a murphological view on software measurement: a serious joke or a funny serious thing?

A Murphological View on Software Measurement: A Murphological View on Software Measurement: a serious joke or a funny serious thing?a serious joke or a funny serious thing?

3° Software Measurement European ForumRome, 12 May 2006

Luigi Buglione, Carol Dekkers

Turning Client Vision into Results2

Agenda

Introduction– Improving RCA effects: new possible ways – RCA for Software Process Improvement with...humor

Some Murphy’s commented laws on...– Measurement & Analysis– Project Planning, Monitoring & Control– Communication & Stakeholders– ...

SPI and Knowledge Management– Which relationships?– SECI model– MM-mania

Conclusions & Prospects


IntroductionImproving RCA effects: new possible ways

• During last 10 years, Software Measurement has been recognized more and more in the SwEngineering arena...

“matured” from activity to process (i.e. ME in CMMI; ORG.5 in SPICE; ...)

•• ...but usually there is a strong resistance from project team members about whatever kind of measurement

mostly perceived as a personalpersonal evaluation on their own performance, not for a concrete, neutral processprocess improvement

according to H.Rubin (1996), only 1:5 or 1:6 sw companies were successful in the implementation of a sw measurement program after 2yrs

also from an ISO 9001 viewpoint, Clause 8 is one of the less well accomplished worldwide

• Q: how to remove misconceptions and resistance towards measurement in ICT companies?

A: a possible manner is to speak to technical people using a different language


IntroductionRCA for SPI with...humor (1/2)

Some examples of a “different language” about technical issues:

the “Dilbert principle”

the Murphy’s lawsProverbs from the

“measurement”viewpoint


IntroductionRCA for SPI with...humor (2/2)

• Our proposalOur proposal: to have a “murphological view” on Software Measurement

• Objective: derive useful tips for SPI, following a sort of IDEALIDEAL path

• QQ: how to use these tips and add value to the organization?•• AA: one of the key issues is to improve the organization’s RCA (Root-Cause-Analysis) capability (CAR – Causal Analysis & Resolution, CMMI ML5)


Agenda


Some Murphy’s commented laws– Selected laws & Commented tables– ...on Measurement & Analysis– ...on Project Planning, Monitoring & Control– ...on Communication & Stakeholders




Some Murphy’s commented lawsSelected Laws & Commented Tables

•• Main sources were the books by Arthur Block, plus a plenty of webpages moving from the original idea• Selected 21 laws about few issues such as:

Measurement && AnalysisProject PlanningProject Monitoring && ControlCommunication && Stakeholders...

• This is the structure for a “Murphy’s-SPI” table:


Some Murphy’s commented laws...on Measurement & Analysis (1/2)

CMMI o MA (all the PA)

Related SPI reference(s)

• To keep advantage from measurement for your projects/activitiesMissing opportunity(ies)

A not shared definition of measures (as well as the measurement process) can lead to interpretations of such measures and to the gathering of different and inconsistent quantities for a certain event, making useless any report and statistics.

Potential risk(s)

Documenting the project is often perceived by project team members as a waste of time, because a support and not a primary process.

Current flaw(s)

There are several (base and derived) measures used for properly monitor and control the project, typically described in a Measurement Plan, and derived using a goal-oriented approach (e.g. GQM). They can be seen from a twofold perspective: definitions and results, both referable to measures and measurement process.

Measurement context

Arnold's Law of Documentation:1. If it should exist, it doesn't. 2. If it does exist, it's out of date. 3. Only documentation for useless programs transcends the first two

laws

[10]#3


Some Murphy’s commented laws...on Measurement & Analysis (2/2)

CMMI o MA SP 1.2.-1 (Specify Measures) o MA SP 2.2.-1 (Analyze Measurement Data)o DAR SP 1.1-1 (Establish Guidelines for Decision Analysis)


• Not balanced objective and subjective measurementsMissing opportunity(ies)

Historical data is a powerful tool for supporting the decision-making process, not a perfect substitute for it or for managers.

