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 Often

specified 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. Inc.. require periodic updates l When standards change: – What happens to the infrastructure? – What happens to previous investment? – What are the transition steps?  © 2003 BearingPoint. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 5 . e.g. Frameworks Quagmire) l Some standards. ISO.

Process Improvement with ISO 9001:2000 and the CMMI Gap analysis CMMI CMM Synergy ISO 9001:1994 ISO 9001:2000 Gap analysis Systematic Process Improvement © 2003 BearingPoint. Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 6 .

1 – No experience – Level 2 experience – Level 3 experience © 2003 BearingPoint. Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 7 .Initial States l ISO 9001:1994 – No experience – Experience l CMM v1.

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. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 8 . Inc.

© 2003 BearingPoint. Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 9 ...Process Improvement is Hard l Organizations are 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.

Inc.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. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 10 .

objectives Process Improvemen t Approach Resources Process Improvement Plan Need to select a problem solving process to unify ISO 9001:2000 and the CMMI © 2003 BearingPoint.Process Improvement Approach: Problem Solving + Framework Problem Solving Processes Frameworks Business goals. Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 11 .

& DigitalNet Government Solutions 12 .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.

Our Selection Problem Solving ISO 9001:2000 IDEAL CMMI Frameworks Business goals. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 13 . Inc. objectives Process Improvemen t Approach Resources Process Improvement Plan © 2003 BearingPoint.

Inc. transition from pilot to broad use .Acting – Implement plan. develop plan .Initiating – Identify goals.IDEAL Phases lI . & DigitalNet Government Solutions 14 .Establishing – Prioritize actions. build infrastructure lD lE lA lL . establish sponsorship.Diagnosing – Determine gaps between current and desired states . capture lessons © 2003 BearingPoint.Learning – Measure performance.

Inc.CMMI Synergy © 2003 BearingPoint. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 15 .Systematic Process Improvement Concept ISO 9001:200 Implementation Step 1 Step 2 From “checkmark” to improvement  Learning Acting ISO Registration + CMMI Implementation Step 1 Step 2 = CMMI Maturity Level Initiating Diagnosing  Establishing ISO 9001:2000 .

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. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 16 . Inc.

& DigitalNet Government Solutions 17 .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 onwill be easiest for organizations where process improvement is a way of lif n will be easiest for organizations where process improvement is a way of li are secondary are secondary © 2003 BearingPoint. Inc.

& DigitalNet Government Solutions 18 . Inc. acquisition l Identifies – Process Areas – Goals – Practices  © 2003 BearingPoint. software engineering. integrated product development.CMMI l Based on predecessor models l Addresses several bodies of knowledge – Systems engineering.

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

Inc. differences between CMM and CMMI are les © 2003 BearingPoint.Major Differences Between CMM and CMMI l Choice of two representations – Staged vs. Continuous l Institutionalization – Generic Practices & Generic Goals  gher maturity levels. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 20 .

Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 21 .ISO 9000:2000 Standards l ISO l ISO l ISO l ISO 9000:2000 9001:2000 9004:2000 9000-3:2000 – Fundamentals and vocabulary – Requirements – Guidelines for performance improvements – Guidelines for the Application of ISO 9001:2000 to Computer Software – © 2003 BearingPoint.

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. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 22 . Inc.

Inc.Systems & Process Engineering in ISO 9001:2000 Planning Measurement. & DigitalNet Government Solutions . Corrective Action customer satisfaction measures corrective actions Requirement Analysis corrective actions Design measures corrective actions Production measures product Verify/ Validate requirements Review Review Validate Purchasing Verify Process view: interactions among sections 23 © 2003 BearingPoint. Analysis.

Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 24 .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.

& DigitalNet Government Solutions 25 .Concepts of ISO-CMMI Synergy How can we determine the synergy between the frameworks? How can we determine the synergy between the frameworks l Similarities / Differences l Terminology Translation l Mapping between ISO 9001 and CMMI © 2003 BearingPoint. Inc.

