Hammer’s PEMM for CMMI

IFPUG’s 3rd Annual ISMA Conference and Fall Workshops

September 19, 2008

Rob Donnellan
Q/P Management Group, Inc.
10 Bow Street
Stoneham, Massachusetts 02180
(781) 438-2692
www.QPMG.com
© Copyright 2008. Q/P Management Group, Inc.
1 All Rights Reserved.
 Today’s Discussion

 
    

 

   





   !!"    

!! #$   !!  $
 

 
  
     




%  !!&  '!!(

   )*

   
  


© Copyright 2008. Q/P Management Group, Inc.

2 All Rights Reserved.
  
   

+
+
  

, 
  

 -
  



 .

© Copyright 2008. Q/P Management Group, Inc.

3 All Rights Reserved.
 Dr. Michael Hammer

/ 
 


0+

+0

+
 

 
.

/ 112 

3  
4! " " '5!  
! 6  
 
 
+
 
 +


 +

  
 . 7



89:
 
 
  
  2#++.7##7 


;+,
 
  7# 



  7#.

© Copyright 2008. Q/P Management Group, Inc.

4 All Rights Reserved.
 Dr. Hammer Observed That Many Companies Still
Struggle with Process Improvement

$< 
 

 =

   



 







 =

  



.!
>4:"%
.6
>#
0
 % 
7##?

© Copyright 2008. Q/P Management Group, Inc.

5 All Rights Reserved.
 What Goes Wrong with Process Improvement?

/ ' @  %+
,
$%
 
 
 

 ."+ 

 
  
 
+
+
+
,
.

/ &  A+
,
'   .

/    "
  
   .

/ ( "  :+

+ % 

   )+
++
+
+  .*.

/     
 +
,       
 
  B  

   
  %


   .

© Copyright 2008. Q/P Management Group, Inc.

6 All Rights Reserved.
 In 2002 Hammer Started a Research Project with a
Group of Companies to Address This Problem

/ C
"+""   

"     

   

 D,


/  "    *  
*   




/  %

 
   *     
  "  "
*)
      !
! " !!#

© Copyright 2008. Q/P Management Group, Inc.

7 All Rights Reserved.
 The PEMM Can Be Used for Various Purposes

/ " 

 




.
/ !" +

 



.
/ %"" 
 





 
+.
/ " 
+
.

&"* " $ 


© Copyright 2008. Q/P Management Group, Inc.
8 All Rights Reserved.
 PEMM Structure

attributes related to
organizational
capabilities that
attributes that
enable process
PEMM provide a supportive
maturity environment for the
process

5 Process 4 Enterprise
Attributes Attributes

Attribute Attribute
Component Component Attribute Attribute Attribute
Component Component
Component

each attribute is composed of

two to four components
(26 in total)
© Copyright 2008. Q/P Management Group, Inc.
9 All Rights Reserved.
 PEMM Structure – Process Attributes

% "   

  !"# !. P-1 P-2 P-3 P-4

B $ 
Largely
B % # True
B &  

 
  #  .
B E!+
B -
 Somewhat
True
B '

(*   )
#


" .
B !

B )


 attribute components
B ) 

  
!+   
+ .
B 
 
B >   
!   
!!".
B &


 Largely
B F Untrue

© Copyright 2008. Q/P Management Group, Inc.

10 All Rights Reserved.
 PEMM Structure – Organizational Attributes

G    -
#
 
+
 . E-1 E-2 E-3 E-4

B )
B )
+
B '

B - 
'     +.
B :
B %   
B 0
"


B )
! !+
@  

 .
B $
B * !+
H   *
+
+#+



.
B $!
B )  "


B  +


© Copyright 2008. Q/P Management Group, Inc.

11 All Rights Reserved.
 Basics of Using the PEMM

/ :  $+**

#

+ !+  
 
" 
 "
! 
+  
.
/ :,2 
"     -!,2
+
,
"


    .
/ :!
!!

