TSP Implementation for Outsourced Application … · Valores Corporativos Softtek S.A. de C.V....

TSP Implementation for

SOFTTEK CONFIDENTIAL © Copyright 2000-2008. All rights reserved. Valores Corporativos Softtek S.A. de C.V.

TSP Implementation for Outsourced Application Development Projects

Agustín De La Maza, Juan Valera, Ricardo Garza

TSP Symposium 2009

New Orleans, Louisiana

Sep/23/09

Softtek’s Context

Business Global IT & BP Service Provider9 Global Delivery Centers: Mexico(4),

Brazil(2), Spain(1) & China (2)Pioneer and Leader ofNeashore© Industry

Operations in Americas,Europe and Asia

Market Corporations & Government Institutions

Services Enterprise Application Services, ITIS, BPSLarge-scale & mission critical

application development“On-demand” Software Factory Application Maintenance &

Support


Market Corporations & Government Institutions80% of revenue coming form recurring accounts

Serving 17 of the Fortune-50 Corporations

Active MSA for 85+ corporations

Capabilities Global Delivery Model � 6,000+ Professionals“Great Place to Work” in

Argentina, Brazil & Mexico6-Sigma [1998]

Digitized Software Process [2003]CMM-L5 [2004], CMMi Level 5 [2006]

TSP Initiative Significant opportunity to improve competitivenessSEI “Organization-level TSP Assessment” pilot

Developed more than 1 million LOC

Spent more than 200,000 man-hrs

Engaged 4 large accounts

Deployment to Global Operations

Challenges of Outsourced Contracts

Client’s lack of awareness of TSP/PSPYou can’t value what you don’t knowAgile methods are more “appealing” and known than TSP

Competing with “less mature” organizationsUnder-estimated project bids by lower-maturity organizationsQuality criteria (i.e. defect density) is often not taken into account by clients while evaluating proposals

Timing of commitment (contract vs. launch results)No commitment � No contract

1

2

3


No commitment � No contractLaunch schedules are often not aligned with contract commitments � Painful negotiations from the beginning of the contract

Lack of [accurate, precise and stable] conceptual design prior to project proposal delivery and initial project launchLaunches based on incomplete/inaccurate inputs � Unreliable launch results, or even, launch cancelationLate changes to requirements and/or specifications � Significant amount of rework (engineering and management)

Additional Factors: Contractual and financial risk, and Open [world-wide] competition

4

How do we address these challenges?S

erv

ice D

esig

n

Multi-level proxy taxonomy

Multi-level estimation models

Timing of Commitment

3

Multi-phase engagement model

Requirements &

Conceptual Design

4


Levera

ge

Quality commitment

Client’s Unawareness

1

Performance benchmarks

Competition

2Multi-level estimation models

Softtek’s enabling practices (1/5)


3


Requirements &

Conceptual Design

4



1

Competition

2


Vendor risk lack of a precise solution

design baseline

Client risk inaccurate estimate or

non-realistic commitment established by

vendor

Overall project cost “risk provisions”

and inaccurate assumptions

Reduce…


� Engagement Model & Rules of Engagement

� Baseline-driven commitment managementRequirements continuously change

Baseline established prior to negotiating commitments

� Predefined “precision level” for requirements &

specificationsProduce functional designprior to project launch

Valid inputs to project launch




3


Requirements &

Conceptual Design

4



1

Competition

2

Multi-level proxy taxonomy: Concept

High-level proxies:

Services

Mid-level proxies:

Functional Components

Low-level proxies:

Technical Components

PSP Proxies:

Parts & Items

+ -

Meaningful to client

Countable at proposal/bid time

Usable as a change management “baseline”

Functionality Implementation


PSP

PROBE

Method

Multi-level proxy taxonomy: Proxy-to-LOC

VS S M L VL

Java-WA-CRUDS-CAT 248 624 1567 3935 9884

Java-WA-CRUDS-MD 1756 2464 3459 4855 6816

Java-WA-OE 3289 5790 10192 17942 31585

Java-WA-QRY 894 1531 2619 4482 7670

Java-WA-WF 1268 2623 5426 11224 23216

Java-WA-RF 1024 1330 1727 2243 2913

Java-Lookup-CAT 11 23 47 98 206

Java-Lookup-COMP 1416 1994 2808 3955 5571

Java-Proc-Function 192 361 680 1280 2408

Java-Proc-POS 185 639 2202 7594 26185

Java-MQInterface 139 319 730 1673 3833

Java-WebService

DB2-SP-Batch 38 101 264 694 1823

Normalized Size (LOC)Functional Component TypeMid-level proxies:


Functional Component

Taxonomy


Functional Component to LOC conversion table (example: Softtek Web Functional Patterns)

Technical Component to LOC conversion table (example: J2EE-Struts-JDBC)

