复制成功
  • 图案背景
  • 纯色背景

笔记

  • 2019-11-16
    为大人带来形象的羊生肖故事来历 为孩子带去快乐的生肖图画故事阅读
    谈谈怎样学好数学_苏步青-中学生文库
网上数字图..

上传于:2015-05-31

粉丝量:1038

十分赛车走势图今天_花少钱中大奖22270.COM-所发布文档来源于互联网和个人收集,仅用于分享交流和学习使用,请下载后于24小时内删除,版权为原作者所有,请支持购买原版。因上传文档受大小限制,部分文档拆分上传,请浏览确认后下载。如有侵犯您的版权,请通过站内信息告知,将立即删除相关资料.如有其它问题也欢迎联系,谢谢!



十分赛车走势图今天_花少钱中大奖22270.COM-_计算机书籍 十分赛车走势图今天_花少钱中大奖22270.COM-_计算机书籍 Artech.House.Systematic.Process.Improvement.Using.ISO.9001.

下载积分:600

内容提示: Systematic Process ImprovementUsing ISO 9001:2000 and CMMI For a listing of recent titles in the Artech HouseComputing Library, turn to the back of this book. Systematic Process ImprovementUsing ISO 9001:2000 and CMMIBoris MutafelijaHarvey StrombergArtech HouseBoston • Londonwww.artechhouse.com Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication DataMutafelija, Boris.Systematic process improvement using ISO 9001:2000 and CMMI/ Boris Mutafelija, Harvey Stromberg.p. cm. — (Artech House computing library)I...

文档格式:PDF| 浏览次数:2| 上传日期:2015-05-31 08:31:22| 文档星级:
Systematic Process ImprovementUsing ISO 9001:2000 and CMMI For a listing of recent titles in the Artech HouseComputing Library, turn to the back of this book. Systematic Process ImprovementUsing ISO 9001:2000 and CMMIBoris MutafelijaHarvey StrombergArtech HouseBoston • Londonwww.artechhouse.com Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication DataMutafelija, Boris.Systematic process improvement using ISO 9001:2000 and CMMI/ Boris Mutafelija, Harvey Stromberg.p. cm. — (Artech House computing library)Includes bibliographical references and index.ISBN 1-58053-487-2 (alk. paper)1. Quality control—Standards.2. ISO 9001 Standard.software).I. Stromberg, Harvey.II. Title.III. Series.TS156.M8752003658.5’62—dc213. Capability Maturity Model(Computer2003041477British Library Cataloguing in Publication DataMutafelija, BorisSystematic process improvement using ISO 9001:2000 and CMMI. — (Artech House computing library)1. ISO 9000 Series Standards2. Capability Maturity Model(Computer software)II. Stromberg, Harvey005.1’0685I. TitleISBN 1-58053-487-2Cover design by Igor ValdmanThe following are service marks of Carnegie Mellon University: CMMIntegrationSM, IDEALSM,SCAMPISM, and SCESM.The following are registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office by Carnegie Mellon University:Capability Maturity Model, CMM, and CMMI. 2003 ARTECH HOUSE, INC.685 Canton StreetNorwood, MA 02062All rights reserved. Printed and bound in the United States of America. No part of this book may bereproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying,recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing fromthe publisher.All terms mentioned in this book that are known to be trademarks or service marks have beenappropriately capitalized. Artech House cannot attest to the accuracy of this information. Use of aterm in this book should not be regarded as affecting the validity of any trademark or service mark.International Standard Book Number: 1-58053-487-2Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 200304147710 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 To our wives, Mirta and Susan,and our children, Suzanne, Christopher, Daniel, and DeborahThanks for your support, encouragement, and especially patience. Disclaimer of WarrantySpecial permission to use1. CapabilityMaturityModelforSoftware,Version1.1,CMU/SEI-93-TR-24,1993byCarnegieMellon University,2. Key Practices of the Capability Maturity Modelfor Software, Version 1.1, CMU/SEI-93-TR-25, 1993 by Carnegie Mellon University,3. Capability Maturity Model Integration(CMMI), v1.1, Continuous Representation, CMU/SEI-2002-TR-003,  2001 by Carnegie Mellon University,4. Capability Maturity Model Integration(CMMI), v1.1, Staged Representation, CMU/SEI-2002-TR-004,  2001 by Carnegie Mellon University,5. IDEALSM: A User’s Guide for Software Process Improvement, CMU/SEI-96-HB-001,  1996by Carnegie Mellon University,6. Standard CMMIAppraisal Method for Process ImprovementSM(SCAMPISM), Version 1.1:Method Definition Document, CMU/SEI-2001-HB-001,  2001 by Carnegie Mellon Uni-versityin Systematic Process Improvement Using ISO 9001:2000 and CMMIis granted by the SoftwareEngineering Institute. The SEI and CMU do not directly or indirectly endorse this work.NOWARRANTY.THISCARNEGIEMELLONUNIVERSITYANDSOFTWAREENGINEERINGINSTITUTE MATERIAL IS FURNISHED ON AN ‘‘AS IS’’ BASIS. CARNEGIE MELLONUNIVERSITY MAKES NO WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIEDAS TO ANY MATTER INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, WARRANTY OF FITNESS FORPURPOSE OR MERCHANTABILITY, EXCLUSIVITY OR RESULTS OBTAINED FROM USEOF THE MATERIAL. CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY DOES NOT MAKE ANY WAR-RANTY OF ANY KIND WITH RESPECT TO FREEDOM FROM PATENT, TRADEMARK, ORCOPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. ContentsForeword ...............xiPreface ................xvAcknowledgments............ xix1Introduction1.1Role of frameworks in developing process improvementstrategies1.2Process improvement approaches1.3SyngergyReferences..............1457112Process Improvement2.1Why worry about process improvement?2.2Why is process improvement so difficult?2.3Typical process improvement approaches2.3.1Plan–Do–Check–Act2.3.2ISO 15504, Part 72.3.3IDEALSM2.3.4Evolutionary spiral process2.3.5ISO 9004:20002.3.6Brute force2.4SummaryReferences...........131314151617212426272729vii viiiContents3Framework Introduction3.1Relationships between frameworks and processimprovement approaches3.2ISO 9001:19943.3CMMfor software3.3.1CMMstructure3.3.2Key process areas3.4ISO TR 155043.5EIA/IS-7313.6FAA-iCMM3.7SummaryReferences..........31313435384043475356574Revised Frameworks: ISO 9001:2000 and the CMMI4.1ISO 9001:20004.1.1Quality management principles4.1.2Process approach and system approach to management4.1.3ISO 9001:2000 requirements4.2CMMI4.2.1New to CMMIversion 1.14.2.2Model representations4.2.3Maturity versus capability levels4.2.4Institutionalization4.2.5Generic Goals and Generic Practices4.2.6Process AreasReferences.5959616566788081818386981185ISO 9001:2000 and CMMISynergy .5.1Commonalities5.2Differences5.3Strengths5.4Weaknesses5.5Synergy5.5.1Institutionalization5.5.2Process areas and their specific practices5.5.3Relationship between ISO and the CMMI...... 121129131132133134135136149 Contentsix5.6ReferencesSummary of ISO requirements not covered by the CMMI1511526Transitioning from Legacy Standards6.1Differences between the CMMand CMMI6.1.1Institutionalization6.1.2Maturity level 2 PAs6.1.3Maturity level 3 PAs6.1.4Maturity level 4 PAs6.1.5Maturity level 5 PAs6.1.6Continuous CMMIrepresentation: concept of threads6.2Differences between ISO 9001:1994 and ISO 9001:20006.3Transitioning from the CMMto the CMMI6.3.1Basic approach—no previous process improvementexperience6.3.2Transitioning from CMMmaturity level 2 to CMMImaturity level 26.3.3Transitioning from CMMmaturity level 3 to CMMImaturity level 36.3.4Transitioning from CMMmaturity level 2 to CMMImaturity level 36.4Transitioning from ISO 9001:1994 to ISO 9001:2000References...... 1531551551611661711721731751771801921961982012047Approaches Using ISO–CMMISynergy7.1Process improvement7.2First phase: Initiating7.3Second phase: Diagnosing7.4Third phase: Establishing7.4.1Process improvement approaches7.4.2Potential transition cases7.4.3Process improvement planning7.5Fourth phase: Acting7.6Fifth phase: LearningReferences..... 205205206207209209211234235236237 xContents8Appraisal/Registration .8.1SCAMPISM8.1.1Some history8.1.2SCAMPISMoverview8.2ISO 9001:2000 registration process8.3TickIT8.4Using SCAMPISMto prepare for ISO 9001:2000 registration8.5SummaryReferences.......... 2392402402422522582602612619Document Mapping .9.1Mapping: ISO 9001:2000 to the CMMI9.2Inverse mapping: CMMIto ISO 9001:2000References........... 263264268281Acronyms ............... 283About the Authors............ 287Index................ 289 ForewordAfor systems engineering, and one for integrated product development) withthe idea of creating the Capability Maturity Model Integrated(CMMI), wenoted the significant improvements that were being made in the ISO 9000series that became ISO 9000:2000. We knew that one of the challengesthat lay ahead was to ensure that organizations could capitalize on theimprovements that both of these efforts made available, resulting in high-quality development.Many organizations struggle when confronted with multiple standards.Those standards often have different architectures, use different languages,and have different appraisal methods. Usually, organizations address the onestandard that is demanded in the next proposal or project or is recognizedin the industry as a ‘‘must.’’ Sometimes, management reads about the bene-fits of some new model or standard or hears about it at a conference, andit then becomes important that their next procurement be based on thatnew standard, model, or framework. What happens next? Standards arerevised, the newly developed standards are vastly different, old standardsor models will be retired, new appraisal methods are developed—and thecycle starts again.Boris and Harvey have shown with this work that multiple standardscan be addressed simultaneously, by developing a process architecture thatis compliant with all of them. This is because there is always a large overlapamong the frameworks—most standards and models are based on a set ofbest practices—so by definition they have to have something in common.Most process improvement professionals have experienced such dilemmasand say that the best approach to process improvement is to have clear goalss we