The serious, the light and everything in between

Book Review – “Workforce of One” by Susan Cantrell and David Smith

2012-02-11T07:22:00.001-08:00

This entry is posted at http://alignmentor.wordpress.com/.

In future, all posts related to Operational Excellence (People CMM®, CMMI®, Balanced Scorecard, HCM, Six Sigma) will be available at http://alignmentor.wordpress.com/

Interview with Prakash Hegde: Experiences with People CMM® Implementation

2012-02-05T21:10:00.000-08:00

CMMI® – Constellations, Representations and some food for thought

2012-02-01T01:37:00.000-08:00

Institutionalization in CMMI® and People CMM®: Converting a practice to a habit

2012-01-27T03:46:00.000-08:00

This entry is posted at http://alignmentor.wordpress.com/.

In future, all posts related to Operational Excellence (People CMM, CMMI, Balanced Scorecard, HCM, Six Sigma) will be available at http://alignmentor.wordpress.com/

Adoption of People CMM® -03: Whys is it Low?

2012-01-18T07:33:00.000-08:00

Intro to CMMI DEV v1.3 by Rajesh Naik in Bangalore on March 5-7, 2012

2012-01-17T06:42:00.000-08:00

Adoption of People CMM® -02: Benefits Experienced

2012-01-14T01:31:00.000-08:00

Adoption of People CMM® -01: Appraisal Results

2012-01-02T20:39:00.000-08:00

CMMI version 1.3 Released

2010-10-31T03:43:00.000-07:00

CMMI Version 1.3, originally scheduled for November 1, 2010, was released a few days before the planned release date. The release converts Development, Services, and Acquisition to version 1.3.

The new model documents can be downloaded as follows:

CMMI for Development: www.sei.cmu.edu/library/abstracts/reports/10tr033.cfm
CMMI for Services: www.sei.cmu.edu/library/abstracts/reports/10tr034.cfm
CMMI for Acquisition: www.sei.cmu.edu/library/abstracts/reports/10tr032.cfm

You can also see a quick summary of the changes at the blog post of August 23, 2010.

Talk on CMMI High Maturity Misconceptions at SPIN-CSI, Mumbai (Sept 27, 2010)

2010-10-01T03:52:00.000-07:00

Over the last few years, the expectations on the implementation of high maturity practices of CMMI have gone up several notches. It has been a difficult and exciting journey for many organizations in revamping their measurement systems and their approach to metrics.

Organizations that consider the new requirements as a "delta" over what have been earlier doing have struggled and not been able to transition smoothly. On the other hand, organizations that have "unlearned" their old habits and ways of thinking, kept an open mind and aligned themselves to the new way have been able to make the transition smoothly.

The talk highlighted the new way of statistical thinking, and the typical mistakes that organizations make in implementation. Key areas covered are:

*    Sub-process control
*    Process Performance Models and composing the defined process
*    Quantitatively managing process improvements

The presentation used in this session can be downloaded from here.

Leveraging CMMI(r)- SVC for Service Excellence

2010-09-08T02:02:00.000-07:00

In today’s competitive scenario every industry needs to perform at its best. It is imperative for organizations to deliver better, faster and cheaper. This requires sound processes, competent people and world-class technology.

A new framework for improving processes for the service industry is the SEI’s CMMI^® for Services (CMMI^®-SVC) model.

CMMI^®-SVC provides a guide for selecting processes that best fit an organization’s needs and helps the organizations to prioritize their process improvement initiative.

CMMI^®-SVC directly complements ITIL and ISO20K initiatives (in the IT Service Management space).

CMMI^®-SVC is based on time tested maturity model for process improvement.

This presentation helps you to understand the CMMI^®-SVC model and how you can leverage the same to derive business improvements in your service delivery organization. Download the presentation from here.

The presentation was used by me as a keynote speaker in the ITSM Colloquium on September 6, 2010 in Bangalore and subsequently in Mumbai on September 28, 2010.

What to Expect in the new version of CMMI(r) for DEV -- Version 1.3

2010-08-23T08:55:00.000-07:00

The first day (17th August 2010) of SEPG Asia-Pacific 2010 conference covered the changes expected to the CMMI(r) models, as a part of release of V1.3. The tutorial was conducted by Mike Phillips of the SEI and was attended by a large group of professionals (mostly from the IT industry).

