You are on page 1of 85

Using CMMI-ISO 9001:2000 Synergy

in a Process Improvement Strategy

Boris Mutafelija, BearingPoint


Harvey Stromberg, DigitalNet
DC SPIN, July 2003

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government


Agenda

l Introduction
l Process Improvement Approach
l Changes from Legacy Standards
l Concepts of ISO-CMMI Synergy
l Using ISO-CMMI Synergy for Process
Improvement

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 2


Objectives

l ISO 9001:2000 and CMMI are synergistic


l Synergy can be used in a systematic process
improvement approach
l The approach can be implemented using
several basic cases
l The approach may be used for obtaining ISO
registration and achieving CMMI maturity or
capability levels

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 3


Why ISO 9001:2000 & CMMI?

l Widely used
– ISO 9000 is an international standard
– CMMI is a de facto standard
l Oftenspecified in acquisition
l Newly revised
– Sunset dates for predecessors are set

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 4


Standards Evolve

l Lessons learned are incorporated


l Activities in emerging fields must be
addressed (cf. Frameworks Quagmire)
l Some standards, e.g., ISO, require periodic
updates
l When standards change:
– What happens to the infrastructure?
– What happens to previous investment?
– What are the transition steps?

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 5


Process Improvement with ISO
9001:2000 and the CMMI

Gap
analysis
CMM
CMMI

Synergy

ISO 9001:2000
ISO
9001:1994 Gap Systematic
Process
analysis
Improvement

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 6


Initial States

l ISO 9001:1994
– No experience
– Experience
l CMM v1.1
– No experience
– Level 2 experience
– Level 3 experience

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 7


Agenda

l Introduction
l Process Improvement Approach
l Changes from Legacy Standards
l Concepts of ISO-CMMI Synergy
l Using ISO-CMMI Synergy for Process
Improvement

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 8


Process Improvement is Hard

l Organizationsare systems of complex


functions & processes
– Differing objectives
– Overlapping objectives
– Ill-defined (or undefined) objectives
l Everyday pressure to deliver products
l Resistance to change
l Lack of clear business goals & objectives
l And more...

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 9


Importance of Selecting PI Goals

l Successful PI feeds itself


l Link PI goals to business objectives
– improve productivity
– improve quality
– reduce cycle time
l PI goals tied to appraisal outcome bring
danger of mere appearance of change

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 10


Process Improvement Approach:
Problem Solving + Framework

Problem
Solving Frameworks
Processes

Process
Business goals, Improvemen Process
objectives Improvement
t Plan
Approach

Resources

Need to select a problem solving process to


unify ISO 9001:2000 and the CMMI
© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 11
Process Improvement Approaches

PI approaches share common concepts:


l identification of goals
l analysis of the present situation
l development of an approach
l construction of a plan
l execution of the plan
l measurement of results

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 12


Our Selection

Problem Frameworks
Solving
ISO 9001:2000
IDEAL

CMMI

Process
Business goals, Improvemen Process
objectives Improvement
t Plan
Approach

Resources

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 13


IDEAL Phases

lI - Initiating
– Identify goals, establish sponsorship, build
infrastructure
lD - Diagnosing
– Determine gaps between current and desired states
lE - Establishing
– Prioritize actions, develop plan
lA - Acting
– Implement plan, transition from pilot to broad use
lL - Learning
– Measure performance, capture lessons

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 14


Systematic Process Improvement
Concept
From “check-
mark”
ISO 9001:200 to improvement
Implementation
Learning
Step Step ISO
1 2 Registration

Acting

+ = Initiating
CMMI
Diagnosing
Implementation
Step Step CMMI
1 2 Maturity Level  Establishing

ISO 9001:2000 - CMMI Synergy

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 15


Agenda

l Introduction
l Process Improvement Approach
l Changes from Legacy Standards
l Concepts of ISO-CMMI Synergy
l Using ISO-CMMI Synergy for Process
Improvement

