OK, OK, so it’s Mothers’ Day in the US… but we all miss out on family matters all the time for things far less awesome than this.

Lean Camp New England is a one day open space event led by Jim Benson, author of Personal Kanban. It is an opportunity to share and learn about Lean and Kanban in software development, IT operations and services, and other knowledge work fields.

Lean Camp New England is an all day event at the World Trade Center Boston, on May 13th (Sunday).
Registration is open now at a cost of $300 – catering is included.
Register at http://lssc12.leanssc.org/.

Boston is the center of gravity for lean thinking in the US. However, much of that thinking has been in fields outside of IT and Software and Systems Engineering/Development.

If you live in New England, or people you know live in New England, and are interested in getting up-to-speed among the leading thinkers and practitioners in Lean in IT and Software and Systems Engineering/Development, I highly encourage you and them to register for Lean Camp New England.

This is a rare opportunity to enjoy a regional 1-day open space / unconference in conjunction with a large international conference, Lean Software & Systems 2012 – as a result a significant number of international experts will be present and participating.

Where else can you get direct coaching from the experts for only $300?

Want fast, easy CMMI ratings?  Even high maturity?

First, implement lean, Goldratt’s TOC, Deming’s ideas, Kanban, and other related concepts, then get busy with CMMI.

What you may not know is that lean is easier, faster, and generates better performance results sooner than CMMI.

Lean improves delivery issues sooner than process improvement alone.  Improved deliveries improves revenues, stabilizes cash flow, increases margin, makes customers happier and results in more sales.

In other words, lean means better flow and better flow means better business.

CMMI is great, but is often attempted as a first line of offense to issues it’s not meant to deal with.  CMMI is meant to improve flow, not define it, and, lean helps define flow.
(Yes, I know I said "theory of constraints" twice.)

Assuming there are unfulfilled orders in the sales pipeline, lack of revenue is due to lack of flow.  Typically, this is due more to what’s in the flow, how much is in it, and the clarity and cleanliness of how the operation’s flow is aligned.  Using CMMI to "fix" issues with flow is like using the Brownian motion of steeping tea to power a random-number generator.  It’s just too much too soon.  Process issues are themselves symptoms of flow issues.

Deal with the symptoms first.  Then, tackle the processes.

Two events to put on your radar:

Lean Software and Systems Conference: Boston, 13-18 May (Lean Camp & Lean Action Kitchen, Sunday, Conference Monday-Wednesday, and Tutorials Thursday & Friday).  I’m helping to organize and speaking at the conference, and running a tutorial on this topic on Thursday.

Kanban Change Agent Masterclass: Miami, 23-25 May.  I’ll be participating as a special guest to demonstrate how Kanban helps achieve CMMI ratings, including High Maturity.

For more than the last 10 years I’ve been thinking a lot about CMMI.  Many of these thoughts have been ruminating on the ideas of how to incorporate CMMI in ways that add value, demonstrate effectiveness, and don’t disrupt the operation.  I’ve even opined much in this blog (in too many ways) on the need to know what your processes are before you can use CMMI to improve them, and that for many operations, CMMI isn’t even appropriate.

A few recent discussions and experiences put a particularly fine point on the extent to which CMMI is really the ‘cart before the horse’ when applied within an operation that has yet to clearly discern its process, and here’s why:

Most operations I’ve encountered are not ready to use CMMI because they are unclear on exactly how they make money.

Obviously, I’m not talking about the accounting process of billing out invoices and depositing checks.  And, I’m not even talking about the voodoo around figuring out how to ensure that internal costs (salaries, equipment, etc.) are less than what they charge clients for the work they do.

So, I must be talking about something more subtle.  I wish I were.  And, this is what’s both frightening and sad.  I’m merely talking about the relationship between capacity and demand.  For that matter, I’m not even worried much about demand, which is another matter.  I’m mostly talking about capacity.

What is capacity?

According to some, capacity is a measure of volume of work.  Throughput, for instance.  According to others, it’s the wherewithal to do the work.  Either way, too many operations don’t know what their capacity is. 

What does it actually take to get work done?  And, along with that, can it be reasonably expected of the operation to reliably and predictably continue to run how it runs (not knowing exactly how it runs) and to have any right to greater-than-zero confidence that they will continue to run as it does?

