Harvesting CMMI® Benefits –

The Six Sigma Sickle

SEPG Conference -2006
Nidhi Srivastava
Sathya Murthy

1
 Key Facts About Tata Consultancy Services (TCS)

ƒ Established in 1968 TCS Revenues in US $ Millions

ƒ U.S. offices established in 1979 2500

ƒ More than 45,000 associates globally,

with more than 9,000 in the U.S. 2000

ƒ FY 2004-2005 revenues of $2.24 B 1500

(60% coming from North America)
ƒ Publicly-held – Market cap of approx. 1000
$12 B
500
ƒ Global presence – Operations in
32 countries, 153 offices across
0
the globe FY96 FY98 FY00 FY02 FY04
* All Figures as of April 19, 2005
ƒ More than 50 locations in the U.S.

“TCS has the size and reach unlike any other Indian software company.”

The Wall Street Journal – June 30, 2004

2
The Business Case for Process Improvement @ TCS – WHY

ƒ Productivity Improvement
Cost ƒ Competitive Advantage

Time
ƒ Global Delivery Capability
ƒ Process Agility
ƒ Reusability 6σ
ƒ High Quality Delivery
Quality ƒ Reliability
ƒ Maintainability

3
The Critical Decision : Organization Process Framework

ISO 900 Factors for Framework Selection*

1:2000
General: Process:
BS7799 Geographic Origin/ Spread Assessment
Scientific Origin Assessor
CMMI®
Development/ Stability Process Improvement method
Popularity Improvement Initiation
PCMMSM
Software Specific Improvement Focus
Prescriptive/ Descriptive Analysis techniques
ITIL
Adaptability

COBIT Organization: Quality:

Actors/ Roles/ Stakeholders Quality Perspective
Improvement Focus Progression
Analysis techniques

*Source: A Taxonomy to Compare Software Process Improvement Frameworks, 12th International Conference on Software Quality

Best of People and Technology cannot guarantee best of the Products and
Services unless the Processes are Effective
4
 Why CMMI works for TCS

• Most endorsed benchmark for a process industry

• Focuses on ability to manage the development, acquisition, and
maintenance of products and services
• Facilitates enterprise-wide process improvement
• Provides a consistent, enduring framework that accommodates new
initiatives
• Comprehensive framework providing a clear roadmap to develop

CMMI and optimize processes

• Can be adapted along with other Quality Models: ISO,TBEM, PCMM

Capability Maturity Model and CMM®, CMMI® are registered in the US Patent and Trademark office by Carnegie Mellon University.
PCMM,SCAMPI and SEI are service marks of Carnegie Mellon University.

5
 CMMI Maturity Levels
TCS has been assessed Enterprise wide to be operating at CMMI Level 5 in Sep 2004

5
Optimizing
Focus on process improvement

4
Process measured and controlled Quantitatively
Managed

3
Process characterized for the Defined
organization and is proactive
2
Process characterized for projects Managed
and is often reactive
1
Process unpredictable, poorly Initial
controlled and reactive

Source CMMI V 1.1 Tutorial

6
 Six Sigma Sickle : The Rigor for Success

5
Causal Analysis Tools, TRIZ, Regression Analysis Optimizing

4
Process Capability Analysis, Statistical Process Control Quantitatively
Managed

3
Affinity Diagram, QFD,CTQ Drill Down tree, Benchmarking, Defined
FMEA, QFD, CBM, Hypothesis Testing, Cost Benefit Analyses

2
Project Charter, Process Mapping Managed

1
Initial

7
 Strategic Challenges @ TCS

1. Accelerating Customer
Acquisition

2. Building a Culture of
Ownership, and Empowerment • Bring in Customer driven excellence mind set
• Customer Satisfaction Level
• Customer Referral
3. Seamlessly integrating
organizational processes • Quality in deliverables, do it first time.. Every time
• Cost of Quality
4. Accelerating Revenue Growth
and Sustaining Profitability in the
long term

Quality Framework - iQMS

8
 CMMI know “WHAT”

5 Causal Analysis and Resolution

Optimizing

4
Quantitative Project Management Quantitatively
Managed

3
Organizational Process Definition Defined
Decision Analysis and Resolution
Requirements Development
2 Risk Management
Managed

1
Initial

9
 CMMI know “WHAT” Æ Six Sigma know “HOW”
But do you know Six Sigma tells
how to do this? you How

“What”s of CMMI Know How with Six Sigma

• Causal Analysis and Resolution • Ishikawa, Pareto Chart
• Quantitative Project Management • Control Charts
• Organizational Process Definition • Process Mapping
• Risk Management • Failure Mode Effect Analysis, PPA
• Decision Analysis and Resolution • Criteria Based Matrix
• Requirements Development • Affinity Diagram, QFD

Together, Six Sigma and CMMI help organizations improve marketplace

competitiveness and achieve business goals faster
10
 CMMI know “WHAT” Æ Six Sigma know “HOW” : Example
CMMI Process Areas (Example) Applicable Six Sigma Tools (Example)

Causal Analysis and Resolution Ishikawa / Fishbone diagram

What is a Ishikawa Diagram?
PA of Maturity Level 5
A visual tool used to brainstorm and logically organize
The purpose of Causal Analysis and possible causes to address a specific problem or effect
Resolution is to identify causes of defects
and other problems and take action to How it is relevant?
prevent them from occurring in the future
Ishikawa Diagram helps addressing SG1 of Causal
Analysis and Resolution as it helps in identifying the
Specific Goals root causes

SG 1: Determine Causes of Defects Pareto Chart

SG 2: Address Causes of Defects What is a Pareto?
Pareto chart by Types of mistakes

Pareto chart is a vertical bar graph where a series of 50 100

bars whose heights reflect the frequency or impact of 40 80

problems are arranged in descending order of height

30 60

Percent
Count
20 40

from left to right 10 20

0 0

How it is relevant?
Type Of Mistakes Punctuation Grammar Spelling Typing
Count 22 15 10 3
Percent 44.0 30.0 20.0 6.0
Cum % 44.0 74.0 94.0 100.0

Pareto Chart helps addressing the PA Causal Analysis

and Resolution as it helps in identifying the vital
causes responsible for 80% of the defects.

11
 CMMI know “WHAT” Æ Six Sigma know “HOW” : Example
CMMI Process Areas (Example) Applicable Six Sigma Tools (Example)

Quantitative Project Management Control Charts

PA of Maturity Level 4 What are Control Charts?
A control chart is a graphical plot of a parameter over time used to identify
The purpose of the Quantitative Project special cause (assignable) variations and to make adjustments to the process
Management process area is to quantitatively being monitored.
manage the project’s defined process to achieve How it is relevant?
the project’s established quality and process-
performance objectives Control Charts are the primary tools used for Statistical process Control and
hence can be used to achieve the Specific Goal 2 of the PA Quantitative
Project Management
Specific Goals
40
Upper Control Limit

SG1: Quantitatively Manage the Project 30

SG2: Statistically Manage Sub-process Performance

Measurement
20 Average

10

Lower Control Limit

0

0 10 20

Time Order of Sample

12
 CMMI know “WHAT” Æ Six Sigma know “HOW” : Example
CMMI Process Areas (Example) Applicable Six Sigma Tools (Example)

Risk Management Potential Problem Analysis (PPA)

What is PPA?
PA of Maturity Level 3
The potential-problem analysis method is designed to provide a
The purpose of Risk Management is to identify challenging analysis of a developed idea or action in order to pre-empt
potential problems before they occur, so that risk- any potential for going wrong
handling activities may be planned and invoked How it is relevant?
as needed across the life of the product or project
to mitigate adverse impacts on achieving PPA helps in addressing the specific SG2 of Risk Management as it:
• lists possible causes for each potential problem
objectives. • develops preventive actions and contingency plan

Specific Goals

SG 1: Prepare for Risk Management Failure Mode Effect Analysis (FMEA)

SG 2: Identify and Analyze Risks What is FMEA?
SG 3: Mitigate Risks A tool to identify failure modes of a process or product, estimate the
risks (severity, occurrence and detection) and prioritize actions to be
taken
How it is relevant?

FMEA helps in achieving the specific goals of Risk Management PA as it:

• identifies potential failure modes and rates the severity of their effect
• offers an objective evaluation of the occurrence of causes and the ability to
detect when those causes occur
• ranks the order of potential product and process deficiencies
• focuses on eliminating product and process concerns

13
 Integrating Six Sigma with iQMS - Project Start Up
Project Requirement System Detailed Build & Verification &
Start-Up Analysis Design Design Test Validation

Define Measure Analyze Design Verify

Deliverables :
¾ Task Order
¾ Project Plan

Go
9 ProjectPlan
Project Planning and Released
Pre-Start Up Project Start Up Exit Criteria 9 Work Order
Management
Authorized
9 Signed Task
Order

Six Sigma Tools Templates Checklists

COPIS Project Plan Template Project Start Up Checklist
Project Charter Status report Template Review Report for Contract
MGPP Project Monitoring Review Project Plan Review Checklist
Report Template

3
14
 Integrating Six Sigma with iQMS - Requirement Analysis
Project Requirement System Detailed Build & Verification &
Start-Up Analysis Design Design Test Validation

Define Measure Analyze Design Verify

Deliverables :
¾ System Requirement Specification (SRS)
¾ Updated Project Plan

Go

9 SRS Released
Business Needs Requirements Gathering Requirements Analysis Exit Criteria 9 Updated project
Plan Released

Six Sigma Tools Templates Standards and Checklists

Affinity Diagram Traceability Matrix Template Requirements Standards
QFD System Requirement Specifications Template
CTQ Drill Down Tree

3
15
 Integrating Six Sigma with iQMS - System Design
Project Requirement System Detailed Build & Verification &
Start-Up Analysis Design Design Test Validation

Define Measure Analyze Design Verify

Deliverables :
¾ High Level Design (HLD)
¾ Usability Plan
¾ Prototype
Go

9 HLD Released
High Level Design Design Specifications Design Capability Exit Criteria 9 UsabilityPlan
Concepts Released
9 Reviewed
prototype

Six Sigma Tools Templates Standards & Checklists

Use Cases Traceability Matrix Template Standards for Design
Structure Diagrams Design Template
Pugh Matrix
Risk assessment

16
 Integrating Six Sigma with iQMS - Design, Build & Test
Project Requirement System Detailed Build & Verification &
Start-Up Analysis Design Design Test Validation

Define Measure Analyze Design Verify

Deliverables :
¾ Low Level Design (LLD)
¾ Unit Test Plan (UTP), Unit Test Specifications
(UTS)
¾ System Test Plan (STP), System Test
Specifications (UTS)
¾ Code Go

Test Plan
9 LLD Released
Ò Prepare STP, UTP Construction and Testing
Develop Detailed Design Test Plan Exit Criteria9 UTP, UTS
Ò Review Released
9 STP, STS available
9 Reviewed and unit
tested code

Six Sigma Tools Templates Standards and Checklists

Traceability Matrix Template Standards for Design
Control Impact Matrix
Low Level Design Template Coding Standards
Cost Benefit Analysis
Test Plan Template Code Review Checklists
Design of Experiments
Final Inspection Checklist
Simulation and Modeling
FMEA
Validation Plans

17
 Integrating Six Sigma with iQMS - Verification & Validation
Project Requirement System Detailed Build & Verification &
Start-Up Analysis Design Design Test Validation

Define Measure Analyze Design Verify

Deliverables :
¾ Acceptance letter from Client
¾ Client Feedback Stop
¾ Project Wind-up Note

Test Plan 9 Client acceptance

Ò Prepare STP, UTP Project Wind Up
System Validation Acceptance Testing Exit Criteria
letter
Ò Review 9 Client Feedback
9 Project wind-up
activities
completed

Six Sigma Tools Templates Standards and Checklists

Risk Management Traceability Matrix Template Standards for Testing
FMEA Wind Up Note Template Branch Metrics Standards
Control Charts Client Feedback Template
Process Management Charts

6
18
 Six Sigma Sickle : Harvesting for Success

5 Organizational Innovation and Deployment:

Setup Siebel CoE
Optimizing
Causal Analysis and Resolution:
Reduction of Defects
4
Quantitative Project Management:: Quantitatively
Improve SPAN Managed

3
Risk Management: Defined
Business Continuity and
Disaster Recovery
2
Requirements Management: Managed
Requirement Management
process
1
Initial

19
 Requirements Process– Requirements Management
Analyze
Define High Level process map :
Define
Business Case / Project Needs:
Business Case / Project Needs:
The Data-Dynamics group at offshore are getting requirements and
The Data-Dynamics group at offshore are getting requirements and Develop Perform FMEA
• The Data-Dynamics group at offsite was receiving
modification details about Informatica mapping/SP through
Scripts
modification details about Informatica mapping/SP through
email/Tcons. Whenever any new changes comes for an existing
&
Oracle DB
DevelopRequirements
the and via emails
Implement the
Monitor
email/Tcons. Whenever any new changes comes for an existing Process Each
or tele-cons and keeping track of requirements/designs
mapping or SP, the developer first gathers all the design documents
On Server
mapping or SP, the developer first gathers all the design documents
and modification history. This requirement gathering process is
and modification history. This requirement gathering process is
docs/modification
process Requirement
extremely time consuming and prone to errors. With the increasing
histories was a huge challenge
extremely time consuming and prone to errors. With the increasing
number of mappings/SPs developed at offshore, keeping track of all
number of mappings/SPs developed at offshore, keeping track of all
requirements/designs docs/modification histories is getting difficult day
requirements/designs docs/modification histories is getting difficult day
by day.
by day.
Problem Statement:
Problem Statement:
• Six Sigma DMADV rigor was used to identify stakeholder needs
In the last 6 months there have been continuous changes in all the
Design
In the last 6 months there have been continuous changes in all the
Design
deliverables ( Informatica Mappings, SPs, Functions) provided by the
1. Details Design for improvement of Requirement Management
deliverables ( Informatica Mappings, SPs, Functions) provided by the 1. Details Design for improvement of Requirement Management
data dynamics team of CPQ Selectica Project at offshore. On an process.
data dynamics team of CPQ Selectica Project at offshore. On an process.
average a developer takes 30 mins to 2 hours to gather all 2. Risk analysis with FMEA
average a developer takes 30 mins to 2 hours to gather all 2. Risk analysis with FMEA
• Requirements Management system was developed as part of the
requirements related to any deliverable. This leads to delayed output
requirements related to any deliverable. This leads to delayed output
form the offshore team leading to customer dissatisfaction.
form the offshore team leading to customer dissatisfaction.
Measurable Project Y :
Measurable
The Project
time taken to retrieveYinformation
: about a deliverable .
Goal Statement: The time taken to retrieve information about a deliverable .
Goal Statement:improvement
To reduce the time taken to retrieve all information for any deliverable
To reduce the time taken to retrieve all information for any deliverable
Alternating Architecture :
Alternating Architecture :
Two different architectures were available:
Two different architectures were available:
at offshore to less than 10 mins by FW44. 1. Client-Server Architecture
at offshore toPhase
less than
1 10 mins by FW44. Phase 2 1. Client-Server Architecture
MGPP: 2. Distributed Architecture
MGPP: 1. Specify CTQs 1. Design New Process 2. Distributed Architecture
• Actual results from the collected data after the implementation of the
2. Develop Process Flow 2. Coding & Testing
3. Implementation

monitoring system indicated 100% efficiency in requirement management

Measure Verify
Verify
Customer Segmentation: Impacted Customers Design Evaluation - Actual results:Actual
Design Evaluation - Actual results:Actual
results from the collected data after the implementation of
results from the collected data after the implementation of
the monitoring system indicated 100% efficiency in
the monitoring system indicated 100% efficiency in
database monitoring
Onsite Coordinators Offshore Developers database monitoring

Data Migration Team at onsite Data Migration Team at offshore

CTQ Measures:
CTQ Measures:
• Ensuring 100% execution of Improvement of Requirement
• Ensuring 100% execution of Improvement of Requirement
Management Process.
Management Process.
20
Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery: Risk Management
Business situation
• After Sept 11, existing business continuity plans were
• Existing Business Continuity Plans (BCP)Point and Disaster Recovery Plans
Point of
complete
of
inadequate to cater to increasing customer concerns on
(DRP) were inadequate to cater to increasing Disastercustomer concerns on security
recovery

Support Level
security and continuity.
and continuity y
• There was a need to re-engineer current processes in
x
continuing
• Six support servicesDMAIC
Sigma during and rigor
after a disaster
used to enhance Business Continuity Plan Time
situation Time for Time for Disaster
BCP DRP
Business Recovery
• Mission Critical applications were identified and back up support personnel
Continuity

created at alternate locations Analyze:

Goal:
• The disaster scenarios and its root causes were analyzed
• Business
To improve BCP Continuity
and DRP madeRecovery
and Disaster mandatory part ofimpact
• The Riskof the
Management
disaster in terms offor every
service outage and cost of
Planning maintenance project failure were determined
Measure: Improve and Control:
The two Critical Recovery Timeframes were : • BCP enhanced
x, Business Continuity • Mission critical applications (MCAs) identified

y, Disaster Recovery • Backup support personnel at alternate locations for MCAs created
• Processes for role transition of backup personnel documented
• Mock drills conducted to assess readiness for disasters
21
 Reduction of Defects – Causal Analysis and Resolution
PA- Causal Analysis and Resolution: Analyze & Improve:Vital X’s and Solutions
To identify causes of defects and other problems and take action to prevent CTQ Vital X (In Control) Improvement Plan
them from occurring in future. Reduction of 1. Inconsistency in Testing 1. Dedicated Quality
• A high level study of operational metrics in Defect Tracker indicated thatDefects Process Assurance Team
2. New Testing Process
roughly
Define:Business Case 50% of the cases reported were either defects in delivery or
A high level study of operational metrics in Defect Tracker for business website Cycle Time - 1. Time to Assign Change 1. Separate Team for
indicated thatproduction
roughly 50% of the problem
cases reported and thedefects
cycle timeorfor fixing defects was unpredictable
Response Request Defect Change Requests
were either in delivery
2. Time for Clarification 2. Remove Estimation and
production problems. Further the cycle time for fixing defects, when reported was Approval cycle
3. Time for Estimation
unpredictable.
• Causal Analysis techniques were used toCycle identify
Time - vital causes
1. Response Time and1. solutions
Separate Team for
Goal Statement: Resolution 2. Time to Schedule Defect Change Requests
To reduce theto address
number them
of defects and were
Production identified
problems using Six Sigma rigor
reported, by 50%. Development 2. Quality Assurance Build
To fix 100% defects reported, within an acceptable and agreed upon time frame, 3. Time for Deployment from offshore
with a tolerance of 5 %
• A dedicated
Measure:CTQ's and Baseline Quality Assurance Group and a separateImprovements
Control:Process group for defect
CTQ
change
Segment
requests
Mean
was setup
Standard
Deviation
within the project
Process Sigma CTQ team Segment Mean Standard
Deviation
Process
Sigma
Number of All 45.12 11.65 0 Number of All 13.67 9.29 2.2
Defects (%)
• Customer
Cycle Time – Severity1
signed
4.84
off savings
4.49
of USD
0.699
125,000 incurred through the Defects (%)

improvements
Response Time
(Days) Severity2 6.22 8.29 0.899
Cycle Time –
Response
Severity1 0.5 0.707 2.2