DB2-SP-Function 56 120 258 555 1193

DB2-View 14 30 62 130 271

Tamaño (LOC) VS S M L VL

JSP 44 89 179 360 724

JS 3 12 50 208 863

DAO 53 125 294 692 1631

Form 26 56 122 266 581

Cmd 9 25 70 199 567

Bean 11 27 69 177 451

Action 14 24 39 63 102

SP 14 39 110 307 859

Low-level proxies:


Technical Component

Taxonomy





3


Requirements &

Conceptual Design

4



1

Competition


Multi-level estimation modelsBusiness need:

Full SDLC estimation: Requirements Development � Production Release

Consistent estimates between bid development & TSP launch

Solution:Use the lowest-level proxies available, according to predefined taxonomy

Use standard proxy size classification

Normalized Services

Effort (man-hrs)

30025020015010050

45000

40000

35000

30000

25000

20000

15000

10000

S 558.534

R-Sq 99.9%

R-Sq(adj) 99.8%

Fitted Line PlotEffort = 6577 + 134.1 Norm Services

Example: Productivity Regression Services (undisclosed platform)

High-level proxies:

Services


Use standard proxy size classification criteria

Use Proxy-to-LOC conversion tables

Use productivity regressions to calculate overall effort and duration

Learning:Task hours are difficult to understand and negotiate with clients; used man hours

Use Proxies Consistently for Estimation and Change Management Baseline

Example: Productivity Regression LOC (undisclosed platform)

Source LOC

Effort (man-hrs)

24000022000020000018000016000014000012000010000080000

45000

40000

35000

30000

25000

20000

15000

S 7551.39

R-Sq 72.6%

R-Sq(adj) 58.9%

Fitted Line PlotEffort = 6334 + 0.1351 LOC

Mid-level proxies:


Low-level proxies:


Multi-level estimation models (Productivity Assumptions)

Productivity (LOC/mh)

Percent

24201612840

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Loc 2.073

Scale 0.4708

N 19

Lognormal

Histogram of Productivity

Example: Undisclosed Platform 2

Productivity (LOC/MH) Probability

Distribution: Lognormal in most cases

Variance factors:

Development platform/IDE

Application architecture/framework

Specification accuracy & precision



Frequency

14121086420

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Loc 1.576

Scale 0.4617

N 40

Lognormal





Percent

483624120

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Shape 1.282

Scale 16.87

Thresh -0.08279

N 53

3-Parameter Weibull


Example: Undisclosed Platform 2 with Softtek Framework

Select Proper Tools (platform + IDE) and Application Framework.

Consider refinement of requirements & HLD in overall estimates.





3


Requirements &

Conceptual Design

4



1


Competition



Comparison of overall project results

Full SDLC

Similar technology

Similar team composition and seniority

Similar engagement model

Effort

45000

40000

35000

30000

25000

20000

15000

10000

S 558.534

R-Sq 99.9%

R-Sq(adj) 99.8%

Fitted Line PlotEffort = 6577 + 134.1 Norm Services

34.5% less effort

thanSofttek’s

trend


Results:

Productivity gains up to 34.5% of total project effort

(TSP vs. Non-TSP trend)

Bottom-line: Lower Software Production Cost

Normalized Services

30025020015010050

10000





3


Requirements &

Conceptual Design

4


Quality commitment


1


Competition


Quality commitment

Need …

Executive Support to TSP Teams while executing projects

Fair comparison between vendor bids, taking into account

product quality attributes

“First Quality, Second On-time Delivery, and Third On-Budget”


Cultural Change Management must take place also with Clients

We must never compromise quality in order to “deliver on time” or “save some hours”

Contractual commitment on “UAT Defect Density” metric

Softtek’s enabling practices





3

Requirements &

Conceptual Design

4




Quality commitment

Long-term relationships based on Credibility and Trust


1

Competition

2

Lessons Learned

“Partial” TSP implementation does NOT improve results

Lack of appropriate coaching

Lack of management support when delays are reported

Management Support does not mean Client Support

Requirements and functional specification quality a critical factor to support TSP implementation


factor to support TSP implementation

Project will not succeed if requirements are defective

TSP teams have defined input quality criteria for requirements and

specifications to external groups in order to achieve quality goals

Do not split the process phases in different groups (design,

implementation, test)

Decreased overall impact

“Hidden factory”

Future work

Refinement of estimation models

Requirements development process (combined with “agile” methods)

Awareness to clients � build CREDIBILITY and TRUST

Deliver what you promise

Be consistent


Avoid surprises

Contact Information

Agustín De La Maza

Application Development Global Practice Manager

Softtek

[email protected]

Juan Valera

PSP Instructor, TSP Candidate Coach, Six-Sigma Black Belt

Softtek


Softtek

[email protected]

Ricardo Garza

PSP Instructor, TSP Candidate Coach, Six-Sigma Master Black Belt

Softtek

[email protected]

TSP Implementation for Outsourced Application … · Valores Corporativos Softtek S.A. de C.V....

Documents

Transcript of TSP Implementation for Outsourced Application … · Valores Corporativos Softtek S.A. de C.V....