A Public Service Research Institute Serving The National Interest Since 1958 W. Grant Norman, MSSE November 18, 2003 Implementing CMMI™ in a Biometrics.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Copyright © 2003 by Cooliemon TM, LLC 1 Causal Analysis & Resolution (CAR) at Level 1 Presenter: Ralph Williams, President SEI Authorized CBA IPI Lead.
Advertisements

Roadmap for Sourcing Decision Review Board (DRB)
S3-1 © 2001 Carnegie Mellon University OCTAVE SM Process 3 Identify Staff Knowledge Software Engineering Institute Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh,
Team Software Process By: Bryan Peterson. Presentation Topics History Brief overview of the Team Software Process (TSP) TSP Team Launch Team-working Conclusion.
DataSource & SEI’s Capability Maturity Model (CMM ® )
More CMM Part Two : Details.
Chapter 2 The Software Process
S2-1 © 2001 Carnegie Mellon University OCTAVE SM Process 2 Identify Operational Area Management Knowledge Software Engineering Institute Carnegie Mellon.
Transformations at GPO: An Update on the Government Printing Office's Future Digital System George Barnum Coalition for Networked Information December.
Copyright 2003, ProcessVelocity, LLP. CMM and Capability Maturity Model are registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. CMMI and SCAMPI are service.
SE 470 Software Development Processes James Nowotarski 12 May 2003.
Capability Maturity Model (CMM) Done By :Delayel Alhajeree.
Florida’s Water Management District Permitting Website – Phase II (Permitting Portal II)
Questions: Choice the correct answer: 1-Capability Maturity Model for Software (SW-CMM) is used to: a- increase software process capability. b- increase.
Center for Health Care Quality Licensing & Certification Program Evaluation 1 August 2014 rev.
1 Analytical Services, Inc. Huntsville, Alabama Jack Conway Vice President Systems Management CMMI Pilot Project Coordinator.
Software Process CS 414 – Software Engineering I Donald J. Bagert Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology December 17, 2002.
Oversight CHAPTER SIXTEEN Student Version Copyright © 2011 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Organizational Project Management Maturity: Roadmap to Success
Capability Maturity Model
Oversight CHAPTER SIXTEEN Student Version Copyright © 2011 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
National Finance Center’s 2008 Customer Forum EmpowHR 9.0 Billy Dantagnan Teracore.
Procurement Engineering and Review Team (PERT) PEER REVIEW PROGRAM Patrick Marmo 2/7/2012 Independent Peer Review Program for Contractor’s Purchasing Systems.
Effective Methods for Software and Systems Integration
Integrated Capability Maturity Model (CMMI)
PMP® Exam Preparation Course
1-1 Copyright © 2016 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.
N By: Md Rezaul Huda Reza n
4.2 Develop Project Management Plan
MSF Requirements Envisioning Phase Planning Phase.
J. R. Burns, Texas Tech University Capability Maturity Model -- CMM n Developed by the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) in 1989 –SEI is a spinoff.
IT Pro Day Auditing in SQL Server 2012 Charley Hanania Principal Consultant, QS2 AG – Quality Software Solutions
A Project ’ s Tale: Transitioning From SW-CMM to CMMI-SE/SW Warren Scheinin Systems Engineer, NG Mission Systems CMMI Technology Conference & User Group.
Capability Maturity Models Software Engineering Institute (supported by DoD) The problems of software development are mainly caused by poor process management.
Copyright 2003 Northrop Grumman Corporation 0 To PIID or Not to PIID: Lessons Learned in SCAMPI Evidence Preparation To PIID or Not to PIID: Lessons Learned.
Board of Directors & Technical Committee Thursday, March 29, 2012 Data Management (Contract) Field Data Collection & Database Development Solution Presented.
By Ritesh Reddy Nagaram.  Organizations which are developing software processes are facing many problems regarding the need for change of already existing.
EngMat/JWS.PPT 10/17/ CMMI ® Today – The Current State CMMI ® Technology Conference 2003 November 18, 2003 Ron Paulson Vice President, Engineering.
IIL’s International Project Management Day, 2007 The Power of the Profession: A Lesson Learned and Solution Implemented Becomes a Best Practice in Project.
Managing CMMI® as a Project
Georgia Institute of Technology CS 4320 Fall 2003.
Adult Protection in Shropshire Sarah Bland Adult Protection Manager Shropshire County Council.
SWEN 5130 Requirements Engineering 1 Dr Jim Helm SWEN 5130 Requirements Engineering Requirements Management Under the CMM.
Integrating Asset Registers Richard Bramham Asset Co-ordinator Manningham City Council 2010 National Local Government Asset Management and Public Works.
CSE4002CMMI Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) CMMI is replacing the well established CMM rating for software developers and systems engineers.
CMMI. 1.Initial - The software process is characterized as ad hoc, and occasionally even chaotic. Few processes are defined, and success depends on individual.
 Copyright ProcessVelocity, LLP Slides intended for informational purposes only. CMM and Capability Maturity Model are registered in the U.S. Patent.
Requirements Development in CMMI
Click to add text SUITE SEM Implementation Process Training.
Page 1 The Capability Maturity Model (CMM) distinguishes between immature and mature software organizations. Immature software organizations are typically.
Principles of Computer Security: CompTIA Security + ® and Beyond, Third Edition © 2012 Principles of Computer Security: CompTIA Security+ ® and Beyond,
MDIC 1 George Serafin Deloitte & Touche LLP MDIC Open Forum Quality System Maturity Model Update.
Process Asad Ur Rehman Chief Technology Officer Feditec Enterprise.
Evidence about the Benefits of CMMI ® What We Already Know and What We Need to Know Joe Jarzombek, PMP Deputy Director for Software Assurance Information.
SOFTWARE PROCESS IMPROVEMENT
SRR and PDR Charter & Review Team Linda Pacini (GSFC) Review Chair.
Pittsburgh, PA CMMI Acquisition Module - Page M5-1 CMMI ® Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Defense © 2005 by Carnegie Mellon University This.
Oregon DMV Fraud Prevention Program Tom McClellan, DMV Administrator.
RSA Professional Services RSA SecurID Solution Design and Implementation (D&I) Services.
Process Maturity Profile
SUITE SEM Implementation Process Training
Information Technology Project Management – Fifth Edition
New Mexico Business Portal Closeout Department of Information Technology Estevan Lujan, Acting Cabinet Secretary September 26, 2018.
Quality management standards
Interpretive Guidance Project: What We Know CMMI User’s Conference
Software Engineering Lecture 16.
Use of CMMI in an Acquisition Context Using CMMI for Process Improvement at USAF Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC) Dr. Jack R. Ferguson
Acknowledgment of achievement
Cost Estimating Best Practices
Requirements Development in CMMI
Presentation transcript:

