Play’n’Learn: A Continuous KM Improvement Approach using FSM methods

ISMA4:
ISMA4
4° Annual International Conference on
Software Measurement & Analysis
Conference

Chicago, IL – September 13-16, 2009

Play’n’Learn:
A Continuous KM Improvement Approach using FSM methods

Luigi Buglione
Engineering.it
luigi.buglione@eng.it

www.eng.it ISMA4 – Chicago, Sep 13-16, 2009 © Luigi Buglione

Goals of the Presentation:
Presentation
 G1. to approach in a different, original way the transferring and
managing of awareness and knowledge in your organization
 G2. to continuously improve your employees’ knowledge on FSM
methods (such as IFPUG FPA), but applicable to any issue of
interest
G3. to stimulate the creativity of your team members about
critical measurement issues during the Monitoring & Control phase
G4. to reduce the resistance to Measurement issues, in particular
with Functional Size Measurement issues
G5. to empower your team in providing better estimates moving
from a stronger Requirement Management

www.eng.it ISMA4 – Chicago, Sep 13-16, 2009 © Luigi Buglione 2

Agenda

• Introduction
» Some questions
» Reducing Resistance to Measurement
• Learning Organizations
» SPI & Knowledge Management: which relationship?
» The SECI Model
» Ba: concept and application
• Simulation Games in Software Engineering
» Play’n’learn approach
» Some examples on the Net
• Creating your own ‘ba’ for Sw Measurement and FSM
» Levels of Knowledge
» Creating new game – Attention points
» Our games: Project-o-poly, Trivial Pursuit, Taboo, Murphy’s tables
• Conclusions & Prospects
• Q&A


Introduction
Some questions….

• Q: how many ‘non-institutional’ training days per person
have been supplied last year in your company?

• Q: what is a learning organization? Can our company be
defined a learning organization?

• Q: are we leveraging the value of our human resources?
Are we able to create ‘knowledge’ (not notions) and
redistribute it for generating value?

• Q: If yes, how?

• Q: If not, why?


Introduction
Reducing Resistance to Measurement (1/2)

• During last 10 years, Software Measurement has been recognized
more and more in the Sw Engineering arena...
 “matured” from activity to process (i.e. ME in CMMI-x; MAN.6 in ISO
15504; ...)
 proposed a new KA in SWEBOK on Sw Measurement
• ...but usually there is a strong resistance from project team
members about whatever kind of measurement
 mostly perceived as a personal evaluation on their own performance, not
for a concrete, neutral process improvement
 according to H.Rubin (1996), only 1:5 or 1:6 sw companies were successful
in the implementation of a sw measurement program after 2 years
 also from an ISO 9001 viewpoint, Clause 8 is one of the less well
accomplished worldwide
• So, people is a crucial resource for improving performances…
 …but it seems to be often managed as a ‘material’ resource
 …even if a series of models/frameworks dealing with People Management
exist but not spreadly applied

Introduction
Reducing Resistance to Measurement (2/2)

• Q: how to remove misconceptions and resistance towards
measurement in ICT companies?
 A: a possible manner is to speak to technical people using a different
language, possibly with a bit of humor

• Q: is it possible to avoid a ‘boring’, too institutionalized transfer of
knowledge?
A: Yes, moving from ‘old-style’ knowledge transfer methods and come back
playing, as children do

• Q: but what is the final goal to be achieved?
 A: to continuously improve project and organizational performances, by
more motivated people, happy to continue learning in a funny way, producing
more new ideas and improvements  become a learning organization


Introduction
Improving with…Humor

• Some examples of a “different language” about technical issues:
language

the Murphy’s laws
Proverbs from the
“measurement”
viewpoint
the “Dilbert principle”

Agenda

• Introduction
» Some questions
» The SECI Model
• Q&A


Learning Organizations
Which relationship? (1/2)

• Q: how people and processes are related?
 A: some answers are in Performance Management models (i.e.
Balanced Scorecard, Malcolm Baldridge, EFQM, ...), where HR is the
main enabler for activating the organizational change


Which relationship? (2/2)

• Q: so, if people is a strategic asset for companies, how to make
explicit the tacit knowledge from employees?
• A: The elicitation of creativity could represent a possible
knowledge asset type. Possible advantages:
making easier a real knowledge transfer among employees
 making less boring some technical training (cfr. Senge’s 5th discipline)

• Series of books proposed during the ’90s by Peter Senge
• Goal: be able in converting in actual ‘value’ the potential hidden in
human resources of an organization by a proactive learning
• The 5 Disciplines are:
system thinking, personal mastery, mental models, shared
vision, team learning

• Subject: the Fieldbook proposes several exercises and techniques
• Goal: elicit creativity from your own personnel
• URL: www.fieldbook.com


The SECI Model (1/2)

• SECI model  a Japanese model by Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995)
for achieving deeper knowledge
Objective: create and efficiently manage knowledge in an organization
 Elements: Process model, Ba Knowledge Asset (KA)

• The process  Four phases (tacit  explicit)
 Socialization (empathizing)
 Externalization (articulating)
 Combination (connecting)
 Internalization (embodying)

The SECI Model (2/2)

• Dimensions of analysis
 Interaction types (F2F, virtual)
 Amount of people interacting (individual; collective)

• Four Types of Knowledge Assets:
 experiential: tacit knowledge through common experiences
 conceptual: explicit knowledge articulated through images, symbols and language
 systemic: systemized and packaged explicit knowledge
 routine: tacit knowledge routinized and embedded in actions and practices


‘Ba’: concept & application
Ba

•Ba = Japanese term that stands for “place, context for a creative
exchange of ideas” where people communicate and the process of
conversion of knowledege takes place
 it can be a physical place as an office, but also a shared mental
model, a relationship among people sharing the same interests or
goals
 it can be also a virtual place (“Cyber Ba”) created by ICT tools
Ba
that make easier and manage each way for converting knowledge
throught those platforms.