began the work in 1998 to bring together three closely relatedmodels for process improvement (one for software engineering, onexi xiiForewordthat support the organization’s objectives and strategy. These clear goalsneed to drive the process improvement goals. Does the company really wantto improve its processes or do they want to quickly respond to that newRFP or customer request. As in school, there is no shortcut; no amount ofcramming for the finals will result in lasting knowledge. Process improve-ment takes time and resources, but the rewards have been proven achiev-able—and sustainable. Organizations whose goal is to ‘‘get a level’’ or ‘‘getISO certified’’ without regard to the business objectives often struggle tosucceed, or to maintain the level or certification. There is no secret; organiza-tions have to set their goals, objectives, and priorities and decide how toconduct process improvement within the business context.Some organizations will choose to focus on only one of the two frame-works. But because of globalization, many organizations will discover theneed to demonstrate compliance with one, or the other, or both documents.Are they compatible? This book points out that ISO 9001:2000 and theCMMIhave a lot in common. In the last several years many organizationsstarted to implement both ISO 9001:1994 and the CMM, so it seems naturalto extend this trend to those newly revised documents. With the revisionsof those documents the synergies between them are even more evident. Inrepeated cases, the model supplements the standard and the standard pro-vides guidance for the model. In the case of software systems and productswith large software content, the commonality is very prominent and thebook shows how that commonality can be advantageously used for processimprovement. In addition, the book shows that the appraisal method usedfor the CMMIcan be used to prepare organizations for ISO registration.I have been pleased to see that Boris and Harvey have kept the emphasison process improvement rather than on the ISO registration or CMMImaturity level, but they also show what an organization has to do to achieveeither one or both. The book provides a systematic process improvementapproach, based on the proven IDEALSMmodel, and couples it with thesynergy between ISO 9001:2000 and the CMMIdescribed above. It startsby describing some of the existing frameworks, and then concentrates onISOandtheCMMI,discussestheirnewlyreleasedrevisions,theirsimilaritiesand differences, and outlines how they provide an effective partnership forimprovement.Next, the book addresses the process of transitioning from the legacystandards to the new revisions, which is then used as a basis for the ultimate,synergistic, unified process improvement approach. Because many organiza-tions already have process improvement experience, the approaches theymay take to achieve registration or a maturity level may be quite different.The approach described in the following pages is sensitive to the organiza- Forewordxiiition’s investment in the previous process improvement achievements andprocess architectures guiding the adoption of those newly revised documentswith added efficiency.You may wish to read the whole book and find explanations of themajor frameworks, including the references to in-depth descriptions of thoseframeworks, or you may want to jump to the specific case that most closelymatches your own improvement environment and find an in-depth transi-tioning process from the legacy documents to their new revisions, ready forimplementation,whichwill leadtoISOregistration,a CMMImaturitylevel,or both. I wish you synergistic success on the journey!Mike PhillipsCMMIProgram ManagerSoftware Engineering InstitutePittsburgh, PennsylvaniaMarch 2003 PrefaceAdeveloped a systematic approach to implementing both ISO 9001:2000 andtheCMMIbycapitalizingontheirsynergy.Thisapproachalsoallowsorgani-zations to preserve the process improvement investments made while imple-menting the legacy standards. The approach encompasses cases in which anorganization has no previous process improvement experience as well asthose cases in which an organization has already been following one or morestandards.This book does not require process improvement experience or knowl-edge of a specific standard, but such experience or knowledge is helpful. Itis written as a guidebook that practitioners can follow when they implementprocess improvement based simultaneously on ISO and the CMMI. It canbe used as a textbook for a process improvement course that addressesthe details of practical implementation of the two most prominent processimprovement standards and contrasts them with other prominent standardsand models. The book, for the first time, describes the synergy between ISO9001 and the CMMIand the use of that