Keywords

1 Introduction

Degree of success in SPI efforts seems to depend on various factors and conditions. Using the same improvement methods and models may not lead to the same level of success in different organizations. The objective of our efforts is to identify what is causing such differences, and to understand how we can control these factors in a given set of conditions where the SPI activities are situated.

To achieve this objective, we believe the following set of capabilities is needed.

  • Identifying and understanding success factors at a strategic level.

  • Establishing and evaluating strategic factors at the start of SPI efforts.

  • Diagnosing problems in SPI efforts to identify weaknesses among the factors and to identify corrective actions during the performance of SPI activities.

In 2012, we presented the “SPI Strategy Model” [1] that covers the first capability, as a result of various SPI case studies. We also proposed the future directions to address other capabilities. Section 2 explains the overview of the model and our findings.

Since 2012, we have continued our efforts to improve the framework through a group work at JASPIC [2]. Section 3 explains how we expanded the model into a framework, by adding more factors from other sources, by conducting architectural analysis of the factors, and by establishing an evaluation tool kit. Section 4 discusses two case studies at JASPIC to explain how the framework was applied in real SPI efforts to improve their performance. Section 5 discusses future directions based on lessons learned in the case studies and our current ideas to improve the framework. Section 6 explains the relevance of this study with the SPI Manifesto, and shows that the SPI Strategy Framework will ensure the overall implementation of the concepts in the manifesto.

2 SPI Strategy Framework 2012

In our 2012 paper, we conducted case studies in the historical SPI efforts among various organizations, and extracted critical success factors that are considered to have influenced the decisions made in conducting such efforts. Combined with contextual factors and outcome indicators, we developed a model as a basis of the framework.

These factors include the following three types

  1. a.

    Promotion: Promotional factors are identified by analyzing what stakeholders considered most carefully in planning and conducting SPI activities.

  2. b.

    Context: Contextual factors are identified by analyzing why the specific promotional factor was chosen. Causal analysis may reveal a hidden contextual factor when two similar sets of promotional factors lead to different outcomes.

  3. c.

    Outcome: Outcome indicators are identified during the evaluation of SPI activities in terms of business values, performance indicators, and other measures.

Each factor is assigned a “variable” (i.e. “keyword”), and these variables have been expanded as we observed more SPI efforts. Many factors are currently characterized by nominal data, and a few can be characterized by some quantitative data.

We also found that the overall integrity of these factors is a very important attribute to be maintained. Under a given context (e.g. organizational culture, business and project environment, desired performance), appropriate set of promotional factors would lead to a better achievement of outcome indicators.

3 SPI Strategy Framework 2018

In this section, we describe the new concepts introduced in the current framework.

3.1 Adding More Strategic Factors

To expand the applicability of our Strategy Model, we referred to a collection of general strategy theories. One of such sources [3] lists 30 military and business strategies. For each strategy, its historical backgrounds and critical success factors are explained along with their applicability to contemporary business cases.

We analyzed these strategy theories, and mapped each success story to our SPI strategic factors. We usually identified several key factors from the existing factors in our original model, but also found additional factors. We also found new variables in the existing factors. Eventually, we found 15 new factors added to the 2012 version, as shown in Table 1. Table 2 in Appendix A shows a comprehensive list of factors in our current Framework along with a brief description of the factors.

Table 1. Added strategic factors
Full size table

3.2 Understanding Strategy Architecture

To understand the integrity of as many as 30+ factors, we need to discuss at the “Architecture” level. Architecture of a strategy can be discussed through the following perspectives:

  • overall patterns of factors (i.e. typical sets of factors)

  • structure of factors (i.e. relational view of factors)

  • dynamic behaviors (i.e. temporal view of factors)

Pattern Analysis of Strategic Factors

“Strategy” is usually labeled by its characteristic attributes. For example, ISO 33014 lists ten families of change strategies [4]. In our 2012 paper, strategy for each SPI efforts was named by a combination of the organizational structure (e.g. scope of the SPI activity) and its leadership style (e.g. top-down or bottom-up).

In our current Strategy Framework, a strategy for specific SPI efforts is defined by a set of values (i.e. variables) for the model factors, which collectively characterizes the nature of the strategy. In other words, a pattern of strategic factors would comprise a “strategy family”. Through a pattern analysis of sets of factors among multiple SPI efforts, we can identify a new strategy family or describe a strategic similarity in a quantitative term among two different SPI efforts.

Another use of Strategy Pattern is to set the initial strategy for the SPI efforts by selecting from the known patterns. Two SPI efforts with similar contextual factors may select their strategies from the same strategy family, but they should tailor the individual factors differently due to the specific nature of such efforts.

Structure Analysis of Strategic Factors

Based on seven components defined in the “process improvement knowledge model” [5], we categorized our strategic factors. Since these seven components are structured to describe the SPI case, the factors can be grouped using the same structure. Not only this structure facilitates the analysis of SPI efforts from a strategic viewpoint, it also made it easier to further group the factors and analyze the relationships among them. The overall structure is described in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.
figure 1

Structure of strategic factors

Full size image

In Fig. 1, following structural views are described.

  • Strategic factors are first mapped to one of the seven components introduced in the SPI case template [5]. These components include the following:

    • 1. Context

    • 2. Target

    • 3. Derivation of remedy

    • 4. Content of remedy (solution)

    • 5. Realization

    • 6. Results and Effects

    • 7. Validation of activity

  • Factors are further grouped by relevance, and ordered by dependencies. Logical dependencies and temporal flows are described by arrows.

Dynamic Behavior Analysis of Strategic Factors

Figure 1 shows some dynamic natures of the SPI strategy.

  • Factors on the left side are mostly contextual factors that are set in the early stage of the SPI efforts. Factors that correspond to the “Solution” (i.e. technologies and concepts to solve the Target issues) will also serve as inputs to determine other promotional factors.

  • Vertical relationships also show temporal layers among factors. Upper factors are long term factors that may not change in the short run.

  • Most promotional factors will influence the “Realization” part of the SPI case. These factors will be evaluated and revised more frequently as issues arise.

Figure 1 also helps sensitivity analysis of the factors, which will guide establishing and updating the strategy during the SPI efforts. At this time our capability is limited by a lack of quantitative baseline model to conduct fully quantitative analysis.

3.3 Establishing Strategy Evaluation Kit

To evaluate the actual strategy which is planned and/or enacted in specific SPI efforts, we developed a “Strategy Evaluation Kit”. The kit is used in the following steps.

  1. a.

    Describing SPI efforts as “SPI case”

  2. b.

    Characterizing strategic factors of the SPI case.

  3. c.

    Evaluating existence and relevance of strategic factors.

  4. d.

    Diagnosing issues for strategy adjustment.

Describing SPI Efforts as “SPI Case”

First, the “SPI case template” [5] is used to describe the SPI efforts being evaluated. This has been a big improvement from a free form interview in 2012. We usually ask the interviewees to cover the overall “story” even in the early stage of the SPI efforts. Even before conducting the next step of evaluation, we tend to identify many issues, risks and “To Be Determined”, which will clarify the overall planning of the SPI activities.

Characterizing Strategic Factors of the SPI Case

After the SPI case is described (at least at high level), we clarify the intended strategy (both conscious and unconscious). For each strategic factor specified in the Framework, variables (i.e. value of strategic factors) that represent the nature of SPI efforts are determined. At this step, we use a standard questionnaire that includes the factors, typical variables, and their descriptions.

This step can be done as self-evaluation by the stakeholders, but we usually use an interview/dialogue with a third party, which tends to identify more “hidden” or “unconscious” strategic considerations.

As shown in Fig. 1, strategic factors are mapped to the seven components of the SPI case, so the discussion can be facilitated by a logical flow of the SPI case. It can also be described in the form of “SPI Strategy Map”.

Evaluating Existence and Relevance of Strategic Factors

This step can be performed simultaneously starting at the first step (at least informally). Through the characterization of factors, we quickly start to identify the following findings in the strategy.

  • Holes: missing factors or factors that have not been carefully considered.

  • Inconsistency: inappropriate or invalid combination of factors where logical relationships should be satisfied.

  • Weakness: ineffective selection of variables, which can be monitored as a risk.

  • Strength: leverage point for greater outcome.

These findings will lead to either re-planning of the strategy or the identification of risks to be monitored carefully along with possible mitigations.

Diagnosing Issues for Strategy Adjustment

As the SPI activities are performed, issues and problems arise. Some of these can be solved in short time, without changing strategic factors. However, major issues (e.g. total suspension of activities) tend to suggest a misalignment of factors, which requires adjustments of the current strategy. Strategy Diagnosis can be performed at such an event.

If a “Strategy Map” had been developed during the previous evaluation, it is easy to identify a factor as a “Direct Cause” which is causing the outstanding issue. The remediation can be as little as changing the variable of such a factor. For a bigger issue, there may be a more fundamental misalignment. Multiple factors could have been set inappropriately, or some deeper weakness is causing the issue. Causal analysis is required to identify such a “Real Cause” or “Root Cause”.

A structured Strategy Map becomes especially useful here, since it shows the relationships among the factors. We can trace from the “Direct” factor back to the “Root” factor on a diagram. When multiple factors are involved in the issue, we need to consider the controllability of these factors. Lower level factors (see Fig. 1) tend to have a quicker response within a narrow scope, while upper level factors tend to have a greater impact in the long run. Changing one factor will create ripple effects on other factors both in the short run and long run, so we need to understand the dynamic behavior of the overall structure to select and change the appropriate factor.

4 Application of Strategy Framework

We have applied the current (or earlier) version of Strategy Framework to several SPI efforts within JASPIC. Five instances were internally reported from our 2017 efforts. In this paper, we report two case studies briefly to highlight the “strategy adjustment” capability of the framework. Only the Framework-relevant information are reported here, and specific “Target and Solution” and organization’s specific information are not reported to protect the confidentiality.

4.1 Case Study 1: Strategy Evaluation

Case Description:

The organization has identified a “(good) practice” that should have been enforced at the organizational level, but not followed as desired. It had been performed quite effectively in one part of the organization, but not well implemented in another part. Improving the operational adherence became the “Target” of this SPI case. The scope of this case included about 160 people, and the duration was set to be 4 months as an initial cycle. Due to the improvement history in the organization, this effort was not considered as a major challenge.

Application of Strategy Framework:

Strategy evaluation was performed at the planning stage using the strategy evaluation kit described in Sect. 3.3. The effort was described as “SPI case” first using the template, and variables are assigned for the factors by the manager who has been responsible for the effort. Evaluation of these factors revealed that most traditional factors have been already set properly, and one of the new factors, the “internal competitive environment” was suggested as an opportunity to raise the “motivation” factor. The case used the “grouping” factor and compare the actual “improvement performance” of subgroups to establish an internal competitive environment. Motivation was expected to be enhanced through the competition as expected in the gamification of SPI. The case was performed successfully. Percentages of practice adherence improved from 73% to 99%, and stakeholders started realizing the effectiveness of the practice. Stakeholder “Satisfaction”, one of the outcome factors was evaluated high, including that of the managers in the organization. The introduction of the internal competition was considered effective as it showed rapid improvement in the performance.

Lessons Learned:

Success of SPI efforts can be accelerated by utilizing only a few strategic factors. A newly found strategic factor was useful, so adding new factors from a general strategy theory can be beneficial in the future.

4.2 Case Study 2: Strategy Diagnosis

Case Description:

The organization had identified a new technology (development methodology) to be introduced. Pilot projects were performed along with additional steps to document the new processes in the organization’s standard processes before the deployment.

