isma4: 4° annual international conference on software ... · historical data. potential risk(s)...

ISMA4 – Chicago, Sep 13-16, 2009 © Luigi Buglionewww.eng.it

Play’n’LearnPlay’n’Learn:: A Continuous KM Improvement Approach using FSM methodsA Continuous KM Improvement Approach using FSM methods

ISMA4ISMA4:4° Annual International Conference on

Software Measurement & Analysis Conference

Chicago, IL – September 13-16, 2009

Luigi BuglioneEngineering.it

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

2www.eng.it ISMA4 – Chicago, Sep 13-16, 2009 © Luigi Buglione

Goals of the PresentationGoals of the Presentation: G1. to approach in a different, original way the transferring and managing of awareness and knowledge in your organization G2. to continuously improve your employees’ knowledge on FSM methods (such as IFPUG FPA), but applicable to any issue of interestG3. to stimulate the creativity of your team members about critical measurement issues during the Monitoring & Control phaseG4. to reduce the resistance to Measurement issues, in particular with Functional Size Measurement issuesG5. to empower your team in providing better estimates moving from a stronger Requirement Management


• Introduction» Some questions» Reducing Resistance to Measurement

• Learning Organizations» SPI & Knowledge Management: which relationship?» The SECI Model» Ba: concept and application

• Simulation Games in Software Engineering» Play’n’learn approach» Some examples on the Net

• Creating your own ‘ba’ for Sw Measurement and FSM» Levels of Knowledge» Creating new game – Attention points» Our games: Project-o-poly, Trivial Pursuit, Taboo, Murphy’s tables

• Conclusions & Prospects• Q & A

AgendaAgenda


• QQ: how many ‘non-institutional’ training days per person have been supplied last year in your company?

• QQ: what is a learning organization? Can our company be defined a learning organization?

• QQ: are we leveraging the value of our human resources? Are we able to create ‘knowledge’ (not notions) and redistribute it for generating value?

• QQ: If yes, how?

• QQ: If not, why?

IntroductionIntroductionSome questions….

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_organization


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

“matured” from activity to process (i.e. ME in CMMI-x; MAN.6 in ISO 15504; ...) proposed a new KA in SWEBOK on Sw Measurement

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

• So, people is a crucial resource for improving performances… …but it seems to be often managed as a ‘material’ resource …even if a series of models/frameworks dealing with People Management exist but not spreadly applied

IntroductionIntroductionReducing Resistance to Measurement (11/2)

http://www2.computer.org/portal/web/swebok


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

A: a possible manner is to speak to technical people using a different language, possibly with a bit of humorhumor

IntroductionIntroductionReducing Resistance to Measurement (22/2)

• Q: is it possible to avoid a ‘boring’, too institutionalized transfer of is it possible to avoid a ‘boring’, too institutionalized transfer of knowledge?knowledge?

A: Yes, moving from ‘old-style’ knowledge transfer methods and come back playing, as children do

• Q: but what is the final goal to be achieved?but what is the final goal to be achieved? A: to continuously improve project and organizational performances, by more motivated people, happy to continue learning in a funny way, producing more new ideas and improvements become a learning organizationlearning organization


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

the “Dilbert principle”

the Murphy’s lawsProverbs from the

“measurement” viewpoint

Introduction Introduction Improving with…Humor

http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/crosstalk/







AgendaAgenda


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

Learning OrganizationsLearning OrganizationsWhich relationship? (11/2)


• Q: so, if people is a strategic asset for companies, how to make explicit the tacit knowledge from employees?• A: The elicitation of creativity could represent a possible knowledge asset type. Possible advantages:

making easier a real knowledge transfer among employees making less boring some technical training (cfr. Senge’s 5Senge’s 5thth discipline discipline)

Learning OrganizationsLearning OrganizationsWhich relationship? (22/2)

• Series of books proposed during the ’90s by Peter Senge• Goal: be able in converting in actual ‘value’ the potential hidden in human resources of an organization by a proactive learning• The 5 Disciplines5 Disciplines are:

system thinking, personal mastery, mental models, shared vision, team learning

• Subject: the Fieldbook proposes several exercises and techniques• Goal: elicit creativity from your own personnel• URL: www.fieldbook.com

http://www.fieldbook.com/

http://www.amazon.com/Fifth-Discipline-Practice-Learning-Organization/dp/0385517254

http://www.fieldbook.com/


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

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

Learning OrganizationsLearning OrganizationsThe SECI Model (11/2)

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

http://www.amazon.com/Knowledge-Creating-Company-Japanese-Companies-Innovation/dp/0195092694


• Dimensions of analysis Interaction types (F2F, virtual) Amount of people interacting (individual; collective)

• Four Types of Knowledge Assets: experiential: tacit knowledge through common experiences conceptual: explicit knowledge articulated through images, symbols and language systemic: systemized and packaged explicit knowledge routine: tacit knowledge routinized and embedded in actions and practices

Learning OrganizationsLearning OrganizationsThe SECI Model (22/2)


• AA: If yes, which ones? And how are they managed?

• QQ: Are there baba in our organizations?

