1 LaRC Software Process Improvement Effort Sponsor Briefing July 8, 1997 Presented To: Kristin HesseniusPat Dunnington Rob KudlinskiRon Baker

2 Agenda l The Business Case for Software Process Improvement l NASA Langley’s Software Process Improvement Initiative l What we need from our sponsors l Summary

3 l In light of shrinking budget and staff we must increase productivity and quality of our software development l Software process improvement is a sound investment l Ties to SQF Organizational Value Critical Success Factor However...Software process improvement will not happen unless you provide the leadership Why SOFTWARE process improvement? The Business Case

4 Importance of Software at LaRC l Cross cutting function (under the CIO) l In the background across all core competencies l Profile of Software at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1995 Report –Software managers and technical personnel make up over 10% of the total NASA workforce –Software development and maintenance cost NASA more than $1 billion for its FY93 budget of $14 billion –These numbers reflect the lower bound l Tech Transfer of software products increasing The Business Case

5 LaRC’s Core Competencies Provide Vital Support to NASA’s Strategic Enterprises Aeronautics & Space Trans. Technology HEDS MTPE Space Science LaRC Core Competencies Mission & Systems Analysis/Integration/Assessment (Org. Codes - BA, CB) Aerodynamics, Aerothermodynamics & Hypersonic Propulsion (Org. Code - DA) Structures & Materials (Org. Code - DS) Airborne Systems & Crew Station Design & Integration (Org. Codes - DC, DI) Atmospheric Sciences & Remote Sensing (Org. Codes - CA, GL) (Orgs. based on 1994 survey) The Business Case Computer Wind Labs Simulators Flight Aircraft Reliances Tunnels Experimental Systems Reliance (Org. Code - GG) (Org. Code - GM) (757 Project)

6 Software Improvements Based on Capability Maturity Model Framework l Many organizations have had significant software process improvement results / ROI using the Capability Maturity Model (CMM) as a framework l The CMM has become the de-facto standard for measuring improvement in the software industry l Over 477 organizations from 127 companies have conducted SEI software process assessments as of December 1995 The Business Case

7 Software Improvements Based on Capability Maturity Model Framework (cont.) l This framework is widely used by organizations to: –Characterize the current state of software practice –Set objectives and priorities for process improvement –Establish a plan for process improvement and technology insertion –Assign dedicated resources –Assess progress against improvement goals The Business Case

8 Software Engineering Institute Capability Maturity Model (CMM) Levels LevelCharacteristicsKey ChallengesResult Productivity & Quality High Risk High Managed Defined Repeatable Initial Quantitative Measured Process Qualitative Process defined and institutionalized Intuitive Process dependent on individuals Ad Hoc Continuous Process Improvement Changing Technology Problem Analysis Problem Prevention Process Measurement Process Analysis Quantitative Quality Plans Training Technical Practices Process Focus (stds, SEPG) Project Planning Project Management Configuration Management Software QA Improvement routinely fed back into the process Optimizing The Business Case

9 The Business Significance of Maturity Levels l Level 1: typically are late and over budget l Level 2: have generally mastered project planning and commitment l Level 3: significantly improve product quality l Level 4 & 5: make major improvements in productivity and cycle time The Business Case

10 Evidence of Capability Maturity Model Impact Cost of Poor Quality Rework as % of Development Effort Level Level Schedule Cost Schedule/Cost Overrun (%) The Business Case

11 What is the Expected Return On Investment l Examples of Cost Savings –Air Force Logistics Command »Invested $1,070,000 »Direct savings of $4,792,527 –Raytheon invested $1,000,000 a year for four years for a savings of $15,800,000 –Hughes Aircraft invested $445,000 for a one-year savings of 2,000,000 l Typical return on investment between 5:1 and 8:1 The Business Case

12 What is the Expected Return On Investment (cont.) l Process improvement is a sound investment –save more than it costs –improve project cost and schedule performance –improve productivity –produce higher quality products The Business Case

13 How the SPI Initiative Supports LaRC Current Improvement Efforts l The LaRC Strategic and Quality Framework is the basis for our SPI Initiative l Since much of the improvement activity will involve defining software processes to produce quality products, this effort will help LaRC achieve the SQF strategic goal: “All processes efficiently deliver quality products and services” l By implementing software process improvements many of the quality system requirements under ISO 9001 will be fulfilled (See appendix for table mapping ISO to the CMM) SPI Initiative

14 SPI Initiative Based on CornerStone Approach HighPerformanceModelCurrentState Improvement Infrastructure SPI Initiative l Our SPI High Performance Model is a hybrid of the CMM, ISO 9000, and Baldrige Award Criteria l The combination of the three models will provide a holistic approach for software process improvement in support of LaRC’s SQF l The outcome of achieving the High Performance Model is increased productivity and improved quality

15 How do we increase software development productivity? l Productivity improves because –staff is working to established plans –development is more orderly –crises are fewer –engineers work processes are more efficient –focus on management and planning reduces schedule and cost overruns SPI Initiative

