Quality Management Systems:
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 34

Quality Management Systems: Efficiency Improvement in Software Development Karl Heinrich Möller PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 83 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Quality Management Systems: Efficiency Improvement in Software Development Karl Heinrich Möller Gaertnerstr. 29 D-82194 Groebenzell Tel: +49(8142)570144 Fax: +49(8142)570145 Email: [email protected] Principles Capability Maturity Model (CMM) Overview Questions Results

Download Presentation

Quality Management Systems: Efficiency Improvement in Software Development Karl Heinrich Möller

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Quality management systems efficiency improvement in software development karl heinrich m ller

Quality Management Systems:

Efficiency Improvement

in Software Development

Karl Heinrich Möller

Gaertnerstr. 29

D-82194 Groebenzell

Tel: +49(8142)570144

Fax: +49(8142)570145

Email: [email protected]


Contents

Principles

Capability Maturity Model (CMM)

Overview

Questions

Results

Improvement Process

People within the improvement process

Organising the improvement process (example)

Charter of the groups engaged

Piloting the new methods

Application of the new methods

Experience

Rules

Contents


Principles vision

PrinciplesVision

  • derive objectives of the organisation

  • objectivesachieved?

  • who sets the objectives?

  • who controls the achievement?

  • how is the achievement controlled?

quality

productivity

elapsed time


Principles vision1

org.-level 3

org.-level 1

org.-level 2

org.-level 1

org.-level 1

org.-level 1

org.-level 1

PrinciplesVision

organisationto be improved

improvement project

org.-level 4

sponsor

externalsupport

project leader

change agent

Change Agent

Change Agent

employee

employee

employee

employee

employee


Principles vision2

PrinciplesVision

Plan

  • PlanPlan the method

  • DoIntroduce the method

  • CheckCheck whether the goal has been achieved

  • ActImprove the method

Act

Do

Check


Capability maturity model cmm

Capability Maturity Model (CMM)


Maturity level 1

what has been achieved:

every individual does its best to perform the work

what is missing:

cooperation of the individuals only if they believe there is a need

Maturity Level 1


Maturity level 2

what has been achieved :

the individuals of every project are organising their work to achieve the objectives of the project as far as they are understood

what is missing:

cooperation of the projects only if they believe there is a need (every project e.g. has its own configuration management system); processes are not efficient

Maturity Level 2


Maturity level 3

what has been achieved :

organisation has a defined development process valid for all projects, which is to be followed by everybody; process is optimised by qualitative criteria

what is missing:

no quantitative criteria (faults are found too late, fault prevention insufficient, many changes in late phases etc.)

Maturity Level 3


Maturity level 4

what has been achieved :

process is controlled and continuously improved by quantitative criteria

what is missing:

process improvements are endured and not created; introducing new methods is insufficiently planned and controlled

Maturity Level 4


Maturity level 5

what has been achieved :

introducing new methods is planned and controlled

what is missing:

nothing

Maturity Level 5


Software process assessment structure of questions clusters process criteria

Process Criteria

1.

2.

3.

4.

Life Cycle independent

Functions

Life Cycle

Functions

Organisation and

Resources

Process oriented

Functions

Spec. System

Properties

4.1

3.1

Project Planning

1.1

2.1

Process

Definition

Organisationsal

structure

Requirement

Management

4.2

3.2

Project Control

4.3

Quality

assurance

Design

3.3

1.2

2.2

Process

measurement

Training

4.4

Implementation

Configuration

Management

3.4

1.3

2.3

Process

Improvement

Subsupplier

Management

3.5

Integration and

System Test

4.5

Communication

Risk-

Management

3.6

4.6

Acceptance

1.4

Technology

Quality

Management

Application and

Maintenance

3.7

4.7

Software Process AssessmentStructure of Questions (Clusters / Process Criteria)


Development process conformance diagram site assess i

Development Process: Conformance Diagram Site Assess. (I)


Quality management systems efficiency improvement in software development karl heinrich m ller

Development Process: Conformance Diagram Site Assess. (II)


Quality management systems efficiency improvement in software development karl heinrich m ller

Development Process: Conformance Diagram Project Assess. 1


Improvement process 1 from analysis to an improved status

5

optimizing

4

managed

3

defined

2

repeatable

1

initial

Improvement Process 1From Analysis to an Improved Status

Imple-mentation

Analysis

Design

Test

Use

method 1

implementing

method 1

test

method 1

use

identify 3 to 5 processes with the highest potential for improvement

method 2

implementing

method 2

test

method 3

implementing

method 3

test

method 4

implementing


Improvement process 2 from analysis to an improved status

method 1

implementing

method 1

test

method 1

use

Check

Act

method 4

implementing

method 4

test

method 4

use

Improvement Process 2 From Analysis to an Improved Status

Imple-mentation

Test

Use

method 2

implementing

method 2

test

method 3

implementing

method 3

test


Roles within the improvement process

SponsorHead of organisation

Coachmembers of (another) organisation who make the change happen (full-time)

Change Agentmembers of organisation who make the change happen (part-time)

Championmembers of organisation who support the change

Targetmembers of organisation whose attitudes have to be changed

Roles within the Improvement Process


Software engineering process group example

Software Engineering Process Group Example


Charter software engineering process group sepg

Led by project leader

Supported by sponsor

Consisting of leaders of process teams

Controls improvement process

Distribution of resources

Members (especially sponsor) stand for the project

Help in case of trouble

Decides on introduction of new methods

CharterSoftware Engineering Process Group SEPG


Charter process team

Led by a member of SEPG

Controls sub teams

Consists of the members of the sub teams

Godfather supports introduction of new methods

Charter Process Team


Charter sub team technical experts group

Opinion leaders of the organisation

Designs, implements, tests, and introduces new methods

Members become coaches and change agents

CharterSub Team (Technical Experts Group)


