Decision Analysis and Resolution (DAR) Category: Support
Notes:
·
The contents of this web page were extracted from
the following document: Capability Maturity Model® Integration
(CMMISM), Version 1.1, Continuous Representation,
CMU/SEI-2002-TR-011, March 2002 (CMMI-SE/SW/IPPD/SS). Copyright 2002 by Carnegie
Mellon University. NO WARRANTY.
·
Ignore the identifiers
in square brackets that appear at the end of paragraphs.
·
The formatting may not
be the same as in the printed CMMI document. The web page is best viewed in
Internet Explorer.
·
In the CMMI, a subset is known as a "Process Area
(PA)" and a requirement is known as a "Practice". The specific practices are
referred to as SPs and the generic practices are referred to as GPs.
·
This web page contains the text for SPs and GPs as
it appears in Chapter 7 of the CMMI document, in the section corresponding to
the process area named in the heading of this page. This web page does not
include the detailed description of the GPs that appears in a separate chapter
of the CMMI document; the
detailed description of the GPs is available in a separate web
page. (Note: Using the hyperlink provided here will open that web page in a
separate window.)
Purpose The purpose of Decision Analysis and Resolution is to
analyze possible decisions using a formal evaluation process that evaluates
identified alternatives against established criteria. [PA156]
Introductory Notes The Decision Analysis and Resolution process area involves establishing guidelines to determine which issues should be subjected to a formal evaluation process and then applying formal evaluation processes to these issues. [PA156.N101]
A formal evaluation process is a structured approach to
evaluating alternative solutions against established criteria to determine a
recommended solution to address an issue. A formal evaluation process involves
the following actions: [PA156.N112]
· Establishing the criteria for evaluating alternatives
· Identifying alternative solutions
· Selecting methods for evaluating alternatives
· Evaluating the alternative solutions using the established criteria and methods
· Selecting recommended solutions from the alternatives based on the evaluation criteria
Rather than using the phrase “alternative solutions to address issues” each time it is needed, we will use one of two shorter phrases: “alternative solutions” or “alternatives.” [PA156.N113]
A formal evaluation process reduces the subjective nature of the decision and has a higher probability of selecting a solution that meets the multiple demands of the relevant stakeholders. [PA156.N102]
While the primary application of this process area is for selected technical concerns, formal evaluation processes can also be applied to many nontechnical issues, particularly when a project is being planned. Issues that have multiple alternative solutions and evaluation criteria lend themselves to a formal evaluation process. [PA156.N103
|
Trade studies of
equipment or software are typical examples of formal evaluation processes. [PA156.N111] |
During planning, specific issues requiring a formal evaluation process are identified. Typical issues include selection among architectural or design alternatives, use of reusable or commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) components, supplier selection, engineering support environments or associated tools, test environments, and logistics and production. A formal evaluation process can also be used to address a make-or-buy decision, the development of manufacturing processes, the selection of distribution locations, and other decisions. [PA156.N104]
Guidelines are created for deciding when to use formal evaluation processes to address unplanned issues. Guidelines often suggest using formal evaluation processes when issues are associated with medium to high risks or when issues affect the ability to achieve project objectives. [PA156.N106]
Formal evaluation processes can vary in formality, type of criteria, and methods employed. Less formal decisions can be analyzed in a few hours, use only a few criteria (e.g., effectiveness and cost to implement), and result in a one- or two-page report. More formal decisions may require separate plans, months of effort, meetings to develop and approve criteria, simulations, prototypes, piloting, and extensive documentation. [PA156.N107]
Both numeric and non-numeric criteria can be used in a formal evaluation process. Numeric criteria use weights to reflect the relative importance of the criteria. Non-numeric criteria use a more subjective ranking scale (e.g., high, medium, low). More formal decisions may require a full trade study. [PA156.N108]
A formal evaluation process identifies and evaluates alternative solutions. The eventual selection of a solution may involve iterative activities of identification and evaluation. Portions of identified alternatives may be combined, emerging technologies may change alternatives, and the business situation for vendors may change during the evaluation period. [PA156.N109]
A recommended alternative is accompanied by documentation
of the selected methods, criteria, alternatives, and rationale for the
recommendation. The documentation is distributed to the relevant stakeholders;
it provides a record of the formal evaluation process and rationale that is
useful to other projects that encounter a similar issue. [PA156.N110]
Refer to the Project Planning process area for more information about
general planning for projects. [PA156.R101]
Refer to the Integrated Project Management process area for more
information about establishing the project’s defined process. The project’s
defined process includes a formal evaluation process for each selected issue and
incorporates the use of guidelines for applying a formal evaluation process to
unforeseen issues. [PA156.R102]
Refer to the Risk Management process area for more information about
identifying and mitigating risks. A formal evaluation process is often used to
address issues with identified medium or high risks. Selected solutions
typically affect risk mitigation plans. [PA156.R103]
Specific Goals
SG 1
Evaluate Alternatives [PA156.IG101]
Decisions are based on an evaluation of alternatives using established criteria.