Time (Days) Severity2 0.833 0.408 1.9

Severity3 13.69 11.68 1.0
Severity3 3.0 3.98 2.6
Severity4 51.6 17.3 -0.899
Severity4 3.63 5.83 2.6
Cycle Time – Severity1 7.55 7.39 0.699
Resolution Time Cycle Time – Severity1 0.5 0.707 2.2
(Days) Severity2 8.61 10.68 0.899 Resolution
Time (Days) Severity2 1.0 0.632 3.0
Severity3 19.38 19.24 1.3
Severity3 4.38 3.93 4.2
Severity4 58.6 39.93 0.8
Severity4 16.12 18.71 2.2
Improvements across the board.
Net Revenues signed off by Customer: $125,000 22
Setup Siebel CoE – Organizational Innovation and Deployment
PA- Organizational Innovation and Deployment: Analyze:
To select and deploy incremental and innovative improvements that measurably • High Level Process Map was prepared
• Due to shortage of Siebel skilled resources,
improve the organization’s processes and technologies. The improvements Customer
• Scorecard had to
developed to monitor use high cost
the CoE
alternatives
support the organization’s quality and process-performance objectives as
derived from the organization’s business objectives
“Quarterly Tracking Sheet”
Define: Activities Responsibility Jan-Nov 01 Dec-01 Q1 - 02 Q1 - 02 Q2 - 02 Q2 - 02 Q3 - 02 Q3 - 02 Q4 - 02 Q4 - 02

Problem Statement:
(Baseline) Planned Actual Planned Actual Planned Actual Planned Actual

• Using Six Sigma DMADV rigor a Siebel Center of Excellence was developed
Business GE 100% 100% 100% 95% 90%
Requirements CoE - ON 0% 0% 0% 5% 10%

In the past due to shortage of Siebel skilled resources, Customer added capacity Functional
CoE - OFF
GE
0%
100% 100%
0%
100%
0% 0%
90%
0%
75%

to the team thru external resources at phenomenal costs. Additional resources

Requirements CoE - ON 0% 0% 0% 10% 25%

at GDC
CoE - OFF 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Design GE 70% 70% 50% 25% 25%

were added on a “Time and Material” basis and the prior Customer Siebel team Development GE
CoE - ON
CoE - OFF
30%
0%
20%
30%
0%
0%
40%
10%
0%
50%
25%
0%
50%
25%
0%

had little or no Offshore leverage. CoE - ON

CoE - OFF
80%
0%
75%
25%
40%
60%
25%
75%
25%
75%
Testing GE 50% 50% 50% 25% 25%
CoE - ON 50% 35% 25% 50% 25%

Goal Statement : CoE - OFF 0% 15% 25% 25% 50%

• Members of the CoE were deployed for the customer projects

Deployment GE 100% 75% 75% 50% 50%

Establish a highly skilled Siebel-capacity at efficient cost. To set-up the CoE

CoE - ON 0% 25% 25% 50% 50%
CoE - OFF 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Knowledge GE 45%

using “Fixed Price” pricing model and achieving high offshore leverage. Transfer

Documentatio GE
CoE - ON
CoE - OFF
75%
55%
0%
50% 50% 33% 33% 33%
n CoE - ON 10% 50% 35% 33% 33% 33%

MGPP: CoE - OFF

R&D / analysis GE
0% 15% 33% 33% 33%

• Customer signed off savings of USD 581,250 incurred through the

activities CoE - ON

Phase 1: Setting up the CoE at Onsite, having cross-training within the team and GECIS
CoE - OFF
GE

1 successful Siebel Release in 3 months.

escalated CoE - ON
Support issues CoE - OFF

improvements
Resources GE 4 5 6 6 6 6

Phase 2: On-Shore/Off-shore Model deployed, ODC team Siebel Certified, SLAs

CoE - ON 2 6 4 2 2 2
CoE - OFF 1 0 2 4 3 3

defined and reported

Measure: Design:
Bug Reported To
ITRC & Routed
to Siebel Support
Siebel Support
Team Tests Bug
& Validates

• Achieved First Time Right and On Time Delivery by the Center of Excellence
Team Reported Behavior

Customers Segmentation: Expected

• Technology Team
/Designed SS Logs Into PVCS; BL Designates PM PL Determines
Siebel Support Behavior Type = Defect; Testers, Sets Owner Resolution/Work
Notifies User Differs from Owner & Submitter Sets Priority, = PL; Current Around &

