Two more hours until YOUR questions are presented at SEPG 2009!

Yep, in two short hours yours truly will present your questions (and my answers) as part of my "Notes from the Blogosphere" presentation.

Last year attendees rated this #1 at SEPG 2008.  Lots of fun and prizes will be given out.

See you there, we hope!

Jeff

We're not really sure about IIPD. How does it fit in?

We're trying to reach CMMI ML3.  We don't understand how IPPD fits in.  Is it required?  Is it useful?

IPPD, or Integrated Process and Product Development,  is what is called an “Addition” in the CMMI model.  Unlike the rest of the Goals in ML3, which are required, the Goals in IPPD (two in IPM and two in OPD) are optional when you are trying to achieve ML3.

The Goals of IPPD provide guidance to better manage integrated teams, or teams that cross organizational boundries.  You may not feel you need the practices contained within it, and if that's the case, they are not required.

That said, I think IPPD is great and very useful and should be used to guide you in the way projects, teams, and organizations interact.

But, from a pure ML3 perspective, these Goals are optional.

www.broadswordsolutions.com

Jeff Dalton (that's ME!) wins presitgious SEI Member Award at SEPG 2009

In a cermony attended by three-hundred of his peers, Jeff Dalton was awarded the prestigious SEI Member Award for "Outstanding Representative."

This award is given to the SEI Member who has show consistent innovation, new idea generation, and has demonstrated that they "think outside of the box" when it comes to delivering CMMI services.

What do Appraisers look for?

Our company is  aspiring to achieve CMMI level 2.  We have been doing GAP Analysis for level 2. But we always stuck with one question What do CMMI Appraisers look for?

The practices listed in CMMI are  vague. For example in Configuration Management Process Area the first practice says "identify configuration items" .  What if we identify certain CM items which are important according to organization, will appraiser say you didn't add this item in your CM list  and fail us.

What if in some practices we don't see business value and we don't implement, would appraiser say strict "NO" and we fail.

The CMMI model consists of Process Areas, Goals, and Practices (as well as many other things).  As a Lead Appraiser it is my duty to verify that every Goal (specific Goal or Generic Goal) within the targeted maturity level, has been "satisfied."  There is no opportunity for you to declare a goal "out of scope," with the possible exception of those within Supplier Agreement Management."  We also EXPECT to see that all of the practices are being performed, or we expect you to demonstrate an alternative practice.  The practices are used to satisfy the goals.

The example work products under each practice give you some idea of the types of evidence we are looking for - but it is only an example list - there are many other possibilities.

We are looking for two pieces of evidence - one "Direct" and one "indirect" which could also be an "affirmation" or a verbal statement.  Both pieces have to be there to you to succeed for each practice.

www.broadswordsolutions.com

Is there a simple book with a set of steps for achieving CMMI ML2?

We are a small business that provides federal government contractors and  staffing augmentation to various state and local government agencies. We are finding that more of the federal work we are going after requires at least CMM Level 2.  I am trying to understand the easiest way that we can get to the level 2 benchmark. Can we simply document our backoffice processes. Do we need to also document our CRM & HRM process? Where do we start? I think our situation is much simplier than documenting a full SDLC methodology. Is there a simply book that says follow these steps? Please advise.
The CMMI for Services, which sounds like the "flavor" (or constellation) of CMMI that you would use, has 25 Process Areas.  In Maturity Level Two there are eight process areas that must be satisfied and appraiser using an external SCAMPI Lead Appraiser.
Those eight process areas are: Project Planning, Project Monitoring and Control, Measurement and Analysis, Configuration Management, Process and Product Quality Assurance, Supplier Agreement Management, Requirements Management, and Service Delivery.
In order to achieve Maturity Level Two you must demonstrate sustained, consistent processes performance in all the Process Areas, with the POSSIBLE exception of Supplier Agreement Management.  You demonstrate this by defining, using, and then being appraised on your company's standard processes.
You probably have less work to do in the CRM/HR area than in the area that focuses on the development, maintenance, delivery, and monitoring of your company's services.
These processes don't come out of a book - they are YOUR processes, so it would be difficult to write a book that was specific to your company.
Your best bet is to get smart about the CMMI by taking the CMMI Intro class from an SEI Partner, download the CMMI-SVC specification from www.sei.cmu.edu/CMMI (only read Part 2 for now!), and then engage a professional to help you navigate the roadmap.