• BaBa = Japanese term that stands for “place, context for a creative exchange of ideas” where people communicate and the process of conversion of knowledege takes place

it can be a physical place as an office, but also a shared mental model, a relationship among people sharing the same interests or

goals

it can be also a virtual place (“Cyber BaCyber Ba”) created by ICT tools that make easier and manage each way for converting knowledge throught those platforms.

Learning OrganizationsLearning Organizations‘BaBa’: concept & application







AgendaAgenda


Some relevant questions…• Verification of the modalities for training & learning (“Shape is not only a shape”)• Notions or knowledge?• “High-level” or “Deep” knowledge?• Which level of depth is transferred to the listener?

…and a possible approach: “Play’n’LearnPlay’n’Learn”• Simulators (es: Flight Simulator)• Role games• Electronic games• Appraisals with dedicated maturity models (e.g. OCDMM)

• Source: www.geocities.com/lbu_measure/games/games.htm

Simulation Games in SwEngSimulation Games in SwEng“Play’n’learn” approach

http://artemis.utdc.vuw.ac.nz:8000/vqwiki/jsp/wiki.jsp?Neuhauser04

http://www.geocities.com/lbu_measure/games/games.htm







Simulation Games in SwEngSimulation Games in SwEngSome Examples on the Net

http://www.ics.uci.edu/~emilyo/SimSE/

http://www.problemsandprogrammers.com/index.html

http://www.industriallogic.com/games/

http://www.industriallogic.com/games/eppc.html







AgendaAgenda


LevelLevel Knowledge TypeKnowledge Type Possible GamePossible Game3 – Senior • Managing Concepts • Taboo

• Pictionary• …

2 – Junior • Notions • Trivial Pursuit• …

1 - Novice • Learning rules, Awareness• Basic knowledge

• Snakes & Ladders • Monopoly

• Risk• …

Creating your own ‘ba’ Creating your own ‘ba’ Levels of Knowledge: a possible classification


1. Choose the informative goal to achieve2. Choose a well-known (and possibly funny) game

Find the right metaphors with the original rules3. Contextualize rules to the target domain and…

Remember the goal of “Play’n’Learn” Keep the right time to create rules (and cards), not too quick

4. …Play!5. And after playing, V&V

Verify effectiveness of customized rules and cards by playing (complexity levels) A KA can be also a single card, not the whole game Make the card extension a participatory activity in your team “Train the Trainers”: repeat sessions, distributing responsibilities

For instance:1.1. GoalGoal: learn/refine the rules for (software) project management

(including estimation practices with FPA)2.2. GameGame: Monopoly3.3. DomainDomain: Project Management4.4. ……PlayPlay!

Creating your own ‘ba’Creating your own ‘ba’Our games: Creating new games – Attention PointsAttention Points

http://www.hasbro.com/games/kid-games/monopoly/


Creating your own ‘ba’Creating your own ‘ba’Our games: Project-o-polyProject-o-poly

http://www.geocities.com/lbu_measure/games/pop.htm


• Trivial PursuitTrivial Pursuit

• TabooTaboo

Creating your own ‘ba’Creating your own ‘ba’Our games: Trivial PursuitTrivial Pursuit, Taboo Taboo





• Met-RiskMet-Risk

Creating your own ‘ba’Creating your own ‘ba’Our games: Met-RiskMet-Risk

http://www.geocities.com/lbu_measure/games/met-risk.htm


• Who wants to be a CFPS?Who wants to be a CFPS?

Creating your own ‘ba’Creating your own ‘ba’Our games: Who wants to be a CFPS?Who wants to be a CFPS?


• 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)

Creating your own ‘ba’Creating your own ‘ba’Our games: Murphy’s SPI TablesMurphy’s SPI Tables


Finagle's Creed: Science is true. Don't be misled by facts

Measurement context 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.

Current flaw(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.

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

Missing opportunity(ies)

• Not balanced objective and subjective measurements

Related SPI reference(s)

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)

Source: L.Buglione & C.Dekkers, A Murphological View on Software Measurement: a serious joke or a funny serious thing?, Proceedings of SMEF 2006, 3rd Software Measurement European Forum, 10-12 May 2006, Rome (Italy), pp. 315-329

Creating your own ‘ba’Creating your own ‘ba’Our games: Murphy’s SPI Tables…on Meas & AnalysisMurphy’s SPI Tables…on Meas & Analysis

http://www.iir-italy.it/smef2006







AgendaAgenda


• Learning Organizations Be more people-oriented (Try to) measure and leverage the ‘human capital’ in your organization ‘Use’ not only people knowledge, but also their creativity for achieving organizational goals faster and better, thought technical motivation

• Play’n’Learn People makes the difference Coordinate the stimulus to creativity, using a bit of humor Choose the right games as metaphors of your own informative goals Train the Trainers

• Next Steps Build/Reinforce your own ‘ba’ Make explicit the tacit knowledge inside your organization Avoid the ‘silver bullet flu’ … …Try!Try!

Conclusions Conclusions && Prospects Prospects


““Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes.Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes.Art is knowing which ones to keep.”Art is knowing which ones to keep.”

