Quality Management Systems: Efficiency Improvement in Software Development Karl Heinrich Möller

1. Quality Management Systems: Efficiency Improvement in Software Development Karl Heinrich Möller Gaertnerstr. 29 D-82194 Groebenzell Tel: +49(8142)570144 Fax: +49(8142)570145 Email: karl-heinrich.Moeller@t-online.de

2. Principles Capability Maturity Model (CMM) Overview Questions Results Improvement Process People within the improvement process Organising the improvement process (example) Charter of the groups engaged Piloting the new methods Application of the new methods Experience Rules Contents

3. PrinciplesVision • derive objectives of the organisation • objectivesachieved? • who sets the objectives? • who controls the achievement? • how is the achievement controlled? quality productivity elapsed time

4. org.-level 3 org.-level 1 org.-level 2 org.-level 1 org.-level 1 org.-level 1 org.-level 1 PrinciplesVision organisationto be improved improvement project org.-level 4 sponsor externalsupport project leader change agent Change Agent Change Agent employee employee employee employee employee

5. PrinciplesVision Plan • PlanPlan the method • DoIntroduce the method • CheckCheck whether the goal has been achieved • ActImprove the method Act Do Check

6. Capability Maturity Model (CMM)

7. what has been achieved: every individual does its best to perform the work what is missing: cooperation of the individuals only if they believe there is a need Maturity Level 1

8. what has been achieved : the individuals of every project are organising their work to achieve the objectives of the project as far as they are understood what is missing: cooperation of the projects only if they believe there is a need (every project e.g. has its own configuration management system); processes are not efficient Maturity Level 2

9. what has been achieved : organisation has a defined development process valid for all projects, which is to be followed by everybody; process is optimised by qualitative criteria what is missing: no quantitative criteria (faults are found too late, fault prevention insufficient, many changes in late phases etc.) Maturity Level 3

10. what has been achieved : process is controlled and continuously improved by quantitative criteria what is missing: process improvements are endured and not created; introducing new methods is insufficiently planned and controlled Maturity Level 4

11. what has been achieved : introducing new methods is planned and controlled what is missing: nothing Maturity Level 5

12. Process Criteria 1. 2. 3. 4. Life Cycle independent Functions Life Cycle Functions Organisation and Resources Process oriented Functions Spec. System Properties 4.1 3.1 Project Planning 1.1 2.1 Process Definition Organisationsal structure Requirement Management 4.2 3.2 Project Control 4.3 Quality assurance Design 3.3 1.2 2.2 Process measurement Training 4.4 Implementation Configuration Management 3.4 1.3 2.3 Process Improvement Subsupplier Management 3.5 Integration and System Test 4.5 Communication Risk- Management 3.6 4.6 Acceptance 1.4 Technology Quality Management Application and Maintenance 3.7 4.7 Software Process AssessmentStructure of Questions (Clusters / Process Criteria)

13. Development Process: Conformance Diagram Site Assess. (I)

14. Development Process: Conformance Diagram Site Assess. (II)

15. Development Process: Conformance Diagram Project Assess. 1

16. 5 optimizing 4 managed 3 defined 2 repeatable 1 initial Improvement Process 1From Analysis to an Improved Status Imple-mentation Analysis Design Test Use method 1 implementing method 1 test method 1 use identify 3 to 5 processes with the highest potential for improvement method 2 implementing method 2 test method 3 implementing method 3 test method 4 implementing

17. method 1 implementing method 1 test method 1 use Check Act method 4 implementing method 4 test method 4 use Improvement Process 2 From Analysis to an Improved Status Imple-mentation Test Use method 2 implementing method 2 test method 3 implementing method 3 test

18. SponsorHead of organisation Coachmembers of (another) organisation who make the change happen (full-time) Change Agentmembers of organisation who make the change happen (part-time) Championmembers of organisation who support the change Targetmembers of organisation whose attitudes have to be changed Roles within the Improvement Process

19. Software Engineering Process Group Example

20. Led by project leader Supported by sponsor Consisting of leaders of process teams Controls improvement process Distribution of resources Members (especially sponsor) stand for the project Help in case of trouble Decides on introduction of new methods CharterSoftware Engineering Process Group SEPG

21. Led by a member of SEPG Controls sub teams Consists of the members of the sub teams Godfather supports introduction of new methods Charter Process Team

22. Opinion leaders of the organisation Designs, implements, tests, and introduces new methods Members become coaches and change agents CharterSub Team (Technical Experts Group)

