Project Selection for SCAMPI A

Similar documents
Ensuring the Right Process is Deployed Right: Synchronizing Process Checkpoints with Business Rhythm

CMMI Today The Current State

SCAMPI SM C ++ to C- How much is enough?

CMMI Version 1.2. Model Changes

Lockheed Martin Benefits Continue Under CMMI

How to Develop Highly Useable CMMI Documentation

CAPABILITY MATURITY MODEL INTEGRATION - CMMI. Software Engineering Competence Center

Changes to the SCAMPI Methodology and How to Prepare for a SCAMPI Appraisal

What Functional Groups Are Included in the CMMI -SE/SW/IPPD/SS Model?

Transition from SW-CMM to CMMI : The Benefits Continue!

Highlights of CMMI and SCAMPI 1.2 Changes

Institutionalization Measures: Key to Improved Process Monitoring

Boldly Going Where Few Have Gone Before SCAMPI SM C Appraisal Using the CMMI for Acquisition

Risk Mitigated SCAMPI SM Process

SCAMPI V1.1 Method Overview

Techniques for Shortening the Time and Cost of CMMI Appraisals

Dorna Witkowski Lynn Penn Lockheed Martin, Information Systems & Global Services (IS&GS) Copyright 2009 Lockheed Martin Corporation

SCAMPI SM Maintenance Appraisals (SCAMPI M)

CMMI A-Specification. Version 1.7. November, For CMMI Version 1.2. This document is controlled by the CMMI Steering Group.

CERT Resilience Management Model Capability Appraisal Method (CAM) Version 1.1

Shrinking the Elephant: If Implementing CMMI Practices Looks Like More Effort than it s Worth, Let s Look Again. Sam Fogle ACE Guides, LLC

Understanding Model Representations and Levels: What Do They Mean?

Top 10 Signs You're Ready (or Not)

Streamlining Processes and Appraisals

An Overview of the SCAMPI Lead Appraiser. Body of Knowledge (SLA BOK) Software Engineering Institute Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213

An Embedded SCAMPI-C Appraisal at the National Security Agency. NDIA CMMI Technology Conference and User s Group November 15, 2007

Gary Natwick Harris Corporation

CMMI for Services (CMMI -SVC) Process Areas

What do federal and DoD Organizations expect from companies who have adopted CMMI?

A Family of SCAMPI SM Appraisal Methods

Software Engineering. Lecture 7: CMMI

The Process In-Execution Review (PIER) After Three Years

NATURAL S P I. Critical Path SCAMPI SM. Getting Real Business Results from Appraisals

Using Pilots to Assess the Value and Approach of CMMI Implementation

A Real-Life Example of Appraising and Interpreting CMMI Services Maturity Level 2

AZIST Inc. About CMMI. Leaders in CMMI Process Consulting and Training Services

SCAMPI A Applied to Small Settings A Success Story

CMMI Small Business Pilot Schedule

CMMI SM Model Measurement and Analysis

Welcome to the CMMI Use in DoD Programs Workshop & Summit September 7 & 8, 2005

Getting from Here (SW-CMM) to There (CMMI) in a Large Organization

Getting from Here (SW-CMM) to There (CMMI) in a Large Organization

Process Maturity Profile

CMMI Current State. Bob Rassa Industry CMMI Chair, Raytheon. Clyde Chittister Chief Operating Officer, Software Engineering Institute

CMMI SM Mini- Assessments

The CMMI Product Suite and International Standards

TACOM-ARDEC Software Enterprise (SWE) CMMI Based Process Improvement

Reflection on Software Process Improvement

Strategies for Transitioning from SW-CMM to CMMI

CMMI Version 1.2 and Beyond

Lean SCAMPI SM. Jeffrey L. Dutton Chief Engineer Jacobs Technology Inc. ITSS

Revista Economică 70:4 (2018) USING THE INTEGRATED CAPABILITY AND MATURITY MODEL IN THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS OF SOFTWARE SYSTEMS

