CMMI研究院在2021年3月8日最新发布的全球评估质量问题主要谈及评估注册的时限问题，信息填写不完整问题，和评估计划问题。
1. 评估时限问题
主要是讲评估师总在35天的窗口期附近注册评估，而不按60天窗口期去注册，这样一来，选样比较晚，万一选样再出点问题，那么用于收集数据的时间就显得不充分。
2. 信息填写不完整问题
主要是讲在评估系统CAS上，有些输入没标星号，评估师就不填写，造成QA审查时信息不完整。
3. 评估计划问题
许多评估师针对CMMI 2.0评估的计划，整理出了一套“不变应万变”的模板，所有评估都填成一个样，特别是风险管理计划、后勤安排和约束条件。忽略每个公司的人数、位置、业务不同、需求也不同的事实。
原文内容
The CMMI Appraisal System (CAS) is designed to function as both a planning and a reporting tool for CMMI V2.0 appraisals. Unlike the SCAMPI Appraisal System (SAS) for CMMI V1.3, the CAS reporting fields are intended to encapsulate all CMMI V2.0 Method Definition Document (MDD) and appraisal planning and reporting criteria established by ISACA. Since the launch of CAS, the Quality Management team has observed reoccurring issues with the planning and reporting performed on V2.0 appraisals. Some common issues that have been identified include Lead Appraisers (LAs) omitting CAS fields not denoted as ‘required’, minimal plan tailoring for the Organizational Unit (OU) undergoing appraisal, and timing issues with Randomly Generated Sample (RGS) requests. As a result, this month’s Quality Tip aspires to provide guidance for addressing these issues with the thorough and timely planning and reporting of appraisals.
RGS Timing Concerns
In V2.0, the RGS represents a critical part of the data collection planning efforts for an appraisal. Per the Random Sample Generation Policy and the MDD, LAs may submit an OU scoping for review no more than 60 days and no fewer than 35 days from the Phase 2 start date of an appraisal. In addition, once the scoping is approved, the RGS must be generated and accepted at least 30 days before Phase 2 per MDD requirements. As the initial quality review of RGS requests may take up to five days, this has created issues with timing when LAs submit the sample close to the 35-day mark or do not respond to quality review feedback in a timely manner. In order to avoid these issues, we recommend that LAs submit RGS requests closer to the 60-day mark, promptly respond to and address quality review feedback, and ensure that the RGS is generated as soon as possible after the RGS request is approved. Submitting the RGS request with sufficient lead time is not only critical to ensuring that it meets timeline requirements as outlined in the RGS policy, but also it benefits the appraised organization’s data gathering and planning efforts as well as the LA’s plans for data collection during Phase 2.
Incomplete CAS Fields
During appraisal reviews, the Quality Management team has flagged some fields that are not specifically marked as ‘required’ in the system; though CAS will let you progress with the appraisal setup without this info, these fields are still required from a reporting perspective. These flags include omission of key project and support function details; mini-team and specific team member responsibilities; sponsor and team member information and organizational affiliation; and objectives, success criteria, and outcomes of readiness reviews.
LAs have expressed confusion and concern as to why these fields are being flagged if they are not denoted as ‘required’ in the system. While they are not a system requirement from the standpoint of submitting the appraisal, CAS was developed based on MDD requirements. Therefore, LAs will be asked to complete these essential fields during quality review if they are incomplete. Omission of this information suggests that LAs are minimally reporting appraisal information to bypass appraisal submission requirements, instead of using these fields and CAS to thoroughly plan and document the appraisal during Phase 1 as intended by design.
Plan Tailoring
Furthermore, when it comes to planning and reporting, some LAs have taken a ‘one size fits all’ approach. While this method may result in less time dedicated to filling out the appraisal record in CAS, this has the potential to severely impact the quality of appraisal deliveries. Each organization differs in terms of size, structure, process, and needs, and therefore, plans should be tailored to the unique organizational context being appraised. Particular areas of concern include risk mitigations, logistics, and constraints. Tailoring these components of planning has become even more crucial with the introduction of Enabling Virtual Solution Delivery (EVSD). Reviewing virtual plans during the EVSD pilot period and Virtual Solution Delivery (VSD) specialization application submissions, we have observed that many LAs use generic plan templates for EVSD. However, as each organization has its own unique needs and constraints pertaining to virtual infrastructure, security, and protocols, a ‘one size fits all’ approach is insufficient, and LAs should tailor the plans to adapt to the individual needs and constraints of the appraised organization.
|