& DigitalNet Government Solutions 26 . Inc.Similarities l Process approach l Full life cycle requirements l Requirements for – – – – –  Management commitment Resources Planning Reviews © 2003 BearingPoint.

Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 27 .Differences l Language – ISO uses “shall” statements (prescriptive). & amplifications  © 2003 BearingPoint. “determine and provide resources” is implemented in CMMI with GP 2.g.3 in all PAs) l Details – ISO is very sparse • There are 135 “shall” statements but over 360 “derived requirements” – CMMI provides practices.. typical work products. CMMI doesn’t – Compactness of statements in ISO • e.2 and GP 2. subpractices.

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 .

System Engineering Management Plan. Quality Manual Quality Plan Important to understand and agree to CMMI l Higher-level management. senior management l Organization’s Set of Standard Processes (OSSP) l Project Plan. Inc. Software Development Plan. Data Management Plan  30 © 2003 BearingPoint.Terminology Translation: ISO to CMMI ISO 9001:2000 l Top Management  l l l l Quality Management System (QMS). & DigitalNet Government Solutions .

procedure Work product. evidence of implementation Quality Management – quantitative management Quality Management – very broad sense l l © 2003 BearingPoint. Inc. Stakeholder  l l l l l l l l l Documented Procedure Record l l l l l Plan for performing the process. record. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 31 . Interested Party  CMMI l Customer.Terminology Translation: ISO to CMMI ISO 9001:2000 l Customer.

& DigitalNet Government Solutions 32 . Inc. CMMI to ISO (derivative) © 2003 BearingPoint.Cross-references .Mapping l l l l Helps visualize commonalties and differences – but misses underlying principles Based on “subjective” interpretations – Many views of commonalties/differences Mapping at very high or very low level means “everything” matches 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).

Inc. use several potential matches l Ground – Rule: Do not force a match The quest for synergy should not obscure differences between frameworks © 2003 BearingPoint. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 33 .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.Cross-references .

8. 2.1 Quality Management System General requirements Establish QMS Identify processes OPD OPF All SP 1. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 34 . 2. 2.1 SP 2.2 SP 1.3 S S M CMMI is not as strong S CMMI Practice Strength Comments © 2003 BearingPoint. Inc.1 SP 2. 2.2 GP 2.3. 2.0 4.9 Manage using ISO standard Control outsourced processes Outsourced process control in QMS All SAM SAM GP 2.6.2.1.Typical Map: ISO-to-CMMI ISO 9001:2000 PA 4.

Inc.Do Mappings Show Correspondence? ISO 9001:1 994 Mapping : SEI Report CMU/SEI-94-TR-12 Mapping : ISO 9001:2000 Annex B CMM v1.1? © 2003 BearingPoint. & DigitalNet Government Solutions NO: Need to understand both ISO and CMMI in detail 35 .1 ISO 9001: 2000 Mapping: STSC Web page CMMI v1.1 ? Does this map ISO 9001:2000 & CMMI v1.

2. 3. CM. 2. 2. VER. PI. SAM.4. QPM. TS. PMC.9.2 © 2003 BearingPoint. OPP. OPD. PP. 2. 2. GP 2. 2. CM.3.4. 2. 2. GP 2. REQM. GP 2. 2. RD. 2.1. CM. 2. 2.3. OPP. 3. PP.2.7.6.7. OPD. PPQA. 2. Inc. 2.7. SAM. 3. 3.1.9.2.1 Measurement. IPM. VER. OPF. GP 2. 2. 2.6. GP 2.8.1.8.8.5 Management Responsibility CMMI: OPF.1.1.6. 2. QPM. PPQA. OID. 2. 2. 2. PMC. 2. RD. CAR.3.10. VAL.CMMI Relationships Hi-level view ISO: Quality Management System ISO: ISO: CMMI: OPF. OT. 2. SAM. RD. 2.2 Resource Managemen t CMMI: PP. QPM.3.4.1 ISO: ISO: Product Realization CMMI: REQM.6.9. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 36 . 2. VAL. Analysis & Improvement CMMI: PMC.ISO . MA. OPD. 3. OEI. MA. 2.10. 2.2.2.

