Book Review – “The Checklist Manifesto: How to Get Things Right” by Atul Gawande

I had earlier read two engrossing books by Atul Gawande – Complications and Better. So when I saw The Checklist Manifesto while browsing in the neighborhood library, I decided to pick it up looking forward to an interesting read (some reviewers had strongly recommended it). The title also indicated that it may a good book to review for this weblog.

Well, I was partially right – it was suitable to post a review on this blog. So, here goes…

The main theme of the book is as follows:

• Over the years, many activities have become extremely complex.
• Even experts struggle to master and remember all the tasks they have to perform.
• Use of checklists can minimize human errors of oversight. In many cases this it can improve the performance significantly.
• Use of checklists can also help the experts focus on the difficult, tricky parts of a situation, rather than worry about the mundane activities.
• There is need to create better checklists, organize them for easy use and ensure that they are used.

The author uses examples from multiple industries and situations. The best ones are from hospitals and medical emergencies (Dr Gawande is a surgeon ). There are other examples from the airline industry (where pilots use checklists for normal as well as abnormal situations), construction industry, retail, and restaurants.

There is a whole chapter dedicated to research where the impact of the use of checklists in hospitals was studied. The research showed that there was a significant reduction in deaths (47% reduction) and major complications (36% reduction) for surgical patients. One interesting finding was that though only 80% of the hospital staff found the checklists useful, 93% of them said they would want a checklist to be used if they were themselves getting operated!

The book sometimes extends the concept of “checklist” beyond its normal usage. Here are a few examples of things that are treated under the concept of checklist in the book (though I believe they are different concepts, with their own place in “how to get things right”):

• Preparing detailed project plans, dependencies, action items, schedules and list of deliverables (example of a building construction project)
• Use of collaboration meetings (of experts) to handle non-routine situations (e.g., a building floor developing unforeseen problems)
• Empowerment for doing something extraordinary (how Wal-Mart employees went beyond their formal authority to help people affected by Hurricane Katrina)
• Use of focus, expertise and wits (how a pilot saved lives by crash landing on Hudson river in 2009 – by focusing on flying the plane, not on using a checklist!)

In trying to bring everything under the umbrella of “checklists”, the author dilutes the concept and utility of checklists as well as other equally important concepts of detailed planning, collaboration, empowerment, dedication, competence and focus. Maybe the title “The Process Manifesto” would have been more apt.

For people who are already convinced about the use of checklists, procedures, plans, collaboration meetings, etc., this book can provide you with interesting examples to relate to process skeptics in your organization. It can also provide process trainers with interesting case studies to relate to the class. You may also consider gifting this book to colleagues who resist the use of formal processes – the book is an easy read and is able to hold the reader’s attention reasonably well.

If you are looking for readymade checklists that will help you reach some level in CMMI®/ People CMM®, then this book is not for you .

Those who have read Gawande’s earlier books – Complications and Better may find The Checklist Manifesto a bit disappointing – it is not as engrossing as the earlier two. This is possibly because the earlier books focused primarily on hospitals, medicine and healthcare based scenarios, where Gawande has accumulated loads of experience. And in Checklist, he provides examples from other industries (aircraft manufacture, real estate, retail stores, restaurants, and so on) where he may not have had the same level of familiarity and insight.

Here are some details of the book, in case you want to get your hands on it:

Book Title: The Checklist Manifesto: How to Get Things Right

Author: Atul Gawande

ISBN-10: 1846683130

ISBN-13: 978-1846683138

Publishing Date: Jan 2010

Publisher: Profile Books

Available at: Amazon  and Flipkart

Other book reviews uploaded on the same blog:

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

®-CMMI and CMM are registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office by Carnegie Mellon University.

Hi,

If you like the posts on this blog and would like to be informed whenever a new entry is made, here is what you can do:

• Scroll back to the top of the page
• On the right hand side there is section called “FollowBlog via Email”
• In the space provided, type in your email id and click on the “Follow Blog” button (give your personal id, since companies often block wordpress)
• You will get a message for confirmation at that email id
• In the email there is a clickthrough link for confirmation – click on it and complete the formalities

Multi-Model CMMI® Appraisals – Factors to Consider

In the last few months, I have been frequently asked the question, “Should we do our DEV and SVC appraisal as a single multi-model appraisal?” This question is posed usually by large IT organizations in India. These organizations have already been appraised at ML5 of the DEV model (maybe more than once). And they now are on the verge of their first SVC appraisal in 2012. I guess the issue of multi-model appraisals will become more important in another 1-2 years, when the next round DEV and SVC appraisals are due for many organizations.

