Patent Publication Number: US-8527329-B2

Title: Configuring design centers, assembly lines and job shops of a global delivery network into “on demand” factories

Description:
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION 
     1. Technical Field 
     The present disclosure relates in general to the field of computers, and more particularly to the use of computer software. Still more particularly, the present disclosure relates to the creation of semi-custom software through the use of a standardized software factory. 
     2. Description of the Related Art 
     Software can be classified as being in one of two main categories: “off-the-shelf” and “custom.” As the name implies, off-the-shelf software is pre-developed software that has little, if any flexibility. Thus, the customer must tailor her activities to conform to the software. While such software is initially inexpensive compared to custom software, long-term costs (in time and money for software implementation, training, business process alterations, etc.) can be onerous in an enterprise environment. Custom software, as the name implies, is custom built software that is tailored to existing or planned activities of the customer. 
     Today, software development, and particularly custom software development, is perceived as more of an art than a science. This is particularly true for custom software that is being created by a third-party for an enterprise customer. That is, a developer must rely on her experience, training, intuition and communication skills to create software that is both unique and reliable. This often leads to software of varying degrees of reliability, usefulness and value to the customer. 
     SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION 
     A method, system, and computer-readable medium for utilizing the design centers, assembly lines and job shops of a global delivery network across multiple software factories are presented. Pre-qualified factory organizational units in a software factory are identified. Identified qualified factory organizational units, including design centers, assembly lines and job shops, are matched to customer requirements. If the identified qualified factory organizational units are available from the global delivery network, then they are load balanced and deployed to create software deliverables to the customer. 
     The above, as well as additional purposes, features, and advantages of the present invention will become apparent in the following detailed written description. 
    
    
     
       BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS 
       The novel features believed characteristic of the invention are set forth in the appended claims. The invention itself, however, as well as a preferred mode of use, further purposes and advantages thereof, will best be understood by reference to the following detailed description of an illustrative embodiment when read in conjunction with the accompanying drawings, where: 
         FIG. 1  is an overview of a novel software factory; 
         FIG. 2  is a flow-chart of steps taken to create custom software through the use of work packets in a software factory; 
         FIG. 3  presents an overview of the life cycle of work packets; 
         FIG. 4  presents an overview of an environment in which work packets are defined and assembled; 
         FIG. 5  is a high-level flow-chart of steps taken to define and assemble work packets; 
         FIGS. 6A-B  illustrate an exemplary header in a work packet; 
         FIG. 7  is a high-level flow-chart of steps taken to archive a work packet; 
         FIG. 8  is a high-level flow-chart of steps taken to rapidly on-board a software factory; 
         FIG. 9  is a flow-chart of exemplary steps taken to induct a project; 
         FIG. 10A  shows a relationship between pre-qualifying questions and checklists used to induct a project; 
         FIGS. 10A-E  depict a Software Factory Packet Pattern Analysis and Predictive Forecasting Model that is used to dynamically generate checklists used to aid in the creation of work packets in the software factory; 
         FIG. 11  shows an environment in which software factory analytics and dashboards are implemented; 
         FIG. 12  is a flow-chart showing exemplary steps taken to monitor a software factory; 
         FIG. 13  illustrates an exemplary computer in which the present invention may be utilized; 
         FIGS. 14A-B  are flow-charts showing steps taken to deploy software capable of executing the steps described in  FIGS. 1-12  and  16 - 17 ; 
         FIGS. 15A-B  are flow-charts showing steps taken to execute the steps shown in  FIGS. 1-12  and  16 - 17  using an on-demand service provider; 
         FIG. 16  is a high-level flow chart of exemplary steps taken to qualify a human team (assembly line and/or job shop) for a particular work packet and/or software deliverable; and 
         FIG. 17  is a high-level flow chart of exemplary steps taken to utilize the design centers, assembly lines and job shops of a global delivery network when creating a software deliverable. 
     