For one thing, many operations run outside of reasonable tolerances. In particular, people put in many many hours of unpaid over-time [in the US this is common for salaried employees].  This is an "out-of-tolerance" condition.  It is unreasonable to expect an operation’s greatest source of working knowledge to continue to work nights and weekends.  Furthermore, it is risky to do so.  One client said he couldn’t be away from the office for 5 minutes before product would stop shipping.  Eventually he will get married or his wife will have a child, or, heaven-forbid, he may take vacation! 

What’s worse is the extra time he and his team put in is entirely unaccounted-for.  His employer merely estimates, contracts, and bills enough to cover his and the team’s salaries, not what it actually takes to get work done.

Another reason true capacity is obscured is because more work going into the operation than there’s product (or services) coming out.  The most common cause of this is the misperception that work started = work completed, but this is an incomplete equation.  But a better equation to work with is work worked-on = work completed.  The key mistakes is the assumption that started = in-work.  That’s true for maybe 50% of the actual started work (often less).

This next reason for the lack of insight into true capacity (or capability, really) is that so many operations don’t account (either in their estimates — which sort-of makes sense — or in their capture of time-spent — which is unforgivable) for the time to correct defects, time to perform rework, time for paying-down technical debt, or time and effort to tracking-down the causes of defects and rework to avoid defects, rework, and technical debt in the first place!

I’ll end with one of the toughest, most sensitive observations of the last few months.  Some of my best clients (from the perspective of having their act together) have strong confidence in functional competence and, admittedly, weaker confidence in their programmatic credibility.  And, to put it plainly, by "programmatic" I mean their ability to have the same confidence in the rationale for their estimates and plans as they have in their ability to produce what their clients want. 

In these operations, I’ve found fundamental disconnects between how work is estimated and why clients should trust the technical competence of the operation.  In other words, they build trust with their prospects and clients on their ability to do the work and build the products, but in order to get the work in the first place they have to use a lot of hand-waving and breath-holding when it comes to their estimates.

A more-or-less summary way to describe all of this is as follows:

Most operations have Built a way of working that they’ve managed to Capitalize.  Over time, they’ve found that their Build*Capitalize approach is tough to Sustain.  Try that they might, whether it’s CMMI or something else, they’re looking to "fix" the equation on the "Sustain" side.  The problem is that CMMI *does* operate on the Sustain side, but the problems with the operation aren’t in the "Sustain", it’s that their approach to Capitalizing on what they Built is no longer Sustainable.  What needs to change is on the Build side.  Occasionally, there’s a need to revisit the Capitalize component, but most often it’s the Build that needs refactoring.

Hence, applying CMMI to an operation whose "build" is broken is putting the cart before the horse.  While it’s possible to build CMMI practices into the operation’s way of working, this is an activity of the "build" side of the equation, the sort I noted above contrasting from applying CMMI to the sustain side.  If CMMI is to be truly about improving the processes of the operation in a "sustaining" sort of way, and not defining them, the operation must understand what’s going on, and that means it must know its capacity.  Because unless it knows its capacity, it doesn’t really know what’s going on.

For more than the last 10 years I’ve been thinking a lot about CMMI. Many of these thoughts have been ruminating on the ideas of how to incorporate CMMI in ways that add value, demonstrate effectiveness, and don’t disrupt the operation. I’ve even opined much in this blog (in too many ways) on the need to know what your processes are before you can use CMMI to improve them, and that for many operations, CMMI isn’t even appropriate.

A few recent discussions and experiences put a particularly fine point on the extent to which CMMI is really the ‘cart before the horse’ when applied within an operation that has yet to clearly discern its process, and here’s why:

Most operations I’ve encountered are not ready to use CMMI because they are unclear on exactly how they make money.

Obviously, I’m not talking about the accounting process of billing out invoices and depositing checks. And, I’m not even talking about the voodoo around figuring out how to ensure that internal costs (salaries, equipment, etc.) are less than what they charge clients for the work they do.

So, I must be talking about something more subtle. I wish I were. And, this is what’s both frightening and sad. I’m merely talking about the relationship between capacity and demand. For that matter, I’m not even worried much about demand, which is another matter. I’m mostly talking about capacity.

What is capacity?

According to some, capacity is a measure of volume of work. Throughput, for instance. According to others, it’s the wherewithal to do the work. Either way, too many operations don’t know what their capacity is.