(Scott Adams)

““The most exciting phrase to hear in science, The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not ‘Eureka!’ (I found it!) the one that heralds new discoveries, is not ‘Eureka!’ (I found it!)

but ‘That’s funny...’”but ‘That’s funny...’” (Isaac Azimov)

Food for thougth….Food for thougth….


Q && A

Thanks for your attention!Thanks for your attention!

ISMA4 – Chicago, Sep 13-16, 2009 © Luigi Buglionewww.eng.it

For further information:

Engineering.IT S.p.A.Via Riccardo Morandi, 32

I-00148 Rome (Italy)www.eng-it.it/spimq

Luigi Buglionet +39 06 83074472 m +39 335 [email protected]

http://www.eng-it.it/spimq

http://www.eng-it.it/spimq

Play’n’Learn: A Continuous KM Improvement Approach using FSM Methods

Luigi Buglione

Engineering.IT / Nexen

Via Riccardo Morandi 32, Rome, Italy I-00148 [email protected]; [email protected]

Abstract. During last years, budgets for training within ICT organization decreased, in particular for F2F (face-to-face) sessions. A traditional, institutional, serious manner for providing training is still adopted, and it reduces the possibility for attendees to approach to training sessions as a moment for learning but also for stimulating their creativity and generate new ideas to be used in their daily work. From an organizational viewpoint, well-known maturity models position such KM-related processes at highest maturity levels (e.g. OID process area in CMMI at ML5), but using a continuous representation, it can be done (and it would be desirable) yet from lower levels. This paper proposes a different way - called ‘Play’n’Learn’ - to verify people knowledge using games, contextualized to Software Management & Measurement issues, at the end of training sessions as part of a continuous knowledge management process for achieving higher maturity and capability levels, according to most known maturity models (MM) such as CMMI and ISO 15504 (SPICE).

Keywords: Maturity Models, CMMI, SPICE, Knowledge Management (KM), People-related issues, Functional Size Measurement (FSM).

1 Introduction When observing learning mechanisms in the real life, especially looking at young

kids, everybody agrees that playing is the first and the main one allowing us to be aware and learn about the outside world, relationships with other people, etc. But becoming adults, the time devoted to play (whatever kind of games or leisure activity) usually is going to be reduced more and more: e.g. sport, table games, chess, etc., that's in brief, the "ludic perpective". And it could be one of the reasons why we often need more time in learning new concepts and things, because we learn but not in a "funny" manner, and learning is perceived as a duty, sacrificing the pleasure that - on the other side - learning could bring us.

From the early ‘80s on, in the Management field (and also in ICT) more than “serious” books and reference guides it seems that (apparent) semi-serious publications such as the Dilbert strips by Scott Adams [1] or common proverbs [8] are referenced in technical presentations and papers as a starting point for commenting daily ICT malpractices, with the aim to reduce the percentage of failures in application of Software Measurement programs, as noted by H.Rubin some years ago [21]. And the growing attention paid to this kind of approach is a fact to be kept into



2

account. Moving from this point, few years ago we proposed a "murphological view" on Software Measurement issues [4], customizing some Arthur Block's "Murphy's laws"[3][2], as one of the possible 'knowledge assets' obtained from a continuous improvement program based on the Nonaka & Takeuchi's SECI Model [18].

During these years, such 'Play'n'Learn' approach was extended and refined into 3 levels (novice, intermediate, experts) using several traditional games customized ad-hoc for achieving a better Software Management (and Measurement) of software projects.

The aim of this paper is to propose some details from real experiences, the games used during training sessions and the way feedbacks can be profitably used for strengthening the Organizational's Process Model for achieving higher maturity and capability levels according to CMMI [6], ISO 15504 [13][14] or other Maturity Models in the Software/Systems and/or Service Management domain.

Section 2 presents the basics about the so-called ‘Learning Organizations’ (LO),

showing where and how the ‘people’ resource enables an organization to achieve its business goals. Section 3 provides a short overview of some simulation games for Software Engineering available on the web, in order to corroborate our assumptions on the value brought out from playing games for learning. Section 4 shows the ‘Play’n’Learn’ approach, from the categorization of knowledge through the customizing games process for presenting some of our games created having Software Measurement and FSM techniques as the target knowledge domain. Finally, Section 5 presents some recommendations and prospects for next actions. Appendix A proposes a list of the acronyms used in this paper. 2 Learning Organizations

2.1 Software Process Improvement & Knowledge Management: which relationship?

The first question to provide an answer is ‘how people and organizational processes are related?’, Moving from a root-cause analysis (RCA) viewpoint, a cause-effect visualization is easily provided by some well-known performance models and frameworks such as the strategy map in the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) approach [15]1 and the EFQM model [9], that’s the European version of the US Malcolm Baldridge model [17].

As shown in Figure 1, such models have a larger scope than those Software/Systems Engineering models focusing only partly on supporting and organizational processes. On the other side, in performance models the ‘people’ resource is strongly evidenced as an input, an enabler for performing the operational processes, whatever the application domain of the organization. And the quality of people affect – of course – the obtained results of products/services provided.

1 In the late ‘90s, two studies started to propose a BSC with 5 perspectives, splitting the ‘Learning &

Growth’ one into ‘People/Employee’ and ‘Infrastructure & Innovation’ ones [19][10].

