Integration of Process Initiatives And Assessments

1. Process Integration Overview Integration of Process Initiatives And Assessments Common Process Framework Integration of Management System Standards and Initiatives (QMS/CMMI/Lean/PMBP) Integration of Assessments Wally Luther Mar. 2002

2. Process Integration Objectives of Process Integration • Encourage integration of disciplines • Integrate models • Eliminate duplication of material • Remove conflicts between models • Provide an efficient integrated approach for • Process improvement • Process assessment • Improve on the models from our business perspective • Engineer a solution to this complex problem • We have experience with complex things ISO 9001:2000 CMMI PMBP Lean Process Integration

3. Process Initiative Integration • Four separate initiatives are working together to create an integrated process environment • Simplified and integrated Pro system • Unified audits/assessments • Maximum reuse of process assets • We are working to the CMMI today in this integration project • CMMI internal goals Level 3 2003 Level 5 2005

4. Process Integration Overview Integrated Assessment Approach We’ve built all requirements into processes and command media Conceptually devised an integrated approach for single annual assessment for all affected initiatives/standards - Internal assessment process & other party validation being explored

5. CMMI Overview

6. CMMI Transition Overview Why CMMI? • A model for Aerospace process improvement • Provided underlying structure for reliable and consistent assessments • The result of a national consensus • A guide owned by the community • Standardized language and goals greatly facilitate identifying, importing, and adopting best practices from across the engineering community • It make sense

7. CMMI Transition Overview Capability Maturity Model Integrated, CMMI To support process improvement, the CMMI provides • Best practices • Improvement paths • Measurement standards

8. 16% Upper 95% confidence limit 14% One level average change in process maturity 12% % reduction in effort per one level of change in process maturity 10% Lower 95% confidence limit 8% 6% 0 100 200 300 400 500 4% Thousands of lines of code Source: Adapted from Clark 2% 0% CMMI Transition Overview Industry Experience with SW CMM Source: Adapted from Diaz Value returned by the CMMI should easily dwarf that returned by the SW CMM because CMMI addresses more of the value stream Source: Adapted from Diaz

9. CMMI Transition Overview CMM Integration Project • Sponsored by DoD and National Defense Industrial Association • Project team includes representatives from • Government • Industry • SEI • Coordinated by SEI

10. CMMI Transition Overview CMMI Concepts 5 4 How well things are done Levels, Generic Goals, Generic Practices 3 2 1 Things to do Process Areas, Specific Goals, Specific Practices

11. THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE PENTAGON, WASHINGTON, DC MEMORANDUM FOR COMPONENT ACQUISITION EXECUTIVESDIRECTOR OF BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE ORGANIZATION SUBJECT: Software Evaluations for ACAT I Programs It is DoD policy that software systems be designed and developed based upon software engineering principles. This includes the selection of contractors with the domain experience in developing comparable software systems, a successful past performance record, and a demonstrable mature software development capability and process. It also requires a software measurement process to plan and track the software program, and to assess and improve the development process and associated software product. Software development and performance is an integral component of advanced defense systems. Accordingly, it will be a technical requirement for contract that each contractor performing software development or upgrade(s) for use in an ACAT I program will undergo an evaluation, using either the tools developed by the Software Engineering Institute (SEI), or those approved by the DoD Components and the DUSD(S&T). At a minimum, full compliance with SEI Capability Maturity Model Level 3, or its equivalent level in an approved evaluation tool, is the Department's goal. However, if the prospective contractor does not meet full compliance, a risk mitigation plan and schedule must be prepared that will describe, in detail, actions that will be taken to remove deficiencies uncovered in the evaluation process and must be provided to the Program Manager for approval. The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Science & Technology) will define Level 3 equivalence for approved evaluation tools. The evaluation will be performed on the business unit proposed to perform the work. The reuse of existing evaluation results performed within a two-year period prior to the date of the government solicitation is encouraged. This policy is effective immediately and will be incorporated into the current DoD 5000 series rewrite. Y. S. Gansler 26 OCT 1999 CMMI Transition Overview External Drivers • Gansler Memo Oct 1999 • Full compliance with SEI Capability Maturity Model Level 3 • Mitigation plans necessary • In 5000.2 as of Jan 2000 • Source models will sunset inDec 2003 • Future • System/software/acquisition • Overall program perspective • CMMI requirement in RFPs already • What is your competition doing?

12. CMMI Transition Overview Summary • Organizational processes not aligned • Program management — Marketing • Systems engineering — Software engineering • Hardware engineering — Acquisition • Separate process improvement efforts for different organizational processes • Compete for resources • Create stovepiped processes • Resulting in sub-optimal enterprise processes!