A proposal for a new common process scope for AutomotiveSPICE: Six reasons for adding the MAN.6 process

AutoSYS 2011
Quality Management for Automotive
software-based systems and functionality
Berlin (Germany), July 5-6 2011

A proposal for a new common Six reasons for adding the
process scope for Automotive MAN.6 process
SPICE

Luigi Buglione
Giuseppe Lami

www.eng.it

Engineering At a glance

_ The first Italian ICT player
_ more than 730 M/€ revenues Research and PA & HC Finance Industry TELCO Utilities
Development
_ 1000 clients
_ 6,300 IT specialists System Int. &
Consultancy
% 46 70 54 80 80

Outsourcing % 35 10 27 10

Software
% 19 20 19 10 20

ERP IT Security ECM

Plant Management
Managed Operations Broadband & Media
System

www.eng.it

www.eng.it

ISTI-CNR At a glance

The Institute of Information Research Areas @ ISTI:
Science and Technologies • Networking S&T
• Domotics
“A. Faedo” - Pisa, Italy • Internet Services
• Wireless Networks
• Knowledge S&T
• Human Interfaces in Information Systems
• Knowledge Discovery and Delivery
People: • Information Systems
250 Total • Networked Multimedia Information Systems
• Software S&T
• 103 Research staff • Dependable Computing
• Formal Methods and Tools
• 60 Technical/Administrative
• Software Engineering
staff
• System and Software Evaluation Center
• 87 Research associates • Visual and High Performance Computing S&T
(research fellows, PHD students, • High Performance Computing
fellowships) • Signal & Images
• ~110 Other (Research • Visual Computing
associates, visiting scientists, • Flight and Structural Mechanics
affiliates) • Mechanics of Materials and Structures
• Space Flight Dynamics

www.eng.it

Six reasons Goals of the presentation

 G1. Show the pros & cons of current typical scopes in
process appraisals for the Automotive sector
 G2. Propose the rationale by SIX (6) reasons for
introducing the MAN.6 (Measurement) process
 G3. Discuss the impacts and possible advantages in the
appraisal scope of an organization

4 AutoSys 2011 – Berlin (Germany) July 5, 2011– © 2011 L.Buglione, G.Lami

Six reasons Agenda

• Introduction
– A bit of humour…
– ISO/IEC 15504-based appraisal scopes
• The Six (6) reasons
1. Measurement is not Project Management!
2. Gathering Historical Data
3. Optimize the Cost-of-Non-Quality (CONQ)
4. Improved the Root-Cause Analysis (RCA) capability
5. Goal-oriented Analysis for Process Improvement
6. Improving Estimates
• Conclusions & Prospects
• Q&A


Introduction A bit of humour…


Introduction A bit of humour…

URL: www.dilbert.com

Introduction ISO/IEC 15504-based appraisal scopes


Introduction ISO/IEC 15504-based appraisal scopes

• Are they the right ‘process profiles’
or not? And eventually why?


Six reasons Agenda

• Introduction
• Q&A


Six Reasons 1. Measurement is not Project Mgmt!

• If considering also MAN.6…
 Not only time and cost measures (EAV approach), but few more (but focused) measures
in the project historical databases driven by your informative goals


Six Reasons 2. Gathering Historical Data

 Stressed more the need for historicize data in the Project Historical Database (PHD)
 More focused measures will help in reducing the ‘cone of uncertainty’ in estimates


Six Reasons 3. Optimize the Cost-of-Non-Quality (CONQ)

 CONQ reduction by a more focused measurement on core elements, also looking to their
cause-effect relationship (e.g. by a BSC-like approach) and more affordable estimates
(e.g. Defect and Safety Mgmt from an ISO 26262 perspective)


Six Reasons 4. Improved Root-Cause Analysis capability

 Stimulated the refinement of a cause-effect analysis by measures goal-driven, as in a
BSC: needed input also for ISO/TS 16949:2009 §8.4 (Analysis of Data)


Six Reasons 5. Goal-oriented Analysis for Process Improv.