Here are the key points that I have gathered and my reactions to some of the changes in the DEV model. The detailed presentation can be downloaded from here [Thanks Mike :-)]

A summary of the changes are available in a presentation titled CMMI v1.3 - What's New on slideshare.

Changes to the Generic Goals and Generic Practices (DEV Model)

1)    Generic goals 4 and 5 have been removed from the models. So, generic goals stop at GG3 for all process areas. [Reaction: Good. The material in GG4 and GG5 was very scanty, and could not be used to implement CL4 and 5 practices]

2)    No significant changes in the intent of generic practices, other than a few changes in the verbiage for a few generic practices (GP 2.6, 2.9 and 3.2) [Reaction: It would have been nice if some generic practices were merged, for example GP2.8 and GP2.10, to reduce the number of generic practices. Maybe in version 1.4 or later :-)]

3)    In the model book (or technical report), the generic goals and generic practices are described just once at the start of the document and are not repeated for each process area [Reaction: Slimmer book to carry, less trees to be chopped, nice touch]

Changes to the Maturity Level 2 Process Areas (DEV Model)

1)         Requirements Management (REQM) has been shifted to the Project Management category of PAs [Reaction: Makes no difference, except that there are no engineering PAs at maturity level 2. Imagine a maturity level 2 development company saying "we have great management and support practices, but our engineering practices may not be...."]

2)         Supplier Agreement Management (SAM) has been simplified. Two contentious practices of SG2 (erstwhile SP2.2 & 2.3), have been converted to sub-practices of other specific practices [Reaction: These two practices were often a source of grief to many organizations in their appraisal. Fantastic!]

Changes to the Maturity Level 3 Process Areas (DEV Model)

1)         The optional IIPD addition (one goal in OPD and one goal in IPM) has now been converted into specific practices in OPD and IPM (one additional practice each) [Reaction: This is pity, because IPPD has a great value. I would have liked to see more emphasis on IPPD with greater clarity, instead of IPPD becoming 2 practices in the whole of CMMI(r)]

2)         No other changes, other than changes in the language to bring in more clarity.

Changes to High Maturity Process Areas (DEV Model)

1)         OID has been renamed as Organizational Performance Management (OPM). A new goal has been added to align process improvements to business objectives and process performance data. [Reaction: Was always required. Though the change looks big, most high maturity organizations would already be implementing the requirement of this new goal]

2)         Quantitative Project Management (QPM) has been made tighter and the requirements are more explicit. No significant change in the intent of the process area.

3)         Causal Analysis and Resolution (CAR) and Organizational Process Performance (OPP) have undergone some changes in the verbiage, though nothing significant in intent.

Version 1.3 of DEV (along with SVC and ACQ) will be released in November 2010.

SCAMPI-A appraisals using version 1.2 of the model can be conducted for period of 12 months after the release of version 1.3. Organizations aiming for an appraisal in the later part of 2011 should consider switching to version 1.3 right away.

The SCAMPI-A methodology is also undergoing an upgrade. The SCAMPI methodology upgrade will be released slightly later. So, organizations could use the current SCAMPI-A version 1.2 to appraise organizations for CMMI(r) version 1.3 for some time.

Will try and post about CMMI(r) - SVC and the expected changes to the appraisal methodology sometime soon.

What comes first - SPC or a stable process?

2010-08-05T03:22:00.000-07:00

An interesting topic, which has been discussed very often. In every discussion, people agree on what is right and what needs to be implemented. But in actual implementation the principles are forgotten. Therefore it is good to re-align ourselves to the basics time and again.

What is often seen in actual implementation of SPC (ineffective and incorrect implementation)

1)    A process is documented and used
2)    Data related to the process is collected
3)    When we need to do sub-process control (because we are aiming for High Maturity rating), an SPC chart is prepared.
4)    Data which are outliers are thrown out (root cause analysis is not possible, because the outlier data belongs belongs to a distant past, and the causes are lost in the mists of time)
5)    Control limits are recalculated
6)    Steps 4) and 5) are repeated till all (remaining) points demonstrate process stability
7)    The SPC parameters (center line, UCL/ UNPL, LCL/ LNPL) are declared as baselines and used for sub-process control. The fact that the limits are too wide or that a lot of data points were thrown out (without changing anything in the process) is ignored.

What we have in the above scenario is a maturity level 2/ 3 organization using maturity level 4 tools. Usage of tools alone does not increase maturity. We cannot create a stable process through the use of SPC, we can only confirm the stability of the process through SPC and get signals when the process is out of control or shows changes in trends.

The More Effective Implementation of SPC

1)    A process is documented and used. As the process is used, variations in the interpretation of the documented process are qualitatively analyzed. Actions are taken to augment the process definition, training and orientation till the interpretation and the qualitative understanding of the process is consistent.
2)    Process compliance audits (PPQA audits) on the implementation of the process identify more actions that need to be implemented to fine-tune the definition, training and orientation related to the process.
3)    Once the audits show consistent compliance, data related to the process performance are collected. Integrity of the data is checked and the data collection process is streamlined and consolidated- till the collected data demonstrates the required credibility
4)    Now we start looking at the data somewhat quantitatively (without using full SPC) - does the trend chart show stability? Is it showing too much dispersion/ variation? Based on the findings, the definition, training and orientation related to the process is refined further
5)    This is point we start using SPC charts to confirm process stability. Each inflection of instability is analyzed. Corrective and preventive actions are identified to further standardize the process, based on analysis of past instability. Once we are sure that causes of those inflections are removed, we can remove the points from the analysis.

6)    We are still left with points which show instability, and our CAR analysis tells us that some of the causes are truly extremely rare events. These are then removed from the data pool. Now all the remaining points are a part of the process. If the process still shows instability, then we can do further analysis - are these really part of a single process? Beneath the surface, are there two or more processes, and we need to separate out the data (e.g., the process may behave differently in the "performance appraisal season"? :-))

Having followed all the above steps, we now have a basis (and hence baseline) for an effective implementation of SPC.

Remember: We cannot create a stable process through the use of SPC, we can only confirm the stability of the process through SPC.

Size Does Matter! (for baselines and sub-process control) -Continued

2010-08-03T02:53:00.000-07:00

Let us take the example of examination/ test centers, that run an exam throughout the year, every day. Past one-year data shows - 30% of the candidates pass the exam and 70% fail the exam, all over India.

The Bangalore test center handles around 1000 candidates per month, whereas the Mysore center handles around 100 per month. Over the last one year, both centers have shown the same 30 pass: 70 fail ratio.

For the month of June 2010, one center has reported 38% pass and another has reported 29% pass. Which center (Bangalore or Mysore) is more likely (has a higher probability) to have reported 38%?

Well, Mysore is more likely to have the higher deviation from the average (+8%) than Bangalore (-1%), because Mysore, handling lesser candidates, has a lesser number of opportunities to "average out". An easy way to figure this out is to take the case of a center that handles only 1 candidate. This center can have either 0% or 100% pass percentage; a -30% to +70% deviation from the average.

Let us now get back to the process performance baselines that we create and the way we do sub-process control. Here are some things that we need to keep in mind while creating, publishing and using baselines:

1) Baseline (mean and standard deviation) for a sub-process parameter (like coding productivity) will be different depending on whether we consider each the coding phase of each project as a data point, or we consider each program coded in each project as a data point. The standard deviation in the first case (large base) is likely to be smaller than the second case (small base).

2) When we publish performance baseline data, we need to qualify it with the level of detail at which it applies.

3) When we use the baseline data to do sub-process control, it needs to be applied to the same level of detail. So, to do sub-process control on program level coding productivity, we need to use the baseline that was created using programs as data points (not each projects as a data points).

4) Baselines need to be created using similar situations of the base data. For example, we cannot combine the coding productivity on large programs with the productivity on small programs. Even if the average/ mean remains the same, the standard deviation will be higher when we take data from a smaller base as against a larger base.

The above points are not just "nits" but have an impact of the usefulness of baselines and sub-process control. Incorrect usage of baselines leads to incorrect displays process instability / stability.

What is (Project) Success in a High Maturity Organization?

2010-08-01T22:41:00.000-07:00

Project success is measured by comparing the actual performance with what was budgeted, planned and committed - typically with respect to parameters of cost, schedule and quality. Projects that meet all parameters are considered completely successful, and those that meet some parameters are considered less successful. Projects that fail in most/ all parameters are labeled as failures. Of course, sophisticated systems may even use the extent to which they missed the objectives (near miss or missed by a mile/ kilometer) as a factor in determining the degree of success or failure.

