Software Process Improvement

Transcription

1 Software Process Improvement Departamento de Informática Universidad Técnica Federico Santa María Valparaíso, Chile Motivation Immaturity of software engineering - state of the practice 3 critical factors: people, technology, and process - main drivers of costs, schedules, productivity and software quality Basic principle: improve software product quality by improving software process quality Capability - maturity measurement - predictor of software process quality - can be improved

2 Motivation Important: differentiate change and process improvement Important question: what is the return on software process improvement? Need for metrics and methods Difficulty of measuring certain aspects: lower risks, productivity, quality increase, client satisfaction, and of associating return on investment to software engineering process and technology Goals Understand the present state of software engineering practice and management in an organization Select improvement areas where the changes may mean the highest long-term benefits Focus on adding value to business, not on achieving a process utopia Prosper combining effective process with prepared, motivated and creative people

3 Change possible VISION SKILLS INCENTIVES RESOURCES ACTION PLAN CHANGE SKILLS INCENTIVES RESOURCES ACTION PLAN CONFUSION VISION INCENTIVES RESOURCES ACTION PLAN ANSIETY VISION SKILLS RESOURCES ACTION PLAN GRADUAL CHANGE VISION SKILLS INCENTIVES ACTION PLAN FRUSTRATION VISION SKILLS INCENTIVES RESOURCES FALSE STARTS 10 traps to avoid Lack of high level commitment Unreal expectations from high level management Leaders who don t assign the resources Inadecuate training Achieving a given model level is the goal Ill-applied at the micro level Ineffective evaluations Action plan implementation delay Process improvement becomes a game Hope that process will replace people

4 Requisites Intelligent, trained, creative engineers and managers Effective team work Shared culture focused towards quality Clear improvement goals Metrics to control progress Honest evaluation of problem areas Time to select, pilot, and implement improved process Consistent high level leaderships and expectations Everyone involved in improvement efforts Common sense, combined with a commitment to improve Software Engineering Institute Founded by the Department of Defense (USA), at Carnegie Mellon University, in 1984 First director: Watts Humphrey Goal: to establish standards of excellence in software engineering and acelerate the transition of advanced technology and methods to practice

5 Software Engineering Institute Important result: Software Process Maturity Model - developed to evaluate the capabilities of a software organization and identify the most important improvement areas - considering the complete process of software development as a process that can be controled, measured and improved SEI s maturity model 5 level model (presented in 1987) > initial (ad hoc/caotic) > repeatable (intuitive) > defined (qualitative) > managed (quantitative) > optimizing (feedback) Each level establishes an intermediate set of goals to achieve the next higher level of maturity Improved version: CMM

6 Capability Maturity Model (CMM) Decompose each maturity level in key process areas (KPA), key practices, and key indicators Key process areas: goals to be reached to get to a particular maturity level Key practices: procedures and activities that contribute to reach the goals Key indicators: help in the determination of goal satisfaction, they form the basis for assessment procedure Capability Maturity Model (CMM) De-emphasizes score (maturity level) out of an assessment - final product is now a profile of key process areas, indicating their level of satisfaction The maturity level is established as that in which all key process areas are satisfied continuosly

7 Capability Maturity Model (CMM) CMM version 1.0: initial release, CMM version 1.1: 1993 (current) CMM version 2: released in 1996, then stopped Framework hasn t changed, new versions improve the structure of key process areas, practices, indicators, and improve the questionnaire Extension to CMM family and CMMI Capability Maturity Model (CMM) Level 1 - KPA > none

8 Capability Maturity Model (CMM) Level 2 - KPA > requirements management > software project planning > software project oversight and tracking > software subcontract management > software quality assurance > software configuration management Capability Maturity Model (CMM) Level 3 - KPA > organizational process focus > organizational process definition > training program > integrated software administration > software product engineering > intergroup coordination > peer reviews

9 Capability Maturity Model (CMM) Level 4 - KPA > process quantitative management > software quality management Capability Maturity Model (CMM) Level 5 - KPA > defect prevention > management of technology change > management of process change

10 Capability Maturity Model (CMM) Development of CBA-IPI, CMM-based appraisal for internal process improvement It has emphasized identification of problems and improvement actions over the numerical score It lacks conclusive validation; preliminary data are favorable (high ROI) It has become a de facto standard in the software industry (USA) IDEAL model

11 State of the practice State of the practice

12 State of the practice State of the practice

13 State of the practice State of the practice

14 CMM Projections USA: level 3 minimum established by Department of Defense for its contractors Relation CMM - ISO 9000: CMM level 3 implies certification ISO 9001? and viceversa? CMM -> SW-CMM -> CMMI CMM family What happens in Chile? ISO-9000 Certification Initiative SQA & Doc. Maturity models INTEC Project SPIN-CHILE S:PRIME Assessments First 2 companies certified ISO First results

15 S:PRIME Assessments S:PRIME approach > Based on SEI s Taxonomy-Based Risk Identification Levels 2 and 3 of CMM plus Customer service and Corporate culture > Designed especially for small and medium size organizations (between 10 and 100 professionals) > Required effort is 10 times less than CMM (CBA/IPI) > Uses 2 questionnaires: risks and practices Agreement INTEC Chile - ASEC (CRIM, Canada) Perception of S:PRIME fast and relatively inexpensive appropriate for Chilean companies S:PRIME = Software Process Risk Identification Mapping and Evaluation S:PRIME assessments, experience in Chile 9 organizations 40+ projects 150+ participants 60+ risk questionnaires answered 100+ practice questionnaires answered

16 % Promedio de la Industria de Software en Chile Gestión de Requerimientos Planificación de Proyectos Seguimiento y Control de Proyectos Gestión de Subcontratos Garantía de Calidad de Software Gestión de Configuración Enfoque en el Proceso Definición del Proceso Areas de Prácticas Capacitación Gestión Integrada Ingeniería de Productos Coordinación Intergrupal Revisiones de Pares Cultura Corporativa Servicio al Cliente Consolidado % Cumplimiento % Riesgo Some implications... A recent study of typical development in Chile shows the following results > 5% management, 35% requirements, 60% coding, testing and integration > risk level 43% > direct development cost : X (base) > non-quality cost : 0.75 X > total cost : 1.75 X

17 What can be done? Investing in practice improvement (p.ej. 35%) can result in > 9% management, 6% quality assurance, 40% requirements, 45% coding, testing and integration > risk level 28% > direct development cost : 1.08 X > non-quality cost : 0.42 X > total cost : 1.5 X Source : INTEC-Chile Other results Two software companies ISO Certified in 1996 (out of 7).. one lost certification in 2000 Two organizations certified CMM level 2 so far, trying to be at level 3 at the end of 2000