    
    
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENT 
     Presented herein is a software factory, which 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 factory described herein offers a practical solution to developing software systems using multiple sites that are geographically distributed. The issues of varying timezones and the hand-over between various teams residing in such timezones are handled by exchanging work packets. A work packet is a self-contained work unit that is 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 novel software factory described herein is a uniquely engineered scalable efficiency model construct that transforms a traditional software development art form into a repeatable scientific managed engineered streamline information supply chain. The software factory incorporates 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 the figures, and in particular to  FIG. 1 , an overview of a preferred embodiment of a software factory  100  is presented. As depicted, the software factory  100  is a service that interacts with both enterprise customers (i.e., client customers)  102  as well as enterprise partners (i.e., third party vendors)  104 . The primary human interface with the enterprise customers  102  is through a Client Business Governance Board (CBGB)  106 . CBGB  106  represents client stakeholders and client business sponsors that fund a project of the software factory  100 . CBGB  106  can be an internal or external client. That is, the same enterprise (i.e., internal client) may include both CBGB  106  and software factory  100 , or a first enterprise (i.e., external client) may have CBGB  106  while a second enterprise has the software factory  100 . As described in greater detail below, a project proposal definition is then run through a software factory induction process in a Software Factory Governance Board (SFGB)  108  and Software Factory Operations (SFO)  110 , where the project proposal definition is evaluated, qualified, scored and categorized. The project proposal definition is then subject to a System Engineering Conceptual Requirements Review by the SFGB  108 . Based on the outcome of the review by the SFGB  108 , a decision is made to accept the project proposal definition or to send it back to the CBGB  106  for remediation and resubmission through the Software Factory Induction Process. 
     Thus, Software Factory Governance, which includes SFGB  108  and SFO  110 , 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  100 . Software Factory governance consists of factory business, IT and operations governance. The principles, policies and procedures of these models are calTied out by two governing bodies—the Business Governance Board and the IT Governance Board (both part of SFGB  108 ), and an enforcement body—the Software Factory Operations  110 . 
     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  112 , where the project is broken into major functional areas, including those handled by a Requirements Analysis Team  114  and an Architectural Team  116 . 
     The Requirements Analysis Team  114  handles the Requirement Management side of the Design Center  112 , 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 representative business (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  112  is handled by the Architecture Team  116 , 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  118  are reusable, self-contained, discrete units of software code that constitute a contractual agreement that governs the relationship among Design Center  112 , Software Factory Governance Board  108 , Software Factory Operations  110 , and Assembly Line  120 . That is, each work packet  118  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  118 ), 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  118 ), integration strategy (e.g., how to integrate the work packet  118  into a client&#39;s security system), schedule (e.g., when deliverables are delivered to the client), exit criteria (e.g., a checklist for returning the work packet  118  and/or deliverables to the software factory  100 ), and Input/Output (I/O) work products (e.g., artifact checklist templates for I/O routines). 
     Assembly Line(s)  120  which are part of a Job Shop, include, but are not limited to any team that is initialized, skilled and certified to accept application factory work packets from the factory Design Center  112 . Job Shops receive and execute the work packets  118 , which are specified by the Design Center  112 , to create a customized deliverable  122 . As shown in exemplary manner, the assembly line  120  puts the work packets  118  into a selected low-level design to generate a deliverable (executable product). While assembly line  120  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  120 , including code/unit tests, 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&#39;s system. “System test” checks the client&#39;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&#39;s system. “Performance test” tests the deliverable as it is executing in the client&#39;s system. Note that if the deliverable is being executed on a service provider&#39;s system, then all tests described are obviously performed on the service provider&#39;s system rather than the client&#39;s system. 
     A User Acceptance Test Team  124  includes a client stakeholder that is charged with the responsibility of approving acceptance of deliverable  122 . 
     Software factory  100  may utilize enterprise partners  104  to provide human, hardware or software support in the generation, delivery and/or support of deliverables  122 . Such third party contractors are viewed as a resource extension of the software factory  100 , and are governed under the same guidelines described above. 
     If an enterprise partner  104  is involved in the generation of work packets  118  and/or deliverables  122 , an interface between the software factory  100  and the enterprise partner  104  may be provided by a service provider&#39;s interface tearn  126  and/or a product vendor&#39;s interface team  128 . Service provided by an enterprise partner  104  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  118  that is sent to assembly line  120 . Again, note that third party service providers use a standard integration strategy that is defined by the software factory  100 , and, as such, are subject to and obligated to operate under software factory governance. 
     Product vendor&#39;s interface team  128  provides an interface with a Product Vendor, which is an enterprise partner  104  that provides software factory  100  with supported products that maybe used within a software factory solution. Product Vendors are also responsible for providing product support and maintaining vendor&#39;s relationships, which are managed under the software factory&#39;s governance guidelines. 
     Support Team  130  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  122  doesn&#39;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. 
     With reference now to  FIG. 2 , a flow-chart of exemplary steps taken to create custom software through the use of a software factory is presented. After initiator block  202 , which may be a creation of a contract between an enterprise client and a software factory service, input, from a Client Business Governance Board, is received at a software factory (block  204 ). This input is a detailed description of the custom software needs of the enterprise client. While such input is usually prepared and presented by human management of the enterprise client, alternatively this input may be the creation of a Unified Modeling Language (UML) based description of the needed software. Based on the client&#39;s input, a project software proposal definition is created by the Software Factory Governance Board of the software factory (block  206 ). This project software proposal definition is sent to the scheduling/dispatching department of the Software Factory Operations, which creates a software project. 
     The software project is then inducted (block  208 ). As will be described in more detail below, the project induction provides an initial introduction of the project to the software factory. Through the use of various parameters, including those found in records of other projects, checklists, et al., the project is initially evaluated. This evaluation includes determining if the software factory has the capacity, resources, bandwidth, etc. needed for the project. If so, then a determination is made as to whether the project is qualified for acceptance by the software factory. Such qualification includes, but is not limited to, determining if the project falls within the guidelines set by a Service Level Agreement (SLA) between the client enterprise and the software factory, whether the project conforms to legal guidelines such as Sarbanes-Oxley, etc. Based on these and other criteria, the project is scored for feasibility, profitability, and desirability for implementation. If the induction process concludes that the project should proceed, then it is categorized into a particular type of project (e.g., payroll, inventory control, database management, marketing, et al.). 
     If the induction process does not pass (query block  210 ), indicating that the project should not proceed, then the project is returned to the Client Business Governance Board for additional discussions between the Client Business Governance Board and the software factory, in order to induct a revised project (i.e., reinduct the software project). However, if the induction process passes, then the software project is parsed into major functional areas (block  212 ). That is, the project is divided up (“broken apart”) in order to establish subunits that can later be integrated into a single custom software (“deliverable”). 
     Work packets are then obtained for all of the functional areas of the software project (block  214 ). These work packets are reusable components which are described in detail below. The work packets are then stitched together (block  216 ) on an assembly line to create deliverable custom software that meets the criteria for the software project that has been established in the earlier steps. The custom software is then tested in the software factory (block  218 ). Once testing is completed, the custom software is delivered (block  220 ) to the client customer, who receives on-going support from the support team (block  222 ). The flow-chart ends at terminator block  224 . 
     While the process has been described for the creation of custom software, the same process is used by a software factory for other activities, including creating a service for a customer, creating standardized software, etc. Thus, the software factory uses work packets to blend software (including reusable artifacts), protocols (e.g., how software will be transmitted, how individuals will be contacted, etc.), governance requirements (e.g., service level agreements that describe how much a service will cost) and operating environments (hardware and software, including operating systems, integrated environments such as SAPT™, Rational™, etc.) into a single integrated product, which can then be used in a stand-alone, manner or can be fed into another system/product. 
     Note that software factory  100  is virtual. That is, the different components (e.g., software factory governance board  108 , software factory operations  110 , design center  112 , assembly line  120 ) may be located in different locations, and may operate independently under the control of information found in work packets  118 . In a preferred embodiment, each of the different components of the software factory  100  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  120  publishes a service that it can assemble only work packets that include code and protocol that utilize IBM&#39;s Rational™ software development platform. Thus, the assembly line  120  has published its service (set of services includes “assembling work packets”) and the required protocol (set of requirements includes “utilize IBM&#39;s Rational™ software development platform”) to the design center  112 , which must decide if it wants (or is able) to utilize that particular assembly line  120 . If not, then another assembly line from another software factory may be called upon by the design center  112 . 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  118  described herein. These work packets  118  then implement the process. 
     By utilizing published interfaces between the different components of the software factory  100 , then 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 
     There are five phases in the life cycle of a work packet, which are shown in  FIG. 3 . These five phases are 1) Defining (block  302 ); 2) Assembling (block  304 ); Archiving (block  306 ); Distributing (block  308 ); and Pulling for Execution (block  310 ). As indicated by the top dashed line coming out of asset repository  312 , this life cycle may be recursive. That is, in one embodiment, work packets are modified and upgraded in a recursive manner, which includes the steps shown in  FIG. 3 . Once a work packet is assembled and archived, it is stored in an asset repository  312 , whence the work packet may be accessed and utilized by an asset manager  314  for assembly into a deliverable by an assembly line  316 . Note that the assembly line  316  can also send, to the asset manager  314 , a message  318  that requests a particular work packet  320 , which can be pulled (block  310 ) into the asset repository  312  by the asset manager  314 . This pulling step (block  310 ), is performed through intelligent routing distribution (block  308 ) to the asset repository  312  and assembly line  316 . The configuration of the routing distribution of the work packet  320  is managed by the asset manager  314 , which is software that indexes, stores and retrieves assets created and used with the software factory. 
     Work Packet Components 
     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&#39;s system. This component includes instructions regarding what processes must be taken by the client&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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  FIG. 4 , an overview of the environment in which a packet definition process  402  occurs is presented. The packet definition process  402  calls artifacts  404 , metrics  406 , and a template  408  to define a work packet. The artifacts may be one or more of: governance artifacts  410  (intellectual assets produced in the software factory by the Software Factory Governance Board  108  described in  FIG. 1 ); business contextual artifacts  412  (intellectual assets produced in the software factory by business analysts in the requirement analysis team  114  described in  FIG. 1 ); architectural artifacts  414  (intellectual assets produced by the architecture team  116  described in  FIG. 1 ); test artifacts  416  (intellectual assets produced by test architects in the architecture team  116  shown in  FIG. 1 ); and project artifacts  418  (intellectual assets produced in the software factory by system engineers in the design center  112  shown in  FIG. 1 ). 
     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&#39;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  FIG. 4 , describes how a work packet is to be assembled. The template  408  includes metadata references to key artifacts  404  and metrics  406 , which are merged into a formal work packet definition as described above. The work packet is then assembled in a standardized hierarchical way and packaged within a factory message envelope that contains a header and body. 
     With reference now to  FIG. 5 , a high-level flow-chart of steps taken to define and assemble work packets is presented. After initiator block  502  (which may be an order by the Requirements Analysis Team  114  to the Architecture Team  116 , shown in  FIG. 1 , to create a design center-defined work packet), the requisite packet definitions are created for work packets that are to be used in deliverables (block  504 ). First, a template, which preferably is a reusable that has been used in the past to create the type of work packet needed, is called (block  506 ). Based on that called template, the needed artifacts (block  508 ) and metrics (block  510 ) are called. Using the template as a guide, the called artifacts and metrics are assembled in the requisite work packets (block  512 ), and the process ends. 
     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. For example, consider the header  600  shown in  FIG. 6A . Header  600  is associated with a specific work packet  602  that includes software code  604 . The name of the work packet is created by the architect who originally created the work packet  602 . Preferably, the name is descriptive of the function of the work packet  602 , such as “Security Work Packet”, which can be used in the assembly of a security deliverable. The 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 is shown in  FIG. 6B  as header  606 . Note that the header  606  for every work packet contains the first four values shown (“Work Packet ID,” “Work Packet Description,” “Work Packet Type,” and “Parent Packet ID”). That is, each work packet has 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: 
     
       
         
           
               
             
               
                   
               
             
            
               
                 [Work Packet Definition - Stored in Asset Repository] 
               
               
                 &lt;Factory Envelope ClientCode = 999, Version = 1.0, FactoryInstanceID = 
               
               
                 012, ProjectID=1001&gt; 
               
               
                 &lt;Header&gt; 
               
               
                 ..... 
               
               
                 ..... 
               
               
                 ..... 
               
               
                 ...... 
               
               
                 &lt;/Header&gt; 
               
               
                 &lt;Body&gt; 
               
               
                 &lt;Asset ID&gt; 
               
               
                 &lt;Asset Type&gt; 
               
               
                 &lt;Project Type&gt; 
               
               
                 &lt;Work Packet ID = ####,CreationDate =011007, Source = DC100&gt; 
               
               
                 &lt;Work Packet Description&gt; 
               
               
                 &lt;Work Packet Type [1-90]&gt; 
               
               
                 &lt;Parent Packet ID = ####&gt; 
               
               
                 &lt;Governance&gt; 
               
               
                 &lt;Governance_Artifact ID = #### Type = 1 [Policy,Procedure,]&gt; 
               
               
                 &lt;Governance_Artifact ID .....&gt; 
               
               
                 &lt;Governance_Artifact ID ....&gt; 
               
               
                 &lt;Governance_Artifact ID ....&gt; 
               
               
                 &lt;/Governance&gt; 
               
               
                 &lt;Business&gt; 
               
               
                 &lt;Business_Artifact ID = ### Type = 2 [1=Success Factor, 2=Use Case, 
               
               
                 3=Business Context, 4= NFR, etc&gt; 
               
               
                 &lt;Business_Artifact ID = ### Type = 2&gt; 
               
               
                 &lt;Business_Artifact ID = ### Type = 2&gt; 
               
               
                 &lt;Business_Artifact ID = ### Type = 2&gt; 
               
               
                 &lt;/Business&gt; 
               
               
                 &lt;Architecture Artifact ID Type = 3 [ 1= Information, 2=Data, 
               
               
                 3=Application,4=Integration, 5=Security, 
               
               
                 6=System, 7=Test, etc.]&gt; 
               
               
                 &lt;Architecture_Artifiact ID &gt; 
               
               
                 &lt;Architecture_Artifiact ID &gt; 
               
               
                 &lt;Architecture_Artifiact ID &gt; 
               
               
                 &lt;Architecture_Artifiact ID &gt; 
               
               
                 &lt;Architecture_Artifiact ID&gt; 
               
               
                 &lt;Architecture_Artifiact ID&gt; 
               
               
                 &lt;Architecture_Artifiact ID&gt; 
               
               
                 &lt;Architecture_Artifact ID&gt; 
               
               
                 &lt;/Architecture&gt; 
               
               
                 &lt;Project ID = xxx&gt; 
               
               
                 &lt;Project Artifact ID = ####&gt; 
               
               
                 &lt;Project Artifacts&gt; 
               
               
                 &lt;Project Metrics&gt; 
               
               
                 &lt;/Project&gt; 
               
               
                 &lt;/Work Packet&gt; 
               
               
                 &lt;/Body&gt; 
               
               
                 &lt;/Factory Envelope&gt; 
               
               
                   
               
            
           
         
       
     
     With reference now to  FIG. 7 , a high-level flow chart of steps taken to archive a work packet is presented. After initiator block  702 , an architect defines header components for an asset (e.g. a work packet) header (block  704 ). Note that these header components allow an Asset Repository to perform a metadata categorization search of the assets. These header components may be any that the programmer wishes to use, including those shown in exemplary manner in  FIGS. 6A-B . After the header components are defined, the architect populates them with descriptors (block  706 ). A system manager or software then archives (stores) the work packet, including the header (block  708 ). At a later time, a program or programmer can retrieve the work packet by specifying information in the header (block  710 ). For example, if the program or programmer needs a work packet that is of a “Security” type that follows “Standard 100”, then “Work packet one” can be retrieved at “Address 1”, as depicted in  FIG. 6A . Note, however, that this work packet cannot be utilized unless it is to be used in the construction of a deliverable for the client “Toyota.” The process ends at terminator block  712 . 
     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:
         1. Factory Resource Plan (Business and IT Environment) completed   2. Infrastructure (Hardware, Network) procurement completed   3. Operational Software installed   4. Integrated Tools installed
           a. Design Center
               i. Requirement Management   ii. Business Modeling   iii. Architectural Modeling   iv. Test Management   v. Configuration (Release) Management   vi. Change Management   
               b. Assembly Lines and Job Shops
               i. IDE (Integrated Development Environment)   
               
           5. Automate information handled (Service Oriented Architecture (SOA)—reusable model for Factory Installations)   6. Process, equipment and product data integrated and statistically analyzed   7. Enterprise Service Bus installed
           a. Common Services
               i. Audit (DB)   ii. Business Transaction Monitoring   iii. Performance Monitoring   iv. System Monitoring   v. Message Translation/Transformation   vi. Analysis (Data Analytics)   vii. Packet Assembly   viii. Session Management   ix. Security Model Configuration   x. Process Server Configuration   xi. Communication Protocol Bridges   
               b. Resource Management   c. Asset Management   d. Portal Server   e. Factory Induction Server   f. Message Oriented Middleware
               i. Hub   ii. Router (DB)   iii. Persistent and Durable Queues (Databases)   
               g. Service Activators (Shared Components)   
           8. Workflow Engine installed   9. Workflow Event Model configured   10. Problem-solving organization (internal factory operations (infrastructure)) maintenance developed   11. Operational Support (System, Open Communication Channel, Defined and Enforced Process and Procedures) hosted   12. Project Management Plan in place   13. Project scheduled   14. Factory Activity scheduled   15. On-boarding—Setup and configuration   16. Ongoing capacity planned   17. Assembly Lines and Job Shops balanced   18. Human Resources planned
           a. Reduce the division of labor   b. Secure the requisite talent   
           19. Factory process implemented to make factory mistake-proof (continued process improvement)   20. Introductions and assembly of new process technology managed   21. In-line assembly inspected (done via Reviews)   22. Factory induction process in place   23. Communication channels cleared and defined       

     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  106  described above in  FIG. 1 . These steps ensure the health and capacity of the software factory to create and assemble work packets into a client-ordered deliverable. 
     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:
         a. Auto-recipe (configuration) download
           i. Populate Activities/Task into workflow   ii. Configure Message Router   iii. Configure (queues) communication channels per governance model   iv. Set up logistics (assess, connectivity) internal maintenance team support (location)   v. Fast ramp new production processes   vi. Configure Security model
               1. User accounts   2. Roles and privileges
                   a. Network Access   b. OS File Directory   c. Database   
                   
               vii. Configure Event Model   viii. Configure Infrastructure Servers   ix. Distribute Network Logistics   
           b. Resource Allocation (including human resources available)       

