Patent Grant
8660878
The present disclosure relates in general to the field of computers, and more particularly to the use of computers when implementing processes or methods. Still more particularly, the present disclosure relates to the use of computers when executing processes described by project models via execution of work packets in a software factory.
In a mature service delivery organization, processes or methods form the basis for the structuring of activities that are required to deliver a service, such as software development, testing, or maintenance. These processes or methods describe the steps to be taken in order to create both the intermediate artifacts (use cases, architectural design models, test cases, etc. . . . ) and the final deliverables (running systems or code) that the service provides. This collection of artifacts and their current state are referred to as the project model. However, process or method definitions typically take into account only those dependencies between activities that arise as a result of the process/method design itself. When a method is adopted/implemented to perform the delivery of an actual service, dependencies due to project-specific artifacts that comprise the project model must also be taken into consideration. However, the environment in which the process actually takes place is not considered by the process definition itself. Furthermore, in order to execute the described process, assignment of required activities has previously been a manual process, which is error-prone, slow, and costly.
A computer implemented method, system, and/or computer program product assigns work to a software factory for implementing a project. A project model of a project for a specific service delivery is generated. Project model subcomponents are mapped to work packets that are available to a software factory, thus leading to the generation of a work plan for performing the project via an execution of the available work packets.
As will be appreciated by one skilled in the art, aspects of the present invention may be embodied as a system, method or computer program product. Accordingly, aspects of the present invention may take the form of an entirely hardware embodiment, an entirely software embodiment (including firmware, resident software, micro-code, etc.) or an embodiment combining software and hardware aspects that may all generally be referred to herein as a “circuit,” “module” or “system.” Furthermore, aspects of the present invention may take the form of a computer program product embodied in one or more computer readable medium(s) having computer readable program code embodied thereon.
Any combination of one or more computer readable medium(s) may be utilized. The computer readable medium may be a computer readable signal medium or a computer readable storage medium. A computer readable storage medium may be, for example, but not limited to, an electronic, magnetic, optical, electromagnetic, infrared, or semiconductor system, apparatus, or device, or any suitable combination of the foregoing. More specific examples (a non-exhaustive list) of the computer readable storage medium would include the following: an electrical connection having one or more wires, a portable computer diskette, a hard disk, a random access memory (RAM), a read-only memory (ROM), an erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM or Flash memory), an optical fiber, a portable compact disc read-only memory (CD-ROM), an optical storage device, a magnetic storage device, or any suitable combination of the foregoing. In the context of this document, a computer readable storage medium may be any tangible medium that can contain, or store a program for use by or in connection with an instruction execution system, apparatus, or device.
A computer readable signal medium may include a propagated data signal with computer readable program code embodied therein, for example, in baseband or as part of a carrier wave. Such a propagated signal may take any of a variety of forms, including, but not limited to, electro-magnetic, optical, or any suitable combination thereof. A computer readable signal medium may be any computer readable medium that is not a computer readable storage medium and that can communicate, propagate, or transport a program for use by or in connection with an instruction execution system, apparatus, or device.
Program code embodied on a computer readable medium may be transmitted using any appropriate medium, including, but not limited to, wireless, wireline, optical fiber cable, RF, etc., or any suitable combination of the foregoing.
Computer program code for carrying out operations for aspects of the present invention may be written in any combination of one or more programming languages, including an object oriented programming language such as Java, Smalltalk, C++ or the like and conventional procedural programming languages, such as the “C” programming language or similar programming languages. The program code may execute entirely on the user's computer, partly on the user's computer, as a stand-alone software package, partly on the user's computer and partly on a remote computer or entirely on the remote computer or server. In the latter scenario, the remote computer may be connected to the user's computer through any type of network, including a local area network (LAN) or a wide area network (WAN), or the connection may be made to an external computer (for example, through the Internet using an Internet Service Provider).
Aspects of the present invention are described below with reference to flowchart illustrations and/or block diagrams of methods, apparatus (systems) and computer program products according to embodiments of the invention. It will be understood that each block of the flowchart illustrations and/or block diagrams, and combinations of blocks in the flowchart illustrations and/or block diagrams, can be implemented by computer program instructions. These computer program instructions may be provided to a processor of a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine, such that the instructions, which execute via the processor of the computer or other programmable data processing apparatus, create means for implementing the functions/acts specified in the flowchart and/or block diagram block or blocks.
These computer program instructions may also be stored in a computer readable medium that can direct a computer, other programmable data processing apparatus, or other devices to function in a particular manner, such that the instructions stored in the computer readable medium produce an article of manufacture including instructions which implement the function/act specified in the flowchart and/or block diagram block or blocks.
The computer program instructions may also be loaded onto a computer, other programmable data processing apparatus, or other devices to cause a series of operational steps to be performed on the computer, other programmable apparatus or other devices to produce a computer implemented process such that the instructions which execute on the computer or other programmable apparatus provide processes for implementing the functions/acts specified in the flowchart and/or block diagram block or blocks.
Referring now to the figures, and particularly to
Thus, in a mature service delivery organization, the project model 102 forms the basis for the structuring of activities that are required to deliver a service, such as software development, software testing, software maintenance, etc. However, rather than the project model 102 just taking into account only those dependencies between activities that arise as a result of the method design of the process model 102 itself, when a method is adopted to perform the delivery of an actual service, dependencies due to project-specific artifacts (such as an architectural design model) are also taken into consideration.
In one embodiment, the project model 102 uses method content as a template for the work plan. These methods (i.e., subactivities, object oriented programming (OOP) objects, etc.) describe activities performed for the specific project. For example, the Software Process Engineering Metamodel (SPEM) provides a specification language for the definition of software engineering processes, which is then converted into a service model, which may be made up of specialized Uniform Modeling Language (UML) code that introduces requisite interfaces for the processes. This service model is further refined to provide method definitions (inputs, outputs, roles, activities, etc. associated with an OOP object), which are then exported to a collaborative environment for automatically deploying subprojects to the software factory.
As depicted in
The work packet specifications library 108 can thus receive a signal, from a computer that is managing the project model 102, indicating that a certain project model subcomponent (e.g., 104a) needs to be performed by an appropriately mapped work packet (e.g., work packet 110a) that is currently available for execution by the software factory 112.
As depicted in
A software factory (e.g., software factory 112) includes a collection of business and Information Technology (IT) governance models, operational models, delivery methods, metrics, environment and tools bundled together to improve the quality of delivered software systems, control cost overruns, and effect timely delivery of such systems. The software factories described herein offer a practical solution to developing software products using multiple sites that may be geographically distributed. The software factories execute work packets, which are self-contained work units that are composed of processes, roles, activities, applications and the necessary input parameters that allow a team to conduct a development activity in a formalized manner with visibility to progress of their effort afforded to the requesting teams.
The software factories utilized herein are scalable efficiency model constructs that transform a traditional software development art form into a repeatable scientific managed engineered streamline information supply chain. These software factories incorporate applied system and industrial engineering quality assured efficiencies that provide for the waste eliminating, highly optimized performed instrumentation, measured monitoring and risk mitigated management of software development.
