19
Different Maturity Approaches Laatuseniorien kokous, 15.4.2009 Risto Nevalainen

Different Maturity Approaches Laatuseniorien kokous, 15.4.2009 Risto Nevalainen

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Different Maturity Approaches Laatuseniorien kokous, 15.4.2009 Risto Nevalainen

Different Maturity Approaches

Laatuseniorien kokous, 15.4.2009

Risto Nevalainen

Page 2: Different Maturity Approaches Laatuseniorien kokous, 15.4.2009 Risto Nevalainen

15.4.2009, Risto Nevalainen 2

Something about history of maturity Current models (CMMI, SPICE) Idea of ”high maturity” ISO and other current activities Discussion

Topics

Page 3: Different Maturity Approaches Laatuseniorien kokous, 15.4.2009 Risto Nevalainen

15.4.2009, Risto Nevalainen 3

Starting point…

Page 4: Different Maturity Approaches Laatuseniorien kokous, 15.4.2009 Risto Nevalainen

15.4.2009, Risto Nevalainen 4

Me and You

Page 5: Different Maturity Approaches Laatuseniorien kokous, 15.4.2009 Risto Nevalainen

Yksi esimerkki: sairas vs terve organisaatio (Jussi Moisio) – miten satavuotiaista organisaatioista voisi oppia?

Page 6: Different Maturity Approaches Laatuseniorien kokous, 15.4.2009 Risto Nevalainen

15.4.2009, Risto Nevalainen 6

The Concept of Maturity – as used commonly

Typically an organisational characteristic of learning and improvement

Can be modeled as maturity levels (?)

Ordinal scale (?) De Facto models CMM and

Staged CMMI have 5 maturity levels

Maturity levels are defined as sets of processes in CMMI

ISO standard about assessment of organisational maturity

Level 2

Level 3

Level 4

Level 5

Page 7: Different Maturity Approaches Laatuseniorien kokous, 15.4.2009 Risto Nevalainen

15.4.2009, Risto Nevalainen 7

Is maturity just a scale of ”something” observable in high quality organisation? Judgement based Indirect, indicative, composite

Or is maturity concept a real model? ... To use as basis for assessment of any organisation? ... To use as source for improvement? Or even to to follow as ”true believer”?

Why? Because I am a member of the ISO team to work with related

standards

Essential question to me

Page 8: Different Maturity Approaches Laatuseniorien kokous, 15.4.2009 Risto Nevalainen

15.4.2009, Risto Nevalainen 8

Crosby: The Stages of Organisational Maturity

Stage 1: Uncertainty. Stage 2: Awakening. Stage 3: Enlightenment. Stage 4: Wisdom. Stage 5: Certainty.

from Phillip Crosby, Quality is Free

14

Page 9: Different Maturity Approaches Laatuseniorien kokous, 15.4.2009 Risto Nevalainen

Crosby: QMMG model (Quality is free, 1979)

Measurement Categories

Stage I: Uncertainty

Stage II: Awakening

Stage III: Enlightenment

Stage IV: Wisdom

Stage V:Certainty

Management understandingand attitude

No comprehension of quality as a management tool. Tend to blame quality department for "quality problems"

Recognising that quality management may be of value but not willing to provide money or time to make it happen.

While going through quality improvement program learn more about quality management; becoming supportive and helpful.

Participating. Understand absolutes of quality management. Recognise their personal role in continuing emphasis.

Consider quality management an essential part of company system.

Quality organisationstatus

Quality is hidden in manufacturing or engineering departments. Inspection probably not part of organisation. Emphasis on appraisal and sorting.

A stronger quality leader is appointed but main emphasis is still on appraisal and moving the product. Still part of manufacturing or other.

Quality Department reports to top management, all appraisal is incorporated and manager has role in management of company.

Quality manager is an officer of company; effective status reporting and preventative action. Involved with consumer affairs and special assignments.

Quality manager on board of directors. Prevention is main concern. Quality is a thought leader.

Problem handling

Problems are fought as they occur; no resolution; inadequate definition; lots of yelling and accusations

Teams are set up to attack major problems. Long-range solutions are not solicited.

Corrective action communication established. Problems are faced openly and resolved in an orderly way.

Problems are identified early in their development. All functions are open to suggestion and improvement.

Except in the most unusual cases, problems are prevented.

Cost of quality as % of sales

Reported: unknownActual: 20%

Reported: 3%Actual: 18%

Reported: 8% Actual: 12%

Reported: 6.5% Actual: 8%

Reported: 2.5%Actual: 2.5%

Quality improvementactions

No organised activities. No understanding of such activities.