What does it actually take to get work done? And, along with that, can it be reasonably expected of the operation to reliably and predictably continue to run how it runs (not knowing exactly how it runs) and to have any right to greater-than-zero confidence that they will continue to run as it does?

For one thing, many operations run outside of reasonable tolerances. In particular, people put in many many hours of unpaid over-time [in the US this is common for salaried employees]. This is an “out-of-tolerance” condition. It is unreasonable to expect an operation’s greatest source of working knowledge to continue to work nights and weekends. Furthermore, it is risky to do so. One client said he couldn’t be away from the office for 5 minutes before product would stop shipping. Eventually he will get married or his wife will have a child, or, heaven-forbid, he may take vacation!

What’s worse is the extra time he and his team put in is entirely unaccounted-for. His employer merely estimates, contracts, and bills enough to cover his and the team’s salaries, not what it actually takes to get work done.

Another reason true capacity is obscured is because more work going into the operation than there’s product (or services) coming out. The most common cause of this is the misperception that work started = work completed, but this is an incomplete equation. But a better equation to work with is work worked-on = work completed. The key mistakes is the assumption that started = in-work. That’s true for maybe 50% of the actual started work (often less).

This next reason for the lack of insight into true capacity (or capability, really) is that so many operations don’t account (either in their estimates — which sort-of makes sense — or in their capture of time-spent — which is unforgivable) for the time to correct defects, time to perform rework, time for paying-down technical debt, or time and effort to tracking-down the causes of defects and rework to avoid defects, rework, and technical debt in the first place!

I’ll end with one of the toughest, most sensitive observations of the last few months. Some of my best clients (from the perspective of having their act together) have strong confidence in functional competence and, admittedly, weaker confidence in their programmatic credibility. And, to put it plainly, by “programmatic” I mean their ability to have the same confidence in the rationale for their estimates and plans as they have in their ability to produce what their clients want.

In these operations, I’ve found fundamental disconnects between how work is estimated and why clients should trust the technical competence of the operation. In other words, they build trust with their prospects and clients on their ability to do the work and build the products, but in order to get the work in the first place they have to use a lot of hand-waving and breath-holding when it comes to their estimates.

A more-or-less summary way to describe all of this is as follows:

Most operations have Built a way of working that they’ve managed to Capitalize. Over time, they’ve found that their Build*Capitalize approach is tough to Sustain. Try that they might, whether it’s CMMI or something else, they’re looking to “fix” the equation on the “Sustain” side. The problem is that CMMI *does* operate on the Sustain side, but the problems with the operation aren’t in the “Sustain”, it’s that their approach to Capitalizing on what they Built is no longer Sustainable. What needs to change is on the Build side. Occasionally, there’s a need to revisit the Capitalize component, but most often it’s the Build that needs refactoring.

Hence, applying CMMI to an operation whose “build” is broken is putting the cart before the horse. While it’s possible to build CMMI practices into the operation’s way of working, this is an activity of the “build” side of the equation, the sort I noted above contrasting from applying CMMI to the sustain side. If CMMI is to be truly about improving the processes of the operation in a “sustaining” sort of way, and not defining them, the operation must understand what’s going on, and that means it must know its capacity. Because unless it knows its capacity, it doesn’t really know what’s going on.

Say you’re in a truly disciplined, lean and agile operation and your processes are so deeply ingrained in what you do that putting your finger on tangible evidence is a challenge, and not for lack of process.  Just lack of being able to step back far enough from the canvas to see the whole picture.  What do you when it comes to demonstrating your practices for a CMMI appraisal, for example?

Well… the best advice I can give companies in such situations is to work early and closely with a consultant and/or lead appraiser to elicit the best evidence for the appraisal long before the appraisal event itself is planned or carried out.  It’s important to be clear about what the evidence is, and, you want the appraiser and the appraisal team on board with how the evidence will “show up”.  This is not something you want to surprise anyone with come appraisal time.

Working early and closely with a lead appraiser will not only help everyone understand the context, and not only will it provide an opportunity to strengthen practices and identify operational risks, but it will give you a good idea about whether or not the lead appraiser has the wherewithal to think broadly about practices and to assemble the contextual picture for how practices would “show up” in the context of your operation.

