Tag Archives: Rajesh Naik

Quiz Book: People CMM® (V2.0) available on Amazon Kindle – with 3 Quizzes of 35 questions each

Quiz Book: People CMM® (v2.0) Book CoverTitle: Quiz Book: People CMM® (Version 2.0)

Authors: Rajesh Naik and Swapna Kishore

ASIN: B00PN2IE0I

This eBook includes 3 tests, each with 35 objective-type questions.

These quizzes are suitable for:

  • Human Resource personnel
  • People CMM® specialists, consultants, and trainers
  • Process/ QA professionals
  • Appraisal Team Members (ATMs)
  • Candidate lead appraisers and instructors
  • Process compliance auditors

The Kindle eBook is available here: Amazon.com and Amazon.in

Note: You can read Kindle eBooks on laptops, tablets, and phones by installing free apps available from Amazon .

 

Use the Look Inside! feature at Amazon for a sample.

 

Please feel free to to share your views, experiences, and queries, using the “comments” feature available.
You may also forward the link to this post to your friends, colleagues, and anyone else who may be interested.

Notes:

Nothing Official About It! – The views presented above are in no manner reflective of the official views of any organization, community, group, institute, or association. They may not even be the official views of the author of this post :-).


I am Rajesh Naik. I am an author, management consultant and trainer, helping IT and other tech companies improve their processes and performance. I also specialize in CMMI® (DEV and SVC), People CMM® and Balanced Scorecard. I am a CMMI Institute certified/ authorized Instructor and Lead Appraiser for CMMI® and People CMM®. I am available on LinkedIn and I will be glad to accept your invite. For more information please click here.

Quiz Book: CMMI® – DEV (V1.3) available on Amazon Kindle – with 3 Quizzes of 35 questions each

Quiz Book: CMMI® - DEV (v1.3) Book Cover

Title: Quiz Book: CMMI® – DEV (v1.3)

Authors: Rajesh Naik and Swapna Kishore

ASIN: B00IWJIWJM

This eBook includes 3 tests, each with 35 objective-type questions.

These quizzes are suitable for:

  • Process/ Quality Assurance/ EPG/ PEG professionals
  • CMMI® – DEV specialists, consultants, and trainers
  • Appraisal Team Members (ATMs)
  • Candidate lead appraisers and instructors
  • Process compliance auditors

The Kindle eBook is available here: Amazon.com and Amazon.in

Note: You can read Kindle eBooks on laptops, tablets, and phones by installing free apps available from Amazon .

 

Use the Look Inside! feature at Amazon for a sample.

 

Please feel free to to share your views, experiences, and queries, using the “comments” feature available.
You may also forward the link to this post to your friends, colleagues, and anyone else who may be interested.

Notes:

Nothing Official About It! – The views presented above are in no manner reflective of the official views of any organization, community, group, institute, or association. They may not even be the official views of the author of this post :-).


I am Rajesh Naik. I am an author, management consultant and trainer, helping IT and other tech companies improve their processes and performance. I also specialize in CMMI® (DEV and SVC), People CMM® and Balanced Scorecard. I am a CMMI Institute certified/ authorized Instructor and Lead Appraiser for CMMI® and People CMM®. I am available on LinkedIn and I will be glad to accept your invite. For more information please click here.

Book Review – “A Mathematician Reads the Newspaper” by John Allen Paulos

This is the book from which I had adopted two puzzles that I used in the last few posts.

A Mathematician Reads the Newspaper Cover

Title A Mathematician Reads the Newspaper: Making Sense of Numbers in the Headlines
Author John Allen Paulos
Publishing Date 1995
Publisher First by Basic Books, then by Penguin
Formats Available Paperback, Kindle
Available at Amazon.com, Amazon.in, and Flipkart.

Here is an example of mistaken precision quoted in the book:

“…museum guard who claimed the dinosaur on exhibit was 65,000,038 years old. When pressed about the precision of the number, the guard says that a scientist told him the dinosaur was 65 million years old when he was hired 38 years before”

In this book, John Allen Paulos takes us through the various sections of the newspapers and explains how math and numbers are key elements behind every story that we read. The book is quirky, perceptive, and uses a ‘light’ approach. Each chapter is very short (about 2 to 3 pages) and covers one topic or one segment of the newspaper. He keeps using analytical thinking and logic together with numbers and simple formulae to keep us hooked. Surprisingly, I found that the longer chapters were more engrossing than the shorter ones.

There are sections on population, taxes, horoscopes, sports, literacy, SAT scores, gender issues, rodent population, rate of technological changes, health care plans, drug approvals, the super collider, and other such topics that we read in the newspapers every day.

Here is something I found interesting in his coverage on obituaries:

“I wonder about the relationships among the obituary’s length, L; the deceased’s achievements, A; his or her fame, F (which is largely independent of achievement); the interval between these and death, I; and the number of other “important” deaths that day, D. Maybe it’s something roughly like L = (A X FXF)/ Sqrt (I X D)….”

Another interesting concept was how minor differences between two populations can seem huge when we consider the behaviour at the extremes of the populations. For example, if we compare student admission percentages to top colleges across different communities, we may find that a minor difference in education levels in the two communities can result in huge differences in the number of admissions, because we are looking at the extremely talented population of both communities.

And through many examples, he illustrates that human beings do not have an intuitive grasp of probability. For example, we are likely to get many continuous sequences of heads (or tails) in real flips of a coin, than we expect (we expect the results to keep changing from head to tail more frequently).

Having read this delightful book, I think I will end up applying a bit more critical thinking to newspaper articles I read from now on…

About the author

John Allen Paulos is an American professor of mathematics at Temple University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Professor Paulos is famous for his work on mathematical literacy and illiteracy.

Other books by Paulos are Innumeracy, Mathematics and Humor, Irreligion, I Think, Therefore I Laugh, Beyond Numeracy, A Mathematician Plays The Stock Market, and Once Upon A Number.

You can also view this rather long video where the author talks about randomness and many mistakes we make while dealing with it (uploaded on youtube):

If the clip does not load click here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__-S2WXmJwU

The book is available at: Amazon.com, Amazon.in, and Flipkart.

Please use the comment feature below to send in your responses.

Other Book Reviews

Other book reviews uploaded on the same blog:

Please feel free to share your views, experiences or queries, using the “comments” feature available.

Notes:

Nothing Official About It! – The views presented above are in no manner reflective of the official views of any organization, community, group, institute, or association. They may not even be the official views of the author of this post :-).


I am Rajesh Naik. I am an author, management consultant and trainer, helping IT and other tech companies improve their processes and performance. I also specialize in CMMI® (DEV and SVC), People CMM® and Balanced Scorecard. I am a CMMI Institute certified/ authorized Instructor and Lead Appraiser for CMMI® and People CMM®. I am available on LinkedIn and I will be glad to accept your invite. For more information please click here.

Probability/ Stats Puzzles – 2 & 3 (Solutions)

If you’ve not seen/ attempted the puzzles, the links are here: puzzle-2 and puzzle-3. These were presented in earlier posts.

Both these puzzles are adopted from a delightful little book by John Allen Paulos titled A Mathematician Reads the Newspaper.

I will provide more details about the book next week. For now, here are the solutions to the two puzzles.

Puzzle-2

You need to call the throw of a dice a 1000 times. Like all dices, in each throw, this dice also gives you a number between 1 and 6. You are also told that the dice is slightly distorted / damaged – the probability of getting the six results is as follows: 1- 20%; 2- 10%; 3- 25%; 4-15%; 5-15%; 6-15%.

What strategy would you use to call the answers for the 1000 throws? Your objective is to get the right answer for a maximum of the throws.

Solution:

Call 3, 3, 3, 3…. all the 1000 times. This will get you aprroximately 250 right calls.

Or better still, tell the dice roller that your call is 3 all the thousand times, go for a coffee, or do something useful, come back after some time.

Puzzle-3

Two contestants are to decide on the winner of 10 mn by flipping a coin. The winner will be the one who reaches six (6) correct calls first.

After 8 flips, contestant A has 5 correct calls, and contestant B has 3 correct calls. At this stage they agree NOT to continue with the flipping of the coin. Here are some proposals on how the money should be shared:

  1. Contestant A says that since he is leading, he should get the 10mn.
  2. Contestant B says that since the flipping was called off before the final result, the 10mn should be shared equally.
  3. The show-host says that TV quiz program sponsors should retain the 10mn, since both the contestants agreed to call off the contest.
  4. Someone from the audience suggests that the prize money be split in the 5:3 ratio (5 for A and 3 for B), in line with the number of right calls
  5. A mathematician calls in to suggest that the money be split A7:B1 (try and guess the logic here, it is related to the probability of winning from this point, if the flipping had continued)

Solution:

The question on how the money is to be shared is not a mathematical /statistical problem at all! It is a matter of fairness and justice, and each solution proposed (and some yet to be proposed) has its own merit.

