The Process Improvement Journey Of Boeing Information Services, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
the process improvement journey of boeing information
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

The Process Improvement Journey Of Boeing Information Services, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Aug 07, 2023 5 likes •250 views

The Process Improvement Journey Of Boeing Information Services, Wichita John Vu Technical Fellow The Boeing Company John D. Vu Page 1 SEPG 2005 -IEEE Boeing Information Services in Wichita Provide software to support Wichita division.

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Page 1

John D. Vu SEPG 2005 -IEEE

The Process Improvement Journey Of Boeing Information Services, Wichita

John Vu Technical Fellow The Boeing Company

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Page 2

John D. Vu SEPG 2005 -IEEE

Boeing Information Services in Wichita

  • Provide software to support Wichita division.
  • Focus on software design, architecture, application

development & maintenance, COTs integration, technology evaluation, selection, and transfer.

  • Support all Boeing commercial aircraft and some

military airplanes (KC135, KC 10, B52, E-3 AWACS etc.)

1992 Initiate Process Improvement 1995 Assessed At Level 2 2001 Assessed At Level 4 2004 Assessed At Level 5 1993 Assessed At Level 1 1997 Assessed At Level 3 2002 Transition to CMMI

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Page 3

John D. Vu SEPG 2005 -IEEE

Why Boeing Information Services, Wichita?

Boeing Wichita is

  • Part of a company-wide improvement.
  • One of 72 organizations identified in an improvement strategy plan.
  • Pilot site for SW-CMM validation study (1991-1994)
  • Unique since it was not re-organized during merger.

– Management commitment is at all levels – Data collection is not disrupted – SEPG members rotational process is still active

  • Leading software activities in Boeing

– Major contribution to DCAC/MRM program – Key contribution to 3D Graphic design of airplane (CATIA) – Pilot site for several new technologies

  • Activities & Lessons Learned are shared among organizations

– Templates & Techniques are being used by many organizations

  • First IS organization in Boeing to achieve SW-CMM level 4 in 2001
slide-4
SLIDE 4

Page 4

John D. Vu SEPG 2005 -IEEE

Process Improvement Results

10 year study on process improvement 120 projects in Boeing Information Services in Wichita participated in the validation study of the SW-CMM between 1991-1994 Measurement baseline established in 1991 and re-established in 1996 Pilot site for CMMI Transition Data collected and analyzed independently by Dr. Kay Nelson of University of Kansas

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Page 5

John D. Vu SEPG 2005 -IEEE

Process Improvement Context

Task Software Process Improvement Plan Organization’s Business Goals CMMI Current Process Capability Maturity Training Reviews Implementation Measurement Improvement Tasks CMMI is only a guide

Business goals are key drivers

Plan is based on appraisal results Business goals are key drivers Measurements Repository Data are used to verify improvement results

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Page 6

John D. Vu SEPG 2005 -IEEE

Measurements Are Key To Success

Core Measurements:

  • Defects: Post & Pre-released
  • Estimates: Plan vs. Actual (Schedules, Efforts, Costs)
  • Cycle Time: Time to complete an activity
  • Customer Satisfaction: Monthly Survey
  • Employee Satisfaction: Bi-Annual survey
  • Number of management decisions based on metrics
slide-7
SLIDE 7

Page 7

John D. Vu SEPG 2005 -IEEE

It All Started With Project Estimates

  • The utilization of historical data will improve project

performance by reducing the variation in estimates

  • Better estimates will improve project schedules
  • Better schedules will improve project management
  • Better project management will improve project

quality and reduce costs

  • Better project quality and reduced costs will improve

customer satisfaction

  • Satisfied customers will improve relationships
  • Better relationships will improve the business
slide-8
SLIDE 8

Page 8

John D. Vu SEPG 2005 -IEEE

Software Estimates

(Actual vs Planned) 140% Over/Under Percentage

(Based on 120 projects in Boeing Information Systems)

Schedule Variation

  • 148%

+ 22%

  • 125%

+26% +20%

  • 24%

+12%

  • 18%

+4%

  • 7%

Utilize Historical data for all project estimates Over estimates Under estimates

Level 1 & 2 Level 3, 4 and 5

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Page 9

John D. Vu SEPG 2005 -IEEE

Establish Formal Gate Reviews

  • Req. Design Code Test

Post-Release Rework Effort

Before Formal Review After Formal Review

8% 1% 12% 3% 19% 4% Implementing Formal Review increased Design effort by 4% decreased Rework effort by 31%

Reduce 31% in rework Cost: Benefit ratio is 4% : 31% or 1 : 7.75

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Page 10

John D. Vu SEPG 2005 -IEEE

Total Number Of Defects Per Year

Total Number Of Defects 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Level 3 level 4 level 5 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Level 3 level 4 level 5

: Total Pre-released defects : Total Post-released defects

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Page 11

John D. Vu SEPG 2005 -IEEE

Defect Prevention Cost Savings

10%

  • 20%

64% 70% 81% 77% 82% 1998

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

Percentage Cost Savings Per Year

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Page 12

John D. Vu SEPG 2005 -IEEE

Increased Software Reuse = Reduced Costs

Percent of Software reuse

80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 25% 58% 58% 64% 64%

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 level 4 level 5 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 level 4 level 5

?

