leveraging cmmi-acq and cmmi-dev to improve supplier … · 2011. 3. 1. · leveraging cmmi®-acq...
Post on 19-Sep-2020
24 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Leveraging CMMI® ACQ and CMMI® DEV Leveraging CMMI®-ACQ and CMMI®-DEV to Improve Supplier Performance
SEPG ConferenceMarch 2011
® CMMI is registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office by Carnegie Mellon University.Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited (11 JANUARY 2011)
Agenda
Background
The Approach
R ltResults
Lessons Learned and Critical Success Factors
What is Team SPAWAR?
Navy’s Information Dominance Systems Command
Navy’s Technical Authority and acquisition command for Navy s Technical Authority and acquisition command for C4ISR*, business IT, and space systems
Provides advanced communications and information biliti t N j i t d liti fcapabilities to Navy, joint and coalition forces
More than 8,000 employees deployed globally and near the fleet
*Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance & Reconnaissance
2
Booz Allen Hamilton
MissionBooz Allen Hamilton partners with clients to solve their most important and complex problems making their mission our mission and delivering resultscomplex problems, making their mission our mission and delivering results that endure
What We BringfExpertise, objectivity, and the capabilities of exceptional people—combined
with the institutional experience of helping clients succeed for more than 90 years
What Distinguishes UsBooz Allen …
… combines a consultant’s unique problem-solving orientation with deep technical knowledge and strong execution… with deep technical knowledge and strong execution
… to help clients achieve success in their critical missions
3
CMMI Implementations Across Team SPAWAR
WashingtonLiaison Office
CIO Vice CommanderVice Commander Deputy CommanderDeputy Commander
COMMANDERRADM Patrick Brady, USN
COMMANDERRADM Patrick Brady, USN
Vice Commander Deputy Commander
COMMANDERRADM Patrick Brady, USN
HeadquartersSupport Staff
PEO Space Systems JPEO JTRSPEO EISPEO C4I
CMMI-ACQ
1.0Comptroller
2.0Contracts
4.0Logistics & Fleet Support
3.0Office of CounselComptroller Contracts Logistics & Fleet SupportOffice of Counsel
5.0Chief Engineer
6.0Program Management
8.0Corporate Operations
7.0Science & Technology
CMMI-SVC
Echelon III Activities
SPAWAR SystemsCenter Pacific
SPAWAR SystemsCenter Atlantic
SPAWAR Space Field Activity, Chantilly VA
CMMI-DEV/CMMI-SVC
4
The Problem – Program Management Office Perspective
Supplier documents are delivered on time, but are not quality products
PMO spends weeks reviewing and commenting on supplier deliverables
T i ll 900 t t d t li i lTypically 900+ comments are returned to supplier on a single deliverable (e.g., System Requirements Specification)
With all these quality issues, how can the supplier’s processes be compliant with Capability Maturity Model
Integration for Development (CMMI-DEV) Maturity Level 3, g p ( ) yper the contract requirement?
5
The Players
Program Manager, Warfare (PMW) A reference to the organizational construct of Program Management Offices (PMO) within PEO C4I Each PMW is responsible for either platform(PMO) within PEO C4I. Each PMW is responsible for either platform integration or product acquisition and sustainment.
Supplier C fContractor group responsible for developing and delivering a product specified by the PMW.
Organizational Process Management Office (OPMO) g g ( )Internal organization responsible for providing continuous process improvement tools and methodologies to support Team SPAWAR. The PMW engaged OPMO for support in addressing supplier performance issuesissues.
6
The Approach
7
Step 1: Validate Problem Statement
Conducted initial interviews
Defined scope to focus onDefined scope to focus on the deliverable preparation and review process
PMO fi d th d i tPMO confirmed the desire to assess supplier processes against CMMI-DEV Maturity Level 3Level 3
8
Step 2: Confirm Continuous Process Improvement Approach
Identified utilization of multi-model approach
CMMI-DEV to address the supplier’s software documentation challenges g
CMMI-ACQ to address the program management and acquisition challengesacquisition challenges
9
Step 3: Review As-Is Processes
Selected applicable process areas from CMMI-DEV and CMMI-ACQ
Observed real-time project activities
Reviewed available and relevant d t tidocumentation
Conducted in-depth interviews with key resources
Participated in “show me” site visits
10
Step 4: Develop CMMI Best Practices Assessment Report
Conducted gap analysis against identified process
f CMMI DEV dareas from CMMI-DEV and CMMI-ACQ
Documented opportunities ppfor improvement, recommendations, and benefits in detailed Assessment Report
11
CMMI Best Practices Report: High Level Examples
12
Step 5: Create Action Plan
Prioritized opportunities for improvement
Created Plan of Action & Milestones (POA&M)
13
Analytical Hierarchy Process: Prioritization Example
Identified individual criterion that aligned with business objectives
C d it i i AHP i i i th dCompared criteria using AHP, a pair-wise comparison method
Identified weights for each criterion based on the outcome of comparisonp
Th th i htThese are the weight percentages for each
scoring criterion
14
Scoring Matrix: Prioritization Example (continued)
Scored improvement areas
Prioritized improvement areas objectively based on total score
Reviewed priorities to confirm consistency of scoring approachsco g app oac
15
The Approach
16
The Challenges
Issues had been building over time with key items escalated to S i M tSenior Management
Frustrations between the supplier and PMO were ppmounting
Multiple layers of stakeholders with varying perspectiveswith varying perspectives
Environment in which the teams were not always forthcoming with information
17
Critical Success Factors
Multi-model approach
Independent assessment team promoted objectivityIndependent assessment team promoted objectivity
Assessment activities were a catalyst for behavior change
Strategic information gathering techniques (e g “show me” siteStrategic information gathering techniques (e.g., show me site visits and real-time event observation)
Impartial assessment report
Collaborative approach to prioritizing improvement actions
18
The Results
Decrease in the average number of PMO comments per deliverable, by approximately 50%Supplier deliverable quality improvedSupplier deliverable quality improvedRe-evaluated supplier Quality Assurance approachUpdated supplier process documentation (e.g., SEMP)Established decision log and lessons learned repositorySupplier increased focus on internal process training
PMO d li di i iPMO and supplier coordination improvementsCo-located PMO technical SME on supplier sitePMO implemented comment consolidation processPMO implemented comment consolidation processImproved collaboration between PMO and supplier
19
Contact Information
Anne PremAssociate
Booz | Allen | Hamilton
Kileen HarrisonLead Associate
Booz | Allen | Hamilton Booz | Allen | Hamilton
1615 Murray Canyon RoadSan Diego, CA 92108Tel (619) 221-5544Cell (202) 441 6701
Booz | Allen | Hamilton
1615 Murray Canyon RoadSan Diego, CA 92108Tel (619) 278-4931C ll (301) 785 5615 Cell (202) 441-6701
prem_anne@bah.comCell (301) 785-5615harrison_kileen@bah.com
O i ti lOrganizational Process Management
Office
4301 Pacific HighwaySpace and NavalWarfare Systems
Command
4301 Pacific HighwaySan Diego, CA 92110
spawar_opmo@navy.mil www.spawar.navy.mil
20
top related