If you long for greater agility in your process-oriented or CMMI world, this session is for you. Paul McMahon shares how organizations can integrate agile approaches with CMMI and its key process area requirements. He discusses the advantages and disadvantages of different approaches taken by two organizations-one a CMMI Level 3 and the other a Level 5-to embrace agile principles and practices. To ensure your organization doesn't jeopardize its CMMI compliance with agile methods, Paul shares an approach that uses techniques such as asking key questions to focus objectives, pruning your processes, using the CMMI less formally, and keeping your "must dos" packaged separately from guidelines. He describes and discusses examples of each technique. Learn why the two organizations took different approaches, why one achieved its goals, and why the other fell short. If your organization is invested in CMMI, learn what others have discovered about increasing organizational agility and performance while remaining CMMI compliant.

1.
AW11
Concurrent Session
11/7/2012 3:45 PM
"CMMI® to Agile:
Options and Consequences"
Presented by:
Paul McMahon
PEM Systems
Brought to you by:
340 Corporate Way, Suite 300, Orange Park, FL 32073
888‐268‐8770 ∙ 904‐278‐0524 ∙ sqeinfo@sqe.com ∙ www.sqe.com

2. Paul McMahon
PEM Systems
Paul E. McMahon, principal at PEM Systems (pemsystems.com), has twenty-three years of
industry experience as a software developer, team leader, and coach. For the past fifteen years,
he has assisted his clients in achieving advanced CMMI certification levels as he coaches
project managers, leaders, and software practitioners in industry best practices. Paul is a
Certified ScrumMaster and a Certified Lean Six Sigma Black Belt; instructor of Software
Engineering at Binghamton University; and author of more than forty articles and two books
including Integrating CMMI and Agile Development: Case Studies and Proven Techniques for
Faster Performance Improvement. You can reach Paul at pemcmahon@acm.org.

3. CMMI To Agile:
Options and Consequences
Paul E. McMahon
pemcmahon@acm.org
CMMI & Agile at Odds?
CMMI
Agile
CMMI – Capability Maturity Model
p
y
y
Integration
Not theory, based on actual client case studies…
Copyright PEM Systems 2011-2012
2
1

4. What You Will Learn
CMMI/Agile integration theory and why it should
be easy, but why in practice often more difficult
Case Study 1 (LACM)
• 4 techniques increase agility CMMI Level 3
organization
Case Study 2 (RAVE)
• Different technique increase agility Level 5
organization
Practical guidance to help you move your own
Agile CMMI integration forward
Copyright PEM Systems 2011-2012
3
Case Studies
discussed
described in
greater detail in
book.
Copyright PEM Systems 2011-2012
4
2

5. Fundamental Guidance (the theory)
Not dictated practices
CMMI is improvement reference model
intended to help you ask the right questions
leading to best decisions for your organization
Example
questions
Lean = eliminate
waste
Agile provides
potential “how-to”
options
ti
CMMI is about “What” must do
Agile techniques provide potential “How-to” options
Copyright PEM Systems 2011-2012
5
Case Study 1 Background: LACM
LACM successful high tech organization
Focus on U.S. defense market
2007- Over 50 active projects; Only 2 any difficulty
CMM Level 3 many years ago; 2008 CMMI Level 3
2008 CMMI motivation:
•Vice-President (VP) understood could use
CMMI to address changing customer needs
•He knew his organization needed to change
improving performance and increasing agility
in key areas
Where do we start?
Copyright PEM Systems 2011-2012
6
3

6. Where Start To Improve
Performance and Increase Agility
When Using CMMI?
LACM one of best
approaches observed…
pp
“Why are our customers coming
back to us now over the
competition?”
“What is the unique value this
organization brings to its
customers?”
Technique 1
Copyright PEM Systems 2011-2012
7
Technique 1:
Start by Asking Key Questions
to Focus Objectives
All CMMI
Expected
Practices…
Common
“non-lean & non-agile”
non lean non agile
approach
Recommended start point
Establish specific objectives
Help you focus improvement
efforts where need help the most
Copyright PEM Systems 2011-2012
Measurement
Example
8
4

7. What Data Should You Collect?
Non-agile approach --collect data related to
each process area and figure out later how
might use
The “agile/lean approach”
…ask following questions
first…
“Who will use data if collect it?”
“How does data relate to objectives?”
Makes sense if already using CMMI and looking
to improve, or just starting out with CMMI effort
Why involve
workers?
Copyright PEM Systems 2011-2012
9
Why Involve Your Workers?
Led to realizations…
Product reuse
Employee turn over
turn-over
Encouraged open forum
discussions...
Company did have training
program, but training &
processes not aligned with real
issues faced on job
Led to Technique 2
Copyright PEM Systems 2011-2012
10
5