3

(a) (b)

Fig. 1 – People-related issues in (a) Balanced Scorecards; (b) EFQM Model

Only from its version 1.1, CMMI model introduced a ‘bird’s eye’ view for each

one of the four defined process categories (process management, project management, engineering, support). But in any case, people is assumed and managed in such models as a resource, with few devoted process areas (e.g. Organizational Training - OT) and rating criteria (e.g. GP2.3 – Provide Resources; GP2.5 – Train People), with the effect to have a reduced visible incidence on the final rating. That’s why parallel maturity models as the People-CMM (P-CMM) [7] has been created and now, more and more are jointly used with CMMI [16]. The motivation of employees coming from the technical side can modify (and a lot) outcomes and final projects’ performance. The solely Software/Systems Engineering maturity models often cannot catch the whole picture2, and therefore must be complemented by other ones. Senge defined Learning Organizations as “Organizations where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning to learn together” [23]. And this would be the kind of organization the ‘Play’n’Learn’ approach – proposed in next sections – would meet and be useful for.

2.2 The SECI Model

The core question for an organization must ever be: how can we continuously achieve better results? And one of the answers that (unfortunately) is less applied and put into action is the elicitation of tacit knowledge. Two paths can be followed in parallel: techniques and a structured process for using such techniques.

From a procedural/technique viewpoint, the Western way to elicit creativity has a reference point in Peter Senge’s work. His ‘Fifth Discipline’3 books [23][22] propose techniques and tips for making easier a real and effective knowledge transfer among employees and at the same time make less boring technical sessions. The return-on-knowledge-investment (ROKI) besides in the organization’s ability of converting in

2 ISO 15504 [13][14] in its current version includes in its PRM a specific process group for resources (RIN

– Resource and Infrastructure), with a devoted process for knowledge management (RIN.3). Or there are specific KM-maturity models such as KMMM [11].

3 The five disciplines are: system thinking, personal mastery, mental models, shared vision, team learning.

4

actual ‘value’ the potential hidden in human resources by a proactive learning. From a process viewpoint, one of the most interesting models on this issue is the Nonaka & Takeuchi’s SECI model [18], presented in Fig.2, articulating a PDCA-like cycle on four phases.

Fig. 2 – The SECI model: from tacit to explicit knowledge

The continuous improvement approach helps in making more and more explicit a very basic and rough idea (socialization) before speaking about it with someone else (externalization), then refining it (combination) till its distribution to a group (internalization), till recycling more times for refining and improving such idea. Such idea can be identified and labelled as a ‘knowledge asset’ (KA), that will be our goal when describing the ‘Play’n’Learn’ approach.

2.3 ‘Ba’: concept and application

Ideas and new concepts can be generated and transferred within the organization, of course. But, as usual, a fertile and proactive organizational infrastructure should be put in place for proactively achieving such goal. The Japanese term used by Nonaka & Takeuchi in their book for describing such ‘place’ is ‘ba’. Such concept stands for ‘place, context for a creative exchange of ideas’, where people can communicate and the process of conversion of tacit into explicit knowledge takes place. It can be physical place (office) but also a shared mental model, a relationship among people sharing the same interests or goals. Or – referring to latest ICT tools – virtual places (‘cyber ba’) making easier to exchange and manage knowledge through those platforms.

Fig. 3 – SECI model: the ‘ba’ cycle and dimensions

5

Moving from such considerations and thoughts, Fig.3 represents another two-dimensional matrix where the dimensions of analysis are the interaction types (F2F, virtual) and the amount of people interacting (individual; collective).

As well as described in the previous figure, here also a sort of PDCA-like cycle is expressed, suggesting the proper genesis and evolution of a concept till its operational usage, where the confrontation with other people (both using F2F and virtual ways) is fundamental for making such ideas be refined and evolve, integrating more suggestions from more possible stakeholders.

But coming back to our organizations, some more questions are: are there ‘ba’ in

our organizations? If yes, which ones? And how they are managed? 3 Simulation Games in Software Engineering

Looking on the TV and Internet, there is a growing market and attention to computer games and whatever kind of game console. The target for advertisements is mostly represented by young men more than guys, having more economic availabilities and still a willing for having fun. This is just a bird’s eye view from the real world for observing the level of quest for fun outside the working arena against what is a very rigorous and ‘boring’ way when dealing with business issues (in particular, there is a resistance to measurement and measurement-related issues higher than in other fields [20]).

In parallel, it is possible to observe that also on the Net the growing number of simulation games related to Software Engineering issues and the workshops and technical events discussing about it (e.g. FASE conference). Just to name a few4:

• SimSE (Simulating Software Engineering)5: it is the customized version of the well-known ‘Sim City’ game, proposing the simulation of working in a software project team.

• Problems and Programmers6: it is a card game, with family of cards (project, programmer, concepts) for fixing and stimulating the concepts about the management of a software project from the programmers’ viewpoint.

• Extreme Programming Card Games7: also for XP, a series of possible card games have been created, with different information goals.

So, why do not approach in such way also for improving the return from the (few)

training sessions performed in an organization and – at the same time – use them as ‘ba’ for creating and making tacit knowledge visible?

