Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [CMMi Process Improvement] GP 2.7 Interpretation Question

Expand Messages
  • Andre Heijstek
    Hi Michael, It seems to me that this does a good job in ³Identify² for abstract roles. I would like to see real names as well ­ although that is a Project
    Message 1 of 4 , Nov 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Re: [CMMi Process Improvement] GP 2.7 Interpretation Question Hi Michael,

      It seems to me that this does a good job in “Identify” for abstract roles.
      I would like to see real names as well – although that is a Project Planning SP thing.
      And I would like to see that the Identified people are also really “Involved”.
      But that is not something you will be able to verify from a documented process/procedure, this comes down to interviews and affirmations in a SCAMPI.

      So, as far as documentation is concerned, you are OK in my view.

      Regards, Andre.


      On 29/10/04 17:08, "Bandor Michael S MSgt ESC/HRXPI" <michael.bandor@...> wrote:

             I have an interpretation question regarding GP 2.7 Identify and Involve Relevant Stakeholders.  I think I already know the answer but would like a second opinion.  We have a standard process specification template we use for documenting our processes.  The same goes for our procedure definitions.  The process templates cover the following information (a variant of the ETVX format):

              
      - Name
              
      - Version
              
      - Revision Date
              
      - OPR (who owns the process)
              
      - Configuration ID
              
      - Purpose
              
      - Control Mechanisms
              
      - Entry Conditions
              
      - Exit Conditions
              
      - Input
              
      - Process Steps
              
      - Output
              
      - Roles and Activities
              
      - Methods and Tools
              
      - Measurements
              
      - Reviews
              
      - Training
              
      - References

              
      Even with all that information, we've been able to keep them to 3 pages in length.  The procedures don't have that limitation as they are expected to be more detailed (down to the "point here", "click there", "enter this" level of detail).

              
      In the Roles and Activities section of our process template, we identify who (Role) performs the process step (Activities).  We have a standard set of definitions for the activities (e.g. Perform, Monitor, Record, Participate, etc.).  This table also maps very well to a cross-functional (a.k.a. "swim lane") diagram for graphically depicting the activities and flow.  We use this as a supporting document for the processes.

              
      Given this method for documenting our processes, would this (from a SCAMPI perspective) satisfy GP 2.7?  Personally, I think it would as the stakeholders are covered in the Roles performing the process.

              
      Your thoughts?

      Thanks in advance,

      Mike

      MICHAEL S. BANDOR, MSgt, USAF
      Systems Process Engineer
      Systems Engineering Process Group (SEPG)
      ESC/HRXPI

      550 C Street West
      Randolph AFB, TX 78150-4720
      DSN 665-1159/3377 Commercial: (210) 565-1159/3377
      Email:
      michael.bandor@...

      NOTE:  The information presented does not constitute an endorsement by the US Air Force, Department of Defense, or US Government.  It is provided for informational purposes only.

      Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
        <http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=1294jf95h/M=281955.5530326.6602771.3001176/D=groups/S=1705007207:HM/EXP=1099152566/A=2343726/R=0/SIG=12i7i1u97/*http://clk.atdmt.com/VON/go/yhxxxvon01900091von/direct/01/&time=1099066166301145>  Get unlimited calls to U.S./Canada  <http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=1294jf95h/M=281955.5530326.6602771.3001176/D=groups/S=1705007207:HM/EXP=1099152566/A=2343726/R=1/SIG=12i7i1u97/*http://clk.atdmt.com/VON/go/yhxxxvon01900091von/direct/01/&time=1099066166301145>  


      Yahoo! Groups Links


    • Huet Landry
      Mike, We have a very similar format for our process descriptions that has been part of two successful CMM-SW level 2 assessments. Huet Landry SPI Mentor,
      Message 2 of 4 , Nov 1, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Mike,

        We have a very similar format for our process descriptions that has
        been part of two successful CMM-SW level 2 assessments.

        Huet Landry
        SPI Mentor, Requirements Analyst
        Customs and Border Protection
        Department of Homeland Security
        Unisys
        703-921-7323
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.