The presentation supported the speech focusing on a 3D corporate performance monitoring model based on Spago4Q, delivered by Spago4Q development team, at IT Confidence 2013 in Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) on 3rd October 2013. http://www.spago4q.org/
IT Confidence 2013 - Spago4Q presents a 3D model for Productivity Intelligence
1. http://itconfidence2013.wordpress.com
Application Lifecycle
Management and process
monitoring through an
integrated and low-cost
solution, mainly based on Open
Source Software Products
1°International Conference on
IT Data collection, Analysis and Benchmarking
Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) - October 3, 2013
N. Bertazzo, D. Gagliardi,N. Bertazzo, D. Gagliardi,
S. Oltolina,S. Oltolina, G. RuffattiG. Ruffatti
Engineering GroupEngineering GroupInsert here a picture
2. 2IT Confidence 2013 – October 3, 2013 http://itconfidence2013.wordpress.com
ALM and…
G1. Measuring company performances through an effective
SPI program
G2. Adopting a multi-dimensional performance model
deployed mostly with 3D instances
G3. Implementing an integrated and low cost – OSS based
– solution for the measurement and governance of software
product & process quality
Presentation Goals
3. 3IT Confidence 2013 – October 3, 2013 http://itconfidence2013.wordpress.com
Which is users’ & customers’
level of satisfaction?
How productive is my
organization?
Is there REALLY
a way to measure performance?
Which is the
quality level of my product?
How can I improve the
development process?
How can I compare
different labs?
TopTop
ManagerManager
Is my project
on track?
How can I improve
performance?
ProjectProject
ManagerManager
QualityQuality
ManagerManager
Which are corporate
audits results?
Introduction The problem: Managers’ needs
4. 4IT Confidence 2013 – October 3, 2013 http://itconfidence2013.wordpress.com
Engineering At a glance
www.eng.it
5. 5IT Confidence 2013 – October 3, 2013 http://itconfidence2013.wordpress.com
Technical, Innovation & Research Division
Engineering’s Software Labs (ESL)
PRODUCTION
ESL3: Application
Management
ESL1-2: Project
development
RFPs technical
support
MANAGED OPERATIONS
Infrastructures & System Services
Architectural design Research
&
Development
Competence
Centers
Resource
management
Business Units (BUs) for different market sectors
Account
Managers
Sales
Managers
Service
Desk
Business Analysis
Project
ManagersBusiness
Competence
Center
Worldwide
Customers
Background Engineering production organization Managers’ needs
6. 6IT Confidence 2013 – October 3, 2013 http://itconfidence2013.wordpress.com
• Continuous Quality Improvement in Engineering's projects
• Unified Infrastructure supporting quality processes granting flexibility and
adaptability
• CMMI-DEV and ISO certifications, as independent method to validate the
compliance of processes and infrastructures with quality standards
• Set-up of Engineering Software Labs (ESLs) to enhance and measure
productivity and improve quality practices
Background Compliance of SPI to quality systems
…
7. 7IT Confidence 2013 – October 3, 2013 http://itconfidence2013.wordpress.com
Interaction & Information sources (quant. & qual. data)
8. 8IT Confidence 2013 – October 3, 2013 http://itconfidence2013.wordpress.com
• Three dimensions of analysis:
1. Economical (EE)
2. Social (SS)
3. Technical (TT)
QEST model: 3 dimensions
•Performance values for each dimension allow to
identify process areas that need improvements
9. 9IT Confidence 2013 – October 3, 2013 http://itconfidence2013.wordpress.com
• Spago4Q, the open source platform to measure, analyze and monitor
quality of products, processes and services
http://www.spago4q.org
The model
• QEST nD model, a conceptual framework for measuring process
performance based on multiple analysis dimensions
http://www.semq.eu/leng/modtechqlm.htm
The tool
Productivity Intelligence
10. 10IT Confidence 2013 – October 3, 2013 http://itconfidence2013.wordpress.com
The model (1): QEST
Method: Performance is expressed as the combination of the specific ratios
selected for each of the 3 dimensions of the quantitative assessment
(Productivity - PR) and the perceived product quality level of the qualitative
assessment (Quality - Q)
Performance = PR + Q
Model: QEST (Quality factor + Economic,
Social & Technical dimensions) is a
“structured shell” to be filled according
to management objectives in relation to
a specific project
Such a model has the ability to handle
independent sets of dimensions without
predefined ratios and weights - referred
to as an open model
11. 11IT Confidence 2013 – October 3, 2013 http://itconfidence2013.wordpress.com
The model (2): geometrical indicators
It is possible to measure performance considering at least 3 distinct geometrical
concepts:
• Distance between the tetrahedron base
center of gravity and the center of the
plane section along the tetrahedron
height – the greater the distance from 0,
the higher the performance level;
• Area of the sloped plane section – the
smaller the area, the higher the
performance level;
• Volume of the lowest part of the
truncated tetrahedron – the greater the
volume, the higher the performance level.
