ASSESMENT Of TRANSITION From ‘QUALITY In a PROJECT ENVIRONMENT’-

COMPONENT Of PRINCE 2 To

‘PROCESS & PODUCT QUALITY ASSURANCE’- PROCESS AREA Of CMMI 1.1

Ahmad Luqmanaluqman@hotmail.com

2

Presentation Layout

• Introduction (PRINCE, CMMI)• Literature Review• Mapping• Conclusion• Future Enhancement(s)• References & Bibliography• Q & A

3

Objective

• Develop an assessment of transformation from OGC-PRINCE 2 to SEI-CMMI 1.1

4

PRINCE

• PRoject IN Controlled Environment [1]• Developed by Central Computer and Telecommunications

Agency (CCTA) in 1989• United Kingdom Government’s de facto standard for IT

Project Management • PRINCE 2 launched in 1990 • Now operated by the Office of Government Commerce

(OGC), England

5

PRINCE®2

6

CMMI

• Capability Maturity Model Integration [2] • An integrated framework for maturity models and

associated products that integrate the two key disciplines that are inseparable in a systems development activity; software engineering and systems engineering

• Developed in Aug 2001, by SEI, CMU, Pittsburgh Pennsylvania USA. SEI is being financed by DoD

7

CMMI® 1.1 Structure

Generic Practices

Generic Goals

Process Area 2Process Area 1 Process Area n

Specific Goals

Specific PracticesCapability Levels

Generic Practices

Generic Goals

Process Area 2Process Area 1 Process Area n

Specific Goals

Specific PracticesCapability Levels

8

Literature Review

• How ISO 9001 Compares with the CMM; Marck C. Paulk, SEI, CMU; 0740-7459/94/$04.00 © 1994 IEEE; Jan 1995 [3].– The main difference between these two: is the explicit

emphasis of the CMM on continuous process improvement. ISO 9001 addresses only the minimum criteria for an acceptable quality system

9

Literature Review (Cont…)

• The Frameworks Quagmire; Sheard, Sarah; Crosstalk, Volume 10, No. 9; Sept 1997 [5]. – Many companies have begun documenting processes in

response to ISO 9000 in 1994 on of the various capability maturity models, or perhaps to other standards

10

Literature Review (Cont…)

• Project management & business development Integrating strategy, structure, processes and projects; AP Van Der Merwe; 5th International Symposium of PM YUPMA 2001; Yugoslavia; 28 to 30 May 2001 [6].– Project close out is not normally seen as part of the

project, neither is commercial operation

11

Literature Review (Cont…)

• Capability Maturity Model Integration 1.1 Continuous Representation; SEI, CMU; CMU/SEI-2002-TR-028 ESC-TR-2002-028 Aug 2002 [7].– The continuous representation uses capability levels to

measure process improvement

12

Literature Review (Cont…)

• Managing Successful Projects with PRINCE 2; Bob Assirati, The Stationery Office, OGC, London, UK; 2004 [8]. – There are certain aspects of Project Management that

are well covered by existing and proven methods and are therefore excluded from PRINCE 2. Examples of these aspects are: People management techniques, Generic planning techniques

13

Problem Definition

• PRINCE 2 is not intended to cover all aspects relevant to Project Management & Product Development, e.g. – People management techniques such as motivation,

delegation and team leadership – Generic planning techniques such as Gantt Chart and

Critical Path Analysis – The creation of corporate Quality management & Quality

assurance mechanisms – Contract and procurement issues – Allocation of risk ownership

• This is the job of other methods, although PRINCE must interface with them to enable information on such areas

Organizations concerned with PRINCE 2 certification often question its overlap with the CMMI. As such; there was no transformation mechanism available between these concerned standards in the contemporary market

14

Solution

• OGC PRINCE 2 Processes map to most appropriate different Practices of SEI CMMI 1.1 analysis provides answer to some common questions about the mapping of these standards

15

Work Performed

• Research is primarily based upon two features;– Leading Case Studies across the world– Incorporation of real time data through questionnaires

• Case Studies are;

1.PRINCE2 Case study (with CMM), Ericsson Services Ireland, Oct 2002

  2.PRINCE2 Case study, Registers of Scotland Executive Agency, Sept 2002

3.PRINCE2 Case study, Enterprise Risk Management, Fleet Information Management Unit, UK, Oct 2002

  4.PRINCE2 Case study, Electricity Supply Board Ireland, April 2002.