Trying obvious "motivational" short-range efforts.

Implementation of the 14-step program with thorough understanding and establishment of each step.

Continuing the 14-step program and starting Make Certain

Quality improvement is a normal and continued activity.

Summation of company quality posture

"We don't know why we have problems with quality"

"Is it absolutely necessary to always have problems with quality?"

"Through management commitment and quality improvement we are identifying and resolving our problems"

"Defect prevention is a routine part of our operation"

"We know why we do not have problems with quality"

Page 10: Different Maturity Approaches Laatuseniorien kokous, 15.4.2009 Risto Nevalainen

Some other approaches

Page 11: Different Maturity Approaches Laatuseniorien kokous, 15.4.2009 Risto Nevalainen

15.4.2009, Risto Nevalainen 11

Short History of CMM + CMMI

Based on Quality Models, like Deming and Crosby First draft for DoD published in 1987, Watts Humpfrey Watts Humpfrey book about software management in 1989 CMM v. 1.0 published in 1991, v. 1.1 in 1993, staged model

(Mark Paulk and others) System CMM in 1994, continuous SPICE like model Several other models, like Acquisition CMM, People CMM,

System Safety CMM, Product Development CMM First integration started 1997 and failed, again during 1998-2000

leaded to CMMI Current version CMMI 1.2 (development, services, acquisition) Two versions: Staged and Continuous

Page 12: Different Maturity Approaches Laatuseniorien kokous, 15.4.2009 Risto Nevalainen

CMMI-DEV Staged Representation: 22 PAs by Maturity Levels

Level Focus Process Areas

5 Optimising Continuous Process Improvement

Organisational Innovation and DeploymentCausal Analysis and Resolution

4 Quantatively Managed

Quantative Management

Organisational Process PerformanceQuantative Project Management

3 Defined Process Standardisation

Requirements DevelopmentTechnical SolutionProduct IntegrationVerificationValidationOrganisational Process FocusOrganisational Process Definition + IPPDOrganisational TrainingIntegrated Project Management + IPPDRisk ManagementDecision Analysis and Resolution

2 Managed Basic Project Management

Requirements ManagementProject PlanningProject Monitoring and ControlSupplier Agreement ManagementMeasurement and AnalysisProcess and Product Quality AssuranceConfiguration Management

1 Initial

QualityProductivity

RiskRework

Page 13: Different Maturity Approaches Laatuseniorien kokous, 15.4.2009 Risto Nevalainen

15.4.2009, Risto Nevalainen 13

Short History of SPICE (ISO15504)

SPICE was started as ISO SC7 preliminary study in 1991 Standardisation effort started early 1993 Technical Report ISO15504 published in 1998: Software Process

Assessment (9 parts) Trials in parallel with standard development Final IS in 2004 – 2006: ISO15504 Process Assessment (6 parts) Assessment of organisational maturity as one new topic Several domain specific models published (Space, Automotive,

Medical Electronics, Nuclear...) Well harmonised and aligned with CMMI development Renewal of

standard is just starting – window of opportunity for new ideas

Page 14: Different Maturity Approaches Laatuseniorien kokous, 15.4.2009 Risto Nevalainen

15.4.2009, Risto Nevalainen 14

The Concept of Process Capability in SPICE (and in CMMI)

Process capability: To achieve required results

(outcomes) using the process

“The better process, the better results”

Capability assessment: Assessment of process

using defined measurement framework and evidences of process (indicators, work products)

Low capabilityLow capability

High capabilityHigh capability

Page 15: Different Maturity Approaches Laatuseniorien kokous, 15.4.2009 Risto Nevalainen

15.4.2009, Risto Nevalainen 15

Organisational Maturity in SPICE

Organizational maturity: the extent to which an organization consistently implements processes within a defined scope (note – this scope will be the scope of the PRM) that contribute to the achievement of its business goals (current or projected)

Organizational maturity level: a point on the ordinal scale (of organizational maturity) that characterises the maturity of the organization in the scope of the model used; each level builds on the maturity of the level below

Basic process set: the set of processes from the selected Process Reference Model that are fundamental to achieving the business goals of the organization.

Extended process set: The extended process set includes processes that ensure the achievement of process attributes at levels higher than 1 for all the processes in the basic process set.

Page 16: Different Maturity Approaches Laatuseniorien kokous, 15.4.2009 Risto Nevalainen

15.4.2009, Risto Nevalainen 16

Organizational Maturity Model, architecture

0

1

2

3

4

5

1A 1B 1C 1D 1E 2A 2B 2C 2D 2E 3A 3B 3C 3D 3E 4A 4B 4C 5A 5B 5C

Processes

Pro

ce

ss

Ca

pa

bili

ty L

ev

el

ML3

ML2

ML4

ML1

ML5

Page 17: Different Maturity Approaches Laatuseniorien kokous, 15.4.2009 Risto Nevalainen

15.4.2009, Risto Nevalainen 17

Organisational Maturity Scale 0 – 5 (ordinal)

0 ImmatureThe organization does not demonstrate effective use of its implemented processes to support its business. At least one process in its core process set is assessed at Capability Level 0.

1 Basic The organization demonstrates achievement of the purpose of the processes that are fundamental to support its business

2 Managed The organization now demonstrates effective management of the processes that are fundamental to support its business.

3 Effective The organization now demonstrates effective definition and deployment of the processes that are fundamental to support its business.

4 Predictable The organization now demonstrates a quantitative understanding of relevant processes that are fundamental to achieving its business goals, in order to establish consistent and predictable performance.

5 Optimized The organization now demonstrates the ability to change and adapt the performance of the processes that are fundamental to achieving its business goals in an systematically planned and predictable manner.

Page 18: Different Maturity Approaches Laatuseniorien kokous, 15.4.2009 Risto Nevalainen

An Exemplar List of Processes at each Maturity Level

Additional processes Set ISO/IEC 15504:2006 Exemplar Process Assessment

Model

Minimum Set Id Conditions

ENG.2 ENG.3 ENG.9 ENG.10

Required where development covers system issues and not exclusively softxare issues.

ENG.11 Required where the OU is responsible for installing the software product in the customer environment.

1 ENG.1 Requirements elicitation ENG.2 System requirements analysis ENG.3 System architectural design ENG.4 Software requirements analysis ENG.5 Software design ENG.6 Software construction ENG.7 Software integration ENG.8 Software testing ENG.9 system integration ENG.10 system testing ENG.11 Software installation ENG.12 Software and system maintenance SPL.2 Product Release

ENG.1 ENG.4 ENG.5 ENG.6 ENG.7 ENG.8 SPL.2

ENG.12 Required where the OU is responsible for ongoing maintenance and evolution of the software and/or system.

ACQ.3 ACQ.4 ACQ.5

Required where external or internal suppliers of product components, services or infrastructure are involved in the development projects.

SUP.4 Required where the work in the OU involves agreements with stakeholders.

2 SUP.1 Quality Assurance SUP.2 Verification SUP.3 Validation SUP.4 Joint Review SUP.7 Documentation SUP.8 Configuration Management SUP.9 Problem Resolution Management SUP.10 Change Request Management MAN.3 Project Management MAN.5 Risk Management ACQ.3 Contract Agreement ACQ.4 Supplier Monitoring ACQ.5 Customer Acceptance

SUP.1 SUP.2 SUP.7 SUP.8 SUP.9 SUP.10 MAN.3 MAN.5

SUP.3 Required where work in the OU involves acceptance support, qualification or internal validation.

3 RIN.1 Human Ressource Management RIN.2 Training RIN.3 Knowledge Management RIN.4 Infrastructure PIM.1 Process Establishement PIM.2 Process Assessment PIM.3 Process Improvement MAN.2 Organization Management MAN.4 Quality Management MAN.6 Measurement SUP.5 Audit REU.1 Asset Management REU.2 Reuse Program Management REU.3 Domain Engineering

RIN.1 RIN.2 RIN.3 RIN.4 PIM.1 PIM.2 PIM.3 MAN.2 MAN.4 MAN.6 SUP.5

REU.1 REU.2 REU.3

Required if the OU has a structured reuse program in force - the three processes are mutually reinforcing.

4 QNT.1 Quantitative Performance Management Process

N/A N/A N/A

5 QNT.2 Quantitative Process Improvement Process

N/A N/A N/A

Page 19: Different Maturity Approaches Laatuseniorien kokous, 15.4.2009 Risto Nevalainen

15.4.2009, Risto Nevalainen 19

Process based maturity, like in CMMI Quantitative management, based on facts, data and analyses Special and common causes of variation Performance models

Business based maturity, something what is in EFQM Customer and market results, customer satisfaction Internal results Competence development

Further discussions for example in next ISO SC7 meeting and in SPICE2009, ”Living High Life”

High Maturity as an actual hot topic