Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
7.29 GP 2.8 Monitor and Control the Process
The key distinction between GP 2.8 and PPQA is that GP 2.8 is intended for a
group to monitor itself to ensure it is performing its own process as intended
and taking corrective action where appropriate, whereas PPQA is intended
to be more of an objective, or independent, check.
7.30 Options to Achieve GP 2.8
So how much “monitoring and controlling” do you need for your processes,
and who should be doing it? The answer to these questions depends on the
culture in your organization. There isn't a single prescribed best approach
provided within the CMMI model.
In some Agile organizations, the team actually monitors itself, and this
works because when they catch themselves not following the process, team
members speak up and initiate immediate corrective action. This is often
done through what is referred to as
daily standup meetings
.
However, some organizations are not this disciplined when it comes to mon-
itoring themselves and therefore need extra help. This often occurs in
organizations where the culture is out of balance. This is what I had observed
at GEAR where the tendency was for Engineering to take over and some-
times fail to involve Project Management in key decisions. In the case of
NANO, I observed the reverse tendency where Management took over, and
often failed to involve Engineering appropriately.
7.31 Keeping an Organization “Balanced” Versus
Shifting a Culture
When organizations know they are out of balance, some try to fix the prob-
lem with
Quality Control
checks. My experience has been that this is not the
most effective vehicle because its purpose is different. A quality program
tends to work well at keeping a fundamentally balanced organization bal-
anced. It does this through sampling and reporting process variances.
However, when you are trying to
shift a culture
, you need a more powerful
