Pflogging ... in pursuit of accelerated value creation

The scientific method is the basis of our modern world. The three steps of the method are to establish a hypothesis, perform an experiment, and evaluate the results. The method does not guarantee a successful outcome on the first try, but has the advantage of self-correction. As a result, over time, it will (through repeated application and follow-on action) converge on a solution, if a solution can be found.

However, if core disciplines are not used throughout this experimentation (for example, by not keeping good records, or controlling the variables of your experiments), this ultimate success is not assured. Additionally, if experimental evidence is not peer reviewed, history has shown that the results claimed may not be reliable!

Within process development, Edward Deming implemented the scientific method through PDCA. These steps also are self-correcting, but require a similar set of underlying disciplines to be successful. Like the above examples, these underlying disciplines help ensure that when observations are made about a process, the results can be acted on, and that those actions will eventually produce what is desired. These disciplines are key to establishing an organizational maturity in performing the process and adopting it over time, which means being able to consistently apply a process, make valid observations about it, and successfully act on those results, especially as the process, organization, technology, and people evolve over time.

There are different disciplines that are relevant at each of the four steps of PDCA, and they are interrelated. Interestingly, these disciplines apply to both doing the primary mission of the organization, and doing the process improvement work itself. These core disciplines thus allow you to begin treating process improvement like any other project. For example, during planning, the core disciplines include Project planning, Process management, Requirements management, Decision analysis and resolution, Risk management, and Organizational alignment. It should be obvious that planned projects run better than unplanned projects, but these disciplines help to manage the statement of work, processes, risks, and organizations that must be engaged to establish an orderly approach to doing the work. They also assures that the underlying core discipline of effective problem solving is in place, since without it, so many organizations can end up in analysis paralysis, and waste considerable resources on relatively unimportant decisions.

During implementation, there are other practices that are critical to implementing these plans successfully, including Requirements Development, Supplier Management, Training, Process Assurance, Project Monitoring and Control, and of course, Performing the work itself. The importance of each of these elements can be made obvious by asking the question "what if this weren't done well", and following up with the question, "what is our evidence that we are doing this well today?"

Execution accountability is achieved through the 'check' part of the PDCA cycle, which includes Measurement and analysis, Verification, and Validation. Each of these can of course be done well, or poorly, but this insight brings one other key element into the equation. That is what the definition of 'doing things well' really means. Often, that definition is itself subjective, since these words can mean dramatically different things to different people. I've seen no situation in which this more frequent than in disambiguating these V&V terms, but the requirements for definition of terms is relevant to all of these disciplines. That's why I've provided links, for the above discipline areas, to the relevant CMMI key practices for each of these disciplines; the pages reached by following these links have additional links which lead to still lower-level criteria, which provide the underlying basis of how an independent observer might evaluate whether you are 'doing this well' within the key practices of that process area. Note that these links are only available to registered users, and are based upon the CMMI framework.

Finally, one must act on the information which is collected during execution. This requires the disciplines of Causal analysis and Configuration management. These two items are often overlooked, but are essential to being able to focus attention on the areas that need improvement, without worrying that everything else may be changing at the same time. They are the equivalent of controlling the variables of our scientific experiment.

All of this can be overwhelming for an organization to take on while concurrently in the middle of development efforts. That's why maturity models (and expecially the CMMI) adopt a level-based approach to these key practices. People often see such models as dictating a particular structure for improvements, but this is untrue. They are generic criteria that are to be tailored to an organizational  context - the scope of work performed within an organization, and the business goals of that work. The process of performing the work itself (whether writing software or building an airplane) is described in CMMI with just two additional disciplines - the Technical Solution, and Product Integration. Performing the Technical Solution itself can be enormously complex - say, when performing health care, continuing to follow Moore's law within the electronics industry, or decoding the genome. But while each of these is, by itself, really complex, it should be recognized that the progress which has been made in each of these efforts (and continues to be made) is essentially the result of PDCA, and these underlying disciplines.

No one 'central authority' has to oversee all this work (though accountability does need to be in place); what matters is that the disciplines 'play together, and that responsibility is assigned to assure that products have sufficient quality, and that projects are achieving the desired performance. Progress can be made in systematic improvement, as long as there are incentives to pursue change, adequate resources to achieve results, and a proper roadmap and infrastructure for implementing the changes themselves; the underlying CMMI practices assure that these requirements are satisfied, which is why they work.

Since process improvement can be overwhelming, and often takes longer than expected, organizations should adopt some improvement framework, like the CMMI, for guiding their long-term improvement. The self-assessments (or independent assessments) against such criteria can provide a means of tracking progress over time. In the case of the CMMI itself, it encourages adoption of level 1 practices first, before worrying about level 2 practices, and suggests implementing level 2 practices before level 3 practices. This is because if you try to build a house without the foundations, you're going to have to come back later and try to install those foundations. You'll then likely find you have some rework to do. That's what makes these things so core to sustainable improvements.