Is this really how a high maturity (HM) organization (in terms of the CMMI framework) should evaluate project success? I believe that the refinement in process and project management maturity should be used to fine-tune how we evaluate success.

A HM organization is "aware" that all processes have variations inherent in them. It knows that projects (that are composed of the processes) have a probability of achieving success in their objectives, but success is not guaranteed. The role of project management (esp. QPM) is to continually evaluate the probability of success and maximize the conditions to improve that probability.

When a single project goes through its life, those probabilities will play out. Which means that even if the probability of completing the project within its budget was 90%, a single project can overshoot the budget. Of course, if we run similar projects millions of times, only 10% of the projects will overshoot the budget; but we have only one project here. In such an "aware" organization, is the use of "actual budget compliance" a right way to measure success? If so, how is this organization different from a non-HM organization?

I believe that in a HM organization, project success should not be measured by after-the-fact results, but by the rigor and continual alignment of the project to maximize the probability of success. So, in a HM organization, a project is successful, if and only if:

* The project, at start-up, consciously makes choices (composes the defined process, aligns plans) that maximize the probability of meeting its multiple objectives
* The project continually evaluates the probability of meeting the objectives and revises its choices to maximize its probability of success

Now, in such an organization, the "best project" award may be given to a project which in the conventional sense has actually failed :-) - such an organization would be truly acting on the belief- "if we implement the process, the results will eventually follow".

Why Can't Metrics be Used for Performance Appraisals?

2010-07-28T20:22:00.000-07:00

As I consult organizations on process management as well as human capital management, once in a while I hear an emphatic "We should not use metrics for individual performance management!". The statement is made as if it is an unquestionable tenant of the religion called process management.

My reaction is "Why not?" Why should the performance management process be deprived of metrics? I don't think any process oriented organization would like to boast that their performance management system is completely subjective.

Here are some reasons why metrics should be used for individual performance management.

*    An individual performance management (including the appraisal part) needs to be SMART - the "M" stands for measurable.
*    Most individual performance parameters are the similar to and derived from the project, product and process objectives, they typically relate to cycle time, quality (defects), meeting commitments (schedule) and productivity (cost, effort and usage of resources).
*    A strong metrics system, that provides accurate, precise and valid data can support the project, process and individual performance management requirements.
*    Using the same sources of data, we can create a more aligned organization - the individual objectives are aligned to the project, product and process objectives. In this manner, individuals know that meeting their individual goals helps in meeting the other goals (and vice versa); conflict of interest is minimized.

The situations where we may not want to use process/ project metrics for managing individual performance are:

*    The metrics collection system is not stable, and there questions on the credibility of the data. In such a case, the use of the data for managing the project/ process is also diluted.
*    Usage of the data for individual performance management may make the individuals sabotage the process and the accuracy of the metrics. In which case, we need to strengthen the process and make it sabotage proof.

I believe in the old SW-CMM(r) days, most metrics collection systems were unstable, and hence many experts of that time were pretty insistent on the metrics not being used for performance appraisals - some organizations even have policy level statements for the same!

We have now moved on from the CMM(r) days for process management, so we need to move on in other aspects too.

Your comments?

Size Does Matter! (for baselines and sub-process control)

2010-07-26T23:40:00.000-07:00

Here is a small brain-teaser.

Let us take the example of a examination/ test centers, that run an exam throughout the year, every day of the year. Analysis of the past one-year data shows that 30% of the candidates pass the exam and 70% fail the exam, all over India.

The Bangalore test center handles around 1000 candidates per month, whereas the Mysore center handles around 100 per month. Over the last one year, both centers have shown the same 30 pass: 70 fail ratio.

For the month of June 2010, one center has reported 38% pass and another has reported 29% pass. Which center (Bangalore or Mysore) is more likely (has a higher probability) to have reported 38%? Why do you think so?

See my post dated August 3, 2010 for the answer and implications.

Generating Lots of Data through Monte Carlo (a misuse?!?)

2010-07-21T04:59:00.000-07:00

I have seen the metrics groups of organizations generating “enough” data for creating baselines, from very few available data points, using Monte Carlo simulation.

