha
ving
the
team
lead
er a
nd e
ntir
e pr
ojec
t tea
m p
rese
nt f
or th
e en
tire
laun
ch a
nd o
f ha
ving
a q
uali
fied
laun
ch
coac
h to
gui
de a
nd f
acil
itat
e th
e la
unch
.
PM
C:
The
WE
EK
scr
ipt s
peci
fies
that
the
team
lead
er le
ads
the
wee
kly
mee
ting
and
that
all
team
mem
bers
reg
ular
ly a
tten
d.
D
Scri
pts:
All
laun
ch s
crip
ts,
WE
EK
For
ms:
RO
LE
,
RO
LE
MX
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, t
eam
mem
ber,
rol
e
man
ager
s
GP
2.4
. Ass
ign
resp
onsi
bili
ty a
nd a
utho
rity
for
perf
orm
ing
the
proc
ess,
dev
elop
ing
the
wor
k pr
oduc
ts, a
nd p
rovi
ding
the
serv
ices
of th
e pr
oces
s.
Oth
er:
PR
EP
L,
PR
EP
R
All
: T
he la
unch
coa
ch g
uide
line
s na
mes
the
TS
P c
oach
as
havi
ng p
rim
ary
resp
onsi
bili
ty f
or e
nsur
ing
that
all
par
tici
pant
s ar
e pr
epar
ed f
or th
e la
unch
and
then
ena
ct th
e la
unch
pro
cess
pro
perl
y. T
he
guid
elin
es a
lso
call
on
man
agem
ent t
o na
me
a te
am le
ader
. PR
EP
L a
nd P
RE
PR
req
uire
the
nam
ing
of
a la
unch
coo
rdin
ator
to h
andl
e lo
gist
ic p
repa
rati
ons
for
the
laun
ch. D
urin
g th
e la
unch
the
team
lead
er
and
mos
t rol
e m
anag
ers
take
spe
cifi
c re
spon
sibi
lity
for
cer
tain
ste
ps o
f th
e la
unch
pro
cess
as
desi
gnat
ed in
the
laun
ch s
crip
ts. R
ole
man
ager
s ar
e na
med
dur
ing
LA
U2
usin
g R
OL
EM
X a
nd
capt
ured
on
RO
LE
.
PM
C:
The
team
lead
er h
as d
efau
lt r
espo
nsib
ility
for
run
ning
the
wee
kly
team
mee
ting
(W
EE
K)
but
som
etim
es d
eleg
ates
this
to a
team
mem
ber,
suc
h as
the
plan
ning
man
ager
. Tea
m m
embe
rs a
re
resp
onsi
ble
for
repo
rtin
g th
eir
own
data
and
rep
ortin
g to
the
team
acc
ordi
ng to
thei
r ro
le a
ssig
nmen
ts
and
on s
tatu
s, g
oals
, and
ris
ks a
s as
sign
ed.
RSK
M:
Ris
k tr
acki
ng a
nd d
evel
opm
ent o
f m
itig
atio
n pl
ans
gene
rally
is a
ssig
ned
by r
ole
or a
rea
of
expe
rtis
e.
D
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
59
Gen
eric
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Pro
cess
Are
as a
nd O
bser
vatio
ns
Rat
ing
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, t
eam
mem
ber
GP
2.5
. Tra
in th
e pe
ople
per
form
ing
or
supp
ortin
g th
e pr
oces
s as
nee
ded.
Oth
er:
All
PSP
and
TSP
trai
ning
All
: T
rain
ing
in P
SP a
nd T
SP
ski
lls
and
prin
cipl
es is
spe
cifi
ed b
y th
e T
SP
intr
oduc
tion
sequ
ence
for
each
rol
e in
the
chai
n of
com
man
d, p
lus
the
PSP
inst
ruct
ors
and
TSP
coa
ches
. PR
EP
L a
nd P
RE
PR
incl
ude
spec
ific
che
cks
that
the
trai
ning
has
bee
n ac
com
plis
hed.
Tea
m m
embe
rs a
re r
espo
nsib
le f
or
ensu
ring
that
they
hav
e “t
he e
duca
tion
and
trai
ning
nee
ded
to d
o su
peri
or w
ork.
”
QP
M:
The
mid
-ter
m r
epor
t in
PSP
trai
ning
req
uire
s th
at s
tude
nts
anal
yze
thei
r ow
n pr
oces
ses,
set
quan
tifia
ble
goal
s, a
nd s
ay h
ow th
ey in
tend
to a
chie
ve th
ose
goal
s in
the
seco
nd h
alf
of th
e tr
aini
ng.
The
fin
al r
epor
t ana
lyze
s se
cond
-hal
f re
sult
s, c
ompa
res
them
aga
inst
the
mid
-ter
m g
oals
, and
set
s
new
goa
ls a
nd p
lans
for
per
sona
l im
prov
emen
t goi
ng f
orw
ard.
D
Scri
pts:
All
laun
ch s
crip
ts,
WE
EK
, man
y
othe
r sc
ript
s
For
ms:
MT
G,
WE
EK
Rol
es: P
lann
ing
and
supp
ort
man
ager
s
GP
2.6
. Pla
ce d
esig
nate
d w
ork
prod
ucts
of
the
proc
ess
unde
r ap
prop
riat
e le
vels
of
conf
igur
atio
n m
anag
emen
t.
Oth
er:
NO
TE
BO
OK
All
: P
lans
dev
elop
ed d
urin
g th
e la
unch
and
upd
ated
wee
kly
(esp
ecia
lly
the
cons
olid
ated
wor
kboo
k),
wee
kly
team
mee
ting
min
utes
, and
num
erou
s ot
her
arti
fact
s sp
ecif
ied
thro
ugho
ut th
e T
SP s
crip
ts a
re
plac
ed in
the
proj
ect N
OT
EB
OO
K b
y th
e pl
anni
ng m
anag
er. T
he o
ffic
ial f
orm
of
the
NO
TE
BO
OK
(e.g
., ha
rd c
opy
or e
lect
roni
c) a
nd th
e le
vel o
f co
nfig
urat
ion
man
agem
ent i
t is
subj
ect t
o is
up
to th
e
team
and
/or
orga
niza
tion
. In
gene
ral,
the
supp
ort m
anag
er is
res
pons
ible
for
mat
ters
invo
lvin
g
conf
igur
atio
n m
anag
emen
t.
S
GP
2.7
. Ide
ntif
y an
d in
volv
e th
e re
leva
nt
stak
ehol
ders
as
plan
ned.
Scri
pts:
PR
EP
L,
PR
EP
R, P
M,
ST
AT
US
All
: T
he la
unch
pre
para
tion
scri
pts
(PR
EP
L, P
RE
PR
) an
d ot
her
guid
ance
cal
l out
sen
ior
man
agem
ent
and
mar
keti
ng s
peci
fica
lly
as r
elev
ant s
take
hold
ers.
Eac
h of
the
laun
ch s
crip
ts c
alls
for
par
ticip
atio
n
by r
ole.
Scr
ipt P
M c
alls
for
obt
aini
ng s
take
hold
er e
valu
atio
ns a
s pa
rt o
f a
fina
l pro
ject
pos
tmor
tem
.
S
60
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
Gen
eric
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Pro
cess
Are
as a
nd O
bser
vatio
ns
Rat
ing
Oth
er:
Sen
ior
man
agem
ent
and
mar
keti
ng
prep
arat
ion
guid
elin
es
Scr
ipt S
TA
TU
S c
alls
for
per
iodi
c m
anag
emen
t and
cus
tom
er s
tatu
s m
eeti
ngs.
Scri
pts:
All
laun
ch s
crip
ts
GP
2.8
. Mon
itor
and
con
trol
the
proc
ess
agai
nst t
he p
lan
for
perf
orm
ing
the
proc
ess
and
take
app
ropr
iate
cor
rect
ive
acti
on.
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er
All
: T
he T
SP
laun
ch c
oach
is r
espo
nsib
le f
or f
acil
itat
ing
all a
spec
ts o
f a
laun
ch o
r re
laun
ch.
PM
C:
The
team
lead
er r
uns
the
wee
kly
team
mee
ting
.
S
Scri
pts:
All
laun
ch s
crip
ts,
PR
EP
L, P
RE
PR
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er
GP
2.9
. Obj
ecti
vely
eva
luat
e ad
here
nce
of
the
proc
ess
agai
nst i
ts p
roce
ss d
escr
ipti
on,
stan
dard
s, a
nd p
roce
dure
s, a
nd a
ddre
ss
nonc
ompl
ianc
e.
Oth
er:
Che
ckpo
int
revi
ew
All
: T
he T
SP
laun
ch c
oach
ens
ures
pro
per
prep
arat
ion
and
exec
utio
n of
laun
ch a
ctiv
itie
s an
d
deve
lops
a c
oach
ing
plan
for
fol
low
ing
the
team
’s p
rogr
ess.
The
coa
chin
g pl
an f
or a
new
team
usua
lly
incl
udes
one
or
mor
e T
SP
che
ckpo
ints
that
eva
luat
e ho
w w
ell t
he te
am a
nd te
am m
embe
rs a
re
gath
erin
g da
ta a
nd m
anag
ing
them
selv
es. C
heck
poin
ts a
lso
prov
ide
indi
vidu
al f
eedb
ack
as d
eem
ed
nece
ssar
y by
the
coac
h. A
ny is
sues
that
can
not b
e sa
tisf
acto
rily
add
ress
ed b
y th
e te
am o
r te
am le
ader
are
elev
ated
to m
anag
emen
t for
fur
ther
act
ion.
S
Scri
pts:
LA
U1,
LA
U9,
ST
AT
US
GP
2.1
0. R
evie
w th
e ac
tivi
ties
, sta
tus,
and
resu
lts
of th
e pr
oces
s w
ith
high
er le
vel
man
agem
ent a
nd r
esol
ve is
sues
.
Oth
er:
Pla
n
asse
ssm
ent
chec
klis
t,
quar
terl
y re
view
chec
klis
t
All
: A
t LA
U1,
the
TS
P c
oach
rev
iew
s th
e la
unch
act
ivit
ies
to c
ome
wit
h al
l pre
sent
, inc
ludi
ng
man
agem
ent a
nd m
arke
ting
rep
rese
ntat
ives
. At L
AU
9, th
e te
am le
ader
sum
mar
izes
the
team
’s
plan
ning
act
ivit
ies
and
pres
ents
the
team
’s p
lan
and
poss
ible
alt
erna
tive
pla
ns to
man
agem
ent.
PM
C:
The
team
lead
er a
lso
mak
es r
egul
ar S
TA
TU
S r
epor
ts u
p th
e ch
ain
of c
omm
and
duri
ng th
e
proj
ect a
nd ty
pica
lly
prep
ares
and
del
iver
s th
e te
am’s
inpu
t to
quar
terl
y st
atus
rev
iew
s w
ith
seni
or
man
agem
ent.
S
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
61
Gen
eric
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Pro
cess
Are
as a
nd O
bser
vatio
ns
Rat
ing
Scri
pts:
All
laun
ch s
crip
ts,
WE
EK
,
ST
AT
US
For
ms:
All
laun
ch f
orm
s
(esp
. cus
tom
ized
laun
ch M
TG
form
s), W
EE
K,
ST
AT
US
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, t
eam
mem
ber,
rol
e
man
ager
s
GP
3.1
. Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
the
desc
ript
ion
of a
def
ined
pro
cess
.
Oth
er:
All
laun
ch g
uida
nce,
all o
ther
pre
-
laun
ch g
uida
nce
All
: T
he r
efer
ence
d sc
ript
s, f
orm
s, r
ole
desc
ript
ions
, and
oth
er g
uida
nce
take
n to
geth
er a
re a
n
exte
nsiv
e de
scri
ptio
n of
TS
P p
roje
ct m
anag
emen
t pro
cess
es.
S
Scri
pts:
All
indi
vidu
al
laun
ch s
crip
ts,
PM
, WE
EK
GP
3.2
. Col
lect
wor
k pr
oduc
ts, m
easu
res,
mea
sure
men
t res
ults
, and
impr
ovem
ent
info
rmat
ion
deri
ved
from
pla
nnin
g an
d
perf
orm
ing
the
proc
ess
to s
uppo
rt th
e fu
ture
use
and
impr
ovem
ent o
f th
e or
gani
zati
on’s
proc
esse
s an
d pr
oces
s as
sets
.
For
ms:
MT
G,
TS
P w
orkb
ooks
All
: L
aunc
h ar
tifa
cts,
as
spec
ifie
d by
the
laun
ch s
crip
ts, a
nd w
eekl
y m
eeti
ng a
rtif
acts
, as
spec
ifie
d by
the
WE
EK
scr
ipt,
are
stor
ed in
the
proj
ect N
OT
EB
OO
K b
oth
for
use
by th
e pr
ojec
t tea
m a
nd b
y th
e
orga
niza
tion
. At v
ario
us ti
mes
, the
team
lead
er, p
roce
ss m
anag
er, o
r pl
anni
ng m
anag
er is
ass
igne
d
spec
ific
res
pons
ibil
itie
s w
ith
resp
ect t
o co
llec
ting
suc
h in
form
atio
n an
d st
orin
g it
in th
e
NO
TE
BO
OK
.
S
62
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
Gen
eric
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Pro
cess
Are
as a
nd O
bser
vatio
ns
Rat
ing
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, p
lann
ing
and
proc
ess
man
ager
s
Oth
er:
NO
TE
BO
OK
GP
4.1
. Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
quan
tita
tive
obje
ctiv
es f
or th
e pr
oces
s th
at a
ddre
ss
qual
ity
and
proc
ess
perf
orm
ance
bas
ed o
n
cust
omer
nee
ds a
nd b
usin
ess
obje
ctiv
es.
Scri
pts:
All
laun
ch s
crip
ts,
esp.
LA
U, R
EL
All
: L
aunc
hes
are
gene
rall
y ex
pect
ed to
last
fou
r da
ys; r
elau
nche
s la
st th
ree
days
. An
expe
cted
dura
tion
rang
e fo
r in
divi
dual
mee
ting
s is
con
tain
ed in
eac
h re
spec
tive
scri
pt, u
sual
ly b
etw
een
one
and
six
hour
s.
PM
C:
Wee
kly
stat
us m
eeti
ngs
are
expe
cted
to la
st a
bout
an
hour
, dep
endi
ng o
n th
e si
ze o
f th
e te
am
and
com
plex
ity
of th
e pr
ojec
t.
S
GP
4.2
. Sta
bili
ze th
e pe
rfor
man
ce o
f on
e or
mor
e su
bpro
cess
es to
det
erm
ine
the
abil
ity
of th
e pr
oces
s to
ach
ieve
the
esta
blis
hed
quan
titat
ive
qual
ity
and
proc
ess-
perf
orm
ance
obj
ecti
ves.
A
ll:
Pro
ject
man
agem
ent p
ract
ices
per
se
are
not t
arge
ted
for
quan
titat
ive
man
agem
ent.
N
Scri
pts:
PM
,
LA
UP
M
For
ms:
PIP
GP
5.1
. Ens
ure
cont
inuo
us im
prov
emen
t of
the
proc
ess
in f
ulfi
llin
g th
e re
leva
nt
busi
ness
obj
ecti
ves
of th
e or
gani
zati
on.
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, p
roce
ss
man
ager
All
: Po
stm
orte
m (
PM
) ac
tivi
ties
can
rai
se is
sues
dea
ling
wit
h an
y pr
oces
s ar
ea. T
he P
IP f
orm
is u
sed
for
capt
urin
g pr
oces
s is
sues
and
pro
pose
d so
lutio
ns f
or a
ny p
roce
ss a
rea.
Typ
ical
ly P
Ms
occu
r an
d
PIP
s ar
e w
ritt
en w
ithi
n th
e co
ntex
t of
a pa
rtic
ular
pro
ject
; how
ever
, the
y ca
n an
d do
add
ress
issu
es in
any
proc
ess
area
, bet
wee
n pr
oces
s ar
eas,
and
eve
n ou
tsid
e th
e sc
ope
of C
MM
I. W
hat T
SP
doe
s no
t
spec
ify
is a
ny k
ind
of s
peci
fic
stan
dard
way
in w
hich
to e
valu
ate
and
act u
pon
PIP
s an
d ot
her
PM
issu
es.
S
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
63
Gen
eric
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Pro
cess
Are
as a
nd O
bser
vatio
ns
Rat
ing
Scri
pts:
PM
,
LA
UP
M
For
ms:
PIP
GP
5.2
. Ide
ntif
y an
d co
rrec
t the
roo
t cau
ses
of d
efec
ts a
nd o
ther
pro
blem
s in
the
proc
ess.
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, p
roce
ss
man
ager
All
: P
IPs
and
PM
s so
met
imes
hel
p to
iden
tify
roo
t cau
ses
of d
efec
ts o
r ot
her
proc
ess
prob
lem
s. T
he
TE
ST
D s
crip
t, w
hile
usu
ally
use
d in
con
junc
tion
wit
h en
gine
erin
g in
tegr
atio
n an
d te
st a
ctiv
itie
s, h
as
also
bee
n us
ed to
ana
lyze
and
cor
rect
roo
t cau
ses
of d
efec
ts w
ithi
n a
part
icul
ar te
am’s
pro
ject
man
agem
ent p
ract
ices
.
S
64
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
65
7 T
SP
an
d C
MM
I Pro
cess
Man
agem
ent
Pro
cess
Are
as
7.1
Sco
pe
of
PR
OC
ES
S
The
Pro
cess
Man
agem
ent p
roce
ss a
reas
con
tain
the
cros
s-pr
ojec
t act
iviti
es r
elat
ed to
def
inin
g, p
lann
ing,
res
ourc
ing,
dep
loyi
ng, i
mpl
emen
ting
, m
onit
orin
g, c
ontr
olli
ng, a
ppra
isin
g, m
easu
ring
, and
impr
ovin
g pr
oces
ses.
The
pag
e nu
mbe
rs f
or e
ach
proc
ess
area
as
liste
d be
low
are
fro
m C
MM
I:
Gui
deli
nes
for
Pro
cess
Im
prov
emen
t and
Pro
duct
Im
prov
emen
t [C
hris
sis
03].
The
Pro
cess
Man
agem
ent C
ateg
ory
cont
ains
the
follo
win
g pr
oces
s ar
eas.
Org
aniz
atio
nal P
roce
ss F
ocus
pa
ges
323-
340
Org
aniz
atio
nal P
roce
ss D
efin
ition
pa
ges
307-
322
Org
aniz
atio
nal T
rain
ing
page
s 35
5-37
0 O
rgan
izat
iona
l Pro
cess
Per
form
ance
pa
ges
341-
354
Org
aniz
atio
nal I
nnov
atio
n an
d D
eplo
ymen
t pa
ges
287-
306
66
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
7.1.
1 O
rgan
izat
ion
Pro
cess
Fo
cus
(OP
F)
The
Org
aniz
atio
nal P
roce
ss F
ocus
(O
PF)
proc
ess
area
hel
ps th
e or
gani
zatio
n to
pla
n an
d im
plem
ent o
rgan
izat
iona
l pro
cess
impr
ovem
ent b
ased
on
an
unde
rsta
ndin
g of
the
curr
ent s
tren
gths
and
wea
knes
ses
of th
e or
gani
zatio
n’s
proc
esse
s an
d pr
oces
s as
sets
. Can
dida
te im
prov
emen
ts to
the
orga
niza
tion
’s p
roce
sses
are
obt
aine
d th
roug
h va
riou
s m
eans
. The
se in
clud
e pr
oces
s im
prov
emen
t pro
posa
ls, m
easu
rem
ent o
f th
e pr
oces
ses,
less
ons
lear
ned
in im
plem
enti
ng th
e pr
oces
ses,
and
res
ults
of
proc
ess
appr
aisa
ls a
nd p
rodu
ct e
valu
atio
n ac
tiviti
es.
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
SG1.
Str
engt
hs, w
eakn
esse
s, a
nd
impr
ovem
ent
oppo
rtun
itie
s fo
r th
e
orga
niza
tion
’s p
roce
sses
are
iden
tifi
ed
peri
odic
ally
and
as
need
ed.
Tra
inin
g: T
SP
Exe
cuti
ve
Sem
inar
1.1.
Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
the
desc
ript
ion
of th
e pr
oces
s ne
eds
and
obje
ctiv
es f
or th
e
orga
niza
tion
.
Oth
er:
TS
P
intr
oduc
tion
stra
tegy
Dur
ing
the
earl
y st
ages
of
intr
oduc
tion
and
espe
cial
ly d
urin
g th
e T
SP E
xecu
tive
Sem
inar
,
orga
niza
tion
al n
eeds
and
obj
ecti
ves
are
brou
ght
to li
ght i
n or
der
to ju
stif
y in
trod
ucti
on o
f th
e
TS
P.
S
Thi
s is
mor
e pr
oper
ly a
n ac
tivi
ty f
or th
e
orga
niza
tion
’s m
anag
emen
t tea
m a
nd
engi
neer
ing
proc
ess
grou
p (E
PG
).
1.2.
App
rais
e th
e pr
oces
s of
the
orga
niza
tion
per
iodi
call
y an
d as
nee
ded
to
mai
ntai
n an
und
erst
andi
ng o
f th
eir
stre
ngth
s
and
wea
knes
ses.
U
Thi
s is
an
acti
vity
for
the
EP
G o
r ou
tsid
e
cons
ulta
nt (
e.g.
, a S
CA
MP
I ap
prai
sal)
.
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
67
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
1.3.
Ide
ntif
y im
prov
emen
ts to
the
orga
niza
tion
’s p
roce
sses
and
pro
cess
ass
ets.
U
Aga
in, t
his
is a
n ac
tivi
ty f
or th
e E
PG
.
Exa
mpl
es w
ould
be
orga
niza
tion
-lev
el
eval
uati
on o
f P
IPs
subm
itte
d by
the
TS
P
team
s in
an
orga
niza
tion
, or
idea
s gl
eane
d
from
att
endi
ng a
n in
dust
ry c
onfe
renc
e or
read
ing
rele
vant
jour
nals
.
SG2.
Im
prov
emen
ts a
re p
lann
ed a
nd
impl
emen
ted,
org
aniz
atio
nal p
roce
ss
asse
ts a
re d
eplo
yed,
and
pro
cess
-rel
ated
expe
rien
ces
are
inco
rpor
ated
into
the
orga
niza
tion
al p
roce
ss a
sset
s.
2.1.
Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
proc
ess
acti
on
plan
s to
add
ress
impr
ovem
ents
to th
e
orga
niza
tion
’s p
roce
sses
and
pro
cess
ass
ets.
Oth
er:
TS
P
intr
oduc
tion
stra
tegy
The
TS
P in
trod
uctio
n st
rate
gy is
an
exam
ple
of a
proc
ess
acti
on p
lan.
Tai
lori
ng th
e st
rate
gy a
s
appr
opri
ate,
and
inte
grat
ing
it w
ith
othe
r pl
ans
that
add
ress
oth
er n
eeds
, is
an e
ssen
tial
ste
p in
build
ing
an o
rgan
izat
iona
l im
prov
emen
t pla
n.
S
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
2.2.
Im
plem
ent p
roce
ss a
ctio
n pl
ans
acro
ss
the
orga
niza
tion
.
Rol
es:
Tea
m
mem
ber,
rol
e
man
ager
s
The
intr
oduc
tion
str
ateg
y ca
lls
firs
t for
pil
ot
proj
ects
and
then
for
incr
easi
ngly
bro
ad r
ollo
ut
acro
ss th
e or
gani
zati
on o
n a
proj
ect-
by-p
roje
ct
basi
s.
S
Thi
s an
alys
is a
ssum
es o
rgan
izat
ion-
wid
e
depl
oym
ent o
f P
SP a
nd T
SP a
ccor
ding
to a
vers
ion
of th
e T
SP in
trod
uctio
n st
rate
gy th
at
is ta
ilor
ed to
the
part
icul
ar n
eeds
and
cons
trai
nts
of th
e im
plem
enti
ng
orga
niza
tion
. Wha
t is
mis
sing
her
e is
a
gene
ric
way
to a
ddre
ss is
sues
that
fal
l
outs
ide
the
scop
e of
the
TSP
and
the
intr
oduc
tion
stra
tegy
. Tw
o ob
viou
s
exam
ples
: Wha
t hap
pens
aft
er T
SP
68
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
Scri
pts:
PR
EP
L,
PR
EP
R
Rol
es:
Tea
m
mem
ber,
rol
e
man
ager
s
2.3.
Dep
loy
orga
niza
tion
al p
roce
ss a
sset
s
acro
ss th
e or
gani
zati
on.
Oth
er:
TS
P
intr
oduc
tion
stra
tegy
TS
P la
unch
pre
para
tion
s m
ake
the
base
line
TS
P
asse
ts a
vail
able
to e
ach
team
. Tea
m m
embe
rs a
re
dire
cted
to a
gree
on
whi
ch te
am m
embe
r w
ill
brin
g w
hich
org
aniz
atio
nal p
roce
ss a
sset
s th
at
may
be
avai
labl
e, in
clud
ing
the
orga
niza
tion
’s
defi
ned
proc
ess,
rel
evan
t eng
inee
ring
sta
ndar
ds,
and
conf
igur
atio
n m
anag
emen
t and
cha
nge
cont
rol p
roce
sses
.
S
Rol
es:
Pro
cess
man
ager
, tea
m
mem
ber
2.4.
Inc
orpo
rate
pro
cess
-rel
ated
wor
k
prod
ucts
, mea
sure
s, a
nd im
prov
emen
t
info
rmat
ion
deri
ved
from
pla
nnin
g an
d
perf
orm
ing
the
proc
ess
into
the
orga
niza
tion
al p
roce
ss a
sset
s.
Oth
er:
TS
P
intr
oduc
tion
stra
tegy
Bro
ad r
ollo
ut in
the
intr
oduc
tion
stra
tegy
cal
ls
for
impl
emen
ting
less
ons
lear
ned
from
pil
ots
and
othe
r ea
rly
proj
ects
as
the
rollo
ut p
roce
eds.
S
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
69
7.1.
2 O
rgan
izat
ion
Pro
cess
Def
init
ion
(O
PD
)
The
Org
aniz
atio
nal P
roce
ss D
efin
ition
(O
PD)
proc
ess
area
est
ablis
hes
and
mai
ntai
ns th
e or
gani
zati
on’s
set
of
stan
dard
pro
cess
es a
nd o
ther
ass
ets
base
d on
the
proc
ess
need
s an
d ob
ject
ives
of
the
orga
niza
tion
. The
se o
ther
ass
ets
incl
ude
desc
ript
ions
of
proc
esse
s an
d pr
oces
s el
emen
ts,
desc
ript
ions
of
life-
cycl
e m
odel
s, p
roce
ss ta
ilori
ng g
uide
lines
, pro
cess
-rel
ated
doc
umen
tati
on, a
nd d
ata.
Pro
ject
s ta
ilor
the
orga
niza
tion
’s s
et o
f st
anda
rd p
roce
sses
to c
reat
e th
eir
defi
ned
proc
esse
s. T
he o
ther
ass
ets
supp
ort t
ailo
ring
as
wel
l as
impl
emen
tatio
n of
the
defi
ned
proc
esse
s.
Exp
erie
nces
and
wor
k pr
oduc
ts f
rom
per
form
ing
thes
e de
fine
d pr
oces
ses,
incl
udin
g m
easu
rem
ent d
ata,
pro
cess
des
crip
tions
, pro
cess
art
ifac
ts, a
nd
less
ons
lear
ned,
are
inco
rpor
ated
as
appr
opri
ate
into
the
orga
niza
tion
’s s
et o
f st
anda
rd p
roce
sses
and
oth
er a
sset
s.
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
SG1.
A s
et o
f or
gani
zati
onal
pro
cess
asse
ts is
est
ablis
hed
and
mai
ntai
ned.
1.1.
Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
the
orga
niza
tion
’s s
et o
f st
anda
rd p
roce
sses
(OS
SP).
All
TS
P p
roce
ss
elem
ents
list
ed
in S
ecti
on 5
exce
pt f
or S
EI-
only
off
erin
gs
The
TS
P s
ourc
e m
ater
ials
mad
e av
aila
ble
whe
n
the
TS
P is
pro
perl
y li
cens
ed c
onst
itut
e a
maj
orit
y
of a
n op
erat
iona
l OS
SP. T
his
licen
se a
llow
s th
e
orga
niza
tion
to in
corp
orat
e an
d ta
ilor
the
TS
P
mat
eria
ls a
s ne
cess
ary
for
inte
rnal
use
.
S
The
TS
P is
not
a f
ull-
blow
n O
SSP
, nor
doe
s
it a
ttem
pt to
be.
Suc
h an
ent
ity
can
be
crea
ted
only
by
the
orga
niza
tion
itse
lf.
Scri
pts:
DE
V,
MA
INT
For
ms:
ST
RA
T,
SU
MS
, TA
SK
1.2.
Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
desc
ript
ions
of
the
life
-cyc
le m
odel
s ap
prov
ed f
or u
se in
the
orga
niza
tion
.
Rol
es:
Pro
cess
man
ager
Scr
ipts
DE
V a
nd M
AIN
T a
re e
xam
ple
life
-cyc
le
desc
ript
ions
for
new
dev
elop
men
t and
mai
nten
ance
act
ivit
ies,
res
pect
ivel
y. I
n m
any
plac
es in
the
stan
dard
PSP
/TS
P tr
aini
ng
mat
eria
ls, t
he p
oint
is m
ade
that
a c
ycli
c li
fe-
cycl
e ap
proa
ch is
pre
ferr
ed. F
orm
s S
TR
AT
and
(to
a le
sser
ext
ent)
SU
MS
doc
umen
t the
team
’s
chos
en s
trat
egy,
wit
h im
plem
enta
tion
det
ails
show
ing
up in
indi
vidu
al a
nd te
am T
AS
K p
lans
.
S
TS
P a
nd th
e pr
ojec
t tea
ms
typi
call
y pr
ovid
e
man
y po
tent
ial m
odel
s du
ring
LA
U3;
how
ever
, app
rovi
ng th
em f
or o
rgan
izat
iona
l
use
is a
n E
PG
and
/or
man
agem
ent f
unct
ion.
70
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
Scri
pts:
LA
U3
Rol
es: P
roce
ss
man
ager
1.3.
Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
the
tail
orin
g
crit
eria
and
gui
deli
nes
for
the
orga
niza
tion
’s
set o
f st
anda
rd p
roce
sses
.
Oth
er: P
lann
ing
and
qual
ity
guid
elin
es
LA
U3
dire
cts
the
team
to d
efin
e it
s w
orki
ng
proc
esse
s. T
he p
roce
ss m
anag
er o
r ot
her
assi
gned
rol
e m
anag
er(s
) le
ads
the
effo
rt to
docu
men
t the
se p
roce
sses
if th
ey a
re n
ot f
inis
hed
duri
ng th
e la
unch
. How
ever
, the
re is
no
form
al
dire
ctio
n or
cri
teri
a fo
r ta
ilori
ng (
see
note
). T
he
plan
ning
and
qua
lity
gui
deli
nes
subs
titu
te f
or
orga
niza
tion
al b
ench
mar
k da
ta th
at m
ay n
ot e
xist
for
earl
y la
unch
es in
an
orga
niza
tion
.
S
Muc
h of
the
tail
orin
g ex
pert
ise
lies
wit
h th
e
TS
P c
oach
es. F
orm
al c
rite
ria
and
guid
elin
es
for
tail
orin
g an
OSS
P a
re n
ot—
and
argu
ably
can
not b
e—pa
rt o
f th
e T
SP, s
ince
any
prac
tica
l OS
SP
, esp
ecia
lly
its
tail
orin
g
crit
eria
and
gui
deli
nes,
are
uni
que
to a
n
orga
niza
tion
.
Scri
pts:
PM
For
ms:
TS
P
wor
kboo
ks
Rol
es: P
lann
ing,
proc
ess,
qua
lity
,
and
test
man
ager
s
1.4.
Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
the
orga
niza
tion
’s m
easu
rem
ent r
epos
itor
y.
Oth
er:
SU
MM
AR
Y
Raw
dat
a ar
e ca
ptur
ed in
indi
vidu
al a
nd
cons
olid
ated
TSP
wor
kboo
ks f
rom
eac
h pr
ojec
t
team
. At p
ostm
orte
ms,
team
s (u
sual
ly le
d by
one
or m
ore
of th
e re
fere
nced
rol
e m
anag
ers)
cons
olid
ate
this
info
rmat
ion.
The
SU
MM
AR
Y
spec
ific
atio
n li
sts
stan
dard
ana
lyse
s fo
r sc
hedu
le,
reso
urce
s, s
ize,
pro
duct
ivit
y, d
efec
ts, y
ield
,
rati
os, r
ates
, com
pone
nts,
and
pro
cess
.
S
TS
P a
nd th
e pr
ojec
t tea
ms
prov
ide
muc
h of
the
raw
info
rmat
ion,
but
it is
up
to th
e E
PG
or s
imil
ar o
rgan
izat
iona
l gro
up to
per
form
this
fun
ctio
n.
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
71
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
Scri
pts:
All
TS
P
scri
pts
For
ms:
All
TS
P
form
s
Rol
es: A
ll T
SP
role
s
Oth
er:
All
“oth
er”
proc
ess
asse
ts
1.5.
Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
the
orga
niza
tion
’s p
roce
ss a
sset
libr
ary.
Tra
inin
g:
Intr
oduc
tion
to
Per
sona
l
Pro
cess
, PSP
for
Eng
inee
rs,
TSP
Exe
cuti
ve
Sem
inar
,
Man
agin
g TS
P
Tea
ms
An
assu
mpt
ion
of th
is a
naly
sis
is th
at T
SP is
used
by
all p
roje
ct te
ams
in a
n or
gani
zati
on;
thus
, all
TS
P s
ourc
e do
cum
ents
(in
clud
ing
the
cour
sew
are
avai
labl
e to
SE
I-au
thor
ized
PSP
inst
ruct
ors)
, alo
ng w
ith
team
-pro
duce
d pr
oces
s
asse
ts, c
onst
itut
e a
sign
ific
ant p
art o
f a
de fa
cto
proc
ess
asse
t lib
rary
.
S
See
not
es f
or 1
.4 a
bove
.
72
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
7.1.
3 O
rgan
izat
ion
al T
rain
ing
(O
T)
The
Org
aniz
atio
nal T
rain
ing
proc
ess
area
iden
tifie
s th
e st
rate
gic
trai
ning
nee
ds o
f th
e or
gani
zatio
n as
wel
l as
the
tact
ical
trai
ning
nee
ds th
at a
re
com
mon
acr
oss
proj
ects
and
sup
port
gro
ups.
In
part
icul
ar, t
rain
ing
is d
evel
oped
or
obta
ined
to e
nsur
e th
at te
am m
embe
rs h
ave
the
skill
s re
quir
ed to
pe
rfor
m th
e or
gani
zati
on’s
set
of
stan
dard
pro
cess
es. T
he m
ain
com
pone
nts
of tr
aini
ng in
clud
e a
man
aged
trai
ning
-dev
elop
men
t pro
gram
, do
cum
ente
d pl
ans,
per
sonn
el w
ith a
ppro
pria
te k
now
ledg
e, a
nd m
echa
nism
s fo
r m
easu
ring
the
effe
ctiv
enes
s of
the
trai
ning
pro
gram
.
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
SG1.
A t
rain
ing
capa
bilit
y th
at s
uppo
rts
the
orga
niza
tion
’s m
anag
emen
t an
d
tech
nica
l rol
es is
est
ablis
hed
and
mai
ntai
ned.
1.1.
Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
the
stra
tegi
c
trai
ning
nee
ds o
f th
e or
gani
zati
on.
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, t
eam
mem
ber
Iden
tify
ing
the
need
for
PSP
and
TS
P tr
aini
ng is
stra
tegi
c to
the
orga
niza
tion
impl
emen
ting
TS
P;
how
ever
, the
re is
no
form
al m
echa
nism
for
iden
tify
ing
and
deal
ing
wit
h ot
her
stra
tegi
c
need
s.
S
Str
ateg
ic tr
aini
ng n
eeds
of
the
orga
niza
tion
are
pote
ntia
lly
refl
ecte
d by
the
aggr
egat
e of
team
trai
ning
nee
ds, b
ut a
gain
ther
e is
no
form
al T
SP
mec
hani
sm to
add
ress
thes
e
need
s.
Scri
pts:
PR
EP
L,
PR
EP
R, L
AU
1
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, t
eam
mem
ber
1.2.
Det
erm
ine
whi
ch tr
aini
ng n
eeds
are
the
resp
onsi
bili
ty o
f th
e or
gani
zati
on a
nd w
hich
wil
l be
left
to th
e in
divi
dual
pro
ject
or
supp
ort g
roup
.
Oth
er:
Sen
ior
man
agem
ent
disc
ussi
on
guid
elin
es
Sen
ior
man
agem
ent p
repa
rati
on d
oes
not
spec
ific
ally
cal
l for
iden
tify
ing
trai
ning
nee
ds,
but s
uch
cons
ider
atio
ns a
re o
ften
bro
ught
into
the
disc
ussi
on in
LA
U1.
S
The
re is
no
gene
ral m
echa
nism
in th
e T
SP
or th
e in
trod
ucti
on s
trat
egy
for
deal
ing
wit
h
non-
TS
P is
sues
at t
he o
rgan
izat
iona
l lev
el.
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
73
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
1.3.
Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
an
orga
niza
tion
al tr
aini
ng ta
ctic
al p
lan.
Oth
er: T
SP
intr
oduc
tion
stra
tegy
App
ropr
iate
rol
e-ba
sed
trai
ning
in P
SP a
nd T
SP
met
hods
is a
n in
tegr
al c
ompo
nent
of
the
TS
P
intr
oduc
tion
stra
tegy
. Cus
tom
izin
g th
e ge
neri
c
intr
oduc
tion
stra
tegy
(an
ess
enti
al s
tep
in T
SP
intr
oduc
tion)
cre
ates
an
orga
niza
tion
al tr
aini
ng
plan
sen
siti
ve to
the
need
s of
the
orga
niza
tion
’s
roll
out o
f th
e T
SP
.
S
The
sco
pe o
f th
e or
gani
zati
onal
pla
n
desc
ribe
d he
re o
bvio
usly
cov
ers
only
PSP
and
TSP
, but
doe
s pu
t in
plac
e an
orga
niza
tion
al m
echa
nism
that
can
be
used
for
othe
r tr
aini
ng.
1.4.
Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
trai
ning
capa
bili
ty to
add
ress
org
aniz
atio
nal t
rain
ing
need
s.
Oth
er: T
SP
intr
oduc
tion
stra
tegy
The
sta
ndar
d in
trod
uctio
n st
rate
gy s
peci
fica
lly
call
s fo
r de
velo
ping
an
inte
rnal
PSP
trai
ning
/TS
P
coac
hing
cap
abil
ity
suit
ed to
the
orga
niza
tion
’s
need
s.
S
The
sco
pe o
f th
e tr
aini
ng c
apac
ity
addr
esse
d
here
add
ress
es o
nly
PSP
and
TSP
trai
ning
,
but a
gain
, an
orga
niza
tiona
l mec
hani
sm is
put i
n pl
ace
for
pote
ntia
l fut
ure
use.
SG2.
Tra
inin
g ne
cess
ary
for
indi
vidu
als
to p
erfo
rm t
heir
rol
es e
ffec
tive
ly is
prov
ided
.
Oth
er: T
SP
intr
oduc
tion
stra
tegy
2.1.
Del
iver
the
trai
ning
fol
low
ing
the
orga
niza
tion
al ta
ctic
al p
lan.
Tra
inin
g: P
SP
Inst
ruct
or
Tra
inin
g, T
SP
Lau
nch
Coa
ch
Tra
inin
g
App
ropr
iate
rol
e-ba
sed
trai
ning
in P
SP a
nd T
SP
met
hods
is a
n in
tegr
al c
ompo
nent
of
the
TS
P
intr
oduc
tion
stra
tegy
. Cus
tom
izin
g th
e ge
neri
c
intr
oduc
tion
stra
tegy
cre
ates
an
orga
niza
tion
al
trai
ning
pla
n se
nsit
ive
to th
e ne
eds
of th
e
orga
niza
tion
’s r
ollo
ut o
f th
e T
SP.
S
74
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
2.2.
Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
reco
rds
of
orga
niza
tion
al tr
aini
ng.
Tra
inin
g: S
EI
trai
ning
rec
ords
Use
of
copy
righ
ted
PSP
and
TSP
trai
ning
mat
eria
ls r
equi
res
inst
ruct
ors
to o
btai
n an
d
tran
smit
trai
ning
dat
a to
the
SE
I.
S
Oth
er:
TS
P
coac
h
obse
rvat
ion
2.3.
Ass
ess
the
effe
ctiv
enes
s of
the
orga
niza
tion
’s tr
aini
ng p
rogr
am.
Tra
inin
g: P
SP
Inst
ruct
or
Tra
inin
g, T
SP
Lau
nch
Coa
ch
Tra
inin
g
PSP
ass
ignm
ents
in P
SP fo
r E
ngin
eers
trai
ning
dem
onst
rate
stu
dent
und
erst
andi
ng th
roug
hout
the
cour
se. T
ests
at t
he e
nd o
f P
SP I
nstr
ucto
r
Tra
inin
g an
d T
SP L
aunc
h C
oach
Tra
inin
g
dem
onst
rate
a m
inim
um le
vel o
f un
ders
tand
ing
nece
ssar
y to
ful
fill
thos
e ro
les.
The
TS
P c
oach
obse
rvat
ion
ensu
res
that
can
dida
te c
oach
es c
an
com
pete
ntly
coa
ch a
TS
P la
unch
. Ult
imat
ely,
it
is th
e pe
rfor
man
ce o
f th
e T
SP
pro
ject
team
s, a
nd
how
eff
ecti
ve th
ey a
re in
app
lyin
g th
e pr
inci
ples
of P
SP a
nd T
SP o
n th
e jo
b, th
at d
eter
min
e th
e
effe
ctiv
enes
s of
PSP
and
TS
P tr
aini
ng.
S
The
re is
no
obje
ctiv
e as
sess
men
t or
eval
uati
on o
f m
anag
emen
t or
non-
soft
war
e
pers
onne
l. T
here
is s
ubje
ctiv
e ev
alua
tion
by
the
inst
ruct
or(s
) du
ring
the
clas
s. A
mor
e
obje
ctiv
e ev
alua
tion
of
effe
ctiv
enes
s is
lim
ited
to P
SP in
stru
ctor
s an
d T
SP c
oach
es.
Eva
luat
ion
of tr
aini
ng b
eyon
d P
SP a
nd T
SP
trai
ning
is b
eyon
d th
e sc
ope
of T
SP
intr
oduc
tion.
In
the
futu
re, S
EI
may
off
er
mor
e ob
ject
ive
eval
uati
on in
the
form
of
cert
ific
atio
n of
PSP
- an
d T
SP-t
rain
ed
indi
vidu
als.
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
75
7.1.