4 A more extended and updated list of SE games is at www.geocities.com/lbu_measure/games/games.htm 5 http://www.ics.uci.edu/~emilyo/SimSE/ 6 http://www.problemsandprogrammers.com/index.html 7 http://www.industriallogic.com/games/eppc.html


http://www.ics.uci.edu/~emilyo/SimSE/

http://www.problemsandprogrammers.com/index.html

http://www.industriallogic.com/games/eppc.html

6

4 Creating your own ‘ba’ for Software Measurement and FSM A particular attention should be devoted to training and knowledge about

Functional Size Measurement (FSM) methods, because they represent one of the main inputs within the Project Planning process for determining the efforts and schedule within the project scope. Making aware the largest possible amount of team members about what a FSM means and can – technically speaking – bring into the project from several viewpoints is fundamental and can greatly improve project and organizational performances. Just to name few technical issues really arose from discussions that such type of training/verification approach makes easier:

• LOC and FP: why backfiring can be a dangerous practice? What is a LOC and how it is defined within an organization? Which was the exigency for creating FPA?

• FP is a product-level measure: why Scope Management concepts and approach are going to be used more during last years? Which impacts can have the usage of ‘nominal’ productivity levels on project effort estimations?

• FP, effort and BFC profiles: in which way the distribution of BFC types can help estimators in refining their effort estimates?

The reason besides on the psychological mechanisms behind a question/answer

schema. In fact, the short-term memory starts to receipt answers in background, while only a longer time will be needed to consolidate and link answers to questions by their rationale8. But the effect in the short-period will be to reinforce and improve the results with a lower cognitive effort, because playing and not studying for a test. “Play’n’Learn” is a general approach coming from the years of experience on the field as a trainer, experiencing directly the frustration that notions are often confused with knowledge and that an exam can be passed only with a closed-question schema. So, the solely way to change this perception stand in rethinking the rules of the game and…play!

4.1 Levels of Knowledge

First of all, it is fundamental to distinguish the different possible levels for knowledge. A reasonable classification can be done using three levels: Novice, Junior, Senior. Novices must be aware about a certain issue, acquire the basic knowledge and learn the basic operation rules for a certain domain/technique. Juniors must be a step beyond, acquiring more notions on such subject and fix the basic knowledge previously acquired. Finally, Seniors must be able to manage those concepts and link them moving from basic knowledge elements.

Thus, moving from what discussed, the missing element is the ‘how’ to learn according to knowledge levels and types. As said, playing can be a tactic to be followed for achieving two goals at the same time: 1) better fixing of notions received during training sessions; 2) allow the establishment of a ‘ba’ where new ideas can grow up and be shared among the organization, as described in the SECI model. About the ‘where’, games can be used in several moments of the training sessions: a)

8 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short-term_memory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short-term_memory

7

within the session (e.g. specific exercises on an issue, as playing Sudoku for improving Agile Project Planning skill and ability); b) at the end of the session, as a different way to fix concepts and rules about the subject taught.

About the ‘what’, the suggestion – as seen also in the Simulation Games for SE above presented – is to choose a well-known game from another application domain where rules are yet known by the training participants and customize it, rephrasing rules and context-related elements to the target domain/issue. Possible criteria for choosing a proper game can be: a) the cognitive complexity of a game referred to the knowledge level of interest; b) the popularity of the original game, that would reduce the time needed for participants to learn the new rules and be able to play in the faster time as possible and with the lowest additional learning effort. Table 1 presents a summary of knowledge levels, types and possible games.

Table 1. Levels of knowledge: a possible classification

Level Knowledge Type Possible Game

3 – Senior Managing concepts • Taboo • Pictionary • …

2 – Junior Notions • Trivial Pursuit • …

1 - Novice Learning rules, awareness, basic knowledge

• Snakes & Ladders • Monopoly • Risk! • …

4.1 Creating new games: attention points

As said before, the creation (or customization) of a game for the Software Engineering (Measurement) domain must observe a process, taking care of some attention points:

1. Choose the informative goal to achieve: do not forget your final goal. If the training session is intended to make simply programmers aware about what FPA is, a Level-1 game could be the right solution. On the opposite side, if the goal is to train functional analyst for achieving CFPS certification, Level-3 games are needed.

2. Choose a well-known (and possibly funny) game: also in the real life, people avoid to use too complex and sophisticated games. Rules must be simple to learn for playing just after few minutes, not hours! • Find the right metaphors with the original rules à before entering into

the rules of the game, it is fundamental to choose a game that have a good fit in concepts with the target domain and informative goals.

3. Contextualize rules to the target domain: in order to create a new game, it is fundamental now to modify the original rules in way that makes people convinced of the natural, consequential moving from the original to the customized game. Each too complex or conceptual rule will be lived as a difficulty and therefore not accepted and abandoned by players.

8

• Remember the goal of “Play’n’Learn” à first-level goal to achieve is to have fun, no matter the subject to be treated. If playing such game will not give fun in return, also the knowledge level about such subject will be reasonably lower than expected, because the lower attention paid by the participants when playing.

