=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2201/UYMS_2018_paper_108
|storemode=property
|title=Cevik Yazilim Gelistirme Sureclerinin Secimi Icin Hoshin Matrix'in Uyarlanmis Versiyonunun Kullanilmasi(Using Adapted Version of Hoshin Matrix for Selection of Agile Software Development Processes)
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2201/UYMS_2018_paper_108.pdf
|volume=Vol-2201
|authors=Zulal Akarsu,Ozgun Onat Metin,Yasemin Yigit Kuru,Murat Yilmaz
}}
==Cevik Yazilim Gelistirme Sureclerinin Secimi Icin Hoshin Matrix'in Uyarlanmis Versiyonunun Kullanilmasi(Using Adapted Version of Hoshin Matrix for Selection of Agile Software Development Processes)==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2201/UYMS_2018_paper_108.pdf
Using Adapted Version of Hoshin Matrix for Selection of
Agile Software Development Processes
Zulal Akarsu1, Ozgun Onat Metin1, Yasemin Yigit Kuru1, Murat Yil-
maz2
1
Huawei Technologies Turkey Research and Development Center,
2
Computer Engineering, Çankaya University, Turkey
l {zulal.akarsu, ozgun.onat.metin,
yasemin.yigit.kuru}@huawei.com
2 myilmaz@cankaya.edu.tr
Abstract. According to Capability Maturity Model Integration for Devel-
opment (CMMI-DEV), organizational process performance (OPP) area
aims to establish and maintain a quantitative understanding of perfor-
mance of selected processes. Many organizations have started their agile
transformation to leverage the capabilities of their software development
processes. In order to measure the effects of agile transformation, it is im-
portant to understand to what extent agile methods contribute to business
objectives. Hoshin Matrix is a tool that provides a rationale for selecting
processes identified for process performance analyses. Moreover, this ra-
tionale includes traceability from software development execution to busi-
ness objectives. This study describes the implementation example of an
adapted version of Hoshin Matrix at Huawei Turkey Research and Devel-
opment Center which aims to establish its organizational quantitative qual-
ity and process performance objectives based on a set of business objec-
tives. Our preliminary findings suggest that our OPP design may provide a
guideline for software development organizations who are willing to adopt
agile transformation and for those who would like to improve their soft-
ware development processes.
Keywords: Software Development, Agile transformation, Organizational
Process Performance, Hoshin, CMMI-DEV Level 5
Çevik Yazılım Geliştirme Süreçlerinin Seçimi İçin Hoshin
Matrix'in Uyarlanmış Versiyonunun Kullanılması
Zulal Akarsu1, Ozgun Onat Metin1, Yasemin Yigit Kuru1, Murat
Yilmaz2
Huawei Türkiye Araştırma ve Geliştirme Merkezi,
1
Bilgisayar Mühendisliği, Çankaya Universitesi, Ankara Türkiye
2
l {zulal.akarsu, ozgun.onat.metin,
yasemin.yigit.kuru}@huawei.com
2 myilmaz@cankaya.edu.tr
Özet. Bütünleşik Yetenek Olgunluk Modeli (CMMI-DEV)’e göre,
organizasyonel süreç performansı (OPP) alanı, standart prosedürler
dizisinden seçilen süreçlerin performansının niceliksel bir anlayışını
oluşturmayı ve sürdürmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Pek çok kuruluş yazılım
geliştirme süreç yeteneklerini geliştirmek için çevik dönüşümlerini
başlattılar. Çevik dönüşümün etkilerini ölçmek için, çevik yöntemlerin iş
hedeflerine ne ölçüde katkıda bulunduğunu anlamak önemlidir. Hoshin
Matrix, süreç performans analizleri için belirlenen süreçleri seçme
yöntemi sağlayan bir araçtır. Bu seçim, yazılım geliştirme uygulamasından
iş hedeflerine kadar izlenebilirliği sağlayacak şekilde gerçekleştirilir. Bu
çalışma, Huawei Türkiye Araştırma ve Geliştirme Merkezi'ndeki Hoshin
Matrix'in uyarlanmış bir versiyonunun uygulama örneğini tanıtmakta olup,
organizasyonel niceliksel niteliğini ve iş hedeflerine dayalı süreç
performans hedeflerini oluşturmayı amaçlamaktadır. Ön bulgularımız,
OPP tasarımımızın çevik dönüşümü benimsemeye istekli olan ve yazılım
geliştirme süreçlerini iyileştirmek isteyen kurumlar için bir rehber
olacağını göstermektedir.