However, if you have not yet worked out the logic of why the mathematician proposed option # 5 above, here it is:

For contestant B to win 6 calls in a row, he/ she needs to call ALL of the next three calls correctly (even if he / she calls one incorrectly, A will reach 6 right calls. So the probability of B winning is (0.5) x (0.5) x (0.5) = 0.125; which means A has a probability of 0.875 – that is 7:1.

Next week, I will cover the source of these puzzles, a book titled A Mathematician Reads the Newspaper by John Allen Paulos.

Please feel free to to share your views, experiences, and queries, using the “comments” feature available.
You may also forward the link to this post to your friends, colleagues, and anyone else who may be interested.

Notes:

Nothing Official About It! – The views presented above are in no manner reflective of the official views of any organization, community, group, institute, country, government, or association. They may not even be the official views of the author of this post :-).


I am Rajesh Naik. I am an author, management consultant and trainer, helping IT and other tech companies improve their processes and performance. I also specialize in CMMI® (DEV and SVC), People CMM® and Balanced Scorecard. I am a CMMI Institute certified/ authorized Instructor and Lead Appraiser for CMMI® and People CMM®. I am available on LinkedIn and I will be glad to accept your invite. For more information please click here.

Probability/ Stats Puzzle – 3

I encountered another problem in the same book (I will disclose the name of the book in a later post along with the answer). Here is the problem:

Coin FlipTwo contestants have reached the last round of a TV quiz contest and one of them is hoping to be the winner of a prize of 10 mn (currency deliberately left vague) via a tie-breaker. Even after the tie-breaker, neither of them has beaten the other.

The show-host offers to break the tie with a coin (my guess is that the show host did not have any more questions left :-)). However, to maintain the suspense and gain more TRP, he proposes that the winner will be one who reaches six (6) correct calls first.

After 8 flips, contestant A has 5 correct calls, and contestant B has 3 correct calls. At this stage both the contestants agree NOT to continue with the flipping of the coin (maybe the coin is lost or it breaks or falls into something disgusting – use your imagination). They have to decide on the winner based on result of the 8 flips.

Here are some proposals:

  1. Contestant A says that since he is leading, he should get the 10mn.
  2. Contestant B says that since the flipping was called off before the final result, the 10mn should be shared equally.
  3. The show-host says that TV quiz program sponsors should retain the 10mn, since both the contestants agreed to call off the contest.
  4. Someone from the audience suggests that the prize money be split in the 5:3 ratio (5 for A and 3 for B), in line with the number of right calls
  5. A mathematician calls in to suggest that the money be split A7:B1 (try and guess the logic here, it is related to the probability of winning from this point, if the flipping had continued)
  6. Any other…

It is interesting to note so many options to a simple situation.

Please share your suggestions in the “comments” feature available below.


I am Rajesh Naik. I am an author, management consultant and trainer, helping IT and other tech companies improve their processes and performance. I also specialize in CMMI® (DEV and SVC), People CMM® and Balanced Scorecard. I am a CMMI Institute certified/ authorized Instructor and Lead Appraiser for CMMI® and People CMM®. I am available on LinkedIn and I will be glad to accept your invite. For more information please click here.

Probability/ Stats Puzzle – 2

I encountered this simple problem in a book (I will disclose the name of the book in a later post along with the answer).

Here is the problem:

You need to call the throw of a dice a 1000 times. Like all dices, in each throw, this dice also gives you a number between 1 and 6. You are also told that the dice is slightly distorted / damaged – the probability of getting the six results is as follows: 1- 20%; 2- 10%; 3- 25%; 4-15%; 5-15%; 6-15%.

What strategy would you use to call the answers for the 1000 throws? Your objective is to get the right answer for a maximum of the throws.