Potential risk(s)

Often an organization has in place a lot of measures, mostly from the subjective viewpoints, with Satisfaction Surveys at different levels and for various audiences, but with a reduced focus on the objective way. Decisions often are taken on experience and not always supported by numbers and historical data.

Current flaw(s)

Measurement & Analysis (MA) is one of the new processes introduced in the CMMI at ML2 for improving this way of managing an organization, by facts.

Measurement context

Finagle's Creed: Science is true. Don't be misled by facts[10]#15


Some Murphy’s commented laws...on Project Planning, Monitoring & Control (1/2)

CMMI o PP SP 1.4-1 (Determine Estimates of Effort and Cost)o PMC SP 1.1-1 (Monitor Project Planning Parameters)o QPM SP 2.2-1 (Apply Statistical Methods to Understand Variations)


• A reduced amount of quantitative information brought out for thedecision-making process, at all levels.

Missing opportunity(ies)

Resulting values, because not enough to better describe a certain phenomenon, could lead to wrong conclusions, blaming that measurement is an high-cost practices with a low value returned.

Potential risk(s)

Sometimes a quantitative management is performed using few raw data points, often for a low frequency in data gathering or for non-historicization of all potentially useful projects’ data.

Current flaw(s)

The more points are taken into account in a statistical series, the most affordable is the input for estimating.

Measurement context

Chemist's Rule: Never take more than three data points. There will always be some kind of graph paper on which they fall in a straight line

Chemist's Rule, First Corollary: If you have only one kind of graph paper, never take more than two data points

[10]#9


Some Murphy’s commented laws...on Project Planning, Monitoring & Control (2/2)

CMMI o CAR SP1.2-1 (Analyze Causes)


• Consequently, a lower capability to consistently apply RCA in your organization can reduce the possibility to find out common solutions, which could allow cost-savings.


Often an “ad-hoc” solution is found for each problem; the misapplication of Root-Cause-Analysis (RCA) with other well-known TQM old tools could reduce the organization’s capability to group problems into “families of causes”.

Potential risk(s)

Few organizations have a structured application of RCA in their Quality Management Systems (QMS). Another potential problem for those companies applying CMMI in its staged representation could be to postpone CAR implementation in terms of priorities because it’s a ML5 PA.

Current flaw(s)

Root-Cause-Analysis (RCA) should always run associating the proper measures and metrics to each element put on the fishbones

Measurement context

Brady's First Law of Problem Solving: When confronted by a difficult problem, you can solve it more easily by reducing it to the question, "How would the Lone Ranger have handled this?"

[10]#6


Some Murphy’s commented laws...on Communication & Stakeholders (1/2)

CMMI o GP 2.7 (Identify and Involve Relevant Stakeholders)


• Measures can be meaningless and consequently the measurement process will lose consensus and ROI from the process improvementprogram could bring to the organization a reduced value to the company.


Whether such shared and common information, glossary and usage of measures is not in place, there is a high risk to have in returnmeaningless data to use for the decision-making process (i.e. mixing apples and oranges: Do a LOC include or exclude comment lines? Do we count a physical or a logical line of code?...)

Potential risk(s)

Lack of communication is a general problem: there is the need for a common and shared information, glossary, consistent usage of such measures within the organization (i.e. how are defined and gathered data on defects or LOCs?).

Current flaw(s)

The measurement process involves several roles: who creates and defines a measure, who gathers data, who uses those data for his/her decision-making process.

Measurement context

Law of Communications: The inevitable result of improved and enlarged communications between different levels in a hierarchy is a vastly increased area of misunderstanding.

