© 2005 KAZ Group Ltd. All rights reserved. Confidential. 1 QMS for … Project Managers Presented by: Bram van Oosterhout Quality Manager Friday 26 August

1© 2005 KAZ Group Ltd. All rights reserved. Confidential.© 2005 KAZ Group Ltd. All rights reserved. Confidential.

QMS for …Project Managers

Presented by:Bram van OosterhoutQuality Manager

Friday 26 August 2005

The bitterness of low quality remains long

after the sweetness of low price is forgotten

2© 2005 KAZ Group Ltd. All rights reserved. Confidential.

Evolutionary delivery

Agenda

Setting the scene (Mil Std 498, Risk profiles) Approaches used in KAZ Results achieved at KAZ Your experience and views


Start with:HIC case study cost/FP for HICQIPS idemWhy?Risks (no mitigations)Risks + Hic ratingRisks + HIC rating + QIPS ratingSolution ED successfully deployed on QIPS, attempted on HIC.MIL-STD 498Etc…


Two case studies

PRISM project Start date Nov 2003End date June 2005 Duration 20 months Planned Builds: 6 Delivered releases 3 Release Planned Actual milestone effort Milestone effort 1 2 3

QIPS project Start date Jul 2004 End date June 2005 Duration 20 months Planned releases: 3 Delivered releases 3 Release Planned Actual milestone effort Milestone effort 6 Sep 04 3145 7 Nov 04 2082 9 Mar 05 4526


Major risks in the delivery of software

# There is a risk that …

1 … the compressed timeframe forces a partial delivery by a prescribed date,

2 … the requirements discovery phase exceeds the scheduled period.

3 … the scope of the deliverable is underestimated.

4 … constant change leads to rework and waste.

5 … the production environment does not meet specification.


… active risk at HIC

# There is a risk that … Active HIC


Yes


Very yes


Maybe


Yes


Very yes


… active risks at QIPS

# There is a risk that … Manifest HIC Manifest QIPS


Yes No


Very yes No


Maybe No


Yes Somewhat


Very yes No


Problem statements

How can we deliver projects like HIC (single contract, multiple releases) with the same predictability and productivity as we achieve in QIPS (one contract per release)?

Why are we unsuccessful in mitigating the major risks that threaten our delivery in single contract deliveries?

What do you see as the obstacles to success?


Mil Std 498 – Software development and documentation

Describes the systems development lifecycle Ref: http://www.abelia.com/498pdf/roadmap.pdf

Recognises that one size does NOT fit all Appendix G Guidance on program strategies, tailoring and build planning Distinguishes three major strategies

Program Strategy: Grand design

Incremental(Preplanned product improvement)

Evolutionary

Define all requirements first? Yes Yes No

Multiple development cycles?

No Yes Yes

Field interim software? No Maybe Yes


Major risks in the delivery of software

# There is a risk that … Successful mitigation strategies


Prioritise the functionality and deliver early


Prioritise the requirements and obtain agreement on a high priority, deliverable subset early.


Perform a requirements verification early.


Do not accept change to units in construction.


Deliver a minimal functionality release early..


Evolutionary delivery is preferred

# Risk Define all requirements first?

Multiple development cycles?

Field interim software?

1 Compressed timeframe No Yes Yes

2 Schedule blowoutNo Yes Maybe

3 Scope underestimated Yes

4 Constant changeNo Yes Yes

5 Environment configuration No Yes Yes

Considering:• the three defining characteristics for the selection of a delivery strategy and • the known, successful mitigation strategies employed to mitigate our major risks

an evolutionary delivery is our best response to the risks we are facing.


Task based contract – a clarification

When we tender for panels, we advocate a task based contract model

Work pattern

Task size

Assessment Detailed analysis Do work

Small X

Medium X X

Large X X X

The contract model is successful in classifying work and mitigating risk for a single delivery.

The contract model can be applied successfully to support an evolutionary delivery through repeated (assessment, do work) cycles

An evolutionary delivery will perform the assessment of the next cycle in parallel with the do work of the previous one.









Integrating UML into the KAZ methodology (2)

Inception Elaboration Construction Transition

preliminary iteration

Iter #t+1

Iter #2

Iter #1

Iter #t

Iter #c+1

Iter #c

Iter #c+2

Scope A Background, B Scope definition •

Environment

Phases

UI & Design F System design •

Requirements Analysis E Detailed requirements •

Configuration and Change management D Change request, K PromotionsProject management C Release schedule •, S Status reports

Build & Unit test Baselined Source code & executables

Deploy N Release notes, O Patch notes

Test H Test scripts •, J Test results

Workflow engineering products

Organisation in time

Workflow support products

• See ASP/R: [QMS]/Advisory/SmallProjectDevelopment/SmallProjectDevelopmentProcess.htm

Documents

© 2005 KAZ Group Ltd. All rights reserved. Confidential. 1 QMS for … Project Managers Presented by: Bram van Oosterhout Quality Manager Friday 26 August