Software Factory Overview
With reference now to
Thus, Software Factory Governance, which includes SFGB 208 and SFO 210, provides the guidance, constraints, and underlying enforcement of all the factory policies and procedures, in support of their governing principles in support of the strategic objects of the Software Factory 200. Software Factory governance consists of factory business, IT and operations governance. The principles, policies and procedures of these models are carried out by two governing bodies—the Business Governance Board and the IT Governance Board (both part of SFGB 208), and an enforcement body—the Software Factory Operations 210.
Thus, Software Factory Governance is responsible for:
Business and IT strategic planning;
Assuring that Business and IT strategies are aligned;
Setting Goals;
Monitoring those Goals;
Detecting Problems in Achieving those goals;
Analyzing Problems;
Identifying Reasons;
Taking Action;
Providing Feedback; and
Re-Strategizing (Continue process improvement).
As soon as a project is deemed worthy to proceed, the job of creating the custom software is sent to a Design Center 212, where the project is broken into major functional areas, including those handled by a Requirements Analysis Team 214 and an Architectural Team 216.
The Requirements Analysis Team 214 handles the Requirement Management side of the Design Center 212, and is responsible for collecting the business requirements from the lines of business and populating these requirements into the tools. Analysis of business requirements is also carried out in order to derive associated IT requirements. Some requirements (e.g. system requirements) may have a contractual constraint to use a certain infrastructure. Requirements are analyzed and used in the basis for business modeling. These requirements and their representative business models (contextual, event and process models) are then verified with and signed off from project stakeholders. Requirements are then base-lined and managed within release and version control.
The Architectural Side of the Design Center 212 is handled by the Architecture Team 216, which takes the output of the requirement/analysis/management side of the design center, and uses architectural decision factors (functional requirements, non-functional requirements, available technology, and constraints), to model a design with appropriate example representation into detail design specification, that is bundled with other pertinent factors into a work packet for assembly lines to execute.
Work Packets 218 are reusable, self-contained, discrete units of software code that constitute a contractual agreement that governs the relationship among Design Center 212, Software Factory Governance Board 208, Software Factory Operations 210, and Assembly Line 220. That is, each work packet 218 includes governance policies and procedures (e.g., including instructions for how work reports are generated and communicated to the client), standards (e.g., protocol for the work packet 218), reused assets (e.g., reusable blocks of code, including the requirements, instructions and/or links/pointers associated with those reusable blocks of code), work packet instructions (e.g., instructions for executing the work packet 218), integration strategy (e.g., how to integrate the work packet 218 into a client's security system), schedule (e.g., when deliverables are delivered to the client), exit criteria (e.g., a checklist for returning the work packet 218 and/or deliverables to the software factory 200), and Input/Output (I/O) work products (e.g., artifact checklist templates for I/O routines). A “deliverable” is defined as a unit of software that is in condition for delivery to, and/or execution on behalf of, a customer or client. Thus, in the context of the present invention, a deliverable is defined as an output product of the software factory that is described herein.
Assembly Line(s) 220 (Job Shop(s)) receive and execute the work packets 218, which are specified by the Design Center 212, to create a customized deliverable 222. A “deliverable” is defined as a unit of software that is in condition for delivery to, and/or execution on behalf of, a customer or client. Thus, in the context of the present invention, a deliverable is defined as an output product of the software factory that is described herein. As shown in exemplary manner, the assembly line 220 puts the work packets 218 into a selected low-level design to generate a deliverable (executable product). While assembly line 220 can be a manual operation in which a coding person assembles and tests work packets, in another embodiment this process is automated using software that recognizes project types, and automatically assembles work packets needed for a recognized project type.
Various tests can be performed in the assembly line 220, including a code/unit test, integration test, system test, system integration test, and performance test. “Code/unit test” tests the deliverable for stand-alone bugs. “Integration test” tests the deliverable for compatibility with the client's system. “System test” checks the client's system to ensure that it is operating properly. “System integration test” tests for bugs that may arise when the deliverable is integrated into the client's system. “Performance test” tests the deliverable as it is executing in the client's system. Note that if the deliverable is being executed on a service provider's system, then all tests described are obviously performed on the service provider's system rather than the client's system.
A User Acceptance Test Team 224 includes a client stakeholder that is charged with the responsibility of approving acceptance of deliverable 222.
Software factory 200 may utilize enterprise collaborators 204 to provide human, hardware or software support in the generation, delivery and/or support of deliverables 222. Such third party contractors are viewed as a resource extension of the software factory 200, and are governed under the same guidelines described above.
If an enterprise collaborator 204 is involved in the generation of work packets 218 and/or deliverables 222, an interface between the software factory 200 and the enterprise collaborator 204 may be provided by a service provider's interface team 226 and/or a product vendor's interface team 228. Service provided by an enterprise collaborator 204 may be a constraint that is part of contractual agreement with a client to provide specialized services. An example of such a constraint is a required integrated information service component that is referenced in the integration design portion of the work packet 218 that is sent to assembly line 220. Again, note that third party service providers use a standard integration strategy that is defined by the software factory 200, and, as such, are subject to and obligated to operate under software factory governance.
Product vendor's interface team 228 provides an interface with a Product Vendor, which is an enterprise collaborator 204 that provides software factory 200 with supported products that may be used within a software factory solution. Product Vendors are also responsible for providing product support and maintaining vendor's relationships, which are managed under the software factory's governance guidelines.
Support Team 230 includes both Level 2 (L2) support and Level 1 (L1) support.
L2 Support is provided primarily by Software Engineers, who provide problem support of Software Factory produced delivered code for customers. That is, if a deliverable 222 doesn't run as designed, then the software engineers will troubleshoot the problem until it is fixed. These software engineers deliver technical assistance to Software Factory customers with information, tools, and fixes to prevent known software (and possibly hardware) problems, and provide timely responses to customer inquiries and resolutions to customer problems.
L1 support is primarily provided by an L1 Help Desk (Call Center). L1 Help Desk support can be done via self-service voice recognition and voice response, or by text chat to an automated smart attendant, or a call can be directed to a Customer Service Representative (CSR). Customer Service Representatives in this role provide first line of help problem support of Software Factory produced deliverables. Such help includes user instruction of known factory solution procedures. For any related customers issues that cannot be resolved through L1, the L1 Help Desk will provide preliminary problem identification, create trouble ticket entry into trouble tracking system, which then triggers a workflow event to dynamically route the problem issue to an available and appropriate L2 support group queue.
Note that in one embodiment software factory 200 is virtual. That is, the different components (e.g., software factory governance board 208, software factory operations 210, design center 212, assembly line 220) may be located in different locations, and may operate independently under the control of information found in work packets 218. In a preferred embodiment, each of the different components of the software factory 200 publishes a set of services that the component can provide and a set of requirements for using these services. These services are functions that are well defined and made visible for outside entities to call.
For example, assume that assembly line 220 publishes a service that it can assemble only work packets that include code and protocol that utilize a certain software development platform. Thus, the assembly line 220 has published its service (set of services includes “assembling work packets”) and the required protocol (set of requirements includes “utilize company A's software development platform”) to the design center 212, which must decide if it wants (or is able) to utilize that particular assembly line 220. If not, then another assembly line from another software factory may be called upon by the design center 212. Behind each offered service are the actual processes that a component performs. These processes are steps taken by the service. Each step is performed by a section of software, or may be performed by an individual who has been assigned the task of performing this step. Each step utilizes leveraged tools, including the work packets 218 described herein. These work packets 218 then implement the process.