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 16


Differences Between the Legacy and
Revised Frameworks

l Most organizations will have some experience with


one or both legacy frameworks
– They should be able to reuse their assets
l But – revised frameworks are different

on willbe
n will beeasiest
easiestfor
fororganizations
organizationswhere
whereprocess
processimprovement
improvementis
isaaway
wayof
oflif
li
aresecondary
are secondary

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 17


CMMI

l Based on predecessor models


l Addresses several bodies of knowledge
– Systems engineering, software engineering,
integrated product development, acquisition
l Identifies
– Process Areas
– Goals
– Practices

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 18


CMMI Structure

l Representations
– Staged
– Continuous
l Process Areas
– Additional PAs in the CMMI
l Generic Goals
– Associated with Maturity or Capability Level
– Generic Practices / Common Features
l Specific Goals
– Associated with Process Area (PA)
– Specific Practices
© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 19
Major Differences Between CMM and
CMMI

l Choice of two representations


– Staged vs. Continuous
l Institutionalization
– Generic Practices & Generic Goals

gher maturity levels, differences between CMM and CMMI are les

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 20


ISO 9000:2000 Standards

l ISO 9000:2000
– Fundamentals and vocabulary
l ISO 9001:2000
– Requirements
l ISO 9004:2000
– Guidelines for performance improvements
l ISO 9000-3:2000
– Guidelines for the Application of ISO 9001:2000
to Computer Software

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 21


ISO 9001:2000

l Strong process and systems engineering


approach
l Impact on process improvement
– process improvement part of the standard
– ISO 9004 is devoted to process improvement
l More favorable comparison to other system /
software frameworks

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 22


Systems & Process Engineering in
ISO 9001:2000
Planning customer
satisfaction
Measurement, Analysis, Corrective Action

measures
measures
measures
corrective corrective corrective
actions actions actions

Requirement
Design Production
Analysis
product

Verify/
Validate Validate
Review
requirements

Review

Purchasing
Process view:
Verify
interactions among sections

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 23


Agenda

l Introduction
l Process Improvement Approach
l Changes from Legacy Standards
l Concepts of ISO-CMMI Synergy
l Using ISO-CMMI Synergy for Process
Improvement

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 24


Concepts of ISO-CMMI Synergy

How
How can
can we
we determine
determinethe
thesynergy
synergybetween
between the
theframeworks?
frameworks

l Similarities
/ Differences
l Terminology Translation
l Mapping between ISO 9001 and CMMI

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 25


Similarities

l Process approach
l Full life cycle requirements
l Requirements for
– Management commitment
– Resources
– Planning
– Reviews

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 26


Differences

l Language
– ISO uses “shall” statements (prescriptive); CMMI doesn’t
– Compactness of statements in ISO
• e.g., “determine and provide resources” is
implemented in CMMI with GP 2.2 and GP 2.3 in
all PAs)
l Details
– ISO is very sparse
• There are 135 “shall” statements but over 360
“derived requirements”
– CMMI provides practices, subpractices, typical work
products, & amplifications

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 27


Differences

l Guidance
– ISO has not provided detailed implementation
guidance
– CMMI has Capability Levels and Maturity Levels
l Process Improvement
– ISO 9004:2000 provides very high level guidance
for process improvement
– CMMI is devoted to process improvement
• Distinguishes Organization and Project
level process improvement activities
• Defines improvement progression through
levels
© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 28
Differences

l Institutionalization
– ISO requires organizations to establish QMS but
does not explicitly require institutionalization
• building strong process infrastructure is
left to the organization
– CMMI very strongly emphasizes
institutionalization through Generic Goals and
Generic Practices

This is a major strength of the


CMMI and is
critical to overall process
improvement success

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 29


Terminology Translation:
ISO to CMMI

ISO 9001:2000
 CMMI

l Top Management l Higher-level


l management; senior
l management
l Quality Management l Organization’s Set of
System (QMS); Standard Processes
Quality Manual (OSSP)
l Quality Plan l Project Plan; Software
Development Plan;
System Engineering
Important to Management Plan;
understand Data Management
and agree to Plan