• Keep the right time to create rules (and cards), not too quick à what proposed can seem to be easy and quick to be realized. But only when dealing in person with the creation of a new cards set of the customization of the game board or the finding of the right metaphor, it is possible to comprehend that you need time to understand if the right result has been achieved (or not).

4. …Play! 5. And after playing, V&V:

• Verify effectiveness of customized rules and cards by playing (cognitive complexity levels) à feedbacks from participants are fundamental for understanding if what produced is ok or need to be revised or simply extended.

• A KA can be also a single card, not the whole game à one of the other goals from this kind of approach is to make knowledge a shared and participatory issue among the team members. Asking to people to create a new game or produce a complete, new brand idea could be a too changeling task. And less proactive people could be feared of it, with the result to make their productivity lower, instead that express their inner potential. So, an incremental approach could be a winning tactics: asking little KA as a card, but continuously.

• Make the card extension a participatory activity in your team à as said before, using games with cards offers the opportunity to share the additional work among more people. And in such case, the lowest knowledge unit to produce could be simply a card. But the overall result will be to reinforce the team through a common KM product, increasing also self-trustiness and team cohesion.

• “Train the Trainers” à another tactic to adopt is to repeat sessions distributing responsibilities among participants and create a pyramidal scheme where few by few the knowledge will flow from the initial participants towards their colleagues. The added value in such approach is to consolidate a common knowledge and language within the organization and to minimize the contribution from people outside such group (those people can always be an ‘external’ and neutral reference point, a facilitator).

9

4.1 Our Games

During last years, the Author started to rethink a series of games, partly available on the web9. Software Measurement and FSM issues were the target knowledge domain. Table 2 summarizes the list of those games, proposing their source game and the measurement issues treated.

Table 2. Our Games: a summary table

K-Level Our Game Source Sw-Meas / FSM issues 1 Project-o-poly Monopoly • Basic project management rules,

measurement practices contained in the ‘chest’ and ‘chances’ cards. Underline the need for certification and to proper use measures for estimates.

1 Met-Risk Risko • Cards have a series of related measures,

metrics and indicators, whose definitions must be known and used during the game.

2 Trivial Pursuit

(IFPUG FPA) Trivial Pursuit • IFPUG FPA knowledge has been

subdivided into six subjects: Theory, Logical Files, Transactions, Adjustment Factor, Counting Process, New Technologies.

2 Who wants to be a

CFPS? Who wants to be a

millionaire? • Questions for a possible CFPS exam are

posed using the rules of such game, classified by complexity.

3 Taboo (IFPUG

FPA) Taboo • IFPUG FPA keywords from CPM

Glossary has been kept creating a new card.

3 Murphy’s SPI

tables Murphy’s laws • Measurement principles have been

linked with other domain’s laws, making explicit some elements for process improvement.

Now a brief description and rationale for each of the above listed games.

4.1.1 Project-o-poly Starting with Level-1 games, one of the most known games is Monopoly: the final goal to achieve is to become the monopolist and conquer the most valuable zones of a city, building houses and hotels and be able to make more profits that the other players. Shifting that goal to (software) project management, the goal becomes to be the most valuable (software) project manager, with the highest number of project (and people) to manage, applying your knowledge also in estimation with FSM methods.

9 SEMQ website: www.geocities.com/lbu_measure/games/games.htm


10

(a) (b)

Fig. 4 – Project-o-poly: (a) game plan; (b) cards

About the metaphors adopted, original cards become project chests and chances referring to best practices from (software) project management and estimation, the four train station become PM certification, houses and hotels become team members to include in your staff for running a project. And the prison become a ‘waiting-for-allocation’ zone, where you’ve to wait for be staffed on a project few turns.

4.1.2 Met-Risk Another well known game is Risk: here the goal is to fight and conquer a certain number of countries and/or destroy enemies. Using such game goals and logic, the world map becomes the organizational chart, with all the departments and offices and players are measurers with the goal to make a measurement evangelization, applying the right measures to each assigned department/office.

(a) (b)

Fig. 5 – Met-Risk: (a) game plan; (b) cards

11

4.1.3 Trivial Pursuit Going to Level-2 games, the goal is to propose in a different and funnier way questions for a verification test. Trivial Pursuit is one of the most known and sold games worldwide and in such case the game plan is the original one. The adaption is in finding a proper subdivision of an issue of interest into six sub-issues, as shown in next figure.

Fig. 6 – Trivial Pursuit with IFPUG FPA

4.1.4 Who wants to be a CFPS? Remaining on Level-2 games (and knowledge goals), another famous TV (and board) game is ‘Who wants to be a millionaire?’. Here a series of questions (four possible answers, one correct) must be answered till arriving to the last one. Our customized version become ‘Who wants to become a CFPS’, applied to IFPUG FPA (but also a version for CSMS has been realized).

Fig. 7 – Who wants to be a CFPS?

No additional complexity than a traditional closed-questions test, but in order to make it funnier, useful and participative, an additional rule has been introduced: when an error is done, the game starts again from question 1 on. In such way, trainees fix eventual errors and there is no ‘punishment’ for it, but it becomes a real challenge to arrive with the lesser number of errors to the last question and ‘become a CFPS’.