4 O
rgan
izat
ion
al P
roce
ss P
erfo
rman
ce (
OP
P)
The
Org
aniz
atio
nal P
roce
ss P
erfo
rman
ce (
OPP
) pr
oces
s ar
ea d
eriv
es q
uant
itativ
e ob
ject
ives
for
qua
lity
and
proc
ess
perf
orm
ance
fro
m th
e or
gani
zati
on’s
bus
ines
s ob
ject
ives
. The
org
aniz
atio
n pr
ovid
es p
roje
cts
and
supp
ort g
roup
s w
ith c
omm
on m
easu
res,
pro
cess
per
form
ance
bas
elin
es,
and
proc
ess
perf
orm
ance
mod
els.
The
se a
dditi
onal
org
aniz
atio
nal a
sset
s ai
d in
qua
ntita
tive
pro
ject
man
agem
ent a
nd s
tatis
tica
l man
agem
ent o
f cr
itica
l sub
proc
esse
s fo
r bo
th p
roje
cts
and
supp
ortin
g gr
oups
. The
org
aniz
atio
n an
alyz
es th
e pr
oces
s pe
rfor
man
ce d
ata
colle
cted
fro
m th
ese
defi
ned
proc
esse
s to
dev
elop
a q
uant
itativ
e un
ders
tand
ing
of p
rodu
ct q
ualit
y, s
ervi
ce q
ualit
y, a
nd p
roce
ss p
erfo
rman
ce o
f th
e or
gani
zatio
n’s
set o
f st
anda
rd
proc
esse
s.
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
SG1.
Bas
elin
es a
nd m
odel
s th
at
char
acte
rize
the
exp
ecte
d pr
oces
s
perf
orm
ance
of
the
orga
niza
tion
’s s
et o
f
stan
dard
pro
cess
es a
re e
stab
lishe
d an
d
mai
ntai
ned.
Scri
pts:
LA
U1,
INS
, TE
ST
x,
WE
EK
For
ms:
SU
MP
,
SUM
Q, W
EE
K
1.1.
Sel
ect t
he p
roce
sses
or
proc
ess
elem
ents
in th
e or
gani
zati
on’s
set
of
stan
dard
pro
cess
es th
at a
re to
be
incl
uded
in
the
orga
niza
tion
’s p
roce
ss p
erfo
rman
ce
anal
ysis
.
Oth
er:
PSP
for
Eng
inee
rs
trai
ning
By
defa
ult,
TS
P f
ocus
es o
n (a
) ea
rly
defe
ct
rem
oval
in p
erso
nal r
evie
ws
(as
taug
ht in
PSP
trai
ning
) an
d te
am in
spec
tion
s an
d on
how
effe
ctiv
e th
ese
effo
rts
are
as in
dica
ted
by f
ound
defe
ct d
ensi
ties
in th
ose
proc
ess
phas
es a
s
com
pare
d to
test
pha
ses
(see
SU
MP
and
SU
MQ
)
and
(b)
on s
ched
ule
perf
orm
ance
, as
indi
cate
d by
earn
ed v
alue
and
tim
e on
task
(W
EE
K f
orm
).
S
Oth
er p
roce
ss e
lem
ents
of
inte
rest
to th
e
orga
niza
tion
may
be
indi
cate
d du
ring
the
man
agem
ent b
rief
ing
in L
AU
1.
76
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
1.2.
Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
defi
niti
ons
of
the
mea
sure
s th
at a
re to
be
incl
uded
in th
e
orga
niza
tion
’s p
roce
ss p
erfo
rman
ce
anal
yses
.
For
ms:
Tea
m
wor
kboo
ks,
ST
AT
US
,
SU
MM
AR
Y
Mea
sure
s us
ed b
y th
e or
gani
zati
on o
ften
do
not
coin
cide
exa
ctly
wit
h th
ose
pred
efin
ed b
y th
e
TS
P, a
lthou
gh th
e ra
w m
easu
res
(tim
e on
task
,
task
com
plet
ion
date
, def
ects
, and
pro
duct
siz
e)
as d
efin
ed b
y T
SP
are
usu
ally
suf
fici
ent t
o
com
pute
indi
cato
rs u
sefu
l to
the
orga
niza
tion
.
S
TS
P c
ompu
ted
met
rics
suc
h as
ear
ned
valu
e, ta
sk h
ours
per
wee
k, te
st d
efec
ts p
er
KL
OC
, rev
iew
rat
es, y
ield
, and
qua
lity
prof
ile
inde
x (Q
PI)
for
com
pone
nts
are
all
cand
idat
e m
etri
cs f
or a
naly
zing
orga
niza
tion
al p
roce
ss p
erfo
rman
ce. T
here
are
lite
rall
y do
zens
of
cand
idat
e de
rive
d
mea
sure
s fr
om P
SP tr
aini
ng a
nd th
e va
riou
s
TS
P a
sset
s th
at m
ight
be
used
by
the
orga
niza
tion
.
Scri
pts:
LA
U1
1.
3. E
stab
lish
and
mai
ntai
n qu
antit
ativ
e
obje
ctiv
es f
or q
uali
ty a
nd p
roce
ss
perf
orm
ance
for
the
orga
niza
tion
.
Oth
er: T
SP
intr
oduc
tion
stra
tegy
The
TS
P in
trod
uctio
n st
rate
gy in
clud
es p
lann
ing
to e
stab
lish
qua
ntit
ativ
e ex
pect
atio
ns f
or p
ilot
proj
ects
, typ
ical
ly in
clud
ing
sche
dule
and
cos
t
perf
orm
ance
and
obs
erve
d de
fect
den
sity
at a
spec
ifie
d te
st o
r de
live
ry p
oint
. App
ropr
iate
sum
mar
ies
of th
ese
expe
ctat
ions
are
typi
call
y
prov
ided
to th
e de
velo
pmen
t tea
ms
duri
ng
LA
U1.
S
The
TS
P a
ctiv
itie
s ar
e cl
earl
y do
ne a
t the
proj
ect l
evel
, not
the
orga
niza
tion
al le
vel.
How
ever
, the
intr
oduc
tion
str
ateg
y do
es c
all
for
the
deve
lopm
ent o
f a
qual
ity
poli
cy th
at
ofte
n in
clud
es s
uch
quan
tita
tive
obj
ecti
ves.
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
77
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
Rol
es: P
roce
ss
man
ager
Tra
inin
g: T
SP
Exe
cuti
ve
Sem
inar
1.4.
Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
the
orga
niza
tion
’s p
roce
ss p
erfo
rman
ce
base
line
s.
Oth
er:
Pla
nnin
g
and
qual
ity
guid
elin
es
Exe
rcis
es in
the
TSP
Exe
cuti
ve S
emin
ar f
ocus
on
eval
uati
ng p
oten
tial b
ench
mar
k ca
ndid
ates
and
com
pari
ng s
elec
ted
benc
hmar
ks w
ith
othe
r
proj
ects
. The
pla
nnin
g an
d qu
ality
gui
deli
nes
esta
blis
h de
faul
t pro
cess
per
form
ance
gui
deli
nes.
S
The
ref
eren
ced
exer
cise
s an
d tr
aini
ng m
ay
bette
r ad
dres
s G
P2.
5 fo
r O
PP m
ore
than
for
this
pra
ctic
e.
For
ms:
TS
P
wor
kboo
ks
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, p
roce
ss,
plan
ning
, or
qual
ity
man
ager
1.5.
Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
the
proc
ess
perf
orm
ance
mod
els
for
the
orga
niza
tion
’s
set o
f st
anda
rd p
roce
sses
.
Oth
er: P
lann
ing
and
qual
ity
guid
elin
es
The
pla
nnin
g an
d qu
ality
gui
deli
nes,
alo
ng w
ith
the
perf
orm
ance
mod
el in
here
nt in
the
TSP
wor
kboo
ks, e
stab
lish
a d
efau
lt p
erfo
rman
ce
mod
el.
The
pro
cess
man
ager
, pla
nnin
g m
anag
er,
qual
ity
man
ager
, or
team
lead
er m
onit
ors
team
perf
orm
ance
in li
ght o
f go
als
rela
ted
to th
e
mod
el.
S
Mos
t org
aniz
atio
ns c
usto
miz
e th
e de
faul
t
perf
orm
ance
mod
el im
plie
d by
the
plan
ning
and
qual
ity
guid
elin
es b
ased
on
thei
r ow
n
need
s an
d si
tuat
ion.
78
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
7.1.
5 O
rgan
izat
ion
al In
no
vati
on
an
d D
eplo
ymen
t (O
ID)
The
Org
aniz
atio
nal I
nnov
atio
n an
d D
eplo
ymen
t (O
ID)
proc
ess
area
sel
ects
and
dep
loys
pro
pose
d in
crem
enta
l and
inno
vati
ve im
prov
emen
ts th
at
addr
ess
the
orga
niza
tion’
s ab
ility
to m
eet i
ts q
ualit
y an
d pr
oces
s pe
rfor
man
ce o
bjec
tive
s. T
he id
entif
icat
ion
of p
rom
isin
g in
crem
enta
l and
inno
vativ
e im
prov
emen
ts s
houl
d in
volv
e th
e pa
rtic
ipat
ion
of a
n em
pow
ered
wor
kfor
ce a
ligne
d w
ith th
e bu
sine
ss v
alue
s an
d ob
ject
ives
of
the
orga
niza
tion
. The
se
lect
ion
of im
prov
emen
ts to
dep
loy
is b
ased
on
a qu
antit
ativ
e un
ders
tand
ing
of th
e po
tent
ial b
enef
its a
nd c
osts
fro
m d
eplo
ying
can
dida
te
impr
ovem
ents
and
the
avai
labl
e fu
ndin
g fo
r su
ch d
eplo
ymen
t.
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
SG1.
Pro
cess
and
tec
hnol
ogy
impr
ovem
ents
tha
t co
ntri
bute
to
mee
ting
qual
ity
and
proc
ess
perf
orm
ance
obje
ctiv
es a
re s
elec
ted.
Scri
pts:
PM
,
LA
UP
M
For
ms:
PIP
,
TA
SK
, LO
GT
,
LO
GD
1.1.
Col
lect
and
ana
lyze
pro
cess
- an
d
tech
nolo
gy-i
mpr
ovem
ent p
ropo
sals
.
Rol
es: P
roce
ss
man
ager
PIP
for
ms
reco
rd b
oth
proc
ess
and
tech
nolo
gy
impr
ovem
ent s
ugge
stio
ns. T
he p
roce
ss m
anag
er
man
ages
the
elic
itat
ion,
gat
heri
ng, r
ecor
ding
,
trac
king
, and
han
dlin
g of
the
team
’s P
IPs
duri
ng
post
mor
tem
s an
d as
nee
ded
duri
ng th
e pr
ojec
t.
S
The
TS
P f
ocus
is a
t the
pro
ject
leve
l. T
here
is n
o ex
plic
it m
echa
nism
or
role
in T
SP
for
coll
ecti
ng a
nd a
naly
zing
PIP
s at
the
orga
niza
tion
al le
vel.
Scri
pts:
TE
ST
D,
LA
UP
M, P
M
1.2.
Ide
ntif
y an
d an
alyz
e in
nova
tive
impr
ovem
ents
that
cou
ld in
crea
se th
e
orga
niza
tion
’s q
uali
ty a
nd p
roce
ss
perf
orm
ance
.
For
ms:
PIP
,
TA
SK
, LO
GT
,
LO
GD
Inno
vati
ve im
prov
emen
ts a
re p
oten
tial
ly
iden
tifi
ed o
n P
IP f
orm
s, w
hich
are
sol
icit
ed
duri
ng p
ostm
orte
m m
eeti
ngs.
TE
ST
D p
erfo
rms
an a
naly
sis
of a
ll in
tegr
atio
n, s
yste
m, a
nd
acce
ptan
ce te
st d
efec
ts a
t the
pro
ject
leve
l, an
d
S
The
TS
P f
ocus
is a
t the
pro
ject
leve
l. T
here
is n
o ex
plic
it m
echa
nism
in T
SP
to a
ddre
ss
orga
niza
tion
al-l
evel
qua
lity
and
perf
orm
ance
issu
es. H
owev
er, t
he d
ecis
ion
to u
se T
SP in
dica
tes
a m
echa
nism
, suc
h as
a
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
79
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
Rol
es: P
roce
ss
and
qual
ity
man
ager
s, te
am
mem
ber
can
lead
to id
entif
icat
ion
of p
oten
tial
qua
lity
and
proc
ess
perf
orm
ance
impr
ovem
ents
.
new
tech
nolo
gy g
roup
, tha
t add
ress
es th
is
prac
tice
mor
e br
oadl
y.
Scri
pts:
LA
U3
Rol
es: P
roce
ss
man
ager
, oth
er
role
man
ager
s
1.3.
Pilo
t pro
cess
and
tech
nolo
gy
impr
ovem
ents
to s
elec
t whi
ch o
nes
to
impl
emen
t.
Oth
er: T
SP
intr
oduc
tion
stra
tegy
A p
ilot
ing
stra
tegy
is b
uilt
into
the
TS
P
intr
oduc
tion
sequ
ence
. LA
U3
prov
ides
a r
eady
oppo
rtun
ity
whe
n de
fini
ng th
e te
am’s
pro
cess
es
to in
corp
orat
e ne
w p
roce
ss a
nd te
chno
logy
impr
ovem
ents
led
by th
e pr
oces
s m
anag
er o
r,
depe
ndin
g on
the
part
icul
ar in
nova
tion
, a m
ore
rele
vant
rol
e m
anag
er.
S
The
re is
no
expl
icit
mec
hani
sm in
the
TSP
intr
oduc
tion
sequ
ence
for
pilo
ting
othe
r
spec
ific
tech
nolo
gies
; how
ever
, TSP
laun
ches
are
oft
en u
sed
as a
mec
hani
sm to
init
iate
pil
ot p
roje
cts
for
the
use
of o
ther
proc
esse
s an
d te
chno
logi
es.
1.4.
Sel
ect p
roce
ss-
and
tech
nolo
gy-
impr
ovem
ent p
ropo
sals
for
dep
loym
ent
acro
ss th
e or
gani
zati
on.
Oth
er: T
SP
intr
oduc
tion
stra
tegy
Les
sons
lear
ned
duri
ng p
ilot a
nd o
ther
ear
ly
proj
ects
dur
ing
TSP
intr
oduc
tion
are
use
d to
mak
e ad
just
men
ts d
urin
g br
oade
r ro
llou
t in
the
orga
niza
tion
.
S
The
re is
no
expl
icit
mec
hani
sm in
the
TSP
intr
oduc
tion
sequ
ence
for
sel
ecti
ng o
ther
impr
ovem
ent p
ropo
sals
; how
ever
,
inte
grat
ing
wit
h (f
or e
xam
ple)
a la
rger
proc
ess
impr
ovem
ent e
ffor
t lik
e C
MM
I or
the
use
of a
noth
er n
ew te
chno
logy
(e.
g.,
UM
L)
is a
com
mon
man
agem
ent g
oal g
iven
to T
SP te
ams.
SG2.
Mea
sura
ble
impr
ovem
ents
to
the
orga
niza
tion
’s p
roce
sses
and
tec
hnol
ogie
s
are
cont
inua
lly a
nd s
yste
mat
ical
ly
depl
oyed
.
80
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
Scri
pts:
LA
U3
Rol
es: P
roce
ss
man
ager
2.1.
Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
the
plan
s fo
r
depl
oyin
g th
e se
lect
ed p
roce
ss a
nd
tech
nolo
gy im
prov
emen
ts.
Oth
er: T
SP
intr
oduc
tion
stra
tegy
The
org
aniz
atio
n’s
cust
omiz
ed T
SP in
trod
uctio
n
plan
des
crib
es s
peci
fic
step
s fo
r de
ploy
ing
the
TS
P a
nd r
elat
ed te
chno
logi
es (
e.g.
, the
TSP
tool
). L
AU
3 an
d th
e pr
oces
s m
anag
er r
ole
prov
ide
mec
hani
sms
for
othe
r im
prov
emen
ts to
be in
trod
uced
at t
he p
roje
ct le
vel.
S
2.2.
Man
age
the
depl
oym
ent o
f th
e se
lect
ed
proc
esse
s an
d te
chno
logy
impr
ovem
ents
.
Oth
er:
ST
AT
US
,
SU
MM
AR
Y,
TS
P
intr
oduc
tion
stra
tegy
,
quar
terl
y re
view
chec
klis
t
The
intr
oduc
tion
str
ateg
y, s
peci
fica
lly
the
quar
terl
y re
view
s an
d re
gula
r S
TA
TU
S a
nd
SU
MM
AR
Y m
eeti
ngs,
pro
vide
mec
hani
sms
for
man
agin
g T
SP
dep
loym
ent i
n th
e or
gani
zati
on.
To
the
exte
nt th
at o
ther
impr
ovem
ents
are
bei
ng
depl
oyed
on
TS
P te
ams,
thes
e sa
me
mec
hani
sms
may
be
used
for
man
agin
g th
ose
impr
ovem
ents
.
S
Wit
h re
spec
t to
all s
peci
fic
prac
tice
s un
der
goal
SG
2: T
he s
cope
of
the
intr
oduc
tion
stra
tegy
by
defi
niti
on is
TSP
-onl
y. A
wel
l-
man
aged
impl
emen
tati
on s
trat
egy
that
pigg
ybac
ks o
ther
pro
cess
and
tech
nolo
gy
impr
ovem
ents
ont
o (f
or e
xam
ple)
TS
P
proj
ect l
aunc
hes
coul
d fu
lly
impl
emen
t
thes
e pr
acti
ces.
2.3.
Mea
sure
the
effe
cts
for
the
depl
oyed
proc
ess
and
tech
nolo
gy im
prov
emen
ts.
Oth
er: T
SP
intr
oduc
tion
stra
tegy
,
quar
terl
y re
view
chec
klis
t
The
intr
oduc
tion
str
ateg
y ca
lls
for
eval
uati
on o
f
earl
y pi
lot p
roje
ct r
esul
ts (
even
pre
lim
inar
y
resu
lts)
bef
ore
proc
eedi
ng w
ith
broa
d
depl
oym
ent o
f th
e T
SP
. Qua
rter
ly r
evie
ws
are
espe
cial
ly u
sefu
l for
man
agem
ent r
evie
w o
f
depl
oym
ent e
ffec
ts.
S
Org
aniz
atio
n-w
ide
mea
sure
s ar
e no
t
expl
icit
ly id
enti
fied
, alt
houg
h th
ere
are
man
y av
aila
ble
cand
idat
es w
ith
the
TS
P.
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
81
7.2
TS
P a
nd
Pro
cess
Man
agem
ent
Gen
eric
Pra
ctic
es
At f
irst
gla
nce,
CM
MI
gene
ric
prac
tices
as
appl
ied
to th
e pr
oces
s m
anag
emen
t PA
s se
em to
hav
e lit
tle to
do
wit
h th
e T
SP. H
owev
er th
e as
sum
ptio
ns
mad
e fo
r th
is r
epor
t cas
t the
ent
ire
set o
f T
SP p
roce
ss a
sset
s as
a m
ajor
par
t of
an o
rgan
izat
ion’
s st
anda
rd p
roce
ss, m
akin
g th
e T
SP a
cru
cial
pie
ce o
f an
org
aniz
atio
n’s
larg
er p
roce
ss p
ictu
re. T
he ta
ble
belo
w r
efra
ins
from
mak
ing
any
furt
her
assu
mpt
ions
and
, as
such
, ref
lect
s th
e fa
ct th
at o
nly
the
TSP
intr
oduc
tion
seq
uenc
e de
als
to a
ny g
reat
ext
ent w
ith in
stitu
tiona
lizi
ng p
roce
ss m
anag
emen
t for
the
orga
niza
tion
. The
obs
erva
tions
do,
how
ever
, re
flec
t the
usu
al c
ase
that
it is
the
SEI
or s
ome
othe
r ex
tern
al a
gent
that
oft
en a
cts
as th
e or
gani
zatio
n’s
mai
n re
sour
ce f
or d
evel
opin
g ex
pect
atio
ns f
or
and
then
gui
ding
the
intr
oduc
tion
effo
rts,
and
for
hel
ping
to e
valu
ate
resu
lts.
See
App
endi
x B
for
an
alte
rnat
ive
appr
oach
to th
e pr
oces
s m
anag
emen
t PA
s. T
his
appr
oach
mak
es o
ne a
dditi
onal
ass
umpt
ion:
that
PSP
pri
ncip
les
and
TSP
pra
ctic
es a
re u
sed
to p
lan,
exe
cute
, mea
sure
, tra
ck, a
nd c
ontin
uous
ly im
prov
e th
e w
ork
of th
e E
PG a
nd r
elat
ed g
roup
s su
ch a
s ac
tion
team
s or
wor
king
gro
ups.
Gen
eric
Pra
ctic
e T
SP R
efer
ence
P
roce
ss A
rea:
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
GP
2.1
. Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
an
orga
niza
tion
al p
olic
y fo
r pl
anni
ng a
nd
perf
orm
ing
the
proc
ess.
A
ll:
Out
of
the
scop
e of
TS
P.
U
GP
2.2
. Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
the
plan
for
perf
orm
ing
the
proc
ess.
Oth
er:
TS
P
intr
oduc
tion
stra
tegy
OP
F, O
ID:
The
TS
P in
trod
ucti
on s
trat
egy
is a
n ex
ampl
e of
a p
roce
ss a
ctio
n pl
an. P
lann
ing
for
a
part
icul
ar im
plem
enta
tion
of
the
stra
tegy
pro
babl
y ad
dres
ses
this
pra
ctic
e.
OP
D, O
T, O
PP
: T
he p
lann
ing
for
TS
P in
trod
ucti
on r
equi
res
deci
sion
s ab
out h
ow to
sto
re a
nd m
ake
avai
labl
e T
SP
pro
cess
ass
ets
(OP
D);
who
to tr
ain,
in w
hat c
ours
es, a
nd w
hen
to tr
ain
them
(O
T);
and
wha
t the
qua
ntit
ativ
e go
als
are
for
the
impl
emen
tati
on (
OP
P).
S
GP
2.3
. Pro
vide
res
ourc
es f
or p
erfo
rmin
g
the
proc
ess,
dev
elop
ing
the
wor
k pr
oduc
ts,
and
prov
idin
g th
e se
rvic
es o
f th
e pr
oces
s.
Oth
er:
TS
P
intr
oduc
tion
stra
tegy
All
: T
he T
SP
coa
ch a
nd P
SP in
stru
ctor
s ar
e re
spon
sibl
e fo
r tr
aini
ng e
xecu
tive
s, m
anag
ers,
team
lead
ers,
and
the
proj
ect t
eam
, and
for
laun
chin
g an
d co
achi
ng th
e pr
ojec
t tea
ms
to s
ucce
ssfu
l
conc
lusi
on. O
ther
res
ourc
es n
eces
sary
for
suc
cess
ful i
ntro
duct
ion
are
iden
tifi
ed d
urin
g pl
anni
ng f
or
TS
P in
trod
uctio
n.
S
82
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
Gen
eric
Pra
ctic
e T
SP R
efer
ence
P
roce
ss A
rea:
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
GP
2.4
. Ass
ign
resp
onsi
bili
ty a
nd a
utho
rity
for
perf
orm
ing
the
proc
ess,
dev
elop
ing
the
wor
k pr
oduc
ts, a
nd p
rovi
ding
the
serv
ices
of th
e pr
oces
s.
Oth
er:
TS
P
intr
oduc
tion
stra
tegy
All
: T
SP c
oach
es a
nd P
SP in
stru
ctor
s ha
ve a
res
pons
ibil
ity to
the
impl
emen
ting
org
aniz
atio
ns a
nd to
the
SE
I to
ens
ure
fide
lity
in tr
aini
ng a
nd im
plem
enta
tion
dur
ing
TSP
intr
oduc
tion
, and
to c
ouns
el
orga
niza
tion
per
sonn
el in
the
appr
opri
ate
usag
es o
f th
e te
chno
logy
. The
org
aniz
atio
n as
sign
s
resp
onsi
bili
ties
and
aut
hori
ty a
s ne
cess
ary
in o
rder
to im
plem
ent t
he s
trat
egy.
S
GP
2.5
. Tra
in th
e pe
ople
per
form
ing
or
supp
ortin
g th
e pr
oces
s as
nee
ded.
Tra
inin
g: P
SP fo
r
Eng
inee
rs, T
SP
Exe
cuti
ve
Sem
inar
,
Man
agin
g TS
P
Tea
ms,
Intr
oduc
tion
to
Per
sona
l Pro
cess
All
: T
he v
ario
us P
SP a
nd T
SP tr
aini
ng c
ours
es a
re s
peci
fied
by
the
TS
P in
trod
uctio
n st
rate
gy. P
SP
for
Eng
inee
rs a
nd I
ntro
duct
ion
to P
erso
nal P
roce
ss in
trod
uce
the
conc
epts
of
a de
fine
d pr
oces
s, a
mea
sure
men
t fra
mew
ork,
ben
chm
arki
ng, p
roce
ss d
efin
itio
n, q
uali
ty m
anag
emen
t, an
d co
ntin
uous
impr
ovem
ent.
The
TSP
Exe
cuti
ve S
emin
ar a
nd M
anag
ing
TSP
Tea
ms
intr
oduc
e co
ncep
ts s
uch
as
orga
niza
tion
al b
ench
mar
ks, d
ata-
driv
en m
anag
emen
t, an
d a
proc
ess
cult
ure.
EP
G m
embe
rs o
ften
atte
nd th
ese
cour
ses
as p
repa
rati
on in
impl
emen
ting
and
sup
port
ing
the
TSP
intr
oduc
tion
acti
viti
es.
S
Scri
pts:
LA
U3,
LA
U4,
LA
U6
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
LO
GT
GP
2.6
. Pla
ce d
esig
nate
d w
ork
prod
ucts
of
the
proc
ess
unde
r ap
prop
riat
e le
vels
of
conf
igur
atio
n m
anag
emen
t.
Rol
es: P
roce
ss
and
supp
ort
man
ager
s
OP
F, O
PD
, OP
P:
The
se P
As
are
not e
xpli
citly
add
ress
ed b
y th
e T
SP
. How
ever
, as
earl
y la
unch
es
typi
call
y ad
dres
s or
gani
zati
onal
ben
chm
arki
ng is
sues
, som
e la
unch
act
ivit
ies
(LA
U3,
LA
U4,
LA
U6)
and
foll
ow-t
hrou
gh b
y te
am m
embe
rs d
urin
g pr
ojec
t exe
cuti
on (
TA
SK
, LO
GT
) pr
obab
ly a
pply
. The
proc
ess
man
ager
and
/or
supp
ort m
anag
er a
re u
sual
ly in
volv
ed.
OT
: S
tand
ard
PSP
and
TSP
cou
rse
mat
eria
ls a
re m
aint
aine
d an
d m
ade
avai
labl
e to
impl
emen
ting
orga
niza
tion
s by
the
SE
I.
S
GP
2.7
. Ide
ntif
y an
d in
volv
e th
e re
leva
nt
stak
ehol
ders
as
plan
ned.
Oth
er:
TS
P
intr
oduc
tion
sequ
ence
All
: P
art o
f pl
anni
ng a
suc
cess
ful i
ntro
duct
ion
of th
e T
SP in
clud
es id
enti
fica
tion
and
invo
lvem
ent o
f
wil
ling
man
ager
s of
pil
ot p
roje
cts,
ear
ly p
roje
ct te
am m
embe
rs, a
nd a
ffec
ted
supp
ortin
g gr
oups
suc
h
as te
st, q
uali
ty a
ssur
ance
, and
trai
ning
.
S
GP
2.8
. Mon
itor
and
con
trol
the
proc
ess
agai
nst t
he p
lan
for
perf
orm
ing
the
proc
ess
and
take
app
ropr
iate
cor
rect
ive
acti
on.
Oth
er:
TS
P
intr
oduc
tion
stra
tegy
, qua
rter
ly
revi
ew c
heck
list
All
: T
he s
tatu
s of
PSP
and
TS
P tr
aini
ng, a
nd o
f T
SP
pro
ject
s (e
spec
iall
y pi
lot p
roje
cts)
is a
ddre
ssed
at p
lann
ed p
oint
s du
ring
the
intr
oduc
tion
acti
viti
es, a
nd u
sual
ly th
erea
fter
at r
egul
ar m
anag
emen
t
mee
ting
s su
ch a
s qu
arte
rly
revi
ews.
Qua
ntit
ativ
e co
mpa
riso
ns b
etw
een
TS
P p
roje
cts
and
wit
h
resp
ect t
o pr
ior
proj
ects
are
typi
cal.
S
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
83
Gen
eric
Pra
ctic
e T
SP R
efer
ence
P
roce
ss A
rea:
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
GP
2.9
. Obj
ecti
vely
eva
luat
e ad
here
nce
of
the
proc
ess
agai
nst i
ts p
roce
ss d
escr
ipti
on,
stan
dard
s, a
nd p
roce
dure
s, a
nd a
ddre
ss
nonc
ompl
ianc
e.
Oth
er:
TS
P
intr
oduc
tion
stra
tegy
All
: O
nce
a fe
w p
ilot
pro
ject
s ar
e un
derw
ay a
nd r
unni
ng r
easo
nabl
y w
ell,
the
TS
P c
oach
(es
peci
ally
an e
xter
nal c
oach
) of
ten
play
s m
ore
a qu
alit
y as
sura
nce
role
to th
e or
gani
zati
on’s
pro
cess
impr
ovem
ent e
ffor
ts.
S
GP
2.1
0. R
evie
w th
e ac
tivi
ties
, sta
tus,
and
resu
lts
of th
e pr
oces
s w
ith
high
er le
vel
man
agem
ent a
nd r
esol
ve is
sues
.
Oth
er:
TS
P
intr
oduc
tion
stra
tegy
All
: R
egul
ar e
valu
atio
ns o
f in
trod
ucti
on a
ctiv
itie
s ar
e ty
pica
lly
deli
vere
d to
spo
nsor
ing
man
agem
ent
by th
e T
SP
coa
ch, i
nclu
ding
trai
ning
sta
tus,
pil
ot s
tatu
s, a
nd b
ench
mar
k co
mpa
riso
ns.
S
GP
3.1
. Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
the
desc
ript
ion
of a
def
ined
pro
cess
.
Oth
er:
TS
P
intr
oduc
tion
stra
tegy
All
: T
he T
SP
intr
oduc
tion
str
ateg
y is
a d
efin
ed p
roce
ss f
or in
trod
ucin
g a
part
icul
ar s
et o
f di
scip
lined
deve
lopm
ent p
ract
ices
.
S
GP
3.2
. Col
lect
wor
k pr
oduc
ts, m
easu
res,
mea
sure
men
t res
ults
, and
impr
ovem
ent
info
rmat
ion
deri
ved
from
pla
nnin
g an
d
perf
orm
ing
the
proc
ess
to s
uppo
rt th
e fu
ture
use
and
impr
ovem
ent o
f th
e or
gani
zati
on’s
proc
esse
s an
d pr
oces
s as
sets
.
Oth
er:
TS
P
intr
oduc
tion
stra
tegy
All
: E
spec
iall
y in
larg
e, d
istr
ibut
ed o
rgan
izat
ions
, the
less
ons
lear
ned
from
TS
P in
trod
uctio
n at
one
geog
raph
ic s
ite
or e
ven
one
busi
ness
uni
t are
use
d to
info
rm im
plem
enta
tion
at o
ther
sit
es a
nd u
nits
.
S
GP
4.1
. Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
quan
tita
tive
obje
ctiv
es f
or th
e pr
oces
s th
at a
ddre
ss
qual
ity
and
proc
ess
perf
orm
ance
bas
ed o
n
cust
omer
nee
ds a
nd b
usin
ess
obje
ctiv
es.
Oth
er:
TS
P
intr
oduc
tion
stra
tegy
All
: Q
uant
itat
ive
expe
ctat
ions
for
the
TS
P in
trod
ucti
on e
ffor
t are
typi
call
y es
tabl
ishe
d ea
rly
in th
e
sequ
ence
and
info
rm th
e ef
fort
as
it p
roce
eds.
S
84
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
Gen
eric
Pra
ctic
e T
SP R
efer
ence
P
roce
ss A
rea:
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
GP
4.2
. Sta
bili
ze th
e pe
rfor
man
ce o
f on
e or
mor
e su
bpro
cess
es to
det
erm
ine
the
abil
ity
of th
e pr
oces
s to
ach
ieve
the
esta
blis
hed
quan
titat
ive
qual
ity
and
proc
ess-
perf
orm
ance
obj
ecti
ves.
Oth
er:
TS
P
intr
oduc
tion
stra
tegy
All
: T
he T
SP
intr
oduc
tion
str
ateg
y is
des
igne
d to
all
ow m
ost o
rgan
izat
ions
to f
ollo
w a
n ex
pect
ed
impr
ovem
ent p
ath
and
achi
eve
quan
tifi
able
gai
ns in
sch
edul
e ad
here
nce,
cos
t con
tain
men
t, an
d
deli
very
qua
lity
.
S
Scri
pts:
PM
G
P 5
.1. E
nsur
e co
ntin
uous
impr
ovem
ent o
f
the
proc
ess
in f
ulfi
llin
g th
e re
leva
nt
busi
ness
obj
ecti
ves
of th
e or
gani
zati
on.
For
ms:
PIP
All
: A
pos
tmor
tem
, usu
ally
hig
hly
mod
ifie
d fr
om th
e T
SP
scr
ipt,
is ty
pica
lly
held
as
init
ial T
SP
intr
oduc
tion
tran
sitio
ns to
wid
er u
sage
in th
e or
gani
zati
on. L
esso
ns le
arne
d ar
e ty
pica
lly
capt
ured
in
PIP
s an
d us
ed to
mod
ify
the
vari
ous
rele
vant
asp
ects
of
the
intr
oduc
tion
str
ateg
y ap
prop
riat
ely.
S
GP
5.2
. Ide
ntif
y an
d co
rrec
t the
roo
t cau
ses
of d
efec
ts a
nd o
ther
pro
blem
s in
the
proc
ess.
Oth
er:
TE
ST
D
All
: U
nexp
ecte
d pr
oble
ms
in T
SP
intr
oduc
tion
oft
en tr
igge
r a
root
-cau
se a
naly
sis
not d
issi
mil
ar to
the
one
desc
ribe
d in
the
TE
ST
D s
crip
t.
S
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
85
8 T
SP
an
d C
MM
I En
gin
eeri
ng
PA
s
8.1
Sco
pe
of
En
gin
eeri
ng
Pro
cess
Are
as
Eng
inee
ring
pro
cess
are
as c
over
the
deve
lopm
ent a
nd m
aint
enan
ce a
ctiv
itie
s th
at a
re s
hare
d ac
ross
eng
inee
ring
dis
cipl
ines
(e.
g., s
yste
ms
engi
neer
ing
and
soft
war
e en
gine
erin
g). T
he s
ix p
roce
ss a
reas
in th
e E
ngin
eeri
ng p
roce
ss a
rea
cate
gory
hav
e in
here
nt in
terr
elat
ions
hips
. The
se in
terr
elat
ions
hips
st
em f
rom
app
lyin
g a
prod
uct d
evel
opm
ent p
roce
ss, r
athe
r th
an d
isci
plin
e-sp
ecif
ic p
roce
sses
suc
h as
sof
twar
e en
gine
erin
g or
sys
tem
s en
gine
erin
g.
The
pag
e nu
mbe
rs f
or e
ach
PA a
s li
sted
bel
ow a
re f
rom
CM
MI:
Gui
deli
nes
for
Pro
cess
Im
prov
emen
t and
Pro
duct
Im
prov
emen
t [C
hris
sis
03].
The
Eng
inee
ring
pro
cess
cat
egor
y co
ntai
ns th
e fo
llow
ing
proc
ess
area
s.
Req
uire
men
ts M
anag
emen
t pa
ges
485-
496
Req
uire
men
ts D
evel
opm
ent
page
s 46
5-48
4 Te
chni
cal S
olut
ion
page
s 53
3-56
2 Pr
oduc
t Int
egra
tion
page
s 37
1-39
0 V
erif
icat
ion
page
s 57
5-59
0 V
alid
atio
n pa
ges
563-
574
86
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
8.1.
1 R
equ
irem
ents
Man
agem
ent
(RE
QM
)
The
Req
uire
men
ts M
anag
emen
t (R
EQ
M)
proc
ess
area
mai
ntai
ns th
e re
quir
emen
ts. I
t des
crib
es a
ctiv
ities
for
obt
aini
ng a
nd c
ontr
ollin
g re
quir
emen
t ch
ange
s an
d en
suri
ng th
at o
ther
rel
evan
t pla
ns a
nd d
ata
are
kept
cur
rent
. It p
rovi
des
trac
eabi
lity
of r
equi
rem
ents
fro
m c
usto
mer
, to
prod
uct,
to
prod
uct c
ompo
nent
. Req
uire
men
ts M
anag
emen
t ens
ures
that
cha
nges
to r
equi
rem
ents
are
ref
lect
ed in
pro
ject
pla
ns, a
ctiv
ities
, and
wor
k pr
oduc
ts.
Thi
s cy
cle
of c
hang
es m
ay im
pact
all
of th
e ot
her
Eng
inee
ring
pro
cess
are
as; t
hus,
Req
uire
men
ts M
anag
emen
t is
a dy
nam
ic a
nd o
ften
rec
ursi
ve
sequ
ence
of
even
ts. E
stab
lishm
ent a
nd m
aint
enan
ce o
f th
e R
equi
rem
ents
Man
agem
ent p
roce
ss a
rea
is f
unda
men
tal t
o a
cont
rolle
d an
d di
scip
line
d en
gine
erin
g de
sign
pro
cess
.
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
SG1.
Pre
para
tion
for
val
idat
ion
is
cond
ucte
d.
Scri
pts:
LA
U3,
LA
U4,
LA
U6,
RE
Q, A
NA
,
TE
ST
, TE
ST
1,
TE
ST
2, T
ES
T3
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
1.1.
Sel
ect p
rodu
cts
and
prod
uct
com
pone
nts
to b
e va
lida
ted
and
the
vali
dati
on m
etho
ds th
at w
ill b
e us
ed f
or
each
.
Rol
es: C
usto
mer
inte
rfac
e,
desi
gn, a
nd te
st
man
ager
s
Sys
tem
test
ing
is s
peci
fied
ear
ly in
the
proj
ect
(RE
Q, A
NA
) an
d re
fine
d (T
ES
T, T
ES
T3)
thro
ugho
ut th
e pr
ojec
t. E
arly
bui
ld a
nd
inte
grat
ion
test
s (T
ES
T1,
TE
ST
2) in
corp
orat
e
syst
em te
sts
as a
ppro
pria
te. T
he r
efer
ence
d ro
le
man
ager
s en
sure
that
the
appr
opri
ate
prod
ucts
,
com
pone
nts,
and
met
hods
are
sel
ecte
d an
d
avai
labl
e. S
peci
fic
task
s ap
pear
in in
divi
dual
TA
SK
pla
ns a
nd a
re lo
gged
aga
inst
in L
OG
T
and
LO
GD
.
D
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
87
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
Scri
pts:
LA
U3,
LA
U4,
LA
U6
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
1.2-
2. E
stab
lish
and
mai
ntai
n th
e
envi
ronm
ent n
eede
d to
sup
port
val
idat
ion.
Rol
es: S
uppo
rt,
cust
omer
inte
rfac
e,
desi
gn, a
nd te
st
man
ager
s
The
sup
port
man
ager
has
the
resp
onsi
bili
ty to
ensu
re th
at th
e ve
rifi
cati
on e
nvir
onm
ent i
s
adeq
uate
. LA
U3
has
a sp
ecif
ic s
tep
for
iden
tify
ing
need
ed it
ems
in a
sup
port
pla
n. T
he
othe
r re
fere
nced
rol
e m
anag
ers
com
mun
icat
e
thei
r ne
eds
and
the
enti
re te
am e
nsur
es th
at th
eir
indi
vidu
al T
AS
K p
lans
sup
port
the
vali
dati
on
effo
rt.
P
No
spec
ific
act
ivit
ies
are
call
ed f
or in
any
of
the
scri
pts
to a
ctua
lly
“est
abli
sh a
nd
mai
ntai
n,”
but i
t is
stro
ngly
impl
ied
by th
e
supp
ort m
anag
er r
ole
desc
ript
ion
and
the
LA
U3
acti
vity
.
Scri
pts:
LA
U3,
LA
U4,
LA
U6,
RE
Q, A
NA
,
TE
ST
3
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
1.3-
3. E
stab
lish
and
mai
ntai
n pr
oced
ures
and
crit
eria
for
val
idat
ion.
Rol
es: C
usto
mer
inte
rfac
e,
supp
ort,
desi
gn,
impl
emen
tati
on,
and
test
man
ager
s
A s
yste
m te
st p
lan
is d
evel
oped
dur
ing
requ
irem
ents
dev
elop
men
t (R
EQ
) or
ana
lysi
s
(AN
A),
ref
ined
, and
ext
ende
d as
nec
essa
ry f
or
syst
em te
st (
TE
ST3)
. The
ref
eren
ced
role
man
ager
s ta
ke r
espo
nsib
ilit
y as
app
ropr
iate
for
the
vari
ous
aspe
cts
of v
alid
atio
n.
D
Spe
cifi
c va
lida
tion
cri
teri
a ar
e no
t cal
led
for
in th
e sc
ript
s bu
t are
typi
call
y id
enti
fied
thro
ugho
ut th
e pr
ojec
t as
appr
opri
ate.
SG2.
The
pro
duct
or
prod
uct
com
pone
nts
are
valid
ated
to
ensu
re t
hat
they
are
sui
tabl
e fo
r us
e in
the
ir in
tend
ed
oper
atin
g en
viro
nmen
t.
88
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
Scri
pts:
RE
Q,
AN
A, T
ES
T1,
TE
ST
2, T
ES
T3
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
2.1.
Per
form
val
idat
ion
on th
e se
lect
ed
prod
ucts
and
pro
duct
com
pone
nts.
Rol
es: T
eam
mem
ber,
des
ign,
impl
emen
tati
on,
supp
ort,
and
test
man
ager
s
TE
ST
1 an
d T
ES
T2
aim
spe
cifi
call
y at
val
idat
ing
prod
uct c
ompo
nent
s, w
hile
TE
ST
3 sp
ecif
ies
veri
fyin
g pr
oper
ope
rati
ons
unde
r no
rmal
and
abno
rmal
ope
rati
ng c
ondi
tion
s, p
resu
mab
ly a
s
spec
ifie
d pr
evio
usly
in th
e cu
stom
er’s
val
idat
ed
requ
irem
ents
(R
EQ
, AN
A).
Eac
h ro
le m
anag
er
ensu
res
that
app
ropr
iate
act
ivit
ies
have
bee
n
incl
uded
in in
divi
dual
TA
SK
pla
ns.
D
Scri
pts:
TE
ST
,
TE
ST
1, T
ES
T2,
TE
ST
3, T
ES
TD
,
PM
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
,
SU
MP
, SU
MQ
2.2.
Ana
lyze
the
resu
lts
of th
e va
lida
tion
acti
viti
es a
nd id
entif
y is
sues
.
Rol
es: P
roce
ss,
qual
ity,
and
test
man
ager
s
The
ref
eren
ced
role
man
ager
s ar
e re
spon
sibl
e fo
r
spec
ific
act
ivit
ies
as in
dica
ted
in th
e sc
ript
s.
