Improving Productivity on an SEI Level IV Project presented by Kelly Ohlhausen.
-
Upload
abraham-wood -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
0
Transcript of Improving Productivity on an SEI Level IV Project presented by Kelly Ohlhausen.
Improving Productivity on an SEI Level IV Project
presented by Kelly Ohlhausen
Page 2 © 2002, Raytheon Company. All Rights Reserved.8 February 2002
Agenda
• Project Description - Where we were…
• Why is it important?
• How did we find the answers?
• What did we find?
• Where we are now…
• Details of what we did
• Summary
Page 3 © 2002, Raytheon Company. All Rights Reserved.8 February 2002
Where we were...
• One of four projects evaluated during an SEI CBA-IPI Level IV assessment. (June 2001)
• Productivity identified as a risk from the beginning (productivity = ELOC/hour)
• Software bid was aggressive
• 10% management challenge
• 12% customer challenge
• Real-time embedded system to be completed in two deliveries to the customer
Page 4 © 2002, Raytheon Company. All Rights Reserved.8 February 2002
Where we were...
154.2%
109.6%
131.4%
83.1%
64.5%
74.0%
82.9%
0.0%
82.9%77.9%
0.0%
77.9%
87.6%
78.3%
85.5%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
120.0%
140.0%
160.0%
SD OD IM SIL I&T CTD for Release
Release 1 Release 2 Phase CTD
Planned Productivity
Page 5 © 2002, Raytheon Company. All Rights Reserved.8 February 2002
Why aren’t we meeting the goal?
• Was the productivity goal set unrealistically high?
• Process - Are these the right processes? Are there too many? Too few?
• Was the mix of engineering skills appropriate?
• Was there enough training?
• Software projects can’t ever reach
goals so why bother setting them?
Page 6 © 2002, Raytheon Company. All Rights Reserved.8 February 2002
Why is this important?
• Productivity estimates impact customer and management satisfaction, profits, and potentially future business.
• Our customers need to be able to trust the numbers we use in a bid.
• Profit margins disappear when projects are bid with unrealistically high productivity levels.
Page 7 © 2002, Raytheon Company. All Rights Reserved.8 February 2002
Finding the Answers
• Initiated a Raytheon Six Sigma project to determine what, if any, actions could be taken to improve productivity during the implementation stage
• Raytheon Six Sigma is an iterative knowledge-based process for improvement
Page 8 © 2002, Raytheon Company. All Rights Reserved.8 February 2002
Analysis Factors
• Attrition
• Learning curve (training new people)
• Experience level
• Hardware availability
• Overlapping stages
• System engineering
• Customer directed slowdown
Page 9 © 2002, Raytheon Company. All Rights Reserved.8 February 2002
Information Sources
• Metrics: size, cost, schedule, delivery, staffing, defect containment, requirements stability
• Earned value progress metrics, audits, action items
• Lessons Learned from prior stages
• Two other projects using the same processes
• R6Sigma Defect Containment Metric Analysis project results
Page 10 © 2002, Raytheon Company. All Rights Reserved.8 February 2002
Information Sources
• Meeting minutes (e.g. weekly progress, metrics analysis)
• Inputs from engineers and managers
Page 11 © 2002, Raytheon Company. All Rights Reserved.8 February 2002
Information Sources
The search for information took place during R2 object design stage.
Software Development R1 R2- Requirements Analysis - System Design - Object Design - Implementation - Software Integration & Test - System Integration & Test- Acceptance Test
Page 12 © 2002, Raytheon Company. All Rights Reserved.8 February 2002
Requirements for Application
• Changes were to be put into place immediately.
• The R2 implementation stage schedule had to be shortened by four weeks without removing scope to compensate for a schedule slip. The software integration and test stage had to start on time.
• Changes could not have a negative impact on quality.
Page 13 © 2002, Raytheon Company. All Rights Reserved.8 February 2002
What we found...
Moving toward SEI Level V (Optimizing) with a number of
smaller actions involving defect containment and
process change management could significantly impact
productivity.
Page 14 © 2002, Raytheon Company. All Rights Reserved.8 February 2002
Where we are now...
* as of 2/1/02
160.0%
108.5%
133.7%
86.2%
63.8%
75.3%
86.0%
120.3%
97.4%
80.9%
0.0%
80.9%
90.9%95.5%92.4%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
120.0%
140.0%
160.0%
180.0%
SD OD IM SIL I&T CTD for Release
Release 1 Release 2 Phase CTD
Planned Productivity34.3% increase
Page 15 © 2002, Raytheon Company. All Rights Reserved.8 February 2002
Where we are now...
Earned Value Metrics
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
9/21 9/28 10/5 10/12 10/19 10/26 11/2 11/9 11/16 11/23 11/30 12/7 12/14 12/21 12/28 1/4 1/11 1/18 1/25 2/1 2/8 2/15 2/22
Ear
ned
Val
ue
Total Earned Value Plan Forecast 1 Forecast 2 Labor Actuals
* as of 2/1/02
Page 16 © 2002, Raytheon Company. All Rights Reserved.8 February 2002
What was changed...
• Escaping defects– What should be covered by a unit test was
addressed in detail during the implementation stage training (JIT)
– Stress was placed on pushing boundaries and not relying just on nominal values. More special case unit tests were used.
Page 17 © 2002, Raytheon Company. All Rights Reserved.8 February 2002
What was changed...
• Escaping defects (cont.)– Run the unit tests on the target processors during
implementation. Don’t wait until integration to discover a platform issue.
– A step was added to the stage process for extra testing to identify rogue pointers before unit testing
The full impact of these changes will not be known until integration and testing stage.
Page 18 © 2002, Raytheon Company. All Rights Reserved.8 February 2002
What was changed...
• Developed the code within the configuration management tool from the beginning. Gave people a chance to learn the tool in small steps instead of all at once.
• All tools and hardware identified and checked out BEFORE the stage began (matching versions across test lab, compiler updates in place, instructions available)
Page 19 © 2002, Raytheon Company. All Rights Reserved.8 February 2002
What was changed...
• We did better defining the earned value progress metrics– Made sure there was enough detail (stage process
steps were defined at the correct granularity)– Used realistic weighting
Because…An incorrect plan yields misleading information.
Time is wasted investigating non-issues or not identifying a problem in time.
Page 20 © 2002, Raytheon Company. All Rights Reserved.8 February 2002
What was changed...
• Did better at following the standards and processes. – Invited the right people for the review.– Assigned roles to focus the review, esp. facilitator– The implementation stage Just-In-Time (JIT) training
was used to remind the team of these issues.
Because…– Products that do not meet standards have an effect on
time during reviews as well as rework.
Page 21 © 2002, Raytheon Company. All Rights Reserved.8 February 2002
Summary
• There was no conclusive evidence that the productivity goal was unrealistic.
• Relatively small changes made an impact.
• The research uncovered improvements for every stage.
• If we had applied these improvements from the beginning of the project, we can only imagine what the overall productivity would have been.
Page 22 © 2002, Raytheon Company. All Rights Reserved.8 February 2002
Conclusion
• Take time to look at what you are doing.
• Learn, not just from your own experience but from the experience of others.
• Continuously try to identify optimization opportunities.
• Improvement can be made,
even on an SEI Level IV program.
Page 23 © 2002, Raytheon Company. All Rights Reserved.8 February 2002
The greatest obstacle to discovering the shape of the earth, the
continents and the ocean was not ignorance but the illusion of
knowledge.
Daniel J. BoostinThe Discoverers