[10]#11


Some Murphy’s commented laws...on Communication & Stakeholders (2/2)

P-CMMo ML2: Communication & Coordination, CO1 (Executive management establishes

and communicates a set of values for the organization regarding the development and management of its workforce)


• It could generate a lower ROI on process improvement activities than expected.Missing opportunity(ies)

As well known in Process Management approaches and models such as the Balanced Scorecard, Malcolm Baldridge and EFQM, the HR component represents the main (or one of the main) drivers for change. Not taking into account a series of cause-effect relationships could generate worse interpersonal relationships, with repercussions on working activities and on the overall organizational climate.

Potential risk(s)

Often personal issues or communication issues, from a subjective and interpersonal perspective, are not subject of Tracking & Control activities, or are anyway evaluated in a light way, using typically subjective tools (i.e. surveys, interviews,…)

Current flaw(s)

There are several aspects about meetings – and generally speaking inside an organization – to keep under control, not only those ones discussed in CMMI, in particular those in Project Management areas.

Measurement context

Second Law of Business Meetings: If there are two possible ways to spell a person's name, you will pick the wrong one.

Corollary: If there is only one way to spell a name, you will spell it wrong, anyway.

[10]#8


Agenda






SPI and Knowledge ManagementWhich Relationship? (1/2)

•• Q: how people and processes are related? • A: some answers are in Performance Management models (i.e. Balanced Scorecard, Malcolm Baldridge, EFQM, ...), where HR are the main enabler for activating the organizational change


SPI and Knowledge ManagementWhich Relationship? (2/2)

•• Q: so, if people is a strategic asset for companies, how to explicitthe tacit knowledge from employees?• A: Murphy’s SPI tables could represent a possible knowledge asset type. Possible advantages:

making easier a real knowledge transfer among employeesmaking less boring some technical training (cfr. SengeSenge’’s 5s 5thth disciplinediscipline)


SPI and Knowledge ManagementThe SECI Model (1/2)

• SECI model a Japanese model by Nonaka && Takeuchi (1995) for achieving deeper knowledge

Objective: create and efficiently manage knowledge in an organizationElements: Process model, Ba Knowledge Asset (KA)

• The Process Four phases (tacit explicit) Socialization (empathizing)Externalization (articulating)Combination (connecting)Internalization (embodying)


SPI and Knowledge ManagementThe SECI Model (2/2)

• Dimensions of analysisInteraction types (F2F)Amount of people interacting (individual ; collective)

• Four Types of Knowledge Assets: experiential: tacit knowledge through common experiencesconceptual: explicit knowledge articulated through images, symbols and languagesystemic: systemized and packaged explicit knowledgeroutine: tacit knowledge routinized and embedded in actions and practices


SPI and Knowledge ManagementThe Maturity Model (MM)-mania

•• Q: is there a direct link among KM (i.e. SECI) and SPI models (i.e. CMMI)?

• A: No. Some critical success factors (CFSs):

Enlarge the vision to a more comprehensive business view

Consider at the same time models from different but complementary domains (i.e. People CMM or other MMs MM-mania)

• A: Make your own Business Process Model (BPM) more mature during years, expliciting as much as possible the corporate knowledge

Source: http://www.geocities.com/lbu_measure/spi/spi.htm#6


Agenda






Conclusions && Prospects

•• Improvement is deeply inside the human nature, but when applied to non-personal contexts generates less motivation• People is the main asset for a company, but not optimized and properly used, leaving unexpressed energies and knowledge• Using a bit of humour in the externalization of knowledge could be a different, not usual road to take• MurphyMurphy’’ss--SPI tablesSPI tables represent a knowledge asset that could help people in a RCA, reducing distance between the everyday life and suggested solutions • Those tables can be created, modified and reused making more explicit the corporate knowledge, producing added value for the organization• Avoid the “Silver Bullet Flu”: models and techniques should be only starting points for improving your own BPM, not the solution itself

“The most exciting phase to hear in science, the one that heraldsnew discoveries, is not ‘Eureka!’ (I found it!) but ‘That’s

funny...’” (Isaac Azimov)


Q & A

Thanks for your attention!

Luigi BuglioneAtos Origin

[email protected]

Carol DekkersQualityPlus Tech.

[email protected]