SEPG 2009 Starts Tomorrow!

We're in San Jose this weekend wrapping up a two day meeting with the Broadsword clan.  Don't miss out on this awesome event!

Tuesday: SEI Member Lunch!

Tuesday: CMMI or Agile: Why Not Embrace Both! with me, Mike Konrad, and David Anderson

Wednesday: JCI Experience Report with Ross Timmerman and me

Wednesday night: Broadsword Cocktail Mixer! Fairmont hotel, Garden Room at 5:30 - win an iPod Shuffle!

Thursdsay: MORE Notes from the Blogosphere.  YOUR QUESTIONS on display at SEPG 2009!

Hope to see you there!  

Jeff

Do we need to have a plan for every process area?

GP2.2 says "Plan the Process" and I’ve been trying to find out, to no avail, do we need separate plans for:  Integrated Project Management (IPM),  Technical Solution (TS),   and  product Integration (PI)?

The intent of GP2.2 is not to have a separate plan for each process, but to account for the tasks and deliverable of the process within your integrated plan.  This is the best way to institutionalize the process is to plan for it, monitor that plan, and take corrective action when something does not adhere to the plan.

If you take REQM as an example, wouldn't you plan for eliciting their needs, reviewing the requirements, performing validation, updating traceability, and all of the other practices?  In a way, the plan DRIVES the process, so it's pretty important.

So, no, you don't need a separate plan for each PA, but your plans do need to contemplate important process steps, and that's covered in IPM.

www.broadswordsolutions.com

Do we need separate policies for every Process Area?

We're working towards ML3 and are trying to understand how to address GP2.1.  Our consultant said LA's will only accept a "policy book" with a policy for each PA signed off on by management. Is that true?

Well, you couuuuuuuld do it that way, but why would you?  Either your consultant has never done a successful process implementation, or he's looking for work to do!

From a process perspective, what is the practical difference between:

IPM and PP?

PP and PMC?

PP/PMC and RSKM

TS and PI?

REQM and RD?

The answer is that these are not silos, but threads, and the expectations (policy) of using the process (and the process itself) should be based around those threads, not around the PAs.

So you might have one policy for the Project Management PAs, another around the Engineering PAs, and so on.  The categories in the CMMI continuous representation (Project Mgmt, Process Mgmt, Support, and Engineering) might be a good place to start.

www.broadswordsolutions.com

We are a testing company going to ML3. Do we need to perform TS and PI?

We are a testing company in SoCal.  We want to go to ML3 and our appraiser tells us we can leave Technical Solutions and Product Integration out of scope for our appraisal.  That doesn't sound right - what do you think?

Whoa nellie!  The SCAMPI MDD ia clear on this subject (and I wish more LAs would read it!).  If you’re going to achieve ML3 using the CMMI-DEV Constellation then PI and TS are required.  The only PA you may leave out of scope for an appraisal is POTENTIALLY Supplier Agreement Management (SAM).  So yes, you would need a policy to set expectations for TS and PI, a process to follow, tailoring guidelines, and so on. 

Putting aside the SCAMPI requirements, why would a testing organization NOT want to use these process areas?  You select and use technology, write scripts, execute test plans, run regression and integration tests right?  Most of that is covered in TS and PI and is a perfect fit for your kind of business.

www.broadswordsolutions.com

Must defect measures be consolidated into the measurement repository?

I met an ATM that told me that an appraised organization failed ML 3 because the LA said it is required to consolidate in the measurement repository data from defects. The measurement repository of the organization contains consolidation of historical effort estimation data. The organization answered to the LA that according to its business objective, historical effort estimation data is the most important data to consolidate, no defects. The LA reply that in ML 3 the measurement repository must contain a set of measures not just one measure. I am not sure if this is right.

I'M MAD AS HELL AND I AINT GONNA TAKE IT ANYMORE!!

Sometimes I just want to take a cricket paddle and swat some of my fellow LA's on the side of head. NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!

Yes, OPD has a requirement for establishing a measurement repository, and the informative material describes what the contents MIGHT be.  No where in that description, or in the process area in general, does it describe specific measures that need to be in the repository - other than to say "product and process measures."

To further make the case, the use of the repository is to satisfy practices in IPM to "plan the project."  In that context, you're argument seems solid to me.  Knowing the little that I know about your experience, and if all else you've said is accurate, I would not approve of your Lead Appraiser's opinion.