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 30


Terminology Translation:
ISO to CMMI

ISO 9001:2000
 CMMI

l Customer; Interested l Customer; Stakeholder


Party l
l l
l Documented Procedure l Plan for performing the
l process; procedure
l l
l Record l Work product; record;
l evidence of
l implementation
l l
l Quality Management l Quality Management
– very broad sense – quantitative
management

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 31


Cross-references - Mapping

l Helps visualize commonalties and differences


– but misses underlying principles
l Based on “subjective” interpretations
– Many views of commonalties/differences
l Mapping at very high or very low level means
“everything” matches
l Helps initial interpretation of one framework in terms
of another (less familiar) framework
– must understand both to be successful
l Two consistent maps were developed
– ISO to CMMI (source); CMMI to ISO (derivative)

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 32


Cross-references - Mapping Rules

l Mapping developed at the ISO “shall” level


and the CMMI practice-level
– If there is correspondence, use only the major
match
– If correspondence is weak, use several
potential matches
l Ground Rule: Do not force a match

The quest for synergy


should not obscure
differences
between frameworks
© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 33
Typical Map: ISO-to-CMMI

Strength
CMMI
ISO 9001:2000 Comments
PA Practice

4.0 Quality Management


System
4.1 General requirements

Establish QMS

Identify processes OPD SP 1.1 S


OPF SP 2.2
All GP 2.1, 2.2,
2.3, 2.6, 2.8,
2.9
Manage using ISO All GP 2.1 S
standard
Control outsourced SAM SP 2.2 S
processes
Outsourced process SAM SP 1.3 M CMMI is not as strong
control in QMS

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 34


Do Mappings Show Correspondence?

ISO
Mapping : 9001:1 Mapping :
SEI Report 994 ISO 9001:2000
CMU/SEI-94-TR-12 Annex B

CMM ISO
v1.1 9001:
2000
?
Mapping: Does this map
STSC Web page ISO 9001:2000
CMMI & CMMI v1.1?
v1.1 NO:
Need to understand
both
ISO and CMMI in
detail
© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 35
ISO - CMMI Relationships

ISO:
Hi-level view Management
Responsibility
ISO: CMMI: ISO:
Quality OPF, OPD, RD, Measurement,
Management PMC, OPP, QPM; Analysis &
GP 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, Improvement
ISO: 2.4, CMMI:
System Resource
2.6, 2.7, 2.10, 3.1 PMC, PPQA,
Managemen
CMMI: t
MA, CM, REQM,
OPF, OPD, ISO: RD, SAM, OPF,
PP, PPQA, CMMI: VER, VAL, OID,
PP, OT, Product
CM, SAM; Realization OPP, QPM,
GP 2.1, 2.2, OEI; CAR;
2.3, 2.6, 2.7, GP 2.3, 2.5 CMMI: GP 2.1, 2.2, 2.4,
2.8, 2.9, 3.1, REQM, RD, TS, PI, 2.6, 2.8, 2.9, 3.2
3.2 MA, QPM, VER, VAL,
OPD, PP, PMC, IPM,
CM, SAM;
GP 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4,
2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10,
3.1

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 36


Synergy

l Whenattempting to satisfy ISO requirements,


must consider:
– Generic Goals / Practices
– Process Areas
l Forthe continuous representation,
understanding the relationship between the
GPs and PAs is very important
– These relationships help even when using the
staged representation

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 37


Synergy – Generic Practices

l ISO requirements are related to all Generic


Practices
l Implication of correspondence:
– Although not explicitly required, ISO espouses
institutionalization
– Use of GPs and explicit CMMI
institutionalization requirements enables
more resilient ISO processes