Well, the answer is “it depends”:-).

In this note we will try to understand the factors to consider (elaboration of what “it depends” on), so that you can take them into account when you face the situation. This note has been put together with a large dose of inputs from D Sankararaman, Mukul Madan, and V Seshadri. These were validated by Channaveer Patil and Dan He. However, they are not responsible for any errors that may have crept into this note.

Multi-model appraisals are covered in detail in Appendix G of the SCAMPI^SM A v1.3 Method Definition Document (MDD) downloadable from here.

One appraisal team’s experience on a multi-model appraisal (SCAMPI^SM v1.2 completed in 2010) at TCS is shared in a SEPG^SM 2011 presentation by Ron Radice, et al, is available here.

Disclaimer – this note is not definitive, nor is it an “official” position paper of any organization or lead appraiser. However, it may be considered as one of the inputs while evaluating the option of a multi-model appraisal.

The current queries for multi-model appraisals are typically arising from organizations wanting to do DEV+SVC together, and hence we will use that situation as an example in this note. However, multi-model appraisals could comprise any combination of two or more of DEV, SVC, ACQ and People CMM®, and the factors discussed in this note apply to the other situations as well.

Here are the factors to consider.

Organizational Disruption. If you are a big organization, you could have either two (or more) long organizational disruptions, or one mega-ultra-long disruption. The choice is yours .

Number of ATMs. In multi-model appraisal you are likely to need lesser number of ATMs trained on the models. Assuming that you will try to keep a gap of a few months between the two appraisals (if done separately), the number of ATMs trained on the models may need to be higher, if you are doing the appraisals separately. During the interval between the two appraisals, the ATMs may resign, retire, go on leave, be allocated to some other useful work (assuming that they are still capable of doing some other useful work ), or just refuse to be ATMs again (“not another appraisal as ATM!”). So instead of training a bunch of 10-12 people on the models, you may have to train a higher number if you are doing the appraisals separately.

LA/ ATL requirements. For a multi-model appraisal, you will need to engage a lead appraiser appropriately certified as SCAMPI^SM-A LA for all the models (constellations, actually) covered in the appraisal. Therefore, the choice of LAs on multi-model appraisals may be significantly lower, especially if your appraisal is “high-maturity” (ML 4 or ML 5).

LA Willingness. The calendar time for the on-site activities for a multi-model appraisal is definitely going to be much higher than for a single model appraisal (this is also discussed as a separate factor later on). LAs may not be willing stay away from their families, pets and home city for such a long time. Or they may demand a fat sum as hardship allowance .

Sampling of Projects (or Workgroups). This does not change whether you are doing a single multi-model appraisal or two separate appraisals. If there were X projects selected for DEV and Y workgroups selected for SVC, then in the multi-model appraisal, the number of instances would be X+Y. Sampling will be done as if they were different appraisals.

Overall Effort. This is one area where there is a lot of misunderstanding. Note that the sample size remains the same (multi or otherwise). Hence, the effort for artefact collection remains similar, the effort for artefact review by the appraisal team is also similar and so is the effort for interviews and discussions. There could be some (a tiny bit) effort reduction in a multi-model appraisal due to the following:

• Single batch ATM training (instead of possible two batches). However, one batch of ATM training can have a max of 12 participants, so with backup ATMs you may have to run two batches anyways, even for a multi-model appraisal.
• Sponsor meeting (assuming the same sponsor for both the appraisals)
• Opening meeting can be a single one instead of two
• Some economies of scale (not a lot) on artefact collection, artefact review, interviews and preliminary findings for “Oh” areas – organizational PAs like OPD, OPF, etc. However, organizational PAs will have to be investigated from both (DEV and SVC) the contexts explicitly. So the saving would be more in terms of being familiar with the terminology, document architecture and names/ faces of people running the “Oh” processes, assuming that the people are the same in the DEV and SVC contexts.
• General effort saved for the LA and ATMs due to familiarity with the layout of the office, the security procedure, the parking lot, the cafeteria food, the washrooms, the office furniture, the room freshener, the air-conditioning, etc. (this factor may be invalid, if the appraisal team has to constantly move across buildings and cities anyway).