12

4.1.5 Taboo Finally, there are some Level-3 games. Taboo is also known as the game of the forbidden words: there is a simple game plan as in ‘Snake and Ladders’ and players from each one of the two teams must guess a word without mentioning five forbidden related words. For each guessed word, one step beyond till the end will be done.

Fig. 8 – Taboo with IFPUG FPA

Figure 8 presents a possible card where ‘Process’ is the word to guess, where the forbidden words are: elementary, count, scope, boundary, functional. In such way, each people having to guess a certain word must have yet quite clear what is the underlined concept within a strict time (typically a sand-glass time).The quicker the thinking time, the faster the mental process for using such concepts in a proper way moving from definitions, concepts and glossary during work.

4.1.5 Murphy’s SPI Tables The last game presented was created and proposed few years ago [4] and has the goal to stimulate people in verifying and applying their knowledge in software measurement for proposing suggestions for continuous improvement, eliciting their inner and tacit knowledge. Moving from Murphy’s laws, the exercise is to select those one related to the target domain (e.g. measurement) and fill a series of pre-defined fields, as in the following table.

Table 3. Murphy’s SPI tables (an example)

Original Law Finagle's Creed: Science is true. Don't be misled by facts Measurement Context

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

Current flaw(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

Potential risk(s) Historical data is a powerful tool for supporting the decision-making process, not a perfect substitute for it or for managers

Missing opportunities

Not balanced objective and subjective measurements

Related SPI references

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

13

Instead of studying in a boring manner a process improvement model (here the example was proposed using CMMI but it could be applied to any other model/framework), the challenge is to run differently a powered SWOT analysis, yet making a mapping between your own process model and an external one (e.g. CMMI) providing the seeds for the writing of an improvement plan. 5 Conclusions & Prospects

Through the years personal knowledge seems to lose its value, since quite all the ‘knowledge’ could be accessed through a simple mouse-click and the new challenge is to manage a collective organizational intelligence, arriving to describe a new concept of innovation [24]. But the realization of ‘learning organizations’ is (and will be) contributed by single people: the achievement of such step asks to ‘use’ not only their knowledge, but also their creativity for achieving organizational goals faster and better, thought technical motivation, that is one of the elements that should be also measured and that leverages the ‘human capital’ in organizations.

Coordinating the stimulus to creativity within an organization, using a bit of humour, is possible to keep out a plenty of new ideas for improvement. The “Play’n’learn” approach stresses the central role of people in making the difference. In this paper the general approach and a series of games – both found on the Net and created and/or customized from table games – have been presented, showing their software measurement side for teaching in a funny way concepts scaled on three knowledge levels (from novice to experts). From our experience as ‘external’ trainers, during last four years the level of acceptance by trainees and their return to organizations in terms of higher motivation and stimulus for improvement significantly grow up, looking at their managers’ feedbacks after few weeks from the attended training/workshop sessions. Afterwards, an interesting observation on trainees is that if the trainer does not interrupt the game at a pre-established time (e.g. 30 minutes), they tend to continue the game till the end, simply because they are playing (and learning) – even if we could speak about how to count FP or determining the right estimation curve for our cost estimation model, with an approximated +20-25% of time spent than initially scheduled by the trainer.

The most difficult challenges are on one side the choice of the right games as proper metaphors of organizational informative goals, and on the other one the capability to spread the elicited knowledge to a larger internal audience by a ‘train the trainers’ wave in order to reduce costs and strengthen people cohesion. Key issues for realizing this vision are the build/reinforce of ‘ba’ and a consistent application of what the SECI model proposes (eliciting tacit knowledge) with a clear management commitment, and put the program in action.

‘The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not ‘Eureka!’ (I found it!)

but ‘that’s funny…’” (Isaac Azimov)

‘Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep” (Scott Adams)

14

References

[1] Adams S., The Dilbert Principle: a cubicle’s-eye view of bosses, meetings, management fads & other workplace afflictions, HarperBusiness, 1996, ISBN 0887308589

[2] Block A., Murphy’s Law Book Two, Price|Stern|Sloan Publishers Inc, 1980 [3] Block A., Murphy’s Law, Price|Stern|Sloan Publishers Inc, 1977 [4] Buglione L. & Dekkers C., A Murphological View on Software Measurement: a

serious joke or a funny serious thing?, Proceedings of SMEF 2006, 3rd Software Measurement European Forum, 10-12 May 2006, Rome (Italy), pp. 315-329, URL: http://www.dpo.it/smef2006/papers/c08.pdf

[5] Buttles-Valdez, P., People Capability Maturity Model and Anthropology, Software Engineering Institute, 2006, URL: http://www.sei.cmu.edu/sepg/2007/files/Buttles%20Valdez.pdf

[6] CMMI Product Team, CMMI for Development, Version 1.2, CMMI-DEV v1.2, Continuous Representation, CMU/SEI-2006-TR-008, Technical Report, Software Engineering Institute, August 2006, URL: http://www.sei.cmu.edu/pub/documents/06.reports/pdf/06tr008.pdf