Generic Goals
GG 1
Achieve Specific Goals [CL102.GL101]
The process supports and enables achievement of the specific goals of the process area by transforming identifiable input work products to produce identifiable output work products.
GG 2
Institutionalize a Managed Process [CL103.GL101]
The process is institutionalized as a managed process.
GG 3
Institutionalize a Defined Process [CL104.GL101]
The process is institutionalized as a defined process.
GG 4
Institutionalize a Quantitatively Managed Process
[CL105.GL101]
The process is institutionalized as a quantitatively managed process.
GG 5
Institutionalize an Optimizing Process [CL106.GL101]
The process is institutionalized as an optimizing process.
Practice-to-Goal Relationship Table
SG 1 Evaluate Alternatives
[PA156.IG101]
SP 1.1-1 Establish Guidelines for Decision Analysis
SP 1.2-1 Establish Evaluation Criteria
SP 1.3-1 Identify Alternative Solutions
SP 1.4-1 Select Evaluation Methods
SP 1.5-1 Evaluate Alternatives
SP 1.6-1 Select Solutions
GG 1 Achieve Specific Goals [CL102.GL101]
GP 1.1 Perform Base Practices
GG 2 Institutionalize a Managed Process [CL103.GL101]
GP 2.1 Establish an Organizational Policy
GP 2.2 Plan the Process
GP 2.3 Provide Resources
GP 2.4 Assign Responsibility
GP 2.5 Train People
GP 2.6 Manage Configurations
GP 2.7 Identify and Involve Relevant Stakeholders
GP 2.8 Monitor and Control the Process
GP 2.9 Objectively Evaluate Adherence
GP 2.10 Review Status with Higher Level Management
GG 3 Institutionalize a Defined Process [CL104.GL101]
GP 3.1 Establish a Defined Process
GP 3.2 Collect Improvement Information
GG 4 Institutionalize a Quantitatively Managed Process [CL105.GL101]
GP 4.1 Establish Quantitative Objectives for the Process
GP 4.2 Stabilize Subprocess Performance
GG 5 Institutionalize an Optimizing Process [CL106.GL101]
GP 5.1 Ensure Continuous Process Improvement
GP 5.2 Correct Root Causes of Problems
Specific Practices by Goal
SG 1 Evaluate Alternatives
Decisions are based on an evaluation of alternatives using established criteria. [PA156.IG101]
Issues requiring a formal evaluation process may be
identified during any phase of a product or project life cycle. The objective
should be to identify issues as early as possible to maximize the time available
to resolve the issue.
[PA156.IG101.N101]
SP 1.1-1 Establish Guidelines for Decision Analysis
Establish and maintain guidelines to determine which issues are subject to a
formal evaluation process.
[PA156.IG101.SP101]
Not every decision is significant enough to require a
formal evaluation process. The choice between the trivial and the truly
important will be unclear without explicit guidance. Whether a decision is
significant or not is dependent on the project and circumstances, and is
determined by the established guidelines.