PVCS Tracker – process flow

User = BL; State = Subm it Owner = PM State = Assigned Target Release

team
Outcome
N Y

• Business Leads / Super Users

o e
s

KEY
DL Unit & Performance CM Sets PL Sets PL
BL =Business DL Configures

• Sales Representatives (End Users / Daily Siebel User)

Tests; Owner = CM; Owner = DL; Owner = CM; Designs Solution
Lead Application Per
Current State = Current State = Current State = & Implementation
Design Document
CM = COE DEV/Test Completed In Progress Assigned Strategy
Manager

CBM was used to prioritize CTQs

DL= Developer
PL=Project Lead
PM =Program

Measures of Success:
Manager CM Perform s DEV to BL Integration N BL Sets Owner
QA Migration; Owner = Perform s & Assurance o = CM; Current
SS=Siebel BL; Current State = Integration & Testing State = Testing
Support M igrated/Loaded to QA Assurance Testing Successful Failed in QA

• Compliance of the SLA between ODC

Stop e
First Level Need / Second Level Need / Expectation Characteristic Measure Survey Control Plan and Strategy Status s
Need Category Ques
Siebel Team Requirements gathering is perfect Bug free application, no rework FTR SLA Requirements document, Done
understands required SLA
business needs BL BL Validates Change CM Perform s QA to PROD
BL Sets Owner =
Design meets specifications Bug free application, no rework FTR SLA Design document, SLA Done
Notifies Business In Production; M igration; Sets Owner =

Verify:
required CM ; Current State

Support team and IT Team

Understands business needs Follow-up survey Q1 Done Users of Change Current State = Validated BL; Current State =
= Validated in QA
Help in Screen requests Feasibility study of the requests Follow-up survey Q2 R&D document with time Done In Production In PROD; State = Close M igrated/Loaded to PROD
assessment and estimates shared with
prioritization of users
needs
Sharing knowledge of Siebel Follow-up survey Q3 Functionality available Done
functionality to meet requests shared with users thru
meetings/documents

• Customer satisfaction index as expected

Appropriate Accommodating maximum Enhance Siebel team capacity Setup of Siebel CoE Added developers and Done

FTR and OTD SLAs met by the ODC Team

balance between priority requests CoE manager
delivery and
schedules
Siebel skilled resources to increase Siebel Certified resources All CoE resources to be In
the productivity certified, to include progress,
certification on latest 100% by
Siebel version May 2002
Yearly Release Need enough time to plan Yearly Release Plan Yearly Release Plan Done

• Siebel Application performance meets Benefits sign-off by Customer Quality Leader

plan requests across various releases
Specific Release Enough notice to plan requests Notice period for the Release Release process PVCS Tracker and SOPs Done
Plan
Release details Details of SCRs IN and OUT of the Release process PVCS Tracker and SOPs Done
Release
Rationale for selection or rejection Feasibility study of the requests Release process R&D document with time Done
of requests estimates shared with
users

Cost Savings: (Contractor) – (Fixed Price Cost )

Expand my Educate the super users about Siebel team and users check W eekly status meetings, Done

SLAs with End Users

knowledge Siebel functionality points bi-weekly tactical
meetings, monthly
strategic meetings

Share best practices Follow-up survey Q3 Done

Help realign with Big "Ys" Siebel team and users check W eekly status meetings, Done
points bi-weekly tactical

(US $) 791,250 – 210,000 = 581,250

meetings, monthly
strategic meetings

23
 For questions contact

Nidhi Srivastava,

Quality Practice Head, Tata

Consultancy Services, North
America, Sathya Murthy,

1245 E Diehl Road, Suite 300, Quality Manager, Tata Consultancy

Naperville, IL 60563 Services, North America,

Email: [email protected] 3032 Bunker Hill Lane, Suite 207

Website: www.tcs.com Santa Clara, CA

Email: [email protected]

Website : www.tcs.com
24