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Page 13

John D. Vu SEPG 2005 -IEEE

Increased Software Reuse = Reduced Costs

Percent of Software Reuse

40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%

Code Others

3% 10% 25% 28% 15% 33%

Code reuse: No modification Other reuse: Templates, Test cases etc.

36% Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 7%

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Page 14

John D. Vu SEPG 2005 -IEEE

Software Maintenance Cost Savings

Percent of Cost Saving Per year

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Level 3 level 4 level 5 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Level 3 level 4 level 5

23% : Average percentage of cost savings based on 1997 baseline 27% 56% 69% 67% 73% 70%

204% Increased Cost Savings

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Page 15

John D. Vu SEPG 2005 -IEEE

Cycle Time = Supported Hours Per Element

Number of Hours Required To support an Element

1.0 .8 .6 .4 .2 0.0

Element = Configuration Item

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

.77

.57 .50 .34 .24 .26 .21 .23 : Average number of hour required to supported an Elements in maintenance

70% More Efficient

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Page 16

John D. Vu SEPG 2005 -IEEE

Cycle Time

100 80 60 40 20 0.0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Average days per Change Request per month 79.8 44.6 50.2 40.8 30.9 30.6 24.7 34.5 29.1

64% Faster response to Customer Change Request

Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Page 17

John D. Vu SEPG 2005 -IEEE

Flow Time Days Avoided (1996 Baseline)

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Flow Time Days Avoided

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Page 18

John D. Vu SEPG 2005 -IEEE

Customer Satisfaction

5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Average Customer Satisfaction Index based on monthly survey 3.85 3.98 4.08 4.11 4.22 4.14 4.16 4.05 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Page 19

John D. Vu SEPG 2005 -IEEE

Employee Satisfaction

Number of Employees Number of Employees

Extremely satisfied 10 Highly Satisfied 9 Very satisfied 8 Satisfied 7 Not Quite Satisfied 6 Neutral 5 Not excited About 4 Dissatisfied 3 Very Dissatisfied 2 Highly Dissatisfied 1

74%

Mean = 5.7

96%

Mean = 8.9

Before Process Improvement After Process Improvement

Satisfaction Level

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Page 20

John D. Vu SEPG 2005 -IEEE

Productivity = Less People - More Works

500 400 300 200 100

55% Reduction in Headcount

280 K 240K 200 K 180 K 160 K 140 K 100 K 80 K 60 K 40 K 20 K 0 K Number of people in Wichita Information Systems Number Of Software Elements Supported

150% Increase in Statement Of Work

Element: Software Configuration Item

Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Page 21

John D. Vu SEPG 2005 -IEEE

Return On Investment

There is no perfect formula to calculate Return On Investment for Process Improvement. Different organizations use different methods. Our 10 year study indicated a significant return on investment when maturing from a Level 1 to Level 5 as calculated by the following formula: ROI = 2740%

Benefit realization – Cost of Process improvement Return On Investment = Cost of Process Improvement X 100% Where: Benefits Realization = Labor cost savings Cost of Process Improvement = Cost of SEPG (Labor + SPI Tools + Training)

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Page 22

John D. Vu SEPG 2005 -IEEE

Benefit Cost Ratio

Our Benefit Cost Ratio is a measure of how much money is gained from following the CMMI improvement framework. Our 10 year study indicated a significant benefit cost ratio when maturing from Level 1 to Level 5.

Benefit Cost Ratio = Benefit Realization Cost of Process Improvement

Benefit Cost Ratio = 28.5

Where: Benefits Realization = Labor cost savings Cost of Process Improvement = Cost of SEPG (Labor + SPI Tools + Training)

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Page 23

John D. Vu SEPG 2005 -IEEE

CMMI Transition

We found

  • No evidence of difficulty transitioning from SW-CMM to CMMI
  • CMMI makes engineering work more visible to management
  • The notion that CMMI Level 3 has many processes and is

difficult to implement is not true

  • Transition from CBA/IPI to SCAMPI is an improvement
  • Investment in process improvement can be (and should be)

explained in business terms

Process Improvement works

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Page 24

John D. Vu SEPG 2005 -IEEE

Capability Maturity Models

Based on our 10 year study, we concluded that:

There is a systematic approach to improving an organization’s software and systems, and achieving business goals and

  • bjectives

There are stages of process maturity in which an organization can significantly improve its products and services by following a recommended sequence By following an evolutionary path of a well defined model the

  • rganization can continuously improve its products and

services, and at the same time meet or exceed its business goals and objectives