[PA156.IG101.SP101.N101]
Typical guidelines for determining when to require a
formal evaluation process include the following:
[PA156.IG101.SP101.N102]
· When a decision is directly related to topics assessed as being of medium or high risk
· When a decision is related to changing work products under configuration management
· When a decision would cause schedule delays over a certain percentage or specific amount of time
· When a decision affects the ability to achieve project objectives
· When the costs of the formal evaluation process are reasonable when compared to the decision’s impact
Refer to the Risk Management process area for more information about
determining which issues are medium or high risk.
[PA156.IG101.SP101.N102.R101]
Examples of
when to use a formal evaluation process include the following: [PA156.IG101.SP101.N103]
· On material procurement when 20 percent of the material parts constitute 80 percent of the total material costs
· On design-implementation decisions when technical performance failure may cause a catastrophic failure (e.g., safety of flight item)
· On decisions with the potential to significantly reduce design risk, engineering changes, cycle time, and production costs (e.g., to use lithography models to assess form and fit capability before releasing engineering drawings and production builds)
Typical Work Products
1. Guidelines
for when to apply a formal evaluation process [PA156.IG101.SP101.W101]
Subpractices
1. Establish guidelines.
[PA156.IG101.SP101.SubP101]
2. Incorporate the use of the
guidelines into the defined process where appropriate.
[PA156.IG101.SP101.SubP102]
Refer to the Integrated Project Management process area for more information
about establishing the project’s defined process.
[PA156.IG101.SP101.SubP102.R101]
SP 1.2-1 Establish Evaluation Criteria
Establish and maintain the criteria for evaluating alternatives, and the
relative ranking of these criteria.
[PA156.IG101.SP103]
The evaluation criteria provide the basis for evaluating
alternative solutions. The criteria are ranked so that the highest ranked
criteria exert the most influence on the evaluation. [PA156.IG101.SP103.N101]
This process area is referenced by many other process
areas in the model, and there are many contexts in which a formal evaluation
process can be used. Therefore, in some situations you may find that criteria
have already been defined as part of another process. This specific practice
does not suggest that a second development of criteria be conducted. [PA156.IG101.SP103.N103]
Document the evaluation criteria to minimize the
possibility that decisions will be second-guessed, or that the reason for making
the decision will be forgotten. Decisions based on criteria that are explicitly
defined and established remove barriers to stakeholder buy-in. [PA156.IG101.SP103.N102]
Typical Work Products
1. Documented
evaluation criteria [PA156.IG101.SP103.W101]
2. Rankings of
criteria importance [PA156.IG101.SP103.W102]
Subpractices
1. Define the criteria for
evaluating alternative solutions. [PA156.IG101.SP103.SubP101]
Criteria should be traceable to
requirements, scenarios, business case assumptions, business objectives, or
other documented sources.
[PA156.IG101.SP103.SubP101.N101]
Types of criteria to consider
include the following:
[PA156.IG101.SP103.SubP101.N102]
· Technology limitations
· Environmental impact
· Risks
· Total ownership and life-cycle costs
2. Define the range and scale for
ranking the evaluation criteria. [PA156.IG101.SP103.SubP102]
Scales of relative importance for
evaluation criteria can be established with non-numeric values or with formulas
that relate the evaluation parameter to a numerical weight.
[PA156.IG101.SP103.SubP102.N101]
3. Rank the criteria.
[PA156.IG101.SP103.SubP103]
The criteria are ranked according
to the defined range and scale to reflect the needs, objectives, and priorities
of the relevant stakeholders.
[PA156.IG101.SP103.SubP103.N101]
4. Assess the criteria and their
relative importance. [PA156.IG101.SP103.SubP105]
5. Evolve the evaluation criteria
to improve their validity. [PA156.IG101.SP103.SubP106]
6. Document the rationale for the
selection and rejection of evaluation criteria.
[PA156.IG101.SP103.SubP104]
Documentation of selection
criteria and rationale may be needed to justify solutions or for future
reference and use.
[PA156.IG101.SP103.SubP104.N101]
SP 1.3-1 Identify Alternative Solutions
Identify alternative solutions to address issues.