Anahtar Kelimerler: Yazılım Geliştirme, Çevik Dönüşüm, Organizasyonel
Süreç Performansı, Hoshin, CMMI-DEV Seviye 5
1 Introduction
A software development organization should strive a high productivity culture which
delivers the desired high performance. Organizational process performance (OPP)
derives to establish and maintain a quantitative understanding of the performance of
selected processes in an organization’s set of standard processes [1]. In implementa-
tion of Capability Maturity Model Integration for Development (CMMI-DEV) it is
very important to assess the objectives to ensure that the business objectives are still
up to date and in line with business strategies [2]. In order to initiate pursuit of high
performance gains, the first step is effective planning of the strategy and setting the
goals based on this strategy. Each path of goals of a software development organiza-
tion should ideally cascade through the enterprise even through small teams of devel-
opment and testing. Many organizations have started their agile transformation to
leverage capabilities of their software development processes [3]. ASD is part of the
solution for an enterprise to adapt itself to fast changing business environment. How-
ever, Agile principles cannot help alone to achieve the goals of an organization if the
objectives of the organization are not managed vertically and horizontally. There are
literature about practicing implementation of agile methods along with plan-driven
development processes (e.g. initiative based on CMMI-DEV) were also published [4].
Moreover, in a systematic review it is stated that agile cannot be used without being
supplemented with other non-agile practices [5].
Lean approaches such as Hoshin, are gathering momentum for agile thinking and
methods. Hoshin Planning (also known as Hoshin Kanri or Policy Deployment) is an
inherited continuous improvement process that provides standardized tools for step by
step organizational planning for strategy [6]. Hoshin Matrix (also known as the X-
Matrix) aims to connect the top strategy to execution by using both horizontal and
vertical alignment in an organization [6]. Hoshin Matrix tool visualizes a concrete
picture of business objectives and its relation with processes and sub processes [7].
Therefore it invites individuals to understand how their individual efforts benefit the
entire organization in meeting the business objectives. Also, it helps in defining the
culture of the enterprise via supporting the key values of ASD such as visibility,
transparency, continuous improvement and sustainability which should be placed at
the core of an organization to make every employee to push forward to the same di-
rection.
The primary aim of this paper is to describe the implementation example of an
adapted version of Hoshin Matrix which aims to be a guide for software development
organizations, particularly who are willing to adopt ASD and ultimately also for who
would like to improve their software development processes. The remaining part of
the paper proceeds as follows: Section 2 gives definitions for key process indicators
and metrics. In Section 3, Hoshin Process and Hoshin Matrix are explained and steps
of using a Hoshin Matrix is given. Section 4 gives an example of implementation of
adapted version of Hoshin Matrix in ASD. In Section 5, we discuss the preliminary
findings and its effects.
2 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) & Metrics
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are a set of quantifiable measures that are used to
evaluate the success of an organization and/or of projects, programs, products and
other initiatives [8], [9]. Many organizations may desire to have the ability to measure
a wide set of parameters. However, the main idea is not about broaden the things we
measure. Yet, getting a meaningful insight without a distraction is very important.
One of the famous quotes “if you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it” [10] might be
understood in a way that lead organizations towards trying to measure everything.
Deciding on what to measure depends on what the organization focuses and tries to
achieve. It is important to stay focused on what is important. That is why, KPIs and
metrics should be selected very carefully. Moreover, how the selected metrics and
KPIs would be interpreted should be analyzed. For an organization, common objec-
tives (e.g. increasing product quality and decreasing costs) might be rather easy to
agree on than agreeing on implementation methods to achieve these objectives. Yet, it
might be a challenge for many organizations to convert strategic goals to tactical
plans and metrics.
3 Hoshin Process And Hoshin Matrix Method
The Hoshin Kanri is a method which was developed by Akao [11]. It has been em-
ployed extensively by Toyota, as well as many other organizations known for their
management prowess, including Hewlett-Packard [12], Intel, Milliken, Zytec, and
Proctor and Gamble [13]. This management tool is a systematic approach that aims to
make measures more visible to improve coordination and collaboration between
teams. Moreover it provides more alignment from top to bottom throughout the or-
ganization to align the long-term goals with strategic projects. One of the most popu-
lar way of implementing Hoshin Kanri is applying the X Matrix. The Hoshin Kanri X
Matrix is often used as the project plan for large organizations to achieve their mis-
sion and vision statements. The value in the Hoshin Matrix is in the relation between
the quadrants. The interaction between these sections will lead to better decision mak-
ing [14]. The Hoshin Kanri X Matrix is basically a document that includes long term
goals, strategies, initiatives and responsibilities [15]. For linking strategy to execution
a customized version of the Hoshin Kanri X Matrix is used at HTRDC.
3.1 Main Steps to Apply the Hoshin Process by Using Hoshin Matrix
The creation of the matrix can be done by organization leaders and/or any manager
who is implementing it on a team level. The initial vision, goals, objectives, KPIs, and
measures along with the processes used to realize them will be decided. The basic
steps to set up a Hoshin Matrix are given as in the Figure 1. The steps are as in the
following:
Figure. 1. The basic steps to construct a Hoshin Matrix
1. Step 1: Set the Strategic Vision & Define Business Objectives
2. Step 2: Define Key Mid-Term and Process Objectives which are top level
improvement priorities
3. Step 3: Set Short-Term Actions and Process Output Metrics (KPIs)
4. Step 4: Agree on Key Sub Processes and Metrics
In order to select metrics that are driven from the high level business objectives, a
rating of influence is given by voting of the workshop participants in following order:
1. Give rating of influence to each process objective against each business ob-
jective,
2. Give rating of influence to each sub process objective (process y’s) against
each process objective. The important process outcomes (Y) are a result of
the drivers (x) (Y = f(x)),
3. Rated and eliminate controllable factors (process x’s). Give rating of influ-
ence to the selected set of process x metrics against process y's,
4. Select the process x's with highest score.
The following part gives the steps to construct a Hoshin Matrix in detail.
Step 1: Set the Strategic Vision & Goals
At the left quadrant of the matrix identified business objectives are listed. Business
objectives are the long or medium term goals of an organization in order to achieve
the mission and vision. In the annual strategic planning phase, senior leadership sets
objectives for the organization by assessing what has been done in the past, latest
yearly plan and results, the challenges of the industrial/external factors, current busi-
ness environment and short to medium term plans. Each business objective are voted
for their relative importance. This is done by discussions and voting among workshop
participants that are business leaders. The relative scale of rating has been considered
based on the guidelines on Table. 1.
Table. 1. The relative scale of rating for influence levels
Influence Level Scale
Low Influence 2
Medium Influence 5
High Influence 7
Highest Influence 10
Step 2: Define Key Mid-Term and Process Objectives
The next step is to identify key process objectives that will cause the organization to
reach its strategic business targets. These process objectives are put in the top quad-
rant of the Hoshin Matrix. After the long-term goals are all set, list the most important
process level objectives that you aim to achieve in a shorter time frame for example in
one year. Provide rating of influence of process objective against each business objec-
tive. Voting members should consider what needs to be accomplished first to keep the
processes on track. After the voting session each participant explains the reason of her
vote and after a brainstorming session rating of influences are assigned. Subsequently,
the sum product of the given rating of influence to the process objectives and business
objectives needs to be calculated. If the selected product’s value is the highest or very
close to the highest one, it is ranked as 10 (the highest influence). The influence re-
duces when the related process’s rating reduces.
Step 3: Set Short-Term Actions and Process Output Metrics
The right quadrant will be filled with the process Y’s on our customized Hoshin Ma-
trix. In the Six Sigma methodologies process improvements are based on scientific
and structured problem-solving approach Y = f(x). This mathematical term is simply
means that the process output measures (Ys) are a result of the drivers (x’s) within
processes. Initially, we need to understand the process Y’s and how to measure them.
These factors constitute the most important key process indicators (KPI) which are
quantifiable measurements that reflect the critical success factors of an organization.
The target for process Y’s may differ depending on the organization’s mission and
products. On the Hoshin Matrix, the correlation between process objectives and pro-
cess Y’s are also highlighted by assigning the rating of influence that is calculated by
the explained method to the sub process objective against each process objective.
Step 4: Agree on Key Sub Process Metrics
The lower quadrant is for selection of the process X’s metrics. Process X’s are the
process inputs that are identified for arriving at process Y’s. In order to select the
potential controllable factors (process X), sub processes of a process (e.g. develop-
ment, testing) are listed and process x’s are prioritized and voted based on the follow-
ing criteria and given rating scale on Table. 2.
Table. 2. Prioritization criteria for potential controllable factors for processes and the
rating scale
Criteria Rating Scale
Impact on Business Objectives & 5 - High Impact
Project Success 3 - Medium Impact
1- Low Impact
Extent of Process Definition 5 - Well Established Process
3 - Process can easily be defined
1- Difficulty in Process Definition and implementation.
Extent of Data Availability 5 - Established Data Collection System
3 - Data Collection can easily be started
1- Difficulty in Data Collection/ It is not cost effective.
Impact on Business Objectives &
Project Success
1 3 5
5 5 45 125
Extent of Process Definition 3 3 27 75
1 1 9 25
1 3 5
Extent of Data Availability
Figure. 2. The multiplication matrix for controllable criteria prioritization rates
Figure. 2 shows the multiplication matrix of the rated numbers. At the beginning of
the workshop, a threshold value needs to be determined to eliminate the processes.
For example if the grand total is equals to and above the determined threshold value,
for instance 75, the sub-process/metric is selected. This prioritization technique or a
simple offline multi-voting will help to achieve reducing potential x‘s to a managea-
ble and measurable few. The next thing to do is to define the relations of the control-
lable factors (process x) with selected sub processes. These controllable factors are
the metrics that will help the company to keep track of the selected processes during
execution for the company goals. Provide rating of the process X measures/metrics
against each Process Y’s. Total score implies the influence rating of process in-
puts/measures/metrics on process Y the process/sub processes. Together with the
workshop participants the most crucial metrics that you need to select are agreed on.
These metrics will be tracked and maintained to improve.
Lastly, complete the flow down picture by showing the relations between business
objectives to process metrics and measures.
4 Application of Adapted Version of Hoshin Matrix by HTRDC
on Agile Software Development
Historically, Huawei Turkey Research and Development Center (HTRDC) started its
presence in Turkey with a strong Software Development & Testing under the frame-
work of CMM. Subsequently over a period of years spreading its business capability
and ownership several pioneering initiatives are implemented like CMMI. Within a
few years, it has improved its software development process maturity and was certi-
fied with CMMI Level 3 and CMMI Level 5. It is also inevitable for HTRDC to get
ASD’s technical and commercial benefits. As HTRDC is an organization that has
maturity level 5 of CMMI-DEV, it aims to get productivity gains and strengthen the
culture of value focus by applying ASD. In HTRDC, quality and operations depart-
ment is responsible for conveying a workshop to construct the matrix for organization
level and selection of most critical process metrics for organizational improvement
projects, and for constructing process performance model (PPM).
Step 1: Set the Strategic Vision & Goals
The business objectives are updated annually for HTRDC considering the long term
strategic plans. The organizational leaders formulate strategic business objectives
every year for achieving the mission for what the organization is working towards.
These are set on the left quadrant of the matrix are as in the following:
1- Budget Optimization: Deliver projects within Budget and Usage Rate should
be greater than 85%
2- Customer Satisfaction (CSAT) should be greater than 85%
3- Achieve Zero Critical Quality Accident
Relative Importance of the business objectives are voted by the workshop participants
by considering their effects to process objectives. The voted annual business objec-
tives are voted at HTRDC and the results are listed in the Table. 3.
Table. 3. Annual business objectives with decided relative importance
BUSINESS OBJECTIVES Relative Importance
Budget Optimization: Deliver projects within Budget and Usage 7
Rate should be greater than 85%
Customer Satisfaction (CSAT) should be greater than 85% 10
Achieve Zero Critical Quality Accident 10
Step 2: Define Key Mid-Term and Process Objectives
Process objectives are selected in consideration of the goals to achieve in a shorter
time frame. These are sometimes called top level improvement priorities. The pro-
cess objectives aligned to business objectives on the table X2 are listed as in the fol-
lowing:
1- Deliver with HTRDC Quality Standard
2- Improve Engineering Capability to deliver within budget and on time
Rating of influence of process objective against each business objective are voted by
members by considering what needs to be targeted primarily to keep the processes on
track. The calculated score of sum products of the given ratings and the relative im-
portance set for the process objectives as explained on the Step 2 of the section 3.1.
The relative importance is showed on the Figure. 3 which is showing the completed
left and upper quadrants of the Hoshin Matrix.
Relative
SCORE PROCESS OBJECTIVES
Importance
7 10 10 249 Deliver with HTRDC Quality Standard 10
Improve Engineering Capability to deliver within
10 7 7 210 8
Budget and on time delivery
SCORE PROCESS OBJECTIVES
Importance
Importance
Relative
Relative
10
10
7
Customer Satisfaction (CSAT)
Achieve Zero Critical Quality
Budget Optimization: Deliver
Usage Rate should be greater
should be greater than 85%
projects within Budget and
BUSINESS OBJECTIVES
BUSINESS OBJECTIVE
than 85%
Accident
Figure. 3. The left and the upper quadrants of the Hoshin Matrix
Step 3: Set Short-Term Actions and Metrics
The process output metrics (Ys) of HTRDC for ASD are listed on Table. 4. These are
the quantifiable results of the drivers (x’s) within processes that reflect the critical
success factors of an organization as explained on section 3.1 Step 3.
Table. 4. Agile Software Development process output metrics in HTRDC
Process Y's
Version Release Defect Index (DI)
Delivered Open Defect Density
Downstream Defect Density
End to end (E2E) Productivity
Workload Deviation
Schedule Slippage
Process Compliance
Rating of influence are assigned to each sub process objective against each process
objective by votes of workshop members. This rating score defines the relative im-
portance of process outputs (Ys). The right quadrant is filled with the process Ys and
the ratings which can be seen on Figure. 4. The two process Ys that are highlighted
with blue are selected to be used at Process Performance Model (PPM) for prediction
and process control.
RATING OF INFLUENCE
Relative
PROCESS OBJECTIVES <>
Deliver with HTRDC Quality Standard 10 10 10 10 7 7 7 7
Improve Engineering Capability to deliver within
8 7 7 7 10 10 7 7
Budget and on time delivery
SCORE
156
156
156
150
150
126
126
Delivered Open Defect
Workload Deviation
Process Compliance
Downstream Defect
Version Release DI
Schedule Slippage
E2E Productivity
PROCESS Y'S
Density
Density
Importance
Relative
10
10
10
10
10
8
8
Figure. 4. The upper and the right quadrants of the Hoshin Matrix
Step 4: Agree on Key Sub Process Metrics
Potential controllable factors (process X) of development and testing processes are
given on Table. 5 and Table. 6.
Table. 5. Controllable factors for development activity in HTRDC
Development: Controllable Factors (Process X):
A User Story Productivity
B Us Dev Review Defect Density (DD)
C Development Test Defect Density
D Total Impediments Density
E Specifications Stability
F Number Of Network Defects
G Size Deviation
Table. 6. Controllable factors for testing activity in HTRDC
Test: Controllable Factors (Process X):
A Sdv Test Defect Density
B Total Internal Defect Density
C Total Defects With Delivered Open Defect Density
D Total Defects With Downstream Defect Density
E Post Delivery Defect Density (System Integration Test+Customer Reported)
F Base Code Testing Productivity
G Base Code Quality Defect Density
H Sprint Level Base Code Quality Delivered Open DD
I Sprint Level Delivered Open Defect Density
J Number Of Trouble Tickets Rejected In Regression Test
HTRDC Agile Software Development sub processes are analyzed and some of them
are listed as in the Figure. 5. The determined threshold to select sub processes the
Figure. 5 is decided as 75. If the grand total equals to 75 and above the sub processes
are selected. The selected sub processes are namely; user story development, user
story development review, user story development test, and user story system design
verification (SDV) test. The relation of these sub processes are given on the right
column of the Figure. 5.
Process Selection - Development Processes
Process Selection Criteria - Quality &
Ontime Delivery
Impact on Grand
No Name of Sub Process Business Extent of Extent of Selected Relation with Process X
Total
Objectives Process Data
& Project Definition Availability
Success
1 User Story Development 5,00 4,50 3,50 78,75 Yes A,H,I,J, K
2 User Story Development Review 5,00 4,75 4,65 110,36 Yes B,C,D
3 User Story Development Test 4,85 4,50 4,71 102,96 Yes E,F,G
DEVELOPMENT
4 Other Proj. Mgt. Efforts 4,50 4,35 3,50 68,51 No
5 Configuration Management 3,86 3,57 3,29 45,26 No
6 Defect Prevention 4,33 3,00 2,33 30,33 No
7 Competency 5,00 4,14 3,00 62,14 No
8 Project Setup 4,00 4,33 3,67 63,56 No
9 Knowledge Management 4,00 4,33 2,67 46,22 No
10 Change Control/ Management 4,43 3,67 3,86 62,69 No
11 Build, Release and Deployment Mngmt 4,71 3,29 2,71 42,04 No
12 Communication & Collaboration 3,67 3,67 2,67 35,85 No
1 User Story SDV Test 4,67 4,02 4,35 81,61 Yes A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M
2 Other Proj. Mgt. Efforts 4,00 4,00 3,67 58,67 No
3 Configuration Management 4,00 3,67 3,33 48,89 No
4 Defect Prevention 5,00 3,00 2,33 35,00 No
TEST
5 Competency 5,00 4,00 3,00 60,00 No
6 Project Setup 4,00 4,33 3,67 63,56 No
7 Knowledge Management 4,00 4,33 3,00 52,00 No
8 Change Control/ Management 5,00 4,33 3,33 72,15 No
9 Requirement Verification 5,00 5,00 2,67 66,75 No
10 Communication & Collaboration 3,67 4,00 2,33 34,22 No
Figure. 5. Sub-Process Selection for Process Prediction Model and/or Statistical Con-
trol
The rating of influence of the process Xs against each Process Y’s are given on Fig-
ure. 6. Total score is calculated based on the given influence rating of process X on
process Y and relative importance of process Ys. The process X Metrics are agreed to
be selected by the workshop participants if the total score is 300 or above. This
threshold defined by the organization.
Delivered Open Defect
Workload Deviation
Downstream Defect
Process Compliance
Version Release DI
Schedule Slippage
E2E Productivity
PROCESS Y'S
PROCESS Y'S
Density
Density
Importance
Importance
Relative
Relative
10
10
10
10
10
8
8
PROCESS X Metrics
Processes X's Measured & Total
<>
User Story Productivity User Story Development 522 7 7 7 10 10 7 7 Yes
Specifications Stability User Story Development 522 7 7 7 10 10 7 7 Yes
US Dev Review Defect Density User Story Development Review 462 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Yes
Development Test Defect Density User Story Development Test 552 10 10 10 7 7 7 7 Yes
Total Impediments Density User Story Development 522 7 7 7 10 10 7 7 Yes
Size Deviation User Story Development 522 7 7 7 10 10 7 7 Yes
SDV Test Defect Density User Story Development SDV 552 10 10 10 7 7 7 7 Yes
Total Internal Defect Density User Story Development SDV 522 7 10 10 7 7 7 7 Yes
Total Defects with Delivered Open Defect Density User Story Development SDV 346 5 5 5 5 5 5 7 Yes
Total Defects with Downstream Defect Density User Story Development SDV 346 5 5 5 5 5 5 7 Yes
Post Delivery Defect Density (SIT+Customer Reported) User Story Development SDV 466 7 10 10 5 5 5 7 Yes
Base Code Testing Productivity User Story Development SDV 522 7 10 10 7 7 7 7 Yes
Base Code Quality Defect Density User Story Development SDV 522 7 10 10 7 7 7 7 Yes
Sprint Level Base Code Quality DO DD User Story Development SDV 522 7 10 10 7 7 7 7 Yes
Sprint Level Delivered Open Defect Density User Story Development SDV 522 7 10 10 7 7 7 7 Yes
Number of Trouble Tickets Rejected in Regression Test User Story Development SDV 410 7 7 7 7 5 5 5 Yes
Number of Network Defects User Story Development 546 7 7 7 10 10 10 7 Yes
Figure. 6. The right and the lower quadrants of the Hoshin Matrix
5 Discussion
The explained adapted version of Hoshin matrix is introduced to projects by the quali-
ty and operations department of HUAWEI Turkey R&D Center. HUAWEI Turkey
R&D Center is a large software development company works in Turkey with around
500 engineers. With the CMMI Level 5 maturity lean methods are used in process
management that are applied for controlling and monitoring the processes based on
statistical data. Benefits of using Hoshin Matrix, in defining and mapping organiza-
tional goals has been observed at HTRDC. Since the business objectives are moni-
tored and controlled by selected process x metrics that are mapped with the defined
organizational goals, the risk to misinterpret the results and lose organizational align-
ment is decreased. This risk is manageable by the annual/half yearly evaluation of the
process performances. This control mechanism has provided to be early in taking
action and adjust the business goals and/or process improvements faster. Initial im-
plementation of Hoshin Matrix was applied on traditional V-model Software Devel-
opment Lifecycle at HTRDC. In the interest of improving business capability and
productivity, agile transformation has been employed together with CMMI. As a re-
sult, Huawei Turkey made significant contributions as it has been managing its ASD
processes and high product quality with lean management methods and CMMI Level
5, the highest level of maturity.