Green Dice

Here are some answers that I have heard:

  1. Call the number ‘3’ all the 1000 times – this is the most common answer I have heard.
  2. Call the numbers in the same pattern as the probability: 1- 200 times; 2- 100 times; 3- 250 times; 4-150 times; 5-150 times; 6-150 times.
  3. Call the numbers randomly, ignoring the distortion in the dice.
  4. A variation of 2 above is to call the numbers in the same pattern, but also taking into account the answers to the past throws, so that we try and keep the probabilities similar to the expected patterns. So if in the first 100 throws, 1 has already rolled more than 20% and 2 has been rolled less than 10%, then in the 101st throw, call 2 instead of 1, and so on.
  5. There are other possible answers too – and the right one may not be listed above (this is not a mutiple choice question 🙂 )

Work out the reasons for your choice, not just make a choice. The reasons are more important.

This is a simple question, and you should get the right answer.

The answer will be posted later.

Please share your views in the “comments” feature available.

 


I am Rajesh Naik. I am an author, management consultant and trainer, helping IT and other tech companies improve their processes and performance. I also specialize in CMMI® (DEV and SVC), People CMM® and Balanced Scorecard. I am a CMMI Institute certified/ authorized Instructor and Lead Appraiser for CMMI® and People CMM®. I am available on LinkedIn and I will be glad to accept your invite. For more information please click here.

Book Review – “Made To Stick” by Chip Heath and Dan Heath

The messages from this book have ‘stuck’ to me over seven years. I remember this book very well and have been implicitly and explicitly guided by concepts that I learnt when I read the book long ago.

The authors have managed to implement what they are trying to teach :-)!

The full title of the book Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Take Hold and Others Come Unstuck – makes the intent of the authors very clear. It is about conveying ideas and messages more effectively to achieve whatever you are trying to achieve Anyway, here is a passage from the Introduction of the book:

“We wrote this book to help you make your ideas stick. By ‘stick’, we mean that your ideas are understood and remembered, and have a lasting impact – they change your audience’s opinions and behavior.”

 — Introduction: What Sticks? – Made to Stick

Details of Made to Stick

Made to Stick Book Cover
Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Take Hold and Others Come Unstuck

Authors: Chip Heath and Dan Heath

Publishing Date: 2007

Publisher: Arrow Books

Formats Available In: Hardcover, Paperback, Kindle, Audio

Available at: Amazon.com, Amazon.in, and Flipkart

This book is an entertaining, practical guide to effective communication. Extremely well-written, it uses the principles that are proposed in the book for effectively making ideas stick with the audience. It continues with the idea of ‘stickiness’ earlier popularized by Malcolm Gladwell in his book The Tipping Point.

The book contains a number of examples, cases, urban legends, personal stories, and analysis that are used to support the principles of effective communication proposed by the authors. The “Clinic” in each Chapter is used to illustrate the application of the principles discussed to a specific case study or idea.

According to the book, there are six principles of effective communication that combine to form the acronym SUCCES (the last S from “success” is absent). These six principles are:

  • Simplicity. Strip an idea to its core. Keep prioritizing the ideas till you have something simple and profound.
  • Unexpectedness. Use surprise to grab the audience’s attention.
  • Concreteness. Avoid the abstract. Avoid ambiguity. Use vivid images.
  • Credibility. Use whatever will make people believe in the idea. This could be the ‘messenger’ or the way the message is conveyed. (“For instance, if you have the security contract for Fort Knox, you are in the running for any security contract“)
  • Emotional. Form an association between something they do care about to connect to things they don’t yet care about. (The most frequent reason for unsuccessful advertising is advertisers who are so full of their own accomplishments – ‘the world’s best seed!’ – that they forget to tell us why we should buy it  – ‘to have the world’s best lawn!‘)
  • Stories. People remember stories compared to abstract messages. (For example, Subway used the story of a man who lost a lot of weight while eating their diet sandwich instead of providing data on calories and fat content of the sandwich).

There are over a hundred examples of successful messaging to illustrate each of the six principles. The book is extremely easy to read and difficult to put down once you start.

I strongly recommend at least one read of the book to following professionals – they can keep the principles in mind while crafting messages and campaigns:

  • Executive management
  • Marketing/ sales folks
  • HR Policy makers
  • Consultants/ Trainers
  • People trying to handle change management

The book is available in multiple formats at Amazon.com, Amazon.in, and Flipkart. The book should be equally readable in all the formats – I read the paperback format.