,./46 0/ 
I
7J 1-!
  !2
B 3+  
B - : 
B 3+F  
/ )
  

 "  
  !43+: -6 4% +
,

"


    !43+: .6
/ 8    +
,
 
"   "  + 
   .;#-+
,
 
37
 +
,
 
"  3,.
/ ) 3,

!! " ".3/


!! "" 
.

© Copyright 2008. Q/P Management Group, Inc.

12 All Rights Reserved.
 Companies’ Experiences with the PEMM
Process Improvement
Activity
Michelin process redesign
to increase customer
focus and reduce costs
CSAA wanted to
understand why some
processes performed
better than others
Shell redesign of two core
processes. Independent
PEMM assessments were
performed by frontline
personnel and process
owners/executives.
;&.*
PEMM Diagnostic Results
Managers’ new roles and the
new organizational charters were
not clear.
• Poor process owner training
• The culture did not support
cross-functional teamwork.
Processes that operated within
a division performed better
than those that crossed
divisional boundaries.
• Process owners/executives
had a much “rosier” view.
• Weaknesses in performers’
metrics expertise.
• Weaknesses in governance.
Interventions
Workshops to clarify new roles
and new departmental charters.
• Give process owners more
responsibility.
• Include process prioritization
into strategic planning.
• Raise leadership’s importance
of process in the organization.
• Improve performers’ training
regarding the process.
• Improve approach to set
performance targets.
• Establish a PMO.
>-4:$
) !

.6 >!' 
0
 )
-7..? © Copyright 2008. Q/P Management Group, Inc.
13 All Rights Reserved.
 CMMI vs. PEMM

'!!%   !!
) -
  ) !+
,

#- 
 !  
"     "

WHAT IT IS 0
 !
+$)  
  
6
$

+ 
 1
- & ! )" 

SCOPE
*
 

$
+-*

+-&
+
+- $
+-*

+-&
+
+-
PURPOSES
-  

+ -  

+

TRAINING 90-""1 8

DEFINE 8-
!5 
  8-
!5 
 
PROCESS  !
  !


© Copyright 2008. Q/P Management Group, Inc.

14 All Rights Reserved.
 Applying the PEMM to the CMMI

/  
 "
 +
,



+
 "! - 
++

+
50-+1%"

* 
*!
 +
0%**1.
/ : 

  
""
 
  
%**- 
 6
$
06$1.: 

!
 

 
 +
,
5 
! "


.
/ :  $+**5 !
 

+


+ .
/ :
 !+
,
 
" 


,
  

 
+
,
 
 0#-
 
! +   ! 
+
,
5"

   
1.

© Copyright 2008. Q/P Management Group, Inc.

15 All Rights Reserved.
 In Closing …

• When used for a CMMI-based improvement program, the

addition of the PEMM perspective would not add much
cost - but might add significant value.
• Would the PEMM be useful as a quick pre-assessment to
drive some preparation before starting heavily into the
complexity of the CMMI??
• Dr. Hammer as author, and publication in the Harvard
Business Review give important credibility to the PEMM.
• PEMM learning can be shared between the CMMI-based
and other process improvement initiatives.
• The separation of the process and organizational
attributes, and the need to synchronize maturity levels
between the process and organizational attributes would
probably make it easier to engage senior leadership and
make clear their “assignments” in a process improvement
initiative, and in sustaining process maturity.
© Copyright 2008. Q/P Management Group, Inc.
16 All Rights Reserved.
 Reference Materials

 

H""   !!  
*&
  9   *
      

/ 7"
*
>50



 $+**1
 2KK.!.K

/ *
>57..?>!' 
0
 
4:
$) !
6  
 !  $+**0!!
$&;
 LJ.M.1
 2KK!" 

.".!.! K".7KK
K
N! 
.' .
!O0.?./>8O72/7

/ ' 
$:! 

 2KK." 
 !.K "


K.?.?
)0:>$+**$
,.!

© Copyright 2008. Q/P Management Group, Inc.

17 All Rights Reserved.
 Thank You!

)!"
--+ 
 !P
)!5!"

  !
 $+**
#
.

% 
!""'
".!Q-+.
/.,?R22..M

:!"
H
.-+.

© Copyright 2008. Q/P Management Group, Inc.

18 All Rights Reserved.