Sadly, not all appraisers have this skill set.  In fact, in my experience, the great majority do not have the skills to make contextually relevant model interpretation such that actual, naturally-occurring evidence from an operation can take its most natural form and still be recognized as implementation of CMMI practices.  In my experience, most lead appraisers expect evidence to come in very specific shapes, sizes, and colors and they don’t recognize the evidence when it doesn’t meet their pre-conceived notions of what particular evidence should look like. 

That being said, this does not give carte blanche for not having evidence.  I’m not saying that the evidence isn’t there, I’m just saying that the evidence may not be what’s traditionally thought-of as evidence from larger or more traditional development operations.

Process evidence from operations whose processes are deeply ingrained can often show up as very clear, obvious artifacts.  Especially from traditional development operations.  However, in small, lean, and agile operations, the evidence can be much less obvious.  It is a special skill set to be able to recognize the outputs of such operations as evidence of CMMI practices and organizations are served well to work with the lead appraiser early to determine whether or not their operation produces evidence as well as whether or not the appraiser can see more broadly than the evidence they’re used to seeing from traditional operations.

Since few organizations know how to pick a lead appraiser, perhaps this “litmus test” for a lead appraiser can serve to help them through the process.  The alternative could be a disastrous paper-chase to create evidence on top of the evidence that’s already there.

This is probably the most important blog entry I’ve ever posted.

The video is the longest video I’ve ever posted on the blog, and for that reason, I’ll keep the text content to a minimum. 

Here’s why you should watch the video:  CMMI may be entirely wrong for you, and you may not know it!

The video explains an epically crucial reality about CMMI that many agile (and other) teams are not aware of, leading them unknowingly down a path of self-defeat and damage.  All of which could be avoided with this one super-critical piece of knowledge.

You’ll thank me later.

Backstory:

The lure of seemingly limitless opportunities can be quite strong, obviously.  And, especially in tough economic times, succumbing to that lure can cause even the best of businesses to act unwisely.  Such is the lure of CMMI ratings.

Well, anything that’s very alluring can cause unwise behavior, I suppose.  Whether it’s as apparently harmless as indulging in a luscious dessert, spending money on unnecessary luxuries, or any of equally limitless opportunities to make bad choices, doing what we want instead of doing what’s right shows up even when working with CMMI.

This blog is full of examples of such bad CMMI choices, but there’s one bad choice I haven’t mentioned much about.  That’s the choice to even try to use CMMI.

When working with a knowledgeable, concerned, trustworthy CMMI consultant, an organization should be steered away from CMMI when their circumstance doesn’t align well with model-based improvement using CMMI.  In some cases, it may be a matter of steering towards the right CMMI constellation (e.g., for Development, or, for Services).  However, just as whether or not CMMI is right for an organization ought to be discovered before too much energy is put into it, so should the decision about a particular maturity level within the constellation.

No CMMI constellation should be attempted if/when the organization doesn’t control the work that it does.  Namely, that the work it does is controlled by another organization, such as a customer.  Or, put the other way, CMMI should only be used if/when the processes used by the people doing the work are controlled by the same organization using CMMI to improve them.

At Maturity Level 2 (ML2), almost any type of work can use the practices in that level to improve its performance and to demonstrate that the practices are in place.  However, at Maturity Level 3 (ML3), you have to be doing the type of work in the particular constellation in order to be able to use the practices in it.  If you’re not doing that type of work, the practices will be irrelevant.  Attempting to use the practices when there’s no such work being done will only cause the practices to get in the way and add nothing but frustration.

In particular, if you’re not doing work that involves structured engineering analysis, CMMI for Development at ML3 will be truly unwieldy.

Adding practices for work you’re not doing is an example of the bad behavior many organization exhibit when they’re chasing a level rating rather than hot on the trail of performance improvements.  It’s these sorts of behaviors that are somehow rationalized as being beneficial when, in fact, they are unequivocally, diametrically, and everything but beneficial.  They are a colossal waste of time and money and detrimental to morale and productivity.

You really need carve out about 11 minutes to watch the video.

So much about software development (in particular, and product development in general) as a business has less to do with technology than it has to do with keeping customers happy.  What do customers really care about?  While they say they want their product on time, on budget and doing what they asked of it to do, most of the time, managing their expectations has little to do with time, cost, features, functions, or quality.  What they experience is more about how the developer treats them as a customer.  In other words, what they perceive as the developer’s business as a service is what customers react to.

