Home > Articles > Process Improvement

📄 Contents

  1. 4.1 What You Will Learn in This Chapter
  2. 4.2 BOND Case Study Background
  3. 4.3 What Is a Gap Analysis and Why Is It Crucial for Agile Organizations?
  4. 4.4 Keys to Conducting a Gap Analysis for an Agile Organization
  5. 4.5 Example of "Potential Weakness" Against CMMI in an Agile Organization
  6. 4.6 Running Process Improvement like a Project
  7. 4.7 TWG Approach for Agile Organizations
  8. 4.8 Revisiting the Goal and Challenges on the Process Improvement Project
  9. 4.9 Alternative Practices and Tailored Agile TWG
  10. 4.10 Returning to the Peer Review Example
  11. 4.11 Tailored TWG Techniques and Lessons at BOND
  12. 4.12 Preparation Work for Running Agile TWGs
  13. 4.13 Packaging of Processes
  14. 4.14 An Agile Organizational Process Asset Structure
  15. 4.15 Process Asset Guidelines Used at BOND
  16. 4.16 Different Organizations with Different Process Asset Structures
  17. 4.17 Agile TWG Roles and Responsibilities
  18. 4.18 Effective Techniques to Run an Agile TWG
  19. 4.19 Separating the TWG Work from the Lead Offline Work
  20. 4.20 What Do You Do When You Find a Gap?
  21. 4.21 Answers to Common Questions When Running an Agile TWG
  22. 4.22 Do I Need a DAR Process?
  23. 4.23 Do I Need to Verify Everything I Develop?
  24. 4.24 Do I Need to Make Sure the Steps in My Processes Are in the Right Order?
  25. 4.25 Do I Need to Make Sure Process Descriptions Are Not Redundant?
  26. 4.26 Can Requirements Be Captured in an Email or PowerPoint Slides?
  27. 4.27 Do Requirements Need to Be Captured in Single "Shall Statements"?
  28. 4.28 Formalizing Informality
  29. 4.29 Summary
  30. 4.30 Summary: How Agile Helps CMMI
  • Print
  • + Share This
This chapter is from the book

4.22 Do I Need a DAR Process?

At BOND, it was decided that a distinct Decision Analysis and Resolution (DAR) process and guidelines were not required by the organization. Following is the logic that was used to arrive at this decision, which caused no difficulty during the formal CMMI evaluation.

In the DAR TWG at BOND, the group first found itself asking the question:

  • What are the relevant formal decisions that arise in our organization, and how do we handle them today?

This discussion led to the recognition that formal decisions at BOND were made in two areas: Risks and Designs. The group also discussed what "formal" meant in their organization. The CMMI doesn't tell you what "formal" means, so each organization can make this decision for itself based on its own business needs. Formality at BOND (which did most things informally) was taken to mean the need to involve someone in the decision at a higher level of management. From a risk perspective, formal decisions involved the need to raise a risk to higher-level management. From a design perspective, formal decisions involved evaluating alternative design decisions that affected other groups.

In the case of a risk, the criteria to consider when deciding to raise the risk to Senior Management were included in the Risk Management guidelines that were developed as part of the Risk Management TWG. In the case of design alternatives, the criteria to use in making decisions were included in the design guidelines that were developed as part of the Technical Solution TWG. Therefore, DAR was handled through existing processes and no additional process assets were required.

  • + Share This
  • 🔖 Save To Your Account