When is a project not a project?

I'm regularly perplexed by the lack of precision of language used in the IT industry in general, and particularly in software development and maintenance. I have no doubt that this will be a recurring thread as this blog matures. One example that causes me grief is the use of the term "quality assurance" as a synonym for testing. At this year's SEPG conference we saw a resurgence of another old favourite - the 'P' word - being abused. I'd like to think that we generally understand what a "project" is, and whilst I quite like the definition from the PMBOK, namely "a temporary endeavour undertaken to create a unique product, service or result", I prefer the ISO 9000:2000 definition which adds some useful clarity - "unique process consisting of a set of co-ordinated and controlled activities with start and finish dates, undertaken to achieve an objective conforming to specific requirements, including the constraints of time, cost and resources". There's another definition of project from the CMMI, which goes "in the CMMI Product Suite, a managed set of interrelated resources which delivers one or more products to a customer or end user. A project has a definite beginning and end and typically operates according to a plan. Such a plan is frequently documented and specifies the project to be delivered or implemented, the resources and funds to be used, the work done, and a schedule for doing the work. A project can be composed of projects". CMMI for Services by necessity uses the term project in order to align with the common core process areas across the CMMI Product Suite. So Project Planning and Project Monitoring and Control feature as key Level 2 process areas. By its own admission the SEI recognises that this may (and already is) causing confusion for service oriented organisations who don't run projects, but manage services. The advice from the SEI currently is that, in the CMMI for Services world, the term "project" can be taken to mean work or tasks, or pretty much whatever it is that you do that isn't running projects...the term is a bit woolly! Over the years I have had enough trouble with the term project when dealing with Application Maintenance and Support functions, who quite clearly tend not to run projects. The usual comment, especially when CMMI is mentioned is, "this doesn't apply to us - we don't run projects...". It seems that now we are going to unleash the misuse of the word project in a whole new arena, and as usual it's the process people who will have to deal with the fall out.

SEPG Conference - Multi-model Synergies

Over the past few years there's been a growing recognition that the use of multiple reference models provides organisations with a much broader perspective than using a single model such as CMMI-Dev. In Europe this started in the early days of SW-CMM as a result of many European organisations already working to the then ISO 9000-1994 Quality standard. The synergies between ISO 9000 and SW-CMM / CMMI have been extensively documented, as have synergies between Six Sigma and CMMI, especially with regard to higher maturity. As the costs of formal CMMI accreditation continue to rise, there is an even greater opportunity for organisations to mix and match their models to obtain better results in their improvement efforts and translate these into genuine benefits for their operational activities. At this year's conference sessions around this topic looked at mixing CMMI-Dev and CMMI-Acq; CMMI for Services and ITIL; CMMI, People CMM, and EFQM; as well as CMMI-Dev and Agile. In future I'd like to see this extended to areas like SPICE, ISO 15504, and BPM. I'm also a firm believer in looking for models taken from outside of the IT industry. The richness of all these models, including the usual subjects mentioned above, enables us to focus on areas and disciplines previously considered out of scope of the improvement domain. This can only be a good thing.

SEPG Europe 2009 - Themes

Most conferences have a theme which provides a focus for the proceedings, and prospective presenters are invited to submit proposals aligned to that theme. This year the SEPG Europe 2009 theme was "The Next Generation of Process". My initial reaction to this was one of some surprise: many commentators and practitioners would argue that we've still not mastered the first generation of process so perhaps this would be a case of running before walking (but more on that another time!). I wasn't entirely surprised to see that there were only a few sessions which were really aligned to the focus theme. However, my experience is that conferences tend to generate their own sub-themes as presenters independently or collaboratively hone in on certain common topics. This year was no exception, and in my opinion there were several predominate sub-themes in evidence.

• People and culture
• Multi-model synergies
• CMMI and Agility
• CMMI for Services

Of course some of these themes are recurrent at conference, but this year I felt that there was an energy pertaining to the first two items on my list in particular. CMMI for Services was clearly on the agenda as the latest offering from the CMMI product team and the SEI was on a hard sell mission. The debate about CMMI and Agility will no doubt continue ad nauseam, primarily because so many of the arguments are generated by people who nothing about either subject or who cannot understand their counterpart's viewpoint. I'd rather not get involved in the discussion - life's too short! So the key sub-themes are around People and Multiple models, both of which are concepts I've been advocating for the past few years. Next blog entries will speak to these in more detail...

SEPG Europe 2009 - Initial Reflections

I spent last week in Prague, attending the 14th European SEPG Conference. These conferences are an excellent opportunity for IT process people at all levels of competancy to be able to share ideas and concepts, find out what's going on in the world of process improvement, and do all the other fun things that people do at conferences. My primary purpose for attending was as a speaker at the event, to look for consulting opportunities, and to raise the profile of both myself and my business. As a bonus, there were a number of exceptional speakers due to attend, and I was looking forward to a learning experience. I've been associated with the SEPG conferences in Europe for the past seven years as a reviewer for submitted abstracts and I attended the 2005 event in London so I had some notions of what to expect. However, as the start of the conference drew closer I was beginning to have some doubts about this year. The early bird registration was extended right up until the conference start, and various incentives were being offered, clearly in an attemp to try and boost numbers. Previously the conference has attracted 500 or more delegates. The financial crisis certainly seems to have had an impact on the SPI community. My guess is that this years' total attendence was around 200 over 4 days, but probably peaking much lower than that. Given the overall cost of attendence, I have to sadly reflect that this year's conference was not a good investment, at least for me, and I know this view is shared by some of my colleagues in similar positions. It's not helped by the fact the presenters have to pay (albeit at reduced rates) to attend the conference. To put the boot in further, the conference rate for the hotel was almost twice what I could have obtained if I'd booked on-line independently. More fool me for not checking this first, but I'll know better next time - if there is a next time! More to follow on conference specifics...