Of course, customers aren’t typically happy when the product is late, doesn’t do what they need it to do, and/or costs more than they were expecting to pay – scope creep notwithstanding.  Be that as it may, agile development and management practices recognize the importance of customer involvement (and all stakeholders, in general).  In fact, while the “traditional” development and management world has long espoused the importance of an integrated team for product and process development, it’s the agile development and management movement that actually made it work more smoothly with more regularity.

(Before anyone from the “traditional” development camp jumps down my throat, keep in mind: I came from the traditional camp first and saw attempts at IPPD and saw how difficult it was to get it going, keep it working, and eliminate the competition and other organizational stress that IPPD continues to experience in the traditional market.  And, I’m also not saying it doesn’t work in traditional settings, just that it worked much better, much faster, and with much more regularity in the agile settings.)

From the beginning, agile practices understood the importance of the customer and of being a service to the customer.  Kanban (more recently) even refers to different types of work as “classes of service”.  In fact, if we look at the most common pains in development work (e.g., staffing, time, agreement on priorities and expectations), we see that it’s seldom technology or engineering issues.  They’re issues more aligned with the developers’ abilities to provide their services.

Let’s now look at another importance facet of all development, agile notwithstanding.  Much of it happens after the initial product is released!  Once the product is released, there is precious little actual development going on.  The ongoing support of the product includes enhancements and other updates, but very little of that work requires any engineering!  Furthermore, what is worked-on comes in through a flow of requests, fixes, and other (very-often unrelated) tasks. 

After a product has been released, the operation of a development shop resembles a high-end restaurant far more closely than it appears as a production floor.  Once the menu has been “developed”, from that point forward, patrons merely ask for items from the menu and for modifications to items on the menu.  Even were there to be a “special order” of something not at all on the menu, the amount of “development” necessary to "serve” it is minimal.  And, when something truly off-the-wall is requested, the chef knows enough to respond with an appropriately apologetic, “Sorry, we can’t make that for you right now.  Please let us know in advance and we’d be happy to work something up for you.”  At which point, they would set about developing the new product.

Meanwhile, the vast majority of the work is actually just plugging away at the service.  In the service context, development is often not the majority of the work.  In that context, engineering plays an important role much less often than the ability to deliver services, manage transition of services, ensure continuity of service, handle incidents, manage resources, and so on.

What does this mean for agile teams, and, what does this have to do with CMMI?

Well, maybe much of the perceived incompatibility between CMMI (for Development) and agile practices are not due to incompatibilities in CMMI and agile, but incompatibilities in the business of agile and the improvement of development.  In other words, maybe the perceived incompatibilities between CMMI and agile are because CMMI for Development (CMMI-DEV) is meant to improve development and many agile teams aren’t doing as much development as they are providing a service.  Perhaps it’s just that the business models presumed by the two approaches are not aimed at making progress in the same way.

When agile teams are doing actual development, CMMI-DEV should work well and can help improve their development activities.  But, agile teams are often not doing development as much as they are providing a service.  They establish themselves and operate as service providers.  Most of the agile approaches to development are far more aptly modeled as services.

CMMI for Services defines services as follows*:

• A product that is intangible and non-storable.
• Services are delivered through the use of service systems that have been designed to satisfy service requirements.
• Many service providers deliver combinations of services and goods. A single service system can deliver both types of products.
• Services may be delivered through combinations of manual and automated processes.

*Glossary CMMI® for Services, Version 1.3, CMMI-SVC, V1.3, CMU/SEI-2010-TR-034

Many requests made of many agile teams have more to do with supporting the product than developing a product.  While the product is still under development, then, by all means, CMMI for Development is apropos.  But after the initial development (where more product-oriented money is spent), the development is hard to see and harder to pin down.

Maybe, improving development is not the right thing to develop.  Perhaps agile teams could look at how they handle “development as a service” for their improvement targets.  Maybe CMMI for Services is a much better fit for agile teams. 

Could a switch from CMMI-DEV to CMMI-SVC benefit agile teams?  Could a switch from CMMI-DEV to CMMI-SVC make achieving CMMI ratings easier and more meaningful?

I believe the answer to both is a resounding: ABSOLUTELY!