SU
MP
, SU
MQ
, and
TA
SK
sum
mar
ize
rele
vant
data
gat
here
d in
LO
GT
and
LO
GD
. All
test
defe
cts
are
attr
ibut
ed to
sou
rce
(pro
duct
or
test
)
and,
if in
the
prod
uct,
furt
her
anal
yzed
usi
ng
TE
ST
D. P
ostm
orte
ms
(PM
) lo
ok s
peci
fica
lly
at
qual
ity
and
othe
r is
sues
rel
ated
to v
alid
atio
n
effo
rts.
D
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
89
8.1.
2 R
equ
irem
ents
Dev
elo
pm
ent
(RD
)
The
Req
uire
men
ts D
evel
opm
ent (
RD
) pr
oces
s ar
ea id
entif
ies
cust
omer
nee
ds a
nd tr
ansl
ates
thes
e ne
eds
into
pro
duct
req
uire
men
ts. T
he s
et o
f pr
oduc
t req
uire
men
ts is
ana
lyze
d to
pro
duce
a h
igh-
leve
l con
cept
ual s
olut
ion.
Thi
s se
t of
requ
irem
ents
is th
en a
lloca
ted
to a
set
of
prod
uct
com
pone
nts.
Oth
er r
equi
rem
ents
that
hel
p to
def
ine
the
prod
uct a
re d
eriv
ed a
nd a
lloca
ted
to p
rodu
ct c
ompo
nent
s. T
his
set o
f pr
oduc
t and
pro
duct
-co
mpo
nent
req
uire
men
ts c
lear
ly d
escr
ibes
the
prod
uct’s
per
form
ance
, des
ign
feat
ures
, ver
ific
atio
n re
quir
emen
ts, e
tc.,
in te
rms
that
the
deve
lope
r un
ders
tand
s an
d us
es.
The
Req
uire
men
ts D
evel
opm
ent p
roce
ss a
rea
supp
lies
requ
irem
ents
to th
e Te
chni
cal S
olut
ion
proc
ess
area
, whe
re th
e re
quir
emen
ts a
re c
onve
rted
in
to th
e pr
oduc
t arc
hite
ctur
e, p
rodu
ct-c
ompo
nent
des
ign,
and
the
prod
uct c
ompo
nent
itse
lf (
e.g.
, cod
ing,
fab
rica
tion)
. Req
uire
men
ts a
re a
lso
supp
lied
to th
e Pr
oduc
t Int
egra
tion
pro
cess
are
a, w
here
pro
duct
com
pone
nts
are
asse
mbl
ed a
nd in
terf
aces
are
ver
ifie
d to
ens
ure
that
they
mee
t the
inte
rfac
e re
quir
emen
ts s
uppl
ied
by R
equi
rem
ents
Dev
elop
men
t.
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
SG1.
Sta
keho
lder
nee
ds, e
xpec
tati
ons,
cons
trai
nts,
and
inte
rfac
es a
re c
olle
cted
and
tran
slat
ed in
to c
usto
mer
requ
irem
ents
.
Scri
pts:
LA
U1,
RE
Q, A
NA
1.1-
1(-2
). I
dent
ify
and
coll
ect (
elic
it)
stak
ehol
der
need
s, e
xpec
tati
ons,
con
stra
ints
,
and
inte
rfac
es f
or a
ll p
hase
s of
the
prod
uct
life
cyc
le.
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
In L
AU
1, m
arke
ting
or
som
e ot
her
repr
esen
tati
ve
of c
usto
mer
nee
ds p
rese
nts
the
criti
cal p
rodu
ct
requ
irem
ents
. A s
enio
r m
anag
er p
rese
nts
busi
ness
nee
ds, m
anag
emen
t exp
ecta
tion
s, a
nd
D
90
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
Rol
es:
Cus
tom
er
inte
rfac
e
man
ager
, tea
m
lead
er, t
eam
mem
ber
cons
trai
nts.
Scr
ipts
RE
Q a
nd A
NA
spe
cify
requ
irem
ents
eli
cita
tion
that
may
incl
ude
prot
otyp
es a
nd m
ulti
ple
leve
ls o
f cu
stom
er
inte
ract
ion.
The
cus
tom
er in
terf
ace
man
ager
(an
d
at a
hig
her
leve
l, th
e te
am le
ader
) ar
e re
spon
sibl
e
for
ensu
ring
that
cha
ngin
g cu
stom
er n
eeds
are
addr
esse
d th
roug
hout
the
life
cycl
e.
Scri
pts:
RE
Q,
AN
A
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
1.2.
Tra
nsfo
rm s
take
hold
er n
eeds
,
expe
ctat
ions
, con
stra
ints
, and
inte
rfac
es in
to
cust
omer
req
uire
men
ts.
Rol
es: C
usto
mer
inte
rfac
e
man
ager
Scr
ipts
RE
Q a
nd A
NA
spe
cify
cre
atin
g or
upda
ting
a sy
stem
s re
quir
emen
ts s
peci
fica
tion
(SR
S).
RE
Q a
dditi
onal
ly s
peci
fies
a u
ser
man
ual
and
syst
em te
st p
lan,
and
AN
A c
alls
for
an
impa
ct a
naly
sis
wit
h re
spec
t to
an e
xist
ing
syst
em. T
he c
usto
mer
inte
rfac
e m
anag
er is
the
proj
ect t
eam
’s le
ad f
or c
usto
mer
inte
ract
ions
.
D
SG2.
Cus
tom
er r
equi
rem
ents
are
ref
ined
and
elab
orat
ed t
o de
velo
p pr
oduc
t an
d
prod
uct-
com
pone
nt r
equi
rem
ents
.
Scri
pts:
RE
Q,
HL
D
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
LO
GT
2.1.
Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
prod
uct a
nd
prod
uct-
com
pone
nt r
equi
rem
ents
, whi
ch a
re
base
d on
the
cust
omer
req
uire
men
ts.
Rol
es:
Cus
tom
er
inte
rfac
e
man
ager
Scr
ipt R
EQ
cal
ls f
or c
reat
ion
of a
n en
gine
erin
g
requ
irem
ents
spe
cifi
cati
on (
ER
S).
The
cus
tom
er
inte
rfac
e m
anag
er le
ads
the
team
in th
e
deve
lopm
ent a
nd e
volu
tion
of p
rodu
ct
requ
irem
ents
. Spe
cifi
c ta
sks
typi
call
y ap
pear
in
indi
vidu
al T
AS
K p
lans
and
LO
GT
for
ms.
D
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
91
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
Scri
pts:
HL
D
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
LO
GT
2.2.
All
ocat
e th
e re
quir
emen
ts f
or e
ach
prod
uct c
ompo
nent
.
Rol
es: D
esig
n
man
ager
Scr
ipt H
LD
ess
enti
ally
des
crib
es a
pro
cess
for
spec
ifyi
ng p
rodu
ct c
ompo
nent
s an
d al
loca
ting
high
er le
vel r
equi
rem
ents
to th
em. T
he d
esig
n
man
ager
lead
s th
ese
effo
rts
for
the
team
. Spe
cifi
c
task
s ty
pica
lly
appe
ar in
indi
vidu
al T
AS
K p
lans
and
LO
GT
for
ms.
D
Scri
pts:
RE
Q,
AN
A, H
LD
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
LO
GT
2.3.
Ide
ntif
y in
terf
ace
requ
irem
ents
.
Rol
es: C
usto
mer
inte
rfac
e an
d
desi
gn m
anag
ers
Scr
ipts
RE
Q a
nd A
NA
add
ress
use
r an
d la
rge
syst
em-l
evel
inte
rfac
es, e
spec
iall
y th
roug
h
prot
otyp
ing.
Scr
ipt H
LD
add
ress
es in
terf
ace
requ
irem
ents
def
init
ion
as p
art o
f a
norm
al
desi
gn p
roce
ss. S
peci
fic
task
s ty
pica
lly
appe
ar in
indi
vidu
al T
AS
K p
lans
and
LO
GT
for
ms.
D
SG3.
The
req
uire
men
ts a
re a
naly
zed
and
valid
ated
, and
a d
efin
itio
n of
req
uire
d
func
tion
alit
y is
dev
elop
ed.
Scri
pts:
RE
Q,
AN
A
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
3.1.
Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
oper
atio
nal
conc
epts
and
ass
ocia
ted
scen
ario
s.
Rol
es: C
usto
mer
inte
rfac
e an
d
desi
gn m
anag
ers
The
SR
S, a
s ca
lled
for
by
scri
pts
RE
Q a
nd A
NA
,
is s
peci
fied
to in
clud
e no
rmal
, abn
orm
al, a
nd
reco
very
beh
avio
r an
d pe
rfor
man
ce, a
s w
ell a
s
oper
atio
nal a
nd u
ser
inte
rfac
es. T
he c
usto
mer
inte
rfac
e an
d/or
des
ign
man
ager
typi
call
y le
ads
such
eff
orts
. Spe
cifi
c ta
sks
shou
ld a
ppea
r in
one
or m
ore
task
list
s an
d on
LO
GT
and
, in
the
case
of d
efec
ts f
ound
in a
use
cas
e sc
enar
io, o
n
LO
GD
.
P
The
re a
re n
o de
tail
s fo
r w
hat t
he S
RS
or
user
man
ual s
houl
d co
ntai
n, b
ut s
crip
t IM
P6
call
s fo
r te
stin
g al
l use
cas
e sc
enar
ios,
whi
ch im
plie
s th
at th
ey h
ave
been
cre
ated
prev
ious
ly.
92
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
Scri
pts:
RE
Q, A
NA
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
3.2.
Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
a de
fini
tion
of
requ
ired
fun
ctio
nalit
y.
Rol
es: C
usto
mer
inte
rfac
e
man
ager
The
SR
S, a
s ca
lled
for
by
scri
pts
RE
Q a
nd A
NA
,
docu
men
ts th
e re
quir
ed f
unct
iona
lity
of
the
proj
ect,
som
etim
es in
con
junc
tion
wit
h a
user
inte
rfac
e m
anua
l. T
he c
usto
mer
inte
rfac
e
man
ager
typi
call
y le
ads
such
eff
orts
wit
h su
ppor
t
from
the
team
as
nece
ssar
y.
D
Scri
pts:
RE
Q,
AN
A, I
NS
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
3.3.
Ana
lyze
req
uire
men
ts to
ens
ure
that
they
are
nec
essa
ry a
nd s
uffi
cien
t.
Rol
es: C
usto
mer
inte
rfac
e
man
ager
, tea
m
mem
ber
The
RE
Q a
nd A
NA
scr
ipts
ref
er to
use
r
invo
lvem
ent w
ith
prot
otyp
ing
and
both
for
mal
(scr
ipt I
NS)
and
info
rmal
rev
iew
s to
ens
ure
that
the
requ
irem
ents
are
cor
rect
and
com
plet
e. T
he
cust
omer
inte
rfac
e m
anag
er ty
pica
lly
lead
s su
ch
effo
rts
wit
h su
ppor
t fro
m th
e te
am a
s ne
cess
ary.
D
Scri
pts:
LA
U1,
RE
Q, A
NA
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
3.4-
3. A
naly
ze r
equi
rem
ents
to b
alan
ce
stak
ehol
der
need
s an
d co
nstr
aint
s.
Rol
es: C
usto
mer
inte
rfac
e an
d
desi
gn m
anag
er
LA
U1
pres
enta
tion
s no
te c
onst
rain
ts f
rom
bot
h
busi
ness
and
pro
duct
per
spec
tive
s. T
he R
EQ
and
AN
A s
crip
ts c
all f
or d
ocum
enti
ng a
nd v
alid
atin
g
cust
omer
nee
ds w
hile
cap
turi
ng a
nd c
heck
ing
assu
mpt
ions
abo
ut d
esig
n, p
lann
ing,
res
ourc
e,
and
size
ass
umpt
ions
. The
cus
tom
er in
terf
ace
man
ager
or
desi
gn m
anag
er ty
pica
lly
lead
s su
ch
effo
rts
wit
h su
ppor
t fro
m th
e te
am a
s ne
cess
ary.
D
In a
ddit
ion,
the
entir
e la
unch
pro
cess
hel
ps
to d
eter
min
e w
heth
er s
take
hold
er n
eeds
can
be m
et w
ithi
n ex
isti
ng c
onst
rain
ts a
nd
prov
ides
alt
erna
tive
s w
hen
they
can
not b
e
met
.
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
93
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
Scri
pts:
RE
Q,
AN
A
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
3.5(
-1)/
(-2)
. Val
idat
e re
quir
emen
ts to
ens
ure
the
resu
ltin
g pr
oduc
t wil
l per
form
(app
ropr
iate
ly in
its
inte
nded
-use
envi
ronm
ent)
/(as
inte
nded
in th
e us
er’s
envi
ronm
ent u
sing
mul
tipl
e te
chni
ques
as
appr
opri
ate)
.
Rol
es: C
usto
mer
inte
rfac
e an
d
desi
gn m
anag
ers
Scr
ipts
RE
Q a
nd A
NA
cal
l for
pro
toty
ping
and/
or s
imul
atin
g “a
ll im
port
ant s
peci
fica
tion
ques
tion
s an
d re
view
[ing
] re
sults
wit
h sy
stem
s,
mar
keti
ng, a
nd th
e cu
stom
er.”
Aga
in, t
he
cust
omer
inte
rfac
e m
anag
er le
ads
requ
irem
ents
effo
rts
for
the
team
. The
cus
tom
er in
terf
ace
man
ager
or
desi
gn m
anag
er ty
pica
lly
lead
s su
ch
effo
rts
wit
h su
ppor
t fro
m th
e te
am a
s ne
cess
ary.
D
94
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
8.1.
3 Te
chn
ical
So
luti
on
(T
S)
The
Tec
hnic
al S
olut
ion
(TS)
pro
cess
are
a de
velo
ps te
chni
cal d
ata
pack
ages
for
the
prod
uct c
ompo
nent
s th
at w
ill b
e us
ed b
y th
e Pr
oduc
t Int
egra
tion
(PI)
and
Sup
plie
r Agr
eem
ent M
anag
emen
t (SA
M)
proc
ess
area
s. T
he e
xam
inat
ion
of a
ltern
ativ
e so
lutio
ns, w
ith
the
inte
nt o
f se
lect
ing
the
optim
um
desi
gn b
ased
on
esta
blis
hed
crite
ria,
is e
xpec
ted.
The
se c
rite
ria
may
be
sign
ific
antly
dif
fere
nt a
cros
s pr
oduc
ts, d
epen
ding
on
prod
uct t
ype,
op
erat
iona
l env
iron
men
t, pe
rfor
man
ce r
equi
rem
ents
, sup
port
req
uire
men
ts, a
nd c
ost o
r de
live
ry s
ched
ules
. The
task
of
sele
ctin
g th
e fi
nal s
olut
ion
mak
es u
se o
f th
e sp
ecif
ic p
ract
ices
in th
e D
ecis
ion
Ana
lysi
s an
d R
esol
utio
n (D
AR
) pr
oces
s ar
ea.
The
Tec
hnic
al S
olut
ion
proc
ess
area
rel
ies
on th
e sp
ecif
ic p
ract
ices
in th
e V
erif
icat
ion
proc
ess
area
to p
erfo
rm d
esig
n ve
rifi
catio
n an
d pe
er r
evie
ws
duri
ng d
esig
n an
d pr
ior
to f
inal
bui
ld.
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
SG1.
Pro
duct
or
prod
uct-
com
pone
nt
solu
tion
s ar
e se
lect
ed f
rom
alt
erna
tive
solu
tion
s.
Scri
pts:
LA
U3,
HL
D
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
1.1-
1(-2
). D
evel
op (
deta
iled
) al
tern
ativ
e
solu
tions
and
sel
ecti
on c
rite
ria.
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, t
eam
mem
ber,
des
ign
man
ager
Dev
elop
ing
alte
rnat
e so
luti
ons
is o
ne a
spec
t of
high
-lev
el d
esig
n (s
crip
t HL
D).
The
team
lead
er
“cha
llen
ges
the
team
’s a
nd te
am m
embe
rs’
deci
sion
s an
d as
ks w
hat a
lter
nati
ves
they
hav
e
cons
ider
ed.”
The
des
ign
man
ager
has
the
clea
r
resp
onsi
bili
ty to
lead
the
proj
ect’
s de
sign
eff
orts
,
incl
udin
g “u
sing
ana
lyse
s, p
roto
type
s, o
r
expe
rim
ents
as
appr
opri
ate,
” w
ith
prod
uct
perf
orm
ance
and
siz
e ca
lled
out
as
expl
icit
crit
eria
.
D
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
95
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
Scri
pts:
RE
Q,
HL
D
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
1.2.
Evo
lve
the
oper
atio
nal c
once
pt,
scen
ario
s, a
nd e
nvir
onm
ents
to d
escr
ibe
the
cond
ition
s, o
pera
ting
mod
es, a
nd o
pera
ting
stat
es s
peci
fic
to e
ach
prod
uct c
ompo
nent
.
Rol
es: C
usto
mer
inte
rfac
e an
d
desi
gn m
anag
ers
RE
Q im
plie
s th
e de
velo
pmen
t of
oper
atio
nal
scen
ario
s w
hen
elic
itin
g re
quir
emen
ts a
nd
docu
men
ts th
em in
a u
ser
man
ual.
HL
D c
alls
for
cycl
ical
dev
elop
men
t and
to “
reas
sess
the
desi
gn,
and
recy
cle
as n
eede
d.”
The
cus
tom
er in
terf
ace
man
ager
(R
EQ
) an
d de
sign
man
ager
(H
LD
) ar
e
resp
onsi
ble
to le
ad th
eir
resp
ecti
ve a
ctiv
itie
s.
Spec
ific
task
s re
flec
ting
thes
e ac
tivi
ties
app
ear
in
indi
vidu
al T
AS
K p
lans
and
LO
GT
for
ms,
and
“def
icie
ncie
s” (
defe
cts)
that
mig
ht d
rive
des
ign
evol
utio
n ar
e lo
gged
in in
divi
dual
LO
GD
for
ms.
D
At t
he in
divi
dual
leve
l, P
SP p
rovi
des
an
Ope
rati
onal
Sce
nari
o te
mpl
ate.
Scri
pts:
HL
D
1.3.
Sel
ect t
he p
rodu
ct-c
ompo
nent
sol
utio
ns
that
bes
t sat
isfy
the
crit
eria
est
abli
shed
. R
oles
: Des
ign
and
impl
emen
tati
on
man
ager
s
HL
D c
alls
for
cyc
lica
l des
ign,
mul
tipl
e le
vels
of
revi
ew, a
nd r
ewor
k of
the
desi
gn a
s ne
cess
ary.
Bot
h th
e de
sign
and
impl
emen
tati
on m
anag
ers
have
dut
ies
to e
nsur
e co
mpl
ianc
e w
ith
perf
orm
ance
and
siz
e cr
iter
ia.
P
Thi
s is
like
ly a
join
t res
pons
ibil
ity b
etw
een
the
team
lead
er, d
esig
n m
anag
er, a
nd
impl
emen
tati
on m
anag
er. I
t is
not c
lear
in
the
scri
pts
whe
n th
is s
elec
ting
a s
olut
ion
mig
ht h
appe
n.
SG2.
Pro
duct
or
prod
uct-
com
pone
nt
desi
gns
are
deve
lope
d.
Scri
pts:
LA
U3,
LA
U4,
LA
U6,
HL
D, I
MP
2.1.
Dev
elop
a d
esig
n fo
r th
e pr
oduc
t or
prod
uct c
ompo
nent
.
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
The
des
ign
man
ager
lead
s th
e de
velo
pmen
t eff
ort
to d
efin
e ar
chit
ectu
re d
own
to th
e co
mpo
nent
leve
l. Sc
ript
HL
D s
peci
fica
lly
call
s fo
r re
view
ing
requ
irem
ents
and
des
ign
issu
es to
pro
duce
cla
ss
defi
niti
ons,
rel
atio
nshi
ps, a
nd tr
ansi
tion
D
At t
he in
divi
dual
leve
l, th
e P
SP d
esig
n
tem
plat
es p
rovi
de a
com
plet
e de
sign
desc
ript
ion
for
a sm
all s
tand
-alo
ne p
rogr
am.
96
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
Rol
es: T
eam
mem
ber,
des
ign
and
impl
emen
tati
on
man
ager
s
diag
ram
s. S
crip
t IM
P c
alls
for
pro
duci
ng th
e
deta
iled
des
igns
at a
com
pone
nt le
vel.
Eac
h te
am
mem
ber
is r
espo
nsib
le (
as a
ssig
ned
in L
AU
6) f
or
com
plet
ing
com
pone
nt d
esig
ns, w
ith
the
impl
emen
tati
on m
anag
er r
espo
nsib
le f
or d
rivi
ng
the
over
all e
ffor
t.
Scri
pts:
HL
D,
IMP
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
2.2-
3. E
stab
lish
and
mai
ntai
n a
tech
nica
l
data
pac
kage
.
Rol
es: D
esig
n
and
impl
emen
tati
on
man
ager
s
The
des
ign
man
ager
and
impl
emen
tati
on
man
ager
lead
the
deve
lopm
ent e
ffor
ts h
ere,
incl
udin
g es
tabl
ishi
ng te
am s
tand
ards
for
prod
ucin
g an
d do
cum
enti
ng th
e de
sign
. Scr
ipts
call
out
spe
cifi
c ar
tifa
cts.
For
exa
mpl
e, s
crip
t
HL
D s
peci
fies
“st
ruct
ural
des
ign;
dev
elop
men
t
and
test
str
ateg
ies;
inte
rfac
e, d
ata,
and
com
pone
nt s
peci
fica
tion
s” a
nd s
crip
t IM
P c
alls
for
“any
fix
pre
requ
isit
es a
nd c
oreq
uisi
tes”
as
docu
men
ted
in th
e sy
stem
s de
sign
spe
cifi
cati
on
(SD
S)
or s
peci
fied
in th
e de
tail
ed d
esig
n an
d un
it
test
pla
n.
D
The
rel
evan
t par
ts o
f th
e S
DS
, alo
ng w
ith
each
com
pone
nt’s
det
aile
d de
sign
, cod
e,
and
unit
test
pla
n, s
eem
to f
ulfi
ll th
e
desc
ript
ion
of a
tech
nica
l dat
a pa
ckag
e.
Scri
pts:
RE
Q,
HL
D
2.3-
1. E
stab
lish
and
mai
ntai
n th
e so
lutio
n
for
prod
uct-
com
pone
nt in
terf
aces
.
F
orm
s: T
AS
K,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
2.3-
3. D
esig
n co
mpr
ehen
sive
pro
duct
-
com
pone
nt in
terf
aces
in te
rms
of
esta
blis
hed
and
mai
ntai
ned
crit
eria
.
Rol
es: D
esig
n
man
ager
(se
e
note
s)
RE
Q d
escr
ibes
an
ER
S th
at d
ocum
ents
sys
tem
inte
rfac
es (
both
har
dwar
e an
d so
ftw
are)
. HL
D
call
s ou
t the
SD
S, w
hich
doc
umen
ts in
terf
ace
spec
ific
atio
ns. T
he d
esig
n m
anag
er le
ads
all s
uch
acti
viti
es.
D-1
P-3
The
re a
re n
o ex
plic
it r
efer
ence
s ba
ck to
the
crit
eria
, but
the
desi
gn m
anag
er w
ould
like
ly ta
ke th
e le
ad.
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
97
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
Scri
pts:
HL
D
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
2.4.
Eva
luat
e w
heth
er th
e pr
oduc
t
com
pone
nts
shou
ld b
e de
velo
ped,
purc
hase
d, o
r re
used
bas
ed o
n es
tabl
ishe
d
crit
eria
. R
oles
: Des
ign
and
supp
ort
man
ager
s
The
sup
port
man
ager
is th
e pr
ojec
t tea
m’s
reu
se
advo
cate
. In
scri
pt H
LD
, the
dev
elop
men
t
stra
tegy
spe
cifi
call
y co
nsid
ers
reus
e.
P
The
des
ign
man
ager
res
pons
ibil
itie
s ar
e
cons
iste
nt w
ith
lead
ing
mak
e-bu
y-re
use
eval
uati
ons.
The
team
lead
er s
houl
d
spec
ific
ally
cha
llen
ge m
ake-
buy-
reus
e
deci
sion
s. N
o sp
ecif
ic g
uida
nce
on
purc
hasi
ng a
s a
desi
gn o
ptio
n is
pro
vide
d.
SG3.
Pro
duct
com
pone
nts,
and
asso
ciat
ed s
uppo
rt d
ocum
enta
tion
, are
impl
emen
ted
from
the
ir d
esig
ns.
Scri
pts:
IM
P
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
3.1.
Im
plem
ent t
he d
esig
n of
the
prod
uct
com
pone
nts.
Rol
es: T
eam
mem
ber,
impl
emen
tati
on
man
ager
The
impl
emen
tati
on m
anag
er is
res
pons
ible
for
lead
ing
the
team
’s im
plem
enta
tion
act
ivit
ies.
Scr
ipt I
MP
spe
cifi
es a
pro
cess
sim
ilar
to P
SP2.
1
for
impl
emen
ting
a g
iven
mod
ule.
Ind
ivid
ual
mod
ules
are
impl
emen
ted
by te
am m
embe
rs, a
s
assi
gned
.
D
At t
he in
divi
dual
leve
l, “o
ut-o
f-th
e-bo
x”
PSP
pra
ctic
es in
clud
e de
tail
ed d
esig
n,
codi
ng, c
ompi
ling
, and
test
of
stan
d-al
one
prog
ram
s.
Scri
pts:
RE
Q
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
3.2.
Dev
elop
and
mai
ntai
n th
e en
d-us
e
docu
men
tati
on.
Rol
es: C
usto
mer
inte
rfac
e
man
ager
Scr
ipt R
EQ
cal
ls f
or d
evel
opin
g a
deta
iled
use
r
man
ual o
utli
ne a
nd in
itial
dra
ft. T
he c
usto
mer
inte
rfac
e m
anag
er is
res
pons
ible
for
est
abli
shin
g
cust
omer
trai
ning
and
doc
umen
tati
on p
lans
.
D
98
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
8.1.
4 P
rod
uct
Inte
gra
tio
n (
PI)
The
Pro
duct
Int
egra
tion
(PI)
pro
cess
are
a de
scri
bes
gene
rati
ng th
e be
st p
ossi
ble
inte
grat
ion
sequ
ence
, man
agin
g pr
oduc
t com
pone
nt in
terf
aces
, in
tegr
atin
g pr
oduc
t com
pone
nts,
and
del
iver
ing
the
prod
uct t
o th
e cu
stom
er.
Prod
uct I
nteg
ratio
n us
es s
peci
fic
prac
tices
of
both
Ver
ific
atio
n an
d V
alid
atio
n in
impl
emen
ting
the
prod
uct i
nteg
ratio
n pr
oces
s. V
erif
icat
ion
chec
ks
that
the
inte
rfac
es s
atis
fy th
e in
terf
ace
requ
irem
ents
, an
esse
ntia
l eve
nt in
the
inte
grat
ion
proc
ess.
Dur
ing
prod
uct i
nteg
rati
on in
the
oper
atio
nal
envi
ronm
ent,
the
spec
ific
pra
ctic
es o
f th
e V
alid
atio
n pr
oces
s ar
ea a
re u
sed.
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
SG1.
Pre
para
tion
for
pro
duct
inte
grat
ion
is c
ondu
cted
.
Scri
pts:
HL
D,
LA
U3
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
LO
GT
1.1.
Det
erm
ine
the
prod
uct-
com
pone
nt
inte
grat
ion
sequ
ence
.
Rol
es: D
esig
n
man
ager
Scr
ipt H
LD
cal
ls f
or d
efin
ing
a co
mpo
nent
inte
grat
ion
sequ
ence
and
a te
st s
eque
nce.
In
LA
U3,
the
deve
lopm
ent s
trat
egy
is o
ften
infl
uenc
ed b
y po
tent
ial i
nteg
rati
on s
eque
nce
optio
ns. T
he d
esig
n m
anag
er le
ads
HL
D a
nd
rela
ted
LA
U3
acti
viti
es. S
peci
fic
acti
viti
es
appe
ar in
indi
vidu
al T
AS
K p
lans
and
are
logg
ed
in in
divi
dual
LO
GT
for
ms.
D
Scri
pts:
LA
U3,
LA
U4,
LA
U6
1.2-
2. E
stab
lish
and
mai
ntai
n th
e
envi
ronm
ent n
eede
d to
sup
port
the
inte
grat
ion
of th
e pr
oduc
t com
pone
nts.
F
orm
s: T
AS
K,
LO
GT
The
sup
port
man
ager
is g
ener
ally
res
pons
ible
for
ensu
ring
the
avai
labi
lity
of
a su
itab
le
deve
lopm
ent a
nd te
st e
nvir
onm
ent.
The
test
man
ager
wou
ld h
elp
to d
efin
e w
hat t
hat
P
Whi
le it
is c
lear
that
the
supp
ort m
anag
er is
resp
onsi
ble,
ther
e is
litt
le g
uida
nce
in th
e
scri
pts
for
actu
ally
est
abli
shin
g an
d
mai
ntai
ning
the
inte
grat
ion
envi
ronm
ent.
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
99
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
Rol
es: T
est a
nd
supp
ort
man
ager
s
envi
ronm
ent i
s be
ginn
ing
in L
AU
3, a
nd c
arry
ing
thro
ugh
LA
U4
and
LA
U6
wit
h sp
ecif
ic ta
skin
g,
capt
ured
in in
divi
dual
TA
SK
pla
ns a
nd lo
gged
in
LO
GT
, to
crea
te a
nd m
aint
ain
the
test
envi
ronm
ent.
Scri
pts:
HL
D,
TE
ST
, TE
ST
2
1.3-
3. E
stab
lish
and
mai
ntai
n pr
oced
ures
and
crit
eria
for
inte
grat
ion
of th
e pr
oduc
t
com
pone
nts.
R
oles
: Des
ign
and
test
man
ager
s, te
am
mem
ber
HL
D, T
ES
T, a
nd T
ES
T2
each
add
ress
spe
cifi
c
aspe
cts
of d
evel
opin
g an
d us
ing
the
proc
edur
es
and
crit
eria
for
inte
grat
ing
com
pone
nts
into
the
fina
l pro
duct
. The
des
ign
and
test
man
ager
s ar
e
gene
rall
y re
spon
sibl
e fo
r th
ese
acti
viti
es. T
he
impl
emen
ting
dev
elop
er e
nsur
es th
at th
e
com
pone
nts
are
of h
igh
qual
ity
and
ther
efor
e
read
y fo
r in
tegr
atio
n.
D
SG2.
The
pro
duct
-com
pone
nt in
terf
aces
,
both
inte
rnal
and
ext
erna
l, ar
e
com
pati
ble.
Scri
pts:
HL
D,
INS
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
2.1.
Rev
iew
inte
rfac
e de
scri
ptio
ns f
or
cove
rage
and
com
plet
enes
s.
Rol
es: D
esig
n
and
test
man
ager
s, te
am
mem
ber
HL
D c
alls
for
a d
esig
n w
alkt
hrou
gh a
nd d
esig
n
insp
ecti
on (
scri
pt I
NS
) of
the
high
-lev
el d
esig
n,
incl
udin
g th
e S
DS
, tha
t inc
lude
s in
terf
ace
spec
ific
atio
ns a
nd in
tegr
atio
n te
st s
eque
nces
.
Spe
cifi
c re
view
act
ivit
ies
appe
ar o
n T
AS
K p
lans
and
LO
GT
for
ms,
and
def
ects
are
logg
ed in
the
prod
ucin
g te
am m
embe
r’s
LO
GD
.
D
100
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
Scri
pts:
LA
U3,
deve
lopm
ent
scri
pts
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
2.2.
Man
age
inte
rnal
and
ext
erna
l int
erfa
ce
defi
niti
ons,
des
igns
, and
cha
nges
for
prod
ucts
and
pro
duct
com
pone
nts.
Rol
es: S
uppo
rt
and
desi
gn
man
ager
s
The
des
ign
man
ager
is r
espo
nsib
le f
or m
anag
ing
desi
gn c
hang
es, p
rovi
ding
tim
ely
rele
vant
info
rmat
ion
to th
e ch
ange
con
trol
boa
rd (
CC
B),
and
lead
ing
the
proj
ect t
eam
in e
stim
atin
g an
d
docu
men
ting
the
effe
ct o
f de
sign
cha
nges
.
Bas
elin
e up
date
s, in
clud
ing
the
SDS
, are
cal
led
for
freq
uent
ly in
the
deve
lopm
ent s
crip
ts.
D
The
CC
B, f
orm
ed d
urin
g L
AU
3 an
d ch
aire
d
by th
e su
ppor
t man
ager
, sho
uld
prob
ably
revi
ew a
nd a
ppro
ve (
or r
ejec
t) a
ll p
ropo
sed
chan
ges
or b
asel
ine
upda
tes,
but
this
is n
ot
expl
icit
any
whe
re in
the
scri
pts.
SG3.
Ver
ifie
d pr
oduc
t co
mpo
nent
s ar
e
asse
mbl
ed a
nd t
he in
tegr
ated
, ver
ifie
d,
and
valid
ated
pro
duct
is d
eliv
ered
.
Scri
pts:
HL
D,
IMP
, IM
P6,
TE
ST
, TE
ST
1,
TE
ST
2
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
3.1.
Con
firm
, pri
or to
ass
embl
y, th
at e
ach
prod
uct c
ompo
nent
has
bee
n pr
oper
ly
iden
tifi
ed, f
unct
ions
acc
ordi
ng to
its
desc
ript
ion,
and
that
the
prod
uct-
com
pone
nt
inte
rfac
es c
ompl
y w
ith
the
inte
rfac
e
desc
ript
ions
.
Rol
es: D
esig
n,
impl
emen
tati
on,
test
, and
qua
lity
man
ager
s
The
ref
eren
ced
scri
pts
call
for
mul
tipl
e le
vels
and
type
s of
rev
iew
and
uni
t tes
ting
to e
nsur
e
that
a q
uali
ty p
rodu
ct th
at m
eets
its
desi
gn
spec
ific
atio
ns is
del
iver
ed to
inte
grat
ion
acti
viti
es. P
rodu
ct c
ompo
nent
inte
rfac
es a
re
call
ed o
ut s
peci
fica
lly
for
revi
ew. T
ES
T2
call
s
for
inte
grat
ing
only
hig
h-qu
alit
y co
mpo
nent
s.
The
ref
eren
ced
role
man
ager
s ar
e re
spon
sibl
e fo
r
lead
ing
the
scri
pted
act
ivit
ies,
as
appr
opri
ate.
D
The
pra
ctic
e li
sts
poss
ible
cri
teri
a fo
r
insp
ecti
ons
(scr
ipt I
NS
).
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
10
1
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
Scri
pts:
TE
ST
2,
HL
D
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
3.2.
Ass
embl
e pr
oduc
t com
pone
nts
acco
rdin
g to
the
prod
uct i
nteg
rati
on
sequ
ence
and
ava
ilab
le p
roce
dure
s.
Rol
es: D
esig
n,
impl
emen
tati
on,
supp
ort,
and
test
man
ager
s
TE
ST
2 sp
ecif
ies
deve
lopm
ent a
nd e
xecu
tion
of
a
deta
iled
inte
grat
ion
test
pla
n. T
hese
act
ivit
ies
are
the
resp
onsi
bilit
y of
the
test
man
ager
. Hig
her
leve
l dec
isio
ns a
re m
ade
earl
ier
duri
ng H
LD
, and
are
usua
lly
a de
sign
man
ager
res
pons
ibil
ity.
D
Scri
pts:
TE
ST
2
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
3.3.
Eva
luat
e as
sem
bled
pro
duct
com
pone
nts
for
inte
rfac
e co
mpa
tibili
ty.
Rol
es: D
esig
n,
impl
emen
tati
on,
and
test
man
ager
s
In T
ES
T2,
inte
grat
ion
test
pla
ns a
re r
evie
wed
to
ensu
re th
at in
terf
aces
are
test
ed u
nder
nor
mal
and
abno
rmal
con
ditio
ns, t
hose
pla
ns a
re th
en
exec
uted
, and
the
resu
ltan
t dat
a ar
e ca
ptur
ed a
nd
anal
yzed
. The
test
man
ager
is g
ener
ally
resp
onsi
ble
for
lead
ing
all s
uch
acti
viti
es.
D
Scri
pts:
TE
ST
,
TE
ST
1, T
ES
T2,
TE
ST
3
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
3.4.
Pac
kage
the
asse
mbl
ed p
rodu
ct o
r
prod
uct c
ompo
nent
and
del
iver
it to
the
appr
opri
ate
cust
omer
.
Rol
es: S
uppo
rt
and
test
man
ager
s
The
TE
ST
1, T
ES
T2,
and
TE
ST
3 (T
ES
Tx)
scri
pts
call
for
ens
urin
g th
at th
e as
sem
bled
prod
ucts
are
rel
ease
d in
to th
e co
nfig
urat
ion
man
agem
ent s
yste
m. S
crip
t TE
ST
seq
uenc
es th
e
TE
ST
x ac
tivi
ties
and
cal
ls f
or r
elea
sing
the
built
prod
uct t
o th
e ne
xt p
arty
in li
ne, w
heth
er in
tern
al
or c
usto
mer
.
D
102
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
8.1.
5 V
erif
icat
ion
(V
ER
)
The
Ver
ific
atio
n (V
ER
) pr
oces
s ar
ea e
nsur
es th
at s
elec
ted
wor
k pr
oduc
ts m
eet t
he s
peci
fied
req
uire
men
ts. T
he V
erif
icat
ion
proc
ess
area
sel
ects
wor
k pr
oduc
ts a
nd v
erif
icat
ion
met
hods
that
will
be
used
to v
erif
y w
ork
prod
ucts
aga
inst
spe
cifi
ed r
equi
rem
ents
. Ver
ific
atio
n is
gen
eral
ly a
n in
crem
enta
l pr
oces
s, s
tart
ing
wit
h pr
oduc
t-co
mpo
nent
s ve
rifi
catio
n an
d us
ually
con
clud
ing
with
ver
ific
atio
n of
ful
ly a
ssem
bled
pro
duct
s.
Ver
ific
atio
n al
so a
ddre
sses
pee
r re
view
s. P
eer
revi
ews
are
a pr
oven
met
hod
for
rem
ovin
g de
fect
s ea
rly
and
prov
ide
valu
able
insi
ght i
nto
the
wor
k pr
oduc
ts a
nd p
rodu
ct c
ompo
nent
s be
ing
deve
lope
d an
d m
aint
aine
d.
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
SG1.
Pre
para
tion
for
ver
ific
atio
n is
cond
ucte
d.
Scri
pts:
LA
U3,
LA
U4,
LA
U5,
LA
U6,
RE
Q,
AN
A, H
LD
,
IMP
, IN
S
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
1.1.
Sel
ect t
he w
ork
prod
ucts
to b
e ve
rifi
ed
and
the
veri
fica
tion
met
hods
that
wil
l be
used
for
eac
h.
Rol
es: T
eam
mem
ber,
qua
lity
man
ager
Spe
cifi
c ac
tivi
ties
in L
AU
3, L
AU
4, L
AU
5, a
nd
LA
U6
iden
tify
whi
ch p
rodu
cts
wil
l be
insp
ecte
d
or o
ther
wis
e re
view
ed, h
ow m
uch
tim
e w
ill b
e
allo
cate
d, n
umer
ic ta
rget
s fo
r yi
elds
, and
who
wil
l per
form
the
veri
fica
tion
act
ivit
ies.
Spe
cifi
c
prod
ucts
are
cal
led
out i
n th
e de
velo
pmen
t
scri
pts
RE
Q, A
NA
, HL
D, a
nd I
MP
. IN
S is
the
scri
pt f
or in
spec
tions
.
D
PSP
trai
ning
cov
ers
seve
ral s
peci
fic
desi
gn
veri
fica
tion
tech
niqu
es th
at a
re u
sefu
l for
deta
iled
des
ign
insp
ecti
ons.
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
10
3
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
Scri
pts:
LA
U3,
LA
U4,
LA
U6
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
1.2-
2. E
stab
lish
and
mai
ntai
n th
e
envi
ronm
ent n
eede
d to
sup
port
ver
ific
atio
n.
Rol
es: D
esig
n,
impl
emen
tati
on,
supp
ort,
and
test
man
ager
s
The
sup
port
man
ager
has
the
resp
onsi
bili
ty to
ensu
re th
at th
e ve
rifi
cati
on e
nvir
onm
ent i
s
adeq
uate
. LA
U3
has
a sp
ecif
ic s
tep
for
iden
tify
ing
need
ed it
ems
in a
sup
port
pla
n.
P
No
spec
ific
act
ivit
ies
are
spec
ifie
d in
any
of
the
scri
pts
to a
ctua
lly
“est
abli
sh a
nd
mai
ntai
n,”
but i
t is
stro
ngly
impl
ied
by th
e
supp
ort m
anag
er r
ole
desc
ript
ion
and
the
LA
U3
acti
vity
.
Scri
pts:
LA
U3,
LA
U4,
LA
U6,
IMP
6, T
ES
T,
TE
ST
1, T
ES
T2
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
1.3-
3. E
stab
lish
and
mai
ntai
n ve
rifi
cati
on
proc
edur
es a
nd c
rite
ria
for
the
sele
cted
wor
k pr
oduc
ts.
Rol
es: P
roce
ss
and
test
man
ager
s, te
am
mem
ber
The
test
man
ager
is r
espo
nsib
le f
or d
evel
opin
g,
acqu
irin
g, o
r m
aint
aini
ng s
tand
ards
and
proc
edur
es f
or th
e te
st a
ctiv
itie
s in
the
refe
renc
ed
scri
pts.
Ind
ivid
ual e
ngin
eers
are
task
ed to
deve
lop
and
exec
ute
veri
fica
tion
test
s, w
ith
spec
ific
em
phas
is o
n us
er s
cena
rios
, as
wel
l as
logi
c, in
terf
ace,
err
or, v
aria
ble,
dev
ice,
and
oth
er
test
s, a
s ap
prop
riat
e.
D
SG2.
Pee
r re
view
s ar
e pe
rfor
med
on
sele
cted
wor
k pr
oduc
ts.
Scri
pts:
RE
Q,
AN
A, H
LD
,
IMP
, IN
S
2.1.
Pre
pare
for
pee
r re
view
s of
sel
ecte
d
wor
k pr
oduc
ts.
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
Scr
ipts
RE
Q, A
NA
, HL
D, a
nd I
MP
cal
l for
team
insp
ecti
ons
of r
equi
rem
ents
, use
r do
cum
enta
tion
,
high
-lev
el a
nd d
etai
led
desi
gns,
cod
e, a
nd
inte
grat
ion
and
test
pla
ns; a
ll of
thes
e ar
e
plan
ned
for
duri
ng la
unch
es, a
s ap
prop
riat
e. T
he
D
104
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
Rol
es: Q
uali
ty
man
ager
, tea
m
mem
ber
qual
ity
man
ager
has
spe
cifi
c re
spon
sibi
lity
in
scri
pt I
NS
to e
nsur
e th
at a
qua
lifi
ed m
oder
ator
is
avai
labl
e fo
r th
e in
spec
tion
. In
scri
pt I
NS
, the
mod
erat
or is
res
pons
ible
for
ens
urin
g th
at th
e
wor
k pr
oduc
t is
read
y fo
r in
spec
tion.