Introduction of new method 1 overview

pilot 1

pilot 2

group a

group b

group c

Introduction of New Method 1Overview

technical experts group (subgroup) defines the new method

coach

Piloting

change

agent

process team controls piloting

and introduction

Introduction

step 1

group d

group e

group f

Introduction

step 2

time


Introduction of new method 2 technical experts team sub team designs it

org.-level 3

org.-level 1

org.-level 2

org.-level 1

org.-level 1

org.-level 1

org.-level 1

Introduction of New Method 2Technical experts team (Sub Team) designs it

organisationto be improved

improvement project

org.-level 4

sponsor

project leader

change agent

Change Agent

Change Agent

employee

employee

employee

employee

employee


Introduction of new method 3 piloting

org.-level 3

org.-level 1

org.-level 2

org.-level 1

org.-level 1

org.-level 1

org.-level 1

Introduction of New Method 3Piloting

organisationto be improved

improvement project

actions:

part 1

Sub team gets pilot to support new method

part 2

pilot has been convinced that new method makes work more easy (and is of advantage to the organisation)

org.-level 4

sponsor

project leader

change agent

Change Agent

Change Agent

employee

employee

employee

employee

employee


Piloting steps

Kick off meeting to join in members of the pilot

Members of pilot get everysupport

Measure degree of application and effectiveness

Final report together with the members of pilot

Method makes work easy

Is really applied

Has advantage for the organisation

PilotingSteps


Introduction of new method 4 convincing management

Introduction of New Method 4Convincing Management

organisationto be improved

improvement project

org.-level 4

action:

improvement project convinces every level of management (especially middle management) of the advantages of new method

sponsor

org.-level 3

project leader

org.-level 2

change agent

org.-level 1

Change Agent

Change Agent

employee


Rules for cooperation 1 understanding the improvement project

Without change of mental attitudes there is no acceptance of new methods

Pressure is a bad means to enforce mental change

To simply wait for understanding will not lead to a timely change

To make a change happen real hard work with the people to be convinced is necessary

Change will only occur with the majority of people in the organisation being in favour of change

Rules for Cooperation 1Understanding the Improvement Project


Rules for cooperation 2 rules of enforcement

Arguing until organisation knows nothing against

Every action must succeed the first time (estimation of resistance must be accurate)

Coach or change agent is able to do it

Needs support from project leader or department head (should not be done often)

Needs support of the sponsor (should not be done directly)

Enforcement in the beginning must be superseded by trustful cooperation

Rules for Cooperation 2Rules of Enforcement


Defect detection rates

Defect Detection Rates

Average costper defect

Require-ments

Imple-menting

Integr. Syst.-Test

Modul Test

Level

Design

Use

3.700 DM

9.600 DM

12.900 DM

5%10%50%20%10%<5%

Managed

4

3%5%7%25%50%10%

Defined

3

0%0%5%15%50%30%

Repeatable

2

Cost per defect in DM

5005005006.00012.00020.000


Potential of improvement example for fault cost reduction

Functional

Test

Reaquire-

ments

System

Test

Use

Design

Coding

Defect

creation

rate

10%

50%

40%

5

Defect

detection

rate

20%

20%

10%

5%

<5%

40%

4

20%

7%

5%

5%

3%

60%

3

32%

8%

3%

2%

0%

55%

2

30%

17%

3%

0%

0%

50%

1

15%

2%

0%

0%

50%

33%

20

Cost of

defects

(rates)

12

6

1

1

1

1

Potential of ImprovementExample for Fault Cost Reduction

Defect cost are a certain fraction of total development cost

  • There is an exponential increase in cost if time between seeding and detection becomes longer:

    • -detection of defects as early as possible

    • -prevent defect

    • -reduce number of undetected defects in each phase of development process

Potentials for cost reduction:

level 1 level 2 :17 % of defect cost

level 2 level 3 :22 % of defect cost

level 3 level 4 :19 % of defect cost

level 4 level 5 :44 % of defect cost


Relation of maturity level and process characteristics product size 500 kloc

Field Defects

[Defects/kLOC]

Cost

[Cost/Project]

Productivity

[LOC/hr]

Elapsed Time

[Time]

ex-

tra-

po-

la-

tion

Optimizing

5

1%

9%

55%

100%

Managed

4

3%

17%

65%

70%

Defined

3

11%

33%

75%

40%

Repeatable

2

22%

66%

85%

27%

Initial

1

100%

100%

100%

20%

050100

050100

050100

050100

Relation of Maturity Level and Process CharacteristicsProduct Size: 500 KLOC

Highest gains for field defects and cost

(Reported by Lockheed)


General experiences effort and elapsed time

2 to 3 years are needed to improve projects by 1 maturity level

2 to 3% of development cost is a typical effort for process maturity of an organisation that

is at SEI-Level 2 to 3 and

is insufficient to improve SEI-Maturity

Up to 5% is needed to improve the maturity level

General experiences Effort and Elapsed Time


Gains for improving from maturity level 2 5 to 3 5 quality productivity and elapsed time

Productivity is increased by about 50%

Elapsed time is reduced by about 15%

Field defect rate is cut by half

Compared to 3 to 5% of effort for the process improvement

Gains for Improving from Maturity Level 2.5 to 3.5 Quality, Productivity and Elapsed Time


  • Login