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 38


Institutionalization

l CMMI requires institutionalization


l CMMI advocates a strong infrastructure on
which all practices are built
– Generic Goals / Practices
– Gradual capability build-up
– Organizational PAs (OPF, OPD, OT)
– IPPD processes

stitutionalization enhances ISO implementation and enables effe

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 39


Synergy – ISO Section 4 & PAs

l ISO Section 4 - contains basic requirements for


establishing, documenting, implementing,
maintaining and improving the QMS.
– Most other ISO sections refer to this section.
l CMMI - most ISO requirements are satisfied by the
OPD PA
– OPD more detailed, contains requirement for the OSSP
and tailoring; Process Asset Library and Measurement
Database; it enables other PAs
– Requirement to manage processes using QMS is
equivalent to GP 2.2, Plan the Process (or GP 3.1)

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 40


Synergy - ISO Section 5 & PAs

l ISO Section 5 - Management Responsibility


– Management must provide commitment to QMS and its
continual improvement
– Must satisfy requirements and enhance customer
satisfaction
– Need to establish quality policy, quality objectives,
responsibilities and authorities, QMS reviews
l CMMI -
– GP 2.1, Establish Organizational Policy
– “Management Representative” equivalent to the CMMI
“Management Council”
• CMMI has 2nd tier of responsibility: the “EPG”
– “Customer Focus” established by RD PA and GP 2.7,
Identify and Involve the Relevant Stakeholders
– “Continual Process Improvement” - OPF

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 41


Synergy - ISO Section 6 & PAs

l ISO Section 6 - Resource Management


– Resources required for
• developing, implementing, monitoring
and improving the QMS
• addressing customer requirements and
customer satisfaction.
l CMMI
– GP 2.3, Provide Resources
– GP 2.5, Train People and OT PA
– PP SP 2.4, Plan Project Resources & SP 2.5
Plan for Needed Knowledge and Skills

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 42


Synergy - ISO Section 7 & PAs

ISO Section 7 - Product Realization


l Largest section in the ISO standard


l Subdivided into:
– planning,
– customer related processes,
– design and development,
– purchasing,
– production and service provision, and
– control of monitoring and measuring devices

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 43


Synergy - ISO Section 7 & PAs

l ISO Section 7 - Planning


l In CMMI terms
– this is the implementation of the project’s
defined process
• GP 2.2, Plan the Process (and GP 3.1) in
each PA
• IPM will benefit the organization, if
implemented
• QPM may help too
– may be too difficult to implement “out of
context”

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 44


Synergy - ISO Section 7 & PAs

l ISO Section 7 - Customer Related Processes


l In CMMI terms
– RD PA (SG 1, Develop Customer Requirements
and SG 2, Develop Product Requirements are
sufficient; SG 3, Analyze and Validate
Requirements supplements the ISO
requirements)
– REQM PA - manage changes
– Requirements review - GP 2.7, 2.9, 2.10; PMC,
PPQA, VER
– Customer Communication: RD PA, GP 2.7; IPM
SG 2, Coordinate and Collaborate with
Relevant Stakeholders
– MA PA
© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 45
Synergy - ISO Section 7 & PAs

l ISO Section 7 - Design and Development


l In CMMI terms
– GP 2.2, 2.8, and 2.9 in RD, REQM, TS, VER, VAL
provide planning, monitoring & control, and
reviews
– PP, PMC cover design & development planning
and re-planning; IPM provides additional
aspects
– Interfaces between the groups covered by GP
2.7 in TS, PI, VER, and VAL PAs; IPM SG 2,
(and IPM IPPD SG 3 & 4) also address this
requirement
– Reviews addressed by PMC, VER and VAL PAs
– Controlling design implemented by GP 2.6 in
TS, PI, VER, VAL, and CM PA
© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 46
Synergy - ISO Section 7 & PAs

l ISO Section 7 - Purchasing


l In CMMI terms
– SAM PA addresses most of the requirements
– SP 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and SP 2.4 in the TS PA
(selection of alternative solutions)
– CMMI does not require verification at the
supplier premises
– CMMI discusses transitioning of the products
from the supplier to the project, not found in
ISO