Here is the method they use: Ten data points are available; using the pattern of the ten data points, they generate a thousand (or maybe a million) data points using Monte Carlo simulation. Now they feel that they have enough data points to generate a baseline.

But in reality the baseline has been generated using 10 data points. The 1000 data points only give a feeling of having lots of data and this is clearly a misuse of Monte Carlo simulation.

Normal Distribution is Actually Rare

2010-07-19T22:25:00.000-07:00

When we often use statistical analysis tools and techniques, the underlying assumption is that process/ sub-process displays a "normal" behavior. Even if the limited data that we have shows non-normal behavior, we assume that the reason is the lack of data, and we approximate the distribution to normal.

This assumption and subsequent analysis, conclusions and decisions are therefore inaccurate, especially if we are combining "assumed" normal behavior across multiple processes, viz Process Performance Modeling.

"Normal" behavior is very rare in real life. For example, you travel from your home to office, let us say usually in 1 hour. The least time you have ever done the trip is in 30 mins. If the distribution was normal, the worst time should have been 1 hour 30 mins (symmetrical on both sides). You will find that on some days that you were delayed, the time could have been 2 or even 3 hours!

Another way of saying that real life does not behave in a "normal" way, is "there is a limit on how well you can do, but no limit on how badly you can screw up!"

There is more on this in the books "Fooled by Randomness" and "Black Swan" by Nassim Taleb -- must-reads for anyone involved in high maturity CMMI implementation.

Talk on CMMI High Maturity Misconceptions at SPIN-CSI, Mumbai (July 14, 2010)

2010-07-18T08:02:00.000-07:00

All presentations on my website and slideshare

2010-07-05T02:50:00.000-07:00

I have uploaded all the short presentations that I have made on my site http://rajeshnaik.com/downloads/. My slideshare url is http://www.slideshare.net/naik.rajeshnaik

Talk on Competency Framework at SPIN Hyderabad on June 22, 2010

2010-06-30T02:38:00.000-07:00

.
I had given a presentation at SPIN Hyderabad on June 22, 2010. The topic was on Competency Framework.

The presentation can be downloaded from here.

Presentation at High Maturity Best Practices Colloquium, 2010, Bangalore

2010-06-01T06:37:00.000-07:00

Just finished with the High Maturity Best Practices Colloquium held in Bangalore.

I gave a short presentation on CMMI for Services as an invited speaker. The presentation can be downloaded from here.

Changed My Website www.rajeshnaik.com

2010-03-25T03:24:00.000-07:00

Well folks, I have updated my website (www.rajeshnaik.com) - it has a new look and feel. The content is almost the same, but there are four new presentations that I used in the recent past. You may download the presentations from here.

For the new look and feel, Swapna Kishore advised me to use WordPress software, and we jointly selected the Atahualpa (quite a mouthful) theme for the new website. The theme provides many options and can also be customized. Once the basic pages are up, managing the content is as easy as posting blog entries (I hope).

So now I have no more excuses for not putting up new content :-)

Even Adults' Brains Can Grow

2010-03-15T01:15:00.000-07:00

An interesting research done on London cabbies showed that some parts of their brain were bigger (see here and here) compared to other people. Different parts of the brain are used for different purposes; our brains have a part that acts as a "sat nav" (this part is called the Hippocampus). The study of the London cabbies' brains showed that the back part of their Hippocampus was larger than that of an average person.

To become a London cabbie, you need to train for anywhere between 3 to 5 years, memorizing a huge number of locations and routes (there are around 250,000 roads in London). In addition, you need to become a good conversationalist - on topics ranging from politics to arts to sports. The training and the job changes the structure of the brain, even if you are an adult.

Though the study initially became an object of humor (it won the Ig Noble prize), it is useful to improve our understanding of the workings of the brain and could provide some leads to the rehabilitation of people with brain disorders like Alzheimer's or people who suffer brain damage.

Also, the study tells me that I can improve my mental abilities by exercising the relevant brain muscles. I should enroll into a brain fitness improvement program immediately - something that will improve multiple abilities, like short-term memory, awareness, divided attention (I drive in Bangalore), eye-hand coordination, etc. However, if all parts of my brain grow, will there be enough space in my skull? I guess I will cross that hurdle when I get there...