[PA156.IG101.SP104]
A wider range of alternatives can surface by soliciting as
many stakeholders as practical for input. Input from stakeholders with diverse
skills and backgrounds can help teams identify and address assumptions,
constraints, and biases. Brainstorming sessions may stimulate innovative
alternatives through rapid interaction and feedback. Sufficient candidate
solutions may not be furnished for analysis. As the analysis proceeds, other
alternatives should be added to the list of potential candidate solutions. The
generation and consideration of multiple alternatives early in a decision
analysis and resolution process increases the likelihood that an acceptable
decision will be made, and that consequences of the decision will be understood.
[PA156.IG101.SP104.N101]
Typical Work Products
1. Identified
alternatives [PA156.IG101.SP104.W101]
Subpractices
1. Perform a literature search. [PA156.IG101.SP104.SubP101]
A literature search can uncover
what others have done both inside and outside the organization. It may provide a
deeper understanding of the problem, alternatives to consider, barriers to
implementation, existing trade studies, and lessons learned from similar
decisions.
[PA156.IG101.SP104.SubP101.N101]
2. Identify alternatives for
consideration in addition to those that may be provided with the issue.
[PA156.IG101.SP104.SubP102]
Evaluation criteria are an
effective starting point for identifying alternatives. The evaluation criteria
identify the priorities of the relevant stakeholders and the importance of
technical challenges.
[PA156.IG101.SP104.SubP102.N101]
Combining key attributes of
existing alternatives can generate additional and sometimes stronger
alternatives.
[PA156.IG101.SP104.SubP102.N102]
Solicit alternatives from relevant
stakeholders. Brainstorming sessions, interviews, and working groups can be used
effectively to uncover alternatives. [PA156.IG101.SP104.SubP102.N103]
3. Document the proposed
alternatives. [PA156.IG101.SP104.SubP103]
SP 1.4-1 Select Evaluation Methods
Select the evaluation methods.
[PA156.IG101.SP102]
Methods for evaluating alternative solutions against
established criteria can range from simulations to the use of probabilistic
models and decision theory. These methods need to be carefully selected. The
level of detail of a method should be commensurate with cost, schedule,
performance, and risk impacts.
[PA156.IG101.SP102.N101]
While many problems may need only one evaluation method,
some problems may require multiple methods. For instance, simulations may
augment a trade study to determine which design alternative best meets a given
criterion.
[PA156.IG101.SP102.N102]
Typical Work Products
1. Selected
evaluation methods [PA156.IG101.SP102.W101]
Subpractices
1. Select the methods based on
the purpose for analyzing a decision and on the availability of the information
used to support the method. [PA156.IG101.SP102.SubP101]
For example, the methods used for evaluating a technical solution when
requirements are weakly defined may be different from the methods used when the
requirements are well defined. [PA156.IG101.SP102.SubP101.N101]
Typical evaluation methods include
the following:
[PA156.IG101.SP102.SubP101.N102]
· Simulations
· Engineering studies
· Manufacturing studies
· Cost studies
· Business opportunity studies
· Surveys
· Extrapolations based on field experience and prototypes
· User review and comment
· Testing
2. Select evaluation methods
based on their ability to focus on the issues at hand without being overly
influenced by side issues. [PA156.IG101.SP102.SubP102]
Results of simulations can be
skewed by random activities in the solution that are not directly related to the
issues at hand.
[PA156.IG101.SP102.SubP102.N101]
3. Determine the measures needed
to support the evaluation method. [PA156.IG101.SP102.SubP103]
Consider the impact on cost,
schedule, performance, and risks. [PA156.IG101.SP102.SubP103.N101]
SP 1.5-1 Evaluate Alternatives
Evaluate alternative solutions using the established criteria and methods. [PA156.IG101.SP105]
Evaluating alternative solutions involves analysis,
discussion, and review. Iterative cycles of analysis are sometimes necessary.
Supporting analyses, experimentation, prototyping, or simulations may be needed
to substantiate scoring and conclusions.
[PA156.IG101.SP105.N101]
Often, the relative importance of criteria is imprecise
and the total effect on a solution is not apparent until after the analysis is
performed. In cases where the resulting scores differ by relatively small
amounts, the best selection among alternative solutions may not be clearcut.