The project-level (or work-group level) process areas will have to be investigated for each instance separately (either in the DEV or the SVC context). Since the sample size is going to be determined the same way (whether it is a two separate appraisals or a multi-model one), the effort to investigate instance level data is going to be same. This includes the effort for the preliminary findings (or equivalent).

With the above micro-savings, the overall appraisal effort savings (LA + ATMs) is likely to be in the range of 15%-20% (i.e., the total effort for a multi-model appraisal is likely to be around 15-20% less than the total effort for separate appraisals).

Calendar Time. With the large one-time effort for the multi-model appraisal, the calendar time for the onsite period is also likely to be higher (than that of a single model appraisal), because there is a limit to the number of ATMs that an LA can handle. Hence the ATMs will need to be out of their day-job for a longer period. The long drawn absence of the ATMs from their day job can be disruptive. A reported multi-model appraisal done had an onsite period of close to the upper limit of 90 days (see here).

ATM / LA Fatigue. This is where the multi-model (for high maturity, large organizational scope) becomes untenable. As the on-site period start crossing three weeks, the fatigue becomes obvious. In organizations that use standard processes, and have done this over many years, one can expect the documents to be similar. The responses during the interview sessions will also be similar.

For the ATMs, after the glamour of being ATMs, the novelty of PIIDs and Process Area Worksheets, and the thrill of FI-LI-PI-NI-(and NY, of course) wears out, it is an extremely boring, mind-numbing and dull exercise.

(Digression: This may be one of the reasons that LAs have become good storytellers and general entertainers. I know of a LA who sings to keep the ATMs entertained, another one tells jokes on a non-stop basis. Some LAs have started blogging. SEI may have to initiate a study to understand whether LAs have a higher tendency to ….whatever End of Digression).

After around three weeks, the productivity, alertness, and eye for detail falls down steeply for the ATMs as well as the LA. The other issue is the stress on the ATMs of maintaining confidentiality. They cannot talk to their friends and colleagues, or smile at passing acquaintances, because they may be asked that dreaded question “and how are we today?” Those who have been ATMs know about this, others readers may ask their friends/ colleagues who have been ATMs to confirm this .

Target Levels/ Results. For the purpose of the results (ML/ CL), the multi-model appraisal will deliver two results, two different sets of ratings. Your target rating could be different for the two models and the appraisal result rating will also be different for the two models. This is the same as doing two separate appraisals.

Novelty / Publicity Value. “Will we be the first to do a multi-model appraisal?”; “No?”; “Okay, can we be the first do to it in this country?”, “How about this city?” and so on….

Well, if your organization is looking to announce itself as the first in something, we can surely work out some combination of conditions that you will be the first in. Not just the first, but maybe the only one. Ever.

===========================================================================

Having said all that, are there any conditions where it may be worth considering a multi-model appraisal? Yes, if you have the following it may definitely be worth considering:

• Low number of Process Areas (ML2 kind of stuff) in both the models, and
• Small organization (number of sampled instances are likely to be low)

Under these circumstances, the number of ATMs for each separate appraisal would be low (say 4-5), so one can increase the ATM team size to 8-10 and run the multi-model appraisal in the same number of days as a single separate one. So the organizational disruption time and LA cost can be much lower.  Also, ATM training can also be done in a single batch (max batch size is 12).

Finally, the issue is a complex one, and let us conclude by saying once again that “it depends” and that you should consult multiple LAs and take their opinions before coming to any firm conclusion.

Also refer to:

• Appendix G of the SCAMPI^SM A v1.3 Method Definition Document (MDD).
• TCS (SCAMPI v1.2) experience on multi-model experience shared in a SEPG^SM 2011 presentation

Thanks a lot to D Sankararaman, Mukul Madan, V Seshadri, Channaveer Patil, and Dan He.

Please feel feel to share your views, experiences or queries, using the “comments” feature available at the top of this article/ post.

Notes:

Nothing Official About It! – The views presented above are in no manner reflective of the official views of any organization, community, group, or association.

^® CMMI and CMM are registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office by Carnegie Mellon University.
^SM-SCAMPI and SEPG are service marks of Carnegie Mellon University.
LA- is a short form of SCAMPI^SM Lead Appraiser. (It is not a term of endearment like “da”, “pa”, “ma”, or “po” used in different parts of the world ).
ATM – Appraisal Team Member (not an Automated Teller Machine )

You may also be interested in the following posts uploaded on the same blog:

• Institutionalization in CMMI® and People CMM®: Converting a practice to a habit
• CMMI® – Constellations, Representations and some food for thought

 

Hi,

If you like the posts on this blog and would like to be informed whenever a new entry is made, here is what you can do:

• Scroll back to the top of the page
• On the right hand side there is section called “FollowBlog via Email”
• In the space provided, type in your email id and click on the “Follow Blog” button (give your personal id, since companies often block wordpress)
• You will get an email at that email id

Extreme Process Tailoring and Mapping – How much is reasonable? (Story of a Pizzeria)

Last Friday I decided to go to the neighborhood pizzeria for lunch. I was sure of what I wanted to eat, and knew it would cost me around 300 rupees (INR)¹. I took my usual place, and was greeted by a grinning waiter. After the standard “how are you, sir?” (someday I plan to actually narrate all my woes, but I was not in the mood to do so on that day ), he says, “We have the standard combo meal at a very special price, just 99 rupees.”

“And what can I get in the standard combo meal?” I ask.

“Well you can start with a soft drink, and…,” he says.

“I am not really interested in drinking colored sweet water that is gassed. Skip the combo, let us start with some tomato soup, regular size”.

The waiter would not give up on his combo order. “In the combo, I can substitute the soft drink with a soup, no problem.” Off he goes to get the soup.

After the soup arrives, he is ready to get the next dish. “Sir, shall I get the garlic bread?”

“Don’t you know that burnt flour has no nutritional value? Please get me a garden fresh salad instead – a regular portion,” I say.

He goes to check, comes back and says, “Sir, I can do only a small portion of salad instead of the garlic bread.” After some more discussions he agrees to serve a regular portion of the salad. He also says something about reducing the ice cream that comes at the end of the standard combo.

I manage to substitute the pizza with a pasta, and also wrangle a cup of tea instead of the reduced ice cream portion. I get the meal I wanted at 99 rupees (instead of the 300 rupees that I should have spent). Maybe the waiter also achieved something by selling one more “standard combo”.

If at the end of the day, the pizzeria tries to reconcile the billing data with what was produced in the kitchen, here is what they would have come up with, for my transaction.

(In reality the situation was much more complex, since I was with my wife. So the dishes we got should have been mapped to 2 standard combos. In the interest of the reader’s sanity, I have used “blogetic license” to simplify the situation ).

A process auditor/ reviewer would have been aghast – this was extreme tailoring (later justified by extreme mapping), violating all principles of reasonableness.

In typical organizations, there are often situations where one set of processes need to be mapped to another set of processes or some framework. Here are some of them:

• A new process standard (or is new version) is adopted and we need to identify the gaps in our processes with respect to the new standard
• Our customers would like to confirm that our processes satisfy some requirements of the customers’ standard
• Our process team wants to make sure that the customer imposed processes still continue to meet the requirements of our standard process, and
• Post an acquisition, we need to prove that our processes do meet our new owner’s standard processes

And it is in some of these contexts that we sometimes find unreasonable distortion- driven by the need to seem conforming while continuing to do something totally different. Over the years, expertise has been built in the industry and there seems to be a community of practice calling themselves X!reme Mappers² .

Excessive tailoring, if it is all-pervading in the organization, actually defeats the purpose of having a standardized process, and can prevent an organization from reaching maturity level 4/ 5 of the CMMI®/ People CMM®.

So maybe it is time someone defined limits of reasonable tailoring and mapping.

Any thoughts on how much tailoring is reasonable?

Other related posts uploaded on the same blog:

• Institutionalization in CMMI® and People CMM®: Converting a practice to a habit
• CMMI® – Constellations, Representations and some food for thought

®-CMMI and CMM are registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office by Carnegie Mellon University.

1-      Rupee/ INR is the Indian currency. As per the current exchange rate (Feb 2012), 1 US$ is roughly = 50 Rupees. However, if we factor in the purchasing power in India, the rupee is much more powerful than what is indicated by the exchange rate. For example, in India you could buy 3 Kilograms of ripe bananas for 50 rupees – but one can’t live on bananas alone

2-      X!reme Mappers. According to the Processpedia (Volume 6 draft v23.4), X!reme Mappers is a shadowy guild, and is affiliated to the Society of Dark Process Arts. They can be hired only through word of mouth and have the motto “We can map anything to anything. You continue doing your thing, while we take care of the mapping.” More information on X!reme Mappers can be found in the draft version of Processpedia.

Hi,

If you like the posts on this blog and would like to be informed whenever a new entry is made, here is what you can do:

• Scroll back to the top of the page
• On the right hand side there is section called “FollowBlog via Email”
• In the space provided, type in your email id and click on the “Follow Blog” button (give your personal id, since companies often block wordpress)
• You will get a message for confirmation at that email id
• In the email there is a clickthrough link for confirmation – click on it and complete the formalities

CMMI® – Constellations, Representations and some food for thought

In presentations, training or orientation sessions on CMMI® the topic of constellations and representations does come up for discussions (even if the presenter wants to avoid it ). I have in the past, found that the standard material on these topics has not always helped people understand and remember the concepts. The people, who I believed understood the concepts, surprised me later with a question or a comment that indicated otherwise. Till the time I hit upon an analogy that is easy to understand and easier to remember. And it is related to food.

I will use the example of a restaurant called Celesti-yummi^NYTM (the restaurant owner fancies it as trans-galactic gastronomic delight). It has a menu that features three kitchens – food representing three different regions of the universe. One from the Devphinus constellation, another from the Severus constellation and the third from the Aquirius constellation.

Each constellation (kitchen) serves a set of dishes – Devphinus has 22 dishes, Severus serves 24 dishes and Aquirius presents 22 dishes. These are all listed in Celesti-yummi^NYTM menu card. Each kitchen-constellation has also created a recipe booklet that is publicly available, for free (however, fancy, bound versions are priced). People and outer-world aliens can use the recipe books to prepare the dishes, as long as they keep acknowledging the intellectual property and trademark ownership of Celesti-yummi^NYTM.

(Digression: There may be another category of sapient beings called “earthly aliens”, since immigration counters in some airports have separate queues for such creatures. When I stand in such queues, I hope to quickly complete the formalities before someone like Ellen Ripley notices me. For more information on Ellen Ripley and how she handles Alien species, see the Wikipedia page here. : End of Digression)

Let us now examine the menu card of Celesti-yummi^NYTM. As explained before, each kitchen-constellation has a list of dishes (22 to 24 dishes). Each dish comes in three sizes – Small (CL1), Medium (CL2), and Large (CL3). From a kitchen, you may choose any number of the dishes, and specify the size of each dish (small, medium or large). This kind of order, for some reason, is called a “continuous” order by Celesti-yummi^NYTM (which many restaurants call as an al-a-carte order), though there is nothing continuous about it.

In addition to the 22 to 24 dishes offered in 3 sizes, each kitchen-constellation also offers fixed meals (pre-plated meals or thalis).  There is a mini-meal (ML2), a midi-meal (ML3), a maxi-meal (ML4) and a mega-meal (ML5) that you can order from each kitchen. These fixed meals have a pre-decided set of dishes (a sub-set of the 22 to 24 dishes) at pre-decided sizes, with some very small variations. These fixed meals are called “Staged” meals.

For example, if you order the mini-meal (ML2) from the Devphinus kitchen menu you will get seven dishes, all of the medium (CL2) size. You have no choice in the matter. The only exception is for the dish called “Sammy’s Fav” which you can decline, provided you have a doctor’s certificate that you are allergic to some of the ingredients. You cannot decline any other dish. Nor can you change the size of the dishes if you order a fixed meal. Similarly the midi-meal (ML3) from Devphinus, will contain eighteen dishes, all of the Large (CL3) size. Again, you can decline the dish called Sammy’s Fav, with a doctor’s certificate. The mega-meal (ML5) from Devphinus will see a large platter with all their 22 dishes (and, you can still decline Sammy’s Fav, with appropriate justification).

There are similar fixed meals with minor variations in the other two kitchen-constellations.