A Public Service Research Institute Serving The National Interest Since 1958 W. Grant Norman, MSSE November 18, 2003 Implementing CMMI™ in a Biometrics Testing Laboratory Capability Maturity Model®, CMM®, CMM Integration, and CMMI are service marks and registered trademarks of Carnegie Mellon University

Brief History  Analytic Services, Inc. – ANSER – was formed in 1958 as a not for profit public research corporation  ANSER Fairmont, West Virginia office was opened in 1998  Initial work was in the area of intelligent Internet search agents to help law enforcement locate child pornography on the web

Brief History  Approximately 1 year later, the work extended to also investigate the use of facial recognition biometric technologies to assist law enforcement agencies  Facial recognition expanded for use by Broward County Sheriff’s Office for identifying suspects in mug-shot data base  Work also continued on intelligent Internet search agents with US Customs

December 2002  W. Grant Norman hired as Program Manager of Fairmont, West Virginia office  While initial staff for ANSER Fairmont, West Virginia were mostly research scientists, by December 2002, virtually all staff were involved in software development  Within the first two weeks, all development put on hold and planning for implementing a process model was started

January 2003  CMMI™ discussions began with brief review of process models with software development staff  First focus was on Configuration Management – getting all software artifacts into a version control system  Next focus was on determining an overall implementation strategy of CMMI™  Professional CMM ® consultant brought in on 8 week contract to help with implementation plan

March 19, CMMI™ Kick Off  Invited various ANSER corporate management, sub-contracting organizations, and guest speakers from West Virginia University  Official launch date of the ANSER CMMI™ implementation for software engineering and business areas  Started on the road to Level 2 – Managed with December 31, 2003 completion goal

ATL – ANSER Technology Lab Opened  June 3, 2003 – ANSER Technology Lab officially opened visited by 8 national press reporters  Presented tours of some of the biometric technology Iris Scanners Fingerprint Scanner Hand Geometry with Proximity Scanner

ATL – ANSER Technology Lab - Focus  ANSER Technology Lab Initial Focus: Evaluation of biometric devices and SDK’s (software development kits) in an Access Control Environment Multiple biometric (multi-modal) biometric device/SDK application Standardize testing and evaluation process and procedures

ATL – ANSER Technology Lab - Testing  Develop independent biometrics assessment reports  Three types of assessment reports Initial Assessment Reports Scenario Assessment Reports Operational Assessment Reports Assessment Reports

Our First Lab Report –A Brief History  Biometrics device arrived - Test Team proceeded to take a “First Look”  Initial review by Test Team determined the device didn’t function – immature technology  Test Team wrote a report to corporate detailing the “First Look”  Corporate response: “What was the Testing Process?” “Process?” “We don’t need a process!”

Then What Happened…  At request of management, we developed a Lab Test Plan  Test plan didn’t meet our needs Scope and requirements were poorly defined  Re-wrote lab test plan  Determined that Lab Test Plan would not be useful until scope and requirements were more clearly defined

Decision – Incorporate CMMI™ Processes  CMMI™ Processes for business activities already in place  CMMI™ Processes for software development projects already in place  Current CMMI™ processes were extended (where applicable) for ANSER Technology Lab  New processes were tailored from CMMI™ (where required) for ANSER Technology Lab

Developed CMMI Instruments  Project Charter  Use Case  Requirements Specification  Project Plan  Risk Plan Incorporating and documenting CMMI™ processes provided a “Roadmap” for our ATL efforts

Lessons Learned  Processes for any business activity must be established prior to performing any activity  CMMI™ extends well beyond software engineering  Establishing CMMI™ principles and processes enabled our organization to perform activities that are: Reliable Repeatable Verifiable

Continuing Lessons Learned  Maintaining an effective CMMI™ managed software project, business operation, or laboratory is a daily process  Established weekly CMMI™ Status Meetings with all process area managers to discuss and reassert our process efforts  Need to continually gain buy-in from all  Frequently, like the Whac-a-Mole® game – one area is addressed and another pops up to be smacked down Whac-a-Mole® is a registered trademark of Bob's Space Racers, Inc.