By utilizing published interfaces between the different components of the software factory 200, the different components from different software factories can be interchanged according to the capability offered by and protocol used by each component. This enables a “building block” architecture to be implemented through the use of different components from different software factories.
Life Cycle of a Work Packet
In one embodiment of the software factories described herein, there are five phases in the life cycle of a work packet, which are shown in
Work Packet Components
As noted above, a work packet is a self-contained work unit that comprises processes, roles, activities (parts of the job), applications, and necessary input parameters that allow a team to conduct a development activity in a formalized manner, with visibility to progress of their effort afforded to requesting teams. A work packet is not a deliverable software product, but rather is a component of a deliverable software product. That is, a work packet is processed (integrated into a system, tested, etc.) to create one or more deliverables. Deliverables, which were created from one or more work packets, are then combined into a custom software, such as an application, service or system.
In a preferred embodiment, a work packet is composed of the following eight components:
Governance Policies and Procedures—these policies and procedures include protocol definitions derived from a project plan. That is, a project plan for a particular custom software describes how work packets are called, as well as how work packets report back to the calling plan.
Standards—this component describes details about how work packets are implemented into a deliverable in a standardized manner. Examples of such standards are naming conventions, formatting protocol, etc.
Reused Assets—this component includes actual code, or at least pointers to code, that is archived for reuse by different assembled deliverables.
Work Packet Instructions—this component describes detailed instructions regarding how a work packet is actually executed. That is, work packet instructions document what work packets need to be built, and how to build them. These instructions include a description of the requirements that need to be met, including design protocols, code formats, and test parameters.
Integration Strategy—this component describes how a set of work packets, as well as deliverables developed from a set of work packets, are able to be integrated into a client's system. This component includes instructions regarding what processes must be taken by the client's system to be prepared to run the deliverable, as well as security protocols that must be followed by the deliverable. The component may also include a description of how one deliverable will interact with other applications that are resident to the client's computer system.
Scheduling—this component describes when a set of work packets are to be sent to an assembly line, plus instructions on monitoring the progress and status of the creation of the work packet.
Exit Criteria—this component includes instructions (e.g., through the use of a checklist) for deploying a deliverable to the client's system. That is, this component is the quality criteria that the deliverable must meet before it can be considered completed and acceptable for a project.
Input Work Products—this component includes Input/Output (I/O) templates that are used to describe specific work products that are needed to execute the activities of the work packet (in the assembly line) to build the deliverable.
Defining a Work Packet
The process of defining a work packet is called a “work packet definition process.” This process combines critical references from governance, factory operations (e.g., factory management, project management), business criteria, and design (including test) artifacts. Structured templates enable governance, design center, and factory operations to define the referenced artifacts by filling in corresponding functional domain templates, thus defining the contents of the work packet. Thus, a work packet includes not only reusable software code, but also includes governance and operation instructions. For example, a work packet may include directions that describe a sequence of steps to be taken in a project; which data is to be used in the project; which individuals/departments/job descriptions are to perform each step in the project; how assigned individuals/departments are to be notified of their duties and what steps/data are to be taken and used, et al. Thus, each work packet includes traceability regarding the status of a job, as well as code/data/individuals to be used in the execution of a project.
Thus, work packets are created from unique references to governance, factory operations (factory mgt, project mgt), business, and design (including test) artifacts. The packet definition process provides structure templates that enable governance, design center, and factory operations to define referenced artifacts (newly defined artifact identifiers or any reusable part of existing work packet definitions), by filling in corresponding functional domain (e.g., eXtensible Markup Language—XML) templates. What can be defined may be controlled by a Document Type Definition (DTD). The DTD states what tags and attributes are used to describe content in the deliverable, including where each XML tag is allowed and which XML tags can appear within the deliverable. XML tag values are defined and applied to a newly defined XML template for each functional area of a design center. These XML templates are then merged into one hierarchical structure when later assembled into finalized work packets.
With reference now to
The metrics 406 may be one or more of: governance metrics 420 (measurable governance indicators, such as business plans); factory metrics 422 (measurable indicators that describe the capabilities of the software factory, including assembly line capacity); and system metrics 424 (measurable indicators that describe the capabilities of the client's computer system on which deliverables are to be run).
Based on a template 408 for a particular deliverable, artifacts 404 and metrics 406 are used by a packet assembly process 426 to assemble one or more work packets.
Assembling a Work Packet
Template 408, shown in
With reference now to
Archiving Work Packets
As stated above, work packets are fungible (easily interchangeable and reusable for different deliverables). As such, they are stored in an archival manner. In order to retrieve them efficiently, however, they are categorized, classified, and named. The name of the work packet may be created by the architect who originally created the work packet. Preferably, the name is descriptive of the function of the work packet, such as “Security Work Packet”, which can be used in the assembly of a security deliverable. A work packet header may describe whether the work packet is proprietary for a particular client, such that the work packet may be reused only for that client. A description (coded, flagged, etc.) for what the work packet is used for may be included, as well as the names of particular components (such as the eight components described above).
An alternate header for a work packet may contain a unique identification number (“Work Packet ID”), a short description of the work packet (“Work Packet Description”), a description of the type of work packet (“Work Packet Type,” such as “security,” “spreadsheet,” etc.), and the identifier (“Parent Packet ID”) of any parent object from which the work packet has inheritance.
Exemplary pseudocode for defining the work packet is:
With reference now to
Software Factory Readiness Review
Before a software factory can receive an order from a client to create work packets and their resultant deliverables/applications, a determination should be made to determine whether the factory is ready to take on project work. This determination can be made through the use of a scorecard, which provides a maturity assessment of the factory. An exemplary scorecard is as follows:
In one embodiment of the present invention, all of these steps are taken before a project is taken on by the Software Factory Governance Board 206 described above in
Software Factory on-Boarding
As indicated in Step 15 of the Factory Readiness Review process, software factory on-boarding is a rapid process that uses a series of checklist questionnaires to help with the rapid set-up and configuration of the software factory.
The software factory on-boarding process is an accelerator process model that enables the roll out configuration of uniquely defined software factor instances. This is a learning process that leverages patterns used in prior on-boarding exercises. This evolution provides a pertinent series of checklist questionnaires to qualify what is necessary for a rapid set-up and confirmation of a factory instance to support a project. Based on project type assessments, installed factory patterns can be leveraged to forecast what is necessary to set up a similar factory operation.
Exemplary steps taken during a rapid software factory on-boarding are:
Rapid on-boarding provides a calculated line and work cell balancing capability view of leveraged resources, thus improving throughput of assembly lines and work cells while reducing manpower requirements and costs. The balancing module instantly calculates the optimum utilization using the fewest operators to achieve the result requested. Parameters can be varied as often as needed to run “what-if” scenarios.