[7] Curtis B. Hefley W. & Millar S., People Capability Maturity Model (P-CMM) Version 2.0, CMU/SEI-2001-MM-001, Maturity Model, Software Engineering Institute, July 2001, URL: http://www.sei.cmu.edu/publications/documents/01.reports/01mm001.html

[8] Dekkers C., Tackling Software Measurement? Try Proverbs, CrossTalk, May 2005, p.32, URL: www.stsc.hill.af.mil/crosstalk/2005/05/0505backtalk.html

[9] European Foundation for Quality Management, The EFQM Excellence Model – Improved Model, 1999

[10] Ferguson P., Leman G., Perini P., Renner S. & Seshagiri G., Software Process Improvement Works!, SEI Technical Report, CMU/SEI-TR-99-27, Nov. 1999

[11] Hems K. & Langen M., Holistic Development of Knowledge Management with KMMM, Siemens AG, 2002, URL: http://www.knowledgeboard.com/doclibrary/knowledgeboard/kmmm_article_siemens_2002.pdf

[12] ISO/IEC, IS 12207:2008 Information technology – Software Life Cycle processes, 2008

[13] ISO/IEC, IS 15504-2: 2003, Information technology -- Process assessment -- Part 2: Performing an assessment, October 2003

[14] ISO/IEC, IS 15504-5: 2006, Information technology -- Process Assessment -- Part 5: An exemplar Process Assessment Model, March 2006

[15] Kaplan R.S. & Norton D.P., The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy Into Action, Harvard Business School Press, 1996, ISBN 0875846513

[16] Nandyal R.S., Shoehorning CMMI initiatives with People CMM, SEPG 2006, 8 March 2006, Nashville, Tennessee (USA), Presentation, URL: http://www.secc.org.eg/SEPG%202006/Ingredients/PDF_files/189.pdf

[17] NIST, Baldridge National Quality Program: Criteria for Performance Excellence, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2008

http://www.dpo.it/smef2006/papers/c08.pdf

http://www.sei.cmu.edu/sepg/2007/files/Buttles%20Valdez.pdf

http://www.sei.cmu.edu/pub/documents/06.reports/pdf/06tr008.pdf

http://www.sei.cmu.edu/publications/documents/01.reports/01mm001.html

http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/crosstalk/2005/05/0505backtalk.html

http://www.knowledgeboard.com/doclibrary/knowledgeboard/kmmm_article_sie

http://www.secc.org.eg/SEPG%202006/Ingredients/PDF_files/189.pdf

15

[18] Nonaka I. & Takeuchi H., The Knowledge-Creating Company, Oxford University Press, 1995., ISBN 0-19-509-269-4

[19] Reo D.,Quintano N. & Buglione L., ESI Balanced IT Scorecard Infrastructure & Innovation Perspective, ESI-1999-TR-043, December 1999

[20] Rice R., Unintended Consequences of Measurement. Causes and Cures, Presentation, SEI SEPG Conference, March 2008, URL: www.sei.cmu.edu/sepg/2008/pdf/top/rice.pdf

[21] Rubin H.A., The Top 10 Mistakes in IT Measurement, IT Metrics Strategies, Vol.II, No.11, November 1996, URL: http://web.archive.org/web/20030119070257/www.cutter.com/benchmark/1996toc.htm

[22] Senge P., Kleiner A., Roberts C., Ross R. & Smith B, The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook. Strategies and Tools for Building A Learning Organization, Doubleday/Currency, 1994, ISBN 0-385-47256-0

[23] Senge P.M., The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of The Learning Organization, Currency Doubleday, 1990, ISBN 0-385-26095-4

[24] Tasaka H., In the Knowledge Society, Knowledge is Losing its Value, UPGRADE Journal, Vol. IX, No.5, October 2008, pp. 37-38, URL: www.upgrade-cepis.com/issues/2008/5/up9-5-Tasaka.pdf

http://www.sei.cmu.edu/sepg/2008/pdf/top/rice.pdf

http://web.archive.org/web/20030119070257/www.cutter.com/benchmark/1996to

16

Appendix – List of Acronyms

BFC Base Functional Component BSC Balanced Scorecard

CFPS Certified Function Point Specialist CMM Capability Maturity Model CMMI CMM Integration CPM Counting Practice Manual CSMS Certified Software Measurement Specialist EFQM European Foundation for Quality Management

F2F Face-To-Face FPA Function Point Analysis FSM Functional Size Measurement

FSMM FSM Method GP Generic Practice ICT Information & Communication Technology

IFPUG International Function Point User Group (www.ifpug.org) ISO International Organization for Standardization (www.iso.org ) KA Knowledge Area KM Knowledge Management LO Learning Organization

LOC Line of Code MBQA Malcolm Baldrige Quality Award

ML Maturity Level MM Maturity Model OT Organizational Training

P-CMM People CMM PDCA Plan-Do-Check-Act RCA Root-Cause Analysis SE Software Engineering SPI Software Process Improvement

SPICE Software Process Improvement & Capability dEtermination (ISO 15504)

SWOT Strengths – Weaknesses – Opportunities – Threats XP eXtreme Programming

http://www.ifpug.org

http://www.iso.org

isma4: 4° annual international conference on software ... · historical data. potential risk(s)...

Documents