CMMI High Maturity An Initial Draft Interpretation for V1.3

Appraisal Program Quality Report

SCAMPI-B for Contract Monitoring A Case Study of the Mission Planning Enterprise Contractors

MTAT Software Engineering Management

Collaborative Government / Contractor SCAMPI Appraisal

An Initial Comparative Analysis of the CMMI Version 1.2 Development Constellation and the ISO 9000 Family

Do s and Don ts of Appraisal Preparation

Update Observations of the Relationships between CMMI and ISO 9001:2000

NDIA Systems Engineering Division. November in partnership with: Software Engineering Institute Carnegie Mellon University

Chapter 6. Software Quality Management & Estimation

A Quantitative Comparison of SCAMPI A, B, and C

Finding the Perfect Recipe:

Experiences with Indicator-Based CMMI Appraisals at Raytheon

Contrasting CMMI and the PMBOK. Systems Engineering Conference October 2005

M. Lynn Penn Lockheed Martin Integrated Systems and Solutions November 2004

USAF Software Technology Support Center (STSC) STSC SPI Help Desk COM , DSN

How to Kick Start a Process Improvement Project to Achieve a CMMI Rating Brenda F. Hall Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC)

CERT Resilience Management Model, Version 1.2

Sampling for Software Process Assessments, Evaluations, and Appraisals. Dr. Mark C. Paulk 13 October 2017

Using CMMI to Improve Earned Value Management

CMM,,mproving and,ntegrating

SCAMPI A Appraisals - Preparation in 100 Hours; Execution in a Week

Using CMMI for Services for IT Excellence QUEST 2009 Conference Talk

Application of the CERT Resilience Management Model at Lockheed Martin

Software Process Assessment

A Practical Guide to Implementing Levels 4 and 5

VALUE OF CMMI REAPPRAISALS

2018 CMMI Institute 1

This resource is associated with the following paper: Assessing the maturity of software testing services using CMMI-SVC: an industrial case study

Fast Track Your CMMI Initiative with Better Estimation Practices

Process Improvement: A Synergized Approach

What Can CMMI Learn From the PMBOK?

CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY

Software Process Improvement and Product Line Practice: CMMI and the Framework for Software Product Line Practice

Improving Acquisition in Government Requirements Management Leading Practices: CMMI-ACQ Visualization

Maturity Models - CMMI

Leveling: In Lieu of a Mind Meld

CMMI Current State and Future Plans

A Practical Guide to Implementing Levels 4 and 5

CMMI for Services: Re-introducing the CMMI for Services Constellation

Ten Years with TSP SM :

Introduction to Software Product Lines Patrick Donohoe Software Engineering Institute Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213

SCAMPI Appraisal Methods A+B Process Group SCAMPI process v1.0

CMMI-DEV v1.3 Good? Bad? Ugly?

CMMI What a Difference a Sponsor Makes!

Understanding and Leveraging a Supplier s CMMI Efforts: A Guidebook for Acquirers (Revised for V1.3)

CMMI Applications in a Small Setting Finance Organization for Process Performance Optimization

Applying CERT-RMM: Users Group Workshop Experiences. 12 th Annual CMMI Technology Conference and User Group

Transcription:

Project Selection for SCAMPI A M. Lynn Penn Lockheed Martin Integrated Systems & Solutions Director Quality Systems & Process Management September 7, 2005 SM SCAMPI is a service mark of Carnegie Mellon University. Copyright Lockheed Martin Corporation 2005 1

Project Selection Driven by SCAMPI A scope decisions Typically projects are selected by the appraised organization, subject to approval of the Lead Appraiser Projects selected are documented in the Appraisal Record submitted to the SEI Projects selected are not currently required in the Appraisal Disclosure Statement (ADS) in the SCAMPI MDD 9/7/059/7/05 Copyright Lockheed Martin Corporation 2005 2