ATTENTION AGILE TEAMS: You need a CMMI rating?  Look at CMMI for Services.  It might just make your lives easier and actually deliver more value right now!

[NOTE: I have an essay, Are Services Agile?, in this book on this topic.  Since you can “look inside” you might be able to read it without buying it.  Furthermore, the essay has been published online in some places.  You might be able to find it out there.]

Why I wrote High Performance Operations…

This entry is a near-duplicate of the entry on my new site, hillelglazer.com.  That site and the blog there are dedicated to a broader perspective within which this  blog is a subset.   The launch of that site and blog coincides with the publication of my new the book, High Performance Operations: Leverage Compliance to Lower Costs, Raise Profits, and Gain Competitive Advantage.

I figured I’d explain how and why I ended up writing the book.

What you see behind me is my office.  This is where I “shoot” most of my blog entries, but I also shoot plenty of video from the field.  At conferences, clients, and even from my car.  Especially when the ideas are fresh in my mind and timely.  My entries are rarely polished, seldom rehearsed, and typically WYSIWYG.  Me. 

I try to keep my content to topics that impact what we’re trying to do, and, with this site, blog and the book, we’re trying to affect change.  We’re trying to help operations avoid having compliance issues drag them down in directions against their desired pursuits.  We do this through several aspects of lean and excellence. 

All things being equal, competing operations with similar market standings will end up fighting over a few percentage points in the noise.  We want to help operations stand apart from the crowd by operating at a level of performance their competition won’t try to reach.  One way to do this is to minimize, if not eliminate the burden of compliance on the operation.  It just so happens that what it takes to do this also has an immediate and long-lasting positive impact on the entire operation, compliance or otherwise.

I hope you join in the discussion over there and find value in your participation.

A friend who consults in program, project and risk management (typically to parachute-in and save wayward technology projects) is working with a client whose project is dreadfully behind schedule and over budget, and, not surprisingly, has yet to deliver anything the end-client or their users can put their hands on.  It doesn’t help that his client isn’t actually known for being technology heroes.  In fact, this is not the first time his client has tried to get this project off the ground.

Looking everywhere but in the mirror, my buddy’s client decided to have the developer put under a microscope.  After all, reasoned the client, they hired the developer on, among other attributes, touts that they were rated at CMMI Maturity Level 3!  So, they had the developer and the product undergo a series of evaluations (read: witch hunts) including a SCAMPI (CMMI) appraisal.  Sadly, this tactic isn’t unusual.

Afterwards, trying to help his client make sense of the results, my pal asked me to review the report of the appraisal which was fairly and (more or less) accurately performed by someone else (not us).  The appraisal was quite detailed and revealed something very interesting.

Lo-and-behold, the company had processes!

However, the development organization nonetheless failed to demonstrate the necessary performance of the Maturity Level 3 (ML3) practices they were claiming they operated with!  In other words, they had processes, but they were still not ML3!  In fact, they weren’t even Maturity Level 2 (ML2)!

How could this be?

While the details bore some very acute issues, what was more interesting were the general observations easily discernable from far away and with little additional digging.  The appraisal company created a colorful chart depicting the performance of each of the practices in all of ML3.  And, as I noted, there were important practices in particular areas with issues that would have precluded the achievement of ML2 or ML3; but, what was more interesting were the practices that were consistently poor, in all areas as well as the practices that were consistently strong in all areas.

One thing was very obvious: the organization, did, in fact, have many processes.  Most of the processes one would expect to see from a CMMI ML3 operation.  And, according to the report, they even had tangible examples of planning and using their practices.

What could possibly be going on here?

Seems awfully much like the development group had and used processes.  How could they not rate better than Maturity Level 1 (ML1)?!  Setting aside the specific gaps in some practices that would have sunk their ability to demonstrate anything higher than ML1 – because this isn’t where the interesting stuff shows up, and, because even were these practices performed, they still would have rated under ML2 – what the report’s colorful depiction communicated was something far harder to address than specific gaps.  The developers’ organization was using CMMI incorrectly.  A topic I cover at least in the following posts: here and here.

In particular, they were using CMMI to “comply” with their processes but not to improve their processes.  And, *that* is what caused them to fall far short of their acclaimed CMMI ML3.

How could I tell?

Because of where the practices were consistently good and where they were consistently gap-worthy.