• Q: Are there ba in our organizations?

• A: If yes, which ones? And how are they managed?


Agenda

• Introduction
» Some questions
» The SECI Model
• Q&A


Simulation Games in SwEng
“Play’n’learn” approach

Some relevant questions…
• Verification of the modalities for training & learning (“Shape is not only
a shape”)
• Notions or knowledge?
• “High-level” or “Deep” knowledge?
• Which level of depth is transferred to the listener?

…and a possible approach: “Play’n’Learn”
Play’n’Learn
• Simulators (es: Flight Simulator)
• Role games
• Electronic games
• Appraisals with dedicated maturity models (e.g. OCDMM)

• Source: www.geocities.com/lbu_measure/games/games.htm

Simulation Games in SwEng
Some Examples on the Net


Agenda

• Introduction
» Some questions
» The SECI Model
• Q&A


Creating your own ‘ba’
Levels of Knowledge: a possible classification

Level Knowledge Type Possible Game
3 – Senior • Managing Concepts • Taboo
• Pictionary
•…
2 – Junior • Notions • Trivial Pursuit
•…
1 - Novice • Learning rules, Awareness • Snakes & Ladders
• Basic knowledge • Monopoly
• Risk
•…


Our games: Creating new games – Attention Points

1. Choose the informative goal to achieve
2. Choose a well-known (and possibly funny) game
 Find the right metaphors with the original rules
3. Contextualize rules to the target domain and…
 Remember the goal of “Play’n’Learn”
 Keep the right time to create rules (and cards), not too quick
4. …Play!
5. And after playing, V&V
 Verify effectiveness of customized rules and cards by playing (complexity levels)
 A KA can be also a single card, not the whole game
 Make the card extension a participatory activity in your team
 “Train the Trainers”: repeat sessions, distributing responsibilities
For instance:
1. Goal: learn/refine the rules for (software) project management
Goal
(including estimation practices with FPA)
2. Game: Monopoly
Game
3. Domain: Project Management
Domain
4. …Play!
Play


Our games: Project-o-poly


Our games: Trivial Pursuit, Taboo
Pursuit

• Trivial Pursuit

• Taboo


Our games: Met-Risk

• Met-Risk


Our games: Who wants to be a CFPS?

• Who wants to be a CFPS?


Our games: Murphy’s SPI Tables

• Our proposal: to have a “murphological view” on Software Measurement
proposal
• Objective: derive useful tips for SPI, following a sort of IDEAL path

• Q: how to use these tips and add value to the organization?
• A: one of the key issues is to improve the organization’s RCA (Root-
Cause-Analysis) capability (CAR – Causal Analysis & Resolution, CMMI
ML5)

Our games: Murphy’s SPI Tables…on Meas & Analysis

Finagle's Creed: Science is true. Don't be misled by facts

Measurement context Measurement & Analysis (MA) is one of the new processes introduced in the
CMMI at ML2 for improving this way of managing an organization, by facts.

Current flaw(s) Often an organization has in place a lot of measures, mostly from the
subjective viewpoints, with Satisfaction Surveys at different levels and for
various audiences, but with a reduced focus on the objective way. Decisions
often are taken on experience and not always supported by numbers and
historical data.
Potential risk(s) Historical data is a powerful tool for supporting the decision-making
process, not a perfect substitute for it or for managers.

Missing • Not balanced objective and subjective measurements
opportunity(ies)
Related SPI CMMI
reference(s) o MA SP 1.2.-1 (Specify Measures)
o MA SP 2.2.-1 (Analyze Measurement Data)
o DAR SP 1.1-1 (Establish Guidelines for Decision Analysis)

Source: L.Buglione & C.Dekkers, A Murphological View on Software Measurement: a serious joke or a funny serious thing?, Proceedings of
SMEF 2006, 3rd Software Measurement European Forum, 10-12 May 2006, Rome (Italy), pp. 315-329


Agenda

• Introduction
» Some questions
» The SECI Model
• Q&A


Conclusions & Prospects

 Be more people-oriented
 (Try to) measure and leverage the ‘human capital’ in your organization
 ‘Use’ not only people knowledge, but also their creativity for achieving
organizational goals faster and better, thought technical motivation
• Play’n’Learn
 People makes the difference
 Coordinate the stimulus to creativity, using a bit of humor
 Choose the right games as metaphors of your own informative goals
 Train the Trainers
• Next Steps
 Build/Reinforce your own ‘ba’
 Make explicit the tacit knowledge inside your organization
 Avoid the ‘silver bullet flu’
 …Try!


Food for thougth….

“The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not ‘Eureka!’ (I found it!)
but ‘That’s funny...’”
(Isaac Azimov)

“Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes.
Art is knowing which ones to keep.”
(Scott Adams)


Q&A

Thanks for your attention!


For further information:

Luigi Buglione Engineering.IT S.p.A.
t +39 06 83074472 Via Riccardo Morandi, 32
m +39 335 1214813 I-00148 Rome (Italy)
luigi.buglione@eng.it www.eng-it.it/spimq

www.eng.it ISMA4 – Chicago, Sep 13-16, 2009 © Luigi Buglione

Play’n’Learn: A Continuous KM Improvement Approach using FSM methods

More Related Content

Similar to Play’n’Learn: A Continuous KM Improvement Approach using FSM methods (20)

More from Luigi Buglione (20)

Play’n’Learn: A Continuous KM Improvement Approach using FSM methods