Greetings!
Isn't it interesting that in the professional discipline of 'Quality Assurance', we most often use quantitative analysis for tracking status of projects. Shouldn't it then be called 'Quantitative Assurance'???
Last week in my article I mentioned Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI). I since had an excellent conversation with a colleague from a DoD company regarding their need for expertise in Change Management - do to a fairly large software integration project. They felt that employing the CMMI model during this project would be a critical success factor. That statement is music to my ears. However, they also felt that a training or HR resource would be needed to manage the effort. They are soooo very, very close on their actual modeling needs.
Some real quick background on this area. In the early 80's, the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) of Carnegie Mellon was approached, then tasked by the DoD to develop a model for engineering organizational development. The model design was to be a set of practices that could be consistently followed - with the ultimate goal of being able to produce high quality software in a reliable fashion. Software development at that time tended to be an adventure, and with the industry growing, any effort to bring a sense of order would taste like a cool glass of lemonade on a hot summer day. The original model was called the Software Capability Maturity Model (SW-CMM) - the predecessor of what is known today as CMMI. The model provides objective process standards levels - called 'maturity levels' - that would systematically guide organizations to higher levels of functionality - and thus higher levels of productivity (to learn more, please visit: http://www.sei.cmu.edu).
Many companies today, with the best of intentions, employ the model to develop their organizations - only to stall out at lover levels of the model. Why? Many companies do not realize that although the model takes into account many objective factors that can be quantified, it does not address the maturity level of their organizational culture (this means refinement of company people processes at the company - not that the company is being run by teenagers) . In effect, they are attempting to improve the quality of the organization with one tool - when two are needed. It's like building a house with a hammer - but no nails. (Note: Six Sigma initiatives succeed only when companies achieve a high level of model maturity)
Largely because of this reason, SEI has since developed a derivative of the CMM model called People Capability Management Model (P-CMM). Like its predecessor, the goal of the model is to provide a quantitative assessment of the maturity level of people processes within the organization, then provide a step level approach for bringing about a higher level of process maturity. Only when the P-CMM model is used concurrently with the CMMI tool, will the odds favor success. Companies have only a 59% chance for long term success with Change Management initiatives when using only CMMI - as opposed to a 79% rate of success when both P-CMM and CMMI models are used in tandem.
However, even though both models provide guidance on the implementation of quantitative analysis tools to measure progress and compliance results, a key success factor will also be a qualitative perspective that must be employed to determine the flexibility of the organization to correctly size rate and depth of implementation.
In this global, cross-functional world, no one department can tackle a Change Management project. The company I spoke with had it largely correct (sans integration of P-CMM). Although the initiative may be owned by Quality, a wide net of sponsors, stakeholders and teams members must be cast so the models can be effectively integrated for optimal result.
Change Management is an all hands-on-deck kind of thing that requires integrated, systematic approaches, multiple perspectives, quantitative analysis and definitely qualitative reflection regarding your most important asset - people.
Fran
Next weeks theme: 'Company Road Trip'
0 comments:
Post a Comment