With reference now to
Project Induction Process
Before a software project is accepted by the software factory, it should first be inducted. This induction process provides an analysis of the proposed software project. The analysis not only identifies what processes and sub-processes will be needed to create the software project, but will also identify potential risks to the software factory and/or the client's computer system.
With reference now to the flow-chart shown in
Service definition process 806 utilizes electronic questionnaire checklists 808 to help define a service definition template 810. Checklists 808 are a collection of drill down checklists that provide qualifying questions related to the candidate project 802. The questions asked in the checklists 808 are based on pre-qualifying questions. That is, pre-qualification questions are broad questions that relate to different types of projects. Based on the answers submitted to questions in the pre-qualification questions, a specific checklist from checklists 808a-n is selected. Thus, assume that pre-qualification questions include four questions: 1) Who is the client? 2) Is the project security related? 3) Will the project run on the client's hardware? 4) When is the proposed project due? Based on answers that are input by the client or the software factory governance board, one of the checklists 808a-n will be selected. That is, if the answers for the four questions were 1) Client A, 2) Yes, 3) Yes and 4) Six months, then a checklist 808b, which has questions that are heuristically known (from past projects) to contain the most relevant questions for such a project is then automatically selected.
Returning to
The scoring and classification process 814 is a scoring and tabulation of the raw data that is output from SAR 812. Based on the output from SAR 812, the scoring and classification process 814 rates the factory project proposal 804 on project definition completeness, trace-ability and risk exposure. If the service definition template 810 indicates that third parties will be used in the candidate project 802, then the scoring and classification process 814 will evaluate proposed third party providers 832 through the use of a third party required consent process 818.
The third party required consent process 818 manages relationships between third party providers 832 and the software factory 100. Example of such third party providers 832 include, but are not limited to, a third party contractor provider 820 (which will provide software coding services for components of the candidate project 802), a third party service provider 822 (which will provide an execution environment for sub-components of the candidate project 802), and vendor product support 824 (which provides call-in and/or on-site support for the completed project). The determination of whether the third party providers 832 and the software factory 200 can work in partnership on the project is based on a Yes/No questionnaire that is sent from the software factory 200 to the third party providers 832. The questionnaire that is sent to the third party providers 932 includes questions about the third party's financial soundness, experience and capabilities, development and control process (including documentation of work practices), technical assistance that can be provided by the third party (including available enhancements), quality practices (including what type of conventions the third party follows, such as ISO 9001), maintenance service that will be provided, product usage (including a description of any licensing restrictions), costs, contracts used, and product warranty.
If the factory project proposal 804 fails this scoring process, it is sent back to a remediation process 816. However, if scoring process gives an initial indication that the factory project proposal 804 is ready to be sent to the software factory, then it is sent to the service induction process 826.
Once the factory project proposal 804 has gone through the SAR process 812 and any third party coordination has been met, scored and classified, the factory project proposal 804 is then inducted (pre-qualified for approval) by the service induction process 826. During the service induction process 826, the scored and classified project is sent through a Conceptual Requirements Review, which utilizes a service repository scorecard 828 to determine if the software factory 200 is able to handle the candidate project 802. That is, based on the checklists, evaluations, scorecards and classifications depicted in
Note that work packets are created in accordance with the client's needs/capacities. An optimal way to determine what the client's needs/capacities are is through the use of checklists. A standard checklist, however, would be cumbersome, since standard checklists are static in nature. Therefore, described now is a process for generating and utilizing dynamic checklists through the use of a Software Factory Meta-Morphic Dynamic Restructuring Logic Tree Model. This model provides the means to expedite checklist data collections, by dynamically restructuring and filtering non-relevant checklist questions, depending on answers evaluated in real time. Such a model not only enables a meta-data driven morphing of decision trees that adapt to the relevancy of what is deemed an applicable line of questioning, but also provides a highly flexible solution to pertinent data collection.
Software Factory Health Maintenance
The software factory described herein should be monitored for a variety of issues. Such monitoring is performed by a Software Factory Analytics and Dashboard, which ensures that both a single instance and multiple instances of the Factory can function smoothly. The monitored metrics include project metrics as well as factory operations, system, business, and performance activities. The analytics of the overall health of the factory can be audited and monitored and used as a basis for continual process improvement strategic analysis and planning. This ensures fungibility and consistency, provides quality assurance, reduces the risk of failure, and increases cost effectiveness.
The health of the software factory is monitored through messages on an Enterprise Service Bus (ESB), which is a bus that is that couples the endpoint processes of the software factory with dashboard monitors. An ESB provides a standard-based integration platform that combines messaging, web services, data transformation and intelligent routing in an event driven Service Oriented Architecture (SOA). In an ESB-enabled, event-driven SOA, applications and services are treated as abstract endpoints, which can readily respond to asynchronous events. The SOA provides an abstraction away from the details of the underlying connectivity and plumbing. The implementations of the services do not need to understand protocols. Services do not need to know how messages are routed to other services. They simply receive a message from the ESB as an event, and process the message. Process flow in an ESB can also involve specialized integration services that perform intelligent routing of messages based on content. Because the process flow is built on top of the distributed SOA, it is also capable of spanning highly distributed deployment topologies between services on the bus.
As stated above, the messages that flow on the ESB contain measurable metrics and states that are received through an event driven Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) Model. This information is via XML data stream messages, which can contain factory operation, system, business and performance and activity related metrics, which provide a relative point of origin for low level measurement. The messages can be used in analytics of the factory's overall health, which is audited and monitored, and can be used as a basis for continual process improvement strategic analysis and planning. Upon update, the data stream is analyzed and the aggregated Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are calculated and sent to the dashboard display device, where the XML is applied to a style template and rendered for display.
The Health Monitoring System provides factory exception and error reporting, system monitoring, Performance Monitoring and Reporting, Proactive and Reactive Alert Notification, Message Auditing and Tracking Reporting, Daily View of Activity, and Historical Reports. Information collected includes what information (regarding the software factory metrics) was sent, to whom it was sent, when it was sent, and how many messages were sent via the ESB interface between the software factory and the client's system.
Information in the messages includes timestamps for the sender (from the software factory), the receiver (in the analytic section), and the hub (the ESB). Derived metrics include:
What Service Requestor and Provider are Most Problematic?
Re-factoring
Redesign
Quality Analysis Improvement
Detail Review
Review of Error Strategy
What Requestor and Provider are Most Active?
Quantitative Analysis
Forecast Trends and Budgeting
Strategic Analysis and Planning
Market Analysis and Planning
How Long It Took to Process
Resource Realignment
Capacity Planning
What Requestor and Provider are Least Active?
Optimization and Re-factoring
Redesign
Realignment of Strategic and Marketing Planning
Capacity Planning Realignment
Governance—Metrics
Referring now to
Each service endpoint 902 is coupled to the Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) 920, to which XML message 922 (or similar markup language formatted messages) can flow to governance monitors 924, factory operations monitors 926 and/or system engineering monitors 928, on which the messages generate dashboard progress messages.
With reference now to
Quality metrics are also monitored for the execution of the work packets in the assembly line area (block 1016). That is, as different work packets are executed, assembled and tested in the assembly line area, the quality of such operations is tracked. These metrics include, but are not limited to, those described above, plus completion rates, detection of software defects, hazards (risks) caused by the execution of the work packets and other issues. This information (and optionally any other information monitored and tracked in block 1006 to 1014) is sent on the ESB to a dashboard in a monitoring display.
With reference now to
Computer 1102 includes a processor unit 1104 that is coupled to a system bus 1106. A video adapter 1108, which drives/supports a display 1110, is also coupled to system bus 1106. System bus 1106 is coupled via a bus bridge 1112 to an Input/Output (I/O) bus 1114. An I/O interface 1116 is coupled to I/O bus 1114. I/O interface 1116 affords communication with various I/O devices, including a keyboard 1118, a mouse 1120, a Compact Disk-Read Only Memory (CD-ROM) drive 1122, a floppy disk drive 1124, and a flash drive memory 1126. The format of the ports connected to I/O interface 1316 may be any known to those skilled in the art of computer architecture, including but not limited to Universal Serial Bus (USB) ports.
Client computer 1102 is able to communicate with a software deploying server 1150 via a network 1128 using a network interface 1130, which is coupled to system bus 1106. Network interface 1130 may include an Enterprise Service Bus (not shown), such as the ESB discussed above. Network 1128 may be an external network such as the Internet, or an internal network such as an Ethernet or a Virtual Private Network (VPN). Note the software deploying server 1150 may utilize a same or substantially similar architecture as client computer 1102.
A hard drive interface 1132 is also coupled to system bus 1106. Hard drive interface 1132 interfaces with a hard drive 1134. In a preferred embodiment, hard drive 1134 populates a system memory 1136, which is also coupled to system bus 1106. System memory is defined as a lowest level of volatile memory in client computer 1102. This volatile memory includes additional higher levels of volatile memory (not shown), including, but not limited to, cache memory, registers and buffers. Data that populates system memory 1136 includes client computer 1102's operating system (OS) 1138 and application programs 1144.
OS 1138 includes a shell 1140, for providing transparent user access to resources such as application programs 1144. Generally, shell 1140 is a program that provides an interpreter and an interface between the user and the operating system. More specifically, shell 1140 executes commands that are entered into a command line user interface or from a file. Thus, shell 1140, also called a command processor, is generally the highest level of the operating system software hierarchy and serves as a command interpreter. The shell provides a system prompt, interprets commands entered by keyboard, mouse, or other user input media, and sends the interpreted command(s) to the appropriate lower levels of the operating system (e.g., a kernel 1142) for processing. Note that while shell 1140 is a text-based, line-oriented user interface, the present invention will equally well support other user interface modes, such as graphical, voice, gestural, etc.
As depicted, OS 1138 also includes kernel 1142, which includes lower levels of functionality for OS 1138, including providing essential services required by other parts of OS 1138 and application programs 1144, including memory management, process and task management, disk management, and mouse and keyboard management.
Application programs 1144 include a renderer, shown in exemplary manner as a browser 1146. Browser 1146 includes program modules and instructions enabling a world wide web (WWW) client (i.e., computer 1102) to send and receive network messages to the Internet using hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP) messaging, thus enabling communication with software deploying server 1150 and other computer systems.
Application programs 1144 in computer 1102's system memory (as well as software deploying server 1150's system memory) also include a software factory program (SFP) 1148. SFP 1148 includes code for implementing the processes described herein, including those described in
The hardware elements depicted in computer 1102 are not intended to be exhaustive, but rather are representative to highlight essential components required by the present invention. For instance, computer 1102 may include alternate memory storage devices such as magnetic cassettes, digital versatile disks (DVDs), Bernoulli cartridges, and the like. These and other variations are intended to be within the spirit and scope of the present invention.
Referring now to
As described in block 1208, the project model subcomponents are then mapped to work packets that are available to the software factory. A mapped-to work packet is one or more work packets that is/are able to perform the function described for a mapped-from project model subcomponent. A work plan is then generated to perform the process described by the project model (block 1210). This work plan includes the calling and execution of the appropriate work packets found in (or at least available to) the software factory.
As described in query block 1212, if a change occurs to the project model (e.g., a new feature is added, an old feature is removed, a new constraint is added, etc.), then any impacted work packets (i.e., those work packets that are newly called, newly divorced, and/or newly modified for use by the software factory) are displayed (block 1214). This display may be on a user interface presented by a monitor such as display 1110 shown in
Note that the disclosure presented herein distinguishes between a process definition or description, actual models (e.g., use case models, design models, deployment models, etc.), and deliverables (that are created during execution of the process). As described herein, the actual models and deliverables drive what needs to happen next in the process described by the process definition/description. By mapping the actual models and deliverables against the process and work packet library, a project plan is automatically generated in order to assign the work. Note that a “project model” is not the same as a “process model.” That is, a process model describes a methodology used in a process, and does not describe current process states, current deliverables, etc. associated with a current project. Conversely, the project model described herein is of a specific current project state, which consists of the various deliverables (some of which may themselves be models, such as a design model) that have been created and their state(s), and uses that information about the current project state to determine the necessary work packets and assignments needed to execute/implement the current project.
Note also that, in one embodiment, the present disclosure depends on a clearly defined relationship between the process definition, the Project Model, and the work packet library. As used herein, the process definition describes the activities which make up the process. Each activity takes some set of input artifacts in a particular state, and produces a set of deliverables in a particular state. Therefore, an activity can involve the creation of a new deliverable in its initial state, or it can involve changing the state of one of its input artifacts. The work packet library is then created by partitioning the process into sets of activities that can be assigned. The process will have some initial activities which may require some input artifacts; thus, those input artifacts constitute the initial state of the Project Model that gets generated to kick off execution.
As detailed herein in various embodiments, the present disclosure describes a system and method for performing model-driven work assignment in the context of a factory environment for service delivery. The present invention provides the ability to start from a project model and a library of work specifications (called work packets), and assign model elements to be worked on using the right combination of these work packets. The result of this process is a work break-down structure that contains both architecture specific dependencies as well as process related dependencies (as specified by the work packets themselves). These dependencies are “live” such that, as the project model changes, the dependency mapping can indicate which work packets are affected and how.
As described in exemplary embodiments herein, the project model is comprised of a set of model elements. Each model element is characterized by its element type. Each element type in turn defines a set of element states, which describe the relevant lifecycle states for the element, as well as the valid set of relationships that can exist between an element of that type, as well as with other elements in the project model.
The flowchart and block diagrams in the figures illustrate the architecture, functionality, and operation of possible implementations of systems, methods and computer program products according to various embodiments of the present disclosure. In this regard, each block in the flowchart or block diagrams may represent a module, segment, or portion of code, which comprises one or more executable instructions for implementing the specified logical function(s). It should also be noted that, in some alternative implementations, the functions noted in the block may occur out of the order noted in the figures. For example, two blocks shown in succession may, in fact, be executed substantially concurrently, or the blocks may sometimes be executed in the reverse order, depending upon the functionality involved. It will also be noted that each block of the block diagrams and/or flowchart illustration, and combinations of blocks in the block diagrams and/or flowchart illustration, can be implemented by special purpose hardware-based systems that perform the specified functions or acts, or combinations of special purpose hardware and computer instructions.
