A Tailorable Software Process Mini-Assessment Method

1. Government Systems A Tailorable Software Process Mini-Assessment Method SEPG ‘99 Conference Diane L. McDonald Carol A. Pilch GTE Government Systems

2. Agenda • Background • Mini-Assessment Approach • Comparison (formal assessment vs. mini-assessment) • Results and Lessons Learned • Conclusion

3. Background • Achieve goals of GTE’s Corporate Quality Initiative • Provide an efficient appraisal technique • Reduce cost and resource impact • De-emphasize ratings • Focus on needed improvements

4. Approach • Utilize key elements of SEI’s CMMSM Based Appraisal for Internal Process Improvement (CBA IPI) method • Select experienced assessment team members • Tailor based on the organization • Experience/status in process improvement • Sponsor’s objectives • Evaluate and mitigate tailoring risks • Utilize reusable assessment assets • Refine Mini-Assessment process using lessons learned

5. CBA IPI vs Mini-Assessment Comparison • Resources • team members (120-150 hours vs. 40-60 hours) • participants (2-4 hours vs. 1-2 hours) • Pre-onsite schedule (2-3 months vs. 3-4 weeks) • Onsite schedule (7-10 days vs. 3-5 days) • Team training (3 days vs. 3-4 hours) • Formality (formal vs. informal plans & briefings) • Outputs (strengths, weaknesses, & ratings vs. primarily weaknesses, no ratings)

6. CBAIPI & Mini-Assessment ComparisonPre-Onsite Activities CBA IPI Identify Scope/ Develop Plan Assemble Site Packet Brief Asmt. Participants Conduct Initial Doc. Review Conduct Exec Briefing Prepare & Train Team Complete/Exam. MQs Develop EQs GTE Mini-Assessment Identify Scope/ Develop Plan Conduct Initial Doc. Review Complete/Exam. MQs Develop EQs EQs=Exploratory Questions MQs=Maturity Questionnaires

7. Tailoring Options & RisksPre-onsite Activities PLs=Project Leads FARs=Functional Area Reps

8. CBAIPI & Mini-Assessment ComparisonOnsite Activities Interview PLs Consolidate Info Prep. Draft Findings Pres. Final Findings CBA IPI Conduct Opening Mtg. Interview MMs Consolidate Info Pres. Draft Findings Conduct Exec Mtg./Wrapup Interview FARs Consolidate Info Consol/Rate/Prep Final Findings GTE Mini-Assessment Conduct Opening Mtg. Interview MMs Consolidate Info Pres. Final Findings Prepare & Train Team Interview PLs Interview FARs Prep. Draft Findings Conduct Exec Mtg./Wrapup MMs=Middle Mgrs.

9. Tailoring Options & RisksOnsite Activities

10. Tailoring Options & RisksOnsite Activities (cont.)

11. Reusable Assessment Assets • Mini-Assessment schedule • Mini-Assessment planning/preparation checklist • Consolidation tools (KPA worksheets) • Document indexes • Briefing templates • Sample EQs (various interview groups) • Sample findings * * * * * Refer to handouts

12. Results & Lessons Learned • Well-defined process based on CBA IPI activities • Flexibility to address specific sponsor and organization objectives • Accurate results with strong organization buy-in • Focus on weaknesses relative to CMM key practices • Small teams (4-6) • Balance site knowledge and CBA IPI method experience

13. Conclusion • Using this scaled-down assessment approach based on the CBA IPI, GTE has accelerated software process improvement • stronger buy-in due to frequency and visibility • credibility/demand due to accurate results and efficiency • insight into common pitfalls/trends • consistency and sharing of best practices • pilots to improve CBA IPI efficiency • Accurate results provide input to plans that keep organizations on track

14. Contact Information Diane McDonald GTE Government Systems 100 Ferguson Drive Mountain View, CA 94043 650-966-2902 diane.mcdonald@gsc.gte.net Carol Pilch GTE Government Systems 77 A Street Needham, MA 02404 781-455-3422 carol.pilch@gsc.gte.com