About the authors

Chip Heath is a Professor of Organizational Behavior in the Graduate School of Business at Stanford University. His research examines why certain ideas – ranging from urban legends to folk medical cures, from Chicken Soup for the Soul stories to business strategy myths – survive and prosper in the social marketplace of ideas.

Dan Heath is a Senior Fellow at Duke University’s CASE center, which supports entrepreneurs who are fighting for social good.

Chip and Dan Heath have jointly co-authored another book Switch: How to change things when change is hard.

You can also view this 4:44 min video where the authors Chip and Dan Heath are being interviewed (uploaded on youtube):

If the clip does not load click here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zlld9TA-Vg

The book is available at: Amazon.com, Amazon.in, and Flipkart

Quick Quiz

In the two you tube clips below, can you figure out which of the principles of SUCCES are most prominently used?

Clip-1: Series of “You Don’t Mess With Texas” ads used to address littering in the state of Texas with celebrities conveying the message

If the clip does not load, use http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYp1gc5joQg&list=PLilaP-sCTPd2aCHcVHdnNpNT7AXXKXxO5

Clip-2: A “Belt Up” ad that won a lot of awards

If the clip does not load, use http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZ2EKswyTao

Please use the comment feature below to send in your responses.

Other Book Reviews

Other book reviews uploaded on the same blog:

Please feel free to share your views, experiences or queries, using the “comments” feature available.

Notes:

Nothing Official About It! – The views presented above are in no manner reflective of the official views of any organization, community, group, institute, or association. They may not even be the official views of the author of this post :-).


I am Rajesh Naik. I am an author, management consultant and trainer, helping IT and other tech companies improve their processes and performance. I also specialize in CMMI® (DEV and SVC), People CMM® and Balanced Scorecard. I am a CMMI Institute certified/ authorized Instructor and Lead Appraiser for CMMI® and People CMM®. I am available on LinkedIn and I will be glad to accept your invite. For more information please click here.

Henlon’s Razor: Sound Principle for Processing Interpersonal Interactions

Here is the statement, attributed to Robert J. Henlon:

  • "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity".

Though the origin is not too clear, there are others who have been credited with similar statements/ quotes. Here are a few of them.

Science Fiction author Robert A. Heinlein in his short story Logic of Empire:

  • “You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity”

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe in The Sorrows of Young Werther:

  • “…misunderstandings and neglect create more confusion in this world than trickery and malice. At any rate, the last two are certainly much less frequent.”

Jane West’s The Loyalists states something similar in a more sincere (less cynical/ insulting) manner:

  • “Let us not attribute to malice and cruelty what may be referred to less criminal motives. Do we not often afflict others undesignedly, and, from mere carelessness, neglect to relieve distress?”

All of the above can be applied to actions, situations, and interactions that cause inconvenience, hurt and pain, for many reasons:

  1. It is possible that there was no malice, deliberate intention, or evil motives for the action/ inaction by the other party. Maybe it truly was carelessness, incompetence, or stupidity.
  2. It is easier to emotionally cope up with consequences of the action/ inaction if you do not think that it was the result of malice (whether or not it is true).
  3. When your action / inaction is inconvenient/ hurtful, it may be preferable (for you) to have others attribute it carelessness, incompetence, or stupidity (though some people may prefer being known as ‘evil’ rather than ‘incompetent’ 🙂 ). If so, it is preferable that everyone uses the same principle.

People often attribute deliberate malafide intent on the powerful (Executive Management, Human Resources) within the organization. The same holds true for the way journalists analyze governments. Most of these powerful people are clueless themselves. It may therefore helpful to remember that:

  • “Cock-up theories”  are more likely to explain man-made problems than conspiracy theories.
    [This also means ‘luck and randomness is more likely to explain success than thought-out strategy’]

You many also want to read Occam’s Razor for Design of Systems and Processes.

Please feel free to share your views, experiences, and queries, using the “comments” feature available.
You may also forward the link to this post to your friends, colleagues, and anyone else who may be interested.

Notes:

Nothing Official About It! – The views presented above are in no manner reflective of the official views of any organization, community, group, institute, country, government, or association. They may not even be the official views of the author of this post :-).