1st International Colloquium on High Maturity Best Practices 2010 (HMBP 2010)

2010-03-06T07:01:00.000-08:00

The first International Colloquium on High Maturity Best Practices has been scheduled for May 21, 2010.

The Colloquium is a opportunity for exchanging, sharing, learning and show casing practices of maturity levels 4 and 5 of the CMMI^®.

Many organizations have implemented their high maturity practices the hard way, and now is the time for other organizations to learn from the first movers and each other.

You can get more details of the Colloquium here .

People CMM(R) Appraisal Results now on SEI's Website

2010-03-01T03:30:00.000-08:00

People CMM(R) appraisal results are now published on SEI’s website http://sas.sei.cmu.edu/pars/pars.aspx

Many organizations have benefited from the implementation of People CMM(R). However, till now, there was no easy way to communicate successful appraisal result to all relevant stakeholders.

Starting 2010, all People CMM(R) SCAMPISM Class A appraisal results will be published on SEI’s PARS website (after appropriate permissions and quality checks). The first such appraisal result is already available at http://sas.sei.cmu.edu/pars/pars_detail.aspx?a=13709 (and yes, QAI figures there).

So, now you have one more reason to pursue and validate your HR related improvements using the People CMM(R), the de facto standard for world-class people related processes.

(R)- CMM is registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office by Carnegie Mellon University.

SM - SCAMPI is a service mark of Carnegie Mellon University.

Giving a Talk on Talent Management on Feb 24, 2010 in Mumbai

2010-02-26T06:55:00.000-08:00

.
I am slated to give a talk on Systems Approach to HR Processes on at 5:30 PM on Feb 24, 2010 at Hotel VITS, Andheri Kurla Road, Mumbai for senior folks from the service industries. The talk is being arranged by QAI.

Those interested can contact Jonu Rana (jonu.rana@qaiglobal.com) or Kishor Parab (kishor.parab@qaiglobal.com) of QAI, Mumbai.

The presentation can be downloaded from here.

Green IT

2010-02-19T02:42:00.000-08:00

"What is Green IT? Should I invest my time learning about it?", asked a participant at the SPICON conference in Chennai, as if I have ready (and correct) answers to all questions. I mumbled something non-committal, and made a mental note to find out more about this new buzzword - Green IT.

Here is what I have found till now:

The British Computer Society (BCS) has established a 3 day Foundation Certificate in Green IT in association with Information Systems Examination Board.
The 3 day course ends with a 1 hour examination, which contains multiple-choice questions
The course (and the exam) focuses on (1) How IT can help greeni-fy its other operations, and (2) how IT operations can be made more green
Topics include disposal of hazardous waste, resource conservation and sustainable working practices
The participants are expected to become familiar with (1) various protocols, panels, summits, and international frameworks on Climate Change, and (2) legislation and standards like ISO 14001, Energy Star, EPEAT and WEEE
Internal assessment of an organization's Green IT status and action planning are other topics covered in the course

The syllabus has been published here.
You can get more information from the following:

Interview on Aligning Ferret by D Murali of The Hindu Business Line

2010-01-24T19:52:00.000-08:00

During SPICON, Chennai, I was interviewed by D.Murali, Deputy Editor, The Hindu Business Line on Jan 22, 2010. The interview was around the business novel Aligning Ferret, that I have co-authored with Swapna Kishore.

When Murali told me that he was recording the interview, I was under the impression that he doing audio recording; I was really surprised to see the video-cum-audio recording on YouTube! Next time, I need to be careful - keep my head still and look straight at the camera (if I can locate it) :-)

The recorded interview is available on YouTube in two segments - the Story of Aligning Ferret and Aligning Ferret, a business novel.

Invited to speak at SPICON, Chennai

2010-01-19T03:35:00.000-08:00

Just got a request to speak at SPICON 2010, Chennai from M Rajamanickam, one of the core members of SPIN and an organizer of the conference. My talk is scheduled 2 days from now and the topic for me is "Operational Excellence through People Processes".

I am looking forward to this conference and hearing the other speakers. Also, I will get a opportunity to catch up with old friends and professional acquaintances during the conference.

My presentation will be uploaded at the site http://www.spinchennai.org (go to the SPIN Talk tab). You can also download the presentation from here.