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 47


Synergy - ISO Section 7 & PAs

l ISO Section 7 - Production / Service Provision


l In CMMI terms
– Spirit of ISO requirements satisfied by TS, PI,
VER and CM PAs
– CMMI is weaker (replication, delivery,
installation, post-delivery)
– Identification & traceability satisfied by REQM
SP 1.4, Maintain Bidirectional Traceability of
Requirements
– Customer property not addressed by CMMI
(implemented to some extent by CM PA)
– Preservation of product not addressed in CMMI

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 48


Synergy - ISO Section 7 & PAs

l ISO Section 7 - Control of Monitoring and


Measuring Devices
l In CMMI terms
– No CMMI-equivalent for
• “calibration of measurement equipment”

• “assessing the impact of the


malfunctioning equipment”
– New ISO 9000-3 (draft) interprets this as
validation of development & analysis tools

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 49


Synergy - ISO Section 8 & PAs

l ISO Section 8 - Measurement, Analysis and


Improvement
– Most measurement requirements are in this
section
– Other sections also address measurements,
monitoring, and analysis.
– Used to identify improvements
l In CMMI terms
– Similar to the MA PA
• planning measurements and analysis
• definition of measurements & analysis
techniques
• analysis of data is further defined in OPP
and QPM
– Customer© satisfaction
2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 50
Synergy - ISO Section 8 & PAs

l ISO Section 8 (continued)


l In CMMI terms
– Continual improvement addressed in
• OPF and MA
• OID (ML 5) may also help
– Corrective and Preventive Actions:
• OPF addresses process improvement
corrective and preventive actions
• PPQA, PMC, and CAR (ML 5) address
process and product corrective actions
• CAR and PPQA address other preventive
actions
© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 51
Summary of ISO Requirements not
Covered by the CMMI

l Appointing management representative


l Internally communicating the effectiveness of
the QMS (OSSP)
l Requiring validation prior to delivery or
implementation of the product
l Verification of suppliers at their premises
l Handling of customer property
l Control and monitoring of measurement
devices

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 52


Summary of ISO Requirements not
Covered by the CMMI

l Defining a method for obtaining and using


customer satisfaction information
l Establishing internal audit criteria, scope,
frequency, and methods
l Independence of auditors
l Determining the appropriateness of
preventive actions to be commensurable
with the effects of potential problems

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 53


Agenda

l Introduction
l Process Improvement Approach
l Changes from Legacy Standards
l Concepts of ISO-CMMI Synergy
l Using ISO-CMMI Synergy for Process
Improvement

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 54


Putting It All Together

l At this point we have:


– selected a problem solving process - IDEAL
– selected two major frameworks (ISO 9001 &
CMMI)
– outlined changes from legacy standards
– explored ISO 9001 and CMMI synergy

l Now, we can address the process


improvement approach using:
– IDEAL, and
– ISO 9001 & CMMI synergy

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 55


I - Initiating Phase

l Establish process improvement sponsorship


– CMMI OPF distinguishes:
• senior management support
• implementation support vested in the engineering
process group
l Establish process improvement goals & objectives:
– reduce time to market
– increase productivity
– improve delivery timeliness and predictability
– reduce number of delivered defects
– increase market share
– achieve ISO registration and/or CMMI maturity level
l ISO
– Establish Management Responsibility and Quality
Objectives

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 56


D - Diagnosing Phase

l Perform a gap analysis


– Consider characteristics:
• Accuracy – Repeatability – Formality - Duration /
Cost
• Maturity / Capability Level ratings; ISO
certification
– SCAMPI Class A, B, C
• SCAMPI is rigorous and detailed, resulting in an
excellent process improvement road-map
l ISO pre-registration gap analysis
• No standard method
• No standard reporting format
l Gap Analysis report(s) will be used in process
improvement planning
© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 57
E - Establishing Phase

l Armed with the identified gaps, develop the


process improvement approach
Experience with
Case
ISO CMM v1.1 CMM v1.1 Number
9001:1994 Level 2 Level 3
No No No Case 1
No Yes No Case 2 (a)
No Yes Yes Case 2 (b)
Yes No No Case 3
Yes Yes No Case 4 (a)
Yes Yes Yes Case 4 (b)

l Prioritize actions and develop Plan


© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 58
Process Improvement Planning