6 Acknowledgement
Huawei Turkey Research and Development Center, Quality and Operations Depart-
ment has been working on conduction of lean methods such as Hoshin Kanri. We
would like to express our gratitude to whom gave their help and generous support
during this research.
References
1. CMMI for development, version 1.2: CMMI-DEV, v1.2. (2006). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie
Mellon University, Software Engineering Institute.
2. Chaudhary,M, Chopra,A : CMMI for Development: Implementation Guide (2017)
3. W. Alsaqaf, M. Daneva, and R. Wieringa, “Quality requirements in large scale distributed
agile projects – a systematic literature review,” in Requirements Engineering: Foundation
for Software Quality, P. Gr̈ unbacher and A. Perini, Eds. Cham: Springer International Pub-
lishing, 2017, pp. 219–234
4. F. S. Silva, F. S. F. Soares, A. L. Peres, I. M. de Azevedo, A. P. L. Vasconcelos, F. K.
Kamei, and S. R. de Lemos Meira, “Using cmmi together with agile software develop-
ment: A systematic review,” Information and Software Technology , vol. 58, pp. 20 – 43,
2015.
5. M. C. Paulk, “Extreme programming from a cmm perspective,” IEEE Software, vol. 18,
no. 6, pp. 19–26, Nov 2001
6. T. Vaughan Henriques, “A systematic literature review of agile and maturity model re-
search,” Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management, vol.12,
pp.53-73, 2017.
7. Veza, I., Gjeldum, N., Mladineo, M., & Stefanic, N. (n.d.). New Product Introduction By
Using Hoshin Kanri. Retrieved June/July, 2018, from https://www.researchgate.net/ publi-
cation/290280282_New_product_introduction_by_using_Hoshin_Kanri.
8. Demystifying the Hoshin Kanri X Matrix. (n.d.). Retrieved May/June, 2018, from
https://kanbanize.com/lean-management/hoshin-kanri/what-is-hoshin-kanri-x-matrix/
9. What is a KPI? Definition, Best-Practices, and Examples. (n.d.). Retrieved May/June,
2018, from https://www.klipfolio.com/resources/articles/what-is-a-key-performance-
indicator
10. Carol Taylor Fitz-Gibbon (1990), "Performance indicators", BERA Dialogues (2), ISBN
978-1-85359-092-4.
11. The Two Most Important Quotes In Business. (2018, May/June). Retrieved from
https://www.growthink.com/content/two-most-important-quotes-business
12. Akao, Y. (ed.), Hoshin Kanri: Policy Deployment for Successful TQM, (originally Hoshin
Kanri katsuyo no jissai, 1988), Cambridge MA: Productivity Press, 1991.
13. Hoshin Kanri at Hewlett-Packard. Available from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255585070_Hoshin_Kanri_at_Hewlett-Packard
[accessed Jun 19 2018].
14. Michele L. Bechtell, The Management Compass, Steering the Corporation Using Hoshin
Planning, American Management Association, New York, NY, 1995, p. 5.
15. R. (2016, September 02). Hoshin Kanri X Matrix Template for Lean Policy Deployment.
Retrieved May/June, 2018, from http://www.shmula.com/hoshin-kanri-x-matrix-template-
for-lean-policy-deployment/13775/