• Target: measuring project performance (p) using 3 distinct viewpoints
• Input Data: list of weighted ratios for each dimension and quality
questionnaires
• Output Data: an integrated normalized value of performance
12. 12IT Confidence 2013 – October 3, 2013 http://itconfidence2013.wordpress.com
• Integrated quantitative and qualitative evaluation from 3 concurrent
organisational viewpoints
• A 3D geometrical representation at a single project phase (usually after
the project is completed)
•Use of de facto and de jure standards (e.g. ISO/IEC 9126 for the Quality
Factor now ISO/IEC 25010:2011)
• Performance Measurement Model to use for consolidating Balanced
Scorecard (BSC) measurement outcomes
• Extension of the original 3D model to n possible dimensions-
perspectives QEST nD through the simplexsimplex as the mechanism to solve
the problem from the 4th
dimension on
The model (3): key features
13. 13IT Confidence 2013 – October 3, 2013 http://itconfidence2013.wordpress.com
The tool: Spago4Q
14. 14IT Confidence 2013 – October 3, 2013 http://itconfidence2013.wordpress.com
• QEST model is fully supported by Spago4Q
• The procedure is coherent with the PMAI (Plan-Measure-Assess-
Improve) cycle:
PLAN, defining a set of metrics, based on the GQM approach, and
possible dimensions of analysis (perspectives) characterizing the
analysis
MEASURE, including the collection of data, and the computation
of metric values and global performance value
ASSESS, presenting results through dashboards and reports
IMPROVE, analyzing in detail each value that is less than the
expected thresholds, in order to find possible problems or
bottlenecks from a process-based viewpoint
The integrated environment: QEST & Spago4Q
15. 15IT Confidence 2013 – October 3, 2013 http://itconfidence2013.wordpress.com
The ESL model selected goals for each analysis dimension:
1. Economical (EE)
E.G1 Reduce the effort of corrective maintenance (corrective + preventive, ISO/IEC14764:2006)
E.G2 Improve ESL resource/assets allocation
E.G3 Reduce effort due to hardware system unavailability (‘downtime’)
E.G4 Reduce rework (Analysis/Design SLC phases)
E.G5 Improve productivity (note: different ‘sizing’ units)
2. Social (S)
S.G1 Reduce the number of non-conformity issues (QA inspection)
S.G2 Improve artifacts reuse (functional reuse)
S.G3 Evaluate training skills for organizational resources
S.G4 Improve customer satisfaction (e.g. Customers/Prospects, Business Units, Developers)
S.G5 Improve knowledge sharing (“social 2.0”, communities)
3.Technical (TT)
T.G1 Reduce the resolution time for defects and technical issues
T.G2 Reduce the number of pre-delivery defects (as in ODC analysis)
T.G3 Improve delivery time for deliverables
T.G4 Improve code quality
T.G5 Improve the testing process (e.g. coverages, # req’s, # tests, ...)