Synergy
l When

attempting to satisfy ISO requirements, must consider:
– Generic Goals / Practices – Process Areas

l For

the 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

establishing, documenting, implementing, maintaining and improving the QMS.
– Most other ISO sections refer to this section.

Section 4 - contains basic requirements for

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

OPF © 2003 BearingPoint. Identify and Involve the Relevant Stakeholders – “Continual Process Improvement” . & DigitalNet Government Solutions 41 . quality objectives.Management Responsibility – Management must provide commitment to QMS and its continual improvement – Must satisfy requirements and enhance customer satisfaction – Need to establish quality policy.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. QMS reviews l CMMI - – GP 2. responsibilities and authorities.ISO Section 5 & PAs l ISO Section 5 . Inc.Synergy .

3.ISO Section 6 & PAs l ISO Section 6 .Synergy . Train People and OT PA – PP SP 2.Resource Management – Resources required for • developing. Inc. implementing. monitoring and improving the QMS • addressing customer requirements and customer satisfaction. Provide Resources – GP 2. Plan Project Resources & SP 2.5. l CMMI – GP 2.5 Plan for Needed Knowledge and Skills © 2003 BearingPoint.4. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 42 .

Product Realization l Largest section in the ISO standard l Subdivided into:  – – – – – – planning. production and service provision. Inc. and control of monitoring and measuring devices © 2003 BearingPoint. customer related processes. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 43 . design and development. purchasing.ISO Section 7 & PAs ISO Section 7 .Synergy .

ISO Section 7 & PAs l ISO Section 7 .2. Plan the Process (and GP 3. Inc.Planning l In CMMI terms – this is the implementation of the project’s defined process • GP 2. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 44 .Synergy . if implemented • QPM may help too – may be too difficult to implement “out of context” © 2003 BearingPoint.1) in each PA • IPM will benefit the organization.

2. VER – Customer Communication: RD PA. IPM SG 2.7.Synergy .manage changes – Requirements review .9.7. Coordinate and Collaborate with Relevant Stakeholders – MA PA © 2003 BearingPoint. Inc. GP 2.Customer Related Processes l In CMMI terms – RD PA (SG 1. SG 3. PPQA.10.ISO Section 7 & PAs l ISO Section 7 . PMC.GP 2. 2. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 45 . Analyze and Validate Requirements supplements the ISO requirements) – REQM PA . Develop Customer Requirements and SG 2. Develop Product Requirements are sufficient.

2.ISO Section 7 & PAs l ISO Section 7 . VAL provide planning. VER. IPM provides additional aspects – Interfaces between the groups covered by GP 2. and VAL PAs. VAL.9 in RD. (and IPM IPPD SG 3 & 4) also address this requirement – Reviews addressed by PMC. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 46 . VER.7 in TS.Design and Development l In CMMI terms – GP 2. PI.8. monitoring & control.6 in TS. and reviews – PP. VER. PMC cover design & development planning and re-planning. TS. VER and VAL PAs – Controlling design implemented by GP 2. and 2. PI.2.Synergy . IPM SG 2. REQM. and CM PA © 2003 BearingPoint. Inc.

2. not found in ISO © 2003 BearingPoint. Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 47 .3.ISO Section 7 & PAs l ISO Section 7 . 1.1. 1.Purchasing l In CMMI terms – SAM PA addresses most of the requirements – SP 1.4 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. and SP 2.Synergy .

installation. Inc.Synergy . VER and CM PAs – CMMI is weaker (replication. post-delivery) – Identification & traceability satisfied by REQM SP 1.ISO Section 7 & PAs l ISO Section 7 .4.Production / Service Provision l In CMMI terms – Spirit of ISO requirements satisfied by TS. delivery. 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. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 48 . PI.