5.PRINCE2 Case study, PRINCE2 & PMI/PMBoK, A combined Approach at Getronics, The APM Group Limited, Buckinghamshire, UK, 2002

 6.PRINCE2 Case Study, National Health Service, Bucks, UK, July 2003

7.CMMI Case Study, United Space Alliance (Boeing Company / Lockheed Martin Corporation), NASA, LLC, 2001

8.Australian Experiences with CMMI, Terry Rout, David Marshall, Angela Tuffley & Adrian Pitman, Software Quality Institute, Griffith

University, Australian Defense Material Organization, Australia

16

Mapping Approach

• Divide the Standard to the lowest level• Compare the Typical Artifact & Work Product• Based upon Case studies & Questionnaire, assign weights

i.e. Strong, Medium and Weak to one-to-one mapping

17

P R IN C E 2 B reak u p

8 C om p on en ts 3 Tech n iq u es

D es ig n in g a P lan D efin in g & A n a lyz in g P rod . Id en tifyin g A c tivit ies D ep en d . E s tim atin g S ch ed u lin g

A ll P reviou s ly p lan n ed in fo .

In p u t U p d ate O u tp u t

R isk L og

A n a lyz in g R is ks C om p le tin g a P lan

P lan n in g P rocess

8 P rocess es

P R IN C E 2

PRINCE 2® Breakup

18

C M M I 1 .1 B reaku p

S tag ed R ep resen ta tion

P rocess M an ag em en t

Id en tified ris ks R isk p rio rit ies R isk im p ac ts & p rob ab ility o f occu rren ce

4 S u b P rac tice

1 4 S p ec ific P rac tices2 .2 -1 (Id en tify P ro jec t R isks )

3 S p ec ific G oa ls 5 G en eric G oa ls

P ro jec t P lan n in g

P ro jec t M an ag em en t E n g in eerin g S u p p ort

C on tin u ou s R ep resen ta tion

C M M I 1 .1

CMMI 1.1® Breakup

19

Achievement

• Map serve as an indicator of correspondence between the PRINCE 2 to CMMI 1.1, rather than as an implementation guideline

20

ConclusionPRINCE 2 (Quality in a Project Environment-Component) to

CMMI 1.1 (Process & Product Quality Assurance-Process Area)

Typical Artifacts CMMI

Practices Strength Most Relevant Work Products

Customer’s Quality Expectations (SU) GP 2.7 M Identify & Involve Relevant Stakeholders

Acceptance Criteria SP 1.2-1 W Evaluation Reports

Project Approach (SU) GP 2.1 W Establish an Organizational Policy

Quality Planning- Project Quality Plan (IP1) GP 2.2 S Plan the Process

Stage or Team Quality Plan (SB1) GP 2.2 W Plan the Process

Product Descriptions & Quality Criteria (CS1) - - -

Quality Control (CS2) GP 2.8 W Monitor & Control the Process

Quality Log (IP) SP 2.2-1 W Evaluation Logs

Project Issues SP 1.2-1 W Noncompliance Reports

External to Project (ISO, Quality Policy, QMS, & Quality Assurance)

GP 2.1 M Establish an Organizational Policy

21

Future Research

Risk Management (RM) component of PRINCE 2 can be mapped to RM of in CMMI 1.1

22

References & Bibliography

1. Managing Successful Projects with PRINCE 2; Bob Assirati, OGC- London-UK; 2004

2. CMMI Guidelines for Process Integration & Product Improvement; Mary Beth Chrissis, Mike Konarad, Sandy Shrum; ISBN 0321154967; SEI-CMU-USA; 2004

3. How ISO 9001 Compares with the CMM; Marck C. Paulk, SEI, CMU; 0740-7459/94/$04.00 © 1994 IEEE; Jan 1995

4. SEI & Enterprise Process Improvement Collaboration, Systems Engineering Capability Assessment Model An IPD CMM; International Council on Systems Engineering vol 1, v0.9. CMU; 28 Oct 1996

5. The Frameworks Quagmire; Sheard, Sarah; Crosstalk, Volume 10, No. 9; Sept 1997

23

References & Bibliography (Cont…)

6. Project management & business development Integrating strategy, structure, processes and projects; AP Van Der Merwe; 5th International Symposium of PM YUPMA 2001; Yugoslavia; 28 to 30 May 2001

7. Capability Maturity Model Integration 1.1 Continuous Representation; SEI, CMU; CMU/SEI-2002-TR-028 ESC-TR-2002-028 Aug 2002.

8. Managing Successful Projects with PRINCE 2; Bob Assirati, The Stationery Office, OGC, London, UK; 2004

Q & A

Thank YouThank YouAhmad Luqman