Challenges to criteria and assumptions should be encouraged. [PA156.IG101.SP105.N102]
Typical Work Products
1. Evaluation
results [PA156.IG101.SP105.W101]
Subpractices
1. Evaluate the proposed
alternative solutions using the established evaluation criteria and selected
methods. [PA156.IG101.SP105.SubP101]
2. Evaluate the assumptions
related to the evaluation criteria and the evidence that supports the
assumptions. [PA156.IG101.SP105.SubP102]
3. Evaluate whether uncertainty
in the values for alternative solutions affects the evaluation and address as
appropriate. [PA156.IG101.SP105.SubP103]
For instance, if the score can
vary between two values, is the difference significant enough to make a
difference in the final solution set? Does the variation in score represent a
high risk? To address these concerns, simulations may be run, further studies
may be performed, or evaluation criteria may be modified, among other things.
[PA156.IG101.SP105.SubP103.N101]
4. Perform simulations, modeling,
prototypes, and pilots as necessary to exercise the evaluation criteria,
methods, and alternative solutions. [PA156.IG101.SP105.SubP104]
Untested criteria, their relative
importance, and supporting data or functions may cause the validity of solutions
to be questioned. Criteria and their relative priorities and scales can be
tested with trial runs against a set of alternatives. These trial runs of a
select set of criteria allow for the evaluation of the cumulative impact of the
criteria on a solution. If the trials reveal problems, different criteria or
alternatives might be considered to avoid biases.
[PA156.IG101.SP105.SubP104.N101]
5. Consider new alternative
solutions, criteria, or methods if the proposed alternatives do not test well;
repeat the evaluations until alternatives do test well.
[PA156.IG101.SP105.SubP105]
6. Document the results of the
evaluation. [PA156.IG101.SP105.SubP106]
Document the rationale for the
addition of new alternatives or methods and changes to criteria, as well as the
results of interim evaluations.
[PA156.IG101.SP105.SubP106.N101]
Select solutions from the alternatives based on the evaluation criteria. [PA156.IG101.SP106]
Selecting solutions involves weighing the results from the
evaluation of alternatives. Risks associated with implementation of the
solutions must be assessed.
[PA156.IG101.SP106.N101]
Typical Work Products
1. Recommended
solutions to address significant issues [PA156.IG101.SP106.W101]
Subpractices
1. Assess the risks associated
with implementing the recommended solution.
[PA156.IG101.SP106.SubP101]
Refer to the Risk Management process area for more information about identifying
and managing risks. [PA156.IG101.SP106.SubP101.R101]
Decisions must often be made with
incomplete information. There can be substantial risk associated with the
decision because of having incomplete information.
[PA156.IG101.SP106.SubP101.N101]
When decisions must be made
according to a specific schedule, time and resources may not be available for
gathering complete information. Consequently, risky decisions made with
incomplete information may require re-analysis later. Identified risks should be
monitored.
[PA156.IG101.SP106.SubP101.N102]
2. Document the results and
rationale for the recommended solution. [PA156.IG101.SP106.SubP102]
It is important to record both why
a solution is selected and why another solution was rejected.
[PA156.IG101.SP106.SubP102.N101]
Generic Practices by Goal
(Note: The detailed description of the GPs is available in a separate web page. Using the hyperlink provided here will open that web page in a separate window. However, the GP elaborations pertinent to the process area of this web page are available below.)
GG 1 Achieve Specific Goals
The process supports and enables achievement of the specific goals of the process area by transforming identifiable input work products to produce identifiable output work products.
Perform the base practices of the decision analysis and resolution process to
develop work products and provide services to achieve the specific goals of the
process area. [GP102]
GG 2 Institutionalize a Managed Process
The process is institutionalized as a managed process.
GP 2.1 Establish an Organizational Policy
Establish and maintain an organizational policy for planning and performing the
decision analysis and resolution process. [GP103]
Elaboration:
This policy establishes organizational expectations for
selectively analyzing possible decisions using a formal evaluation process that
evaluates identified alternatives against established criteria. The policy
should also provide guidance on which decisions require a formal evaluation
process.