Run process improvement as a project


l Gap Analysis/Appraisal l Requirements
l Transitioning steps l Life cycle steps
l
l Need: resources, training, schedule,
l control, periodic evaluation
Process Improvement Plan:
lBased on the identified weaknesses – gaps
lHas an improvement implementation approach
lHas resources and schedule

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 59


How to Implement Synergy

l Synergy is established by understanding


both ISO 9001:2000 and CMMI
l Each Process Improvement approach is
based on several subordinate cases that
form a basis for further exploration
– Transition from legacy to revised frameworks
is outlined first

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 60


Case 1: No PI Experience

l Organization MUST CMM

– understand synergy
• mappings are just indicators
– select process improvement approach
l Using ISO-CMMI synergy an organization can
– implement the CMMI and satisfy most ISO requirements
– achieve CMMI maturity level
• must address those PAs that are not required by ISO
– achieve ISO registration
• must address requirements not covered by CMMI
l “Granularity” of CMMI helps when developing an
approach

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 61


Transitioning Cases

ISO 9001
CMM/CMMI
1994/2000
Transition
Transition

CMM ML2 CMM ML3 CMM ML2


No prior
to to to
Experience
CMMI ML2 CMMI ML3 CMMI ML3

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 62


CMM to CMMI Transitioning
Approaches

Basic Approach
(no process improvement
experience)
Continuou
Staged
s

Institutionalizatio
n Level 2
(Managed)

Support Level 3
(Defined)
Enabling
Process
Areas Level 4 & 5
Engineerin Project Process
g Manageme Manageme
nt nt
© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 63
No Process Improvement Experience:
Continuous Representation

l Importance of GG1 (continuous)


– All base practices (SP x.y-1) must be
implemented
– Only Engineering PAs have SP at different CLs
l Importance of GP - PA relationships
– enabling PAs
– subsuming PAs

of Continuous Representation Doesn’t Imply Total Fre

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 64


Continuous Representation -
Institutionalization

l Establish infrastructure
– Implement OPF
– Establish policies (implement GP 2.1 for all
PAs)
– Plan process (implement GP 2.2)
– Ensure resources (implement GP 2.3)
– Assign responsibility (implement GP 2.4)
– Train people (implement GP 2.5)
l Implement ML 2 PAs (needed to enable GPs)
– PP, PMC, CM, PPQA and MA
– Implement SAM (may implement just first two
goals)
© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 65
Continuous Representation -
Institutionalization

l More infrastructure
– Manage configurations (implement GP 2.6)
– Monitor and control the process (implement GP
2.8)
– Evaluate adherence (implement GP 2.9)
– Identify & involve stakeholders (implement GP
2.7)
– Perform senior management review (implement
GP 2.10)
l Implement organizational PAs
– OPF (SG 2), OPD, OT

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 66


Continuous Representation -
Institutionalization

l Prepare for CL 3
– Implement Integrated Project Management
(IPM)
l Establish CL 3 infrastructure
– Institutionalize a Defined Process (implement
GP 3.1)
l Execute processes (Implement Engineering
PAs: REQM, RD, TS, PI, VER, VAL)
l Revisit all PAs to ensure that they operate at
CL 3
– Collect improvement information (implement
GP 3.2)
© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 67
CMM to CMMI Transitioning
Approaches

Basic Approach
(no process improvement
experience)
Continuou
Staged
s

Institutionalizatio
n Level 2
(Managed)

Support Level 3
(Defined)
Enabling
Process
Areas Level 4 & 5
Engineerin Project Process
g Manageme Manageme
nt nt
© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 68
Continuous Representation -
Engineering Process Areas

l Many organizations have strong engineering


processes
– they may be operating at CL 1 or CL 2
l May be an effective approach for an
organization without PI experience
– helps overcome resistance to change