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 .ISO Section 7 & PAs l ISO Section 7 .Synergy .

Analysis and Improvement – Most measurement requirements are in this section – Other sections also address measurements. monitoring.ISO Section 8 & PAs l ISO Section 8 . and analysis.Measurement.Synergy . – Customer satisfaction& DigitalNet Government Solutions 50 . Inc. – 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 © 2003 BearingPoint.

& DigitalNet Government Solutions 51 .Synergy . PMC.ISO Section 8 & PAs Section 8 (continued) l In CMMI terms l ISO – 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. Inc. and CAR (ML 5) address process and product corrective actions • CAR and PPQA address other preventive actions © 2003 BearingPoint.

& DigitalNet Government Solutions 52 .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.

Inc. and methods l Independence of auditors l Determining the appropriateness of preventive actions to be commensurable with the effects of potential problems © 2003 BearingPoint. scope.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. frequency. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 53 .

Inc.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. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 54 .

and – ISO 9001 & CMMI synergy © 2003 BearingPoint.IDEAL – selected two major frameworks (ISO 9001 & CMMI) – outlined changes from legacy standards – explored ISO 9001 and CMMI synergy  l Now.Putting It All Together l At this point we have: – selected a problem solving process . we can address the process improvement approach using: – IDEAL. Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 55 .

I . Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 56 .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.Diagnosing Phase l Perform a gap analysis – Consider characteristics: • Accuracy – Repeatability – Formality . 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. ISO certification – SCAMPI Class A. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 57 .D .Duration / Cost • Maturity / Capability Level ratings. C • SCAMPI is rigorous and detailed. B.

& DigitalNet Government Solutions 58 .E .1 Level 2 No Yes Yes No Yes Yes CMM v1. Inc.1 Level 3 No No Yes No No Yes Case Number Case 1 Case 2 (a) Case 2 (b) Case 3 Case 4 (a) Case 4 (b) l Prioritize actions and develop Plan © 2003 BearingPoint. develop the process improvement approach l Experience with ISO 9001:1994 No No No Yes Yes Yes CMM v1.Establishing Phase Armed with the identified gaps.

Process Improvement Planning Run process improvement as a project l l Gap Analysis/Appraisal Transitioning steps l l l Requirements Life cycle steps l l Need: resources. 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 . schedule. control. training.

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 .

Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 61 .Case 1: No PI Experience l Organization MUST – understand synergy • mappings are just indicators – select process improvement approach CMM 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.

Transitioning Cases CMM/CMMI Transition ISO 9001 1994/2000 Transition No prior Experience CMM ML2 to CMMI ML2 CMM ML3 to CMMI ML3 CMM ML2 to CMMI ML3 © 2003 BearingPoint. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 62 . Inc.

Inc.CMM to CMMI Transitioning Approaches Basic Approach (no process improvement experience) Continuou s Institutionalizatio n Support Enabling Process Areas Process Manageme nt Staged Level 2 (Managed) Level 3 (Defined) Level 4 & 5 Engineerin g Project Manageme nt © 2003 BearingPoint. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 63 .

Inc.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 . & DigitalNet Government Solutions 64 .PA relationships – enabling PAs – subsuming PAs of Continuous Representation Doesn’t Imply Total Fre © 2003 BearingPoint.

& DigitalNet Government Solutions 65 .4) – Train people (implement GP 2.5) l Implement ML 2 PAs (needed to enable GPs) – PP. CM.Continuous Representation Institutionalization l Establish infrastructure – Implement OPF – Establish policies (implement GP 2. PMC.1 for all PAs) – Plan process (implement GP 2. Inc.3) – Assign responsibility (implement GP 2. PPQA and MA – Implement SAM (may implement just first two goals) © 2003 BearingPoint.2) – Ensure resources (implement GP 2.

