Wednesday, October 6, 2010

How should we interpret GP3.2?

My CMMI consultant interprets the GP 3.2 as that we must have evidences showing actual improvements that projects obtain from using the process assets (work products, measures, improvement requests...) collected by SEPG from other projects

Previously, I interpreted GP 3.2 as just collecting process assets, and that would satisfy this GP.

Please kindly advise which way can be best match the GP 3.2

The great the thing about consulting is that ANYONE can be one! What a great gig!

GP3.2 is one of my favorite practices because it codifies the gathering of new and improved ideas, data, and other information to actually make us better. What a concept!

It reads:

"Collect work products, measures, measurement results, and improvement information derived from planning and
performing the process to support the future use and improvement of the organization’s processes and process

It's great stuff!! But,  does it force you to demonstrate actual improvements because of this? Not so much.

What it means is that, at some future date, another project might benefit from the use of some of the data we submit. The SEI was smart enough to know that some information might be used, some might not be used, and it wasn't up to them to enforce that. In IPM we're guided to plan using the Organization's Process Assets - perhaps this is what he is referring to . . . .

A further reading of the sub-practices, which explain the intent of the authors, tells us that:


1. Store process and product measures in the organization’s measurement repository. The process and product measures are primarily those that are defined in the common set of measures for the organization’s set of standard processes.

2. Submit documentation for inclusion in the organization’s process
asset library.

3. Document lessons learned from the process for inclusion in the
organization’s process asset library.

4. Propose improvements to the organizational process assets.

These are all good things, but don't lead us to interpert the intent of the practice any differently than the actual practice statement (unlike some others in the model). And still, not a single mention of what you "consultant" describes.

So, I would have to disagree with your "consultant." He's wrong. The practice does not tell us we need to demonstrate that what was submitted was actually used. It would be nice, and it's a good thing, but he's leading you down the wrong path.

No comments: