DETERMINING COMPETENCE LEVELS OF FACTORY TEAMS WORKING WITHIN A SOFTWARE FACTORY

• US 20090300577A1
• Filed: 05/29/2008
• Published: 12/03/2009
• Est. Priority Date: 05/29/2008
• Status: Active Grant

• Current Assignee: International Business Machines Corporation
• Original Assignee: International Business Machines Corporation
• Inventors: RATAKONDA, KRISHNA C., CHAAR, JARIR K., HUCHEL, JOSEPH P., CHEE, YI-MIN, JOBSON, THOMAS A. JR., OPPENHEIM, DANIEL V., BERNARDINI, FAUSTO
• Granted Patent: US 8,595,044 B2
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 717/101
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 8/70 Software maintenance or management
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/06 Resources, workflows, human or project management; Enterprise or organisation planning; Enterprise or organisation modelling

Abstract

A method, system, and computer-readable medium for determining competence levels of factory teams are presented. In a preferred embodiment, the method includes the steps of: creating a template for an initial work packet, wherein the initial work packet is a self-contained work unit that is assembled within the software factory; creating a partially instantiated work packet by populating the template with details that describe pre-conditions and post-conditions necessary to execute the work packet; provisionally selecting a human team to complete coding of the partially instantiated work packet to create a final work packet; determining whether the human team is competent to create the final work packet; and in response to determining that the human team is competent to create the final work packet, ordering the human team to create the final work packet within the software factory.

Claims

1. A method for determining competence levels of factory teams working with a software factory, the method comprising:

creating a template for an initial work packet, wherein the initial work packet is a self-contained work unit that is assembled within the software factory;

creating a partially instantiated work packet by populating the template with details that describe pre-conditions and post-conditions necessary to execute the work packet;

provisionally selecting a human team to perform activities of the partially instantiated work packet;

determining whether the human team is competent to perform activities of a final work packet; and

in response to determining that the human team is competent to perform the activities of the final work packet, ordering the human team to perform the activities of the final work packet within the software factory.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein determining a competence of the human team is based on experience and expertise levels of each member of the human team.

3. The method of claim 2, wherein determining a competence of the human team is further based on an on-time performance level of the human team on past work packet coding projects.

4. The method of claim 3, wherein determining a competence of the human team is further based on current time availability of all members of the human team.

5. The method of claim 1, further comprising:

determining a competence of multiple human teams; and

selecting a most competent human team from the multiple human teams, wherein the most competent human team has a combined experience level of team members, a combined expertise level of the team members, and a current team time availability that match performance parameters needed to complete the final work packet.

6. The method of claim 1, wherein operations within the software factory comprise:

collecting a plurality of software artifacts that have been archived during an assembly of previous work packets;

collecting a plurality of metrics that have been utilized during the assembly of previous work packets;

defining a template for a new work packet, wherein the template for the new work packet is created by a packet definition process that defines attributes that are needed in the new work packet;

under a control of the packet definition process, selecting requisite software artifacts from the plurality of software artifacts;

under the control of the packet definition process, selecting requisite metrics from the plurality of metrics; and

sending the template, requisite software artifacts and requisite metrics to a packet assembly process, wherein the packet assembly process assembles, under the control of the template and the requisite metrics, the requisite software artifacts to create the new work packet.

7. The method of claim 1, wherein the software factory further 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.

8. The method of claim 7, 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.

9. The method of claim 8, 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.

10. The method of claim 7, 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.

11. The method of claim 7, 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.

12. 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 determining competence levels of factory teams working with a software factory by performing the steps of;

creating a template for an initial work packet, wherein the initial work packet is a self-contained work unit that is assembled within the software factory;

creating a partially instantiated work packet by populating the template with details that describe pre-conditions and post-conditions necessary to execute the work packet;

receiving a provisional selection of a human team to complete coding of the partially instantiated work packet to create a final work packet;

determining whether the human team is competent to create the final work packet; and

in response to determining that the human team is competent to create the final work packet, transmitting an order to the human team to create the final work packet within the software factory.

13. The system of claim 12, wherein determining a competence of the human team is based on experience and expertise levels of each member of the human team.

14. The system of claim 13, wherein determining a competence of the human team is further based on an on-time performance level of the human team on past work packet coding projects.

15. The system of claim 12, wherein the instructions are further configured for:

determining a competence of multiple human teams;

selecting a most competent human team from the multiple human teams, wherein the most competent human team has a combined experience level of team members, a combined expertise level of the team members, and a current team time availability that match performance parameters needed to complete the final work packet.

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

creating a template for an initial work packet, wherein the initial work packet is a self-contained work unit that is assembled within the software factory;

creating a partially instantiated work packet by populating the template with details that describe pre-conditions and post-conditions necessary to execute the work packet;

provisionally selecting a human team to perform activities of the partially instantiated work packet;

determining whether the human team is competent to perform activities of a final work packet; and

in response to determining that the human team is competent to perform the activities of the final work packet, ordering the human team to perform the activities of the final work packet within the software factory.

17. The computer-readable storage medium of claim 16, wherein determining a competence of the human team is based on experience and expertise levels of each member of the human team.

18. The computer-readable storage medium of claim 16, wherein the computer executable instructions are further configured for:

determining a competence of multiple human teams;

selecting a most competent human team from the multiple human teams, wherein the most competent human team has a combined experience level of team members, a combined expertise level of the team members, and a current team time availability that match performance parameters needed to complete the final work packet.

19. The computer-readable storage medium of claim 16, wherein the computer-usable storage 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 storage medium of claim 16, wherein the computer executable instructions are capable of being provided by a service provider to a customer on an on-demand basis.