8. Technique 2:
Pruning the Processes
Built flow diagrams of what people
really did to get their job done
Anything not on flow became
candidate for elimination
More questions
Pruning led to
streamlined
processes &
improved training
If no one used, why there?
Wasting time training?
If used, would it help?
Example
Copyright PEM Systems 2011-2012
11
Pruning Example:
Peer Review Process
Great deal of data collected about each
defect
Periodic analysis of the collected data
Flow diagrams showed people entered data,
but no one analyzed it
Further investigation showed requirements
for data had been added to process because
p
someone wrongly thought CMMI required it
Pruning led to more
effective peer review
process & improved
performance!
Onerous review process had
discouraged comments
Copyright PEM Systems 2011-2012
12
6

9. Insight
Historical tendency: Read things into CMMI model
that aren’t there
Creates unnecessary non-value-added work
By using CMMI as intended, can improve your
CMMI implementation and increase agility and
performance at the same time
How did LACM do this?
Why not more?
Copyright PEM Systems 2011-2012
13
Technique 3:
Use CMMI Model Less Formally
LACM used the CMMI model first to:
Help discover where needed
improvements to help performance
Then prioritized work and focused on
those value added improvements
Applied
A li d
CMMI
with agile
spirit
Lesson:
When process improvement teams face pressure to achieve a
formal CMMI level and aren’t given adequate time to work real
issues, real performance improvements are rarely achieved
2nd – What pruning takes
Copyright PEM Systems 2011-2012
14
7

10. What Pruning Really Requires
People in trenches who really understand how job
done
Often these people in the trenches are the best
performers & the busiest people in the company
If experiencing similar symptoms as LACM, consider allocating
percentage of time of key people to this effort
Small investment in pruning might pay high dividends in long run
Alternative: Build relationships with technical experts
looking for measurable improvement opportunities
Key question
Copyright PEM Systems 2011-2012
15
A Key Question
How Do We Ensure We Aren’t
Jeopardizing
Our CMMI Compliance?
Copyright PEM Systems 2011-2012
16
8

11. Understanding What CMMI Expects
of Your Process Repository
Some wrongly believe the CMMI requires a “heavyweight”
process repository superstructure
LACM is large and product centric
LACM mandates tools, and standards
LACM has some detailed work instructions
BOND is small and service centric
BOND mandates few tools few standards
tools,
BOND has no detailed work instructions
Process repository structure depends on your business need
Example
Copyright PEM Systems 2011-2012
17
Process Repository Structures
Traditional
(LACM like structure)
Agile
(BOND like structure)
Policies
Processes/
Practices
Policies/
Processes
Work Instructions/
Procedures
How-to Guides/
Tailoring Aids
Enablers/
Templates
**Achieves intent
Different Repository Structures, Both CMMI “Compliant” **
CMMI doesn’t mandate repository structure
However, if want Agile & CMMI too
Copyright PEM Systems 2011-2012
18
9

12. Technique 4: Keep “must dos” packaged
separately from “guidelines”
Keep must dos:
•Lean (minimums)
•Focused on “what”
•Fundamentals
Tailor Up from the “must dos”
Policies/
Processes
“Must dos”
No one tailors
How-to Guides/
Tailoring Aids
Aids tailoring
Copyright PEM Systems 2011-2012
19
Questions or Comments?
How many have used the CMMI
model this way?
d l thi
?
Why don’t more organizations do
this?
Next Case Study may shed light…
Copyright PEM Systems 2011-2012
20
10

13. Case Study 2 Background: RAVE
RAVE Large CMMI Level 5 Organization
Focus on U.S. defense market
2005 recognized “stealth agile” movement
CMMI Level 5 processes didn’t recognize
Different approach to agility:
•Did not modify existing
tailoring down
CMMI processes
•Handle agile through their normal
tailoring approach & “agile developers
guide”
Copyright PEM Systems 2011-2012
21
Group Discussion
What do you see as the advantages &
disadvantages to each approach?
LACM:
LACM
RAVE:
Ask key questions
Prune processes
Use CMMI less formally
Keep must-dos separate
Tailor up
Developers Guide
Tailor down
Group shares views
Then I share my views…
Copyright PEM Systems 2011-2012
22
11

14. Technique 5:
Consider Developer’s Guide to Aid Agility
Advantages
No risk to proven level 5
processes
• (advantage if working
well)
Doesn’t require critical
personnel in “trenches”
Disadvantages
If hearing:
• “processes don’t help”
• “create work without
value”
…then this approach won’t
help
…also may result in redundant
efforts
• E.g. product reviews,
Note: Consider right answer for you
progress reporting
could be combination of LACM &
…or may result in loss of key
RAVE approach
“must dos” when tailor
Next deeper…
Less cost, less retraining
Copyright PEM Systems 2011-2012
23
Many Now Realize CMMI & Agile
Can Coexist
CMMI
Agile
But to what Level?
3, 4, 5?
Quantitative?
Continuous Improvement?
Copyright PEM Systems 2011-2012
24
12

15. More Information on
Two Case Studies
LACM, Level 3, used selective Level 4
& 5 practices (QPM, CAR) informally
to achieve performance goals
Specific problem getting hardware
ordered/installed on time
Succeeded
Project team derived specific
measures, isolated root cause, &
implemented corrective action
Agile
spirit
applied
at Level 4
RAVE, Level 5, used Agile
Developer s
Developer’s guide and tailor down
approach, fell short of goals
Why?
QPM – Quantitative Project Management
CAR – Causal Analysis and Resolution
Copyright PEM Systems 2011-2012
25
RAVE Wanted To Keep Improving
Funded Lean Six Sigma Team
Created Agile Developer’s Guide
But did so because did not want to change Level
5 formal processes out of
fear
Misperception that level 5
means perfect so can’t
change
This is exactly backwards
from intent of level 5
Is RAVE unique?
Copyright PEM Systems 2011-2012
26
13

16. What Is Happening
Too Often Today
“At this point, of the many organizations
that have been evaluated at CMMI Level
5, too many have essentially stopped
,
y
y
pp
working on improvement.
Their objective was to get to level 5 and
they are there, so why should they keep
improving?
This is both an unfortunate and an
unacceptable attitude... it is unacceptable
because the essence of level 5 is
From page 7
continuous improvement.”
“CMMI for Development”
Version 1.3
Copyright PEM Systems 2011-2012
27
Attaining Level 5 Doesn’t
Mean We Don’t Need to Keep Improving
Agile practices can not only
coexist with CMMI Level 5
they
th can f ilit t
facilitate
continuous improvement
Example: Sprint retrospective
Actionable improvements
Can help achieve intent
of QPM/CAR
Will an agile approach provide all you need for CMMI Level 5? No
But it can help achieve intent; Real performance improvement
Copyright PEM Systems 2011-2012
28
14

17. Guidance to Help You Move Your Own
Agile CMMI Integration Forward
If you are an agile expert, learn about the CMMI and talk to the
CMMI people in your organization explaining how these initiatives
can work together
If you are a CMMI expert, learn about the latest changes in the
CMMI V1.3 and learn about the agile options that can help your
organization
If you are a manager seek to understand the forces holding back
your Agile CMMI integration and combat misperceptions
Even if you can’t fully employ the techniques LACM used,
consider building relationships with technical experts looking for
measurable improvement opportunities (small changes help)
CMMI and Agile proponents should recognize both striving for
common goals and can help each other
Copyright PEM Systems 2011-2012
29
Ch
hange Is Never Easy
y
Lessons Beyond CMMI: Relevant to any
High Process Compliance Situation
Transparency (daily
standup meetings)
Architect,
Architect Requirements
Analyst, Test Collaborating
Product Owner Role
(grooming product backlog,
working stakeholders to
attend key demonstrations)
Project Manager role
changes to “hybrid
hybrid
ScrumMaster” (style
issues)
Functional Managers focus
more on career growth of
people
Waterfall
Backlog driven
/Iterative
Mega-l
Project
Committed
to change
None counter to CMMI
Copyright PEM Systems 2011-2012
30
15

18. Summary of Misperceptions
To Seek Out and Combat!
The CMMI is a set of dictated practices
You need to collect data related to every CMMI
process area
The CMMI should only be used for formal
appraisals
The CMMI requires a heavyweight process
repository superstructure
You need distinct processes for each process
area in the CMMI model
CMMI maturity level 5 means you are perfect and
you don’t need to keep improving
Copyright PEM Systems 2011-2012
31
Questions and Contact Information
Questions???
Contact Information
pemcmahon@acm.org
www.pemsystems.com
Copyright PEM Systems 2011-2012
32
16