Wednesday, February 4, 2009

We're a ML3 company trying for ML4. But we don't understand GP3.2

I’m EPG practitioner of ML3 company and we would like to achieve ML 4. But, I’m not sure for interpreting GP 3.2 in the process. We are so confused whether every process has a measurement metric included in MA.

Because GP 3.2 specifies “collect work product, measures, measurement results, and improvement information derived from planning and performing the process …”.

Could you give me some advice for this?

The more cynical of my Lead Appraiser colleagues might ask “how did you get to ML3 without knowing this?” But I won’t do that. I can think of MANY reasons why this may have occurred!

GP3.2 exists in the model to codify the need to proactively gather information from the project’s use of your process that could be used to improve performance for future projects. This could be “reuse” data, such as useful templates or examples. It could be useful measures that provide the NEXT project with information that would help them. It also could be “lessons learned” gathered from performing retrospectives, post-mortems, and reviews of what worked and what didn’t.

So GP3.2 doesn’t require a metric for every process area, and the Process Area “MA” certainly doesn’t require this.

However, if you’re planning on moving to ML4 you will need to be measuring the performance of selected sub-processes. And to do this you will want to have some granular metrics about the performance of specific sub-processes. One practice that supports this is GP2.8, my favorite, because it requires you to consider these types of measures WAY back in ML2. These measures should help you identify “process levers” that you can manipulate to change the results of a process.

No comments: