Project Induction in a Software Factory

• US 20080256390A1
• Filed: 04/13/2007
• Published: 10/16/2008
• Est. Priority Date: 04/13/2007
• Status: Abandoned Application

• Current Assignee: International Business Machines Corporation
• Original Assignee: International Business Machines Corporation
• Inventors: Reddington, Francis X., Finlayson, Ronald D., Chaar, Jarir K., Mitsumori, Naomi M., Jobson, Thomas A.
• Application Number:
  US11/735,070
• Publication Number:
  US 20080256390A1
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 714/27
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 8/20 Software design

Abstract

A computer-implemented method, system, and computer-readable medium for inducting a software project into a software factory is presented, wherein an induction process identifies what processes and sub-processes are needed to create the software factory, and wherein the induction process identifies potential risks to the software factory. In a preferred embodiment, the computer-implemented method comprises the steps of: submitting a factory project proposal to a service definition process; creating a service definition template from a compilation of selected checklists; scoring and classifying the service definition template to determine if the candidate project may be executed in the software factory; in response to the service definition template scoring above a pre-determined acceptable score, transmitting the factory project proposal to a service induction process; and in response to the candidate project passing a final review process, transmitting the candidate project to the software factory for execution.

Claims

1. A computer-implemented method for inducting a software project into a software factory, wherein an induction process identifies what processes and sub-processes are needed to create the software factory, and wherein the induction process identifies potential risks to the software factory, the computer-implemented method comprising:

submitting a factory project proposal to a service definition process, wherein the factory project proposal is derived from a candidate software project;

creating a service definition template from a compilation of selected checklists, wherein the selected checklists are selected based on a heuristic selection process that is based on a history of similarly described factory project proposals;

scoring and classifying the service definition template to determine if the candidate project may be executed in the software factory;

in response to the service definition template scoring above a pre-determined acceptable score, transmitting the factory project proposal to a service induction process, wherein the service induction process pre-qualifies the candidate software project for execution in the software factory;

in response to the candidate software project passing the service induction process, performing a final review process on the candidate project; and

in response to the candidate project passing the final review process, transmitting the candidate project to the software factory for execution.

2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the software factory comprises:

a software factory governance section that evaluates the project proposal for acceptance by the software factory;

a design center composed of a requirements analysis team and an architecture team, wherein the design center sections the project proposal into major functional areas that are to be handled by the requirements analysis team and the architecture team, and wherein the design center creates the work packets; and

an assembly line that receives and executes the work packets to create the deliverable software.

3. The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the assembly line further comprises:

a published set of services and a published set of requirements for the assembly line, wherein the published set of services and the published set of requirements for the assembly line are published to the design center, and wherein the published set of services describes what assembly services for assembling work packets are offered by the assembly line, and wherein the published set of requirements describes what execution environment must be used by work packets that are provided by the design center for assembly in the assembly line.

4. The computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein the work packets include governance procedures, standards, reused assets, work packet instructions, integration strategy, schedules, exit criteria and artifact checklist templates for Input/Output routines.

5. The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the assembly line includes software that automatically recognizes a project type for the project proposal, and wherein the assembly line assembles the work packets into the deliverable software in accordance with the project type that is recognized by the assembly line.

6. The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the assembly line conducts an integration test, a system test, a system integration test and a performance test of the deliverable software, wherein the integration test tests the deliverable software for compatibility with the client'"'"'s system, the system test checks the client'"'"'s system to ensure that the client'"'"'s system is operating properly, the system integration test tests for bugs that may arise when the deliverable software is integrated into the client'"'"'s system, and the performance test tests the deliverable software for defects as it is executing in the client'"'"'s system.

7. A system comprising:

a processor;

a data bus coupled to the processor;

a memory coupled to the data bus; and

a computer-usable medium embodying computer program code, the computer program code comprising instructions executable by the processor and configured for inducting a software project into a software factory, wherein an induction process identifies what processes and sub-processes are needed to create the software factory, and wherein the induction process identifies potential risks to the software factory, wherein the software project is inducted into the software factory by performing the steps of;

submitting a factory project proposal to a service definition process, wherein the factory project proposal is derived from a candidate software project;

creating a service definition template from a compilation of selected checklists, wherein the selected checklists are selected based on a heuristic selection process that is based on a history of similarly described factory project proposals;

scoring and classifying the service definition template to determine if the candidate project may be executed in the software factory;

in response to the service definition template scoring above a pre-determined acceptable score, transmitting the factory project proposal to a service induction process, wherein the service induction process pre-qualifies the candidate software project for execution in the software factory;

in response to the candidate software project passing the service induction process, performing a final review process on the candidate project; and

in response to the candidate project passing the final review process, transmitting the candidate project to the software factory for execution.

8. The system of claim 7, wherein the instructions further comprise executable instructions for supporting the software factory that comprises:

a software factory governance section that evaluates the project proposal for acceptance by the software factory;

a design center composed of a requirements analysis team and an architecture team, wherein the design center sections the project proposal into major functional areas that are to be handled by the requirements analysis team and the architecture team, and wherein the design center creates the work packets; and

an assembly line that receives and executes the work packets to create the deliverable software.

9. The system of claim 8, wherein the design center further comprises:

a requirements analysis team, wherein the requirements analysis team is responsible for determining system requirements for executing the deliverable software on the customer'"'"'s system; and

an architectural team, wherein the architectural team models the project proposal in accordance with customer constraints, and wherein the architectural team bundles the customer constraints together with the work packets for execution in the assembly line.

10. The system of claim 9, wherein the work packets include governance procedures, standards, reused assets, work packet instructions, integration strategy, schedules, exit criteria and artifact checklist templates for Input/Output routines.

11. The system of claim 8, wherein the assembly line includes software that automatically recognizes a project type for the project proposal, and wherein the assembly line assembles the work packets into the deliverable software in accordance with the project type that is recognized by the assembly line.

12. The system of claim 8, wherein the assembly line conducts an integration test, a system test, a system integration test and a performance test of the deliverable software, wherein the integration test tests the deliverable software for compatibility with the client'"'"'s system, the system test checks the client'"'"'s system to ensure that the client'"'"'s system is operating properly, the system integration test tests for bugs that may arise when the deliverable software is integrated into the client'"'"'s system, and the performance test tests the deliverable software for defects as it is executing in the client'"'"'s system.

13. A computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program, the computer program comprising computer executable instructions configured for:

submitting a factory project proposal to a service definition process, wherein the factory project proposal is derived from a candidate software project;

creating a service definition template from a compilation of selected checklists, wherein the selected checklists are selected based on a heuristic selection process that is based on a history of similarly described factory project proposals;

scoring and classifying the service definition template to determine if the candidate project may be executed in the software factory;

in response to the service definition template scoring above a pre-determined acceptable score, transmitting the factory project proposal to a service induction process, wherein the service induction process pre-qualifies the candidate software project for execution in the software factory;

in response to the candidate software project passing the service induction process, performing a final review process on the candidate project; and

in response to the candidate project passing the final review process, transmitting the candidate project to the software factory for execution.

14. The computer-readable medium of claim 13, wherein the computer executable instructions further comprise executable instructions for supporting the software factory that comprises:

a software factory governance section that evaluates the project proposal for acceptance by the software factory;

a design center composed of a requirements analysis team and an architecture team, wherein the design center sections the project proposal into major functional areas that are to be handled by the requirements analysis team and the architecture team, and wherein the design center creates the work packets; and

an assembly line that receives and executes the work packets to create the deliverable software.

15. The computer-readable medium of claim 14, wherein the design center further comprises:

a requirements analysis team, wherein the requirements analysis team is responsible for determining system requirements for executing the deliverable software on the customer'"'"'s system; and

an architectural team, wherein the architectural team models the project proposal in accordance with customer constraints, and wherein the architectural team bundles the customer constraints together with the work packets for execution in the assembly line.

16. The computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the work packets include governance procedures, standards, reused assets, work packet instructions, integration strategy, schedules, exit criteria and artifact checklist templates for Input/Output routines.

17. The computer-readable medium of claim 14, wherein the assembly line includes software that automatically recognizes a project type for the project proposal, and wherein the assembly line assembles the work packets into the deliverable software in accordance with the project type that is recognized by the assembly line.

18. The computer-readable medium of claim 14, wherein the assembly line conducts an integration test, a system test, a system integration test and a performance test of the deliverable software, wherein the integration test tests the deliverable software for compatibility with the client'"'"'s system, the system test checks the client'"'"'s system to ensure that the client'"'"'s system is operating properly, the system integration test tests for bugs that may arise when the deliverable software is integrated into the client'"'"'s system, and the performance test tests the deliverable software for defects as it is executing in the client'"'"'s system.

19. The computer-readable medium of claim 13, wherein the computer-usable medium is a component of a remote server, and wherein the computer executable instructions are deployable to a supervisory computer from the remote server.

20. The computer-readable medium of claim 13, wherein the computer executable instructions are capable of being provided by a service provider to a customer on an on-demand basis.