You may consider engaging an LA that understands the model better and has more practical experience.

www.broadswordsolutions.com

Are Process Performance Models required for QPM?

We are struggling in the creation of Process Performance Model (PPM) which are fit and working. Is it a requirement for ML4 QPM? What are other alternatives for PPM?

Actually, the Goals and Practices in Quantitative Project Management (QPM) don't specifically direct you to use PPMs at all, although it is mentioned in the informative material.  So the simplistic, "answer in a vacuum" is "no." HOWEVER, if you're striving to be a ML4 organization, you must also be performing Organizational Process Performance (OPP), which DOES have a practice that expects process performance models to be developed.

The expectation is that QPM uses these PPMs to plan and manage the project.  So the PPMs originate with OPP, but is used by those who execute QPM (which could be completely different people).

If the reference in OPP to models was only in the practice (SP1.5 - Establish Process Performance Models) then it would only be "expected" (practices are expected, goals are required right?) then I could suggest an alternative, but alas, the Goal (SG1 in OPP) does indeed state the baselines AND models need to be developed.

So, yes, PPMs are required. 

www.broadswordsolutions.com

Executive Brief Interview with Mike Konrad and Jeff Dalton on CMMI and Agile

CMMI and Agile: Opposites Attract

Nice article on the subject in "Executive Brief."

http://www.executivebrief.com/article/cmmi-and-agile-opposites-attract/

Does SAM apply if our customer mandates the supplier?

A company has a customer who supplies software modules that are integrated into the final product. The customer has mandated a 3rd party to supply another software module that is also integrated into the final product.

Is SAM applicable in this case? The company has no contract with either in respect of the supplied modules (other than the contract to deliver the final product). The company has no ability to manage the customer as they would a 3rd party supplier.

Wow, this reminds me of the time I met a judge and asked him "I have this friend . . . !"

It's a really interesting question. We often debate the merit of "alternative practices" amongst the SEI community (read: process nerds) with MOST people insisting that their "alternative implementaion" of SPs are "alternative practices." Usually they are not.  Alternative practices are an accepted, albeit rare, way to satisfy the Goals in CMMI, which I'm sure you know are required.

In this case, I'd say "we've got a live one here maw!"

Most of the practices in SAM SG1 are about selecting and acquiring a service/product from a supplier. Even though you're achieving SG1 your customer situation may very well serve as an alternative for the practices within it. Without knowing all of the details, I'd say there is a good chance you'd be OK here.

It's not so clean for SG2. You do, in fact, accept the product, and I'm sure you make sure that it works correctly, and that it can be integrated into your environment. So you're not completely off the hook for SAM.

Whatever you decide, I suggest you document your situation and when you're ready to engage a Lead Appraiser (hey wait a minute . . . isn't THAT SAM???) you discuss it with him/her to make sure you see eye-to-eye on this. If you don't, get a second opinion.

wwww.broadswordsolutions.com

If we don't use all of the practices on smaller projects, can we still achieve ML2?

We're trying to reach ML2. But we have to deal with both large projects (from 700h to 10,000h) and small projects (<>700h)

When we conduct a SCAMPI A Appraisal we "sample" the projects that an organization is executing.  Even though we may only look at a subset of projects, the expectation is that ALL projects within an organizational unit are performing at ML2 (or 3, 4, or 5).  So that imprecise answer is no, you must be performing all of the practices on all projects.

The more precise answer is that there is room for "alternative" practices.  If you have, say, a one-person project, there should be alternatives to the standard process which is probably designed for teams of programmers.  An example may be practices that require progress reviews.  You may require larger teams to have weekly team meetings that are just for the project team.  In a one-person team, that person is having that same meeting 24x7!  So a practice like that may not be relevant as an event and may not be represented by evidence. 

Now, the GOAL must be achieved - even if an alternative to the practice is performed.  So you just can't do NOTHING, but there is some flexibility in the performing alternates to the practices.

Whether or not your Lead Appraiser understands these alternatives is another story though!

www.broadswordsolutions.com

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.

www.broadswordsolutions.com

Follow AskTheCMMIAppraiser on Twitter

To receive Tweets set your Twitter account to follow "CMMIAppraiser."  You'll get daily tips and commentary about the CMMI - all for free!

www.broadswordsolutions.com