The terminology used herein is for the purpose of describing particular embodiments only and is not intended to be limiting of the invention. As used herein, the singular forms “a”, “an” and “the” are intended to include the plural forms as well, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. It will be further understood that the terms “comprises” and/or “comprising,” when used in this specification, specify the presence of stated features, integers, steps, operations, elements, and/or components, but do not preclude the presence or addition of one or more other features, integers, steps, operations, elements, components, and/or groups thereof.
The corresponding structures, materials, acts, and equivalents of all means or step plus function elements in the claims below are intended to include any structure, material, or act for performing the function in combination with other claimed elements as specifically claimed. The description of various embodiments of the present invention has been presented for purposes of illustration and description, but is not intended to be exhaustive or limited to the invention in the form disclosed. Many modifications and variations will be apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art without departing from the scope and spirit of the invention. The embodiment was chosen and described in order to best explain the principles of the invention and the practical application, and to enable others of ordinary skill in the art to understand the invention for various embodiments with various modifications as are suited to the particular use contemplated.
Note further that any methods described in the present disclosure may be implemented through the use of a VHDL (VHSIC Hardware Description Language) program and a VHDL chip. VHDL is an exemplary design-entry language for Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs), Application Specific Integrated Circuits (ASICs), and other similar electronic devices. Thus, any software-implemented method described herein may be emulated by a hardware-based VHDL program, which is then applied to a VHDL chip, such as a FPGA.
Having thus described embodiments of the invention of the present application in detail and by reference to illustrative embodiments thereof, it will be apparent that modifications and variations are possible without departing from the scope of the invention defined in the appended claims.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5548506 | Srinivasan | Aug 1996 | A |
| 5550971 | Brunner et al. | Aug 1996 | A |
| 5729749 | Ito | Mar 1998 | A |
| 5835898 | Borg et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
| 5953533 | Fink et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
| 5974392 | Endo | Oct 1999 | A |
| 6049775 | Gertner et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
| 6226784 | Holmes et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
| 6237020 | Leymann et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
| 6286104 | Buhle et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
| 6405364 | Bowman-Amuah | Jun 2002 | B1 |
| 6487469 | Formenti | Nov 2002 | B1 |
| 6516451 | Patin | Feb 2003 | B1 |
| 6519763 | Kaufer et al. | Feb 2003 | B1 |
| 6550057 | Bowman-Amuah | Apr 2003 | B1 |
| 6601233 | Underwood | Jul 2003 | B1 |
| 6601234 | Bowman-Amuah | Jul 2003 | B1 |
| 6662357 | Bowman-Amuah | Dec 2003 | B1 |
| 6718535 | Underwood | Apr 2004 | B1 |
| 6789254 | Broussard | Sep 2004 | B2 |
| 6854107 | Green et al. | Feb 2005 | B2 |
| 6931621 | Green et al. | Aug 2005 | B2 |
| 6964034 | Snow | Nov 2005 | B1 |
| 7035809 | Miller et al. | Apr 2006 | B2 |
| 7051036 | Rosnow et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
| 7062449 | Clark | Jun 2006 | B1 |
| 7062749 | Cyr et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
| 7080351 | Kirkpatrick et al. | Jul 2006 | B1 |
| 7137100 | Iborra et al. | Nov 2006 | B2 |
| 7139999 | Bowman-Amuah | Nov 2006 | B2 |
| 7155400 | Jilk et al. | Dec 2006 | B1 |
| 7159206 | Sadhu et al. | Jan 2007 | B1 |
| 7197740 | Beringer et al. | Mar 2007 | B2 |
| 7234131 | Speyrer et al. | Jun 2007 | B1 |
| 7272575 | Vega | Sep 2007 | B2 |
| 7292990 | Hughes | Nov 2007 | B2 |
| 7302674 | Gladieux et al. | Nov 2007 | B1 |
| 7318216 | Diab | Jan 2008 | B2 |
| 7337429 | Psaras et al. | Feb 2008 | B1 |
| 7360201 | Srivastava | Apr 2008 | B2 |
| 7406432 | Motoyama | Jul 2008 | B1 |
| 7406453 | Mundie et al. | Jul 2008 | B2 |
| 7418443 | Yoshimura et al. | Aug 2008 | B2 |
| 7421648 | Davis | Sep 2008 | B1 |
| 7422374 | Pitwon | Sep 2008 | B2 |
| 7483841 | Jin et al. | Jan 2009 | B1 |
| 7516439 | Robinson | Apr 2009 | B2 |
| 7546575 | Dillman et al. | Jun 2009 | B1 |
| 7565643 | Sweet et al. | Jul 2009 | B1 |
| 7603653 | Sundararajan et al. | Oct 2009 | B2 |
| 7640533 | Lottero et al. | Dec 2009 | B1 |
| 7693747 | Bryson et al. | Apr 2010 | B2 |
| 7721279 | Caufield et al. | May 2010 | B1 |
| 7735062 | de Seabra e Melo et al. | Jun 2010 | B2 |
| 7752606 | Savage | Jul 2010 | B2 |
| 7774742 | Gupta et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
| 7774743 | Sanchez et al. | Aug 2010 | B1 |
| 7774747 | Kayam et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
| 7778866 | Hughes | Aug 2010 | B2 |
| 7810067 | Kaelicke et al. | Oct 2010 | B2 |
| 7823120 | Kazakov et al. | Oct 2010 | B2 |
| 7849438 | Hemmat et al. | Dec 2010 | B1 |
| 7853556 | Swaminathan et al. | Dec 2010 | B2 |
| 7865875 | Hockenberry et al. | Jan 2011 | B2 |
| 7908582 | Pepin et al. | Mar 2011 | B2 |
| 7913222 | Ogilvie et al. | Mar 2011 | B2 |
| 7926029 | Stoyen et al. | Apr 2011 | B1 |
| 7958494 | Chaar et al. | Jun 2011 | B2 |
| 7987110 | Cases et al. | Jul 2011 | B2 |
| 8006222 | Ruhe | Aug 2011 | B2 |
| 8056048 | Stevenson et al. | Nov 2011 | B2 |
| 8108855 | Dias et al. | Jan 2012 | B2 |
| 8140367 | Bernardini et al. | Mar 2012 | B2 |
| 8141040 | Chaar et al. | Mar 2012 | B2 |
| 20010037494 | Levien et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
| 20020029272 | Weller | Mar 2002 | A1 |
| 20020038449 | Green et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
| 20020046157 | Solomon | Apr 2002 | A1 |
| 20020069079 | Vega | Jun 2002 | A1 |
| 20020095650 | Green et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
| 20020103731 | Barnard et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
| 20020104067 | Green et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
| 20020156668 | Morrow et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
| 20020184071 | Bicknell et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
| 20030055659 | Alling | Mar 2003 | A1 |
| 20030093477 | Daimon | May 2003 | A1 |
| 20030097650 | Bahrs et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
| 20030101089 | Chappel et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
| 20030106039 | Rosnow et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
| 20030158760 | Kannenberg | Aug 2003 | A1 |
| 20030192029 | Hughes | Oct 2003 | A1 |
| 20030221184 | Gunjal et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
| 20040010772 | McKenna et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
| 20040015870 | Arbouzov et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
| 20040030696 | Lechner | Feb 2004 | A1 |
| 20040044617 | Lu | Mar 2004 | A1 |
| 20040064805 | Sparago et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
| 20040073886 | Irani | Apr 2004 | A1 |
| 20040093584 | Le | May 2004 | A1 |
| 20040143811 | Kaelicke et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
| 20040186765 | Kataoka | Sep 2004 | A1 |
| 20040229199 | Ashley et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
| 20040255265 | Brown et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
| 20040268296 | Kayam et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
| 20050015678 | Miller | Jan 2005 | A1 |
| 20050114829 | Robin et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
| 20050160395 | Hughes | Jul 2005 | A1 |
| 20050166178 | Masticola et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
| 20050177260 | Schweizerhof et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