Scri
pts:
RE
Q,
AN
A, H
LD
,
IMP
, IN
S
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
2.2.
Con
duct
pee
r re
view
s on
sel
ecte
d w
ork
prod
ucts
and
iden
tify
issu
es r
esul
ting
fro
m
the
peer
rev
iew
.
Rol
es: Q
uali
ty
man
ager
, tea
m
mem
ber
Scr
ipts
RE
Q, A
NA
, HL
D, a
nd I
MP
cal
l for
team
insp
ecti
ons
of a
ll le
vels
of
requ
irem
ents
and
spec
ific
atio
ns, u
ser
docu
men
tati
on, h
igh-
leve
l
and
deta
iled
des
igns
, cod
e, a
nd in
tegr
atio
n an
d
test
pla
ns a
t spe
cifi
c po
ints
in th
e de
velo
pmen
t
proc
ess.
Ins
pect
ions
are
con
duct
ed a
ccor
ding
to
scri
pt I
NS.
D
Scri
pts:
IN
S,
PM
For
ms:
IN
S,
TA
SK
, LO
GT
,
LO
GD
2.3-
2. A
naly
ze d
ata
abou
t pre
para
tion
,
cond
uct,
and
resu
lts
of th
e pe
er r
evie
ws.
Rol
es: Q
uali
ty
man
ager
Scr
ipt I
NS
spe
cifi
es c
olle
ctio
n an
d li
mit
ed
anal
ysis
of
data
on
foun
d de
fect
s to
est
imat
e th
e
num
ber
of d
efec
ts li
kely
rem
aini
ng in
the
prod
uct,
as w
ell a
s re
cord
ing
tim
e sp
ent
prep
arin
g fo
r an
d pe
rfor
min
g th
e in
spec
tion
(al
l
reco
rded
on
form
IN
S a
s w
ell a
s in
divi
dual
TA
SK
, LO
GT
and
LO
GD
for
ms)
. Pha
se a
nd
proj
ect p
ostm
orte
ms
(scr
ipt P
M)
typi
call
y
com
pare
insp
ecti
on a
nd te
st p
hase
dat
a to
dete
rmin
e th
e ef
fect
iven
ess
of th
e in
spec
tion
proc
ess.
D
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
10
5
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
SG3.
Sel
ecte
d w
ork
prod
ucts
are
ver
ifie
d
agai
nst
thei
r sp
ecif
ied
requ
irem
ents
.
Scri
pts:
IM
P6,
TE
ST
, TE
ST
1,
TE
ST
2, T
ES
T3
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
3.1.
Per
form
ver
ific
atio
n on
the
sele
cted
wor
k pr
oduc
ts.
Rol
es: Q
uali
ty
man
ager
, tea
m
mem
ber
Fro
m u
nit t
est (
IMP
6) th
roug
h th
e va
riou
s
inte
grat
ion
and
syst
em te
sts
(TE
ST
, TE
ST
x),
veri
fica
tion
test
ing
is a
pro
min
ent a
ctiv
ity.
D
Scri
pts:
TE
ST
,
TE
ST
D, P
M
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
3.2-
2. A
naly
ze th
e re
sult
s of
all
ver
ific
atio
n
acti
viti
es a
nd id
entif
y co
rrec
tive
act
ion.
Rol
es: Q
uali
ty,
proc
ess,
and
supp
ort
man
ager
s, te
am
mem
ber
TE
ST
cal
ls f
or r
evie
w o
f ev
ery
inte
grat
ion
and
test
def
ect u
sing
TE
ST
D. T
he p
ostm
orte
m (
PM
)
anal
yzes
all
ver
ific
atio
n da
ta f
or o
ppor
tuni
ties
to
impr
ove
the
proc
ess
and
futu
re r
esul
ts.
Indi
vidu
al ta
sks
are
capt
ured
on
TA
SK
, and
tim
e
and
defe
cts
are
logg
ed a
s ap
prop
riat
e in
LO
GT
and
LO
GD
.
D
106
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
8.1.
6 V
alid
atio
n (
VA
L)
The
Val
idat
ion
(VA
L)
proc
ess
area
incr
emen
tall
y va
lida
tes
prod
ucts
aga
inst
the
cust
omer
nee
ds. V
alid
atio
n m
ay b
e pe
rfor
med
in th
e op
erat
iona
l en
viro
nmen
t or
a si
mul
ated
ope
ratio
nal e
nvir
onm
ent.
Coo
rdin
atio
n w
ith
the
cust
omer
on
the
valid
atio
n re
quir
emen
ts is
one
of
the
esse
ntia
l ele
men
ts
of th
is p
roce
ss a
rea.
The
sco
pe o
f th
e V
alid
atio
n pr
oces
s ar
ea in
clud
es v
alid
atio
n of
pro
duct
s, p
rodu
ct c
ompo
nent
s, s
elec
ted
inte
rmed
iate
wor
k pr
oces
ses,
and
pro
duct
s.
The
pro
duct
s, p
rodu
ct c
ompo
nent
s, s
elec
ted
inte
rmed
iate
wor
k pr
oduc
t, or
pro
cess
may
req
uire
rev
erif
icat
ion
and
reva
lida
tion.
Iss
ues
disc
over
ed
duri
ng v
alid
atio
n ar
e us
ually
res
olve
d in
the
Req
uire
men
ts D
evel
opm
ent o
r Tec
hnic
al S
olut
ion
proc
ess
area
s.
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
SG1.
Pre
para
tion
for
val
idat
ion
is
cond
ucte
d.
Scri
pts:
LA
U3,
LA
U4,
LA
U6,
RE
Q, A
NA
,
TE
ST
, TE
ST
1,
TE
ST
2, T
ES
T3
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
1.1.
Sel
ect p
rodu
cts
and
prod
uct
com
pone
nts
to b
e va
lida
ted
and
the
vali
dati
on m
etho
ds th
at w
ill b
e us
ed f
or
each
.
Rol
es: C
usto
mer
inte
rfac
e,
desi
gn, a
nd te
st
man
ager
s
Sys
tem
test
ing
is s
peci
fied
ear
ly in
the
proj
ect
(RE
Q, A
NA
) an
d re
fine
d (T
ES
T, T
ES
T3)
thro
ugho
ut th
e pr
ojec
t. E
arly
bui
ld a
nd
inte
grat
ion
test
s (T
ES
T1,
TE
ST
2) in
corp
orat
e
syst
em te
sts
as a
ppro
pria
te. T
he r
efer
ence
d ro
le
man
ager
s en
sure
that
the
appr
opri
ate
prod
ucts
,
com
pone
nts,
and
met
hods
are
sel
ecte
d an
d
avai
labl
e. S
peci
fic
task
s ap
pear
in in
divi
dual
TA
SK
pla
ns a
nd a
re lo
gged
aga
inst
in L
OG
T
and
LO
GD
.
D
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
10
7
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
Scri
pts:
LA
U3,
LA
U4,
LA
U6
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
1.2-
2. E
stab
lish
and
mai
ntai
n th
e
envi
ronm
ent n
eede
d to
sup
port
val
idat
ion.
Rol
es: S
uppo
rt,
cust
omer
inte
rfac
e,
desi
gn, a
nd te
st
man
ager
s
The
sup
port
man
ager
has
the
resp
onsi
bili
ty to
ensu
re th
at th
e ve
rifi
cati
on e
nvir
onm
ent i
s
adeq
uate
. LA
U3
has
a sp
ecif
ic s
tep
for
iden
tify
ing
need
ed it
ems
in a
sup
port
pla
n. T
he
othe
r re
fere
nced
rol
e m
anag
ers
com
mun
icat
e
thei
r ne
eds
and
the
enti
re te
am e
nsur
es th
at th
eir
indi
vidu
al T
AS
K p
lans
sup
port
the
vali
dati
on
effo
rt.
P
No
spec
ific
act
ivit
ies
are
call
ed f
or in
any
of
the
scri
pts
to a
ctua
lly
“est
abli
sh a
nd
mai
ntai
n,”
but i
t is
stro
ngly
impl
ied
by th
e
supp
ort m
anag
er r
ole
desc
ript
ion
and
the
LA
U3
acti
vity
.
Scri
pts:
LA
U3,
LA
U4,
LA
U6,
RE
Q, A
NA
,
TE
ST
3
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
1.3-
3. E
stab
lish
and
mai
ntai
n pr
oced
ures
and
crit
eria
for
val
idat
ion.
Rol
es: C
usto
mer
inte
rfac
e,
supp
ort,
desi
gn,
impl
emen
tati
on,
and
test
man
ager
s
A s
yste
m te
st p
lan
is d
evel
oped
dur
ing
requ
irem
ents
dev
elop
men
t (R
EQ
) or
ana
lysi
s
(AN
A),
ref
ined
, and
ext
ende
d as
nec
essa
ry f
or
syst
em te
st (
TE
ST3)
. The
ref
eren
ced
role
man
ager
s ta
ke r
espo
nsib
ilit
y as
app
ropr
iate
for
the
vari
ous
aspe
cts
of v
alid
atio
n.
D
Spe
cifi
c va
lida
tion
cri
teri
a ar
e no
t cal
led
for
in th
e sc
ript
s bu
t are
typi
call
y id
enti
fied
thro
ugho
ut th
e pr
ojec
t as
appr
opri
ate.
SG2.
The
pro
duct
or
prod
uct
com
pone
nts
are
valid
ated
to
ensu
re t
hat
they
are
sui
tabl
e fo
r us
e in
the
ir in
tend
ed
oper
atin
g en
viro
nmen
t.
108
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
Scri
pts:
RE
Q,
AN
A, T
ES
T1,
TE
ST
2, T
ES
T3
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
2.1.
Per
form
val
idat
ion
on th
e se
lect
ed
prod
ucts
and
pro
duct
com
pone
nts.
Rol
es: T
eam
mem
ber,
des
ign,
impl
emen
tati
on,
supp
ort,
and
test
man
ager
s
TE
ST
1 an
d T
ES
T2
aim
spe
cifi
call
y at
val
idat
ing
prod
uct c
ompo
nent
s, w
hile
TE
ST
3 sp
ecif
ies
veri
fyin
g pr
oper
ope
rati
ons
unde
r no
rmal
and
abno
rmal
ope
rati
ng c
ondi
tion
s, p
resu
mab
ly a
s
spec
ifie
d pr
evio
usly
in th
e cu
stom
er’s
val
idat
ed
requ
irem
ents
(R
EQ
, AN
A).
Eac
h ro
le m
anag
er
ensu
res
that
app
ropr
iate
act
ivit
ies
have
bee
n
incl
uded
in in
divi
dual
TA
SK
pla
ns.
D
Scri
pts:
TE
ST
,
TE
ST
1, T
ES
T2,
TE
ST
3, T
ES
TD
,
PM
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
,
SU
MP
, SU
MQ
2.2.
Ana
lyze
the
resu
lts
of th
e va
lida
tion
acti
viti
es a
nd id
entif
y is
sues
.
Rol
es: P
roce
ss,
qual
ity,
and
test
man
ager
s
The
ref
eren
ced
role
man
ager
s ar
e re
spon
sibl
e fo
r
spec
ific
act
ivit
ies
as in
dica
ted
in th
e sc
ript
s.
SU
MP
, SU
MQ
, and
TA
SK
sum
mar
ize
rele
vant
data
gat
here
d in
LO
GT
and
LO
GD
. All
test
defe
cts
are
attr
ibut
ed to
sou
rce
(pro
duct
or
test
)
and,
if in
the
prod
uct,
furt
her
anal
yzed
usi
ng
TE
ST
D. P
ostm
orte
ms
(PM
) lo
ok s
peci
fica
lly
at
qual
ity
and
othe
r is
sues
rel
ated
to v
alid
atio
n
effo
rts.
D
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
10
9
8.2
TS
P a
nd
En
gin
eeri
ng
Cat
ego
ry G
ener
ic P
ract
ices
O
f al
l the
gen
eric
pra
ctic
e gr
oupi
ngs,
non
e is
mor
e co
here
nt th
an th
ose
of th
e en
gine
erin
g PA
s. F
rom
the
view
of
thes
e pr
actic
es, t
here
is r
elat
ivel
y lit
tle to
dis
tingu
ish
betw
een,
for
exa
mpl
e, e
stab
lishi
ng a
nd m
aint
aini
ng a
pla
n fo
r pe
rfor
min
g R
equi
rem
ents
Dev
elop
men
t or
for
that
of
deve
lopi
ng a
Te
chni
cal S
olut
ion.
All
of th
ese
are
sim
ply
part
of
the
life-
cycl
e ac
tivi
ties
bein
g pl
anne
d du
ring
the
typi
cal T
SP la
unch
. Man
y re
al-w
orld
de
velo
pmen
t lif
e cy
cles
trea
t the
ran
ge o
f th
e en
gine
erin
g pr
actic
es a
s a
sing
le c
onti
nuum
, or
at le
ast d
ivid
ed in
a v
ery
diff
eren
t man
ner
than
in
CM
MI,
whe
reas
the
func
tiona
l div
isio
ns o
f C
MM
I ar
e, a
t lea
st in
par
t, a
refl
ectio
n of
a d
esir
e to
kee
p an
y si
ngle
PA
fro
m b
ecom
ing
too
larg
e. F
or
the
purp
oses
of
this
rep
ort,
the
resu
lt is
that
TSP
’s c
over
age
of th
e ge
neri
c pr
actic
es a
s ap
plie
d to
the
engi
neer
ing
PAs
is s
tron
g an
d co
nsis
tent
.
Gen
eric
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Pro
cess
Are
as
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
GP
2.1
. Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
an
orga
niza
tion
al p
olic
y fo
r pl
anni
ng a
nd
perf
orm
ing
the
proc
ess.
A
ll E
ngin
eeri
ng P
As:
Org
aniz
atio
nal p
olic
ies
are
beyo
nd th
e sc
ope
of T
SP
. U
Scri
pts:
All
laun
ch s
crip
ts
GP
2.2
. Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
the
plan
for
perf
orm
ing
the
proc
ess.
For
ms:
MT
G
form
s
cust
omiz
ed f
or
each
laun
ch
mee
ting
All
: T
he e
ntir
e T
SP la
unch
pro
cess
is d
esig
ned
to f
orm
ulat
e a
deve
lopm
ent p
lan
for
thos
e pa
rts
of th
e
life
cyc
le f
or w
hich
the
asse
mbl
ed te
am h
as r
espo
nsib
ility
. Eac
h in
divi
dual
laun
ch m
eeti
ng s
crip
t
spec
ifie
s a
step
-by-
step
pro
cess
for
pro
duci
ng h
igh-
leve
l pla
ns f
or th
e en
tire
pro
ject
and
det
aile
d
indi
vidu
al p
lans
for
the
next
pha
se o
f th
e w
ork.
Cus
tom
ized
MT
G f
orm
s fo
r ea
ch la
unch
mee
ting
spec
ify
nom
inal
dur
atio
ns f
or e
ach
step
of
the
proc
ess.
S/D
Scri
pts:
LA
U4,
LA
U6,
LA
U8,
LA
U9
For
ms:
RO
LE
GP
2.3
. Pro
vide
res
ourc
es f
or p
erfo
rmin
g
the
proc
ess,
dev
elop
ing
the
wor
k pr
oduc
ts,
and
prov
idin
g th
e se
rvic
es o
f th
e pr
oces
s.
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, r
ole
man
ager
s
All
: M
anag
emen
t mak
es a
pre
lim
inar
y as
sign
men
t of
reso
urce
s du
ring
laun
ch p
repa
ratio
n by
assi
gnin
g th
e m
embe
rs o
f th
e pr
ojec
t tea
m. D
urin
g th
e la
unch
the
team
det
erm
ines
wha
t res
ourc
es a
re
need
ed to
do
the
wor
k w
ithi
n sp
ecif
ied
cons
trai
nts
(LA
U4,
LA
U6,
LA
U8)
and
if n
eces
sary
neg
otia
tes
wit
h m
anag
emen
t for
the
reso
urce
s ne
eded
to d
o th
e w
ork
prop
erly
(L
AU
9). T
he v
ario
us r
ole
man
ager
s an
d th
e te
am le
ader
pro
vide
the
vari
ous
proc
ess
serv
ices
as
need
ed b
y th
e te
am.
S/D
110
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
Gen
eric
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Pro
cess
Are
as
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Oth
er:
PR
EP
L,
PR
EP
R
Scri
pts:
DE
V,
MA
INT
, LA
U2,
LA
U6,
LA
U7
For
ms:
RO
LE
,
GO
AL
, TS
P
wor
kboo
ks
GP
2.4
. Ass
ign
resp
onsi
bili
ty a
nd a
utho
rity
for
perf
orm
ing
the
proc
ess,
dev
elop
ing
the
wor
k pr
oduc
ts, a
nd p
rovi
ding
the
serv
ices
of th
e pr
oces
s.
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, c
usto
mer
inte
rfac
e,
desi
gn, t
est,
and
impl
emen
tati
on
man
ager
s
All
: T
he te
am le
ader
is a
ssig
ned
duri
ng la
unch
pre
para
tion
s an
d en
sure
s, b
oth
duri
ng th
e la
unch
and
as th
e pr
ojec
t pro
gres
ses,
that
the
righ
t thi
ngs
are
bein
g do
ne b
y th
e ri
ght p
eopl
e at
the
righ
t tim
e.
The
rol
e m
anag
ers
refe
renc
ed a
re s
omet
imes
cal
led
the
“lin
e” r
oles
in T
SP, r
efle
ctin
g co
vera
ge a
cros
s
a no
rmal
eng
inee
ring
life
cyc
le: r
equi
rem
ents
(R
D)
and
requ
irem
ents
man
agem
ent (
RE
QM
)
(cus
tom
er in
terf
ace)
, des
ign
(TS
) in
term
s of
arc
hite
ctur
e an
d hi
gh-l
evel
des
ign,
impl
emen
tati
on (
TS
and
PI)
in te
rms
of d
etai
led
desi
gn a
nd c
odin
g, a
nd te
st (
PI,
VE
R, a
nd V
AL
) as
def
ined
in th
e D
EV
and/
or M
AIN
T s
crip
ts. R
espo
nsib
ilit
ies
for
trac
king
the
team
’s s
tatu
s ag
ains
t its
goa
ls a
re r
ecor
ded
on
form
GO
AL
in L
AU
2. I
ndiv
idua
l wor
k as
sign
men
ts a
re m
ade
duri
ng L
AU
6 an
d re
cord
ed in
the
team
and
indi
vidu
al w
orkb
ooks
. Ris
k-tr
acki
ng r
espo
nsib
iliti
es a
re m
ade
duri
ng L
AU
7.
S/D
GP
2.5
. Tra
in th
e pe
ople
per
form
ing
or
supp
ortin
g th
e pr
oces
s as
nee
ded.
Tra
inin
g: P
SP
for
Eng
inee
rs,
An
Intr
oduc
tion
to P
erso
nal
Pro
cess
,
Man
agin
g TS
P
Tea
ms
All
: T
he te
am le
ader
and
all
team
mem
bers
rec
eive
app
ropr
iate
trai
ning
in P
SP a
nd T
SP te
chni
ques
. S
GP
2.6
. Pla
ce d
esig
nate
d w
ork
prod
ucts
of
the
proc
ess
unde
r ap
prop
riat
e le
vels
of
conf
igur
atio
n m
anag
emen
t.
Scri
pts:
AN
L,
HL
D, I
MP
,
RE
Q, T
ES
T
All
: T
he r
efer
ence
d sc
ript
s al
l spe
cify
the
crea
tion
or
upda
ting
of b
asel
ines
at c
riti
cal p
oint
s
thro
ugho
ut th
e de
velo
pmen
t pro
cess
and
enc
ompa
ssin
g al
l of
the
engi
neer
ing
PA
act
ivit
ies.
The
supp
ort m
anag
er r
ole
desc
ript
ion
spec
ific
ally
cal
ls f
or th
is p
erso
n to
obt
ain
and
man
age
the
team
’s
S
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
11
1
Gen
eric
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Pro
cess
Are
as
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Rol
es: S
uppo
rt
man
ager
, tea
m
lead
er, “
line
”
role
s
conf
igur
atio
n m
anag
emen
t sys
tem
. The
“li
ne”
role
s (c
usto
mer
inte
rfac
e, d
esig
n, im
plem
enta
tion
, tes
t)
each
hav
e sp
ecif
ic r
espo
nsib
iliti
es to
kee
p it
ems
in th
eir
part
icul
ar a
reas
und
er p
rope
r co
nfig
urat
ion
man
agem
ent.
Scri
pts:
AN
L,
RE
Q, P
M
GP
2.7
. Ide
ntif
y an
d in
volv
e th
e re
leva
nt
stak
ehol
ders
as
plan
ned.
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, r
ole
man
ager
s (e
sp.
cust
omer
inte
rfac
e an
d
test
man
ager
s)
All
: T
he p
roje
ct p
lans
, as
refl
ecte
d in
the
TSP
wor
kboo
ks, t
ypic
ally
incl
ude
invo
lvem
ent b
y in
tern
al
cust
omer
s an
d co
llab
orat
ing
grou
ps a
s ne
cess
ary.
Spe
cifi
c st
akeh
olde
r in
volv
emen
t in
the
deve
lopm
ent s
crip
ts is
foc
used
on
the
fron
t end
of
the
proc
ess,
invo
lvin
g sy
stem
s en
gine
erin
g,
mar
keti
ng, a
nd th
e cu
stom
er. T
he te
am le
ader
, cus
tom
er in
terf
ace
man
ager
, and
test
man
ager
hav
e
spec
ific
res
pons
ibil
itie
s fo
r in
volv
ing
mar
keti
ng, m
anag
emen
t, an
d th
e cu
stom
er a
s ap
prop
riat
e. T
he
othe
r ro
le m
anag
ers
have
mor
e of
an
impl
ied
resp
onsi
bili
ty to
ens
ure
the
invo
lvem
ent o
f ot
her
rele
vant
sta
keho
lder
s as
may
be
nece
ssar
y in
eac
h ro
le’s
are
a of
res
pons
ibil
ity. S
crip
t PM
cal
ls f
or a
stak
ehol
der
surv
ey a
t the
end
of
ever
y pr
ojec
t.
S
Scri
pts:
WE
EK
,
ST
AT
US
For
ms:
WE
EK
,
ST
AT
US
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, p
lann
ing
man
ager
GP
2.8
. Mon
itor
and
con
trol
the
proc
ess
agai
nst t
he p
lan
for
perf
orm
ing
the
proc
ess
and
take
app
ropr
iate
cor
rect
ive
acti
on.
Oth
er:
Qua
rter
ly
revi
ew c
heck
list
All
: T
he w
eekl
y te
am m
eeti
ngs
(WE
EK
) m
onit
or th
e ac
tual
eng
inee
ring
act
ivit
ies
agai
nst t
he p
lan
crea
ted
at th
e la
unch
, and
the
team
lead
er r
epor
ts s
tatu
s to
man
agem
ent (
ST
AT
US
and
qua
rter
ly
revi
ews)
. The
pla
nnin
g m
anag
er c
onso
lidat
es th
e in
divi
dual
TSP
wor
kboo
ks in
to a
team
vie
w o
f th
e
proj
ect,
and
also
typi
call
y tr
acks
the
stat
us o
f sc
hedu
le g
oals
and
ris
ks.
S/D
112
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
Gen
eric
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Pro
cess
Are
as
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Scri
pts:
PM
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, p
roce
ss,
qual
ity,
and
supp
ort
man
ager
s
GP
2.9
. Obj
ecti
vely
eva
luat
e ad
here
nce
of
the
proc
ess
agai
nst i
ts p
roce
ss d
escr
ipti
on,
stan
dard
s, a
nd p
roce
dure
s, a
nd a
ddre
ss
nonc
ompl
ianc
e.
Oth
er:
TS
P
chec
kpoi
nt
proc
ess
All
: T
he te
am le
ader
, pro
cess
man
ager
, and
qua
lity
man
ager
mon
itor
var
ious
asp
ects
of
proc
ess
adhe
renc
e. T
he p
ostm
orte
m (
PM
) pr
ovid
es a
n op
port
unit
y fo
r th
e su
ppor
t man
ager
, pro
cess
man
ager
,
qual
ity
man
ager
, and
team
lead
er to
lead
the
team
in a
sses
sing
var
ious
asp
ects
of
its
proc
ess
perf
orm
ance
ove
r th
e pr
eced
ing
phas
e or
the
proj
ect a
s a
who
le. A
TS
P c
heck
poin
t is
typi
call
y ru
n by
a qu
alif
ied
TS
P c
oach
to e
valu
ate
the
team
’s a
dher
ence
to it
s ow
n pl
an a
nd p
roce
sses
and
to p
rovi
de
feed
back
and
coa
chin
g in
ord
er to
per
form
bet
ter
on th
e ne
xt p
roje
ct o
r pr
ojec
t cyc
le.
Rol
es:
Pla
nnin
g
man
ager
, tea
m
lead
er
GP
2.1
0. R
evie
w th
e ac
tivi
ties
, sta
tus,
and
resu
lts
of th
e pr
oces
s w
ith
high
er le
vel
man
agem
ent a
nd r
esol
ve is
sues
.
Oth
er:
Qua
rter
ly
revi
ew c
heck
list
All
: T
he p
lann
ing
man
ager
con
soli
date
s w
eekl
y te
am d
ata
for
the
team
’s e
valu
atio
n, a
nd th
at d
ata
is
typi
call
y pr
esen
ted
to m
anag
emen
t by
the
team
lead
er a
long
wit
h an
y is
sues
, ris
ks, o
r ot
her
conc
erns
that
may
hav
e ar
isen
sin
ce p
rior
mee
ting
s. I
n ad
ditio
n, q
uart
erly
rev
iew
mee
ting
s w
ith
seni
or
man
agem
ent f
ocus
on
TSP
dat
a fr
om e
very
pro
ject
to e
nsur
e th
at m
anag
emen
t is
kept
info
rmed
and
has
prio
r kn
owle
dge
of w
hen
and
whe
re th
eir
help
mig
ht b
e ne
eded
.
S/D
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
11
3
Gen
eric
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Pro
cess
Are
as
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Scri
pts:
All
deve
lopm
ent
scri
pts
GP
3.1
. Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
the
desc
ript
ion
of a
def
ined
pro
cess
.
Rol
es: P
roce
ss
man
ager
, “li
ne”
role
man
ager
s
All
: D
EV
and
MA
INT
des
crib
e fu
ll li
fe c
ycle
s fo
r ne
w d
evel
opm
ent o
r m
aint
enan
ce p
roje
cts
resp
ecti
vely
. The
y re
fere
nce
othe
r de
velo
pmen
t scr
ipts
(se
e be
low
) th
at p
rovi
de m
ore
deta
iled
guid
ance
.
RE
QM
/RD
: S
crip
ts R
EQ
and
AN
A a
re u
sed
for
deve
lopi
ng n
ew r
equi
rem
ents
and
ana
lyzi
ng c
hang
es
to e
xist
ing
ones
and
for
kee
ping
req
uire
men
ts b
asel
ines
cur
rent
.
TS:
Scr
ipts
HL
D a
nd I
MP
gui
de th
e de
velo
pmen
t of
a te
chni
cal s
olut
ion
from
the
requ
irem
ents
deve
lope
d by
RE
Q o
r A
NA
thro
ugh
impl
emen
tati
on a
nd u
nit t
estin
g (I
MP
, IM
P6)
.
PI:
Scr
ipt T
ES
T1
guid
es in
tegr
atio
n of
com
pone
nts
and
fixe
s in
to a
wor
king
sys
tem
.
VE
R:
Scr
ipt T
ES
T (
incl
udin
g th
e re
fere
nced
TE
ST
1, T
ES
T2,
and
TE
ST
3) g
uide
s va
riou
s le
vels
of
veri
fica
tion
test
ing
of th
e sy
stem
. Scr
ipt I
NS
gui
des
form
al te
am in
spec
tion
s.
VA
L:
Scr
ipt T
ES
T3
guid
es s
yste
m-l
evel
test
ing
unde
r bo
th n
orm
al a
nd a
bnor
mal
ope
rati
ng
cond
ition
s.
S/D
Scri
pts:
WE
EK
,
PM
For
ms:
WE
EK
,
TS
P w
orkb
ooks
GP
3.2
. Col
lect
wor
k pr
oduc
ts, m
easu
res,
mea
sure
men
t res
ults
, and
impr
ovem
ent
info
rmat
ion
deri
ved
from
pla
nnin
g an
d
perf
orm
ing
the
proc
ess
to s
uppo
rt th
e fu
ture
use
and
impr
ovem
ent o
f th
e or
gani
zati
on’s
proc
esse
s an
d pr
oces
s as
sets
.
Rol
es: T
eam
mem
ber,
rol
e
man
ager
s
All
: T
ime
spen
t and
dat
e co
mpl
eted
for
eac
h ta
sk in
eac
h te
am m
embe
r’s
TS
P w
orkb
ook
is r
ecor
ded.
In a
ddit
ion,
dep
endi
ng o
n th
e sp
ecif
ic ta
sk, d
efec
t and
/or
size
dat
a m
ay a
lso
be r
ecor
ded.
The
wee
kly
team
-wid
e co
nsol
idat
ion
of th
is d
ata
incl
udes
doz
ens
of s
tand
ard
view
s, s
umm
arie
s, a
nd a
naly
ses.
The
se d
ata
are
sum
mar
ized
on
the
WE
EK
for
m a
nd a
t pro
ject
pos
tmor
tem
s (P
M)
so a
s to
be
usef
ul to
the
curr
ent p
roje
ct a
nd o
ther
pro
ject
s. V
ario
us r
ole
man
ager
s ty
pica
lly
focu
s on
one
or
anot
her
aspe
ct
of th
is d
ata
(e.g
., qu
alit
y an
d te
st m
anag
ers
on th
e re
lati
onsh
ip b
etw
een
revi
ew, i
nspe
ctio
n, a
nd te
st
data
on
part
icul
ar c
ompo
nent
s, o
r th
e de
sign
and
impl
emen
tati
on m
anag
ers
on d
esig
n si
ze m
easu
res
and
how
they
rel
ate
to f
inal
pro
duct
siz
e) a
nd m
ake
such
ana
lyse
s av
aila
ble
for
orga
niza
tion
al
lear
ning
.
S/D
114
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
Gen
eric
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Pro
cess
Are
as
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Scri
pts:
LA
U5,
LA
U6,
PSP
plan
ning
and
PR
OB
E s
crip
ts
For
ms:
TS
P
wor
kboo
ks
Rol
es: T
eam
mem
ber,
qua
lity
man
ager
GP
4.1
. Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
quan
tita
tive
obje
ctiv
es f
or th
e pr
oces
s th
at a
ddre
ss
qual
ity
and
proc
ess
perf
orm
ance
bas
ed o
n
cust
omer
nee
ds a
nd b
usin
ess
obje
ctiv
es.
Tra
inin
g: P
SP
for
Eng
inee
rs
All
: L
AU
6 di
rect
s te
am m
embe
rs to
mak
e P
SP-l
evel
pla
ns f
or e
ach
com
pone
nt r
eady
for
impl
emen
tati
on, w
hich
incl
udes
set
ting
det
aile
d ta
rget
s fo
r si
ze, o
vera
ll e
ffor
t, ba
lanc
ing
that
eff
ort t
o
prod
uce
a hi
gh-q
uali
ty p
rodu
ct, a
nd d
efec
t den
siti
es in
com
pile
and
test
pha
ses
in o
rder
to v
erif
y hi
gh
qual
ity.
For
oth
er ta
sks
team
mem
bers
bre
ak w
ork
into
sm
all,
man
agea
ble
chun
ks (
10 h
ours
or
less
)
and
then
pro
duce
det
aile
d pe
rson
al a
nd o
vera
ll ta
sk, s
ched
ule,
and
ear
ned
valu
e pl
ans.
In
LA
U5,
the
team
set
s qu
anti
tati
ve q
ualit
y go
als
in te
rms
of d
efec
t den
sity
in te
st p
hase
s, w
hich
are
then
adj
uste
d
as n
eces
sary
in L
AU
6 in
acc
orda
nce
wit
h th
e de
tail
ed p
erso
nal p
lans
.
S/D
Scri
pts:
WE
EK
For
ms:
WE
EK
,
TS
P w
orkb
ooks
GP
4.2
. Sta
bili
ze th
e pe
rfor
man
ce o
f on
e or
mor
e su
bpro
cess
es to
det
erm
ine
the
abil
ity
of th
e pr
oces
s to
ach
ieve
the
esta
blis
hed
quan
titat
ive
qual
ity
and
proc
ess-
perf
orm
ance
obj
ecti
ves.
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, p
lann
ing
and
qual
ity
man
ager
s
All
: T
he T
SP
mea
sure
men
t fra
mew
ork
and
wee
kly
mon
itor
ing
typi
call
y ch
arac
teri
zes
and
help
s to
stab
iliz
e pr
oces
s pe
rfor
man
ce in
term
s of
nor
mal
ized
wee
kly
effo
rt a
nd d
eliv
ered
def
ect d
ensi
ties
.
The
se d
ata
are
then
use
d to
est
ablis
h fu
ture
exp
ecta
tion
s an
d dr
ive
syst
emat
ic im
prov
emen
t eff
orts
goin
g fo
rwar
d, m
ainl
y vi
a th
e w
eekl
y pr
ojec
t sta
tus
mee
ting
(W
EE
K).
The
team
lead
er, p
lann
ing
man
ager
, and
qua
lity
man
ager
typi
call
y fo
cus
on o
ne o
r an
othe
r as
pect
of
the
data
and
gui
de th
e te
am
to m
eet o
r be
tter
the
plan
s th
at w
ere
mad
e du
ring
the
laun
ch.
S/D
Scri
pts:
PM
,
LA
UP
M
For
ms:
PIP
GP
5.1
. Ens
ure
cont
inuo
us im
prov
emen
t of
the
proc
ess
in f
ulfi
llin
g th
e re
leva
nt
busi
ness
obj
ecti
ves
of th
e or
gani
zati
on.
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, p
roce
ss
man
ager
All
: Po
stm
orte
m (
PM
) ac
tivi
ties
can
rai
se is
sues
dea
ling
wit
h an
y pr
oces
s ar
ea. T
he P
IP f
orm
is u
sed
for
capt
urin
g pr
oces
s is
sues
and
pro
pose
d so
lutio
ns f
or a
ny p
roce
ss a
rea.
Typ
ical
ly P
Ms
occu
r an
d
PIP
s ar
e w
ritt
en w
ithi
n th
e co
ntex
t of
a pa
rtic
ular
pro
ject
; how
ever
they
can
and
do
addr
ess
issu
es in
any
proc
ess
area
, bet
wee
n pr
oces
s ar
eas,
and
eve
n ou
tsid
e th
e sc
ope
of C
MM
I. W
hat T
SP
doe
s no
t
spec
ify
is a
ny k
ind
of s
peci
fic
stan
dard
way
in w
hich
to e
valu
ate
and
act u
pon
PIP
s an
d ot
her
PM
issu
es.
S
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
11
5
Gen
eric
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Pro
cess
Are
as
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Scri
pts:
TE
ST
D,
PM
, LA
UP
M
For
ms:
PIP
GP
5.2
. Ide
ntif
y an
d co
rrec
t the
roo
t cau
ses
of d
efec
ts a
nd o
ther
pro
blem
s in
the
proc
ess.
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, p
roce
ss
man
ager
All
: T
he T
ES
T s
crip
t cal
ls f
or e
nact
men
t of
scri
pt T
ES
TD
for
def
ects
fou
nd d
urin
g bu
ild, i
nteg
rati
on,
and
syst
em te
st a
ctiv
itie
s, b
ut th
e pr
oces
ses
targ
eted
are
pot
enti
ally
any
whe
re in
the
engi
neer
ing
life
cycl
e an
d co
ncei
vabl
y ou
tsid
e th
e sc
ope
of th
e E
ngin
eeri
ng P
As
alto
geth
er. P
IPs
and
PM
s so
met
imes
help
to id
enti
fy r
oot c
ause
s of
def
ects
or
othe
r pr
oces
s pr
oble
ms.
S
116
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
11
7
9 T
SP
an
d C
MM
I Su
pp
ort
Pro
cess
Are
as
9.1
Sco
pe
of
SU
PP
OR
T
The
Sup
port
pro
cess
are
as c
over
the
acti
vitie
s th
at s
uppo
rt p
rodu
ct d
evel
opm
ent a
nd m
aint
enan
ce. T
he S
uppo
rt P
As
addr
ess
proc
esse
s th
at a
re u
sed
in th
e co
ntex
t of
perf
orm
ing
othe
r pr
oces
ses.
In
gene
ral,
thes
e PA
s ad
dres
s pr
oces
ses
that
are
targ
eted
tow
ards
the
proj
ect,
but m
ay a
lso
addr
ess
proc
esse
s th
at a
pply
mor
e ge
nera
lly to
the
orga
niza
tion.
For
exa
mpl
e, P
roce
ss a
nd P
rodu
ct Q
ualit
y A
ssur
ance
can
be
used
wit
h al
l pro
cess
are
as to
pr
ovid
e an
obj
ecti
ve e
valu
atio
n of
sel
ecte
d pr
oces
ses
and
wor
k pr
oduc
ts d
escr
ibed
in th
ose
proc
ess
area
s. T
he p
age
num
bers
for
eac
h PA
as
liste
d be
low
are
fro
m C
MM
I: G
uide
line
s fo
r P
roce
ss I
mpr
ovem
ent a
nd P
rodu
ct I
mpr
ovem
ent [
Chr
issi
s 03
].
The
Sup
port
pro
cess
cat
egor
y co
ntai
ns th
e fo
llow
ing
proc
ess
area
s.
Con
figu
ratio
n M
anag
emen
t pa
ges
157-
172
Proc
ess
and
Prod
uct Q
ualit
y A
ssur
ance
pa
ges
429-
440
Mea
sure
men
t and
Ana
lysi
s pa
ges
247-
266
Dec
isio
n A
naly
sis
and
Res
olut
ion
page
s 17
3-18
6 O
rgan
izat
iona
l Env
iron
men
t for
Int
egra
tion
pa
ges
267-
286
Cau
sal A
naly
sis
and
Res
olut
ion
page
s 14
3-15
6
118
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
9.1.
1 C
on
fig
ura
tio
n M
anag
emen
t (C
M)
The
Con
figu
ratio
n M
anag
emen
t (C
M)
proc
ess
area
sup
port
s al
l pro
cess
are
as b
y es
tabl
ishi
ng a
nd m
aint
aini
ng th
e in
tegr
ity o
f w
ork
prod
ucts
usi
ng
conf
igur
atio
n m
anag
emen
t, co
nfig
urat
ion
cont
rol,
conf
igur
atio
n st
atus
acc
ount
ing,
and
con
figu
ratio
n au
dits
. The
wor
k pr
oduc
ts p
lace
d un
der
conf
igur
atio
n m
anag
emen
t inc
lude
the
prod
ucts
, acq
uire
d pr
oduc
ts, t
ools
, and
oth
er it
ems
that
are
use
d in
cre
atin
g an
d de
scri
bing
thes
e w
ork
prod
ucts
. Exa
mpl
es o
f w
ork
prod
ucts
that
may
be
plac
ed u
nder
con
figu
ratio
n m
anag
emen
t inc
lude
pla
ns, p
roce
ss d
escr
iptio
ns, r
equi
rem
ents
, des
ign
data
, dra
win
gs, p
rodu
ct s
peci
fica
tions
, cod
e, c
ompi
lers
, pro
duct
dat
a fi
les,
and
pro
duct
tech
nica
l pub
lica
tions
.
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
SG1.
Bas
elin
es o
f id
enti
fied
wor
k
prod
ucts
are
est
ablis
hed.
Scri
pts:
LA
U3
For
ms:
SU
MS
,
INV
, ST
RA
T,
TA
SK
, LO
GT
,
LO
GD
1.1.
Ide
ntif
y th
e co
nfig
urat
ion
item
s,
com
pone
nts,
and
rel
ated
wor
k pr
oduc
ts th
at
will
be
plac
ed u
nder
con
figu
ratio
n
man
agem
ent.
Rol
es:
Sup
port
and
proc
ess
man
ager
s, “
line
”
role
man
ager
s,
team
mem
ber
Mos
t con
figu
rati
ons
item
s to
be
deve
lope
d,
incl
udin
g w
hen
they
are
to b
e ba
seli
ned,
are
iden
tifi
ed in
LA
U3
(as
capt
ured
on
the
SU
MS
,
ST
RA
T, o
r IN
V f
orm
s). E
ach
of th
e na
med
rol
es
has
spec
ific
con
figu
rati
on m
anag
emen
t
resp
onsi
bili
ties
at s
ome
poin
t in
the
proc
ess
for
desi
gnat
ed w
ork
prod
ucts
.
P
Det
ails
suc
h as
com
pone
nt a
nd u
niqu
e
iden
tifi
ers
are
not s
peci
fica
lly
addr
esse
d by
the
TS
P, s
ince
ther
e is
an
assu
mpt
ion
that
spec
ific
org
aniz
atio
nal p
ract
ices
eit
her
are
or w
ill b
e pu
t int
o pl
ace
to a
ddre
ss s
uch
thin
gs. I
n pr
acti
ce, h
owev
er, t
he v
ario
us
role
man
ager
s w
ho h
ave
spec
ific
resp
onsi
bili
ties
for
spe
cifi
c ba
seli
ned
prod
ucts
usu
ally
dea
l wit
h su
ch d
etai
ls.
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
11
9
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
Scri
pts:
LA
U3
Rol
es:
Sup
port
man
ager
1.2.
Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
a co
nfig
urat
ion
man
agem
ent a
nd c
hang
e m
anag
emen
t
syst
em f
or c
ontr
ollin
g w
ork
prod
ucts
.
Oth
er:
PR
EP
L,
PR
EP
R
The
sup
port
man
ager
has
spe
cifi
c re
spon
sibi
lity
for
the
proj
ect’
s co
nfig
urat
ion
man
agem
ent
syst
em a
nd p
ract
ices
. Pre
para
tion
guid
elin
es c
all
for
a de
sign
ated
team
mem
ber
to b
ring
cop
ies
of
the
orga
niza
tion
’s s
tand
ard
conf
igur
atio
n
man
agem
ent a
nd c
hang
e co
ntro
l pro
cess
es to
the
laun
ch. A
ny a
ddit
iona
l rel
evan
t pro
cess
item
s
need
ed b
y th
e pr
ojec
t are
iden
tifie
d in
LA
U3.
P
No
guid
ance
is p
rovi
ded
as to
the
type
of
conf
igur
atio
n m
anag
emen
t sys
tem
or
chan
ge p
roce
dure
s. T
his
is ty
pica
lly
an
idio
sync
rati
c ac
tivi
ty in
any
org
aniz
atio
n.
Scri
pts:
RE
Q,
HL
D, I
MP
,
TE
ST
1, L
AU
3
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
1.3.
Cre
ate
or r
elea
se b
asel
ines
for
inte
rnal
use
and
for
deli
very
to th
e cu
stom
er.