I was reviewing the report with my friend on the phone.  As I was doing so he commented, “Wow!  You’re reading that table like a radiologist reads an X-ray!  That’s very cool!”  The story the chart told me was that despite having processes, and policies, and managing requirements and so on, the company habitually failed to:

track and measure the execution of their processes to ensure that the processes actually were followed-through as expected from a time and resource perspective,

objectively evaluate that the processes were being followed, were working, and were producing the expected results, and

perform retrospectives on what they could learn from the measurements (they weren’t taking) and evaluations (they weren’t doing) of the processes they used.

It was quite clear.

So, here’s the point of today’s post… it’s a crystal clear example of why CMMI is not about process compliance and how it shows up.  There are practices in CMMI that definitely help an organization perform better.  But, if the practices that are there to ensure that the processes are working and the lessons are being learned aren’t performed, then the entire point to following a process has been lost.  In Shewart’s cycle, this would be akin to doing P & D without C & A.

The only chance of anything that way is compliance.  There’s no chance for improvement that way except by accident. 

CMMI is not about “improvement by accident”.  (Neither is Agile for that matter.)

Interestingly enough, while there were clearly issues with the developer’s commitment to improvement, there may not necessarily have been any clear issues with either the product or the results of their processes.  While the experience may not have been pleasant for the developer, I don’t know that by buddy’s client can say to have found a smoking gun in their supplier’s hands.  Maybe what the client needs is a dose of improving how they buy technology services – which they might find in CMMI for Acquisition.

Greetings!

In the midst of wrapping up a personally taxing week this past Friday, I was greeted by an entirely surprising event: A box with a small shipment of Advance Reader’s copies of my book arrived! High Performance Operations: Leverage Compliance to Lower Costs, Raise Profits, and Gain Competitive Advantage. You can read more about it here: http://amzn.com/0132779889

I’m looking for a few folks to read and honestly review it in preparation of launch in about 6 weeks.

People whose work are related to Operations Management, Lean Enterprises, Performance Management, and similar fields will be right for this work. I only have about half a dozen printed Advance Reader’s copies and I would like to send one to people open to reading it and writing a review on their own personal/professional blogs as well as on Amazon. (Sorry, I don’t have e-book versions and *wish* I did!)

If you are or know someone who would be open to this, please read on and then please contact me via the contact form here.

Since we only have a limited number of copies, we’re going to accept “applications” for readers to qualify them to receive a copy.

When completing the contact form, you can leave the checkboxes blank, but in the open text field, (if you are filling this out for yourselves) please include your blog URL, twitter ID, and any other pointers to writing you’ve done. Also, be sure to tell me about yourselves and why you’re the right person to review and write about a book of this topic. (I’ll assume you’ve read the preview information at the Amazon link, above.)

Remember, I’ve only got about a half-dozen copies to distribute, so we want to put these precious few copies into the right hands. If you’re referring us to someone, please give them all this information, or, give us enough information so we can reach out to them.

So, if you’re still reading, I believe whoever reads the book will find it very relevant to their work (regardless of whether or not they deal with matters of ‘compliance’). One of my earlier reviewers who works for Goldratt’s company called it “a wolf in sheep’s clothing”.

The book is officially set to launch on October 9th. It may come sooner, but I still need to get that sorted out. It would help us out if you wrote an honest review of High Performance Operations sometime during that week (ideally launch day). Should you blog, please include a link to http://www.hillelglazer.com/ which will be revised and re-launched that day as well. (It’s not ready yet.)

If you don’t mind, optionally include the same Amazon link, http://amzn.com/0132779889 in any blog postings.

If you choose to also post a review on Amazon, you won’t be able to do that until launch day. I’ll update those who receive a book with the exact date as more information becomes available.

Please mention @hi11e1 anytime you tweet about the book or your reviews of it.

Oh, if we accept your application to read and write a review, you’re accepting a free book from me. Doing so, you acknowledge your understanding of the FTC Guides regarding endorsements. Specifically, you agree to disclose in your blog (and Amazon review, if you write one) that you received a free advanced copy of the book, and you agree that your statements will be your honest opinions of the book.

Everyone who qualifies, receives an Advance Reader’s copy of the book, and writes a review will receive a signed copy of the fully published hard-copy of the book after it launches!

Still interested?

Please contact me and we’ll get copies out during the week of 29 August.