One warning – there are dishes with same or similar names offered by the three kitchen-constellations. Some are called “core” dishes and some are called “shared” dishes. Don’t be fooled by the names and the terminology. They taste significantly different (because of the way they are cooked, raw material, and interaction with the other dishes), though they are called by the same/ similar names. For example, the dish called “Risque-Salad” (offered by all the three kitchen and hence called a core dish) will look and taste significantly different, becuase of the ingradients, presentation, and seasoning.

There ends the explanation of constellations, representations (staged/ continuous),  core/shared PAs, ML/CL, etc.

Please feel free to add your variation and flavour to this explanation (use the comment feature)

Other related posts uploaded on the same blog:

• Institutionalization in CMMI® and People CMM®: Converting a practice to a habit
• Extreme Process Tailoring and Mapping – How much is Reasonable? (Story of a Pizzeria)

®-CMMI and CMM are registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office by Carnegie Mellon University.

^NYTM- Celesti-yummi is Not Yet Trade Marked

Hi,

If you like the posts on this blog and would like to be informed whenever a new entry is made, here is what you can do:

• Scroll back to the top of the page
• On the right hand side there is section called “FollowBlog via Email”
• In the space provided, type in your email id and click on the “Follow Blog” button (give your personal id, since companies often block wordpress)
• You will get an email at that email id
• In the email there is a clickthrough link – click on it and complete the formalities

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

The word “institutionalization” is a mouthful, a tongue twister. If it was a requirement that every employee be able to pronounce word correctly for a successful appraisal result (for CMMI®/ People CMM®), the number of successfully appraised entities would have been far fewer than what they are now .

The concept of institutionalization is explicitly embedded in the CMMI® and People CMM® models. In fact, approximately half the practices in every one of the models are dedicated to institutionalization, so it is necessary to internalize this concept to successfully implement the models.

So, what is institutionalization? It is many related things, but the easiest and the most comprehensive explanation is that it is “making a practice into a habit”. Hence, when a practice (like submitting monthly project status reports to all stakeholders by the 5^th of every month) becomes a habit with the organization, we can say that the practice is “institutionalized”. Organizations are not born with habits (nor are human beings). So, how do some practices become habits? Or more importantly, what can we do to make certain desirable practices into habits?

Let us use an example at a personal level to understand what we can do to convert a desirable practice into a habit.

You are overweight. You are unfit. You get tired before you climb one flight of stairs. (You get the picture.) Your doctor has advised more exercise (than just using the TV remote). He has been telling this to you for the last few years; you make a New Year resolution every year, which does not last more than a few days. This year your doc has given you some kind of ultimatum “shape up or else!”

So, now you not only want to lose those excess kilograms (1 kilogram = approximately 2.2 Pounds, for those who still resist the metric system ), but want to make regular exercise a habit. Here is a combination of things that is will increase the probability of regular exercise become a habit.

Firstly, as an individual you need to build up a great amount of motivation to achieve fitness. The motivation needs to be higher than your motivation for “one more helping”, “15 minutes more of watching the TV”, etc. You need a deep conviction, an inner resolution, a personal commitment, a personal vision/ policy, an oath to oneself. Something like, “come what may, I will do the required exercises at least 25 days in a month.”

Next, you will have to study the alternatives that are available – should you join a gym? Should you join a batch at the gym, or be on your own? Should you go to the gym in the morning or evening? Should have a different exercise program every day? Should the weekend be different? Based on the initial investigation and thinking, you will make a high level plan.

Let us say, you decide to join a batch of people like you in a neighborhood gym. The batch meets every morning at 6 AM and is led by 2 instructors. Now you need money to enroll in the gym and the program. You will need the right set of clothes and shoes. And many such resources, including time; time to reach the gym, time to do the exercise and time to go back home (or wherever) after the program every day.

To free you up for the daily gym sessions, new responsibilities will need to be taken up, and existing responsibilities may have to be redistributed. Who will drop the kids to school? Who will wake you up? Who is going to water the plants? Who will wash the car now? If you are going to reach your workplace later by half an hour every day, who will stand in for you for that half an hour? In addition to assigning the responsibilities, you (along with others) will possibly need to rearrange and plan out many other impacted activities.