OT © 2003 BearingPoint.10) l Implement organizational PAs – OPF (SG 2). Inc.Continuous Representation Institutionalization l More infrastructure – Manage configurations (implement GP 2.9) – Identify & involve stakeholders (implement GP 2.6) – Monitor and control the process (implement GP 2. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 66 .8) – Evaluate adherence (implement GP 2. OPD.7) – Perform senior management review (implement GP 2.

VER. VAL) l Revisit all PAs to ensure that they operate at CL 3 – Collect improvement information (implement GP 3. RD. TS.Continuous Representation Institutionalization l Prepare for CL 3 CL 3 infrastructure – Implement Integrated Project Management (IPM) l Establish – Institutionalize a Defined Process (implement GP 3.1) l Execute processes (Implement Engineering PAs: REQM. Inc. PI.2) © 2003 BearingPoint. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 67 .

Inc.CMM to CMMI Transitioning Approaches Basic Approach (no process improvement experience) Continuou s Institutionalizatio n Support Enabling Process Areas Process Manageme nt Staged Level 2 (Managed) Level 3 (Defined) Level 4 & 5 Engineerin g Project Manageme nt © 2003 BearingPoint. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 68 .

& DigitalNet Government Solutions 69 . Inc.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.

& DigitalNet Government Solutions 70 . Inc.CMM to CMMI Transitioning Approaches Basic Approach (no process improvement experience) Continuou s Institutionalizatio n Support Enabling Process Areas Process Manageme nt Staged Level 2 (Managed) Level 3 (Defined) Level 4 & 5 Engineerin g Project Manageme nt © 2003 BearingPoint.

then ML 3. Inc. OPD. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 71 .No PI Experience: Discussion l Order l Can of implementation is “fixed” – Start with ML 2. we start with ML 3? “Parts” of ML 3? – Having the OSSP and implementing OPF.Staged Representation . etc. & 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 72 .Transitioning Cases CMM/CMMI Transition ISO 9001 1994/2000 Transition No prior Experience CMM ML2 to CMMI ML2 CMM ML3 to CMMI ML3 CMM ML2 to CMMI ML3 © 2003 BearingPoint.

& DigitalNet Government Solutions 73 .and process-based requirements – No organization should start from scratch © 2003 BearingPoint. 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.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. Inc.

Transitioning Steps l Obtain management commitment – get wide participation (needed for both systems and software) l Train transition staff in ISO 9001:2000 gap analysis – important to understand differences l Perform l Revise – determine what is missing 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 .

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. quality manual.Transitioning Steps l New requirement: determine processes and their interactions l Train staff on new QMS. Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 75 .

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.Transitioning . Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 76 .

Acting Phase l Implement the Process Improvement Plan – schedule. Inc. risks – monitor progress • process improvement measurements • process action teams – deliverables • implementation pilots • periodic informal gap analyses – report results • progress visibility – © 2003 BearingPoint. resources. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 77 .A .

schedule.L . & DigitalNet Government Solutions 78 . © 2003 BearingPoint.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. etc. Inc. management approach.

& DigitalNet Government Solutions 79 . Inc. culture. maturity – Transitioning from the legacy frameworks © 2003 BearingPoint.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.

SEPG Conference.1 l l l l l CMMI Product Team. New Orleans. Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI). “IDEALSM : A User’s Guide for Software Process Improvement”. December 2001 McFeeley.. Pittsburgh. L.. PA. 1996 Ibrahim. Software Engineering Institute. CMU/SEI-2002-TR-004.. B. v1. B. CMU/SEI-96-HB-001.0. September 2001 Mutafelija. 2001 © 2003 BearingPoint. et al. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 80 . PA. Staged Representation. Software Engineering Institute.. December 2001 CMMI Product Team. CMU/SEI-2002-TR-003. Software Process Improvement: Synergy between ISO 9001:2000 and CMMI. Software Engineering Institute. LA.CMMI Related References . Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI). v1.1. Pittsburgh. Continuous Representation.1. The Federal Aviation Administration Integrated Capability Maturity Model (FAA-iCMM). Inc. Version 2.