synergy to implement processimprovement and get ‘‘faster, better, and cheaper’’ results.We should stress that the focus of this book is on process improvement,rather than on achieving ISO registration or attaining a CMMImaturitylevel. It is our conviction that an organization should first and foremostestablish its process improvement goals and only then target ISO registrationor a CMMImaturity level. We have witnessed many organizations thathave achieved registration or a maturity level, only to revert to their old‘‘business as usual’’ with cost overruns, low product quality, and misseddeadlines.fterobservingandexperiencingthedifficultiesassociatedwithselecting,implementing, and institutionalizing a standard or standards, we havexv xviPrefaceAudience for this bookIt is important that an organization understand the basic premises of thestandards it intends to adopt. The material in this book is presented in amanner that allows all levels of an organization to benefit from it. In particu-lar, the following people will benefit from reading this book:• Senior managers—making decisions on standards selection and imple-mentation. Senior management provides leadership, resources, andfunding for process improvement and implementation of standards.They need to understand the underlying principles of each standardandhowtheirsynergycanbeexploitedtomakeprocessimprovementmore efficient and effective.• Process improvement practitioners—developing strategies for processimprovement implementation and the transition from legacy torevised standards. Process improvement practitioners develop theprocessesandpracticesthatwillbeimplementedandinstitutionalized.They need to identify the processes that can be improved regardlessof which standards required them.• Evaluators—making compliance decisions and recommendations.Evaluators compare the actual implemented processes and practicesto the standards and judge the degree of compliance. They needto understand the interactions among standards when developingfindings and making recommendations.• Students of process improvement—learning the features of each standardand implementation techniques. Students explore each standard andgain the knowledge that will help them understand why and howthose standards can be implemented so that they complement eachother.What to expect in this bookTo implement process improvement based on a standard, a model, or acombination of models and standards, each standard or model has to beunderstood in depth. Only then will a full picture of the potential processarchitecture emerge. Sometimes, both frameworks require exactly the sameactivities to be performed. In other cases, although the resulting activitiesare the same, the requirements in each standard may be worded differently,masking potential similarities. Quite often, requirements are at differentlevels of detail, making it possible to use one standard as a guideline for theother. PrefacexviiInthisbookwepointthereadertothesimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweenISO 9001:2000 and the CMMI. We reconcile the terminology differencesused by those frameworks and then interpret one standard in terms ofanother, thus guiding the readers to an understanding of their synergy andthe use of that synergy for successful process improvement. We introduceasetofprocessimprovementstepsthatprovideefficiencyinprocessimprove-ment implementation.We understand that many organizations have already invested time andresources using legacy standards. We outline several ways for transitioningfrom those legacy standards to their new revisions and then show how thesynergy between those new revisions can be systematically used in processimprovement.The book is written to gradually guide the reader to an understandingof the needs of an organization that has set process improvement goals foritself. It develops the notion of a systematic process improvement approachbased on ISO–CMMIsynergy and is organized in nine chapters.Chapter 1 introduces the multitude of models and standards and theiruse in developing process improvement strategies. In Chapter 2 we brieflyshow how to link organizational business goals to process improvementobjectivesanddescribeaprocessimprovementapproach.Westartthediscus-sionbydescribingseveralpossibleapproachesandseveralstandardsorframe-works that can be used to guide process improvement. We selected anapproach that enables exploitation of the synergy between ISO and theCMMIand is implemented by adopting the SEI IDEALSMmodel.Chapter 3 discusses some of the best-known frameworks and their rela-tionship to process improvement. Those frameworks provide the basis forunderstanding the two selected frameworks. Chapter 3 shows that, over theyears, standards and models have been successfully used and that it is stillpossible to use some of them when implementing process improvements.In Chapter 4, ISO 9000:2000 and the CMMIare explained in detail toenable the reader to understand their synergy. Those two standards wererevised and released at the end of 2000 and many organizations are conte-mplating their use as process improvement frameworks.Chapter 5 discusses the synergy between ISO 9000:2000 and the CMMI.Differences between them are discussed. The strengths and weaknesses ofeach standard are described to provide an understanding of where they willsupport one another and where some special activities are needed.In Chapter 6, we describe several approaches for transitioning from theCMMto the CMMIand an approach for transitioning from ISO 9001:1994to ISO 9001:2000 as a basis for showing how to use the ISO–CMMIsynergyin process improvement. We are specifically sensitive to the efforts that xviiiPrefaceorganizations have put into developing their process improvementapproaches using legacy standards and models. Although many approachescan be devised for transitioning from legacy standards to new standards, theexamples presented outline the basic steps from which all other approachescan be derived, depending on the process improvement maturity of an orga-nization.In Chapter 7, we describe a process improvement approach based on theISO–CMMIsynergy for an organization with no prior process improvementexperience. Then we address several specific cases that can be useful fororganizations that have previously implemented process improvementsbased on one or both of the standards. Chapter 8 covers major appraisalmethods and discusses steps for preparing for ISO registration and CMMIappraisals. Those appraisal methods are not only used for obtaining a formalrating, but also as a tool for determining process improvement opportunitiesin the diagnosing phase of the IDEALSMprocess improvement cycle.Finally, in Chapter 9 we provide mappings between ISO 9001:2000 andthe CMMIas a useful tool for judging organizational compliance with ISO,the CMMI, or both. Mappings are subjective interpretations of each stan-dard’s clauses in terms of another standard. They are useful for extrapolatingknowledgefromthemorefamiliartothelessfamiliar,buttheydonotreplacea true understanding of the standards.The outlined approach is based on our experience with organizationsthat use both ISO and the CMM(I). The various cases and the processimprovement steps described in the book have been developed to help thereader avoid process improvement traps and dead ends. However, everyorganization will have to analyze its specific situation, using the approachesdescribed as a guideline. We believe that the steps described in this book willbe helpful and will provide sufficient guidance for implementing systematicprocess improvement using ISO 9001:2000 and the CMMI. AcknowledgmentsWedge and process understanding go back to the early days of our professionallife when we learned firsthand what works and (painfully) what does notwork.As young engineers, we started working in separate companies, and thenworked together for many years, went in different ways, and then againworked together. There are too many people to mention whom, in manyways,contributedtooursuccessesasprojectmanagers,processimprovementengineers, and software developers. However, we must mention a few thatprovided leadership and encouraged us to implement a successful and effi-cientapproachtoprocessimprovement.Sometimestheygaveusanopportu-nity, sometimes they gave us encouragement, but they always drove us tobe the best that we could be. Our thanks to Gene Edelstein, Stu Steele, KenNidiffer, Leitha Purcell, Richard Abbott, and Ken Kochbeck. Many thanksto our colleagues in our own organizations and in our clients’ organizations,where we worked together to improve processes. Our special thanks go toTiina Ruonamaa of Artech House, who coaxed and encouraged the writing,reviewing, and production of the manuscript.Today, we practice process improvement at BearingPoint and HughesNetwork Systems, respectively. We wish to express our gratitude to manage-ment and our colleagues there who enabled us to reinforce our processimprovement approach and provided fertile ground for implementing this‘‘unified’’ process improvement approach.Our thanks to the many associates who contributed to our approach withtheir advice. The errors, however, are all ours.e both work in the process improvement field and have built careersin that field for more than 15 years. However, the roots of our knowl-xix IntroductionEimprovement is time-consuming and expensive, the evidenceshows that the return on investment is high. Improvementscan be implemented on an ad hoc basis, but systematic processimprovement guided by models or standards is the most effec-tive and efficient approach.The purpose of most standards is to help its users achieveexcellence by following the processes and activities adopted bythe most successful enterprises. Unfortunately, standards areoften developed independently by standards bodies based onindustry-specific needs. Once approved and published, they areperiodically updated and revised to reflect the most currentexperience in that particular field. In many instances, a liaisonbetween the standards bodies is established to make the stan-dards more compatible, but even with such a liaison, each stan-dard usually grows in its own direction with only minimalconsideration for the others.Because standards must limit their scope, they generallycover very specific fields. Over time, activities in other emergingfields may need to be considered, so as a result, additionalstandards are written or existing standards are modified. Thus,what was at one time a compact well-thought-out set of rulesbecomes diffused and those rules gradually diverge in unfore-seen directions.In addition, a large body of work, such as more detailedsubordinate standards, guidebooks, tutorials, and evaluationmethods, usually accompanies each standard. Consultantsvidenceis overwhelmingthatsuccessful organizationscon-tinuously improve their processes. Although process1CHAPTER1Contents1.1 Role of frameworks indeveloping processimprovement strategies1.2 Process improvementapproaches1.3 SynergyReferences 2Introductiondevelop specific guides and tools and registration or certification organiza-tionsareformedtoprovideassessmentservices.Allofthesetoolsandservicesare supposed to help the users implement the standard and start collectingthe promised benefits, but when standards change, the aids that were devel-oped to support them must be reexamined and potentially rewritten.When standards change, we need a systematic way in which to transitionto those new standards without making drastic changes to the existing pro-cess assets. In addition, when organizations merge or their programs change,theirprocessimprovementapproachesmayrequirereexaminationandalign-ment with those changed standards.Specifically, software is a field in which many standards have been writ-ten, rewritten, abandoned, or canceled—only to resurface is some modifiedform under a new name. When the U.S. Department of Defense declaredinthemid-1980sthatwewereexperiencinga‘‘softwarecrisis,’’manyorgani-zations naturally attempted to find solutions to this crisis by over-regulatingtheir software development. Although excessive constraints worked poorly,that period nevertheless resulted in the creation of methods, tools, models,and computer languages intended to help develop software with fewer bugs,enable better prediction of schedules, and reduce the cost of development,operations, and maintenance. This body of work resulted in a much betterunderstanding of the software development process and has broughtadvances in how software development is approached.Figure 1.1 shows the ‘‘frameworks1quagmire’’ [1], illustrating the rela-tionships among the most prominent standards. As one can see from thisfigure, it is not easy to select suitable standards from so many choices whendevelopinganorganization’sprocessarchitecture.Inmanycases,contractingauthorities or the marketplace ‘‘solves’’ this problem by prescribing the stan-dards to be used. Although this removes the need to evaluate and select themost appropriate standards, it is not the best way to commit resources andfunding to process improvement. What is also evident from the figure is thatbecause of the relationships between the frameworks, a large overlap existsbetween their features and requirements. In many cases one standard super-sedesanotherorincorporatesmanyofitspredecessor’sfeatures,thusmakingdevelopment of a standards-based process architecture even more compli-cated.Most organizations, if allowed, will select and follow an appropriate stan-dard to guide their improvement activities. Often, however, their customers1. Here, the word framework includes process models, international standards, and national quality awards. Thisdefinition is somewhat different from the one used in this book. Introduction3Figure 1.1Frameworks quagmire. (Copyright  2001, Software Productivity ConsortiumNFP, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.)each require different standards to be used for the same set of activities. Inthose cases, the organization’s processes can be evaluated against each ofthe standards levied on it by those separate customers. In many instances,a contract or statement of work may require more than one standard orframework. In those cases, an approach to satisfy all required standards orframeworks must be developed.Some standards, such ISO 9001:1994, imply process improvement butonlyprovidehigh-levelguidelinesforitsimplementation.Ontheotherhand,the Capability Maturity Model(CMM) for Software (CMM-SW), ISO TR15504,andEIA/IS-731provideroadmapsforsoftwareprocessimprovement.The goals of these standards are the same: Improve the processes for devel-oping systems and software. The approaches taken to achieve these goals,however, are different.Although ISO 9001 was revised to emphasize customer satisfaction andthe use of a process approach, the Capability Maturity Model Integrated 4Introduction(CMMI) was created to harmonize several capability maturity models: sys-tems engineering, software engineering, acquisition, and integrated productdevelopment. The CMMIconsolidates overlapping activities and providesa systematic approach for process institutionalization over all of thesedomains. In addition, the CMMIwas written with ISO TR 15504 in mindand, as we will see later, has quite a close relationship to it. In the followingchapters we will examine the salient features of each standard2and explainhow to capitalize on their similarities and differences.Whathappenswhenstandardsorframeworksthathavebeensuccessfullyused are updated or revised? If the revisions are insignificant, or if theorganizations using them have mature processes, transition to the new stan-dardsmaybesimple.However,ifthestandardsorframeworksundergomajorchange,organizationsmayneedtoupgradetheirgoverningdocuments(suchas policies, procedures, and processes), and retrain their staff.The best processes are those that an organization has captured, docu-mented,andthencomparedtoastandardincontrasttothosewhosecreationand implementation is driven by a standard. Process improvements that areidentified in an organization’s own processes are much easier to implementand institutionalize because buy-in to a familiar process already exists. Pro-cess definition driven by a standard or model often produces a ‘‘hard-wired’’process architecture that mimics the standard’s structure and requirements.Such processes are often the easiest to document but, as standards change,will require modifications and updates relative to the standard on which itis based, unrelated to the effectiveness and efficiency of the process itself.When standards and frameworks are revised, the standardization bodiestypically claim to have minimized the impact of changes on users of thepredecessor standards. This is often closer to wishful thinking than to reality.In fact, organizations that used the predecessor standards and frameworksas guidelines for their processes and documentation will find the transitionto the new standard easier than those organizations that created processesechoing the structure of the standard. Thus, a process-focused approachmakes change easier to deal with than a standard-focused approach does.1.1Role of frameworks in developing process improvement strategiesAn important attribute of successful process improvement efforts is the closerelationship to the organization’s business goals and objectives. Once thebusiness goals are defined, the organization has to accomplish these tasks:2. Although the term standard is sometimes used freely, some of the frameworks we discuss (such as the CMMor CMMI) have become de facto standards because of their broad use. 1.2Process improvement approaches5• Select a framework that will enable the realization of the goals andobjectives.• Select a process improvement approach.• Develop and document a process improvement plan.• Execute the plan with all of the management attributes that accom-pany any project.Many of our process improvement colleagues believe that the most effec-tive and efficient way to satisfy more than one standard is to implementthem simultaneously rather than sequentially. Such an approach enablesprocess developers to capitalize on the commonalties between those stan-dards and use the strengths of one standard to offset the weaknesses in theother. Our own experiences supported that point of view and prompted usto start investigating a ‘‘universal process improvement approach’’ based onthe synergy between ISO 9001:2000 and the CMMI.We deliberately avoid specifying goals focused solely on achieving aCMMImaturity or capability level or attaining ISO registration. We areaware that many organizations will consider those targets to be their processimprovement goals, but we firmly believe that such achievements are by-products of consistent and effective process improvement.We are often asked what advantage one standard has over another.The answer is that it all depends on the process improvement goals andrequirements. As we will show in this book, one standard complements theother—where ISO is generic, the CMMIprovides detail, and where theCMMIis too broad, ISO provides focus. They are both based on the sameprinciples of process engineering, continuous process im...

关注我们

关注微信公众号

您选择了以下内容