Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
unique conditions must be carefully observed and considered. My analysis
and recommendations to GEAR were based on this approach.
7.3 Common Patterns at GEAR
When I was asked to help GEAR, it wasn't their first attempt at process
improvement. GEAR had previously instituted a Process Management Steer-
ing Group (MSG). Like NANO, GEAR had embarked on a distributed
process responsibility approach encouraging each department in the organi-
zation to document its own processes.
7.4 The Common Pattern of Unclear Process Asset
Requirements
Each department at GEAR had been working for over a year to document
its own processes when I conducted the gap analysis. I observed inconsis-
tent format and structure for the process assets I reviewed. There also was
no clearly defined process for review, approval, and release of process
assets. Some process assets were maintained in a folder referred to as
“released.” When I questioned MSG members, I found different opinions
of who was responsible for approving the content of processes in the orga-
nization and who had approved the processes that had been placed in the
released folder.
LESSON 1
The first step to an effective process improvement effort is to clearly estab-
lish the rules for your process assets, and the rules for review, approval,
release, and changes to process assets.
The CMMI doesn't tell you what your process asset rules need to be. It
reminds
us of the importance of these rules through its specific practices
within the Organizational Process Definition (OPD) Process Area. When I
say “rules for your process assets,” I include where you maintain your
process assets and how you package them.
This might sound obvious, but it is not uncommon in small Agile organiza-
tions just starting a process improvement effort for these issues to be missed,
especially when a distributed process responsibility approach is taken.