Let us get back to the daily gym. The instructors will have a standard process that they have chalked out to for the group. Based on your situation they may tweak the standard to define a tailored process/ program for you.

The instructors will be constantly watching, coaching and guiding you to make sure that you don’t overdo it or take it too easy. They will also try to ensure that you don’t hurt yourself. So, they will keep providing you necessary training as you progress.

On a regular basis you will have to keep track of some important items related to your daily gym-ing. For example, you need to make sure that you have shoes and sock and tee-shirts and shorts washed at the right time. Your gym membership card/ usage may have to kept safe and updated on a regular basis. Basically, you will need to maintain control of the important items, so that you don’t end up picking up someone else’s gym bag.

When you start and as you progress, various stakeholders will have to be identified and involved to the required degree. For example your spouse/ partner, others at home, the gym instructors, your doctor, and maybe your co-workers.

You will have to maintain data of your progress – how much time you spent on the treadmill, when you moved from level 1 of the exercise chart to level 2, how many days you could not attend the gym. You would also be keep track on the impact of the work that you are doing – are you losing weight? Too fast? Too slow? Do you feel energetic? Tired? The basic idea is to collect data to monitor the status and effects and control the actions to achieve better results.

To maintain motivation, you could pair up with a buddy in the gym group – where each of you can objectively help the other to maintain adherence to the plan, schedule and actions. In addition to your buddy, the instructors will also be checking out that you are basically following the processes and the plans that have been laid out.

Once in a while, you would be going to your doc and reviewing the status, so that long-term course corrections can be identified (e.g., add a diet program, increase aerobics- reduce weight bearing exercises, etc.).

The gym staff would collect improvement feedback from the participants to change their equipment, standard programs, etc. For the next batch they may define a slightly different process because of this feedback.

All the bold-and-underlined elements are the likely to prevent you from slipping back to your old ways, and with time, doing exercises every day is likely to become a habit, or “institutionalized” for you.

In a nutshell, here are the 12 elements:

1. Having a policy/ vision
2. Creating plans
3. Mobilizing resources
4. Assigning responsibilities
5. Getting the training to develop skills required
6. Keeping conscious control of key items
7. Involving various stakeholders
8. Monitoring the status/ effects and controlling the actions
9. Keeping an eye on adherence to the process
10. Having periodic reviews with the key stakeholders
11. Appropriately adopting a process for a given situation
12. Collecting information to drive improvements

The analogy used may not directly fit an organizational situation. In the above example, the vision needs to be set by the same person who is taking the action, whereas in an organization, it will be the leadership team that sets the policy and many more people who follow it. Similarly, resources will need to be mobilized by leadership team or some specific groups in the organization, and used by all groups. However, the principles are similar, and if an organization keeps track of the above 12 aspects, there is a high likelihood that whatever is being introduced will quickly become a habit with the organization.

By the way, the word “institutionalization” also means being admitted to a mental institution, but that is not the context we are discussing here, today .

Please do share your experiences, comments and feedback by posting a reply/ comment.

Other related posts uploaded on the same blog:

• CMMI® – Constellations, Representations and some food for thought
• Extreme Process Tailoring and Mapping – How much is Reasonable? (Story of a Pizzeria)

®-CMMI and CMM are registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office by Carnegie Mellon University.

Hi,

If you like the posts on this blog and would like to be informed whenever a new entry is made, here is what you can do:

• Scroll back to the top of the page
• On the right hand side there is section called “FollowBlog via Email”
• In the space provided, type in your email id and click on the “Follow Blog” button (give your personal id, since companies often block wordpress)
• You will get an email at that email id
• In the email there is a clickthrough link – click on it and complete the formalities

CMMI® version 1.3 Released

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.

What to Expect in the new version of CMMI® for DEV Version 1.3

The first day (17th August 2010)  of SEPG Asia-Pacific 2010 conference covered the changes expected to the CMMI® 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®]

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. However, the new name "Organizational Performance Management" is an overkill and misleading]

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^SM-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^SM methodology upgrade will be released slightly later. So, organizations could use the current SCAMPI^SM-A version 1.2 to appraise organizations for CMMI® version 1.3 for some time.

Will try and post about SVC and the expected changes to the appraisal methodology sometime soon.

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

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”.

Your comments?

What comes first – SPC or a stable process?

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

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.