SM Team Software Process, TSP, Personal Software Process ...•Training challenges – PSP SM...
Transcript of SM Team Software Process, TSP, Personal Software Process ...•Training challenges – PSP SM...
-
SM Team Software Process, TSP, Personal Software Process, and PSP are service marks of Carnegie Mellon University® CMMI is a registered mark of Carnegie Mellon University
-
•Background
•TSP Implementation Challenges
– For SW Outsourcing Organizations (SOO)
– For Very Small SOO (VSSOO)
© 2009 ITESM, Rafael Salazar
– For Very Small SOO (VSSOO)
•Our experience with 3 Mexican VSSOO
•Results
•Conclusion
-
© 2009 ITESM, Rafael Salazar
-
•2002: Mexican government launched a National Development Plan called PROSOFT
– To improve the IT industry, increasing competitiveness in all IT sectors
•2006: Tecnológico de Monterrey, SEI and
© 2009 ITESM, Rafael Salazar
•2006: Tecnológico de Monterrey, SEI and PROSOFT started the “Mexican TSP Initiative”
– To position Mexico as the world leader in SW Quality
– First phase was a success
– Results published as an SEI Technical Report (“Deploying TSP on a National Scale: An Experience Report from Pilot Projects in Mexico”, CMU/SEI-2009-TR-011)
-
•2006 OECD report:
– 92% of all Mexican companies are small
enterprises (less than 50 employees)
•2004 Prosoft report:
© 2009 ITESM, Rafael Salazar
•2004 Prosoft report:
– 83% of Mexican SW Outsourcing Organizations
(SOO) have less than 50 employees
– 41% have less than 10 employees (what I call
“very small SOO” or VSSOO)
-
•Prosoft developed MOPROSOFT
– Process certification model for VSSOO
– Based on CMMI® and ISO-15504
– Focuses in business related processes, but does not dig “enough” into SW development processes
© 2009 ITESM, Rafael Salazar
not dig “enough” into SW development processes
•Premise behind the “Mexican TSP Initiative”
– For VSSOO TSP should be easy to implement and will provide fast results in “very high SW Quality”
– But… it will not be free of new challenges
-
© 2009 ITESM, Rafael Salazar
-
•TSP introduction in itself has challenges
•Most of the actual experience comes from introducing TSP in:
– Internal SW development organizations (like NAVAIR or Microsoft IT)
© 2009 ITESM, Rafael Salazar
NAVAIR or Microsoft IT)
– Organizations that develop packaged software products (like Intuit or Adobe)
•There is few experience in introducing TSP in organizations that outsource software development (SOO)
-
• High dependency in selling cycles
– Short time notice to start a SW project (bidding process)
– Having people “sitting on the bench” is prohibitive
• Customers (buyers) are not convinced
– Not willing to pay for what they consider “overhead” tasks (i.e. launch, checkpoints, post-mortems)
© 2009 ITESM, Rafael Salazar
(i.e. launch, checkpoints, post-mortems)
– Focused on short-term “low-cost” (rather than high-quality)
– Chaos in its internal organization (not disciplined)
– Tight project “control” (i.e. people outsourcing)
• Organizational structure is very sensitive to cost
– “Cheap” programmers
– Expert “management” (high turnover between projects)
– Employees “pay” for inefficiencies (difficult to see an ROI)
-
• Training challenges
– PSPSM training = closing all the company for 2 weeks
• Pilot projects challenges
– Most of the projects are very small (2-3 person, 1-3 months)
– Not too many projects (a lot of people outsourcing)
– The owner could be management + team leader (+ coach)
© 2009 ITESM, Rafael Salazar
– The owner could be management + team leader (+ coach)
• Financial challenges
– Cash flow restrictions
– Very high cost to achieve self sufficiency (having an internal TSP coach)
• Initial training cost ≈ 1 year of programmer’s salary
• SEI annual fee ≈ 5 months of programmer’s salary
-
•Fast TSP introduction in all the organization
– If the owner of the company is “truly” convinced, you have achieved 60% of success (you get another 30% from a willing-to-try buyer)
•Very easy to bring process focus & discipline
© 2009 ITESM, Rafael Salazar
•Very easy to bring process focus & discipline
– TSP is a “template” of proven SW processes
– A TSP team of 4 people = half the organization with standards & process discipline
•TSP should help them to move from people outsourcing � project outsourcing
-
© 2009 ITESM, Rafael Salazar
-
•Second half of 2008:
– Tec de Monterrey had the opportunity to introduce TSP in 3 VSSOO (organizations A, B, and C)
– All with less than 10 engineers
© 2009 ITESM, Rafael Salazar
– One of them (Org. C) had a single customer / project
•3 different approaches to deal with challenges
– Org. A: Our normal and complete TSP introduction
– Org. B: “Staged” PSP training & no internal coach
– Org. C: Postponing PSP Advanced training & no internal coach
-
• Required TSP/PSP training:
– Leading a Development Team: 4 consecutive mornings
• Advantage: managers can work on the afternoons