Application of Strategy Framework

First Increment:

This effort was also described in the form of SPI case by one of the facilitator of the effort, and factors were characterized at the initial planning phase. Strategy diagnosis was conducted at one of the early milestones when the efforts faced a major issue after piloting the new technology. Two factors (Factor A and Factor B) were identified as major causes. Structural analysis using relationships among factors (see Fig. 1) suggested Factor B as a direct cause, while Factor A is a root cause for B. Remediation was enacted only for B at this time, since B had a better controllability and a shorter response time. The remediation was effective and the case seemed to have resolved the issue.

Second Increment: After a while, the efforts reported another kind of issue, and a short strategy diagnosis was conducted again. This time, Factor A was determined to be the direct cause. The case implemented remediation for A, which again worked effectively.

Lessons Learned:

Strategy diagnosis can be performed when SPI efforts faces a major issue. It can identify strategic factor(s) that is causing the problem using a Strategy Map. Then an effective remediation can be suggested. When multiple weaknesses/risks exist, problems may be realized incrementally as the activities are performed. The strategy map can reveal the structure of such weaknesses, and multiple adjustments can be enacted either simultaneously or incrementally. Remediating more fundamental weakness will work more effectively in the long run, but probably at a higher cost, so the balance should be considered carefully.

5 Future Directions and Discussions

5.1 Expanding Strategy Framework

We plan to expand the framework to improve our overall capabilities to manage the SPI strategy. For the first capability of “Identifying and understanding success factors at a strategic level”, we plan to continue adding more factors from other strategy theories, both from SPI related studies and from other domains. Current framework has been established based on our experiences plus some literature research, so other inputs would be beneficial to explore other factors.

For the second capability of “Establishing and evaluating strategic factors at the start of SPI efforts”, we need more methodical approach. Selecting a base strategy from known strategy family (patterns) seems to be usual at this time. We’re currently exploring a method using a technology diffusion model. Rule based setting of strategic factors is also planned.

For the third capability of “Diagnosing problems in SPI efforts to identify weaknesses among the factors and to identify corrective actions during the performance of SPI efforts”, we plan to formalize our current approach of using the architecture of factors. Current set of diagnosis rules worked in our case studies, but it needs to be further validated in other SPI cases.

5.2 Applying Strategy Framework

Another plan for future direction is to apply the framework to more SPI efforts. We plan to validate its usefulness through more case studies.

6 SPI Manifesto Revisited

We believe that an effective mechanism for establishing an appropriate SPI strategy will enhance the possibility and degree of success of SPI efforts. This belief is in alignment with the concepts found in the SPI Manifesto [6]. The following components of the manifesto are most relevant with our findings.

  • Value C “Change”: SPI is inherently linked with change.

  • Principle 8 “Manage the organizational change in your improvement effort”.

Establishing a strategy will enhance the overall management capability. Also, the factors in our framework are categorized by the process change structure, so they are more tailorable for the specific organizational change, and more frequent adjustments become feasible.

We also found that every principle in the SPI Manifesto can be mapped to one or more of the strategic factors in the framework, either directly or in combination. Therefore, we believe that a use of the framework will ensure an effective implementation of the SPI Manifesto as a whole. We suggest that the Manifesto refers to the strategy concept at least in Principle 8, or at a global level to ensure a balanced implementation of the Manifesto.

7 Conclusions

We found the following as current understandings with regard to the applicability and usefulness of the SPI Strategy Framework.

  • As a measure to evaluate and discuss the strategy of SPI efforts, current set of strategic factors is adequately expanded and comprehensive within the cases we have experienced. Newly added factors from strategy theories in other domains were found to be useful. However, we still need to consider existing researches to evaluate and improve applicability of the framework.

  • Strategy Evaluation tools are developed to be used for ongoing SPI efforts. Evaluations at planning phases and milestones can be conducted to identify weaknesses or risks to be mitigated or monitored. More formal method for evaluation needs to be developed for greater effectiveness.

  • Strategy Diagnosis can be conducted to identify the problematic factors that are causing the major issues. Strategy adjustment can be made incrementally and flexibly as problems become recognized. More formal method for diagnosis needs to be developed for consistent application.