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 69


CMM to CMMI Transitioning
Approaches

Basic Approach
(no process improvement
experience)
Continuou
Staged
s

Institutionalizatio
n Level 2
(Managed)

Support Level 3
(Defined)
Enabling
Process
Areas Level 4 & 5
Engineerin Project Process
g Manageme Manageme
nt nt
© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 70
Staged Representation - No PI
Experience: Discussion

l Order of implementation is “fixed”


– Start with ML 2, then ML 3, etc.
l Can we start with ML 3? “Parts” of ML 3?
– Having the OSSP and implementing OPF, OPD,
& IPM enables implementation of GG 3
• avoids revisiting ML 2 PAs when
attempting to achieve ML 3
– What does an organization require to do that?
• Can they implement Engineering PAs (ML
3) early?

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 71


Transitioning Cases

ISO 9001
CMM/CMMI
1994/2000
Transition
Transition

CMM ML2 CMM ML3 CMM ML2


No prior
to to to
Experience
CMMI ML2 CMMI ML3 CMMI ML3

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 72


Transitioning form ISO 9001:1994 to
ISO 9001:2000

l Transitioning appears to be more


“monolithic” than CMM-to-CMMI
transitioning
– Very little ISO guidance
• No indication what to do first, next
– Lots of books on the subject
l Major theme
– Organizations that built their QMS on 20 ISO
9001:1994 clauses may have difficulty
transitioning to ISO 9001:2000 systems- and
process-based requirements
– No organization should start from scratch
© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 73
Transitioning Steps

l Obtain management commitment


– get wide participation (needed for both
systems and software)
l Train transition staff in ISO 9001:2000
– important to understand differences
l Perform gap analysis
– determine what is missing
l Revise the QMS to conform to ISO 9001:2000
– implementation of many clauses is still valid
• ensure the newly required procedures
are implemented

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 74


Transitioning Steps

l New requirement: determine processes and


their interactions
l Train staff on new QMS, quality manual,
procedures
l Re-run gap analysis
– correct outstanding problems
l Transition steps are large
– require a lot of work
– organization must prioritize activities and
develop manageable steps

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 75


Transitioning - Summary

l Transitioning
approach must be based on PI
goals/objectives and gap analysis results
l Cases presented are just indicators
– there are as many “sub-classes” as there are
organizations
l Organizations
must preserve their process
improvement investments
– base transition on the similarities of the legacy
and revised frameworks

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 76


A - Acting Phase

l Implement the Process Improvement Plan


– monitor progress
• process improvement measurements
– schedule, resources, risks
• process action teams
– deliverables
• implementation pilots
• periodic informal gap analyses
– report results
• progress visibility

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 77


L - Learning Phase

l Repeat IDEAL process from Diagnosing


phase onwards
– adjust improvement approach
• modify / delete / add transitioning steps
• create additional PATs (?)
• change piloting (more/less)
– re-evaluate process improvement goals
– re-evaluate resource availability, schedule,
management approach, etc.

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 78


Summary

l Process improvement approach requires


– Problem solving process
– Framework(s)
l ISO 9001:2000 and CMMI are synergistic
– Used effectively as a “framework”
– We used CMMI to interpret ISO
– Approach may be use to achieve ISO registration and
CMMI maturity / capability level(s)
l Process improvement approach depends on the
organization’s readiness, culture, maturity
– Transitioning from the legacy frameworks

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 79


CMMI Related References - 1

l CMMI Product Team, Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI),


v1.1, Continuous Representation, CMU/SEI-2002-TR-003,
Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, December 2001
l CMMI Product Team, Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI),
v1.1, Staged Representation, CMU/SEI-2002-TR-004, Software
Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, December 2001
l McFeeley, B., “IDEALSM : A User’s Guide for Software Process
Improvement”, CMU/SEI-96-HB-001, Software Engineering
Institute, 1996
l Ibrahim, L., et al., The Federal Aviation Administration Integrated
Capability Maturity Model (FAA-iCMM), Version 2.0, September
2001
l Mutafelija, B., Software Process Improvement: Synergy between
ISO 9001:2000 and CMMI, SEPG Conference, New Orleans, LA,
2001