– PSP Fundamentals: Fridays & Saturdays for 3 consecutive weeks and just before the launch
• Advantages: engineers work from Monday to Thursday, have
© 2009 ITESM, Rafael Salazar
• Advantages: engineers work from Monday to Thursday, have an extra day of class, and are trained close to the launch
– PSP Advanced: same structure of PSP Fundamentals, starting in week 3-4 of the first pilot project
• Advantage: the team plan includes this training, and they complete PSP training very early in the pilot project
• TSP pilot projects:
– 2 sequential pilot projects (instead of parallel pilot projects)
– Small projects (2-3 months in duration)
-
•Training & certification of at least one internal TSP coach:– TSP coach candidate:
• Is the team leader in the first pilot project
• Takes all PSP training with the team
© 2009 ITESM, Rafael Salazar
• Takes all PSP training with the team
• Gets PSP certified
• Takes Coach Training Course before the 2nd pilot project starts
• Is observed launching the 2nd pilot project
– External TSP coach:
• Coaches the first pilot project
• Mentors the internal coach in the 2nd pilot project
-
•Could not get “permission” from the customer to take their people out for 3 consecutive Fridays for PSP Fundamentals
•We tried a new approach
© 2009 ITESM, Rafael Salazar
– Instead of 3 consecutive weeks � 3 cons. months
– For the people not to forget what they have learned:
• We told them to use in their daily work what they have just learned
• We had “weekly meetings” to answer any question and encourage PSP usage
-
•Did not “have time” to take PSP Advanced within the 1st pilot project
•Decision: PSP Advanced after 1st pilot project
– It was a “large” project (for VSSOO standards)
• Team = all of Org. C
© 2009 ITESM, Rafael Salazar
• Team = all of Org. C
• 22 weeks
– But… the customer asked for more functionality
• Project finished in 40 weeks (2 cycles)
•Now that a 2nd project has started
– They started taking PSP Advanced in week 3
-
© 2009 ITESM, Rafael Salazar
-
Org. A Org. B
People trained in PSP 8 7
People certified in PSP 8 7
People certified in 1st opportunity 6 (75%) 5 (71%)
People certified in 3rd opportunity 0 (0%) 2 (29%)
© 2009 ITESM, Rafael Salazar
People certified in 3 opportunity 0 (0%) 2 (29%)
% compile time (P1-P7, % reduction) 5-0.5, 90% 8-0.1, 99%
% unit test time (P1-P7, % reduction) 23-12, 48% 15-7, 53%
Def/KLOC in compile (P1-P7, % red.) 28-6, 78% 13-3, 77%
Def/KLOC in test (P1-P7, % red.) 48-12, 75% 16-8, 50%
LOC/hr (P1-P7, % reduction) 49-25, 49% 58-27, 53%
Yield (P1-P7) 30-79 17-76
NOTE: Training for Org. C has not finished
-
• Results are mixed, but for Org. B (staged training):
– “Weekly meetings” did not work
• They didn’t use PSP in their daily work tasks
– 2 people struggled in their certification exam
• But maybe it was a language problem (in English)
© 2009 ITESM, Rafael Salazar
• But maybe it was a language problem (in English)
• Org. C used TSP for 40 weeks with PSP Fund. only
– They struggled with design and design reviews
• Now that they are taking PSP Adv. they think that:
– They would have done better in the first TSP project if they had taken PSP Advanced
– They do not recommend leaving PSP Adv. for the last
-
Org. A Org. B Org. C
Team members 4 4 7
Number of Weeks 25 12 24
LOC 10,728 3,862 5,622
LOC/hr 7.0 19.2 4.0
© 2009 ITESM, Rafael Salazar
LOC/hr 7.0 19.2 4.0
Task hours/week/person 15.3 9.6 9.2
% plan change (in time) +77% +15% +3.1%
% plan change (in LOC) +160% +132% -13.2%
Def/KLOC in System Test 0.75 0.29 3.86
Def/KLOC in Acceptance Test 0.37 NA 2.65
Process Quality Index 0.58 0.33 0.05
-
© 2009 ITESM, Rafael Salazar
-
•Postponing PSP Advanced training
– One of my strongest conclusions
•“Weekly meetings” for staged training
•Leaving the company not-self-sufficient
© 2009 ITESM, Rafael Salazar
•Leaving the company not-self-sufficient
– Leaving the company without an internal coach
-
• Using our normal and complete TSP introduction
– Training: mornings for LDT and Fri-Sat for PSP
– Starting PSP Advanced on week 3-4 of 1st pilot project
– Training & certifying at least one internal TSP coach
• Senior management’s belief and passion
© 2009 ITESM, Rafael Salazar
• Senior management’s belief and passion
– Even when this is true for any TSP introduction, it is essential for VSSOO
– I once heard Watts Humphrey say that the key success factors to introduce TSP are “coaching, coaching, coaching, and management”
• My experience tells me: “senior management, senior management, senior management, and coaching”
-
•Very high costs for internal TSP coaches
– Specially for VSSOO
•How to “convince” buyers (customers)
– TSP is not a “methodology”
© 2009 ITESM, Rafael Salazar
– TSP is not a “methodology”
– Quality comes first (not short term costs)
– Moving from “people” outsourcing to “project”
outsourcing