Mapping Automotive SPICE and ISO/TS 16949

1° Automotive SPICE Conference
°
October 9-10, 2012

Mapping Automotive SPICE and Achieving Higher Maturity &
ISO/TS 16949:2009 Capability Levels

Luigi Buglione
Giuseppe Lami
Fabrizio Fabbrini

www.eng.it

Mapping A-SPICE... Goals of the presentation

G1. Introduce the rationale for carefully compare models
and frameworks each others
G2. Present the A-SPICE vs ISO/TS 16949 bi-directional
mapping
G3. Show possible benefits for process improvement
purposes, helping to achieve higher MLs and CLs

2 AutomotiveSPICE 2012 – October 9-10, 2012 www.eng.it
© 2012 L.Buglione, G.Lami F.Fabbrini

ISTI-CNR At a glance

www.isti.cnr.it
www.isti.cnr.it


Engineering At a glance

www.eng.it
www.eng.it


Mapping A-SPICE... Agenda

• Introduction
– Saids and proverbs…
– Understandability & Comprehension
– Automotive SPICE: the Process model
– Translating languages
– Some basic questions
• A new mapping for the Automotive sector
– A logical chain of mappings
– The IPO elements
– Rating scale
• A short example
– A-SPICE vs ISO/TS 16949
– ISO/TS 16949 vs A-SPICE
• Conclusions & Prospects
• Q& A


Introduction Saids and proverbs...

• Chinese proverb
If you don't know where you are going, any road will do

• Humphrey’s proverb
If you don’t know where you are, a map won't help

• Anonymous
If you don't know where you are going, a map won't get you there
any faster


Introduction Understandability & Comprehension

Buongiorno
Good Morning

‫حا‬
おはようございます

Bonne journée
Buenos dias

Guten morgen


Introduction A-SPICE: the Process model


Introduction Translating ‘languages’

A-SPICE:
MAN.6 - Measurement
COBIT v5:
MEA1 – Monitor &
Evaluate Performance

MSF v4.0: and Conformance

???
ISO/TS 16949:2009
§8.2 – Monitoring &
Measurement

CMMI-DEV v1.3:
MEA – Measurement & Analysis


Introduction Some basic questions

•• ISO
ISO management
management systems
systems standards
standards are are about
about
‘requirements’, while MCMc (Maturity & Capability Models)
‘requirements’, while MCMc (Maturity & Capability Models)
are about ‘processes’: how to reconciliate those contents in
are about ‘processes’: how to reconciliate those contents in
mappings/comparisons?
mappings/comparisons?

• How to deal with issues contained in model ‘A’, but orphans in
model ‘B’?

•• From an assessment viewpoint, running 2+ parallel
From an assessment viewpoint, running 2+ parallel
assessments on (quite) the same issues significantly increase
assessments on (quite) the same issues significantly increase
the CoQ (Cost of Quality): how to deal with it?
the CoQ (Cost of Quality): how to deal with it?



• Introduction
– Rating scale
• A short example
• Q& A


A new mapping A logical chain of mappings

Previous mappings in Automotive
ASPICE (HIS) vs CMMI-DEV too high level
CMMI-DEV vs ISO 15504 not linking elements
ISO 15504 vs ASPICE (HIS) only a picture
ISO 12207 vs ASPICE not mapping CMMI
ISO 15504-10 vs ISO 26262 not w/ASPICE

•• …build a bi-directional
…build a bi-directional
mapping between A-SPICE
mapping between A-SPICE
and ISO/TS 16949
and ISO/TS 16949


A new mapping The IPO elements

Inputs:
nputs
– Automotive SPICE PAM v4.5
– ISO/IEC 16949:2009
– CMMI-DEV v1.3
Process:
rocess
– Analysis of existing partial mappings
• Mutafeljia & Stromberg’s ones between CMMI and ISO 9001
• SQI mapping report (CMMI v1.0 vs ISO/IEC 15504 TR, 2001)

– Selection of the valuable elements
• Verification of established relationships
• Update when models/standards have been released in new versions
• Take into account ISO/TS 16949 supplemental requirements, not covered in A-SPICE

Outputs:
utputs
Formats:
spreadsheet (.xls, .ods) possible ‘dynamic’ browsing through elements
document (.pdf) ‘traditional’ format in an ISTI-CNR Technical Report


A new mapping Rating scale

• Many mappings/comparisons apply a ratio scale (%) for
expressing the coverage level of single issues/requirements
…but it maintains a certain subjectivity level when assigning
values, it’s not a mathematical operation…

• Since we’re dealing with MCMs (Maturity & Capability
Models), using an ordinal four-points rating scale
(N/P/L/F), why don’t using it as done in assessment?

ISO/IEC CMMI
15504
F 86-100% 76-100%
More focus on P/L
More focus on P/L L 51-85% 51-75%
for improvements
for improvements P 16-50% 26-50%
N 0-15% 0-25%



• Introduction
– Rating scale
• A short example
• Q& A


A short example A-SPICE vs ISO/TS 16949

Main Findings – Most of...
‘N’ ratings (24% of A-SPICE BPs)
ACQ processes (ACQ.3 ACQ.11, ACQ.13. ACQ14) for the ‘strategy’
REU.2 (out of scope)
‘P’ ratings (18% of A-SPICE BPs)
More specific actions in A-SPICE than ISO/TS (being a requirement and not a process model)
E.g. Regression testing actions or MAN.5 (Risk Mgmt)
‘L’ ratings (20% of A-SPICE BPs)
‘F’ ratings (38% of A-SPICE BPs)
Together have c.a. 60% coverage
A-SPICE is ‘naturally’ more specific than ISO/TS (req. model), but showing a common usage of those practice also in
ISO/TS


A short example ISO/TS 16949 vs A-SPICE

Main Findings – Most of...
‘N’ ratings (13% of the 131 ISO/TS clauses – from §4 on)
About supplemental clauses added in ISO/TS not present ISO 9001 (e.g. Special chars, FMEA, etc.)
‘P’ ratings (10% of A-SPICE BPs)
About supplemental clauses only partially dealt in A-SPICE (e.g. Training-on-the-job or the prototype program, etc.
‘L’ ratings (40% of A-SPICE BPs)
‘F’ ratings (37% of A-SPICE BPs)
Together have c.a. 77% coverage
Medium-large coverage level of ISO/TS requirements in A-SPICE processes and practices



• Introduction
– Rating scale
• A short example
• Q& A


Mapping A-SPICE... Conclusions & Perspectives
• Mappings & Comparisons
Apples vs Oranges...
Mappings and comparisons can help in better understanding where the organization’s
processes can eventually be improved
Need to carefully find all the input models to be mapped
• Some basic criteria and assumptions
Mappings must be bi-directional
Granularity is the key
The final target is improving your QMS, not the input model/framework used
Certification/compliance to a standard should be a natural consequence of such
work, not the goal itself!
Main findings
Medium/large coverage between practices suggested
Different issues from both sides (N/P ratings) from which taking ideas for strengthening
your own QMS, according to the ‘model’ you’re starting to map processes
Next steps
Take care of all possible models/inputs with potential ideas and sources for
improvements to your QMS people are the real ‘wheel’ of your organization
The LEGO approach and the new MCM repository can help on this!
...try & see!

Our similarities are different.
Our similarities are different.
(Philip James Bailey, ,English poet, 1816--1902
(Philip JamesBailey, English poet,1816-1902)
Philip
Philip Bailey,
Bailey 1816 1902
1816-1902)


Mapping A-SPICE... The LEGO Approach

1. MCM Repository
1. MCM Repository 2. Process
2. Process
Architecture
Architecture

3. Mappings &
3. Mappings & 4. Appraisal Method
4. Appraisal Method
Comparisons
Comparisons

2. 3. 4.
1.
Query the Include new Adapt
Identify goals
MCM repository elements & Adopt

Source: Buglione L., Gresse von Wangenheim C., Hauck J.C.R., Mc Caffery F., The
LEGO Maturity & Capability Model Approach, Proceedings of 5WCSQ, 5th World
Congress on Software Quality, Shanghai (China), Oct 31- Nov 4 2011


Mapping A-SPICE... Lessons Learned...

URL: www.dilbert.com

Mapping A-SPICE... Q&A

Thanks for your attention!
Grazie per la vostra attenzione!

Mapping A-SPICE... Our Contact Data

Luigi Giuseppe Fabrizio
Buglione Lami Fabbrini
Engineering.IT/ETS ISTI/CNR ISTI/CNR
luigi.buglione@eng.it giuseppe.lami@isti.cnr.it fabrizio.fabbrini@isti.cnr.it


Mapping Automotive SPICE and ISO/TS 16949

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

En vedette

En vedette (20)

Similaire à Mapping Automotive SPICE and ISO/TS 16949

Similaire à Mapping Automotive SPICE and ISO/TS 16949 (20)

Plus de Luigi Buglione

Plus de Luigi Buglione (20)

Mapping Automotive SPICE and ISO/TS 16949