Dec 2001 BearingPoint.CMMI Related References . The “Constagedeous” Approach to Process Improvement.. Systematic Process Improvement Using ISO 9001:2000 and CMMI. Using the CMMI When Implementing ISO 9001:2000 for Software. Norwood. SEPG Conference. A.mil/ Dunaway. Software Engineering Institute..1. Standard CMMI Appraisal Method for Process Improvement (SCAMPI). Masters. Version 1.stsc. 2003 Stromberg. MA.K. CMMI-SE/SW/IPPD V1.pdf. T. Hill AFB. B. Method Description. 2002 Savolou. D..2 l l l l l l Mutafelija. Version 1. Software Engineering © 2003 Institute. Mutafelija.1: Method Definition Document. Inc. CMM-Based Appraisal for Internal Process Improvement (CBA IPI). LA. AZ.1 to SW_CMM V1.af.2. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 81 . H. CMU/SEI-01-TR-033. Phoenix. Kasse.. B.. The SEPG Conference. S. Artech House.hill. Nov 2001 CMMI Product Team. http://www.. Stromberg. H. CMU/SEI-2001-HB-001. New Orleans. 2001 Software Technology Support Center.

Information Technology . ISO/TC 176/SC 2/N544. December 2000 International Organization for Standardization. December 2000 International Organization for Standardization. Quality Management Systems -. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 82 . 1998 © 2003 BearingPoint. ISO/IEC TR 15504.Software process assessment. December 2000 International Organization for Standardization.ISO Related References . ISO 9004:2000. Quality management systems – Fundamentals and vocabulary. ISO 9000:2000.Guidelines for performance improvements. Quality management systems – Requirements.1 l l l l l International Organization for Standardization. Inc. Guidance on the Process Approach to quality management systems. December 2000 International Organization for Standardization. ISO 9001:2000.

ASQ Quality Press. Quality Systems Handbook. MA. supply.. How to Audit ISO 9001:2000. California.J. Inc. WI. ISO 9000:2000 In a Nutshell.. Woburn. ISO 9000. ISO/IEC 9000-3. J. West. Paton Press. and Maintenance of Software. D. A Handbook for Auditors. Patton Press. 2001 Ketola.E. C. 1997 Cianfrani. C. 2001 Hoyle. Guidelines for the Application of ISO/IEC 9001 to the Development.ISO Related References . Tsiakals. Chico.. Roberts. K. 2002 © 2003 BearingPoint. J. CA. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 83 . 4th Edition.2 l l l l l International Organization for Standardization. J. 2000 Kymal.A. Butterworth-Heineman. Milwaukee. ISO 9001:2000 Explained. Chico. 2nd Edition.

A Comparison of ISO 9001 and the Capability Maturity Model for Software.ISO Related References . Paton Press. Oxon. UK.. 2001 Stimson. Milwaukee. Quality Auditing for ISO 9001:2000: Making Compliance Value-Added. California. Gower Pub.C. Chico. Co. Software Process Assessment using ISO 15504.. T.. D. M.3 l l l l l O’Hanlon. SPICE and other Flavours. A. August 1994 Rout. 2001 Wealleans. 2001 Paulk. Australia. Griffith University. T. WI. CMU/SEI-94TR-12. Software Quality Institute. Queensland.. Inc. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 84 . The Quality Audit for ISO 9001:2000: A Practical Guide. 2000 © 2003 BearingPoint.. American Society for Quality. Software Engineering Institute. W. Internal Quality Auditing.

net   Harvey Stromberg DigitalNet Government Solutions 2525 Network Place Herndon. McLean.stromberg@digitalnet. VA 20171 harvey. VA 22102 bmutafelija@bearingpoint.com  © 2003 BearingPoint. & DigitalNet Government Solutions 85 .Questions / Discussion Boris Mutafelija BearingPoint 1676 International Dr. Inc.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful