Selected Presentations at the Software Process Engineering ConferenceThe Triangular Life Cycle ModelAuthored and Presented by Phil Robinson from Lonsdale Systems, Australia AbstractThere are “waterfall”, “iterative”, “unified”, “agile” and “spiral” software development life cycles (SDLCs), so why not a triangular SDLC? This paper describes how the “Triangular Life Cycle Model” grew out of a search for better ways to integrate quality concerns into the SDLC. Sadly, quality is often an afterthought for many life cycle models. The starting point for the “Triangular Life Cycle Model” was the article "What Does 'Product Quality' Really Mean?" by David Garvin. The article identifies five different views of product quality. The triangle was created by taking Garvin’s user view (quality means fitness-for-purpose), manufacturing view (quality means conformance to specification) and product view (quality is tied to inherent characteristics of product) and placing each of the three views at a corner of a triangle. The sides of the triangle are then formed by the inevitable “gaps” that exist between the three views of quality. When the software development life cycle activities are then superimposed on the triangle, the underlying reason behind the quality gaps becomes clear. With the basic elements in place, the focus of the “Triangular Life Cycle Model” shifts to how the gaps between the different vie of quality can be closed. Garvin’s value-based view of quality (quality is dependent on how much customer is willing to pay) is considered as a potential approach for closing the gaps. However, it can only be successfully applied when the components of the cost of quality are understood. Process improvement is presented as an alternative approach for closing the gaps between the different views of quality. Various process-related activities and strategies are discussed and mapped to the “Triangular Life Cycle Model”. The paper concludes with a preview of how the ideas behind the “Triangular Life Cycle Model” have been extended into a complete visual framework for understanding, planning and managing software development processes. Presenter’s Profile:
Phil has worked with information technology for more than thirty years. During his lengthy career, he has been involved in the planning, analysis and implementation of a diverse range of business, engineering, scientific and technical information systems. Phil is an experienced workshop facilitator and has led numerous workshops in the course of his consulting assignments. He has extensive training experience, earning a reputation as a lucid and knowledgeable presenter. Phil has presented training courses for clients in Australia, India, Indonesia, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore Taiwan and Thailand. As well as presenting courses, Phil has authored numerous courses for industry and three University units. Earlier in his career, he wrote two books on programming Apple computers. The books were published in a number of countries including the USA, UK and as translations in Germany and France. More recently, Phil has co-authored two award-winning articles describing an original organisational theory and a chapter for a book on enterprise architecture. Phil has a degree in Electrical Engineering and has trained as a Group Work Leader. Predictive Defect ManagementAuthored and Presented by KiranKumar Marri, Group Test Manager, Infosys Technologies Limited, Bangalore, India Abstract:Quality of the application is either driven as “meeting the requirements” criteria or “meeting the acceptance of end-user” criteria. This assurance is measured by testing and validating the system or application under purview with the objective to verify whether each requirement is met as per the requirements specification. The testing life cycle process helps to verify this objective. The typical challenges in the testing life cycle of software projects are the parameters to determine:
There are several metrics and estimation methods available to answer some of these challenges but these needs to be customized and utilized rightly in the project to get a meaningful answer. In this paper, the focus is to bring out an approach based on predictive methodology that can help the QA manager to plan his test strategy and test management more effectively. This method utilizes the historical data to strengthen the hypothesis on the number of defects and then classify them based on the phases of the project and severity of the defects. The paper also brings out the best practices followed in Infosys and recommends the industry standard data to arrive at predictive defect model. References:
Presenter’s Profile:
KiranKumar PMP® is currently working as a Group Test Manager at Infosys Technology Limited, Bangalore (NASDAQ: Infy www.infosys.com ). He is associated with the testing practice - Independent Validation Solutions Unit, managing clients in Banking & Finance service domain. He has extensive software experience in the field of Life sciences, Biomedical applications, Banking & Finance domain, and Retail domain. He has about 12 years of experience in the IT industry covering project management, delivery and client relationship roles. He has published & presented several papers in conferences in the field of project management, software testing, clinical data management and biomedical engineering. Kiran has won the best paper award in the PML Conference in 2004. His current research interest and publications are primarily in Project Management and Quantitative Test Management. He received his Bachelors in Electronics & Communication engineering from Madras University in 1993 and a Masters by Research in Biomedical Engineering from Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai in 1996. Kiran is also PMP certified. Kiran can be contacted at kirankmr@infosys.com Fulfilling Multi Model Requirements - Experiences from a Level 4 OrganisationAuthored and Presented by Chen Tat Sze from Continental Automotive, Singapore and Clemens Saur from KUGLER MAAG CIE, Germany Continental Automotive Singapore Pte Ltd is doing process improvement very successfully since many years. The organisation has proven to be CMMI Level 4 in 2007 and has achieved also SPICE Level 4. This Paper will answer why it is important to fulfil several quality models and what are the benefits to be a high maturity organisation. The presentation will be held in 2 parts. Part one is presented by Clemens Saur from KUGLER MAAG CIE. Part two is presented by Chen Tat Sze from Continental Automotive Singapore Pte Ltd Part 1: Introduction, Multi Models, Case Study: Automotive industry As an introduction, we will analyse why fulfilling the requirements of one Model is not enough. Also we give an overview of recognized models and methods for performance improvement besides CMMI like ISO/IEC 15504 (called SPICE), IEC 61508 and also Lean, Six Sigma and Balanced Score Card. We will compare and map them to CMMI. We will explain automotive challenges: How to manage the increasing complexity, innovation speed, cost and quality of Electronic components. One approach is that many European car manufacturers are using an ISO/IEC 15504 compliant assessment model (called Automotive SPICE™) to assess software capability of their electronic suppliers. More than 400 assessments are performed. In case the target level is not fulfilled, the supplier will not stay in business. Often, suppliers are using CMMI to improve their processes. Does e.g. CMMI Level 3 also fulfil SPICE Level 3? Unfortunately, most likely: no. It is highly depending on the practical implementation of CMMI. In the second part of the presentation a case study shows how to take benefit from several models. Part 2: Continental Automotive Singapore Pte Ltd approach Continental Automotive Singapore Pte Ltd is doing process improvement very successfully since many years. The organisation has proven to be CMMI Level 4 in 2007 and has achieved also SPICE Level 4. We will present the approach taken to achieve these targets and will also present benefits and business impact from being a so called High Maturity organisation. Finally we will give an outlook how to continue and to integrate even more initiatives and models like Lean and Six Sigma. Author’s and Presenter’s Profile:
ITIL meets CMMIAuthored and Presented by Dr. Ute Streubel, Process Director, and Philipp Harrschar, Process Director, KUGLER MAAG CIE, Germany One of the major unsolved problems is how to integrate production and development processes. This praxis report will advise on the application and interaction of ITIL- and CMMI-based processes in this context. To safe-guard their future companies have to manage and integrate their operational processes transparently and effectively. IT as a core business is to help them achieve this. The implementation of ITIL or CMMI–conform processes is a first step, but questions remain… Learning’s
Abstract:Most IT service providers still live in two worlds: production and development. Each of these worlds has its own language, uses its own reference models, and ignores the interests of the other domain – and the wishes and demands of the customer often end up unattended … It should be the aim of every manager and process architect, though, to create a common language for these worlds and integrate their reference models in a meaningful way, in order to be able to act competitively and to react quickly to new or changed business processes. Formal model integration alone is hereby not sufficient, as integration needs to take place in people’s heads as well: The development section needs to take much more heed of the fact that the application will have a long life after the development project. And the production section will have to learn that services and systems need to be developed methodically and state of the art. The model developers of ITIL and CMMI have come closer to meeting these demands with ITIL 3.0 and CMMI-svc. CMMI-svc introduces new process areas (e.g. service delivery, incident and request management) and expands existing CMMI-DEV process areas – thus allowing for greater consideration of e.g. service continuity requirements, capacity and availability management, as well as service level requirements in development. Compared to ITIL 2.0 ITIL 3.0 places greater emphasis on service development, referring to life cycle and engineering methods. The responsibility of management is emphasized. Process improvement is now also part of the model (reminiscent of the generic practices in CMMI). Nonetheless, there needs to be further integration and regulation, as many questions are still open, e.g.:
This submission offers some solutions from the authors’ substantial and wide-ranging experiences in particular regarding the interface between production and development. It proposes indicators to identify when it will be worth to apply ITIL or CMMI as the leading reference model, how to integrate them, and how – with the help of CMMI practices – ITIL processes, too, can be regularly monitored and improved – thus also demonstrating a useful combined application of both models. Authors’ and Presenters’ Profiles:Dr. Ute Streubel and Philipp Harrschar from KUGLER MAAG CIE, Germany Dr. Ute Streubel is Process Director at KUGLER MAAG CIE and responsible for Business Development in Finance Industries world-wide. KUGLER MAAG CIE is working for multinational companies predominantly in the automotive, telecommunications, finance, railways, healthcare, and IT industries.
Horst Degen-Hientz is CTO and Partner of KUGLER MAAG CIE - an international professional consulting company for process performance improvement with its headquarter in Stuttgart, Germany. KUGLER MAAG CIE is working for multinational companies predominantly in the automotive, telecommunications, finance, railways, healthcare, and IT industries.
Philipp Harrschar is Process Director and responsible for Sales and Marketing at KUGLER MAAG CIE. He joined the management team of KUGLER MAAG CIE in 2007 after running a business unit for Automotive Software Engineering in an environment to meet maturity model requirements. His current focus is on future trends of process models across different industries. Philipp Harrschar has experience in management consulting of divisions combining software and organizational aspects and holds a diploma in computer sciences from Karlsruhe Technical University, Germany. Strategizing SEPG to Sustain and Optimize Process MaturityAuthored and Presented by Ooi Soo Min, Senior Staff Development Process Engineer and CC Liew, Quality Manager, Motorola (Asia Design Center) Penang, Malaysia Abstract:Our organization, a CMM assessed Level 5 organization since 1999 has experienced a rapid growth from 600 development engineers in 2004 to double its size in 2008. The focus of this topic is on the SEPG strategies on the structures, approaches and goal settings to sustain and optimize process maturity for an organization experiencing a rapid growth challenge. Our organization adopted a ‘virtual’ SEPG that is made up of representatives throughout the organization (as illustrated below) representing both their business unit as well as the Process Areas that is assigned to the representatives. Getting the practitioners to assume the role of process owners help to minimize the resistance over process change, leading to a smoother deployment. A few Process Area task forces are grouped together with one senior management representative assigned to steer the task force activities. The organization adopted the CMMI continuous model’s target profiling, focusing on process areas that address organization’s business goals and needs. To continue optimizing the process, the SEPG adopted the DMAIC approach which uses Digital Six Sigma methodologies to drive process initiatives. By partnering with other Design Center SEPGs, the team has set up a process asset library infrastructure to promote sharing of best practices and re-use. All the SEPG strategies has resulted on sustaining and optimizing process maturity which also leads to meet 100% virtual zero products shipped to customer in 2007. Abbreviation:CMM – Capability Maturity Model CMMI – Capability Maturity Model Integrated DMAIC – Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control SEPG – Software Engineering Process Group Authors’ and Presenters’ Profiles:
Soo Min has 8 years experience with Motorola Penang in the software field which includes testing, test automation, quality assurance and process engineering. A certified CMMI assessor and participated in ISO9001/TL9000 audits, CMM and CMMI assessments. Currently holding the role of senior staff software process engineer with the responsibilities of driving organization process and quality improvements, active member of SEPG, working with Motorola Corporate team in driving common metrics and process, deliver trainings for Motorola Quality IQ program and Motorola Software Fastrack (New Hire training program). A member of the Motorola Corporate Metrics Board and a Six Sigma Green Belt candidate.
CC Liew has 12 years of experience in Software Design and Development Process, Product Testing (including reliability testing), ISO9001/TL9000 certification, SEISM SE/SW/IPPD-CMMI® appraisal, Motorola Six Sigma programs. Recent activities in Motorola include:
A Complete Software Development Process Using Open Source SoftwareAuthored and Presented by Evan Leybourn, Founder and Managing Director, Looking Glass Solutions (LGS), Australia Abstract:By using open source software, organisations can lower their development cost, and can leverage off a world-wide support base to help achieve best practice. Open source software can be used at every stage of the software development cycle. This presentation will look at the applications available to help project planning, resource distribution, staff communication, source control, database development, unit testing, issue tracking, compiling, and distribution. Author’s and Presenter’s Profile:
Evan Leybourn is the founder and Managing Director of Looking Glass Solutions (LGS). Evan has been working with large corporate and government entities performing data analysis and software design for the last 10 years. Framework for Optimizing Process Management for Multifaceted Global ClientsAuthored and Presented by Rakesh Singh, Vice President – Productivity & Quality and Tanveer Firdoose, Senior Consultant – Productivity & Quality, Siemens Information Systems Ltd., India AbstractSoftware Engineering Services is part of fast growing sector globally and for these services to be sustainable the service delivery should be backed by effective quality processes. Often service provider is required to align their established quality systems with client’s processes without compromising performance levels. This is a major challenge in the institutionalization of quality management where there are clients to be managed each having different work cultures. To address this business challenge a technique has been developed to look for common pattern in different project processes. Projects create Standardized Process Model (SPM) which can be specific to a group, domain, size etc. Practitioners/SME’s develops SPM, optimized for their client specific environment. PRISM tool has been used to deploy the SPM’s and promote re-use across domain, industry and engagement type. SPM forms basis for performance improvement analysis and benchmarking. Ownership of SPM’s at practitioner level has ensured customer satisfaction. Authors’ and Presenters’ Profiles:
Rakesh is B Tech. (Mechanical) graduate from BHU-IT Varanasi with 25+ years of experience in diverse IT domains and more particularly in Software Engineering practices. Rakesh has worked in areas such as CAD/CAM, Computer Integrated manufacturing, Project Management , Quality Management and Software Process Improvement. He has lead businesses in the area of IT Services and SAP Consulting. Currently deeply involved in applying statistical thinking to software engineering field.
Tanveer possesses a PGDBA in finance and Bachelor of Engineering (BE) degree with 14 + yrs of global experience. He is currently working with Siemens Information Systems Ltd, as a senior consultant handling various initiatives in the area of quality management. His experience includes consulting and Implementation in the area of quality management, predominantly in ISO, CMM / CMMI, six sigma etc. He is a certified PMP and Six Sigma Black Belt with also a certification in ITIL and RUP. Using Metrics for Software Project ManagementAuthored and Presented by Kong Ewe Keat and Andrew Chih Howe Khor, Software Project Manager, Intel Microelectronics, Penang, Malaysia This paper takes a look at how one software team built a data-based management capability from ground up. Included are the activities taken by the team, from planning to how the team used the metrics to make decisions and take quick preventive actions to resolve potential issues. Actual examples such as metrics used, data collection and status review will be discussed. The paper then ends by presenting the actual benefits of the activity including shorter time to market, faster response times, and improved quality. Authors’ and Presenters’ Profiles:Kong Ewe Keat, Software Quality Auditor, Intel Microelectronics, Penang, Malaysia. Ewe Keat has more than 7 years of experience in software engineering industry. He started his career as a software developer, later moved on to work on CMM/CMMI and Six Sigma initiatives. He currently holds the role of SQA with the additional responsibilities of driving process and quality improvements in the organization.
Andrew has more than 8 years of experience in software engineering industry. He started his career as a software developer at Intel Malaysia as a fresh graduate, and have worked in different engineering positions ranging from network software developer to technical support engineer, focusing on network software design and development for Intel network processors. He then moved on to become a project manager and collected substantial software project management skills in embedded telecommunication software industry with experiences in managing software product life cycle from project initiation, planning, execution, monitoring & controlling to project closure. He also has experience working overseas where he spent 18 months in Intel Beijing to build Intel Exchange Architecture Development Center to support Intel customers in PRC. He holds a MBA Degree from University of Science, Malaysia Does your PAL help?Authored and Presented by Siva Sai, Senior Process Consultant, Processworks, Singapore Abstract:Process Asset Library (PAL) is usually the last step when deploying a Process Improvement Program. A well implemented PAL is the first important step in sustaining Compliance and Process Improvement Capability. This paper look at various requirements that a Process Asset Library should meet, How practitioners search a PAL and how it can form the foundation for collecting 360 degree feedback from the practitioners. It also looks at and suggests implementation strategies on how to organize the vast collection of Process Assets that organization collects over a period of time, including naming conventions, abbreviations, search keywords etc, without overwhelming the practitioners. Author’s and Presenter’s Profile:Siva Sai, Senior Process Consultant, Processworks Siva is highly passionate about Software Engineering, usability design and has over 10 years of experience in the technology industry, ranging from Multimedia Systems to Advanced Computer Vision / Robotics. Siva is also the Chief Architect of Processworks Process Asset Library Tool “EzyLib”. Siva teaches courses on CMMI, facilitates sessions on Software Architecture and Systems Analysis and Design. Before Processworks, Siva worked as the "Asst. Director - Technology" of a company listed on Singapore Stock Exchange. Here he played an active role in defining and rolling out processes to comply with the CMMI Model, and led in it being assessed at CMMI Level 3. He has also participated in SCAMPI appraisals as an ATM. Being in a listed company from the days when it was a 25 people firm has given him insights on how processes evolve as companies grow and how compliance, training and rollout become more daunting during this growth. And, what should be done to make it less daunting from a practitioners view point. Siva is a trained CMMI Consultant. He has completed SEIs official Introduction to CMMI Training and SEIs Intermediate Concepts of CMMI training. Siva’s areas of specialization include Software Techniques, Software Architecture, Software Design, Software Process Engineering etc. An Approach to TCOE Metrics FrameworkAuthored and Presented by Manimegalai Parry, Senior Software Quality Engineer, Chun Fung Hew, Senior Staff Software Test Engineer and Boon Choong Foo, Senior Engineering Manager from Motorola Technology, Penang, Malaysia Abstract:Multi National Corporation (MNC) is constantly pushing for better assured products against an increasingly demanding return from an efficient and effective test assurance centre. In response to such corporate requirement, the adoption of test centre of excellence that has the capability to manage and operate an efficient test service in support of multiple test needs is necessary. For TCOE to perform and meet the demanding pressures; there are many aspects to consider in the establishment of such centre. In this presentation we will focus on one such key aspect that of TCOE metrics framework. The framework defines a model that integrates to the TCOE objective in a systematic approach. The core of the presentation emphasizes on the selected TCOE challenges, the development of the metrics model, and its institutionalization to meet the success factors. Attending will benefit those eager to learn a structured approach in mitigating TCOE challenges via the development and deployment of a TCOE metrics framework. Authors’ and Presenters’ Profiles: Manimegalai Parry heavily involves in product quality assurance activities. She is responsible for process definition and institutionalization in the software test centre. She is also an internal trainer of a couple of Motorola software process courses.
Chun Fung is taking his time off from pursuing his six sigma black belt certification to focus on the improvement initiatives in the area of automation testing. He also involves in organization level software test strategy initiatives. His interest is in developing process models and structures for the betterment of the Test centre. He spent his first seven years in the manufacturing environment before venturing into Software R&D. SCAMPI High Maturity AppraisalsAuthored and Presented by Rajarshi Kumar Das from CyberQ Consulting, India AbstractThere have been a number of changes in the requirements for conducting a SCAMPI Class A as well as in the interpretation of CMMI high maturity practices with the introduction of CMMI for Development v1.2 and SCAMPI v1.2 This presentation looks at these changes – in terms of who can lead a high maturity appraisal, what are the sampling requirements for these appraisals, the significance of the informative components of the CMMI model (as opposed to the required and expected components) and perhaps most significantly, the expectations in terms of the interpretation of the practices of the four high maturity process areas viz. Organizational Process Performance, Quantitative Project Management, Organizational Innovation and Deployment and Causal Analysis and Resolution. The presentation will also attempt to present examples of practices that have been considered acceptable high maturity practices by many Lead Appraisers in the past (v1.1) but are clearly not so in the light of the interpretation of these practices now. Author & Presenter Profile:
Rajarshi is a Lead Appraisal authorized to perform Software Engineering Institute’s (SEI’s) formal SCAMPI and CBA-IPI Appraisals. Rajarshi is a High Maturity Lead Appraiser. He is also the SEI Authorized Instructor for the SEI’s “Official” Introduction to CMMI course. He is an IRCA Registered ISO9001 Auditor; CISA (Certified Information Systems Auditor) and a Member of IFPUG. Rajarshi has worked in the IT industry since 1987. Prior to becoming a Software Process Improvement Consultant, his roles included that of a Project Manager and a Software Engineer. He has performed consulting, training and appraisals for more than 40 organizations in India, Singapore, Rajarshi has a Master in Business Administration (MBA) -Major in Information Systems and Operations Research, from the coveted Indian Institute of Management (IIM) Calcutta, India and is a Bachelor of Technology from Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Delhi, India. List of SubmissionsThe organizing committee thanks the following authors for submitting their paper abstracts.
CMMI High Maturity: The Same Words but What a Different Meaning!! How to Get Ready for A SCAMPI Using Metrics for Software Project Management ITIL meets CMMI Strategizing SEPG to Sustain and Optimize Process Maturity Estimation Model using COBRA Method The Triangular Life Cycle Model SCAMPI High Maturity Appraisals Fulfilling Multi Model Requirements - Experiences from a Level 4 Organisation Challenges of managing projects with different methodologies within a single organization Framework for Optimizing Process Management for Multifaceted Global Clients Framework to Test the Usability of E-News Applications A Probabilistic Approach to Prediction and Control of Code Review Yield Software Implementation & Roll-Out Training Automation Autorun Web System Processes Automation - Benefits for QA Team Evolving concepts of Process Maturity Managing Distributed Software Development Teams Predictive Defect Management The PSP/TSPsm Framework for Individual Software Excellence and Improved Project Performance An Approach to TCOE Metrics Framework Does your PAL help? A Complete Software Development Process Using Open Source Software Fulfilling Multi Model Requirements - Experiences from a Level 4 Organisation Introduction to Personal Software Process (PSP) and Team Software Process (TSP) Interpreting CMMI High Maturity Practices (Building High Maturity Organizations using ML4-5) Advanced Test Case Design Techniques Free and Open Source Licensing for Software and Data Defining, Designing and Developing Software Processes Using a Visual Framework Software Risk Management: The Right Way DOs and DONTs of Software Project Planning and Execution The CMMI: Common Misunderstandings and How to Creatively Implement Solutions for Your Business Modelling Life Cycle Processes with Free Software and Open Standards Test Metrics and Measurement of System Quality |
Phil Robinson, Principle Consultant, Lonsdale Systems, Australia 
KiranKumar Marri, Group Test Manager, Infosys Technologies Limited, Bangalore, India
Chen Tat Sze is Head of Quality and Processes at Continental Automotive Singapore Pte Ltd. Together with his team he has moved Continental Automotive Singapore from a Level 2 to a Level 4 CMMI & Spice organization.
Clemens Saur is Director at KUGLER MAAG CIE responsible for business in APAC. He brings more than 15 years of experience in automotive product development throughout Asia. His speciality is project and process management.
Horst Degen-Hientz, CTO and Partner, KUGLER MAAG CIE, Germany
Philipp Harrschar, Process Director, KUGLER MAAG CIE, Germany
Ooi Soo Min, Senior Staff Development Process Engineer, Group: Government and Public Safety, Motorola (Asia Design Center) Penang, Malaysia. 
CC Liew, Quality Manager, Group: Government and Public Safety, Motorola (Asia Design Center) Penang, Malaysia 
Evan Leybourn, Looking Glass Solutions (LGS), Australia
Rakesh Singh, Vice President – Productivity & Quality, 
Tanveer Firdoose, Senior Consultant – Productivity & Quality, 
Andrew Chih Howe Khor
Manimegalai Parry, Senior Software Quality Engineer, Motorola Technology, Penang, Malaysia
Chun Fung Hew, Senior Staff Software Test Engineer, Motorola Technology, Penang, Malaysia
Rajarshi Kumar Das, High Maturity Lead Appraiser, Cyber Q Consulting, India