23. pilot 1 pilot 2 group a group b group c Introduction of New Method 1Overview technical experts group (subgroup) defines the new method coach Piloting change agent process team controls piloting and introduction Introduction step 1 group d group e group f Introduction step 2 time

24. org.-level 3 org.-level 1 org.-level 2 org.-level 1 org.-level 1 org.-level 1 org.-level 1 Introduction of New Method 2Technical experts team (Sub Team) designs it organisationto be improved improvement project org.-level 4 sponsor project leader change agent Change Agent Change Agent employee employee employee employee employee

25. org.-level 3 org.-level 1 org.-level 2 org.-level 1 org.-level 1 org.-level 1 org.-level 1 Introduction of New Method 3Piloting organisationto be improved improvement project actions: part 1 Sub team gets pilot to support new method part 2 pilot has been convinced that new method makes work more easy (and is of advantage to the organisation) org.-level 4 sponsor project leader change agent Change Agent Change Agent employee employee employee employee employee

26. Kick off meeting to join in members of the pilot Members of pilot get everysupport Measure degree of application and effectiveness Final report together with the members of pilot Method makes work easy Is really applied Has advantage for the organisation PilotingSteps

27. Introduction of New Method 4Convincing Management organisationto be improved improvement project org.-level 4 action: improvement project convinces every level of management (especially middle management) of the advantages of new method sponsor org.-level 3 project leader org.-level 2 change agent org.-level 1 Change Agent Change Agent employee

28. Without change of mental attitudes there is no acceptance of new methods Pressure is a bad means to enforce mental change To simply wait for understanding will not lead to a timely change To make a change happen real hard work with the people to be convinced is necessary Change will only occur with the majority of people in the organisation being in favour of change Rules for Cooperation 1Understanding the Improvement Project

29. Arguing until organisation knows nothing against Every action must succeed the first time (estimation of resistance must be accurate) Coach or change agent is able to do it Needs support from project leader or department head (should not be done often) Needs support of the sponsor (should not be done directly) Enforcement in the beginning must be superseded by trustful cooperation Rules for Cooperation 2Rules of Enforcement

30. Defect Detection Rates Average costper defect Require-ments Imple-menting Integr. Syst.-Test Modul Test Level Design Use 3.700 DM 9.600 DM 12.900 DM 5% 10% 50% 20% 10% <5% Managed 4 3% 5% 7% 25% 50% 10% Defined 3 0% 0% 5% 15% 50% 30% Repeatable 2 Cost per defect in DM 500 500 500 6.000 12.000 20.000

31. Functional Test Reaquire- ments System Test Use Design Coding Defect creation rate 10% 50% 40% 5 Defect detection rate 20% 20% 10% 5% <5% 40% 4 20% 7% 5% 5% 3% 60% 3 32% 8% 3% 2% 0% 55% 2 30% 17% 3% 0% 0% 50% 1 15% 2% 0% 0% 50% 33% 20 Cost of defects (rates) 12 6 1 1 1 1 Potential of ImprovementExample for Fault Cost Reduction Defect cost are a certain fraction of total development cost • There is an exponential increase in cost if time between seeding and detection becomes longer: • - detection of defects as early as possible • - prevent defect • - reduce number of undetected defects in each phase of development process Potentials for cost reduction: level 1 level 2 : 17 % of defect cost level 2 level 3 : 22 % of defect cost level 3 level 4 : 19 % of defect cost level 4 level 5 : 44 % of defect cost

32. Field Defects [Defects/kLOC] Cost [Cost/Project] Productivity [LOC/hr] Elapsed Time [Time] ex- tra- po- la- tion Optimizing 5 1% 9% 55% 100% Managed 4 3% 17% 65% 70% Defined 3 11% 33% 75% 40% Repeatable 2 22% 66% 85% 27% Initial 1 100% 100% 100% 20% 0 50 100 0 50 100 0 50 100 0 50 100 Relation of Maturity Level and Process CharacteristicsProduct Size: 500 KLOC Highest gains for field defects and cost (Reported by Lockheed)

33. 2 to 3 years are needed to improve projects by 1 maturity level 2 to 3% of development cost is a typical effort for process maturity of an organisation that is at SEI-Level 2 to 3 and is insufficient to improve SEI-Maturity Up to 5% is needed to improve the maturity level General experiences Effort and Elapsed Time

34. Productivity is increased by about 50% Elapsed time is reduced by about 15% Field defect rate is cut by half Compared to 3 to 5% of effort for the process improvement Gains for Improving from Maturity Level 2.5 to 3.5 Quality, Productivity and Elapsed Time