| 20050198618 | Lalonde et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20050216882 | Sundararajan et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20050234698 | Pinto et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
| 20050283751 | Bassin et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
| 20060005157 | Saxena et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
| 20060031812 | Olson et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
| 20060036954 | Satyadas et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
| 20060064486 | Baron et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
| 20060069605 | Hatoun | Mar 2006 | A1 |
| 20060070020 | Puttaswamy et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
| 20060184933 | Chessell et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
| 20060218521 | Hagstrom et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
| 20060229929 | Hughes et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
| 20060235732 | Miller et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
| 20060248504 | Hughes | Nov 2006 | A1 |
| 20060259524 | Horton | Nov 2006 | A1 |
| 20060293942 | Chaddha et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
| 20060294439 | Rolia et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
| 20070006122 | Bailey et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
| 20070006161 | Kuester et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
| 20070022404 | Zhang et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
| 20070067338 | Koizumi et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
| 20070083813 | Lui et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
| 20070094256 | Hite et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
| 20070118433 | Bess | May 2007 | A1 |
| 20070124231 | Ristock et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
| 20070143735 | Clemm et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
| 20070162170 | Nakamura | Jul 2007 | A1 |
| 20070174810 | Hockenberry et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
| 20070198558 | Chen | Aug 2007 | A1 |
| 20070220479 | Hughes | Sep 2007 | A1 |
| 20070233538 | Zpevak et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
| 20070240154 | Gerzymisch et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
| 20070288107 | Fernandez-Ivern et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
| 20080034347 | V et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
| 20080046859 | Velarde et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
| 20080059450 | Joseph et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
| 20080082956 | Gura et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
| 20080082959 | Fowler | Apr 2008 | A1 |
| 20080127040 | Barcellona | May 2008 | A1 |
| 20080141242 | Shapiro | Jun 2008 | A1 |
| 20080155508 | Sarkar et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
| 20080178145 | Lindley | Jul 2008 | A1 |
| 20080209417 | Jakobson | Aug 2008 | A1 |
| 20080255693 | Chaar et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
| 20080255696 | Chaar | Oct 2008 | A1 |
| 20080256390 | Chaar | Oct 2008 | A1 |
| 20080256505 | Chaar et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
| 20080256506 | Chaar et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
| 20080256507 | Chaar | Oct 2008 | A1 |
| 20080256516 | Chaar et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
| 20080256529 | Chaar | Oct 2008 | A1 |
| 20080282219 | Seetharaman et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
| 20080288269 | Herwig | Nov 2008 | A1 |
| 20090043622 | Finlayson | Feb 2009 | A1 |
| 20090043631 | Finlayson et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
| 20090055237 | Henry et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
| 20090055795 | Finlayson | Feb 2009 | A1 |
| 20090064322 | Finlayson | Mar 2009 | A1 |
| 20090100406 | Greenfield et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
| 20090125875 | Schmitter et al. | May 2009 | A1 |
| 20090204471 | Elenbaas et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
| 20090210282 | Elenbaas et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
| 20090271760 | Ellinger | Oct 2009 | A1 |
| 20090300577 | Bernardini et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
| 20090300586 | Bernardini et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
| 20100017252 | Chaar et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
| 20100017782 | Chaar et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
| 20100017783 | Brininstool et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
| 20100023918 | Bernardini et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
| 20100023919 | Chaar et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
| 20100023920 | Chaar et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
| 20100023921 | Chaar et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
| 20100031090 | Bernardini et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
| 20100031226 | Chaar et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
| 20100031234 | Chaar et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
| 20100162200 | Kamiyama et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
| 20100269087 | Kabra | Oct 2010 | A1 |
| 20110231828 | Kaulgud et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
| 20120124559 | Kondur | May 2012 | A1 |
| 20120144363 | Bernardini et al. | Jun 2012 | A1 |
| Entry |
|---|
| U.S. Appl. No. 12/173,388: Specification, Jul. 15, 2008. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 12/183,423: Specification, Jul. 31, 2008. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 12/177,315: Specification, Jul. 22, 2008. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 12/177,315: Non-Final Office Action, May 4, 2011. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 12/178,185: Specification, Jul. 23, 2008. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 12/183,504: Specification, Jul. 31, 2008. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 12/177,645: Specification, Jul. 22, 2008. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 12/129,304: Specification, May 29, 2008. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 12/129,438: Specification, May 29, 2008. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 12/183,566: Specification, Jul. 31, 2008. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 12/178,092: Specification, Jul. 23, 2008. |
| J. Greenfield et al., “Software Factories Assembling Applications With Patterns, Models, Frameworks and Tools”, Oct. 2003, ACM 1-58113-751-6/03/0010. |
| J. Zhou et al., “Modeling Network Intrusion Detection Alerts for Correlation,” ACM Transactions on Information and System Security, vol. 10, No. 1, Article 4, Feb. 2007, pp. 1-31. |
| S. Degwekar et al., “Event-Triggered Data and Knowledge Sharing Among Collaborating Government Organizations,” ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, vol. 228: Proceedings of the 8th Annual International Digital Government Research Conference, Philadelphia, PA, May 20-23, 2007, pp. 102-111. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 12/173,175: Specification, Jul. 15, 2008. |
| IBM, “IBM Rational Method Composer” Copyright IBM Corporation 2006, ibm.com/software/awdtools/rmc. |
| Brykczynski, B., “A Survey of Software Inspection Checklists,” ACM, Jan. 1999, p. 82-89. |
| Keil et al., “The Influence of Checklists and Roles on Software Practitioner Risk Perception and Decision-Making,” IEEE, 2006, p. 1-12. |
| Objectbuilders, Inc., “Software Factory Assembly Methodology and Training Pathways,” Copyright 2006, www.objectbuilders.com/downloads/SF—Methodology—WP.pdf. |
| Department of Commerce, “IT Architecture Capability Maturity Model,” May 2003, 15 Pgs, http://ocio.os.doc.gov/groups/public/@doc/@os/@ocio/@oitpp/documents/content/prod01—002340.pdf. |
| Slaughter et al., “Aligning Software Processes With Strategy,” MIS Quarterly, vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 891-918, 2006. |
| Musat et al., “Value Stream Mapping Integration in Software Product Lines,” ACM Profes, pp. 110-111, 2010. |
| Rosenmuller et al., “Tailoring Dynamic Software Product Lines,” ACM GPCE, pp. 3-12, 2011. |
| Yoshida et al., “The Integrated Software Product Line Model,” IEEE pp. 538-543, 2004. |
| Amin et al., “A Proposed Reusability Attribute Model for Aspect Oriented Software Product Line Components,” IEEE, pp. 1138-1141, 2010. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 12/183,566—Non-Final Office Action Mailed Nov. 9, 2011. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 12/177,645—Non-Final Office Action Mailed May 23, 2011. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 12/177,645—Notice of Allowance Mailed Nov. 2, 2011. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 11/735,152—Non-Final Office Action Mailed Apr. 29, 2011. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 11/735,152—Non-Final Office Action Mailed Feb. 15, 2012. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 11/735,152—Final Office Action Mailed Sep. 21, 2011. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 12/173,175—Non-Final Office Action Mailed Aug. 3, 2011. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 11/735,120—Non-Final Office Action Mailed Sep. 29, 2010. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 11/735,120—Notice of Allowance Mailed Feb. 1, 2011. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 12/129,304—Non-Final Office Action Mailed Mar. 27, 2012. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 11/735,056—Non-Final Office Action Mailed Dec. 23, 2010. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 11/735,056—Non-Final Office Action Mailed Jun. 9, 2011. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 11/735,056—Notice of Allowance Mailed Dec. 1, 2011. |
| Lucia A., et al., “Assessing the Maintenance Processes of a Software Organization: An Empirical Analysis of a Large Industrial Project,” Journal of Systems and Software 2003; 65(2): 87-103. |
| De Lucia, A., et al., “Early Effort Estimation of Massive Maintenance Processes,” Software Maintenance, 2002. Proceedings. International Conference on, pp. 234-237. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 12/177,315—Examiner's Answer Mailed Mar. 27, 2012. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 12/129,438—Requirement for Information Under 37 CFR 1.105 Mailed Apr. 12, 2012. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 11/835,200—Non-Final Office Action Mailed May 26, 2011. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 11/835,200—Notice of Allowance Mailed Nov. 28, 2011. |
| Coqueiro et al., “Developing Portlets Using Eclipse and Websphere Portlet Factory,” IBM, Jun. 5, 2006. |
| Kramer, “IBM Websphere Portlet Factory 5.11.3,” Patricia Seybold Group, Mar. 2006. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 11/844,031—Non-Final Office Action Mailed Nov. 28, 2011. |
| IBM, “Service-Oriented Web Application Development With IBM Websphere Portlet Factory Software,” Mar. 2006. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 11/847,952—Non-Final Office Action Mailed Aug. 30, 2011. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 11/847,952—Non-Final Office Action Mailed Mar. 5, 2012. |
| Dominguez et al., “Quality in Development Process for Software Factories According to ISO 15504”, Jun. 2006, CLEI Electronic Journal, vol. 9, No. 1, Paper 3. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 11/735,086—Non-Final Office Action Mailed May 18, 2012. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 11/844,031—Final Office Action Mailed May 25, 2012. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 11/735,275—Non-Final Office Action Mailed Jun. 5, 2012. |
| IBM, “IBM Web Experience Factory (Formerly Websphere Portlet Factory)” Web Site, Retrieved From [URL: http://www-01.ibm.com/software/genservers/webexperiencefactory/] on Oct. 3, 2011. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 12/173,388—Non-Final Office Action Mailed Jun. 24, 2011. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 12/177,315—Non-Final Office Action Mailed May 4, 2011. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 12/177,315—Final Office Action Mailed Nov. 2, 2011. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 12/129,438—Request for Information Under Rule 105 Mailed Oct. 18, 2011. |
| IBM, “Best Practices for Service-Oriented Model Development With IBM Websphere Portlet Factory Software,” Mar. 2006, pp. 1-16. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 11/735,099—Non-Final Office Action Mailed Apr. 16, 2012. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 11/836,937—Non-Final Office Action Mailed Apr. 18, 2012. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 11/735,070—Non-Final Office Action Mailed Apr. 26, 2012. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 12/183,566—Notice of Allowance Mailed May 9, 2012. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 12/178,185—Non-Final Office Action Mailed May 8, 2012. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 12/173,175—Non-Final Office Action Mailed May 4, 2012. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 12/178,092—Non-Final Office Action Mailed Jun. 20, 2012. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 12/183,423, —Non-Final Office Action Mailed Jul. 3, 2012. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 12/183,504, —Notice of Allowance Mailed Aug. 8, 2012. |
| Regio, M. and Greenfield, J., “Designing and Implementing a Software Factory,” MSDN, Jan. 2006, 10 Pgs. |
| Greenfield, J., “Software Factories: Assembling Applications With Patterns, Models, Frameworks, and Tools,” MSDN, Nov. 2004, 15 Pgs. |
| Forsberg et al., “Managing Outsourcing of Software Development”, Stockholm University/Royal Institute of Technology, Dept. of Computer and Systems Sciences, Master Thesis, Spring 2001, pp. 1-54. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 12/129,438—Non-Final Office Action Mailed Dec. 19, 2012. |
| Amaral, J., et al., “Analyzing Supply Chains at HP Using Spreadsheet Models,” Interfaces, Jul./Aug. 2008, vol. 38, No. 4, pp. 228-240. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 12/173,175—Notice of Allowance Mailed Nov. 29, 2012. |
| Lenz, G., and Wienands, C., “Practical Software Factories in .Net”, Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, USA, 2006, pp. 1-230. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 12/178,185—Notice of Allowance Mailed Oct. 2, 2012. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 11/735,168—Final Office Action Mailed Oct. 18, 2012. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 11/735,086—Final Office Action Mailed Oct. 22, 2012. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 12/129,304—Final Office Action Mailed Nov. 16, 2012. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 11/735,152—Notice of Allowance Mailed Jun. 15, 2012. |
| Wells, D., et al., “Taming Cyber Incognito Tools for Surveying Dynamic/Reconfigurable Software Landscapes”, Working Conference on Complex and Dynamic Systems Architectures, Brisbane, Australia, Dec. 2001, pp. 13-24, <http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Ad=ADA419185>. |
| Mitritek Systems, Inc., “Building Quality Intelligent Transportation Systems Through Systems Engineering”, Apr. 2002, pp. 1-71, <http://ntl.bts.gov/jpodocs/repts—te/13620.html>. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 11/847,952—Final Office Action Mailed Sep. 4, 2012. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 11/735,070—Final Office Action Mailed Sep. 19, 2012. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 12/129,304—Notice of Allowance Mailed Sep. 13, 2013. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 11/844,031—Notice of Allowance Mailed Sep. 20, 2013. |
| M. De Vries and J. Greenfield, “Measuring Success With Software Factorie and Visual Studio Team System,” Microsoft Corporation, Nov. 2006, pp. 1-43. |
| J. Greenfield, “The Case for Software Factories”, Microsoft Corporation, Jul. 2004, pp. 1-16. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 13/785,780—Notice of Allowance Mailed Oct. 9, 2013. |
| U.S. Appl. No. 13/492,110—Notice of Allowance Mailed Nov. 15, 2013. |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20120323624 A1 | Dec 2012 | US |