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 80


CMMI Related References - 2

l Mutafelija, B., Stromberg, H., Systematic Process Improvement


Using ISO 9001:2000 and CMMI, Artech House, Norwood, MA,
2003
l Stromberg, H., Mutafelija, B., Using the CMMI When Implementing
ISO 9001:2000 for Software, SEPG Conference, Phoenix, AZ,
2002
l Savolou, A., T. Kasse, The “Constagedeous” Approach to Process
Improvement, The SEPG Conference, New Orleans, LA, 2001
l Software Technology Support Center, Hill AFB; CMMI-SE/SW/IPPD
V1.1 to SW_CMM V1.1.pdf, http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/
l Dunaway, D.K., S. Masters, CMM-Based Appraisal for Internal
Process Improvement (CBA IPI), Method Description, Version
1.2, CMU/SEI-01-TR-033, Software Engineering Institute, Nov
2001
l CMMI Product Team, Standard CMMI Appraisal Method for Process
Improvement (SCAMPI), Version 1.1: Method Definition
Document, CMU/SEI-2001-HB-001, Software Engineering
Institute, Dec 2001
© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 81
ISO Related References - 1

l International Organization for Standardization, Quality management


systems – Fundamentals and vocabulary, ISO 9000:2000,
December 2000
l International Organization for Standardization, Quality management
systems – Requirements, ISO 9001:2000, December 2000
l International Organization for Standardization, Quality Management
Systems -- Guidelines for performance improvements, ISO
9004:2000, December 2000
l International Organization for Standardization, Guidance on the
Process Approach to quality management systems, ISO/TC
176/SC 2/N544, December 2000
l International Organization for Standardization, Information
Technology - Software process assessment, ISO/IEC TR 15504,
1998

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 82


ISO Related References - 2

l International Organization for Standardization, Guidelines for the


Application of ISO/IEC 9001 to the Development, supply, and
Maintenance of Software, ISO/IEC 9000-3, 1997
l Cianfrani, C.A., J.J. Tsiakals, J.E. West, ISO 9001:2000 Explained,
2nd Edition, ASQ Quality Press, Milwaukee, WI, 2001
l Hoyle, D, ISO 9000, Quality Systems Handbook, 4th Edition,
Butterworth-Heineman, Woburn, MA, 2001
l Ketola, J., K. Roberts, ISO 9000:2000 In a Nutshell, Patton Press,
Chico, CA, 2000
l Kymal, C., How to Audit ISO 9001:2000, A Handbook for Auditors,
Paton Press, Chico, California, 2002

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 83


ISO Related References - 3

l O’Hanlon, T., Quality Auditing for ISO 9001:2000: Making


Compliance Value-Added, American Society for Quality,
Milwaukee, WI, 2001
l Paulk, M.C., A Comparison of ISO 9001 and the Capability Maturity
Model for Software, Software Engineering Institute, CMU/SEI-94-
TR-12, August 1994
l Rout, T., SPICE and other Flavours, Software Process Assessment
using ISO 15504, Software Quality Institute, Griffith University,
Queensland, Australia, 2001
l Stimson, W. A., Internal Quality Auditing, Paton Press, Chico,
California, 2001
l Wealleans, D., The Quality Audit for ISO 9001:2000: A Practical
Guide, Gower Pub. Co, Oxon, UK, 2000

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 84


Questions / Discussion

Boris Mutafelija
BearingPoint

1676 International Dr.

McLean, VA 22102

bmutafelija@bearingpoint.net

Harvey Stromberg
DigitalNet Government Solutions

2525 Network Place

Herndon, VA 20171

harvey.stromberg@digitalnet.com

© 2003 BearingPoint, Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 85