Summary

Different Approaches for Process Improvement

Now that we have presented the fundamentals of process improvement, let us compare two different approaches.

The Traditional Approach to PI

• Form the EPG (35 or more members ).

• Define the "As-Is" process.

• Define the "To-Be" process.

• Gain consensus across the organization.

• Start up the PATs.

• Continue.

The benefits of this approach are that it promotes communication across large organizations, promotes organizational consensus, gives the players in the organization the "big picture," and can expand the focus on areas of improvement not called out specifically in the CMMI.

The disadvantages are that it takes a long time (up to a year or more to define the AS IS process, and then another six months to define the TO BE process). It is difficult to show progress to management (players leave before getting to the "real work," that is, the PATs), decision making with a large EPG is unwieldy and slow, funding runs out or the PI project is cancelled, and ideas do not always map to the CMMI.

An Alternate Approach

• Do an appraisal (SCAMPI).

• Set up the EPG (sometimes already done and the EPG participates in the SCAMPI).

• Proceed based on SCAMPI findings.

• Prioritize areas to concentrate on.

• Prioritize PATs.

The benefits of this approach are that it gets the organization involved quickly, gets the organization CMMI-aware quickly, can show progress to management more easily, proves to the organization that everyone does not do everything the same way, documents how things are currently done and ties it directly to CMMI practices, and sells the idea of appraisals to management.

The disadvantages are that this approach takes the organization longer to get the "big picture" (interdependencies of the CMMI and current organizational processes), and some people feel the program is pushed down on them with little input from the workforce.