Rol
es:
Sup
port
man
ager
, tea
m
mem
ber
The
var
ious
hig
h-le
vel s
crip
ts c
all f
or c
reat
ing
or
upda
ting
base
line
s fo
r sp
ecif
ic p
rodu
cts
at
spec
ific
poi
nts
in th
e de
velo
pmen
t pro
cess
.
Spe
cifi
c ta
sks
shou
ld b
e in
clud
ed in
TA
SK
pla
ns
and
logg
ed a
s ap
prop
riat
e. T
he s
uppo
rt m
anag
er
chai
rs th
e C
CB
(L
AU
3), w
hich
acc
epts
or
reje
cts
prop
osed
cha
nges
to b
asel
ined
pro
duct
s an
d
appr
oves
rel
ease
.
P
SG2.
Cha
nges
to
the
wor
k pr
oduc
ts
unde
r co
nfig
urat
ion
man
agem
ent
are
trac
ked
and
cont
rolle
d.
120
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
Scri
pts:
RE
L1,
WE
EK
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
LO
GT
2.1.
Tra
ck c
hang
e re
ques
ts f
or th
e
conf
igur
atio
n it
ems.
Rol
es:
Sup
port
and
“lin
e” r
ole
man
ager
s
Par
t of
the
purp
ose
of R
EL
1 is
to u
pdat
e th
e
team
on
cust
omer
req
uire
men
ts c
hang
es. R
ole
man
ager
s re
spon
sibl
e fo
r pa
rtic
ular
con
figu
rati
on
item
s, s
uch
as r
equi
rem
ents
doc
umen
ts
(cus
tom
er in
terf
ace
man
ager
), d
esig
n ar
tifac
ts
(des
ign
man
ager
), c
ode
(im
plem
enta
tion
man
ager
), a
nd te
st p
roce
dure
s an
d re
sult
s (t
est
man
ager
), a
re s
peci
fica
lly
task
ed to
pro
vide
timel
y in
form
atio
n to
the
CC
B (
chai
red
by th
e
supp
ort m
anag
er).
The
sup
port
man
ager
typi
call
y
repo
rts
conf
igur
atio
n st
atus
at t
he w
eekl
y te
am
mee
ting
(WE
EK
).
P
The
leve
l of
deta
il a
ddre
ssed
in th
e T
SP
goes
mor
e to
cha
nges
in r
equi
rem
ents
rat
her
than
in s
peci
fic
conf
igur
atio
n ite
ms.
It i
s th
e
lack
of
met
hods
for
trac
king
the
chan
ge
requ
ests
(ra
ther
than
the
chan
ges
requ
este
d)
that
cau
ses
this
to f
all s
hort
of
a “D
” ra
ting
.
Scri
pts:
RE
Q,
HL
D, I
MP
,
TE
ST
1
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
2.2.
Con
trol
cha
nges
to th
e co
nfig
urat
ion
item
s.
Rol
es:
Tea
m
lead
er, d
esig
n,
impl
emen
tati
on,
supp
ort,
and,
cust
omer
inte
rfac
e
man
ager
s
The
ref
eren
ced
scri
pts
have
ste
ps f
or th
e C
CB
to
auth
oriz
e th
e cr
eati
on o
r re
leas
e of
bas
elin
es.
The
CC
B is
cha
ired
by
the
supp
ort m
anag
er,
typi
call
y in
clud
es th
e te
am le
ader
and
des
ign
man
ager
s, a
nd r
espo
nds
to c
hang
e re
ques
ts b
ased
part
iall
y on
inpu
t fro
m th
e ot
her
role
man
ager
s.
P
TS
P d
oes
not s
peci
fica
lly
addr
ess
CC
B
proc
edur
es, a
lthou
gh c
hang
e co
ntro
l
proc
edur
es a
re u
sual
ly id
enti
fied
for
crea
tion
in L
AU
3 (i
f no
t alr
eady
in p
lace
).
The
pro
cess
and
sup
port
man
ager
s ha
ve a
join
t res
pons
ibili
ty in
this
reg
ard.
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
12
1
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
SG3.
Int
egri
ty o
f ba
selin
es is
est
ablis
hed
and
mai
ntai
ned.
For
ms:
SU
MS
,
INV
, WE
EK
Rol
es:
Pla
nnin
g
and
supp
ort
man
ager
s
3.1.
Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
reco
rds
desc
ribi
ng c
onfi
gura
tion
item
s.
Oth
er:
NO
TE
BO
OK
The
laun
ch p
roce
ss in
itia
tes
this
pro
cess
by
crea
ting
the
SU
MS
and
IN
V. T
he s
uppo
rt
man
ager
rep
orts
on
conf
igur
atio
n st
atus
cha
nges
at th
e w
eekl
y te
am m
eeti
ng. T
he p
lann
ing
man
ager
wou
ld s
tore
at l
east
par
tial i
nfor
mat
ion
on c
onfi
gura
tion
item
s in
SU
MS
and
pro
ject
NO
TE
BO
OK
.
P
Spe
cifi
c pr
oced
ures
and
sta
ndar
ds f
or
esta
blis
hing
and
mai
ntai
ning
thes
e re
cord
s
wou
ld b
e id
enti
fied
in L
AU
3, e
ithe
r as
need
ing
to b
e cr
eate
d ne
w o
r to
be
used
or
adap
ted
from
org
aniz
atio
nal s
tand
ards
.
Dev
elop
ing
or a
dapt
ing
thes
e w
ould
be
the
resp
onsi
bili
ty o
f th
e pr
oces
s m
anag
er, w
hile
the
supp
ort m
anag
er w
ould
act
ually
impl
emen
t the
m.
Scri
pts:
TE
ST
1,
TE
ST
2, T
ES
T3
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
3.2.
Per
form
con
figu
rati
on a
udit
s to
mai
ntai
n th
e in
tegr
ity
of c
onfi
gura
tion
base
line
s.
Rol
es:
Pro
cess
,
supp
ort,
and
qual
ity
man
ager
s, te
am
lead
er
The
TE
ST
x sc
ript
s in
dica
te th
at b
uild
s ar
e
veri
fied
but
do
not o
ffer
spe
cifi
cs o
n ho
w to
perf
orm
the
audi
t. Su
ch a
udit
s m
ight
rea
sona
bly
be in
terp
rete
d as
fal
ling
und
er th
e su
ppor
t
man
ager
, qua
lity
man
ager
, pro
cess
man
ager
, or
team
lead
er r
oles
. The
indi
vidu
al T
AS
K, L
OG
T,
and
poss
ibly
LO
GD
for
ms
refl
ect t
hese
task
s fo
r
who
ever
is a
ssig
ned.
P
The
scr
ipts
and
rol
e de
scri
ptio
ns p
arti
ally
addr
ess
the
inte
nt o
f th
e pr
acti
ce, b
ut th
e
acti
ons
men
tion
ed a
re n
ot in
eno
ugh
deta
il
to b
e ex
ecut
ed in
a r
epea
tabl
e m
anne
r.
122
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
9.1.
2 P
roce
ss a
nd
Pro
du
ct Q
ual
ity
Ass
ura
nce
(P
PQ
A)
The
Pro
cess
and
Pro
duct
Qua
lity
Ass
uran
ce (
PPQ
A)
proc
ess
area
sup
port
s al
l pro
cess
are
as b
y pr
ovid
ing
spec
ific
pra
ctic
es f
or o
bjec
tive
ly e
valu
atin
g pe
rfor
med
pro
cess
es, w
ork
prod
ucts
, and
ser
vice
s ag
ains
t the
app
licab
le p
roce
ss d
escr
ipti
ons,
sta
ndar
ds, a
nd p
roce
dure
s an
d en
suri
ng th
at a
ny is
sues
ar
isin
g fr
om th
ese
revi
ews
are
addr
esse
d. P
roce
ss a
nd P
rodu
ct Q
ualit
y A
ssur
ance
sup
port
s th
e de
liver
y of
hig
h-qu
alit
y pr
oduc
ts a
nd s
ervi
ces
by
prov
idin
g th
e pr
ojec
t sta
ff a
nd a
ll le
vels
of
man
ager
s w
ith
appr
opri
ate
visi
bilit
y in
to, a
nd f
eedb
ack
on, t
he p
roce
sses
and
ass
ocia
ted
wor
k pr
oduc
ts
thro
ugho
ut th
e lif
e of
the
proj
ect.
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
SG1.
Adh
eren
ce o
f th
e pe
rfor
med
proc
ess
and
asso
ciat
ed w
ork
prod
ucts
and
serv
ices
to
appl
icab
le p
roce
ss
defi
niti
ons,
sta
ndar
ds, a
nd p
roce
dure
s is
obje
ctiv
ely
eval
uate
d.
Scri
pts:
WE
EK
,
MT
G, S
TA
TU
S,
PM
, che
ckpo
int
revi
ew
1.1.
Obj
ecti
vely
eva
luat
e th
e de
sign
ated
perf
orm
ed p
roce
sses
aga
inst
the
appl
icab
le
proc
ess
desc
ript
ions
, sta
ndar
ds, a
nd
proc
edur
es.
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
,
INS,
WE
EK
,
ST
AT
US
,
SU
MM
AR
Y,
PIP
, IT
L
Mos
t pro
cess
scr
ipts
are
def
ined
and
rev
iew
ed a
s
nece
ssar
y by
the
appr
opri
ate
role
man
ager
(s)
and
the
team
. Non
-com
plia
nces
are
bro
ught
to th
e
team
’s a
tten
tion
dur
ing
the
wee
kly
mee
ting
and
logg
ed in
the
mee
ting
min
utes
. Les
sons
lear
ned
are
capt
ured
in th
e ph
ase
and
proj
ect p
ost-
mor
tem
mee
ting
s on
PIP
s. T
he C
heck
poin
t
Rev
iew
(us
uall
y co
nduc
ted
by a
n au
thor
ized
TS
P
coac
h) p
rovi
des
an in
depe
nden
t vie
w o
f th
e
team
’s c
ompl
ianc
e w
ith
TS
P p
ract
ices
and
thei
r
P
Whi
le th
ere
is n
o sp
ecif
ic a
ctiv
ity
in th
e
TS
P to
rev
iew
item
s no
t spe
cifi
call
y ca
lled
out w
ithi
n th
e T
SP
, thi
s is
oft
en a
dut
y
take
n up
by
one
or a
noth
er o
f th
e re
leva
nt
role
man
ager
s (e
.g.,
desi
gn s
tand
ards
by
the
desi
gn m
anag
er, c
odin
g st
anda
rds
by th
e
impl
emen
tati
on m
anag
er),
by
the
proc
ess
or
qual
ity
man
ager
in th
e ge
neri
c ca
se, o
r by
the
team
lead
er.
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
12
3
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
Rol
es:
Tea
m
lead
er, t
eam
mem
bers
, rol
e
man
ager
s (e
sp.
proc
ess
and
qual
ity)
stat
us a
gain
st th
eir
plan
. The
team
lead
er h
as
prim
ary
resp
onsi
bili
ty, s
uppo
rted
mai
nly
by th
e
proc
ess
and
qual
ity
man
ager
s, to
the
orga
niza
tion
for
ensu
ring
that
the
wor
k is
pla
nned
acc
ordi
ng
to a
def
ined
pro
cess
and
then
com
plet
ed
acco
rdin
g to
the
plan
.
Scri
pts:
RE
Q,
HL
D, I
MP
,
TE
ST
, TE
ST
1,
TE
ST
2, T
ES
T3,
TE
ST
D, P
M,
Che
ckpo
int
Rev
iew
For
ms:
SU
MP
,
SU
MQ
, IN
S,
TA
SK
, LO
GT
,
LO
GD
1.2.
Obj
ecti
vely
eva
luat
e th
e de
sign
ated
wor
k pr
oduc
ts a
nd s
ervi
ces
agai
nst t
he
appl
icab
le p
roce
ss d
escr
iptio
ns, s
tand
ards
,
and
proc
edur
es.
Rol
es:
Tea
m
lead
er, t
est a
nd
qual
ity
man
ager
s
TS
P h
as v
ario
us m
echa
nism
s to
eva
luat
e w
ork
prod
ucts
and
ser
vice
s; h
ow th
ey a
re im
plem
ente
d
wil
l var
y fr
om te
am to
team
. The
se a
ctiv
itie
s ar
e
revi
ewed
on
an in
divi
dual
and
team
bas
is a
nd a
re
peri
odic
ally
rev
iew
ed w
ith
seni
or m
anag
emen
t
and
the
TS
P c
oach
. Spe
cifi
c ac
tivi
ties
dur
ing
deve
lopm
ent d
eal d
irec
tly
wit
h w
ork
prod
uct
eval
uati
on, e
spec
iall
y in
spec
tion
s (s
crip
t IN
S).
The
qua
lity
and
test
man
ager
s ha
ve s
peci
fic
resp
onsi
bili
ties
reg
ardi
ng p
rodu
ct q
uali
ty.
P
The
TS
P is
mis
sing
rev
iew
s fo
r ite
ms
not
spec
ific
ally
cal
led
out w
ithi
n th
e T
SP
.
124
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
SG2.
Non
com
plia
nce
issu
es a
re
obje
ctiv
ely
trac
ked
and
com
mun
icat
ed,
and
reso
luti
on is
ens
ured
.
Scri
pts:
WE
EK
,
ST
AT
US
For
ms:
WE
EK
,
SU
MM
AR
Y,
SU
MP
, SU
MQ
Rol
es:
Tea
m
lead
er, a
ll r
ole
man
ager
s (e
sp.
qual
ity,
test
, and
proc
ess)
2.1.
Com
mun
icat
e qu
alit
y is
sues
and
ens
ure
reso
lutio
n of
non
com
plia
nce
issu
es w
ith
the
staf
f an
d m
anag
ers.
Oth
er:
Qua
rter
ly
revi
ew c
heck
list
,
NO
TE
BO
OK
Issu
es a
nd th
eir
reso
luti
on a
re tr
acke
d du
ring
the
wee
kly
team
mee
ting
(do
cum
ente
d on
for
m
WE
EK
) an
d an
y ot
her
ST
AT
US
mee
ting
s
(doc
umen
ted
on f
orm
SU
MM
AR
Y o
r a
form
cust
omiz
ed to
the
proj
ect o
r or
gani
zati
on).
All
such
doc
umen
tati
on e
vent
uall
y is
gat
here
d in
to
the
proj
ect N
OT
EB
OO
K. I
ssue
s th
at a
re n
ot
reso
lvab
le a
t the
team
leve
l are
rev
iew
ed w
ith
man
agem
ent a
t qua
rter
ly r
evie
w m
eeti
ngs.
D
Non
-com
plia
nces
are
not
spe
cifi
call
y
cove
red
in th
e T
SP. H
owev
er, b
ecau
se th
e
mec
hani
sm is
ful
ly in
pla
ce a
nd
docu
men
ted,
thes
e is
sues
wou
ld b
e tr
acke
d.
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
12
5
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
Scri
pts:
WE
EK
,
ST
AT
US
For
ms:
SU
MP
,
SU
MQ
, TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
,
SU
MM
AR
Y
Rol
es:
Tea
m
lead
er, p
roce
ss
and
qual
ity
man
ager
s
2.2.
Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
reco
rds
of th
e
qual
ity
assu
ranc
e ac
tivi
ties
.
Oth
er:
Qua
rter
ly
revi
ew c
heck
list
,
NO
TE
BO
OK
The
team
lead
er, p
roce
ss m
anag
er, a
nd q
ualit
y
man
ager
s ke
ep tr
ack
of d
iffe
rent
qua
lity
assu
ranc
e is
sues
. Inf
orm
atio
n re
gard
ing
the
issu
es/n
on-c
ompl
ianc
es is
cap
ture
d in
the
wee
kly
team
mee
ting
(W
EE
K)
or o
ther
ST
AT
US
mee
ting
usi
ng th
e S
UM
P a
nd/o
r S
UM
Q a
nd
poss
ibly
TA
SK
pla
ns, t
ime
logs
, and
def
ect l
ogs.
All
suc
h in
form
atio
n is
cap
ture
d in
the
proj
ect
NO
TE
BO
OK
.
D
126
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
9.1.
3 M
easu
rem
ent
and
An
alys
is (
MA
)
The
Mea
sure
men
t and
Ana
lysi
s (M
A)
proc
ess
area
sup
port
s al
l pro
cess
are
as b
y pr
ovid
ing
spec
ific
pra
ctic
es th
at g
uide
pro
ject
s an
d or
gani
zatio
ns in
al
igni
ng m
easu
rem
ent n
eeds
and
obj
ectiv
es w
ith a
mea
sure
men
t app
roac
h th
at w
ill p
rovi
de o
bjec
tive
resu
lts. T
hese
res
ults
can
be
used
in m
akin
g in
form
ed d
ecis
ions
and
taki
ng a
ppro
pria
te c
orre
ctiv
e ac
tions
.
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
SG1.
Mea
sure
men
t ob
ject
ives
and
acti
viti
es a
re a
ligne
d w
ith
iden
tifi
ed
info
rmat
ion
need
s an
d ob
ject
ives
.
Scri
pts:
LA
U
esp.
LA
U1,
LA
U2,
WE
EK
For
ms:
GO
AL
,
SU
MP
, WE
EK
Rol
es:
Tea
m
lead
er, t
eam
mem
ber,
all
rol
e
man
ager
s
1.1.
Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
mea
sure
men
t
obje
ctiv
es th
at a
re d
eriv
ed f
rom
iden
tifi
ed
info
rmat
ion
need
s an
d ob
ject
ives
.
Oth
er:
Sen
ior
man
agem
ent
and
mar
keti
ng
laun
ch
guid
elin
es
Mea
sure
men
t obj
ecti
ves
of T
SP
are
exp
lici
t and
deri
ve f
rom
TS
P d
esig
n go
als.
The
y ar
e
com
mun
icat
ed th
roug
hout
PSP
and
TS
P tr
aini
ng
for
all r
oles
: del
iver
a h
igh-
qual
ity p
rodu
ct (
as
clos
e to
zer
o cu
stom
er-d
isco
vere
d de
fect
s as
poss
ible
, mea
sure
d by
def
ect d
ensi
ty, e
spec
iall
y
thro
ugh
vari
ous
test
pha
ses)
on
sche
dule
(mea
sure
d by
ear
ned
valu
e ag
ains
t the
pla
n).
Suc
h ob
ject
ives
are
inte
rpre
ted
and
typi
call
y
adde
d to
by
seni
or m
anag
emen
t and
mar
keti
ng
duri
ng L
AU
1. T
he te
am th
en r
efin
es th
e
obje
ctiv
es a
nd q
uant
ifie
s th
em w
here
pos
sibl
e
duri
ng L
AU
2 on
for
m G
OA
L. T
hese
goa
ls a
nd
mea
sure
s gu
ide
the
laun
ch a
nd th
e pr
ojec
t goi
ng
forw
ard.
D
Man
agem
ent g
oals
rel
ated
to e
ffec
tive
ly
man
agin
g sc
hedu
le, c
ost (
in te
rms
of e
ffor
t),
and
qual
ity
are
usua
lly
wha
t dri
ve T
SP
intr
oduc
tion
in a
n or
gani
zatio
n.
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
12
7
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
Scri
pts:
LA
U1,
LA
U2
For
ms:
SU
MS
,
SU
MP
, TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
,
GO
AL
1.2.
Spe
cify
mea
sure
s to
add
ress
the
mea
sure
men
t obj
ecti
ves.
Rol
es:
Tea
m
lead
er, t
eam
mem
bers
, rol
e
man
ager
s
Eff
ort (
tim
e on
task
), s
ize,
def
ects
, and
dat
e
com
plet
e ar
e th
e fu
ndam
enta
l bas
e m
easu
res
of
the
TS
P. T
here
are
a n
umbe
r of
met
rics
der
ived
from
thes
e ba
se m
easu
res.
The
gat
heri
ng o
f th
e
base
met
rics
is r
equi
red
in T
SP s
crip
ts a
nd
happ
ens
in L
OG
T (
effo
rt),
LO
GD
(de
fect
s),
TA
SK
(da
te c
ompl
ete)
, and
SU
MS
(pr
oduc
t
size
). A
ddit
iona
l met
rics
are
req
uest
ed d
urin
g
LA
U1
and/
or d
efin
ed d
urin
g L
AU
2 if
nec
essa
ry
and
capt
ured
on
form
GO
AL
.
D
Scri
pts:
Mos
t
laun
ch a
nd
deve
lopm
ent
scri
pts
For
ms:
TS
P
wor
kboo
ks
(SU
MS
, TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
)
Rol
es:
Tea
m
mem
ber,
qual
ity,
and
supp
ort
man
ager
s
1.3.
Spe
cify
how
mea
sure
men
t dat
a w
ill b
e
obta
ined
and
sto
red.
Oth
er:
NO
TE
BO
OK
A k
ey T
SP
pri
ncip
le is
the
capt
ure
of e
ffor
t, si
ze
and
defe
cts
data
at t
he in
divi
dual
leve
l. M
ost
TS
P s
crip
ts r
equi
re th
e ga
ther
ing
of th
ese
base
met
rics
as
appr
opri
ate,
whi
ch a
re c
aptu
red
in
TS
P in
divi
dual
wor
kboo
ks, s
umm
ariz
ed in
the
TS
P c
onso
lidat
ed w
orkb
ook,
and
sto
red
for
late
r
anal
ysis
in th
e pr
ojec
t NO
TE
BO
OK
.
D
The
cap
abil
ity
to c
aptu
re th
ese
base
mea
sure
s is
fun
dam
enta
l to
TS
P. H
owev
er,
the
TS
P d
oes
not a
ddre
ss th
e ca
ptur
e of
dat
a
from
all
proc
esse
s.
128
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
Scri
pts:
WE
EK
,
ST
AT
US
, PM
For
ms:
WE
EK
,
ST
AT
US
, PIP
Rol
es:
Pla
nnin
g,
proc
ess,
and
qual
ity
man
ager
s
1.4.
Spe
cify
how
mea
sure
men
t dat
a w
ill b
e
anal
yzed
and
rep
orte
d.
Oth
er:
SU
MM
AR
Y,
quar
terl
y re
view
chec
klis
t
Tea
m d
ata
is r
evie
wed
by
the
team
dur
ing
the
wee
kly
mee
ting
(W
EE
K)
and
anal
yzed
wit
h
resp
ect t
o th
e te
am b
eing
abl
e to
mee
t its
com
mit
ted
goal
s. O
ther
ST
AT
US
mee
ting
s ar
e
held
or
SU
MM
AR
Y r
epor
ts p
repa
red
as
nece
ssar
y. A
t the
end
of
ever
y de
velo
pmen
t
cycl
e an
d pr
ojec
t the
pos
tmor
tem
(P
M)
com
pare
s
the
team
’s a
ctua
ls to
its
plan
s an
d no
tes
any
issu
es o
r op
port
unit
ies
for
impr
ovem
ent (
PIP
s).
Qua
rter
ly p
roje
ct r
evie
ws
usua
lly
high
ligh
t
impo
rtan
t dat
a fo
r m
anag
emen
t.
D
SG2.
Mea
sure
men
t re
sult
s th
at a
ddre
ss
iden
tifi
ed in
form
atio
n ne
eds
and
obje
ctiv
es a
re p
rovi
ded.
Scri
pts:
Mos
t
laun
ch a
nd
deve
lopm
ent
scri
pts
2.1.
Obt
ain
spec
ifie
d m
easu
rem
ent d
ata.
For
ms:
SU
MS
,
TA
SK
, LO
GT
,
LO
GD
, TS
P
cons
olid
ated
wor
kboo
k
Tea
m m
embe
rs c
olle
ct ti
me
and
defe
ct d
ata
as
they
per
form
thei
r ta
sks,
and
siz
e in
form
atio
n as
it b
ecom
es a
vail
able
. Oth
er in
form
atio
n is
usua
lly
capt
ured
or
sum
mar
ized
as
nece
ssar
y by
the
appr
opri
ate
role
man
ager
(e.
g., t
he q
uali
ty
man
ager
gat
hers
tim
e an
d de
fect
dat
a fo
r
insp
ecti
ons
from
rev
iew
ers,
plu
s si
ze d
ata
from
the
deve
lope
r). T
his
info
rmat
ion
is c
onso
lidat
ed
for
use
by th
e te
am a
nd r
ole
man
ager
s in
the
TSP
D
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
12
9
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
Rol
es:
Tea
m
mem
bers
, rol
e
man
ager
s as
appr
opri
ate
wor
kboo
ks o
r el
sew
here
(e.
g., f
orm
IN
S f
or
insp
ecti
ons)
.
Scri
pts:
WE
EK
,
ST
AT
US
, PM
For
ms:
TS
P
cons
olid
ated
wor
kboo
k,
WE
EK
2.2.
Ana
lyze
and
inte
rpre
t mea
sure
men
t
data
.
Rol
es:
Rol
e
man
ager
s (e
sp.
plan
ning
,
qual
ity,
sup
port
,
and
test
)
The
team
rev
iew
s it
s da
ta o
n a
regu
lar
basi
s
(WE
EK
), a
t pha
se a
nd p
roje
ct p
ostm
orte
ms
(PM
), a
nd f
or o
ther
ST
AT
US
mee
tings
as
nece
ssar
y. R
ole
man
ager
s re
view
team
dat
a an
d
perf
orm
ana
lyse
s, a
s ap
prop
riat
e fo
r th
eir
role
s.
D
Scri
pts:
WE
EK
,
PM
For
ms:
TS
P
indi
vidu
al a
nd
cons
olid
ated
wor
kboo
ks
2.3.
Man
age
and
stor
e m
easu
rem
ent d
ata,
mea
sure
men
t spe
cifi
cati
ons,
and
ana
lysi
s
resu
lts.
Rol
es:
Tea
m
lead
er, t
eam
mem
ber,
all
rol
e
man
ager
s
Tea
m a
nd in
divi
dual
wor
kboo
ks, t
eam
mee
ting
min
utes
, and
pos
tmor
tem
dat
a ar
e ca
ptur
ed in
the
indi
vidu
al a
nd c
onso
lidat
ed w
orkb
ooks
, in
the
wee
kly
mee
ting
min
utes
, at p
ostm
orte
m
mee
tings
, and
in th
e pr
ojec
t NO
TE
BO
OK
.
D
The
exa
ct f
orm
of
the
proj
ect N
OT
EB
OO
K
vari
es w
idel
y, r
angi
ng f
rom
cap
turi
ng
prin
ted
sum
mar
ies
from
the
TS
P w
orkb
ooks
in a
phy
sica
l bin
der
alon
g w
ith
othe
r
rele
vant
doc
umen
ts to
cop
ying
sna
psho
ts o
f
wor
kboo
ks o
n a
netw
ork
disk
on
a w
eekl
y
basi
s to
exp
orti
ng s
umm
ary
data
to a
corp
orat
e da
taba
se.
130
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
Oth
er:
NO
TE
BO
OK
Scri
pts:
WE
EK
,
ST
AT
US
, PM
For
ms:
WE
EK
,
TS
P w
orkb
ook
Rol
es:
Tea
m
lead
er, t
eam
mem
ber,
rol
e
man
ager
s
2.4.
Rep
ort r
esul
ts o
f m
easu
rem
ent a
nd
anal
ysis
act
ivit
ies
to a
ll r
elev
ant
stak
ehol
ders
.
Oth
er:
Qua
rter
ly
revi
ew c
heck
list
Tea
m d
ata
is r
evie
wed
by
the
team
dur
ing
the
wee
kly
mee
ting
and
rep
orte
d to
man
agem
ent a
nd
the
cust
omer
on
a pe
riod
ic b
asis
. Qua
rter
ly
proj
ect r
evie
ws
focu
s he
avil
y on
dat
a
sum
mar
ized
fro
m th
e te
am’s
ow
n m
easu
rem
ents
of it
s ac
tivi
ties
.
P
“Per
iodi
c” is
def
ined
by
the
orga
niza
tion
,
usua
lly
vary
ing
anyw
here
fro
m w
eekl
y to
quar
terl
y.
Pro
visi
ons
for
all r
elev
ant s
take
hold
ers
are
not e
xpli
cit.
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
13
1
9.1.
4 D
ecis
ion
An
alys
is a
nd
Res
olu
tio
n (
DA
R)
The
Dec
isio
n A
naly
sis
and
Res
olut
ion
(DA
R)
proc
ess
area
sup
port
s al
l pro
cess
are
as b
y pr
ovid
ing
a fo
rmal
eva
luat
ion
proc
ess
that
ens
ures
that
al
tern
ativ
es a
re c
ompa
red
and
the
best
one
is s
elec
ted
to a
ccom
plis
h th
e go
als
of th
e pr
oces
s ar
eas.
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
SG1.
Dec
isio
ns a
re b
ased
on
an
eval
uati
on o
f al
tern
ativ
es u
sing
esta
blis
hed
crit
eria
.
Scri
pts:
All
laun
ch s
crip
ts,
esp.
LA
U1
and
LA
U2,
WE
EK
For
ms:
GO
AL
,
laun
ch m
eeti
ng
min
utes
, WE
EK
1.1.
Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
guid
elin
es to
dete
rmin
e w
hich
issu
es a
re s
ubje
ct to
a
form
al e
valu
atio
n pr
oces
s.
Rol
es:
Rol
e
man
ager
s
TS
P d
oes
not p
rovi
de f
orm
al g
uide
line
s fo
r D
AR
acti
viti
es. H
owev
er, t
he p
ract
ices
are
sup
port
ed
thro
ugho
ut th
e la
unch
, as
plan
s ar
e co
nsta
ntly
bein
g ev
alua
ted
agai
nst t
he te
am’s
goa
ls a
nd
cons
trai
nts.
Bei
ng u
nabl
e to
mee
t one
or
mor
e
goal
s w
ithi
n th
e co
nstr
aint
s fo
rces
the
team
into
a de
cisi
on a
naly
sis
and
reso
luti
on a
ctiv
ity.
P
The
TS
P s
tron
gly
(tho
ugh
info
rmal
ly)
supp
orts
suc
h ac
tivi
ties
by
prov
idin
g da
ta to
esta
blis
h cr
iter
ia f
or a
var
iety
of
proj
ect
man
agem
ent a
nd e
ngin
eeri
ng a
ctiv
itie
s an
d
by th
e in
buil
t TSP
bia
s to
war
d fo
rmal
proc
ess,
a q
uali
ty f
ocus
, and
dat
a-ba
sed
deci
sion
mak
ing.
The
team
lead
er, r
ole
man
ager
s, a
nd te
am m
embe
rs e
ach
addr
ess
issu
es th
at im
pact
thei
r ar
eas
of
resp
onsi
bili
ty o
n an
ong
oing
, as-
need
ed
basi
s.
In a
ddit
ion
to th
e la
unch
pro
cess
as
an
exam
ple
of D
AR
pri
ncip
les
appl
ied
to
proj
ect m
anag
emen
t, a
smal
ler,
sel
f-
cont
aine
d in
stan
ce o
f D
AR
is th
e L
AU
7
scri
pt f
or r
isk
eval
uati
on. L
AU
7 ta
kes
the
expl
icit
dec
isio
n th
at r
isks
are
sub
ject
to
132
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
form
al e
valu
atio
n by
the
team
(S
P 1
.1),
use
s
team
bra
inst
orm
ing
to g
ener
ate
a li
st o
f
pote
ntia
l ris
ks (
SP 1
.3),
use
s es
tabl
ishe
d
crit
eria
(S
P 1
.2)
for
rank
ing
the
likel
ihoo
d
and
effe
ct o
f ri
sk r
eali
zati
on (
SP 1
.4),
use
s
the
resu
ltin
g in
form
atio
n to
dec
ide
on w
hich
risk
s ne
ed a
mit
igat
ion
stra
tegy
(S
P 1
.5),
and
eith
er d
evel
ops
mit
igat
ion
or a
ssig
ns
the
risk
to a
team
mem
ber
or m
embe
rs to
do
so (
SP 1
.6).
Scri
pts:
LA
U1,
LA
U9
Rol
es:
Rol
e
man
ager
s
1.2.
Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
the
crite
ria
for
eval
uati
ng a
lter
nati
ves,
and
the
rela
tive
rank
ing
of th
ese
crit
eria
.
Oth
er:
Sen
ior
man
agem
ent
laun
ch
guid
elin
es
The
cri
teri
a fo
r ev
alua
ting
alt
erna
tive
s du
ring
the
laun
ch in
volv
e ba
lanc
ing
requ
irem
ents
, del
iver
y
date
, qua
lity
, and
res
ourc
e co
nstr
aint
s. R
anki
ng
of th
ese
crit
eria
is c
over
ed b
y th
e se
nior
man
ager
brie
fing
in L
AU
1, a
nd p
ossi
bly
revi
site
d du
ring
LA
U9
if c
onfl
icti
ng a
lter
nati
ves
aris
e.
P
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
13
3
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
Scri
pts:
LA
U3,
LA
U4,
LA
U5,
LA
U6,
LA
U8
For
ms:
IN
V
1.3.
Ide
ntif
y al
tern
ativ
e so
luti
ons
to a
ddre
ss
issu
es.
Rol
es:
Tea
m
lead
er, t
eam
mem
ber,
rol
e
man
ager
s
The
team
iden
tifi
es p
roce
sses
that
it r
equi
res
to
addr
ess
tech
nica
l iss
ues
in L
AU
3 or
dur
ing
exec
utio
n of
thei
r as
sign
ed ta
sks.
Dur
ing
LA
U4,
LA
U5,
LA
U6,
and
LA
U8,
if th
e te
am is
una
ble
to m
eet o
ne o
r m
ore
goal
s, a
lter
nati
ve p
lans
are
gene
rate
d. T
ypic
al a
lter
nati
ves
incl
ude
addi
tiona
l
pers
onne
l, re
duct
ion
in o
r ph
ased
del
iver
y of
func
tion
alit
y, o
r sc
hedu
le r
elie
f.
P
Scri
pts:
LA
U2-
LA
U9
For
ms:
WE
EK
1.4.
Sel
ect t
he e
valu
atio
n m
etho
ds.
Rol
es:
Tea
m
lead
, tea
m
mem
ber,
rol
e
man
ager
s
Dur
ing
the
laun
ch, t
he te
am e
ngag
es in
a
coll
ecti
ve a
naly
sis
of p
lann
ing
opti
ons
and
how
wel
l the
goa
ls d
efin
ed in
LA
U2
are
met
. Thi
s
incl
udes
a p
reli
min
ary
anal
ysis
of
the
sche
dule
and
effo
rt r
equi
red
duri
ng L
AU
4, a
naly
sis
of
qual
ity
goal
s du
ring
LA
U5,
a r
evis
ited
ana
lysi
s
of s
ched
ule
and
effo
rt d
urin
g L
AU
6, a
nd
anal
ysis
of
proj
ect r
isks
dur
ing
LA
U7.
LA
U8
addr
esse
s is
sues
that
hav
e no
t bee
n re
solv
ed
prev
ious
ly. T
he u
ltim
ate
eval
uati
on is
for
man
agem
ent i
n L
AU
9 af
ter
pres
enta
tion
of
alte
rnat
ives
by
the
team
.
P
134
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
Scri
pts:
LA
U6,
LA
U8,
LA
U9
1.5.
Eva
luat
e al
tern
ativ
e so
lutio
ns u
sing
the
esta
blis
hed
crit
eria
and
met
hods
.
Rol
es:
Tea
m
lead
er, t
eam
mem
ber,
rol
e
man
ager
s
Alt
erna
tive
pla
ns a
re m
ade
duri
ng th
e la
unch
(usu
ally
in L
AU
6 or
LA
U8)
if p
roje
ct g
oals
cann
ot b
e m
et u
nder
the
give
n co
nstr
aint
s.
Alt
erna
tive
s ar
e pr
esen
ted
to m
anag
emen
t at
LA
U9.
P
Scr
ipts
: LA
U9
For
ms:
WE
EK
1.6.
Sel
ect s
olut
ions
fro
m th
e al
tern
ativ
es
base
d on
the
eval
uati
on c
rite
ria.
Rol
es:
Tea
m
lead
er, t
eam
mem
ber,
rol
e
man
ager
s
Man
agem
ent c
hoos
es f
rom
am
ong
alte
rnat
e
plan
s m
ade
by th
e te
am b
ased
on
the
crit
eria
pres
ente
d du
ring
LA
U1.
P
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
13
5
9.1.
5 O
rgan
izat
ion
al E
nvi
ron
men
t fo
r In
teg
rati
on
– IP
PD
(O
EI)
The
Org
aniz
atio
n E
nvir
onm
ent f
or I
nteg
ratio
n (O
EI)
pro
cess
are
a es
tabl
ishe
s th
e ap
proa
ch a
nd e
nvir
onm
ent f
or th
e im
plem
enta
tion
of I
PPD
. The
en
viro
nmen
t is
esta
blis
hed
by o
btai
ning
, ada
ptin
g, o
r de
velo
ping
pro
cess
es th
at f
acili
tate
eff
ecti
ve in
tegr
ated
team
beh
avio
r, as
wel
l as
stak
ehol
der
com
mun
icat
ion
and
coll
abor
atio
n, c
reat
ing
the
orga
niza
tion’
s sh
ared
vis
ion,
and
man
agin
g pe
ople
to p
rom
ote
inte
grat
ive
beha
vior
. Spe
cifi
c pr
actic
es
of th
e O
EI
proc
ess
area
pro
mot
e bo
th te
am a
nd in
divi
dual
exc
elle
nce
whi
le e
nabl
ing
the
rew
ardi
ng in
tegr
atio
n ac
ross
all
busi
ness
and
tech
nica
l fu
ncti
ons
in th
e ex
ecut
ion
of th
e pr
ojec
ts.
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
SG1.
An
infr
astr
uctu
re t
hat
max
imiz
es
the
prod
ucti
vity
of
peop
le a
nd a
ffec
ts t
he
colla
bora
tion
nec
essa
ry f
or in
tegr
atio
n is
prov
ided
.
Scri
pts:
LA
U1
Rol
es:
Tea
m
lead
er
1.1.
Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
a sh
ared
vis
ion
for
the
orga
niza
tion
.
Oth
er:
Sen
ior
man
agem
ent
laun
ch
guid
elin
es
An
orga
niza
tion
al v
isio
n is
usu
ally
com
mun
icat
ed b
y se
nior
man
agem
ent a
t LA
U1.
The
team
lead
er is
res
pons
ible
for
rep
rese
ntin
g
man
agem
ent t
o th
e te
am th
roug
hout
the
proj
ect.
S
Scri
pts:
WE
EK
,
ST
AT
US
1.2.
Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
an in
tegr
ated
wor
k en
viro
nmen
t tha
t sup
port
s IP
PD
by
enab
ling
col
labo
ratio
n an
d co
ncur
rent
deve
lopm
ent.
Rol
es:
Tea
m
lead
er, t
eam
mem
ber
Wor
k en
viro
nmen
t iss
ues
are
disc
usse
d w
ith
the
team
as
requ
ired
dur
ing
the
wee
kly
mee
ting
and
rais
ed w
ith
man
agem
ent d
urin
g st
atus
mee
ting
s.
S
136
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
Scri
pts:
LA
U,
RE
L
Rol
es:
Tea
m
lead
er, r
ole
man
ager
s
1.3.
Ide
ntif
y th
e un
ique
ski
lls
need
to
supp
ort t
he I
PP
D e
nvir
onm
ent.
Oth
er:
TS
P
intr
oduc
tion
stra
tegy
The
TS
P I
ntro
duct
ion
stra
tegy
iden
tifi
es a
port
ion
of th
e re
quir
ed tr
aini
ng a
nd th
e T
SP
(re)
laun
ch p
rovi
des
an o
pera
tiona
l exa
mpl
e th
at
supp
orts
the
IPP
D e
nvir
onm
ent.
S
SG2.
Peo
ple
are
man
aged
to
nurt
ure
the
inte
grat
ive
and
colla
bora
tive
beh
avio
rs o
f
an I
PP
D e
nvir
onm
ent.
Scri
pts:
LA
U,
RE
L, S
TA
TU
S
Rol
es:
Tea
m
lead
, tea
m
mem
ber,
rol
e
man
ager
s
2.1.
Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
lead
ersh
ip
mec
hani
sms
to e
nabl
e ti
mel
y co
llab
orat
ion.
Oth
er:
Qua
rter
ly
revi
ew c
heck
list
Man
agem
ent i
s in
form
ed o
f pr
ojec
t sta
tus
and
issu
es th
at r
equi
re th
eir
atte
ntio
n on
a r
egul
ar
basi
s.
The
TS
P it
self
pro
vide
s m
echa
nism
s fo
r de
cisi
on
mak
ing,
del
egat
ion
of a
utho
rity
, and
rai
sing
and
com
mun
icat
ing
risk
s an
d is
sues
.
S
TS
P in
form
ally
sup
port
s th
is p
ract
ice.
2.2.
Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
ince
ntiv
es f
or
adop
ting
and
dem
onst
rati
ng in
tegr
ativ
e an
d
coll
abor
ativ
e be
havi
ors
at a
ll le
vels
of
the
orga
niza
tion
.
Scri
pt:
WE
EK
,
ST
AT
US
TS
P in
form
ally
sup
port
s th
is p
ract
ice
wit
h
proc
edur
es f
or in
tegr
ated
rev
iew
s of
pro
ject
stat
us.
S
Ince
ntiv
es n
eed
not b
e fi
nanc
ial i
n na
ture
.
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
13
7
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
Scri
pt:
Lau
nch,
RE
L, L
AU
1,
WE
EK
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
SC
HE
DU
LE
,
WE
EK
2.3.
Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
orga
niza
tion
al
guid
elin
es to
bal
ance
team
and
hom
e
orga
niza
tion
res
pons
ibil
ities
.
Rol
es:
Tea
m
lead
er, t
eam
mem
ber,
rol
e
man
ager
The
TS
P p
roce
ss, e
spec
iall
y la
unch
es a
nd
peri
odic
rel
aunc
hes,
ena
bles
team
mem
bers
to
bala
nce
com
mit
men
ts b
y ex
plic
itly
fac
tori
ng in
the
“ava
ilab
ilit
y” o
f in
divi
dual
s to
add
ress
team
resp
onsi
bili
ties
.
S
TS
P in
form
ally
sup
port
s th
is p
ract
ice.
138
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
9.1.
6 C
ausa
l An
alys
is a
nd
Res
olu
tio
n (
CA
R)
Usi
ng th
e C
ausa
l Ana
lysi
s an
d R
esol
utio
n (C
AR
) pr
oces
s ar
ea, t
he p
roje
ct s
triv
es to
und
erst
and
the
com
mon
cau
ses
of v
aria
tion
inhe
rent
in
proc
esse
s an
d re
mov
e th
em f
rom
the
proj
ect’
s pr
oces
ses,
as
wel
l as
to u
se th
is k
now
ledg
e to
con
tinua
lly im
prov
e th
e or
gani
zatio
n’s
proc
esse
s. B
oth
the
defi
ned
proc
esse
s an
d th
e or
gani
zatio
n’s
set o
f st
anda
rd p
roce
sses
are
targ
ets
of th
ese
impr
ovem
ent a
ctiv
ities
.
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
SG1.
Roo
t ca
uses
of
defe
cts
and
othe
r
prob
lem
s ar
e sy
stem
atic
ally
det
erm
ined
.
Scri
pts:
PM
,
TE
ST
, TE
ST
1,
TE
ST
2, T
ES
T3,
TE
ST
D, P
IP
For
ms:
PIP
,
TA
SK
, LO
GT
,
LO
GD
1.1.
Sel
ect t
he d
efec
ts a
nd o
ther
pro
blem
s
for
anal
ysis
.
Rol
es:
Tea
m
lead
er, t
eam
mem
ber,
rol
e
man
ager
s
TS
P s
crip
ts c
all f
or th
e an
alys
is o
f de
fect
s fo
und
afte
r un
it te
st. O
ther
pro
blem
s no
t rel
ated
to
defe
cts
are
not s
peci
fica
lly
addr
esse
d. P
roje
ct
orga
niza
tion
PIP
s m
ay a
lso
be s
elec
ted.
P
Scri
pts:
TE
ST
D
For
ms:
PIP
,
SU
MQ
, LO
GD
1.2.
Per
form
cau
sal a
naly
sis
of s
elec
ted
defe
cts
and
othe
r pr
oble
ms
and
prop
ose
acti
ons
to a
ddre
ss th
em.
Rol
es:
Tea
m
lead
er, t
eam
mem
ber,
rol
e
man
ager
s
The
TE
ST
D s
crip
t is
used
to a
naly
ze d
efec
ts.
Oth
er p
robl
ems
not r
elat
ed to
def
ects
are
not
spec
ific
ally
add
ress
ed, b
ut m
ay b
e ha
ndle
d by
PIP
s an
d th
e ap
prop
riat
e ro
le m
anag
er.
D
In p
ract
ice,
the
TE
ST
D p
roce
ss is
use
d to
anal
yze
othe
r pr
oble
ms
iden
tifi
ed b
y P
IPs.
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
13
9
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
SG2.
Roo
t ca
uses
of
defe
cts
and
othe
r
prob
lem
s ar
e sy
stem
atic
ally
add
ress
ed t
o
prev
ent
thei
r fu
ture
occ
urre
nce.
Scri
pts:
LA
U3,
WE
EK
, PIP
For
ms:
PIP
,
TA
SK
, LO
GT
,
LO
GD
2.1.
Im
plem
ent t
he s
elec
ted
acti
on
prop
osal
s th
at w
ere
deve
lope
d in
cau
sal
anal
ysis
.
Rol
es:
Tea
m
lead
er, t
eam
mem
ber,
rol
e
man
ager
s
PIP
s ar
e de
velo
ped
duri
ng th
e ex
ecut
ion
of th
e
proc
ess
scri
pts.
The
pro
cess
and
qua
lity
rol
e
man
ager
s re
view
the
PIP
s fo
r im
plem
enta
tion
into
the
proj
ect’
s an
d/or
org
aniz
atio
n’s
proc
esse
s.
D
The
PIP
impl
emen
tati
on p
roce
ss is
not
com
plet
ely
defi
ned
in th
e T
SP. R
ole
man
ager
mee
ting
s ac
ross
the
orga
niza
tion
,
for
exam
ple,
cou
ld a
ddre
ss th
e w
ides
prea
d
impl
emen
tati
on o
f P
IP s
ugge
stio
ns.
Scri
pts:
PM
For
ms:
SU
MS
,
TA
SK
, LO
GT
,
LO
GD
, TS
P
indi
vidu
al a
nd
cons
olid
ated
wor
kboo
ks,
WE
EK
2.2.
Eva
luat
e th
e ef
fect
of
chan
ges
on
proc
ess
perf
orm
ance
.
Rol
es:
Tea
m
lead
er, t
eam
mem
ber,
rol
e
man
ager
s
Pro
cess
and
def
ect d
ata
are
capt
ured
at t
he
indi
vidu
al le
vel a
nd c
onso
lida
ted
for
team
use
.
Tea
m p
erfo
rman
ce is
rev
iew
ed b
y th
e
appr
opri
ate
role
man
ager
and
by
the
enti
re te
am
at th
e w
eekl
y m
eeti
ng a
nd a
t the
pha
se o
r pr
ojec
t
post
mor
tem
.
D
140
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
Scri
pts:
TE
ST
D,
PM
For
ms:
MT
G,
PIP
Rol
es:
Tea
m
lead
er, t
eam
mem
ber,
rol
e
man
ager
2.3
Rec
ord
caus
al a
naly
sis
and
reso
lutio
n
data
for
use
acr
oss
the
proj
ect a
nd
orga
niza
tion
.
Oth
er:
NO
TE
BO
OK
Dat
a fr
om T
ES
TD
(fr
om th
e m
eeti
ng m
inut
es)
and
PIP
impl
emen
tati
on is
cap
ture
d an
d st
ored
in
the
proj
ect N
OT
EB
OO
K.
P
Ens
urin
g us
e of
the
data
acr
oss
the
orga
niza
tion
is o
ut o
f th
e sc
ope
of th
e T
SP.
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
14
1
9.2
TS
P a
nd
Su
pp
ort
Cat
ego
ry G
ener
ic P
ract
ices
If
ther
e ar
e co
nsis
tent
pat
tern
s in
how
TSP
rel
ates
to g
ener
ic p
ract
ices
acr
oss
the
PAs
of th
e ot
her
proc
ess
cate
gori
es, t
here
see
ms
to b
e no
suc
h co
nsis
tenc
y in
how
TSP
rel
ates
to G
Ps a
cros
s th
e PA
s of
the
supp
ort c
ateg
ory.
Whe
re o
ne P
A m
ight
mir
ror
the
expl
icit
str
engt
hs o
f th
e pr
ojec
t m
anag
emen
t or
engi
neer
ing
GPs
, ano
ther
PA
may
hav
e a
mor
e te
nuou
s re
latio
nshi
p si
mil
ar to
the
proc
ess
cate
gory
. Als
o, m
any
supp
ort a
ctiv
itie
s ar
e pl
anne
d in
con
junc
tion
with
oth
er w
ork
item
s an
d th
us m
ay n
ot b
e sh
own
expl
icitl
y in
a p
roce
ss s
crip
t or
an in
divi
dual
dev
elop
er’s
TSP
wor
kboo
k.
The
se is
sues
mus
t be
cons
ider
ed b
y th
e E
PG o
r si
mila
r gr
oup
whe
n us
ing
this
info
rmat
ion
to g
uide
a d
evel
opm
ent e
ffor
t or
prep
are
for
a SC
AM
PI
appr
aisa
l.
Gen
eric
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Pro
cess
Are
as
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
GP
2.1
. Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
an
orga
niza
tion
al p
olic
y fo
r pl
anni
ng a
nd
perf
orm
ing
the
proc
ess.
A
ll S
uppo
rt P
As
Out
of
the
scop
e of
TS
P.
U
Scri
pts:
LA
U3,
LA
U4,
LA
U5,
LA
U6,
RE
L
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
LO
GT
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, t
eam
mem
ber,
rol
e
man
ager
s
GP
2.2
. Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
the
plan
for
perf
orm
ing
the
proc
ess.
Oth
er:
PR
EP
L,
PR
EP
R
All
: D
urin
g th
e T
SP la
unch
, pla
ns a
re e
stab
lish
ed f
or v
ario
us p
roje
ct p
roce
sses
. Wit
h th
e ex
cept
ion
of
som
e as
pect
s of
CM
and
per
haps
PP
QA
, the
se P
As
are
not e
xpli
citly
add
ress
ed. H
owev
er, t
he la
unch
proc
ess
can
pote
ntia
lly
addr
ess
thes
e ac
tivi
ties
and
pro
vide
a m
eans
for
com
plet
ing
the
plan
ning
proc
ess.
DA
R:
To
the
exte
nt th
at th
e T
SP la
unch
is a
n ap
plic
atio
n of
the
DA
R p
roce
ss, t
he la
unch
pre
para
tion
acti
viti
es e
stab
lish
and
mai
ntai
n a
plan
for
dec
isio
n an
alys
is a
nd r
esol
utio
n fo
r pr
ojec
t pla
nnin
g. S
ee
Sec
tion
9.1
.4 a
bove
.
S
Scri
pts:
LA
U6
GP
2.3
. Pro
vide
res
ourc
es f
or p
erfo
rmin
g
the
proc
ess,
dev
elop
ing
the
wor
k pr
oduc
ts,
and
prov
idin
g th
e se
rvic
es o
f th
e pr
oces
s.
For
ms:
SU
MS,
TA
SK
All
: T
he te
am le
ader
and
init
ial t
eam
mem
ber
assi
gnm
ents
are
mad
e as
par
t of
laun
ch p
repa
rati
on.
Res
ourc
es a
re a
ssig
ned
to p
roje
ct ta
sks
duri
ng M
eeti
ng 6
of
the
laun
ch. T
he te
am le
ader
and
rol
e
man
ager
s he
lp e
nsur
e th
at th
e ta
sks
are
prop
erly
sta
ffed
.
S
142
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
Gen
eric
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Pro
cess
Are
as
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, t
eam
mem
ber,
rol
e
man
ager
s
Oth
er:
PR
EP
L,
PR
EP
R
Scri
pts:
LA
U2,
LA
U3,
LA
U6
For
ms:
TA
SK
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, t
eam
mem
ber,
plan
ning
and
supp
ort m
anag
er
GP
2.4
. Ass
ign
resp
onsi
bili
ty a
nd a
utho
rity
for
perf
orm
ing
the
proc
ess,
dev
elop
ing
the
wor
k pr
oduc
ts, a
nd p
rovi
ding
the
serv
ices
of th
e pr
oces
s.
Oth
er:
PR
EP
L,
PR
EP
R
All
: T
he te
am le
ader
is a
ssig
ned
duri
ng la
unch
pre
para
tion
. Rol
es a
re e
stab
lish
ed d
urin
g L
AU
2.
Spe
cifi
c ta
sk r
espo
nsib
ilit
ies
are
assi
gned
to p
roje
ct ta
sks
duri
ng L
AU
6. T
he te
am le
ader
and
rol
e
man
ager
s he
lp e
nsur
e th
at th
e ta
sks
are
prop
erly
sta
ffed
.
CM
: P
roje
ct C
CB
res
pons
ibili
ties
are
assi
gned
in L
AU
3. T
he s
uppo
rt m
anag
er h
as s
peci
fic
resp
onsi
bili
ty f
or th
e ch
ange
con
trol
sys
tem
and
hea
ds th
e C
CB
.
MA
: T
he c
aptu
re o
f th
e ba
se T
SP
mea
sure
s is
the
resp
onsi
bly
of a
ll te
am m
embe
rs. T
he p
lann
ing
man
ager
has
spe
cifi
c re
spon
sibi
lity
to c
onso
lida
te th
e T
SP w
orkb
ooks
and
mai
ntai
n th
e pr
ojec
t
NO
TE
BO
OK
.
S
Scri
pts:
LA
U
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
GP
2.5
. Tra
in th
e pe
ople
per
form
ing
or
supp
ortin
g th
e pr
oces
s as
nee
ded.
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, t
eam
mem
ber
All
: T
he T
SP
laun
ch p
rovi
des
a m
eans
of
plan
ning
all
req
uire
d tr
aini
ng f
or te
am m
embe
rs to
per
form
thei
r ta
sks.
The
laun
ch p
roce
ss a
nd T
SP
tool
and
pro
cess
trai
ning
pro
vide
s th
e te
am w
ith
a co
mm
on
basi
s fo
r m
anag
ing
thei
r ta
sks,
incl
udin
g th
e ca
ptur
e of
the
mea
sure
s re
quir
ed b
y th
e pr
ojec
t.
S
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
14
3
Gen
eric
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Pro
cess
Are
as
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Scri
pts:
LA
U
For
ms:
TS
P
wor
kboo
ks
Rol
es: T
eam
mem
ber,
rol
e
man
ager
s
GP
2.6
. Pla
ce d
esig
nate
d w
ork
prod
ucts
of
the
proc
ess
unde
r ap
prop
riat
e le
vels
of
conf
igur
atio
n m
anag
emen
t.
Oth
er:
Pro
ject
NO
TE
BO
OK
All
: A
ll e
lem
ents
of
plan
ning
, mon
itor
ing,
and
con
trol
ling
the
proj
ect a
re c
aptu
red
duri
ng th
e la
unch
proc
ess
and
in th
e da
ily
acti
viti
es o
f th
e te
am m
embe
rs. A
ll o
f th
ese
item
s ar
e ca
ptur
ed a
t lea
st
wee
kly
in th
e pr
ojec
t NO
TE
BO
OK
.
S
Scri
pts:
LA
U1,
LA
U9,
WE
EK
For
ms:
WE
EK
,
ST
AT
US
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, r
ole
man
ager
s
GP
2.7
. Ide
ntif
y an
d in
volv
e th
e re
leva
nt
stak
ehol
ders
as
plan
ned.
Oth
er:
PR
EP
L,
PR
EP
R,
ST
AT
US
All
: D
urin
g th
e pr
epar
atio
n fo
r a
laun
ch, t
he s
take
hold
ers
are
iden
tifie
d, a
nd th
ey u
sual
ly p
arti
cipa
te
in L
AU
1 an
d L
AU
9. T
he s
take
hold
ers
are
info
rmed
of
proj
ect s
tatu
s th
roug
h th
e in
tera
ctio
n w
ith
the
appr
opri
ate
role
man
ager
and
pro
ject
sta
tus
repo
rtin
g m
echa
nism
s.
S
Scri
pts:
WE
EK
,
ST
AT
US
, IT
L
For
ms:
WE
EK
GP
2.8
. Mon
itor
and
con
trol
the
proc
ess
agai
nst t
he p
lan
for
perf
orm
ing
the
proc
ess
and
take
app
ropr
iate
cor
rect
ive
acti
on.
Rol
es: T
SP
coac
h, te
am
lead
er, r
ole
man
ager
s
All
: T
he T
SP
wee
kly
team
mee
ting
(W
EE
K)
and
wee
kly
ST
AT
US
rep
ort p
rovi
de c
lose
mon
itor
ing
of
the
team
’s s
tatu
s. A
ny a
ctiv
itie
s th
at a
re m
ore
than
a w
eek
past
thei
r du
e da
te a
re u
sual
ly p
rovi
ded
spec
ial a
tten
tion
. The
team
lead
er a
nd r
ole
man
ager
s te
nd to
trac
k “n
on-e
ngin
eeri
ng”
item
s cl
osel
y,
ofte
n as
pro
ject
ris
ks.
S
144
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
Gen
eric
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Pro
cess
Are
as
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Oth
er:
ST
AT
US
,
quar
terl
y re
view
chec
klis
t
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
,
IRT
L
GP
2.9
. Obj
ecti
vely
eva
luat
e ad
here
nce
of
the
proc
ess
agai
nst i
ts p
roce
ss d
escr
ipti
on,
stan
dard
s, a
nd p
roce
dure
s, a
nd a
ddre
ss
nonc
ompl
ianc
e.
Rol
es: P
roce
ss
man
ager
All
: T
he p
roce
ss m
anag
er a
nd/o
r su
ppor
t man
ager
rol
es a
re g
ener
ally
acc
ount
able
and
oft
en d
irec
tly
resp
onsi
ble
for
ensu
ring
that
act
ivit
ies
take
pla
ce f
or th
e pr
ojec
t. T
he te
am r
evie
ws
proc
ess
nonc
onfo
rman
ce a
nd p
roce
ss im
prov
emen
t pro
posa
ls a
t tea
m m
eeti
ngs.
S
Scri
pts:
WE
EK
,
ST
AT
US
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er
GP
2.1
0. R
evie
w th
e ac
tivi
ties
, sta
tus,
and
resu
lts
of th
e pr
oces
s w
ith
high
er le
vel
man
agem
ent a
nd r
esol
ve is
sues
.
Oth
er:
ST
AT
US
,
quar
terl
y re
view
chec
klis
t
All
: T
he te
am le
ader
rev
iew
s pr
ojec
t pro
gres
s w
eekl
y w
ith
the
team
and
app
ropr
iate
cor
rect
ive
acti
ons
are
dete
rmin
ed a
nd e
xecu
ted.
Sta
tus
repo
rts
are
prov
ided
to m
anag
emen
t fro
m th
ese
mee
ting
s.
The
pro
ject
sta
tus
is a
lso
revi
ewed
wit
h se
nior
man
agem
ent a
t the
qua
rter
ly p
roje
ct r
evie
w.
S
Scri
pts:
LA
U3,
PIP
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
PIP
GP
3.1
. Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
the
desc
ript
ion
of a
def
ined
pro
cess
.
Rol
es: R
ole
man
ager
s
All
: D
urin
g a
TS
P la
unch
, the
team
def
ines
and
/or
agre
es to
the
proc
esse
s th
at th
ey w
ill u
se d
urin
g
that
por
tion
of th
e pr
ojec
t. O
ccas
iona
lly a
dditi
onal
pro
cess
es n
eed
to b
e de
fine
d, e
spec
ially
for
mat
ters
invo
lvin
g th
e su
ppor
t PA
s. T
he r
elev
ant r
ole
man
ager
ens
ures
that
they
are
def
ined
and
agre
ed to
by
the
team
.
S
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
14
5
Gen
eric
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Pro
cess
Are
as
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Scri
pts:
PM
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
,
PIP
GP
3.2
. Col
lect
wor
k pr
oduc
ts, m
easu
res,
mea
sure
men
t res
ults
, and
impr
ovem
ent
info
rmat
ion
deri
ved
from
pla
nnin
g an
d
perf
orm
ing
the
proc
ess
to s
uppo
rt th
e fu
ture
use
and
impr
ovem
ent o
f th
e or
gani
zati
on’s
proc
esse
s an
d pr
oces
s as
sets
.
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, t
eam
mem
ber
All
: P
roje
ct d
ata
and
arti
fact
s ar
e co
llec
ted
for
all t
asks
def
ined
dur
ing
the
laun
ch. P
IPs
are
wri
tten
as
need
ed d
urin
g th
e pr
ojec
t and
dur
ing
post
mor
tem
s.
S
Scri
pts:
LA
U2
For
ms:
GO
AL
GP
4.1
. Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
quan
tita
tive
obje
ctiv
es f
or th
e pr
oces
s th
at a
ddre
ss
qual
ity
and
proc
ess
perf
orm
ance
bas
ed o
n
cust
omer
nee
ds a
nd b
usin
ess
obje
ctiv
es.
Rol
es: T
eam
mem
ber
All
: Q
uant
itat
ive
obje
ctiv
es f
or s
uppo
rt a
ctiv
itie
s w
ill t
ypic
ally
be
spec
ifie
d du
ring
the
laun
ch
(LA
U2)
onl
y if
ther
e is
som
e re
ason
to b
elie
ve th
at s
uch
obje
ctiv
es a
re n
eces
sary
to e
nsur
e th
e qu
ality
and
the
tim
ely
and
cost
-eff
ecti
ve d
eliv
ery
of th
e pr
ojec
t’s
mai
n pr
oduc
t. In
this
cas
e, a
n ap
prop
riat
e
role
man
ager
is a
ssig
ned
to tr
ack
thes
e ob
ject
ives
.
S
Scri
pts:
For
ms:
SU
MS,
TA
SK
, LO
GT
,
LO
GD
GP
4.2
. Sta
bili
ze th
e pe
rfor
man
ce o
f on
e or
mor
e su
bpro
cess
es to
det
erm
ine
the
abil
ity
of th
e pr
oces
s to
ach
ieve
the
esta
blis
hed
quan
titat
ive
qual
ity
and
proc
ess-
perf
orm
ance
obj
ecti
ves.
R
oles
: Rol
e
man
ager
s
All
: T
SP te
ams
coll
ect d
ata
(SU
MS
, TA
SK
, LO
GT
, LO
GD
) to
ana
lyze
thei
r pe
rfor
man
ce a
nd to
mee
t
the
proj
ects
and
org
aniz
atio
nal g
oals
. As
wit
h G
P 4
.1 a
bove
, the
team
wil
l typ
ical
ly p
ay a
tten
tion
to
this
dat
a fo
r su
ppor
t act
ivit
ies
if it
aff
ects
the
qual
ity
and/
or th
e ti
mel
y an
d co
st-e
ffec
tive
deli
very
of
the
proj
ect’
s m
ain
prod
uct.
S
Scri
pts:
PM
For
ms:
PIP
GP
5.1
. Ens
ure
cont
inuo
us im
prov
emen
t of
the
proc
ess
in f
ulfi
llin
g th
e re
leva
nt
busi
ness
obj
ecti
ves
of th
e or
gani
zati
on.
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, p
roce
ss
man
ager
All
: W
hile
the
TSP
foc
uses
on
the
team
and
not
on
the
orga
niza
tiona
l asp
ect o
f th
is p
ract
ice,
cont
inuo
us im
prov
emen
t of
the
proj
ect’
s pr
oces
ses
and
perf
orm
ance
is p
art o
f th
e w
ay T
SP
team
s
func
tion
. Dat
a ar
e ga
ther
ed a
nd a
naly
zed
and
proc
ess
impr
ovem
ent p
ropo
sals
are
dra
fted
, rev
iew
ed,
and
impl
emen
ted
as th
e te
am s
triv
es to
mee
t its
com
mit
men
ts a
nd g
oals
. The
se e
ffor
ts c
an e
asil
y be
roll
ed in
to a
n or
gani
zati
onal
vie
w.
S
146
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
Gen
eric
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Pro
cess
Are
as
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Scri
pts:
TE
STD
For
ms:
PIP
,
TS
P w
orkb
ook
(SU
MP
, SU
MQ
,
stat
us a
nd
qual
ity
char
ts)
GP
5.2
. Ide
ntif
y an
d co
rrec
t the
roo
t cau
ses
of d
efec
ts a
nd o
ther
pro
blem
s in
the
proc
ess.
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, p
roce
ss
and
qual
ity
man
ager
s
All
: T
SP te
ams
coll
ect d
ata
to s
uppo
rt th
e id
enti
fica
tion
and
ana
lysi
s of
pro
ject
-rel
ated
pro
blem
s.
Tea
m m
embe
rs p
erfo
rm a
naly
sis
of th
eir
own
and
team
dat
a to
iden
tify
pro
blem
s an
d to
pro
pose
proc
ess
impr
ovem
ents
. Roo
t cau
se a
naly
sis
mee
ting
s ar
e he
ld a
s ne
cess
ary
over
a w
ide
rang
e of
issu
es.
S
CMU/SEI-2004-TR-014 147
10 Summary
The results documented in this report show clearly that TSP can instantiate a majority of the project-oriented specific practices of CMMI. In addition, many of the organization-oriented specific and generic practices of the model are supported at various levels by TSP practices. One must remember, however, that this is an idealized case, a paper exercise intended to guide the efforts of a process group when implementing TSP within the larger context of CMMI-based process improvement.
For this analysis to be useful in practical terms, the implementing group must take into account the realities of their unique situation, including the size and duration of typical projects, what and how to adapt to project sizes and durations at the limits of the usual variation, and what and how to adapt to the processes implemented outside the scope of single projects. TSP has seen significant successes at dramatically improving the results of individual projects, but the business of CMMI is improving the results of all projects in an organization. Working together, these two technologies hold the promise of rapid, measurable, and sustainable process improvement beyond the immediate reach of one or the other.
148 CMU/SEI-2004-TR-014
CMU/SEI-2004-TR-014 149
Appendix A: Supplier Management Process Areas
While the TSP does not directly address the Supplier Management activities, with a little thought, the practices from its two process areas can be planned, monitored, and analyzed using the TSP practices and principles. In general, the “Observation” column in the tables below indicates likely behavior by an experienced TSP team in dealing with potential and actual suppliers and the products and product components acquired from such suppliers.
Figure 10 shows the percentage of Supplier Management specific practices addressed by TSP for each PA. For detailed observations of each PA, see below.
Supplier Management
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
SAM ISM
Process Area
Perc
ent
of P
ract
ices
UnratedNot Addressed
Partially AddressedSupportedDirectly Addressed
Figure 10: TSP Practices Profile for Supplier Management Process Areas
150
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
Su
pp
lier
Ag
reem
ent
Man
agem
ent
(SA
M)
The
Sup
plie
r Agr
eem
ent M
anag
emen
t (SA
M)
proc
ess
area
add
ress
es th
e ne
ed o
f th
e pr
ojec
t to
effe
ctiv
ely
acqu
ire
thos
e po
rtio
ns o
f w
ork
that
are
pr
oduc
ed b
y su
pplie
rs. O
nce
a pr
oduc
t com
pone
nt is
iden
tifie
d an
d th
e su
pplie
r w
ho w
ill p
rodu
ce it
is s
elec
ted,
a s
uppl
ier
agre
emen
t tha
t wil
l be
used
to m
anag
e th
e su
pplie
r is
est
ablis
hed
and
mai
ntai
ned.
The
sup
plie
r’s
prog
ress
and
per
form
ance
are
mon
itore
d. A
ccep
tanc
e re
view
s an
d te
sts
are
cond
ucte
d on
the
supp
lier-
prod
uced
pro
duct
com
pone
nt.
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
SG1.
Agr
eem
ents
wit
h th
e su
pplie
rs a
re
esta
blis
hed
and
mai
ntai
ned.
Scri
pts:
LA
U1,
LA
U3,
LA
U4,
LA
U6,
LA
U7,
LA
U8,
HL
D
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
1.1.
Det
erm
ine
the
type
of
acqu
isit
ion
for
each
pro
duct
or
prod
uct c
ompo
nent
to b
e
acqu
ired
.
Rol
es:
Tea
m
lead
er, d
esig
n
man
ager
Man
agem
ent d
irec
tive
(L
AU
1), t
he d
evel
opm
ent
stra
tegy
(L
AU
3), t
he n
eed
to d
evel
op a
lter
nati
ve
solu
tions
(L
AU
4, L
AU
6, L
AU
8), o
r ri
sk
mit
igat
ion
(LA
U7)
for
the
proj
ect m
ay d
eter
min
e
a ne
ed f
or a
n ou
tsid
e su
ppli
er. T
he d
esig
n
man
ager
wou
ld b
e re
spon
sibl
e fo
r H
LD
act
ivit
ies
to d
eter
min
e w
hich
pro
duct
s or
com
pone
nts
wou
ld b
e bu
ilt b
y or
obt
aine
d fr
om a
sup
plie
r.
The
team
lead
er w
ould
be
invo
lved
in d
ecis
ions
to d
eter
min
e ac
quis
itio
n ty
pe.
D
Scri
pts:
LA
U4,
LA
U6,
LA
U7
1.2
Sel
ect s
uppl
iers
bas
ed o
n an
eva
luat
ion
of th
eir
abil
ity
to m
eet t
he s
peci
fied
requ
irem
ents
and
est
abli
shed
cri
teri
a.
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
If a
sup
plie
r is
nee
ded,
task
s to
det
erm
ine
viab
le
supp
liers
wou
ld b
e pl
aced
in th
e te
am’s
pro
ject
plan
(L
AU
4, T
AS
K, L
AU
6, a
nd L
AU
7) a
nd
mon
itore
d (T
AS
K, L
OG
T, L
OG
D).
The
team
D
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
15
1
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
Rol
es:
Tea
m
lead
er, s
uppo
rt
man
ager
lead
er a
nd d
esig
n m
anag
er, a
t a m
inim
um, w
ould
like
ly b
e in
volv
ed in
sup
plie
r se
lect
ion.
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
1.3
Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
form
al
agre
emen
ts w
ith
the
supp
lier
.
Rol
es:
Tea
m
lead
er, s
uppo
rt
man
ager
If a
sup
plie
r is
nee
ded,
task
s to
det
erm
ine
viab
le
supp
liers
wou
ld b
e pl
aced
in th
e te
am’s
pro
ject
plan
(L
AU
4, T
AS
K, L
AU
6, a
nd L
AU
7) a
nd
mon
itore
d (T
AS
K, L
OG
T, L
OG
D).
The
team
lead
er o
r su
ppor
t man
ager
is ty
pica
lly
resp
onsi
ble
for
mon
itor
ing
such
act
ivit
ies
for
the
team
.
D
SG2.
Agr
eem
ents
wit
h th
e su
pplie
rs a
re
sati
sfie
d by
bot
h th
e pr
ojec
t an
d th
e
supp
lier.
Scri
pts:
HL
D,
IMP
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
TS
P w
orkb
ooks
2.1.
Rev
iew
can
dida
te C
OT
S p
rodu
cts
to
ensu
re th
ey s
atis
fy th
e sp
ecif
ied
requ
irem
ents
that
are
cov
ered
und
er th
e
supp
lier
agre
emen
t.
Rol
es:
Des
ign
and
impl
emen
tati
on
man
ager
s
Indi
vidu
al T
AS
K p
lans
wou
ld li
kely
incl
ude
inve
stig
atio
ns o
f C
OT
S p
rodu
cts
and
wou
ld b
e
trac
ked
in in
divi
dual
wor
kboo
ks. T
ailo
red
vers
ions
of
HL
D a
nd/o
r IM
P w
ould
ref
lect
a
cust
omiz
ed d
esig
n ap
proa
ch. T
he d
esig
n or
impl
emen
tati
on m
anag
ers
wou
ld ty
pica
lly
lead
or c
oord
inat
e su
ch a
ctiv
itie
s.
D
Scri
pts:
WE
EK
,
ST
AT
US
2.2
Per
form
act
ivit
ies
wit
h th
e su
ppli
er a
s
spec
ifie
d in
the
supp
lier
agr
eem
ent.
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
TS
P w
orkb
ooks
The
sup
plie
r ag
reem
ent a
ctiv
itie
s w
ould
be
refl
ecte
d in
one
or
mor
e T
AS
K p
lans
and
refl
ecte
d in
the
corr
espo
ndin
g T
SP
wor
kboo
ks.
Sig
nifi
cant
act
ivit
ies
wou
ld b
e re
port
ed b
y on
e
D
152
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
Rol
es:
Tea
m
mem
ber,
rol
e
man
ager
s
or m
ore
team
mem
bers
in th
e w
eekl
y m
eeti
ng
(WE
EK
), o
ften
in c
onju
ncti
on w
ith
one
or m
ore
of th
e ro
le m
anag
er f
unct
ions
. Pro
blem
s an
d
mil
esto
nes
wou
ld li
kely
be
repo
rted
dur
ing
the
wee
kly
ST
AT
US
mee
ting.
Scri
pts:
WE
EK
,
ST
AT
US
, IM
P
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
TS
P w
orkb
ooks
2.3
Ens
ure
that
the
supp
lier
agr
eem
ent i
s
sati
sfie
d be
fore
acc
epti
ng th
e ac
quir
ed
prod
uct.
Rol
es:
Tea
m
lead
er, t
eam
mem
ber,
rol
e
man
ager
s
Tas
ks f
or te
stin
g of
sup
plie
r pr
oduc
ts w
ould
be
refl
ecte
d in
indi
vidu
al T
AS
K p
lans
, pro
babl
y
duri
ng a
n im
plem
enta
tion
pha
se (
IMP
), a
nd
trac
ked
in th
e T
SP w
orkb
ooks
. Sta
tus
of th
ose
task
s w
ould
be
revi
ewed
in th
e w
eekl
y te
am
mee
ting
(W
EE
K)
and
ST
AT
US
mee
ting
. The
vari
ous
affe
cted
rol
e m
anag
ers
wou
ld li
kely
be
invo
lved
. The
team
lead
er ty
pica
lly
has
fina
l
appr
oval
aut
hori
ty.
D
Scri
pts:
IM
P,
TE
ST
1, T
ES
T2
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
TS
P w
orkb
ooks
2.4
Tra
nsit
ion
the
acqu
ired
pro
duct
s fr
om
the
supp
lier
to th
e pr
ojec
t.
Rol
es:
Tes
t and
impl
emen
tati
on
man
ager
s
Thi
s w
ould
typi
call
y be
an
impl
emen
tati
on
(IM
P)
or b
uild
/int
egra
tion
(T
ES
T1,
TE
ST
2)
acti
vity
ref
lect
ed in
one
or
mor
e T
AS
K p
lans
and
trac
ked
in th
e T
SP w
orkb
ook.
The
impl
emen
tati
on o
r te
st m
anag
er w
ould
take
resp
onsi
bili
ty f
or c
ompl
etio
n of
thes
e ac
tivi
ties
.
D
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
15
3
Inte
gra
ted
Su
pp
lier
Man
agem
ent
(IS
M)
The
Int
egra
ted
Supp
lier
Man
agem
ent (
ISM
) pr
oces
s pr
oact
ivel
y id
entif
ies
sour
ces
of p
rodu
cts
that
may
be
used
to s
atis
fy p
roje
ct r
equi
rem
ents
and
m
onit
ors
the
sele
cted
sup
plie
r’s
wor
k pr
oduc
ts a
nd p
roce
sses
, whi
le m
aint
aini
ng a
coo
pera
tive
pro
ject
-sup
plie
r re
lati
onsh
ip. T
he s
peci
fic
prac
tices
of
the
Inte
grat
ed S
uppl
ier
Man
agem
ent p
roce
ss a
rea
cove
r se
lect
ing
pote
ntia
l sou
rces
of
prod
ucts
, eva
luat
ing
thos
e so
urce
s to
sel
ect s
uppl
iers
, m
onit
orin
g se
lect
ed s
uppl
ier
proc
esse
s an
d w
ork
prod
ucts
, and
rev
isin
g th
e su
pplie
r ag
reem
ent o
r re
lati
onsh
ip a
s ap
prop
riat
e. T
he I
nteg
rate
d Su
pplie
r M
anag
emen
t pro
cess
are
a w
orks
clo
sely
wit
h th
e Su
pplie
r Agr
eem
ent M
anag
emen
t pro
cess
are
a du
ring
the
supp
lier
sele
ctio
n pr
oces
s.
Inte
grat
ed S
uppl
ier
Man
agem
ent a
lso
shar
es m
onit
orin
g in
form
atio
n w
ith th
e E
ngin
eeri
ng a
nd S
uppo
rt p
roce
ss a
reas
in th
e fo
rm o
f te
chni
cal
solu
tion
, pro
duct
inte
grat
ion,
and
val
idat
ion
data
, as
wel
l as
proc
ess
and
prod
uct q
ualit
y as
sura
nce
and
conf
igur
atio
n m
anag
emen
t dat
a.
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
SG1.
Pot
enti
al s
ourc
es o
f pr
oduc
ts t
hat
best
fit
the
nee
ds o
f th
e pr
ojec
t ar
e
iden
tifi
ed, a
naly
zed,
and
sel
ecte
d.
Scri
pts:
RE
Q,
HL
D
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
TS
P w
orkb
ooks
1.1.
Ide
ntif
y an
d an
alyz
e po
tent
ial s
ourc
es
of p
rodu
cts
that
may
be
used
to s
atis
fy th
e
proj
ect’
s re
quir
emen
ts.
Rol
es:
Cus
tom
er
inte
rfac
e an
d
desi
gn m
anag
ers
The
cus
tom
er in
terf
ace
and/
or d
esig
n m
anag
ers
wou
ld li
kely
take
the
lead
in th
ese
acti
viti
es
duri
ng r
equi
rem
ents
dev
elop
men
t (R
EQ
) or
high
-lev
el d
esig
n (H
LD
). T
asks
wou
ld b
e
refl
ecte
d in
one
or
mor
e in
divi
dual
TA
SK
pla
ns
and
trac
ked
in th
e T
SP w
orkb
ooks
.
D
Scri
pts:
LA
U3
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
TS
P w
orkb
ooks
1.2
Use
a f
orm
al e
valu
atio
n pr
oces
s to
dete
rmin
e w
hich
sou
rces
of
cust
om-m
ade
and
off-
the-
shel
f pr
oduc
ts to
use
.
Rol
es:
Pro
cess
and
desi
gn
man
ager
The
des
ign
man
ager
wou
ld id
entif
y th
e ne
ed f
or
such
a p
roce
ss (
LA
U3)
and
late
r le
ad it
s cr
eati
on
and
usag
e. T
he p
roce
ss m
anag
er w
ould
ens
ure
that
it is
doc
umen
ted
prop
erly
and
use
d to
cre
ate
indi
vidu
al ta
sks
(TA
SK
). T
he ta
sks
wou
ld b
e
trac
ked
in th
e T
SP w
orkb
ooks
.
D
Thi
s is
a g
ood
oppo
rtun
ity
for
the
desi
gn
man
ager
to d
efin
e an
d us
e D
ecis
ion
Ana
lysi
s an
d R
esol
utio
n (D
AR
) pr
inci
ples
to d
efin
e an
eva
luat
ion
proc
ess.
154
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
SG2.
Wor
k is
coo
rdin
ated
wit
h su
pplie
rs
to e
nsur
e th
e su
pplie
r ag
reem
ent
is
exec
uted
app
ropr
iate
ly.
Scri
pts:
WE
EK
,
ST
AT
US
, PM
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
2.1.
Mon
itor
and
anal
yze
sele
cted
pro
cess
es
used
by
the
supp
lier
.
Rol
es:
Tea
m
lead
er, r
ole
man
ager
s
Sup
plie
r st
atus
and
pro
gres
s w
ould
be
revi
ewed
at th
e w
eekl
y te
am m
eeti
ng (
WE
EK
, ST
AT
US)
and
revi
ewed
wit
h se
nior
man
agem
ent.
Any
in-
proj
ect m
onit
orin
g an
d an
alys
is o
f su
ppli
er
proc
esse
s w
ould
like
ly b
e co
ordi
nate
d th
roug
h
the
team
lead
er a
nd o
ne o
r m
ore
role
man
ager
s.
Dur
ing
the
proj
ect p
ostm
orte
m (
PM
), s
uppl
ier
perf
orm
ance
wou
ld a
lso
be a
naly
zed.
D
Scri
pts:
IM
P,
TE
ST
1, T
ES
T2
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
TS
P w
orkb
ooks
2.2
For
cus
tom
-mad
e pr
oduc
ts, e
valu
ate
sele
cted
sup
plie
r w
ork
prod
ucts
.
Rol
es:
Tea
m
lead
er, t
est,
and
impl
emen
tati
on
man
ager
s
Eva
luat
ions
wou
ld ty
pica
lly
take
pla
ce in
an
impl
emen
tati
on (
IMP
), b
uild
(T
ES
T1)
, or
inte
grat
ion
(TE
ST
2) p
hase
, ref
lect
ed in
indi
vidu
al T
AS
K p
lans
, and
trac
ked
in in
divi
dual
TS
P w
orkb
ooks
. The
impl
emen
tati
on a
nd/o
r te
st
man
ager
s w
ould
lead
the
eval
uati
on.
D
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
TS
P w
orkb
ooks
2.3
Rev
ise
the
supp
lier
agr
eem
ent o
r
rela
tion
ship
, as
appr
opri
ate,
to r
efle
ct
chan
ges
in c
ondi
tions
. R
oles
: T
eam
lead
er, r
ole
man
ager
s
If r
equi
red,
suc
h ta
sks
wou
ld li
kely
fal
l to
the
team
lead
er, u
nles
s th
ey b
ecam
e fr
eque
nt e
noug
h
to b
e re
duce
d to
rou
tine.
In
this
cas
e, th
ey w
ould
like
ly f
all t
o on
e of
the
role
man
ager
s an
d be
refl
ecte
d in
one
or
mor
e in
divi
dual
TA
SK
pla
ns
and
trac
ked
in th
e T
SP w
orkb
ook.
D
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
15
5
TS
P a
nd
Su
pp
lier
Man
agem
ent
Gen
eric
Pra
ctic
es
Gen
eric
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
GP
2.1
. Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
an
orga
niza
tion
al p
olic
y fo
r pl
anni
ng a
nd
perf
orm
ing
the
proc
ess.
O
ut o
f th
e sc
ope
of T
SP
. U
Scri
pts:
LA
U3,
LA
U4,
LA
U6,
WE
EK
GP
2.2
. Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
the
plan
for
perf
orm
ing
the
proc
ess.
For
ms:
TA
SK
Nee
ded
proc
esse
s ar
e id
enti
fied
in L
AU
3, s
izes
and
eff
orts
of
acti
viti
es a
re
esti
mat
ed in
LA
U4,
and
act
ivit
ies
are
assi
gned
in L
AU
6 an
d re
flec
ted
in
indi
vidu
al T
AS
K p
lans
.
S
Scri
pts:
LA
U6
GP
2.3
. Pro
vide
res
ourc
es f
or p
erfo
rmin
g
the
proc
ess,
dev
elop
ing
the
wor
k pr
oduc
ts,
and
prov
idin
g th
e se
rvic
es o
f th
e pr
oces
s.
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
SU
MS
Res
ourc
es a
re a
ssig
ned
to p
roje
ct ta
sks
duri
ng M
eeti
ng 6
of
the
laun
ch
(TA
SK
, SU
MS
, and
LA
U6)
. The
team
lead
er a
nd r
ole
man
ager
s he
lp to
ensu
re th
at th
e ta
sks
are
prop
erly
sta
ffed
.
S
Scri
pts:
LA
U2,
LA
U6
For
ms:
TA
SK
GP
2.4
. Ass
ign
resp
onsi
bili
ty a
nd a
utho
rity
for
perf
orm
ing
the
proc
ess,
dev
elop
ing
the
wor
k pr
oduc
ts, a
nd p
rovi
ding
the
serv
ices
of th
e pr
oces
s.
Rol
es: R
ole
man
ager
s
Rol
e re
spon
sibi
litie
s ar
e as
sign
ed d
urin
g L
AU
2, a
nd in
divi
dual
pro
ject
task
s
are
assi
gned
dur
ing
Mee
ting
6 of
the
laun
ch (
LA
U6)
and
cap
ture
d on
indi
vidu
al T
AS
K f
orm
s.
S
GP
2.5
. Tra
in th
e pe
ople
per
form
ing
or
supp
ortin
g th
e pr
oces
s as
nee
ded.
Tra
inin
g:
Intr
oduc
tion
to
Per
sona
l
Pro
cess
, spe
cifi
c
TS
P p
roce
ss a
nd
tool
trai
ning
Whi
le s
peci
fic
trai
ning
in s
uppl
ier
issu
es is
not
par
t of
PSP
and
TSP
trai
ning
, the
Int
rodu
ctio
n to
Per
sona
l Pro
cess
cou
rse
may
be
help
ful i
n
intr
oduc
ing
a de
fine
d, p
lann
ed, a
nd m
easu
red
proc
ess
into
a s
uppl
ier
rela
tion
ship
.
S
156
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
Gen
eric
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Scri
pts:
TE
ST
1,
TE
ST
2
GP
2.6
. Pla
ce d
esig
nate
d w
ork
prod
ucts
of
the
proc
ess
unde
r ap
prop
riat
e le
vels
of
conf
igur
atio
n m
anag
emen
t. R
oles
: Pro
cess
man
ager
TE
ST
1 an
d T
ES
T2
desi
gnat
e up
date
s in
con
figu
rati
on m
anag
emen
t tha
t
wou
ld p
resu
mab
ly in
clud
e an
y pr
oduc
ts o
r pr
oduc
t com
pone
nts
acqu
ired
from
sup
plie
rs a
nd b
uilt
or in
tegr
ated
thro
ugh
the
test
ing
proc
esse
s. T
he
proc
ess
man
ager
is r
espo
nsib
le f
or e
nsur
ing
that
rel
evan
t pro
cess
es a
re
prop
erly
doc
umen
ted
and
cont
rolle
d.
S
Scri
pts:
LA
U1,
LA
U9,
WE
EK
,
ST
AT
US
GP
2.7
. Ide
ntif
y an
d in
volv
e th
e re
leva
nt
stak
ehol
ders
as
plan
ned.
