1. AGILE Methods and CMMI Annual Research Review & Executive Workshop Post Workshop Progress Report March 14, 2002

2. CSE Annual Research Review and Executive Workshop 2002 Participants  Karen Owens, The Aerospace Corporation  Josh Hurvitz, IAI  Peter Hantos, Xerox  Richard Turner, GWU  Christine Davis, SEI  Gary Thomas, SEI  Cyrus Chow, NASA  Apurva Jain, USC-CSE and others…

3. CSE Annual Research Review and Executive Workshop 2002 Outline  CMMI Practices vis-à-vis Agility  Hypotheses  Differences - Core Values - Characteristics - Approach - Focus - Challenges  Similarities  Potential Research Areas, the Road Ahead…  Survey

4. CSE Annual Research Review and Executive Workshop 2002 CMMI Practices vis-à-vis Agility  “LEVEL 1”  Identify scope of work  Perform the work  “LEVEL 2”  Organizational policy for plan, perform  Requirements, objectives and plans  Adequate resources  Assign responsibility and authority  Train the people  CM for designated work products  Identify and involve stakeholders  Monitor and control to plan and take action if needed  Objectively monitor adherence to process and QA products/services  Review with upper management and resolve issues KEY {GREEN : Supportive, BLACK: Neutral, RED: Rough Edges}

5. CSE Annual Research Review and Executive Workshop 2002 CMMI Practices vis-à-vis Agility  “LEVEL 3”  Maintain as a defined process  Measure the process performance to support environment  “LEVEL 4”  Establish and maintain quantitative objectives for the process  Stabilize the performance of one or more sub-processes to determine its ability to achieve  “LEVEL 5”  Ensure continuous improvement to support business goals  Identify and correct root causes of defects KEY {GREEN : Supportive, BLACK: Neutral, RED: Rough Edges}

6. CSE Annual Research Review and Executive Workshop 2002 Hypotheses  CMMI Toleration to Agile  8 Supportive, 6 Neutral, 4 Rough Edges : Over 18 Practices  Supporting Appraisal in Agile Environment  CMMI Level 5 Organization and Agility  Agile Toleration to CMMI  Are the doors Open? “CHAOS” “CREATIVITY” “LAW” “DISCIPLINE”

7. CSE Annual Research Review and Executive Workshop 2002 Differences  “Core Values”

8. CSE Annual Research Review and Executive Workshop 2002 Differences  “Characteristics”

9. CSE Annual Research Review and Executive Workshop 2002 Differences  “Characteristics”

10. CSE Annual Research Review and Executive Workshop 2002 Differences  “Approach”

11. CSE Annual Research Review and Executive Workshop 2002 Differences  “Focus”  “Challenge”

12. CSE Annual Research Review and Executive Workshop 2002 Similarities  Goal: High Performance Organization  Both Plan  Both are CMMs (Consultant Money Makers)  Both have Rules [Rules = Requirements of the Process]  Violations have serious repercussions  ‘SEPG’ & the ‘Process Police’  Neither is Comprehensive  Not New Ideas  Based on Experience  Both may not work on ‘any’ project

13. CSE Annual Research Review and Executive Workshop 2002 Potential Research Areas  Can agility reduce the gap between People & CMMI?  How rough or incompatible are the identified rough edges?  How can the “Agile world” open the doors for CMMI?  Organizational life-cycle of the “Agile world”.  Improvement in Agile as a composite process [AKA “mindset”].  Effectiveness of Agile in Cross-Discipline Paradigms

14. CSE Annual Research Review and Executive Workshop 2002 What’s next?  Survey  Please provide your feedback on identified similarities and differences.  Survey handouts has been made available.  Your valuable feedback matters, thank you! [We will make the results available on CSE’s website]