SCAMPI A Scope Decisions Model scope Model used for appraisal, e.g., CMMI -SE/SW, CMMI-SE/SW/IPPD, etc. Process Areas included/excluded For the staged representation, Process Areas within a maturity level may be declared not applicable For the continuous representation, Process Areas must be selected for inclusion Organizational scope Portion of the organization to which the results apply Drives focus project selection CMMI is registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office by Carnegie Mellon University. 9/7/059/7/05 Copyright Lockheed Martin Corporation 2005 3

Organizational Scope Considerations - 1 What is the subset of the organization to which the SCAMPI A results will apply? Response should drive project selection Depending on projects selected, the results may not apply to the entire organization Organizational scope should be clearly defined Documented in the appraisal plan Described in the Appraisal Disclosure Statement (ADS) Multiple measures used to reflect extent of organizational coverage 9/7/059/7/05 Copyright Lockheed Martin Corporation 2005 4

Focus Projects Organizational Scope Considerations - 2 Selected set of projects reflecting a representative subset Typically 3 or 4 projects Must cover the selected organizational scope Determine applicability of results across the organization Measures of Project Coverage Across the Organization Percentage of population Percentage of total projects Percentage of revenue represented by the projects Percentage of lines of business represented by the projects 9/7/059/7/05 Copyright Lockheed Martin Corporation 2005 5

Current Project Selection Considerations Project Phase Selected projects must represent entire life cycle (although not all projects may have completed all phases) Selected projects must have executed the appraised Process Areas (though some projects may not cover all PAs) Lines of Business (LOBs) Selected projects should represent the LOBs in the organizational scope Interviewee Availability Selected projects must have interviewees available during the appraisal as well as objective evidence Projects too old may have dispersed teams and/or retired/rotated personnel 9/7/059/7/05 Copyright Lockheed Martin Corporation 2005 6

Future Project Selection Approaches Required percentage of projects, based on organizational size Random selection of projects by the Lead Appraiser Project sampling Additional projects may be identified with PIIDs and interviewees -- to demonstrate further institutionalization A sampled project may provide evidence for only one or a few Process Areas Other sampling approaches Sampling methods currently under consideration for future SCAMPI A MDD revision 9/7/059/7/05 Copyright Lockheed Martin Corporation 2005 7

Institutionalization beyond Representative/Sampled Projects Organizational Standard Process (OSP) Should be deployed on all programs in the organization, subject to tailoring criteria SCAMPI A may not detect/report degree of OSP deployment, depending on project selection and degree of sampling SCAMPI A results could reflect only deployment on focus programs Mechanism needed to ensure process fidelity across all programs, for example, SCAMPI B & C Appraisals with a formal process to appraise all programs with decision criteria to choose B or C Robust Quality Assurance Required process checkpoints synchronized with business rhythm 9/7/059/7/05 Copyright Lockheed Martin Corporation 2005 8

Summary Lead Appraiser and Sponsor must agree that focus projects (including any sampled projects) represent the organizational scope SCAMPI A rating should be truly reflective of the process capability of the projects in the organizational scope Requires institutionalization of the OSP Appraisal Disclosure Statement (ADS) should clearly define (preferably quantifiable) project coverage Projects throughout the organization must continue to demonstrate model compliance well after the SCAMPI A Mechanism required to ensure this, e.g., using SCAMPI B/C or Class B/C for monitoring, or using process audits at prescribed business checkpoints 9/7/059/7/05 Copyright Lockheed Martin Corporation 2005 9

BACKUP 10

Model scope Model selection should reflect work done in the organization, e.g., SS should be selected when suppliers are engaged Process Areas declared not applicable (using the staged representation) weaken the ability to benchmark appraisal results Thus, Process Areas should never be declared not applicable ; instead, the continuous representation should be used 9/7/059/7/05 Copyright Lockheed Martin Corporation 2005 11