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, r
ole
man
ager
s
Dur
ing
the
prep
arat
ion
for
a (r
e)la
unch
, the
sta
keho
lder
s ar
e id
entif
ied,
and
they
usu
ally
par
tici
pate
in L
AU
1 an
d L
AU
9. T
he s
take
hold
ers
are
info
rmed
of p
roje
ct s
tatu
s th
roug
h in
tera
ctio
n w
ith
the
team
lead
er o
r ap
prop
riat
e ro
le
man
ager
and
thro
ugh
the
proj
ect s
tatu
s re
port
ing
mec
hani
sms
(WE
EK
or,
mor
e lik
ely,
ST
AT
US
).
S
Scri
pts:
WE
EK
,
ST
AT
US
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, r
ole
man
ager
s
GP
2.8
. Mon
itor
and
con
trol
the
proc
ess
agai
nst t
he p
lan
for
perf
orm
ing
the
proc
ess
and
take
app
ropr
iate
cor
rect
ive
acti
on.
Oth
er:
Qua
rter
ly
revi
ew c
heck
list
Sig
nifi
cant
sup
plie
r ac
tivi
ties
are
rep
orte
d to
the
team
at l
east
wee
kly
by th
e
appr
opri
ate
role
man
ager
at t
he w
eekl
y te
am m
eeti
ng (
WE
EK
). I
mpo
rtan
t
stat
us a
nd r
isks
are
rep
orte
d up
the
chai
n of
com
man
d by
the
team
lead
er
(ST
AT
US
and
qua
rter
ly r
evie
w).
The
TS
P c
oach
may
als
o m
onit
or th
e
proc
esse
s fo
r su
ppli
er in
tera
ctio
ns, e
valu
ate
resu
lts,
and
sug
gest
impr
ovem
ents
.
S
Scri
pts:
WE
EK
For
ms:
PIP
,
WE
EK
GP
2.9
. Obj
ecti
vely
eva
luat
e ad
here
nce
of
the
proc
ess
agai
nst i
ts p
roce
ss d
escr
ipti
on,
stan
dard
s, a
nd p
roce
dure
s, a
nd a
ddre
ss
nonc
ompl
ianc
e.
Rol
es: P
roce
ss
man
ager
The
pro
cess
man
ager
or
the
resp
onsi
ble
role
man
ager
is g
ener
ally
acco
unta
ble
for
enac
ting
pro
cess
es in
volv
ing
the
supp
lier
. The
team
rev
iew
s
proc
ess
issu
es a
nd p
roce
ss im
prov
emen
t pro
posa
ls (
PIP
s) a
t tea
m m
eeti
ngs
(WE
EK
) an
d pr
obab
ly in
pos
tmor
tem
s as
wel
l if
the
issu
es s
igni
fica
ntly
affe
ct a
ttai
nmen
t of
team
goa
ls.
S
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
15
7
Gen
eric
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Scri
pts:
WE
EK
,
ST
AT
US
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, r
ole
man
ager
s
GP
2.1
0. R
evie
w th
e ac
tivi
ties
, sta
tus,
and
resu
lts
of th
e pr
oces
s w
ith
high
er le
vel
man
agem
ent a
nd r
esol
ve is
sues
.
Oth
er:
Qua
rter
ly
revi
ew c
heck
list
The
pro
ject
rev
iew
s pr
ogre
ss w
eekl
y w
ith
the
team
and
app
ropr
iate
corr
ecti
ve a
ctio
ns a
re d
eter
min
ed a
nd e
xecu
ted
(WE
EK
). S
TA
TU
S r
epor
ts
are
prov
ided
to m
anag
emen
t fro
m th
ese
mee
ting
s. T
he p
roje
ct s
tatu
s is
als
o
revi
ewed
wit
h se
nior
man
agem
ent a
t the
qua
rter
ly p
roje
ct r
evie
w.
S
Scri
pts:
LA
U3,
PIP
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
TS
P w
orkb
ooks
,
PIP
GP
3.1
. Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
the
desc
ript
ion
of a
def
ined
pro
cess
.
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, r
ole
man
ager
s
Dur
ing
a T
SP
laun
ch, t
he te
am d
efin
es it
s ow
n pr
oces
ses,
or
the
appr
opri
ate
role
man
ager
agr
ees
to a
cqui
re o
r de
velo
p th
e pr
oces
ses
that
the
team
wil
l
use
duri
ng th
at p
orti
on o
f th
e pr
ojec
t (L
AU
3). O
ccas
iona
lly,
add
itio
nal
proc
esse
s m
ay n
eed
to b
e de
fine
d; in
this
cas
e, ta
sks
are
crea
ted
and
the
team
pro
cess
man
ager
ens
ures
that
they
are
def
ined
and
agr
eed
to b
y th
e
team
(T
AS
K a
nd T
SP
wor
kboo
ks).
Ind
ivid
ual t
eam
mem
bers
may
sub
mit
PIP
s to
hel
p re
fine
the
proc
esse
s.
S
Scri
pts:
PIP
, PM
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
TS
P w
orkb
ooks
,
PIP
GP
3.2
. Col
lect
wor
k pr
oduc
ts, m
easu
res,
mea
sure
men
t res
ults
, and
impr
ovem
ent
info
rmat
ion
deri
ved
from
pla
nnin
g an
d
perf
orm
ing
the
proc
ess
to s
uppo
rt th
e fu
ture
use
and
impr
ovem
ent o
f th
e or
gani
zati
on’s
proc
esse
s an
d pr
oces
s as
sets
.
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, t
eam
mem
ber,
rol
e
man
ager
s
Whi
le p
roje
ct d
ata
and
arti
fact
s ar
e no
t req
uire
d to
be
plac
ed in
an
orga
niza
tion
al r
epos
itory
by
the
TSP
, the
pro
ject
doe
s co
llec
t pro
ject
pro
cess
and
prod
uct d
ata
(TA
SK
and
TSP
wor
kboo
ks),
PIP
s, a
nd p
hase
and
pro
ject
post
mor
tem
(P
M)
data
that
can
be
used
to a
ugm
ent t
he o
rgan
izat
ion’
s as
sets
.
S
158
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
Gen
eric
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Scri
pts:
LA
U1,
LA
U2,
WE
EK
,
PM
For
ms:
TS
P
wor
kboo
ks
GP
4.1
. Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
quan
tita
tive
obje
ctiv
es f
or th
e pr
oces
s th
at a
ddre
ss
qual
ity
and
proc
ess
perf
orm
ance
bas
ed o
n
cust
omer
nee
ds a
nd b
usin
ess
obje
ctiv
es.
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, t
eam
mem
ber,
rol
e
man
ager
s
Dur
ing
a T
SP
laun
ch, m
anag
emen
t and
the
team
est
abli
sh q
uant
itat
ive
obje
ctiv
es f
or s
elec
ted
proc
esse
s, a
nd w
ork
prod
ucts
are
est
abli
shed
(L
AU
1,
LA
U2)
and
then
mon
itor
ed a
s th
e pr
ojec
t pla
n is
exe
cute
d (W
EE
K, T
SP
wor
kboo
ks)
and
whe
n th
e pr
ojec
t is
com
plet
e (P
M).
Sup
plie
r m
anag
emen
t
may
be
amon
g th
ese
targ
eted
pro
cess
es.
S
Scri
pts:
WE
EK
,
PM
For
ms:
TS
P
wor
kboo
ks
GP
4.2
. Sta
bili
ze th
e pe
rfor
man
ce o
f on
e or
mor
e su
bpro
cess
es to
det
erm
ine
the
abil
ity
of th
e pr
oces
s to
ach
ieve
the
esta
blis
hed
quan
titat
ive
qual
ity
and
proc
ess-
perf
orm
ance
obj
ecti
ves.
R
oles
: Tea
m
mem
bers
, rol
e
man
ager
s
TS
P te
ams
may
col
lect
dat
a (T
SP
wor
kboo
ks)
to e
nabl
e an
alys
is o
f th
eir
perf
orm
ance
of
supp
lier
man
agem
ent a
ctiv
itie
s an
d to
mee
t the
pro
ject
’s a
nd
orga
niza
tion
al g
oals
. Tea
m m
embe
rs a
nd r
ole
man
ager
s pe
rfor
m th
is
anal
ysis
and
info
rm th
e te
am o
f pr
oces
s pe
rfor
man
ce a
t wee
kly
mee
ting
s
(WE
EK
) an
d/or
a p
hase
or
proj
ect P
M.
S
Scri
pts:
PM
For
ms:
PIP
,
TS
P w
orkb
ooks
GP
5.1
. Ens
ure
cont
inuo
us im
prov
emen
t of
the
proc
ess
in f
ulfi
llin
g th
e re
leva
nt
busi
ness
obj
ecti
ves
of th
e or
gani
zati
on.
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, t
eam
mem
ber,
rol
e
man
ager
Whi
le th
e T
SP
foc
uses
on
the
team
and
not
on
the
orga
niza
tion
al a
spec
t of
supp
lier
man
agem
ent,
cont
inuo
us im
prov
emen
t of
the
proj
ect’
s pr
oces
ses
and
perf
orm
ance
is p
art o
f th
e w
ay th
at T
SP
team
s fu
ncti
on. D
ata
are
gath
ered
and
ana
lyze
d; p
roce
ss im
prov
emen
t pro
posa
ls a
re d
raft
ed,
revi
ewed
, and
impl
emen
ted
as th
e te
am s
triv
es to
mee
t its
com
mit
men
ts a
nd
goal
s. T
hese
eff
orts
can
eas
ily
be r
olle
d in
to a
n or
gani
zati
onal
vie
w.
S
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
15
9
Gen
eric
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Scri
pts:
TE
STD
For
ms:
PIP
,
TS
P w
orkb
ook
GP
5.2
. Ide
ntif
y an
d co
rrec
t the
roo
t cau
ses
of d
efec
ts a
nd o
ther
pro
blem
s in
the
proc
ess.
Rol
es: T
eam
mem
ber,
rol
e
man
ager
s
TS
P te
ams
coll
ect d
ata
(TS
P w
orkb
ooks
) to
sup
port
the
iden
tific
atio
n an
d
anal
ysis
of
proj
ect-
rela
ted
prob
lem
s (P
IP, T
ES
TD
) w
ith
supp
lier
inte
ract
ions
. Tea
m m
embe
rs a
nd a
ppro
pria
te r
ole
man
ager
s pe
rfor
m
anal
yses
of
thei
r ow
n an
d te
am d
ata
to id
enti
fy a
nd p
ossi
bly
find
the
root
caus
es o
f pr
oble
ms.
S
160 CMU/SEI-2004-TR-014
CMU/SEI-2004-TR-014 161
Appendix B: Process Management Process Areas Using TSP as the Implementation Method
One of the assumptions for the main body of these observations was that all projects in the organization are using the TSP for all phases of a “normal” development life cycle (i.e., requirements, architecture, implementation, deployment, and maintenance). Several organizations have started to use the TSP for non-targeted applications, such as planning and executing their organizational process improvement activities and their organizational training. This appendix provides observations for the Process Management PAs when TSP practices and principles are adapted to plan and execute the associated specific practices plus the generic practices across the category. The analysis does not include generic practices in the other categories, although those could easily be included in the scope of a process group’s work plans.
Figure 11 shows the percentage of process management specific practices addressed by TSP for each PA when the TSP is used to plan and execute the practices. Detailed observations of each PA follow.
Process Management Using TSP
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
OPF OPD OT OPP OID
Process Area
Perc
ent
of p
ract
ices
Unrated
Not Addressed
Partially Addressed
SupportedDirectly Addressed
Figure 11: TSP Practices Profile for Process Management PAs When TSP Is Used as the Implementation Method
162
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
Org
aniz
atio
n P
roce
ss F
ocu
s (O
PF
) T
he O
rgan
izat
ion
Proc
ess
Focu
s pr
oces
s ar
ea h
elps
the
orga
niza
tion
to p
lan
and
impl
emen
t org
aniz
atio
nal p
roce
ss im
prov
emen
t bas
ed o
n an
un
ders
tand
ing
of th
e cu
rren
t str
engt
hs a
nd w
eakn
esse
s of
the
orga
niza
tion’
s pr
oces
ses
and
proc
ess
asse
ts. C
andi
date
impr
ovem
ents
to th
e or
gani
zati
on’s
pro
cess
es a
re o
btai
ned
thro
ugh
vari
ous
mea
ns. T
hese
incl
ude
proc
ess
impr
ovem
ent p
ropo
sals
, mea
sure
men
t of
the
proc
esse
s, le
sson
s le
arne
d in
impl
emen
ting
the
proc
esse
s, a
nd r
esul
ts o
f pr
oces
s ap
prai
sals
and
pro
duct
eva
luat
ion
activ
ities
.
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
SG1.
Str
engt
hs, w
eakn
esse
s, a
nd
impr
ovem
ent
oppo
rtun
itie
s fo
r th
e
orga
niza
tion
’s p
roce
sses
are
iden
tifi
ed
peri
odic
ally
and
as
need
ed.
Scri
pts:
LA
U1,
LA
U3
For
ms:
IN
V
1.1.
Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
the
desc
ript
ion
of th
e pr
oces
s ne
eds
and
obje
ctiv
es f
or th
e
orga
niza
tion
.
Oth
er: T
SP
Exe
cuti
ve
Sem
inar
, TS
P
intr
oduc
tion
stra
tegy
Org
aniz
atio
n pr
oces
s ne
eds
are
exam
ined
and
docu
men
ted
in th
e la
unch
(L
AU
3, I
NV
).
Man
agem
ent o
bjec
tive
s (L
AU
1) ty
pica
lly
defi
ne
proc
ess-
perf
orm
ance
obj
ecti
ves.
Dev
elop
men
t
stra
tegy
iden
tifi
es h
ow th
e pr
oces
s ga
ps a
re to
be
addr
esse
d. T
he T
SP E
xecu
tive
Sem
inar
, whe
n
cond
ucte
d fo
r a
sing
le c
usto
mer
as
part
of
the
TS
P in
trod
uctio
n st
rate
gy, i
nclu
des
a pr
elim
inar
y
plan
ning
ses
sion
at w
hich
the
obje
ctiv
es f
or T
SP
intr
oduc
tion
are
set.
D
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
16
3
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
For
ms:
SU
MS,
TA
SK
, LO
GT
,
LO
GD
1.2.
App
rais
e th
e pr
oces
ses
of th
e
orga
niza
tion
per
iodi
call
y an
d as
nee
ded
to
mai
ntai
n an
und
erst
andi
ng o
f th
eir
stre
ngth
s
and
wea
knes
ses.
R
oles
: T
eam
lead
er, t
eam
mem
bers
, rol
e
man
ager
s
Org
aniz
atio
nal a
ppra
isal
s ar
e pl
anne
d fo
r as
requ
ired
dur
ing
the
laun
ch (
SU
MS
, TA
SK
).
Pla
nned
and
act
ual d
ata
for
thes
e ac
tivi
ties
are
capt
ured
in th
e T
SP
wor
kboo
k (T
AS
K, S
UM
S,
LO
GT
, and
LO
GD
) by
var
ious
team
mem
bers
.
D
A ty
pica
l man
agem
ent g
oal f
or a
n
engi
neer
ing
proc
ess
grou
p (E
PG
) is
to h
ave
an o
rgan
izat
iona
l app
rais
al b
y a
give
n da
te
wit
h ce
rtai
n de
sire
d re
sult
s.
Scri
pts:
PIP
, PM
For
ms:
SU
MS
,
TA
SK
, LO
GT
,
LO
GD
,
SU
MM
AR
Y
Rol
es:
Tea
m
lead
er, t
eam
mem
ber,
rol
e
man
ager
s
1.3.
Ide
ntif
y im
prov
emen
ts to
the
orga
niza
tion
’s p
roce
sses
and
pro
cess
ass
ets.
Oth
er:
EP
G
CC
B
Can
dida
te im
prov
emen
t ide
as w
ill c
ome
from
proj
ects
and
the
larg
er o
rgan
izat
ion
to th
e E
PG
in th
e fo
rm o
f P
IPs
and
from
ana
lysi
s of
orga
niza
tion
and
pro
ject
dat
a (T
AS
K, L
OG
T,
LO
GD
, SU
MM
AR
Y, a
nd P
M).
The
EP
G C
CB
revi
ews
the
impr
ovem
ent p
ropo
sals
and
iden
tifi
es li
kely
can
dida
tes
for
impl
emen
tati
on.
D
SG2.
Im
prov
emen
ts a
re p
lann
ed a
nd
impl
emen
ted,
org
aniz
atio
nal p
roce
ss
asse
ts a
re d
eplo
yed,
and
pro
cess
-rel
ated
expe
rien
ces
are
inco
rpor
ated
into
the
orga
niza
tion
al p
roce
ss a
sset
s.
164
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
Scri
pts:
LA
U
2.1.
Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
proc
ess
acti
on
plan
s to
add
ress
impr
ovem
ents
to th
e
orga
niza
tion
’s p
roce
sses
and
pro
cess
ass
ets.
For
ms:
IN
V,
SU
MS
, TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
,
WE
EK
The
laun
ch o
f th
e E
PG
incl
udes
iden
tifi
cati
on o
f
proc
ess
acti
on te
ams
(PA
Ts)
to a
ddre
ss s
peci
fic
issu
es (
e.g.
, est
abli
shm
ent o
f th
e O
SSP
,
incl
udin
g ho
w p
roce
ss a
sset
s ar
e do
cum
ente
d,
stor
ed, a
cces
sed,
and
upd
ated
). S
trat
egie
s to
clos
e ga
ps a
re d
evel
oped
(L
AU
3). P
roce
sses
for
how
the
PA
Ts
func
tion
are
est
ablis
hed
(LA
U3,
INV
, TA
SK
), a
nd P
AT
task
s ar
e pl
anne
d
(SU
MS
, TA
SK
) an
d re
view
ed (
LA
U9)
. Pla
nned
and
actu
al d
ata
for
thes
e ac
tivi
ties
are
cap
ture
d in
the
TS
P w
orkb
ook
(TA
SK
, SU
MS
, LO
GT
,
LO
GD
), r
evie
wed
wee
kly
(WE
EK
), a
nd u
pdat
ed
as n
eces
sary
.
D
Scri
pts:
WE
EK
For
ms:
WE
EK
,
SU
MS
, TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
2.2.
Im
plem
ent p
roce
ss a
ctio
n pl
ans
acro
ss
the
orga
niza
tion
.
Rol
es:
Tea
m
mem
ber
All
task
s fo
r ta
rget
ed P
AT
s ar
e ex
ecut
ed a
nd
prog
ress
is r
evie
wed
wee
kly
(WE
EK
). P
rogr
ess
and
risk
s/is
sues
of
PA
Ts
are
trac
ked
in th
e T
SP
wor
kboo
k (T
AS
K, L
OG
T, L
OG
D, S
UM
S)
by
the
EP
G a
nd P
AT
mem
bers
.
D
2.3.
Dep
loy
orga
niza
tion
al p
roce
ss a
sset
s
acro
ss th
e or
gani
zati
on.
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
,
SU
MS
, IN
V
The
pro
cedu
res
to d
evel
op a
nd d
eplo
y pr
oces
s
asse
ts a
re r
efle
cted
as
task
s in
the
TA
SK
pla
n.
Pro
cess
dat
a fo
r th
ese
task
s ar
e ca
ptur
ed in
the
TS
P w
orkb
ook
(TA
SK
, LO
GT
, LO
GD
, SU
MS)
.
Cus
tom
scr
ipts
may
be
deve
lope
d fo
r re
peat
ed
task
s.
D
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
16
5
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
TS
P w
orkb
ooks
2.4.
Inc
orpo
rate
pro
cess
-rel
ated
wor
k
prod
ucts
, mea
sure
s, a
nd im
prov
emen
t
info
rmat
ion
deri
ved
from
pla
nnin
g an
d
perf
orm
ing
the
proc
ess
into
the
orga
niza
tion
al p
roce
ss a
sset
s.
Oth
er:
EP
G
CC
B
Impr
ovem
ent i
deas
and
wor
k ar
tifa
cts
and
data
com
e fr
om v
ario
us s
ourc
es (
see
SP
1.3
abo
ve).
The
EP
G C
CB
rev
iew
s th
e im
prov
emen
t
prop
osal
s an
d th
e E
PG
and
PA
T m
embe
rs
deve
lop
need
ed a
sset
s an
d in
corp
orat
e ap
prov
ed
prop
osal
s as
ref
lect
ed in
indi
vidu
al T
AS
K p
lans
and
the
TS
P w
orkb
ooks
.
D
The
EP
G w
ould
hav
e to
set
up
the
infr
astr
uctu
re to
per
form
thes
e ta
sks,
prob
ably
a s
et o
f ac
tivi
ties
pla
nned
and
exec
uted
dur
ing
an in
itial
dev
elop
men
t
cycl
e fo
r th
e E
PG
.
166
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
Org
aniz
atio
n P
roce
ss D
efin
itio
n (
OP
D)
The
Org
aniz
atio
nal P
roce
ss D
efin
ition
pro
cess
are
a es
tabl
ishe
s an
d m
aint
ains
the
orga
niza
tion
’s s
et o
f st
anda
rd p
roce
sses
and
oth
er a
sset
s ba
sed
on
the
proc
ess
need
s an
d ob
ject
ives
of
the
orga
niza
tion.
The
se o
ther
ass
ets
incl
ude
desc
ript
ions
of
proc
esse
s an
d pr
oces
s el
emen
ts, d
escr
iptio
ns o
f lif
e-cy
cle
mod
els,
pro
cess
tail
orin
g gu
idel
ines
, pro
cess
-rel
ated
doc
umen
tatio
n, a
nd d
ata.
Pro
ject
s ta
ilor
the
orga
niza
tion
’s s
et o
f st
anda
rd p
roce
sses
to
crea
te th
eir
defi
ned
proc
esse
s. T
he o
ther
ass
ets
supp
ort t
ailo
ring
as
wel
l as
impl
emen
tatio
n of
the
defi
ned
proc
esse
s. E
xper
ienc
es a
nd w
ork
prod
ucts
fr
om p
erfo
rmin
g th
ese
defi
ned
proc
esse
s, in
clud
ing
mea
sure
men
t dat
a, p
roce
ss d
escr
iptio
ns, p
roce
ss a
rtif
acts
, and
less
ons
lear
ned,
are
inco
rpor
ated
as
app
ropr
iate
into
the
orga
niza
tion’
s se
t of
stan
dard
pro
cess
es a
nd o
ther
ass
ets.
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
SG1.
A s
et o
f or
gani
zati
onal
pro
cess
asse
ts is
est
ablis
hed
and
mai
ntai
ned.
Scri
pts:
All
TS
P
scri
pts
For
ms:
All
TS
P
form
s
Rol
es: A
ll T
SP
role
s
1.1.
Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
the
orga
niza
tion
’s s
et o
f st
anda
rd p
roce
sses
.
Oth
er:
All
“oth
er”
proc
ess
asse
ts e
xcep
t
SEI-
only
item
s
The
TS
P s
ourc
e m
ater
ials
mad
e av
aila
ble
whe
n
the
TS
P is
pro
perl
y li
cens
ed a
re li
kely
to
cons
titu
te a
maj
orit
y of
the
init
ial O
SSP
. EP
G
mem
bers
dev
elop
add
itio
nal n
eces
sary
ass
ets
and
depl
oy a
ll O
SSP
pro
cess
ele
men
ts a
ccor
ding
to
plan
s m
ade
duri
ng a
laun
ch, p
ossi
bly
usin
g a
docu
men
t lik
e th
is o
ne to
gui
de th
eir
plan
s an
d
effo
rts.
D
It is
unl
ikel
y th
at T
SP
wou
ld c
over
all
proc
ess
asse
ts r
equi
red
to s
atis
fy th
e P
As
wit
hin
CM
MI.
Scri
pts:
DE
V,
MA
INT
1.2.
Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
desc
ript
ions
of
the
life
-cyc
le m
odel
s ap
prov
ed f
or u
se in
the
orga
niza
tion
.
For
ms:
ST
RA
T,
SU
MS
, TA
SK
,
TS
P s
crip
ts d
efin
e tw
o de
faul
t lif
e-cy
cle
mod
els
(DE
V, M
AIN
T).
TA
SK p
lans
wil
l ref
lect
the
wor
k of
ada
ptin
g th
ese
for
loca
l use
or
for
docu
men
ting
and
/or
adap
ting
loca
l pra
ctic
es in
to
a pr
oper
life
-cyc
le d
escr
ipti
on. T
SP w
orkb
ooks
D
Pro
ject
team
s w
ould
use
thes
e de
scri
ptio
ns
and
tailo
ring
gui
deli
nes
(fro
m O
PD
1.3
) to
sele
ct th
eir
deve
lopm
ent l
ife
cycl
es d
urin
g
init
ial p
roje
ct la
unch
es.
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
16
7
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
LO
GT
, LO
GD
Rol
es:
Pro
cess
man
ager
capt
ure
the
exec
utio
n da
ta f
or th
ese
task
s
(TA
SK
, SU
MS
, LO
GT
, and
LO
GD
).
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
LO
GD
, LO
GT
,
SU
MS
Tra
inin
g: T
SP
Lau
nch
Coa
ch
Tra
inin
g
1.3.
Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
the
tail
orin
g
crit
eria
and
gui
deli
nes
for
the
orga
niza
tion
’s
set o
f st
anda
rd p
roce
sses
.
Oth
er:
TS
P
Pla
nnin
g an
d
Qua
lity
Gui
deli
nes
Les
sons
lear
ned
from
TS
P p
ilot p
roje
cts
are
used
to d
evel
op th
e ta
ilori
ng g
uide
lines
. The
se p
lans
are
inst
anti
ated
in S
UM
S a
nd T
AS
K in
the
EP
G’s
TS
P w
orkb
ooks
. The
wor
kboo
ks c
aptu
re
the
exec
utio
n da
ta f
or th
ese
task
s (T
AS
K,
SU
MS
, LO
GT
, and
LO
GD
).
D
Muc
h of
the
tail
orin
g ex
pert
ise
lies
wit
h th
e
TS
P c
oach
es. F
orm
al c
rite
ria
and
guid
elin
es
for
tail
orin
g an
OSS
P a
re n
ot p
art o
f th
e
TS
P.
Scri
pts:
PM
,
LA
UP
M
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
SU
MM
AR
Y
1.4.
Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
the
orga
niza
tion
’s m
easu
rem
ent r
epos
itor
y.
Rol
es: P
lann
ing,
proc
ess,
qua
lity
,
and
test
man
ager
s
The
pro
ject
NO
TE
BO
OK
, ST
AT
US
, and
SU
MM
AR
Y f
orm
s su
mm
ariz
e pr
ojec
t-le
vel
info
rmat
ion
that
is c
onso
lidat
ed a
nd u
sed
to
upda
te th
e de
faul
t pla
nnin
g an
d qu
alit
y
guid
elin
es o
n a
regu
lar
basi
s. T
he E
PG
pla
ns f
or
thes
e ta
sks
duri
ng th
eir
laun
ch. P
lann
ed a
nd
actu
al d
ata
for
thes
e ac
tivi
ties
are
cap
ture
d in
the
TS
P w
orkb
ook
(TA
SK
, SU
MS
, LO
GT
, and
LO
GD
).
D
An
init
ial E
PG
laun
ch w
ill l
ikel
y in
clud
e
task
s to
def
ine
and
impl
emen
t the
orga
niza
tion
’s in
form
atio
n re
posi
tory
.
The
re is
als
o li
kely
to b
e a
need
to d
efin
e
othe
r m
easu
res
not s
peci
fica
lly
addr
esse
d
by th
e P
SP/T
SP, s
uch
as f
or C
M o
r O
PF
acti
viti
es.
168
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
Scri
pts:
All
TS
P
scri
pts
For
ms:
All
TS
P
form
s
Rol
es: A
ll T
SP
role
s
Oth
er:
All
“oth
er”
proc
ess
asse
ts
1.5.
Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
the
orga
niza
tion
’s p
roce
ss a
sset
libr
ary.
Tra
inin
g:
Intr
oduc
tion
to
Per
sona
l
Pro
cess
, PSP
for
Eng
inee
rs,
TSP
Exe
cuti
ve
Sem
inar
,
Man
agin
g TS
P
Tea
ms
The
EP
G u
ses
the
TSP
ass
ets
as th
e fo
unda
tion
of th
e pr
oces
s as
set l
ibra
ry (
PA
L)
are
incl
uded
in
the
SE
PG
wor
kboo
k. P
erio
dic
laun
ches
typi
call
y
deve
lop
a st
rate
gy a
nd n
eede
d pr
oces
ses
to p
lan
the
wor
k of
cre
atin
g an
d m
aint
aini
ng th
e P
AL
.
Pla
nned
and
act
ual d
ata
for
thes
e ac
tivi
ties
are
capt
ured
in th
e T
SP
wor
kboo
k (T
AS
K, S
UM
S,
LO
GT
, and
LO
GD
).
D
See
Not
es o
n SP
1.4
abo
ve.
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
16
9
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Tra
inin
g (
OT
) T
he O
rgan
izat
iona
l Tra
inin
g pr
oces
s ar
ea id
entif
ies
the
stra
tegi
c tr
aini
ng n
eeds
of
the
orga
niza
tion,
as
wel
l as
the
tact
ical
trai
ning
nee
ds th
at a
re
com
mon
acr
oss
proj
ects
and
sup
port
gro
ups.
In
part
icul
ar, t
rain
ing
is d
evel
oped
or
obta
ined
to d
evel
op th
e sk
ills
req
uire
d to
per
form
the
orga
niza
tion
’s s
et o
f st
anda
rd p
roce
sses
. The
mai
n co
mpo
nent
s of
trai
ning
incl
ude
a m
anag
ed tr
aini
ng-d
evel
opm
ent p
rogr
am, d
ocum
ente
d pl
ans,
pe
rson
nel w
ith a
ppro
pria
te k
now
ledg
e, a
nd m
echa
nism
s fo
r m
easu
ring
the
effe
ctiv
enes
s of
the
trai
ning
pro
gram
. The
obs
erva
tion
s in
this
sec
tion
assu
me
the
form
atio
n of
a p
roce
ss a
ctio
n te
am (
PAT
) un
der
the
dire
ctio
n of
the
EPG
cha
rged
with
est
ablis
hing
and
mai
ntai
ning
bot
h th
e tr
aini
ng
need
s of
the
orga
niza
tion
and
the
capa
bilit
ies
to f
ulfi
ll th
ose
need
s.
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
SG1.
A t
rain
ing
capa
bilit
y th
at s
uppo
rts
the
orga
niza
tion
’s m
anag
emen
t an
d
tech
nica
l rol
es is
est
ablis
hed
and
mai
ntai
ned.
Scri
pts/
For
ms:
OT
team
laun
ch
arti
fact
s, P
M
arti
fact
s, P
IPs
1.1.
Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
the
stra
tegi
c
trai
ning
nee
ds o
f th
e or
gani
zati
on.
Oth
er:
TS
P
intr
oduc
tion
sequ
ence
A P
AT
ded
icat
ed to
Org
aniz
atio
nal T
rain
ing
(OT
) m
atte
rs is
a li
kely
to b
e fo
rmed
by
the
EP
G.
The
OT
team
laun
ches
sep
arat
ely
or
poss
ibly
in c
onju
ncti
on w
ith
an E
PG
laun
ch/r
elau
nch.
Pla
ns a
nd ta
sks
to d
isco
ver,
deve
lop,
and
mai
ntai
n th
e or
gani
zati
on’s
trai
ning
need
s ar
e in
clud
ed in
the
OT
PA
T w
orkb
ooks
.
Pla
nned
and
act
ual d
ata
for
thes
e ac
tivi
ties
are
capt
ured
in th
e T
SP
wor
kboo
k (T
AS
K, S
UM
S,
LO
GT
, and
LO
GD
).
D
Pos
tmor
tem
s fr
om o
ther
pro
ject
s an
d P
IPs
from
acr
oss
the
orga
niza
tion
may
poi
nt in
the
dire
ctio
n of
som
e st
rate
gic
trai
ning
need
s fo
r an
org
aniz
atio
n. L
AU
1 of
the
OT
PA
T la
unch
may
als
o pr
ovid
e in
form
atio
n
from
sen
ior
man
agem
ent o
n st
rate
gic
trai
ning
nee
ds.
The
TS
P in
trod
ucti
on
sequ
ence
ver
y of
ten
iden
tifi
es P
SP, T
SP,
and
CM
MI
amon
g th
e st
rate
gic
trai
ning
need
s of
the
orga
niza
tion
.
170
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
Scri
pts:
LA
U3,
PR
EP
L,
PR
EP
R, W
EE
K,
PM
For
ms:
WE
EK
,
TA
SK
1.2.
Det
erm
ine
whi
ch tr
aini
ng n
eeds
are
the
resp
onsi
bili
ty o
f th
e or
gani
zati
on a
nd w
hich
wil
l be
left
to th
e in
divi
dual
pro
ject
or
supp
ort g
roup
.
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, t
eam
mem
ber
Pro
ject
team
s, in
clud
ing
the
team
lead
er a
nd
indi
vidu
al te
am m
embe
rs, a
re r
espo
nsib
le f
or
dete
rmin
ing
the
trai
ning
nee
ds o
f th
eir
team
mem
bers
. T
his
can
occu
r du
ring
laun
ch
prep
arat
ion
(PR
EP
L, P
RE
PR
), d
urin
g th
e la
unch
(esp
ecia
lly
LA
U3)
, or
duri
ng th
e pr
ojec
t and
docu
men
ted
in th
e w
eekl
y m
eeti
ng (
WE
EK
) or
in a
pos
tmor
tem
(P
M).
The
OT
team
rev
iew
s
thes
e an
d or
gani
zati
onal
nee
ds.
Any
req
uire
d
task
s ar
e ad
ded
to th
e O
T te
am w
orkb
ook.
D
Scri
pts:
LA
U,
RE
L, W
EE
K
For
ms:
WE
EK
,
SU
MS
, TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
1.3.
Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
an
orga
niza
tion
al tr
aini
ng ta
ctic
al p
lan.
Oth
er: T
SP
intr
oduc
tion
stra
tegy
Pla
ns a
nd ta
sks
to d
evel
op a
nd m
aint
ain
the
orga
niza
tion
’s ta
ctic
al tr
aini
ng p
lan
are
deve
lope
d in
the
OT
PA
T la
unch
(L
AU
) an
d
upda
ted
base
d on
res
ults
rep
orte
d in
wee
kly
mee
ting
s (W
EE
K)
and
rela
unch
es (
RE
L)
and
in
resp
onse
to r
eque
sts
from
TS
P p
roje
cts
(see
OT
SP 1
.1 n
otes
abo
ve).
Pla
nned
and
act
ual d
ata
for
thes
e ac
tivi
ties
are
cap
ture
d in
the
TS
P
wor
kboo
k (T
AS
K, S
UM
S, L
OG
T, a
nd L
OG
D).
An
earl
y ve
rsio
n of
suc
h a
tact
ical
pla
n is
incl
uded
in th
e pl
an f
or T
SP
intr
oduc
tion.
D
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
17
1
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
For
ms:
OT
PA
T
laun
ch a
rtif
acts
,
SU
MS
, TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
1.4.
Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
a tr
aini
ng
capa
bili
ty to
add
ress
org
aniz
atio
nal t
rain
ing
need
s.
Oth
er: T
SP
intr
oduc
tion
stra
tegy
Pla
ns a
nd ta
sks
to d
evel
op a
nd m
aint
ain
the
orga
niza
tion
’s tr
aini
ng c
apab
ility
, whe
ther
inte
rnal
, ext
erna
l, or
a c
ombi
natio
n of
thes
e, a
re
crea
ted
duri
ng th
e O
T P
AT
laun
ch.
Pla
nned
and
actu
al d
ata
for
thes
e ac
tivi
ties
are
cap
ture
d in
the
TS
P w
orkb
ook
(TA
SK
, SU
MS
, LO
GT
, and
LO
GD
). T
he T
SP
intr
oduc
tion
sequ
ence
stro
ngly
enc
oura
ges
the
impl
emen
ting
orga
niza
tion
to d
evel
op a
nd m
aint
ain
inte
rnal
PSP
trai
ning
and
TSP
coa
chin
g ca
pabi
liti
es, a
nd
spec
ifie
s th
e co
urse
and
aut
hori
zati
on s
eque
nce
for
thes
e ca
pabi
liti
es.
D
Obv
ious
ly th
e tr
aini
ng n
eeds
of
the
orga
niza
tion
wil
l cha
nge
over
tim
e as
TS
P
is f
irst
intr
oduc
ed a
nd th
en b
ecom
es
wid
espr
ead
in th
e or
gani
zati
on.
The
EP
G
or O
T P
AT
mus
t ada
pt to
thes
e ch
angi
ng
need
s, w
hich
sho
uld
be r
efle
cted
in th
e
acti
viti
es c
aptu
red
in th
eir
TSP
wor
kboo
ks
and
rela
ted
arti
fact
s.
SG2.
Tra
inin
g ne
cess
ary
for
indi
vidu
als
to p
erfo
rm t
heir
rol
es e
ffec
tive
ly is
prov
ided
.
2.1.
Del
iver
the
trai
ning
fol
low
ing
the
orga
niza
tion
al ta
ctic
al p
lan.
For
ms:
SU
MS
,
TA
SK
, LO
GT
,
LO
GD
Act
ual d
ata
for
thes
e ac
tivi
ties
are
cap
ture
d in
the
TS
P w
orkb
ook
(TA
SK
, SU
MS
, LO
GT
, and
LO
GD
).
D
172
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
Scri
pts:
LA
U,
WE
EK
For
ms:
WE
EK
,
SU
MS
, TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
2.2.
Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
reco
rds
of
orga
niza
tion
al tr
aini
ng.
The
OT
PA
T p
lans
for
thes
e ac
tivi
ties
dur
ing
its
laun
ch a
nd tr
acks
them
in th
e O
T w
orkb
ooks
.
Use
of
copy
righ
ted
PSP
and
TSP
trai
ning
mat
eria
ls r
equi
res
repo
rtin
g tr
aini
ng d
ata
to th
e
SE
I, w
hich
mai
ntai
ns r
ecor
ds o
f th
is tr
aini
ng.
Pla
nned
and
act
ual d
ata
for
thes
e ac
tivi
ties
are
capt
ured
in th
e T
SP
wor
kboo
k (T
AS
K, S
UM
S,
LO
GT
, and
LO
GD
). O
T P
AT
task
s us
uall
y
incl
ude
crea
tion
, col
lect
ion,
and
mai
nten
ance
of
such
trai
ning
dat
a fo
r al
l org
aniz
atio
nal t
rain
ing.
The
OT
PA
T o
r E
PG
wee
kly
mee
ting
typi
call
y
repo
rts
sum
mar
y tr
aini
ng d
ata.
D
Scri
pts:
WE
EK
For
ms:
WE
EK
,
TS
P w
orkb
ooks
2.3.
Ass
ess
the
effe
ctiv
enes
s of
the
orga
niza
tion
’s tr
aini
ng p
rogr
am.
Rol
es: P
SP
inst
ruct
or, T
SP
coac
h, te
am
lead
er
Pla
ns/ta
sks
to a
sses
s th
e or
gani
zatio
n’s
trai
ning
capa
bili
ty a
re in
clud
ed in
the
OT
PA
T
wor
kboo
k, a
nd s
tatu
s is
rev
iew
ed a
t wee
kly
mee
tings
(W
EE
K).
In
addi
tion,
PSP
inst
ruct
ors
regu
larl
y as
sess
the
effe
ctiv
enes
s of
trai
ning
whe
n gr
adin
g P
SP a
ssig
nmen
ts a
nd w
hen
sum
mar
izin
g cl
ass
resu
lts to
the
clas
s, to
the
spon
sori
ng m
anag
er, a
nd to
the
OT
PA
T.
D
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
17
3
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Pro
cess
Per
form
ance
(O
PP
) T
he O
rgan
izat
iona
l Pro
cess
Per
form
ance
pro
cess
are
a de
rive
s qu
antit
ativ
e ob
ject
ives
for
qua
lity
and
proc
ess
perf
orm
ance
fro
m th
e or
gani
zatio
n’s
busi
ness
obj
ectiv
es. T
he o
rgan
izat
ion
prov
ides
pro
ject
s an
d su
ppor
t gro
ups
with
com
mon
mea
sure
s, p
roce
ss p
erfo
rman
ce b
asel
ines
, and
pro
cess
pe
rfor
man
ce m
odel
s. T
hese
add
ition
al o
rgan
izat
iona
l sup
port
ass
ets
supp
ort q
uant
itat
ive
proj
ect m
anag
emen
t and
sta
tistic
al m
anag
emen
t of
criti
cal
subp
roce
sses
for
bot
h pr
ojec
ts a
nd s
uppo
rt g
roup
s. T
he o
rgan
izat
ion
anal
yzes
the
proc
ess
perf
orm
ance
dat
a co
llec
ted
from
thes
e de
fine
d pr
oces
ses
to
deve
lop
a qu
antit
ativ
e un
ders
tand
ing
of p
rodu
ct q
ualit
y, s
ervi
ce q
ualit
y, a
nd p
roce
ss p
erfo
rman
ce o
f th
e or
gani
zati
on’s
set
of
stan
dard
pro
cess
es.
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
SG1.
Bas
elin
es a
nd m
odel
s th
at
char
acte
rize
the
exp
ecte
d pr
oces
s
perf
orm
ance
of
the
orga
niza
tion
’s s
et o
f
stan
dard
pro
cess
es a
re e
stab
lishe
d an
d
mai
ntai
ned.
For
ms:
SU
MS
,
TA
SK
, LO
GT
,
LO
GD
1.1.
Sel
ect t
he p
roce
sses
or
proc
ess
elem
ents
in th
e or
gani
zati
on’s
set
of
stan
dard
pro
cess
es th
at a
re to
be
incl
uded
in
the
orga
niza
tion
’s p
roce
ss p
erfo
rman
ce
anal
ysis
.
Oth
er:
Pla
nnin
g
and
qual
ity
guid
elin
es
The
EP
G ty
pica
lly
sele
cts
a m
ixtu
re o
f th
e T
SP
proc
ess
asse
ts a
nd e
xist
ing
orga
niza
tion
al a
sset
s,
base
d on
less
ons
lear
ned
duri
ng T
SP p
ilot
proj
ects
. P
lans
and
task
s to
per
form
this
eval
uati
on a
nd s
elec
tion
pro
cess
are
incl
uded
in
the
team
wor
kboo
k, a
nd p
lann
ed a
nd a
ctua
l dat
a
for
thes
e ac
tivi
ties
are
cap
ture
d in
the
indi
vidu
al
TS
P w
orkb
ook
(TA
SK
, SU
MS
, LO
GT
, and
LO
GD
).
D
The
team
may
be
dire
cted
to c
erta
in
proc
esse
s or
pro
cess
ele
men
ts b
y
man
agem
ent i
n L
AU
1. T
ypic
ally
thes
e ar
e
“kno
wn
good
” el
emen
ts o
f ex
isti
ng
orga
niza
tion
al p
roce
sses
that
hav
e a
prov
en
trac
k re
cord
fro
m p
revi
ous
proj
ects
.