 Reinforce process assessment results in multiple PAs and GPs also for mid-term
achievements (e.g. PA 2.2 for more data stored in org PHD and PA 3.1 for better cause-
effect analysis based on PHD data)


Six Reasons 6. Improving Estimates

Use more independent variables
• E.g. when using FSM methods, e.g. use combinations of 2+
BFC types
 IFPUG BFC (EI, EO, EQ, ILF, EIF)
 COSMIC BFC (E, X, R, W)
• Results: increased R2 using the same dataset

NW _ Effort = B0 + B1 ( EI ) + B2 ( EO) + B3 ( EQ) + B4 ( ILF ) + B5 ( EIF )
Preconditions
• Historicize project data at the proper level of granularity. E.g. Source: Gencel C. & Buglione L.,
Do Different Functionality Types
 FSU at the BFC type level (by frequencies and – eventually – weigthed values) Affect the Relationship between
Software Functional Size and
 Effort at the SLC phase and/or by ReqType and/or… Effort?, Proceedings
IWSM/MENSURA 2007, Palma de
of
Mallorca (Spain), November 5-8
 Defects by severity/priority class and/or resolution time by phase, and/or… 2007, pp. 235-246

• Skill people – not only estimators – a bit more on Statistics
• Use something more than averages!
 more measures, possibly a higher level of granularity for some of them allowing a
multiple linear regression analysis with lower MREs moving from the same data


Six reasons Agenda

• Introduction
• Q&A


Six reasons Conclusions & Prospects
• Process Appraisals
 More process models contains a lot of processes  trend to set up a ‘core’ set of basic
processes for appraisals
 Some proposals in the past, no one including measurement (ORG.5  MAN.6)
 Appraisals have of course a cost, but how much could it cost more to introduce MAN.6? And
eventually, which could be the ROI from such introduction looking at the possible benefits it
could arise to projects?
• Measurement (MAN.6)
MAN.6 process
 From our viewpoint, looking at the cause-effect relationship of main process models (e.g. ISO
15504, CMMI, etc.), the measurement process is one of the core set of processes to be taken
into account also in a short, quick, reduced-scoped appraisal
 Six reasons were shown for introducing MAN.6 in (reduced) appraisal scopes, discussing its
impact on appraisal results and corrective/improvement actions to take
 Some conclusions...
 Time and Cost measures cover only two possible perspectives for managing a project from a
Project Management viewpoint, but not from a technical one
 MAN.6 is the only way to observe – no matter if from an internal or external perspective – the
way a project has been planned to be monitored and controlled during its lifetime
 We don’t need too much measures, but few, core ones: only applying MAN.6 it’ll be possible to
verify if a project is running the proper level of control for achieving its business goals
 As a consequence, the introduction of MAN.6 would not seen as an additional cost, but as an
opportunity for organization when appraising their processes

Analyze facts and talk through data
(Kaoru Ishiwaka, TQM guru)


Six reasons Q&A

vielen Dank für Ihre Aufmerksamkeit!
Thanks for your attention!

Six reasons Contacts

Luigi Buglione Giuseppe Lami
ETS/Engineering.IT ISTI-CNR
luigi.buglione@eng.it giuseppe.lami@isti.cnr.it


A proposal for a new common process scope for AutomotiveSPICE: Six reasons for adding the MAN.6 process

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (8)

Ähnlich wie A proposal for a new common process scope for AutomotiveSPICE: Six reasons for adding the MAN.6 process

Ähnlich wie A proposal for a new common process scope for AutomotiveSPICE: Six reasons for adding the MAN.6 process (20)

Mehr von Luigi Buglione

Mehr von Luigi Buglione (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

A proposal for a new common process scope for AutomotiveSPICE: Six reasons for adding the MAN.6 process