3D analysis: main goals
16. 16IT Confidence 2013 – October 3, 2013 http://itconfidence2013.wordpress.com
Metric ID Metric Desc Formula Source
E.M1.1 Incidence of corrective maintenance effort Corrective Maintenance Effort/Development Effort ALM & prj registry
E.M2.1 Allocation of ESL resources Nr. of Res (hours) allocated on prj/Tot of Res (hours) ALM & Corp. Systems
E.M3.1 Hardware System Availability Percentage System Availability System Monitoring
E.M4.1 Incidence of rework Rework Effort / Development Effort ALM & prj registry
E.M5.1 Development capability FP/Effort ALM & prj registry
S.M1.1 n. Of Non Conformity issue % of NC for project ALM & QA Registry
S.M2.1 Incidence of artifact reuse Nr downloads/tot nr of artifacts stored Component repo
S.M3.1 Skill improvement % new (or modify) skills for resource Skill management tool
S.M4.1 Customer Satisfaction Results of survey Survey tool
S.M5.1 Knowledge sharing improvement % of interaction with collab. tools Collaboration tools
T.M1.1 Incidence of defects % nr. of defects (errors + defects) for project ALM
T.M2.1 Defects Mean Resolution Time Tot. resolution time/Tot. defects ALM
T.M3.1 Incidence of delayed deliverables % nr. delayed deliv. / Tot. deliverables ALM
T.M4.1 Code Quality Results of automatic static test Code analysis tool
T.M5.1 Testing process improvement Test coverage ALM
3D analysis: metrics
17. 17IT Confidence 2013 – October 3, 2013 http://itconfidence2013.wordpress.com
ESL Chief Manager
ESL Lab Manager
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Project Manager (PM)
3D view: drill-down through the organizational levels
PRJ n
ESL
ESL 1 ESL 2 ESL 3
PRJ 1
PRJ n
PRJ 1
PRJ n
PRJ 1
Project developmentProject development Application maintenanceApplication maintenanceProject developmentProject development
Engineering’s Software LabsEngineering’s Software Labs
Top Manager (TM)
18. 18IT Confidence 2013 – October 3, 2013 http://itconfidence2013.wordpress.com
3D view: Level 1 - TM dashboard – sample #1
Unified view on Engineering Software Labs
Global performance indicator
Performance comparison (time, labs)
19. 19IT Confidence 2013 – October 3, 2013 http://itconfidence2013.wordpress.com
3D view: Level 1 - TM dashboard – sample #2
20. 20IT Confidence 2013 – October 3, 2013 http://itconfidence2013.wordpress.com
Metrics
Reqs & Bugs
Risks
Tasks & Issues
Docs
Detailed view
Tracking and trends
A single dimension view: Level 3 - PM dashboard
21. 21IT Confidence 2013 – October 3, 2013 http://itconfidence2013.wordpress.com
A single dimension view: Level 3 - PM ALM tool
22. 22IT Confidence 2013 – October 3, 2013 http://itconfidence2013.wordpress.com
A single dimension view: Levels 1/2 - QA audits
23. 23IT Confidence 2013 – October 3, 2013 http://itconfidence2013.wordpress.com
Users & customers
feedbacks are
now integrated
with corporate data
Finally I know how productive my
organization is!
Finally we can REALLY
measure performance!
I can monitor the
quality level of my product
The development process
is under control and
I can improve it!
Now I can compare
Labs performance!
TopTop
ManagerManager
I know if my project
is on track & I can
identify issues
Conclusions
Productivity Intelligence
enables performance
improvement
ProjectProject
ManagerManager
QualityQuality
ManagerManager
Through audit dashboards,
corporate QA
is under control
24. 24IT Confidence 2013 – October 3, 2013 http://itconfidence2013.wordpress.com
• Improve reports and KPIs
Introduce/improve reports for new/modified information needs
Dynamical update for thresholds
• Integrate tools to collect soft factors measures and indicators
from two categories of ESL customers using on-line surveys:
“external customer”: feedback on the perceived product quality
“internal customer”: feedback on the actual process quality from
project managers of the various Business Units
• Build new KPIs on data coming from the Infrastructure
Enhancing Project that collects issues and suggestions by the
ALM users
e.g. in the BSC ‘Learning & Growth’ perspective
Next steps
25. 25IT Confidence 2013 – October 3, 2013 http://itconfidence2013.wordpress.com
25
Buglione L., Misurare il Software. Quantità, qualità, standards e
miglioramento di processo nell’Information & Communication Technology,
FrancoAngeli, 3/ed, 2008, ISBN 978-88-464-9271-5
Buglione L. & Abran A., QEST nD: n-dimensional extension and
generalisation of a Software Performance Measurement Model,
International Journal of Advances in Engineering Software, Elsevier Science
Publisher, Vol. 33, No. 1, January 2002, pp.1-7
Spago4Q website and resources: www.spago4q.org
Contacts & Info: spago4q@eng.it
References
26. 26IT Confidence 2013 – October 3, 2013 http://itconfidence2013.wordpress.com
Q && A
Muito obrigado pela vossa atençaoMuito obrigado pela vossa atençao!!
Thanks for your attentionThanks for your attention!!
ALM and...