I am Rajesh Naik. I am an author, management consultant and trainer, helping IT and other tech companies improve their processes and performance. I also specialize in CMMI® (DEV and SVC), People CMM® and Balanced Scorecard. I am a CMMI Institute certified/ authorized Instructor and Lead Appraiser for CMMI® and People CMM®. I am available on LinkedIn and I will be glad to accept your invite. For more information please click here.

Extension Appraisals and Delta Appraisals – Planned changes in SCAMPI(sm)

Some months ago, a new version of the MDD (v1.3a) was released. One of the reactions to the announcement was “does it have provision for extending current appraisal results beyond 3 years?” Or “Is there some kind of surveillance being added to increase the validity?” or “is there a SCAMPISM – M (M for maintenance) in this new version?” Well, the version released in Oct 2013 (v1.3a) does not have it.

However, the draft of a new version contains proposals for extension of appraisal results.

There are two key proposed enhancements in the SCAMPISM method. These are a part of the draft version (v1.4 draft) of the MDD and have been circulated for review comments. The two key enhancements are:

  1. SCAMPISM A Extension (SCAMPISM-E, also known as SCAMPISM-M – maintenance). If approved, this will be an option available to entities that are already appraised on SCAMPISM-A and would like to extend the validity/ expiry date of their appraisal rating(s) beyond the 3 year period, at a lower cost, effort, on-site period, and disruption.
  2. Action Plan Reappraisals (Delta appraisals). Note: Action Plan Reappraisals have been incorporated in the SCAMPI method since Dec 2014. Read more about it here.
    At present, if an organization “fails” their target rating(s), we have to carry out a full SCAMPISM-A reappraisal after fixing the weaknesses. This means a high cost, effort, on-site period, and disruption, even if the re-appraisal is within a short period of the original failed appraisal. Action Plan Reappraisals (if approved) provides an option for the organization to do a reappraisal that is focussed in and around the offending areas (areas of weaknesses responsible for the unsatisfactory ratings), with lower appraisal overhead.

As expected, these two enhancements come with their conditions and parameters and limits and their own methods/ processes. Please note that these two additions/ enhancements are in the draft/ pilot/ review stages and what is finally released may be significantly different.

Read on if these are of interest to you…

Extension Appraisals

Present versions of the MDD do not include any form of surveillance audits (like ISO 9001). The proposal introduces the concept of performing an appraisal to extend the validity period of SCAMPISM A ratings with a significantly reduced cost while maintaining the integrity of the SCAMPISM A results. Here are some highlights of the proposed enhancement:

  1. SCAMPISM-A Extension (let us call it SCAMPISM-E) can be used to extended the validity of the SCAMPISM-A by 2 years.
  2. The SCAMPISM-E needs to be conducted before the expiry of SCAMPISM-A validity
  3. SCAMPISM-E can be used only once for a SCAMPISM-A to extend the validity. That means a second extension cannot be done. So, after the validity period (2 years) of the extension, a full SCAMPISM-A needs to conducted for a fresh rating (or a set  of ratings).
  4. For SCAMPISM-E eligibility, the OU should not have undergone changes in their sampling factors and sampling factor values (type of work, locations, organization structure, etc.) between the SCAMPISM-A and the SCAMPISM-E.
  5. The OU and the model scope (e.g., target maturity level, PAs, capability levels) cannot be increased from that used the original SCAMPISM-A  (though the SCAMPISM-E scope can decrease from the original SCAMPISM-A)
  6. Along with other conditions, the SCAMPISM-E investigation must cover at least 1/3 of the model sope applicable (1/3 of the specific goals and 1/3 of the generic practices). This aspect is expected to bring in significant savings in effort, and cycle time during the onsite period.
  7. The subset of specific goals and generic practices proposed for investigation need to be reviewed by the CMMI Institute. The CMMI Institute can select additional specific goals and generic practices.

Action Plan Reappraisal

At present, if a SCAMPISM-A results in an adverse rating (lower than the target level(s)), the organization needs to go through the whole SCAMPISM-A process to get the desired rating. This could mean a different sample of projects, and hence collection of data, and sometimes interviewing the same set of people and asking similar questions all over again. The Action Plan Reappraisal provides the organization the option of addressing the weaknesses and subsequently performing a reappraisal that will, if successful, result in obtaining targeted appraisal ratings. Some highlights:

  1. If approved, the action plan reappraisal (Delta reappraisal) option will be available for a SCAMPISM-A as well as a SCAMPISM-A Extension (SCAMPISM-E) discussed above
  2. To be valid, this reappraisal needs to be completed within a defined period (4 months) of the ‘failed’ appraisal
  3. In the reappraisal, the goals that were determined as not satisfied need to be re-examined
  4. Only one such action plan reappraisal is permitted

Please note that these two additions/ enhancements are in the draft/ pilot/ review stages and what is finally released may be significantly different, or may not get approved at all for some time.

You can get more information in the links below:

Discussions on linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/SCAMPI-Maintenance-Appraisal-SCAMPI-M-54046.S.176296625

A presentation from Nov 2012 @ NDIA Conference: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2012CMMI/W15024_Campo.pdf

SM-SCAMPI is a service mark of Carnegie Mellon University.

Please feel free to to share your views, experiences, and queries, using the “comments” feature available.
You may also forward the link to this post to your friends, colleagues, and anyone else who may be interested.

Notes:

Nothing Official About It! – The views presented above are in no manner reflective of the official views of any organization, community, group, institute, country, government, or association. They may not even be the official views of the author of this post :-).


I am Rajesh Naik. I am an author, management consultant and trainer, helping IT and other tech companies improve their processes and performance. I also specialize in CMMI® (DEV and SVC), People CMM® and Balanced Scorecard. I am a CMMI Institute certified/ authorized Instructor and Lead Appraiser for CMMI® and People CMM®. I am available on LinkedIn and I will be glad to accept your invite. For more information please click here.

Occam’s Razor for Design of Systems and Processes

Occam’s (or Ockham’s) razor is a principle attributed to the 14th century logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham (does this profession  still exist? I am yet to meet a “logician” :-)).

Occam’s razor states that “one should minimize the assumptions to the minimum necessary to solve any problem”. It is a minimalistic principle (often called principle of parsimony) and can be used as a heuristic while doing scientific modelling and building theories.

Though the principle has been found in the writings of earlier medieval philosophers, William of Occam has been credited with it because he was its most prolific proponent.

Occam is attributed to have said something like “Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate” (as expected, he did not say these things in any modern language :-))- which means “plurality must never be posited without necessity” [if this was how people promoting simplicity spoke, I really don’t want to know how others spoke]

Various versions/ derivations of the Occam’s razor include:

“Keep it Simple, Stupid”

“Simpler explanations are, other things being equal, generally better than more complex ones”

“Simpler hypotheses are generally better than the complex ones”

“Everything should be kept as simple as possible, but no simpler.” (Einstein?)

One of the common misuses of Occam’s razor is perpetrated by woo-scientists who say that God / brahman/ mystical forces are simpler explanations for any phenomenon that is difficult to explain. You can know more about woo science here and here.

Though Occam’s razor was initially applied to “explain things”, it can equally be applied to “building things” like systems and processes. Consciously using Occam’s Razor may make these systems easier to operate, maintain and upgrade.

Here are new variants of Occam’s razor as applied to design of systems and processes:

“It is vain to do with more what can be done with fewer”

“A simpler design that achieves the purpose is better than a more complex design”

“Minimize the entities in any design to make it effective”

“Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication” (da Vinci?)

Here is a write-up on how Occam’s razor has been used in Web Design “Occam’s Razor: A Great Principle for Designers“.

And another delightful article on design principles is “12 Laws and Principles to Aid You in Your Design” – Occam’s razor is number 1 in this list.

See this Wikipedia page for more details on Occam’s razor.

Occam’s razor has also been applied to human interactions, and that is the subject for another post, but here is a teaser:

  • "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity".

Please feel free to share your views, experiences, and queries, using the “comments” feature available.
You may also forward the link to this post to your friends, colleagues, and anyone else who may be interested.

Notes:

Nothing Official About It! – The views presented above are in no manner reflective of the official views of any organization, community, group, institute, country, government, or association. They may not even be the official views of the author of this post :-).


I am Rajesh Naik. I am an author, management consultant and trainer, helping IT and other tech companies improve their processes and performance. I also specialize in CMMI® (DEV and SVC), People CMM® and Balanced Scorecard. I am a CMMI Institute certified/ authorized Instructor and Lead Appraiser for CMMI® and People CMM®. I am available on LinkedIn and I will be glad to accept your invite. For more information please click here.