16 How do we increase software development quality? l In moving up the levels of maturity, engineers learn techniques to remove defects earlier in the development process –Less errors are present in delivered products –Since defects are more expensive to fix later in the development process, this saves time and money SPI Initiative

17 Example of software productivity and quality improvements at NASA l As organizations begin to measure and analyze their processes, they are able to determine error injection points and actually prevent defects –Saving time and money –Higher quality products »Shuttle avionics software decreased error rates to less than.2 errors per thousand lines of code as compared to the commercial rate of approximately 8 to 10 errors per thousand lines of code l Shuttle software development organization is a Level 5 l Causal analysis is performed on defect data to determine injection points and eliminate them SPI Initiative

18 LaRC’s SPI Roadmap ApplyingDefiningPlanningAssessing Improved Delivery Effectiveness Establishing SQF Organizational Value “ Improvement Implementation ” CornerStone “Lay the Foundation” SPI Initiative

19 CornerStone Schedule l Lay the Foundation –Establish »Plan for the Assessment6/4/97 »CornerStone Planning and Validation7/30/97* –Assess »Workshop Training8/12/97 »Customer Workshops8/18/97 »Supplier Workshops8/25/97 »Follow-Up Interviews (as needed)8/25/97 »Best Practices Documentation Review8/18/97 »Solution Analysis9/10/97 »Prepare and Present Findings 9/11/97 * –Plan »Develop SPI Plan9/25/97 »Review SPI Plan10/2/97 * »Present SPI Plan10/14/97 * l Improvement Implementation…. SPI Initiative * Indicates Sponsors participation

20 CornerStone Participants l Candidate organizations –Atmospheric Sciences Division –Aero- and Gas- Dynamics Division –Structures Division –Flight Dynamics and Control Division –Flight Electronics Technology Division –Information Systems and Services Division –Facility Systems Engineering Division –Aerospace Electronic Systems Division (Refer to organization chart in appendix and achieve consensus) l Appraisal Team Members l Workshop Participants SPI Initiative

21 Participant’s Commitment l Assessment Team Members –Participate in all scheduled CornerStone activities (approx. 25% of time between July 15, October 16, 1997) l Workshop Participants –2-4 members from each division attend a 4 hour workshop –Attend the Final Findings Briefing and SPI Plan Presentation SPI Initiative

22 Products of CornerStone l Outcome for FY 97 –Identify and catalogue LaRC best practices –Develop a list of improvement initiatives based on workshop results –Establish a standing Software Engineering Process Group (SEPG) to facilitate software improvement initiatives –Produce Software Process Improvement Plan SPI Initiative

23 Implementing Improvements l FY 98 and beyond –Assign staff to Technical Working Groups to implement the highest priority improvements –Processes will be defined and put into place and training provided –Software Engineering Process Group track and report progress against plans –Execute supporting RTOP (if approved) SPI Initiative

24 What we need from our sponsors l Provide LEADERSHIP for Software Process Improvement Initiative l Identify target organizations l Secure division chief level sponsorship l Assign Appraisal Team Members l Designate workshop participants l Participate in Software Process Improvement Initiative product reviews l Establish a standing Software Engineering Process Group (SEPG) l Provide rewards and incentives for participation Sponsor’s Role

25 What we need from our sponsors (cont.) l Participate in prioritizing improvements l Commitment to staff the Technical Teams to implement the improvements outlined in the findings l Invest in improvement efforts –Work load will have to be adjusted to accommodate the learning curve associated with the insertion of new technology and processes & additional contractor support will be needed to compensate for the temporary decline in work flow –Some tools may need to be purchased (For example: Configuration Management COTS product) l Assurance activities to insure compliance with defined processes l Sustained support for the SPI effort Sponsor’s Role

26 Summary l Why do we need software process improvement? –In light of shrinking budget and staff we must increase productivity and quality of our software development l How do we increase software development productivity and quality? –Know where you’re at, know where you need to be and develop a plan to move the organization forward l What is the expected Return On Investment? –Software process improvement based on the CMM is well documented as a sound investment l What do we need for long term success? –Your commitment, leadership and support for Langley’s Software Process Improvement Initiative Summary

27 Backup Slides

28 How do we increase software development productivity and quality? l Their is an abundance of industry and government data showing quality increases as maturity levels increase Hughes data on defects found earlier in development Maturity Level % before unit test Maturity Level % before unit test Backup Slides

29 How do we increase software development productivity and quality? l Rockwell % post- release defects drooped substantially – = 28 % – = 6% Backup Slides

30 Results of Software Process Improvement Initiatives l Schlumberger % on-time deliveries increased from % to % l Hughes budgeted to actual cost increased from to Backup Slides

31 What is the expected Return On Investment l Median results from a Software Engineering Institute study of 13 software organizations –Productivity gain per year 35% –Yearly reduction in time to market 19% –Yearly reduction in post-release defects 39% –Business return per dollar invested $5 Backup Slides

32 Appendix l LaRC Organization Chart l CornerStone MSProject Schedule l Summary Mapping Between ISO 9001 and CMM