174
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
Scri
pts:
LA
U3,
LA
U4,
LA
U5,
LA
U6,
PM
For
ms:
SU
MS
, SU
MP
,
SU
MQ
, TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
1.2.
Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
defi
niti
ons
of
the
mea
sure
s th
at a
re to
be
incl
uded
in th
e
orga
niza
tion
’s p
roce
ss p
erfo
rman
ce
anal
yses
.
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, t
eam
mem
ber
Bas
ic P
SP/T
SP
def
ines
a s
tand
ard
set o
f ba
se
mea
sure
s to
be
capt
ured
: pro
duct
siz
e, ti
me
spen
t
by p
roce
ss p
hase
, def
ects
inje
cted
and
rem
oved
by p
roce
ss p
hase
, and
task
com
plet
ion
date
.
Doz
ens
of d
eriv
ed m
easu
res
are
read
ily
avai
labl
e
depe
ndin
g on
the
orga
niza
tion
’s b
usin
ess
obje
ctiv
es a
nd h
ow th
ose
obje
ctiv
es m
ight
tran
slat
e to
the
mea
sure
s av
aila
ble.
D
For
exa
mpl
e, e
arne
d va
lue,
task
hou
rs p
er
wee
k, te
st d
efec
ts p
er K
LO
C, r
evie
w r
ates
,
yiel
d, a
nd q
ualit
y pr
ofil
e in
dex
(QP
I)
com
pone
nts
are
all c
andi
date
met
rics
for
anal
yzin
g or
gani
zati
onal
pro
cess
perf
orm
ance
. T
here
are
lite
rall
y do
zens
of
cand
idat
e de
rive
d m
easu
res
from
PSP
trai
ning
and
the
vari
ous
TSP
ass
ets
that
mig
ht b
e us
ed b
y th
e or
gani
zati
on.
Scri
pts:
LA
U1,
LA
U2
1.3.
Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
quan
titat
ive
obje
ctiv
es f
or q
uali
ty a
nd p
roce
ss
perf
orm
ance
for
the
orga
niza
tion
. O
ther
: T
SP
intr
oduc
tion
stra
tegy
Typ
ical
ly m
anag
emen
t pre
sent
s qu
anti
tati
ve
busi
ness
obj
ecti
ves
to th
e E
PG
in L
AU
1 of
the
EP
G la
unch
. T
hese
obj
ecti
ves
are
inte
rpre
ted
firs
t dur
ing
LA
U2
whe
n th
e E
PG
dev
elop
s th
eir
team
’s g
oals
, and
then
on
an o
ngoi
ng b
asis
as
TS
P in
trod
uctio
n pr
ocee
ds a
nd a
s th
e
rela
tion
ship
bet
wee
n bu
sine
ss o
bjec
tive
s an
d th
e
orga
niza
tion
’s q
uali
ty a
nd p
roce
ss p
erfo
rman
ce
evol
ves.
D
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
17
5
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
Scri
pts:
LA
U
For
ms:
SU
MS
, TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
1.4.
Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
the
orga
niza
tion
’s p
roce
ss p
erfo
rman
ce
base
line
s.
Oth
er:
TS
P
intr
oduc
tion
stra
tegy
Org
aniz
atio
nal b
asel
ines
, if
they
do
not a
lrea
dy
exis
t, ar
e es
tabl
ishe
d by
TS
P in
trod
uctio
n (i
.e.
pilo
t pro
ject
res
ults
). A
s th
e E
PG
acc
umul
ates
a
reco
rd o
f or
gani
zati
onal
per
form
ance
usi
ng th
e
TS
P, p
roce
ss b
asel
ines
are
adj
uste
d to
ref
lect
curr
ent r
eali
ties
. Pl
ans
and
task
s fo
r th
ese
acti
viti
es a
re in
clud
ed in
the
team
wor
kboo
k
duri
ng th
e E
PG
laun
ch (
LA
U),
and
pla
nned
and
actu
al d
ata
are
capt
ured
in th
e in
divi
dual
TSP
wor
kboo
k (T
AS
K, S
UM
S, L
OG
T, a
nd L
OG
D).
D
Scri
pts:
LA
U1,
LA
U3,
LA
U4,
LA
U5,
LA
U6,
PM
For
ms:
SU
MS,
TA
SK
, LO
GT
,
LO
GD
1.5.
Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
the
proc
ess
perf
orm
ance
mod
els
for
the
orga
niza
tion
’s
set o
f st
anda
rd p
roce
sses
.
Oth
er:
TS
P
intr
oduc
tion
stra
tegy
The
pro
cess
per
form
ance
mod
el u
nder
lyin
g th
e
TS
P is
cal
ibra
ted
to th
e or
gani
zati
on d
urin
g T
SP
intr
oduc
tion.
As
the
EP
G a
ids
adap
tati
on,
roll
out,
and
inst
itutio
nali
zati
on o
f T
SP
acr
oss
the
orga
niza
tion
, the
mod
el is
adj
uste
d to
ref
lect
how
TS
P, a
s im
plem
ente
d, p
erfo
rms.
Pla
ns a
nd ta
sks
to e
stab
lish
and
mai
ntai
n th
e pr
oces
s
perf
orm
ance
mod
els
are
dete
rmin
ed f
irst
dur
ing
the
EP
G la
unch
(L
AU
) an
d th
en d
urin
g
post
mor
tem
s, r
elau
nche
s, a
nd o
ngoi
ng a
naly
sis
of p
roje
ct r
esul
ts.
Pla
nned
and
act
ual d
ata
for
thes
e ac
tivi
ties
are
cap
ture
d in
the
TS
P
wor
kboo
k (T
AS
K, S
UM
S, L
OG
T, a
nd L
OG
D).
D
Mos
t org
aniz
atio
ns c
usto
miz
e th
e de
faul
t
TS
P p
roce
ss p
erfo
rman
ce m
odel
bas
ed o
n
thei
r ow
n ne
eds
and
situ
atio
n. E
xper
ienc
e
to d
ate
indi
cate
s th
at th
e de
faul
t TSP
mod
el
refl
ects
the
gene
ral t
ruth
that
pro
duct
siz
e
and
qual
ity
(mea
sure
d as
def
ect d
ensi
ty
duri
ng la
te te
st p
hase
s) a
re th
e m
ajor
dri
vers
of p
roce
ss p
erfo
rman
ce.
176
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Inn
ova
tio
n a
nd
Dep
loym
ent
(OID
) T
he O
rgan
izat
iona
l Inn
ovat
ion
and
Dep
loym
ent p
roce
ss a
rea
sele
cts
and
depl
oys
prop
osed
incr
emen
tal a
nd in
nova
tive
impr
ovem
ents
that
add
ress
th
e or
gani
zati
on’s
abi
lity
to m
eet i
ts q
ualit
y an
d pr
oces
s-pe
rfor
man
ce o
bjec
tive
s. T
he id
entif
icat
ion
of p
rom
isin
g in
crem
enta
l and
inno
vati
ve
impr
ovem
ents
sho
uld
invo
lve
the
part
icip
atio
n of
an
empo
wer
ed w
orkf
orce
alig
ned
with
the
busi
ness
val
ues
and
obje
ctiv
es o
f th
e or
gani
zatio
n. T
he
sele
ctio
n of
impr
ovem
ents
to d
eplo
y is
bas
ed o
n a
quan
titat
ive
unde
rsta
ndin
g of
the
pote
ntia
l ben
efits
and
cos
ts f
rom
dep
loyi
ng c
andi
date
im
prov
emen
ts a
nd th
e av
aila
ble
fund
ing
for
such
dep
loym
ent.
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
SG1.
Pro
cess
and
tec
hnol
ogy
impr
ovem
ents
tha
t co
ntri
bute
to
mee
ting
qual
ity
and
proc
ess
perf
orm
ance
obje
ctiv
es a
re s
elec
ted.
Scri
pts:
PIP
,
PM
, LA
UP
M,
TE
ST
D
For
ms:
EP
G
indi
vidu
al a
nd
team
wor
kboo
ks
1.1.
Col
lect
and
ana
lyze
pro
cess
- an
d
tech
nolo
gy-i
mpr
ovem
ent p
ropo
sals
.
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, t
eam
mem
ber,
rol
e
man
ager
s (e
sp.
proc
ess
man
ager
)
PIP
s re
cord
bot
h pr
oces
s an
d te
chno
logy
impr
ovem
ent s
ugge
stio
ns.
The
pro
cess
man
ager
man
ages
the
elic
itat
ion,
gat
heri
ng, r
ecor
ding
,
trac
king
, and
han
dlin
g of
the
team
’s P
IPs
thro
ugho
ut th
e de
velo
pmen
t cyc
le a
nd e
spec
iall
y
at f
orm
al e
valu
atio
n ac
tivi
ties
(L
AU
PM
, PM
).
PIP
s ar
e al
so o
ften
gen
erat
ed in
the
cont
ext o
f a
TE
ST
D a
ctiv
ity.
The
EP
G p
lans
and
trac
ks
acti
viti
es to
eva
luat
e th
ese
PIP
s (T
AS
K, L
OG
T,
LO
GD
, and
SU
MS
).
D
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
17
7
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
For
ms:
SU
MS
,
TA
SK, L
OG
T
1.2.
Ide
ntif
y an
d an
alyz
e in
nova
tive
impr
ovem
ents
that
cou
ld in
crea
se th
e
orga
niza
tion
’s q
uali
ty a
nd p
roce
ss
perf
orm
ance
.
Rol
es: E
PG
CC
B (
typi
call
y
team
lead
er a
nd
desi
gn,
impl
emen
tati
on,
and
supp
ort
man
ager
s)
As
part
of
PIP
eva
luat
ion,
the
EP
G e
xam
ines
PIP
s an
d ot
her
impr
ovem
ent a
rtif
acts
and
dat
a
from
indi
vidu
al p
roje
cts.
The
EP
G C
CB
rev
iew
s
and
appr
oves
impr
ovem
ent p
ropo
sals
wit
h
man
agem
ent o
vers
ight
. T
hese
act
ivit
ies
are
docu
men
ted
in th
e E
PG
pro
ject
SU
MS
and
indi
vidu
al ta
sks
refl
ecte
d in
indi
vidu
al T
AS
K
plan
s an
d ti
me
logs
(L
OG
T).
D
Scri
pts:
PM
1.
3. P
ilot p
roce
ss a
nd te
chno
logy
impr
ovem
ents
to s
elec
t whi
ch o
nes
to
impl
emen
t.
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, p
roce
ss
man
ager
, oth
er
role
man
ager
s
Wor
king
wit
h th
e pr
ojec
ts, t
ypic
ally
thro
ugh
the
team
lead
er, p
roce
ss m
anag
er, a
nd o
ther
rol
e
man
ager
s as
app
ropr
iate
, the
EP
G m
onit
ors,
guid
es, a
nd e
valu
ates
pro
cess
and
tech
nolo
gy
impr
ovem
ents
. R
esul
ts o
f th
e pi
lot a
ctiv
itie
s ar
e
revi
ewed
as
they
pro
ceed
and
in p
roje
ct
post
mor
tem
s (P
M)
wit
h th
e te
am.
D
A p
ilot
ing
stra
tegy
is f
unda
men
tal t
o th
e
TS
P in
trod
uctio
n se
quen
ce.
1.4.
Sel
ect p
roce
ss-
and
tech
nolo
gy-
impr
ovem
ent p
ropo
sals
for
dep
loym
ent
acro
ss th
e or
gani
zati
on.
Rol
es:
EP
G
CC
B (
sam
e as
OID
SP
1.2
abov
e)
Res
ults
of
pilo
ted
proc
ess
and
tech
nolo
gy
impr
ovem
ents
are
eva
luat
ed b
y th
e E
PG
CC
B
and
reco
mm
ende
d fo
r ap
prov
al b
y m
anag
emen
t.
D
The
pro
cess
per
form
ance
mod
el in
OP
P
prov
ides
cri
tica
l eva
luat
ion
crit
eria
. D
AR
and
CA
R p
ract
ices
are
com
mon
ly u
sed.
SG2.
Mea
sura
ble
impr
ovem
ents
to
the
orga
niza
tion
’s p
roce
sses
and
tec
hnol
ogie
s
are
cont
inua
lly a
nd s
yste
mat
ical
ly
depl
oyed
.
178
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
Scri
pts:
LA
U,
RE
L
For
ms:
All
laun
ch a
sset
s
(esp
. ind
ivid
ual
and
cons
olid
ated
TS
P w
orkb
ooks
)
2.1.
Est
abli
sh a
nd m
aint
ain
the
plan
s fo
r
depl
oyin
g th
e se
lect
ed p
roce
ss a
nd
tech
nolo
gy im
prov
emen
ts.
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er, t
eam
mem
bers
, rol
e
man
ager
s
Pla
nnin
g fo
r th
e de
ploy
men
t of
inno
vati
ons
is
the
mai
n pu
rpos
e of
EP
G la
unch
es a
nd
rela
unch
es.
Man
ager
s of
or
seni
or te
chni
cal
lead
ers
from
the
deve
lopm
ent s
taff
may
fun
ctio
n
as m
arke
ting
rep
rese
ntat
ives
. P
lans
are
cap
ture
d
in th
e in
divi
dual
and
con
soli
date
d T
SP
wor
kboo
ks.
D
Ada
ptin
g an
d im
plem
enti
ng th
e fe
atur
es o
f
the
“sta
ndar
d” T
SP p
roce
ss a
sset
s fo
r us
e
by th
e E
PG
is a
val
uabl
e op
port
unit
y fo
r th
e
EP
G to
mod
el d
esir
ed b
ehav
iors
for
deve
lope
rs a
nd f
or th
e or
gani
zatio
n as
a
who
le.
Scri
pts:
WE
EK
,
ST
AT
US
For
ms:
WE
EK
,
SU
MM
AR
Y,
TS
P w
orkb
ooks
Rol
es: T
eam
lead
er
2.2.
Man
age
the
depl
oym
ent o
f th
e se
lect
ed
proc
esse
s an
d te
chno
logy
impr
ovem
ents
.
Oth
er:
Qua
rter
ly
revi
ew c
heck
list
EP
G m
embe
rs e
xecu
te a
gain
st th
e ta
sks
in th
eir
indi
vidu
al T
SP w
orkb
ooks
and
rep
ort s
tatu
s to
the
team
at t
he w
eekl
y m
eeti
ng (
WE
EK
). T
he
team
lead
er m
akes
ST
AT
US
rep
orts
to
man
agem
ent w
eekl
y or
on
som
e ot
her
regu
lar
basi
s as
req
uire
d. R
esul
ts a
re d
escr
ibed
in
SU
MM
AR
Y r
epor
ts.
The
team
lead
er o
f th
e
EP
G p
arti
cipa
tes
in q
uart
erly
rev
iew
s ju
st li
ke
any
othe
r pr
ojec
t tea
m le
ader
.
D
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
17
9
Spec
ific
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Not
es
Scri
pts:
WE
EK
,
PM
For
ms:
TS
P
cons
olid
ated
wor
kboo
ks
2.3.
Mea
sure
the
effe
cts
of th
e de
ploy
ed
proc
ess
and
tech
nolo
gy im
prov
emen
ts.
Rol
es: R
ole
man
ager
s (e
sp.
proc
ess
man
ager
)
The
EP
G r
evie
ws
cons
olid
ated
TSP
wor
kboo
ks
from
pro
ject
team
s ac
ross
the
orga
niza
tion
,
usua
lly
wit
h sp
ecia
l att
entio
n to
dat
a fr
om te
ams
usin
g re
cent
ly d
eplo
yed
impr
ovem
ents
. S
peci
fic
eval
uati
ons
depe
nd o
n th
e im
prov
emen
ts, b
ut th
e
EP
G p
roce
ss m
anag
er is
typi
call
y in
volv
ed w
ith
the
proc
ess
man
ager
s an
d ot
her
affe
cted
rol
e
man
ager
s fr
om th
e im
plem
enti
ng d
evel
opm
ent
team
s to
eva
luat
e an
d tu
ne th
e im
prov
emen
ts.
D
180
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
TS
P a
nd
Pro
cess
Man
agem
ent
Usi
ng
TS
P G
ener
ic P
ract
ices
T
he g
ener
ic p
ract
ices
bec
ome
an in
tere
stin
g an
d po
tent
iall
y va
luab
le s
ourc
e of
info
rmat
ion
and
insp
irat
ion
to th
e E
PG th
at c
hoos
es to
use
TSP
to
impl
emen
t CM
MI
best
pra
ctic
es.
For
exam
ple,
whi
le T
SP n
orm
ally
avo
ids
deal
ing
wit
h po
licy
issu
es, o
ne c
entr
al ta
sk f
acin
g an
EPG
is w
hat
polic
ies
to r
ecom
men
d, p
ossi
bly
in d
raft
for
m, f
or a
man
agem
ent s
teer
ing
grou
p or
equ
ival
ent e
ntit
y. S
uch
polic
y st
atem
ents
wil
l typ
ical
ly r
ange
be
yond
pro
cess
man
agem
ent a
nd in
to th
e ot
her
proc
ess
cate
gori
es.
The
sam
e m
ay b
e sa
id f
or m
ost G
Ps in
the
othe
r pr
oces
s ar
eas
whe
re T
SP
typi
call
y pr
ovid
es o
nly
supp
ortin
g pr
actic
es.
It th
en f
alls
to th
e E
PG o
r a
desi
gnat
ed P
AT
to d
evis
e st
anda
rd o
rgan
izat
iona
l pra
ctic
e.
Gen
eric
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
GP
2.1
. E
stab
lish
and
mai
ntai
n an
orga
niza
tion
al p
olic
y fo
r pl
anni
ng a
nd
perf
orm
ing
the
proc
ess.
A
ll:
Whi
le p
olic
ies
are
out o
f th
e sc
ope
of T
SP
und
er n
orm
al c
ircu
mst
ance
s,
it o
ften
bec
omes
the
wor
k of
the
EP
G, i
n th
e ci
rcum
stan
ces
desc
ribe
d in
this
appe
ndix
, to
draf
t pol
icy
stat
emen
ts f
or m
anag
emen
t dis
cuss
ion
and
appr
oval
.
S
Scri
pts:
LA
U,
RE
L
GP
2.2
. E
stab
lish
and
mai
ntai
n th
e pl
an f
or
perf
orm
ing
the
proc
ess.
For
ms:
TSP
wor
kboo
ks (
esp.
SU
MS
, SU
MQ
,
TA
SK
, SC
HE
D)
All
: T
he E
PG
, OT
PA
T, a
nd a
ny o
ther
pro
cess
act
ion
team
s de
sign
ated
by
man
agem
ent o
r th
e E
PG
fol
low
the
stan
dard
laun
ch a
nd r
elau
nch
scri
pts,
resu
ltin
g in
an
over
all p
lan
or c
olle
ctio
n of
pla
ns to
add
ress
org
aniz
atio
nal
proc
ess
issu
es.
The
se p
lans
wil
l be
refl
ecte
d in
the
TSP
con
solid
ated
and
indi
vidu
al w
orkb
ooks
cre
ated
dur
ing
the
laun
ch, s
peci
fica
lly
in S
UM
S,
SU
MQ
, TA
SK
, and
SC
HE
D.
D
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
18
1
Gen
eric
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Scri
pts:
PR
EP
L,
PR
EP
R, L
AU
6
For
ms:
SU
MS
,
TA
SK
GP
2.3
. P
rovi
de r
esou
rces
for
per
form
ing
the
proc
ess,
dev
elop
ing
the
wor
k pr
oduc
ts,
and
prov
idin
g th
e se
rvic
es o
f th
e pr
oces
s.
Rol
es:
Tea
m
lead
er, t
eam
mem
ber,
rol
e
man
ager
s
All
: E
PG
and
PA
T m
embe
rs a
re in
itia
lly
assi
gned
dur
ing
laun
ch/r
elau
nch
prep
arat
ions
(P
RE
PL
, PR
EP
R).
Tea
m m
embe
rs a
re a
ssig
ned
to s
peci
fic
proj
ect t
asks
(S
UM
S, T
AS
K)
duri
ng L
AU
6. A
ny d
iscr
epan
cies
bet
wee
n
need
ed a
nd a
ctua
l sta
ff a
re n
egot
iate
d be
twee
n th
e af
fect
ed te
am a
nd
man
agem
ent,
begi
nnin
g fo
rmal
ly in
LA
U9
and
poss
ibly
info
rmal
ly m
uch
earl
ier
in th
e la
unch
. T
he te
am le
ader
and
rol
e m
anag
ers
help
to e
nsur
e th
at
the
task
s ar
e pr
oper
ly s
taff
ed, f
irst
dur
ing
the
laun
ch, a
nd th
en d
urin
g pr
ojec
t
exec
utio
n.
D
Scri
pts:
PR
EP
L, L
AU
6
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
SU
MS
GP
2.4
. A
ssig
n re
spon
sibi
lity
and
aut
hori
ty
for
perf
orm
ing
the
proc
ess,
dev
elop
ing
the
wor
k pr
oduc
ts, a
nd p
rovi
ding
the
serv
ices
of th
e pr
oces
s.
Rol
es:
Tea
m
lead
er, t
eam
mem
ber,
rol
e
man
ager
s
The
EP
G te
am le
ader
and
lead
ers
of th
e va
riou
s P
AT
s ar
e id
enti
fied
dur
ing
prep
arat
ions
for
the
vari
ous
laun
ches
(P
RE
PL
) an
d re
laun
ches
(P
RE
PR
).
Indi
vidu
al r
ole
man
ager
s ar
e as
sign
ed d
urin
g L
AU
2 of
the
laun
ches
. (N
ote:
Bec
ause
this
is n
ot a
targ
eted
app
licat
ion
of T
SP
, ada
ptat
ion
and
cust
omiz
atio
n of
the
role
s is
to b
e ex
pect
ed to
an
exte
nt n
ot ty
pica
lly
seen
in
the
“nor
mal
” T
SP
team
.) T
he te
am le
ader
(s)
and
role
man
ager
s ar
e
resp
onsi
ble
to e
nsur
e th
at th
e ta
sks
are
prop
erly
sta
ffed
. D
urin
g th
e
(re)
laun
ch p
roce
ss, t
eam
mem
bers
par
tici
pate
in d
efin
ing,
und
erst
andi
ng,
and
acce
ptin
g th
eir
indi
vidu
al r
espo
nsib
iliti
es.
D
182
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
Gen
eric
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Scri
pts:
PM
,
PR
EP
L,
PR
EP
R, W
EE
K
GP
2.5
. T
rain
the
peop
le p
erfo
rmin
g or
supp
ortin
g th
e pr
oces
s as
nee
ded.
Oth
er:
TS
P
intr
oduc
tion
stra
tegy
,
Man
agin
g TS
P
Tea
ms,
Intr
oduc
tion
to
Per
sona
l
Pro
cess
, spe
cifi
c
TS
P p
roce
ss a
nd
tool
trai
ning
EP
G a
nd P
AT
mem
bers
typi
call
y re
ceiv
e In
trod
ucti
on to
Per
sona
l Pro
cess
and
Man
agin
g TS
P T
eam
s tr
aini
ng a
s a
min
imum
, and
a f
ew ta
ke th
e fu
ll
rang
e of
PSP
and
TS
P tr
aini
ng s
peci
fied
by
the
TS
P in
trod
uctio
n st
rate
gy.
Add
itio
nal t
rain
ing
iden
tifie
d du
ring
laun
ch/r
elau
nch
prep
arat
ions
(P
RE
PL
,
PR
EP
R)
or d
urin
g an
d af
ter
the
proj
ect (
WE
EK
, PM
) is
bui
lt in
to p
roje
ct
plan
s ei
ther
dir
ectl
y by
acc
ount
ing
for
trai
ning
in in
divi
dual
TSP
wor
kboo
ks
duri
ng la
unch
es/r
elau
nche
s or
indi
rect
ly b
y re
duci
ng a
vail
able
hou
rs a
t
spec
ific
cal
enda
r ti
mes
.
S
Scri
pts:
LA
U3,
WE
EK
For
ms:
TSP
wor
kboo
ks,
WE
EK
Rol
es:
Tea
m
lead
er, s
uppo
rt
man
ager
GP
2.6
. P
lace
des
igna
ted
wor
k pr
oduc
ts o
f
the
proc
ess
unde
r ap
prop
riat
e le
vels
of
conf
igur
atio
n m
anag
emen
t.
Oth
er:
NO
TE
BO
OK
Tea
m p
lans
and
wee
kly
stat
us (
WE
EK
) ar
e ca
ptur
ed o
n th
e T
SP w
orkb
ooks
and
othe
r la
unch
art
ifac
ts a
nd s
tore
d in
the
vari
ous
proj
ect N
OT
EB
OO
Ks
for
the
EP
G a
nd e
ach
PA
T.
LA
U3
for
each
laun
ch a
ctiv
ity
iden
tifi
es w
hat w
ork
prod
ucts
sho
uld
be p
lace
d un
der
conf
igur
atio
n m
anag
emen
t and
whe
n th
is
happ
ens
duri
ng d
evel
opm
ent.
S
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
18
3
Gen
eric
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Scri
pts:
PR
EP
L,
PR
EP
R, L
AU
1,
LA
U9,
WE
EK
,
ST
AT
US
Rol
es:
Tea
m
lead
er, r
ole
man
ager
s
GP
2.7
. Id
enti
fy a
nd in
volv
e th
e re
leva
nt
stak
ehol
ders
as
plan
ned.
Oth
er:
Qua
rter
ly
revi
ew c
heck
list
Dur
ing
the
prep
arat
ion
for
a (r
e)la
unch
, rel
evan
t sta
keho
lder
s ar
e id
enti
fied
duri
ng la
unch
/rel
aunc
h pr
epar
atio
ns a
nd u
sual
ly p
arti
cipa
te in
mee
ting
s 1
and
9 (L
AU
1, L
AU
9) a
t a m
inim
um.
Sta
keho
lder
s ar
e in
form
ed o
f pr
ojec
t
stat
us th
roug
h in
tera
ctio
n w
ith
the
appr
opri
ate
role
man
ager
and
pro
ject
stat
us r
epor
ting
mec
hani
sms
(ST
AT
US
, qua
rter
ly r
evie
w c
heck
list
), a
nd in
fact
may
take
par
t dir
ectl
y in
EP
G a
nd P
AT
wor
k.
S
Scri
pts:
WE
EK
,
ST
AT
US
For
ms:
WE
EK
,
TA
SK
, SU
MS
Rol
es:
Tea
m
lead
er, r
ole
man
ager
s
GP
2.8
. Mon
itor
and
con
trol
the
proc
ess
agai
nst t
he p
lan
for
perf
orm
ing
the
proc
ess
and
take
app
ropr
iate
cor
rect
ive
acti
on.
Oth
er:
Qua
rter
ly
revi
ew c
heck
list
The
team
lead
er a
nd th
e te
am a
s a
who
le m
onit
or p
erfo
rman
ce a
gain
st g
oals
and
risk
s at
the
wee
kly
team
mee
ting
(W
EE
K).
Sta
tus
agai
nst p
lan
is
revi
ewed
and
pro
ject
-spe
cifi
c ro
le m
anag
er r
epor
ts s
uppo
rt th
is a
ctiv
ity
(WE
EK
, TA
SK
, SU
MS
) fo
r th
eir
resp
ecti
ve a
reas
of
cogn
izan
ce.
ST
AT
US
repo
rts
and
quar
terl
y re
view
s en
sure
that
the
enti
re m
anag
emen
t cha
in is
awar
e of
cur
rent
per
form
ance
, iss
ues,
and
ris
ks.
D
184
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
Gen
eric
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
For
ms:
PIP
, all
proc
ess
arti
fact
s
Rol
es:
Pro
cess
man
ager
GP
2.9
. O
bjec
tive
ly e
valu
ate
adhe
renc
e of
the
proc
ess
agai
nst i
ts p
roce
ss d
escr
ipti
on,
stan
dard
s, a
nd p
roce
dure
s, a
nd a
ddre
ss
nonc
ompl
ianc
e.
Oth
er:
Che
ckpo
int
revi
ew
The
pro
cess
man
ager
rol
e is
acc
ount
able
and
oft
en r
espo
nsib
le f
or e
nsur
ing
that
thes
e ac
tiviti
es ta
ke p
lace
. T
he E
PG
or
PA
T r
evie
ws
proc
ess
nonc
onfo
rman
ce is
sues
and
PIP
s at
team
mee
ting
s or
som
e ot
her
sche
dule
d
even
t, an
d m
ay e
ngag
e an
out
side
TS
P c
oach
to p
erfo
rm a
che
ckpo
int
revi
ew to
dis
cove
r is
sues
that
the
team
itse
lf m
ay n
ot b
e ab
le to
add
ress
on
its
own.
S
Scri
pts:
ST
AT
US
For
ms:
WE
EK
,
SU
MS
, SU
MP
,
SU
MQ
Rol
es:
Tea
m
lead
er, r
ole
man
ager
s
GP
2.1
0. R
evie
w th
e ac
tivi
ties
, sta
tus,
and
resu
lts
of th
e pr
oces
s w
ith
high
er le
vel
man
agem
ent a
nd r
esol
ve is
sues
.
Oth
er:
Qua
rter
ly
revi
ew c
heck
list
The
EP
G o
r P
AT
rev
iew
s pr
ogre
ss w
eekl
y an
d ap
prop
riat
e co
rrec
tive
acti
ons
are
dete
rmin
ed a
nd e
xecu
ted.
ST
AT
US
rep
orts
are
pro
vide
d to
man
agem
ent b
ased
on
proj
ect d
ata
(WE
EK
, SU
MS
, SU
MP
, SU
MQ
).
Qua
rter
ly r
evie
ws
sum
mar
ize
proj
ect s
tatu
s fo
r se
nior
man
agem
ent.
S
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
18
5
Gen
eric
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Scri
pts:
LA
U3,
PIP
For
ms:
IN
V,
TA
SK
, SU
MS
GP
3.1
. E
stab
lish
and
mai
ntai
n th
e
desc
ript
ion
of a
def
ined
pro
cess
.
Rol
es:
Tea
m
lead
er, r
ole
man
ager
s (e
sp.
proc
ess
man
ager
)
Dur
ing
LA
U3,
the
team
def
ines
or
adap
ts th
e pr
oces
ses
that
they
wil
l use
duri
ng th
at p
ortio
n of
the
proj
ect.
Occ
asio
nally
, add
ition
al p
roce
sses
that
need
to b
e de
fine
d ar
e ca
ptur
ed (
INV
). I
n th
is c
ase,
task
s ar
e cr
eate
d an
d
usua
lly
assi
gned
to th
e re
leva
nt r
ole
man
ager
. The
pro
cess
man
ager
is
resp
onsi
ble
for
over
all c
oord
inat
ion
of c
reat
ion
and
mai
nten
ance
of
thes
e
task
s, e
nsur
ing
that
they
are
def
ined
, doc
umen
ted,
and
agr
eed
to b
y th
e
team
.
S
Scri
pts:
LA
U,
RE
L
GP
3.2
. C
olle
ct w
ork
prod
ucts
, mea
sure
s,
mea
sure
men
t res
ults
, and
impr
ovem
ent
info
rmat
ion
deri
ved
from
pla
nnin
g an
d
perf
orm
ing
the
proc
ess
to s
uppo
rt th
e fu
ture
use
and
impr
ovem
ent o
f th
e or
gani
zati
on’s
proc
esse
s an
d pr
oces
s as
sets
.
For
ms:
TA
SK
,
SC
HE
D, L
OG
T,
LO
GD
, SU
MS
,
PIP
Bot
h du
ring
laun
ches
and
rel
aunc
hes
(LA
U, R
EL
) an
d w
hile
exe
cuti
ng
assi
gned
pro
cess
man
agem
ent t
asks
, EP
G a
nd P
AT
mem
bers
mod
el th
e
beha
vior
s th
at th
ey a
re a
skin
g of
oth
er d
evel
opm
ent p
roje
cts.
Dat
a fr
om
indi
vidu
al a
nd c
onso
lidat
ed T
SP w
orkb
ooks
(T
AS
K, S
CH
ED
, LO
GT
,
LO
GD
, SU
MS
), f
rom
PIP
s, a
nd f
rom
the
man
y ot
her
gene
rate
d ar
tifac
ts
ofte
n pr
ove
pers
uasi
ve to
oth
erw
ise
relu
ctan
t dev
elop
men
t tea
ms,
esp
ecia
lly
whe
n th
ey a
re a
naly
zed
and
used
to im
prov
e th
e pr
oces
s in
the
futu
re.
S
Scri
pts:
LA
U1,
LA
U2,
LA
U3,
LA
U5,
LA
U9
GP
4.1
. E
stab
lish
and
mai
ntai
n qu
anti
tati
ve
obje
ctiv
es f
or th
e pr
oces
s th
at a
ddre
ss
qual
ity
and
proc
ess
perf
orm
ance
bas
ed o
n
cust
omer
nee
ds a
nd b
usin
ess
obje
ctiv
es.
For
ms:
WE
EK
,
SU
MS
, SU
MP
,
SU
MQ
Dur
ing
a la
unch
, man
agem
ent a
nd th
e te
am e
stab
lish
qua
ntit
ativ
e ob
ject
ives
for
sele
cted
pro
cess
es, a
nd w
ork
prod
ucts
are
est
abli
shed
(L
AU
1, L
AU
2,
LA
U3,
LA
U5,
LA
U9)
and
then
mon
itor
ed (
WE
EK
, SU
MS
, SU
MP
, and
SU
MQ
) as
the
proj
ect p
lan
is e
xecu
ted,
usu
ally
by
eith
er th
e pl
anni
ng o
r
qual
ity
man
ager
s, o
r po
ssib
ly o
ne o
f th
e ot
her
role
man
ager
s as
app
ropr
iate
.
S
186
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
Gen
eric
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Rol
es:
Rol
e
man
ager
s (e
sp.
plan
ning
or
proc
ess)
For
ms:
GO
AL
,
SU
MS
, TA
SK
,
LO
GT
, LO
GD
,
WE
EK
, SU
MP
,
SU
MQ
Rol
es:
Tea
m
lead
er, t
eam
mem
ber,
rol
e
man
ager
GP
4.2
. S
tabi
lize
the
perf
orm
ance
of
one
or
mor
e su
bpro
cess
es to
det
erm
ine
the
abil
ity
of th
e pr
oces
s to
ach
ieve
the
esta
blis
hed
quan
titat
ive
qual
ity
and
proc
ess-
perf
orm
ance
obj
ecti
ves.
Oth
er:
Ear
ned
valu
e (E
V)
char
ts, r
evie
w
rate
cha
rts,
defe
ct in
ject
ion/
rem
oval
cha
rts
TS
P te
ams
coll
ect d
ata
(SU
MS
, TA
SK
, LO
GT
, and
LO
GD
) to
ana
lyze
thei
r
perf
orm
ance
(W
EE
K, S
UM
P, S
UM
Q)
and
to m
eet p
roje
ct a
nd
orga
niza
tion
al g
oals
(G
OA
L).
The
team
lead
er, t
eam
mem
bers
, and
rol
e
man
ager
s pe
rfor
m r
elev
ant a
naly
ses
wit
h th
e ai
de o
f va
riou
s ch
arts
and
grap
hs (
see
“Oth
er”)
and
info
rm th
e te
am a
bout
pro
cess
per
form
ance
,
espe
cial
ly p
arti
cula
rly
good
or
wor
riso
me
aspe
cts,
alo
ng w
ith
reco
mm
enda
tion
s co
ncer
ning
wha
t, if
any
thin
g, to
do
abou
t the
m.
S
Scri
pts:
TE
ST
D, P
M
For
ms:
PIP
GP
5.1
. E
nsur
e co
ntin
uous
impr
ovem
ent o
f
the
proc
ess
in f
ulfi
llin
g th
e re
leva
nt
busi
ness
obj
ecti
ves
of th
e or
gani
zati
on.
Rol
es:
Tea
m
lead
er, t
eam
mem
ber
Thi
s is
the
mis
sion
of
the
EP
G a
nd it
s su
bsid
iary
PA
Ts.
Whi
le th
e
EP
G/P
AT
s pe
rfor
m T
ES
TD
act
ivit
ies
and
post
mor
tem
s (P
Ms)
and
wri
te
PIP
s fo
r th
eir
own
proc
esse
s an
d th
ose
of o
ther
TS
P te
ams
in th
e
orga
niza
tion
, the
fun
dam
enta
l und
erly
ing
obli
gati
on o
f ea
ch te
am le
ader
and
team
mem
ber
is to
ens
ure
that
the
orga
niza
tion
is le
arni
ng a
nd im
prov
ing
cons
tant
ly in
term
s of
mee
ting
its
busi
ness
obj
ecti
ves.
S
CM
U/S
EI-
2004
-TR
-014
18
7
Gen
eric
Pra
ctic
e
TSP
Ref
eren
ce
Obs
erva
tion
Rat
ing
Scri
pts:
TE
STD
G
P 5
.2.
Iden
tify
and
cor
rect
the
root
cau
ses
of d
efec
ts a
nd o
ther
pro
blem
s in
the
proc
ess.
For
ms:
SU
MS
,
TA
SK
, LO
GT
,
LO
GD
, PIP
TS
P te
ams
coll
ect d
ata
(SU
MS
, TA
SK
, LO
GT
, LO
GD
) to
sup
port
the
iden
tifi
cati
on a
nd a
naly
sis
of p
roje
ct-r
elat
ed p
robl
ems,
and
cap
ture
suc
h
prob
lem
s an
d pr
opos
ed s
olut
ions
on
PIP
s.
S
188 CMU/SEI-2004-TR-014
CMU/SEI-2004-TR-014 189
References
URLs are valid as of the publication date of this document.
[Brady 04] Brady, Steve & Turner, Sherri. “The Proof is in the Project—Combining Personal and Team Process with CMMI Level 5.” SEPG 2004 (CD-ROM). Pittsburgh, PA: Software Engineering Institute, 2004. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/presentations/sepg04.presentations/ /proof.pdf.
[Chrissis 03] Chrissis, Mary Beth; Konrad, M.; & Shrum, S. CMMI: Guidelines for Process Improvement and Product Improvement. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Inc., 2003.
[CMMI 02a] CMMI Product Team. CMMI for Systems Engineering/Software Engineering/Integrated Product and Process Development, Version 1.1, Staged Representation (CMMI-SE/SW/IPPD, V1.1, Staged) (CMU/SEI-2002-TR-004, ADA339221). Pittsburgh, PA: Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, 2002. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/publications/documents/02.reports /02tr004.html.
[CMMI 02b] CMMI Product Team. CMMI for Systems Engineering/Software Engineering/Integrated Product and Process Development, Version 1.1, Continuous Representation (CMMI-SE/SW/IPPD, V1.1, Continuous) (CMU/SEI-2002-TR-003, ADA339219). Pittsburgh, PA: Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, 2002. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/publications/documents/02.reports /02tr003.html.
[Davis 02] Davis, Noopur; & McHale, J. Relating the Team Software Process (TSP) to the Capability Maturity Model (CMM) for Software. (CMU/SEI-2002-TR-008, ADA404970). Pittsburgh, PA: Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, 2002. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/publications/documents/02.reports /02tr008.html.
190 CMU/SEI-2004-TR-014
[Davis 03] Davis, Noopur & Mullaney, J. The Team Software Process (TSP) in Practice: A Summary of Recent Results. (CMU/SEI-2003-TR-014, ADA418430). Pittsburgh, PA: Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, 2003. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/publications/documents/03.reports /03tr014.html.
[Hefley 02] Hefley, W.; Pracchia, L.; & Schwalb, J. “AV-8B’s Experience Using the TSP to Accelerate SW-CMM Adoption.” Crosstalk: The Journal of Defense Software Engineering (Sept. 2002): 5-8. http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/crosstalk/2002/09/hefley.html.
[Humphrey 00a] Humphrey, W. Introduction to the Team Software Process. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Inc., 2000.
[Humphrey 00b] Humphrey, W. The Team Software Process (CMU/SEI-2000-TR-023, ADA387279). Pittsburgh, PA: Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, 2000. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/publications/documents/00.reports /00tr023.html.
[Humphrey 02] Humphrey, W. Winning with Software: An Executive Strategy. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Inc., 2002.
[McAndrews 00] McAndrews, Donald R. The Team Software ProcessSM (TSPSM): An Overview and Preliminary Results of Using Disciplined Practices. (CMU/SEI-2000-TR-015, ADA387260). Pittsburgh, PA: Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, 2000. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/publications/documents/00.reports/00tr015.html.
[Pracchia 04] Pracchia, L. “The AV-8B Team Learns Synergy of EVM and TSP Accelerates Software Process Improvement.” Crosstalk: The Journal of Defense Software Engineering (Jan. 2004): 20-22. http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/crosstalk/2004/01/0401pracchia.html.
[SEI 04] SEI. Process Maturity Profile: Software CMM, 2004 Mid-Year Update. Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, August 2004. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/sema/pdf/CMMI/2004aug.pdf.
[Switzer 04] Switzer, J. “Integrating CMMI, TSP, and Change Management Principles to Accelerate Process Improvement.” TSP User Group, Pittsburgh, PA, Sept. 2004. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/tsp /tug-2004-presentations/switzer.pdf.
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503.
1. AGENCY USE ONLY
(Leave Blank)
2. REPORT DATE
April 2005
3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED
Final 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Mapping TSP to CMMI
5. FUNDING NUMBERS
F19628-00-C-0003 6. AUTHOR(S)
James McHale, Daniel S. Wall 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
Software Engineering Institute Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER
CMU/SEI-2004-TR-014
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
HQ ESC/XPK 5 Eglin Street Hanscom AFB, MA 01731-2116
10. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY REPORT NUMBER
ESC-TR-2004-014
11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
12A DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Unclassified/Unlimited, DTIC, NTIS
12B DISTRIBUTION CODE
13. ABSTRACT (MAXIMUM 200 WORDS)
With the advent of CMMI® (Capability Maturity Model® Integration), development and maintenance organizations are faced with many issues regarding how their current practices, or new practices that they are considering adopting, compare to the new model. The Team Software ProcessSM (TSPSM), including the corequisite Personal Software ProcessSM (PSPSM), defines a set of project practices that has a growing body of evidence showing highly desirable process performance in terms of delivered product quality, schedule performance, and cost performance. TSP also has a history of favorable coverage with respect to the SW-CMM® (Capability Maturity Model for Software), a major precursor to CMMI, as well as several real-world implementations that have helped organizations to achieve high maturity levels in a relatively short period of time.
This report provides an essential element to facilitate the adoption of the TSP in organizations using CMMI, namely, a mapping of ideal TSP practices into the specific and generic practices of CMMI. By having such a mapping (also known as a gap analysis), those involved with process improvement and appraisal efforts can more easily determine how well the organization or a particular project is implementing the TSP, how well projects using TSP might rate with respect to CMMI, and where and how to fill any gaps in CMMI coverage. Organizations already following an improvement plan based on CMMI may also determine how TSP adoption might help them to achieve broader, deeper, or higher maturity implementations of CMMI goals and practices.
14. SUBJECT TERMS
CMMI, TSP, PSP, Team Software Process, Personal Software Process, software process improvement, gap analysis
15. NUMBER OF PAGES
209
16. PRICE CODE
17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
OF REPORT
Unclassified
18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE
Unclassified
19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF ABSTRACT
Unclassified
20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT
UL
NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89) Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18 298-102