INTELLIGENT JOB ARTIFACT SET ANALYZER, OPTIMIZER AND RE-CONSTRUCTOR

• US 20100023920A1
• Filed: 07/22/2008
• Published: 01/28/2010
• Est. Priority Date: 07/22/2008
• Status: Abandoned Application

• Current Assignee: International Business Machines Corporation
• Original Assignee: International Business Machines Corporation
• Inventors: RATAKONDA, KRISHNA C., CHAAR, JARIR K., HUCHEL, JOSEPH P., JOBSON, THOMAS A. JR., OPPENHEIM, DANIEL V.
• Application Number:
  US12/177,315
• Publication Number:
  US 20100023920A1
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 717/102
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 8/10 Requirements analysis; Specification techniques
• 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 enabling a transition of a business process portfolio of a client to fit with a standardized delivery platform are presented. A tool inputs, analyzes and optimizes a current job artifact set used by an IT organization. This tool identifies; and maps a set of artifacts used by the IT organization to a central meta-model/ontology representation. By dint of mapping the factory artifacts and processes to this meta-model, a user is able to identify equivalent classes among the artifacts and do a one-to-one, one-to-many or many-to-one mapping between the set of client artifacts and the standard artifacts already included in a Software Factory.

Claims

1. A computer-executed method of utilizing an ontology of artifacts within a context of a current Software Factory, the computer-executed method comprising:

launching an initial ontology of artifacts used in a current Software Factory, wherein the initial ontology is a framework-based mapping of the artifacts, and wherein the initial ontology describes a relationship among different artifacts used in the current Software Factory;

associating factory data that describes an organization of the current Software Factory to one or more items in the ontology to create a proper association of all organizations, teams, roles, artifacts and processes used by the current Software. Factory;

mapping the client artifacts and processes to the initial ontology to create a mapped ontology;

performing a pattern analysis to determine automated matches between key words associated between a particular term in the ontology and a set of artifacts used by the current Software Factory,

testing the mapped ontology to ensure that the mapped ontology properly utilizes the client'"'"'s artifacts and any new resources in a manner that comports with the initial ontology; and

utilizing the mapped ontology to create what-if scenarios to evaluate different client artifacts used by the current Software Factory.

2. The computer-executed method of claim 1, further comprising:

utilizing the mapped ontology to identify sets of work packets that are suitable for the client according to a pre-defined need.

3. The computer-executed method of claim 1, further comprising:

utilizing the mapped ontology to identify gaps in a client'"'"'s documentation process.

4. The computer-executed method of claim 1, further comprising:

utilizing the mapped ontology to intelligently identify patterns of overlap and waste in a client'"'"'s Information Technology (IT) portfolio.

5. The computer-executed method of claim 1, further comprising:

utilizing the mapped ontology to recommend existing design centers, assembly lines, and job shops from prior Software Factories for use with the current Software Factory.

6. The computer-executed method of claim 1, wherein the artifacts include current Software Factory defined protocols defined by a governance board in the current Software Factory.

7. The computer-executed method of claim 1, wherein the artifacts include transactional and collaborative process models used in the current Software Factory.

8. The computer-executed method of claim 1, wherein the artifacts include work packets used in the current Software Factory.

9. The computer-executed method of claim 1, wherein the artifacts include work breakdown structures that describe how an overall Software Factory project is partitioned into sub-projects.

10. The computer-executed method of claim 1, wherein the artifacts include organization models that include a definition of roles, responsibilities and reporting requirements of different assembly lines and job shops in the current Software Factory.

11. The computer-executed method of claim 1, wherein the artifacts include a Unified Modeling Language (UML) of a deliverable that is created in the current Software Factory.

12. The computer-executed method of claim 1, wherein operations within the current 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.

13. The computer-executed method of claim 1, wherein the current 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 and job shop that receives and executes the work packets to create the deliverable.

14. The computer-executed method of claim 13, wherein the assembly line and job shop further comprises:

a published set of services and a published set of requirements for the assembly line and job shop, wherein the published set of services and the published set of requirements for the assembly line and job shop 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 job shop, 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 and job shop.

15. The computer-executed method of claim 14, 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.

16. The computer-executed method of claim 15, wherein the assembly line and job shop includes software that automatically recognizes a project type for the project proposal, and wherein the assembly line and job shop assemble the work packets into the deliverable in accordance with the project type that is recognized by the assembly line job shop.

17. The computer-executed method of claim 16, wherein the assembly line and job shop conducts an integration test, a system test, a system integration test and a performance test of the deliverable, wherein the integration test tests the deliverable 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 is integrated into the client'"'"'s system, and the performance test tests the deliverable for defects as it is executing in the client'"'"'s system.

18. 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 utilizing an ontology of artifacts within a context of a current Software Factory by performing the steps of;

launching an initial ontology of artifacts used in a current Software Factory, wherein the initial ontology is a framework-based mapping of the artifacts, and wherein the initial ontology describes a relationship among different artifacts used in the current Software Factory;

associating factory data that describes an organization of the current Software Factory to one or more items in the ontology to create a proper association of all organizations, teams, roles, artifacts and processes used by the current Software Factory;

mapping the client artifacts and processes to the initial ontology to create a mapped ontology;

performing a pattern analysis to determine automated matches between key words associated between a particular term in the ontology and a set of artifacts used by the current Software Factory;

testing the mapped ontology to ensure that the mapped ontology properly utilizes the client'"'"'s artifacts and any new resources in a manner that comports with the initial ontology; and

utilizing the mapped ontology to create what-if scenarios to evaluate different client artifacts used by the current Software Factory.

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

launching an initial ontology of artifacts used in a current Software Factory, wherein the initial ontology is a framework-based mapping of the artifacts, and wherein the initial ontology describes a relationship among different artifacts used in the current Software Factory;

associating factory data that describes an organization of the current Software Factory to one or more items in the ontology to create a proper association of all organizations, teams, roles, artifacts and processes used by the current Software Factory;

mapping the client artifacts and processes to the initial ontology to create a mapped ontology;

performing a pattern analysis to determine automated matches between key words associated between a particular term in the ontology and a set of artifacts used by the current Software Factory;

testing the mapped ontology to ensure that the mapped ontology properly utilizes the client'"'"'s artifacts and any new resources in a manner that comports with the initial ontology; and

utilizing the mapped ontology to create what-if scenarios to evaluate different client artifacts used by the current Software Factory.

20. The computer-readable storage medium of claim 19, wherein the computer-readable 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 in an on-demand basis.