[PA156.EL101]
Establish and maintain the plan for performing the decision analysis and
resolution process. [GP104]
Elaboration:
Typically, this plan for performing the decision analysis
and resolution process is included in (or is referenced by) the project plan,
which is described in the Project Planning process area. [PA156.EL110]
Provide adequate resources for performing the decision analysis and resolution
process, developing the work products, and providing the services of the
process. [GP105]
Elaboration:
Examples of
resources provided include the following tools: [PA156.EL102]
· Simulators and modeling tools
· Prototyping tools
· Tools for conducting surveys
Assign responsibility and authority for performing the process, developing the
work products, and providing the services of the decision analysis and
resolution process. [GP106]
Train the people performing or supporting the decision analysis and resolution
process as needed. [GP107]
Elaboration:
Examples of
training topics include the following: [PA156.EL103]
· Formal decision analysis
· Methods for evaluating alternative solutions against criteria
Place designated work products of the decision analysis and resolution process
under appropriate levels of configuration management.
[GP109]
Elaboration:
Examples of
work products placed under configuration management include the following: [PA156.EL104]
· Guidelines for when to apply a formal evaluation process
· Evaluation reports containing recommended solutions
GP 2.7 Identify and Involve Relevant Stakeholders
Identify and involve the relevant stakeholders of the decision analysis and
resolution process as planned. [GP124]
Elaboration:
Examples of
activities for stakeholder involvement include the following: [PA156.EL109]
· Establishing guidelines for which issues are subject to a formal evaluation process
· Establishing evaluation criteria
· Identifying and evaluating alternatives
· Selecting evaluation methods
· Selecting solutions
GP 2.8 Monitor and Control the Process
Monitor and control the decision analysis and resolution process against the
plan for performing the process and take appropriate corrective action. [GP110]
Elaboration:
Examples of
measures used in monitoring and controlling include the following: [PA156.EL105]
· Cost-to-benefit ratio of using formal evaluation processes
GP 2.9 Objectively Evaluate Adherence
Objectively evaluate adherence of the decision analysis and resolution process
against its process description, standards, and procedures, and address
noncompliance. [GP113]
Elaboration:
Examples of
activities reviewed include the following:
[PA156.EL106]
· Evaluating alternatives using established criteria and methods
Examples of
work products reviewed include the following: [PA156.EL108]
· Guidelines for when to apply a formal evaluation process
· Evaluation reports containing recommended solutions
GP 2.10 Review Status with Higher Level Management
Review the activities, status, and results of the decision analysis and
resolution process with higher level management and resolve issues. [GP112]
GG 3 Institutionalize a Defined Process
The process is institutionalized as a defined process.
GP 3.1 Establish a Defined Process
Establish and maintain the description of a defined decision analysis and
resolution process. [GP114]
GP 3.2 Collect Improvement Information
Collect work products, measures, measurement results, and improvement
information derived from planning and performing the decision analysis and
resolution process to support the future use and improvement of the
organization’s processes and process assets. [GP117]
GG 4 Institutionalize a Quantitatively Managed Process
The process is institutionalized as a quantitatively managed process.
GP 4.1 Establish Quantitative Objectives for the Process
Establish and maintain quantitative objectives for the decision analysis and
resolution process that address quality and process performance based on
customer needs and business objectives. [GP118]
GP 4.2 Stabilize Subprocess Performance
Stabilize the performance of one or more subprocesses to determine the ability
of the decision analysis and resolution process to achieve the established
quantitative quality and process-performance objectives. [GP119]
GG 5 Institutionalize an Optimizing Process
The process is institutionalized as an optimizing process.
GP 5.1 Ensure Continuous Process Improvement
Ensure continuous improvement of the decision analysis and resolution process in
fulfilling the relevant business objectives of the organization. [GP125]
GP 5.2 Correct Root Causes of Problems
Identify and correct the root causes of defects and other problems in the
decision analysis and resolution process. [GP121]