quality & spi network qspin 20/10/2005with agreement of a.s. liège1 qspin quality & spi...

20/10/2005 With agreement of A.S. Liège 1

Quality & SPI NetworkQSpinQSpin

QSpinQSpinQuality & SPI Network

Arcelor Systems - Liège Process Improvement - CMM L2

Lessons learned

Rébecca Casier & Bernard Dupuis


Quality & SPI NetworkQSpinQSpin AgendaAgenda

• Background and Scope• SPI Program• Improvement Status• Success Factors and Weaknesses



• Background and Scope– Presentation– Project and maintenance– Technical environnements

• SPI Program• Improvement Status• Success Factors and Weaknesses


Quality & SPI NetworkQSpinQSpin Background and scopeBackground and scope

PresentationPresentation

Evolution : DSI SSII• DSI Cockerill Sambre – Usinor SI - Tixis Systems Belgium

- Arcelor Systems – Région Centre - Site de Liège• Entity of Arcelor Systems• An Internal services company of Arcelor Group

Local and group improvement projects• 2002 : Go 4 IT : improvement pilot projects for the

processes of software development and maintenance, based on the CMM

• 2004 : SMQ & P+ (Macroscope Methodology) deployment on all sites of Arcelor Systems

• 2005 : CMMI level 3 Diagnostic



PresentationPresentation

Arcelor Systems - Région Centre - Site de Liège

• Standard reference for initiation & process definition SW-CMM level 2 for project (since 2001) CMM IT Services level 2 for application

maintenance (TMA) (since 2004)



Project and maintenanceProject and maintenance


• ~ 60 projects & 30 engagements in maintenance per year

• ~ 100 people • Average sw development project size : 160

md



Technical EnvironmentsTechnical Environments


• Back Office • GPAO, SCM• Mainframe : Cobol, Cool:Gen• Client/Server : C++• Web development



• Background and Scope• SPI Program

– Objectives– Approach– Investment– Organization– Measurement– Quality Assurance– KPA deployment

• Improvement Status• Success Factors and Weaknesses


Quality & SPI NetworkQSpinQSpin SPI ProgramSPI Program

ObjectivesObjectives

Increase Performance in terms of Budget, Time and Quality

By (since QSpin collaboration)

2004 : CMM level 22005 : P+ Convergence2006 : CMMI level 2&3 ???



ApproachApproach

• KPA CMM L2 selection : RM, SPP, SPTO, SQA, “SCM”(SSM no applicable)

• Focus on sw projects• Unique framework establishment (OPD-OPF Level 3)• Process Group setup (OPD-OPF Level 3)• Deployment on pilot projects (>120md, starting)• Implementation for all projects (after 3 months)• 2003 & 2004 : CMM L2 assessment• 2005 : CMMI SE-SW L2&3 diagnostic



InvestmentInvestment

Incremental investment

Duration• 2001 - 2003 : CMM principles

introduction, Basic procedures• 2003 - 2004 : framework processes

initialization and definition • 2004 - 2005 : practices implementation

and deployment



InvestmentInvestment

Actors• Quality Officers• KPA owner• Senior Management implication• Process Engineer

• Correspond to market average = 5%



OrganizationOrganization

Direction site deLiège

Responsable SPI

SecrétariatAssistant de

Gestion Local

Méthodes etProcess Local

Responsable SEPG

Assurance Qualité

Centre deProduction

DomaineIndustriel

CC ROSE Project OfficeDomaine "Back

Office"

ArchitectureFonctionnelle

ArchitectureTechnique

STQChefs deProjets

ResponsableClient Local

SPIDirecteur

Responsables de DomaineMéthode et Process Local

(Ingénieur Process)

SEPGMéthode et Process Local

Responsables KPA(Ingénieur Process)



MeasurementMeasurement

PI Indicators- Deployment

- # practices/project- # projects/(practices deployed)- # (practices approved)/project by QA

- KPA performance- Milestone variance- Requirement stability

- Global performance- Time & Budget



MeasurementMeasurement

QA Indicators- Deployment :

- QA in project portfolio- QA coverage on global project’s budget

- Performance- % QA charges- Non-conformity : closed vs open ratio



Quality Assurance ActivitiesQuality Assurance Activities

QualityAssuranceEngineer

Audits

ReviewsProject PlansContribution

Quality Plan

Help &Coaching

ProcessImprovementContribution

QualityAssuranceReporting

MeetingsParticipation

Non-ConformitiesResolutionFollow-up

Final ProjectQualityReport



Quality Assurance - NC Follow-up Quality Assurance - NC Follow-up

Légende

Activitésd'Assurance Qualité

Répartition desécarts

Remontée à lahiérarchie

Revue avec lahiérarchie

Définition d'actionsde correction

Définition d'actionsde correction ou

gestion de risques

Ecarts identifiés

Correctionsnégociables

auniveau hiérarchie

Correctionsnégociables

auniveau projet

RéférenceLivrable/ activitéà vérifier

IQ

Membre(s)équipe projet/

TMA

IQ

IQMembre(s)équipe projet/

TMA

IQ

IQ

Hiérarchie

Chef de Projet

IQ

Hiérarchie

ActivitéActeur Livrable

Clôture de la non-conformité

Traitées

Non traitées

Corrections àsuivre

1

2

3

4 5

5

6

N Paragraphe traitant



Quality Assurance ToolQuality Assurance Tool



KPA Deployment Support (Intranet)KPA Deployment Support (Intranet)



• Background and scope• SPI Program• Improvement Status• Success Factors and Weaknesses


Quality & SPI NetworkQSpinQSpin Improvement StatusImprovement Status

• Common practices acquired : – SW documentation – Project Plans – better requirement management and project control – testing process – metrics, size estimation (by object)– document reviews– risk management

• Less dependent on resource competencies• Mentality Changes• Framework & Library



• Background and Scope• SPI Program• Improvement Status• Success Factors and Weaknesses


Quality & SPI NetworkQSpinQSpin Success Success Factors and WeaknessesFactors and Weaknesses

StrengthsStrengths

• Dedicated permanent QA team facilitates process institutionalization

• SPI & SEPG implementation (framework evolution, CCB, improvement management)

• Permanent coaching reducing the resistance to change

• Top Management decision and implication• Use of a common langage and a common way

to do things• Improvement realizations verified by

independent assessment


Quality & SPI NetworkQSpinQSpin Success Success Factors and WeaknessesFactors and Weaknesses

Improvement OpportunitiesImprovement Opportunities

• Need for more adapted resources training• Better ROI metrics• More adherence of the mid-management to the PI• Effort on PI communication to the rest of the

company• Investigation in better change management (HR)• Correct understanding of the “non-conformity”

concept• Customers implication in the SPI Program


Quality & SPI NetworkQSpinQSpin

Questions ?

quality & spi network qspin 20/10/2005with agreement of a.s. liège1 qspin quality & spi...

Documents

quality spi network

agreement of

deployment slide

qspin collaboration

md slide

lige9 spi program objectives

sites of arcelor systems

lige entity of arcelor