     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  FIG. 8 , a high-level flow-chart of exemplary steps taken for rapidly on-boarding a software factory is presented. After initiator block  802 , processes used by a software factory, including choke-points, are determined for a first project (block  804 ). These processes (and perhaps choke-points) lead to a checklist, which describes the processes of the first process (block  806 ). Examples of processes include, but are not limited to, the creation of work packets, testing work packets, etc. Examples of choke-points include, but are not limited to, available computing power and memory in a service computer in which the software factory will run; available manpower; available communication channels; etc. When a new work project comes in to the software factory, the checklist can be used by the Software Factory Operations  110  (shown in  FIG. 1 ) to check processes/choke-points that can be anticipated by the new work project (block  808 ). That is, assume that the first project and the new project are both projects for creating a computer security program. By using a checklist that identifies similar mission-critical processes and/or choke-points when creating a computer security program, a rapid determination can be made by a programmer (or automated software) as to whether the software factory is capable of handling the new work project. If the checklist is complete, indicating that all mission-critical resources are ready and no untoward choke-points are detected (block  810 ), then the software factory is configured (block  812 ) as before (for the first project), and the process ends (terminator block  814 ). However, if the resources are not ready, then a “Not Ready” message is sent back to the Software Factory Operations (such as to the Software Factory Governance Board) (block  816 ), thus ending the process (terminator block  814 ), unless the Software Factory Governance Board elects to retry configuring the software factory (either using the rapid on-board process or the full process described above). 
     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&#39;s computer system. 
     With reference now to the flow-chart shown in  FIG. 9 , a candidate project  902  is submitted to software factory  100  (preferably to the Software Factory Governance Board  108  shown in  FIG. 1 ) as a factory project proposal  904 . The factory project proposal  904  then goes through a service definition process  906 . 
     Service definition process  906  utilizes electronic questionnaire checklists  908  to help define a service definition template  910 . Checklists  908  are a collection of drill down checklists that provide qualifying questions related to the candidate project  902 . The questions asked in the checklists  908  are based on pre-qualifying questions. That is, as shown in  FIG. 10A , pre-qualification questions  1002  are broad questions that relate to different types of projects. Based on the answers submitted to questions in the pre-qualification questions  1002 , a specific checklist from checklists  908   a - n  is selected. Thus, assume that pre-qualification questions  1002  include four questions: 1) Who is the client? 2) Is the project security related? 3) Will the project run on the client&#39;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  908  will be selected. That is, if the answers for the four questions were 1) Toyota, 2) Yes, 3) Yes and 4) Six months, then a checklist  908   b , 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  FIG. 9 , the selected checklists  908  are then used to generate the service definition template  910 , which is essentially a compilation of checklists  908  that are selected in the manner described in  FIG. 10A . Service definition template  910  is then sent to a Service Assessment Review (SAR)  912 . SAR  912  is a weighted evaluation process that, based on answers to qualifying, and preferably closed ended (yes/no), questions derived from the service definition template  910 , evaluates the factory project proposal  904  for completeness and preliminary risk assessment. SAR  912  provides an analysis of relevant areas of what is known (based on answers to questions found in the service definition template  910 ) and what is unknown (could not be determined, either because of missing or unanswered questions in the service definition template  910 ) about the candidate project  902 . Thus, the outcome of SAR  912  is a qualification view (gap analysis) for the factory project proposal  904 , which provides raw data to a scoring and classification process  914 . 
     The scoring and classification process  914  is a scoring and tabulation of the raw data that is output from SAR  912 . Based on the output from SAR  912 , the scoring and classification process  914  rates the factory project proposal  904  on project definition completeness, trace-ability and risk exposure. If the service definition template  910  indicates that third parties will be used in the candidate project  902 , then the scoring and classification process  914  will evaluate proposed third party providers  932  through the use of a third party required consent process  918 . 
     The third party required consent process  918  manages relationships between third party providers  932  and the software factory  100 . Example of such third party providers  932  include, but are not limited to, a third party contractor provider  920  (which will provide software coding services for components of the candidate project  902 ), a third party service provider  922  (which will provide an execution environment for sub-components of the candidate project  902 ), and vendor product support  924  (which provides call-in and/or on-site support for the completed project). The determination of whether the third party providers  932  and the software factory  100  can work in partnership on the project is based on a Yes/No questionnaire that is sent from the software factory  100  to the third party providers  932 . The questionnaire that is sent to the third party providers  932  includes questions about the third party&#39;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  904  fails this scoring process, it is sent back to a remediation process  916 . However, if scoring process gives an initial indication that the factory project proposal  904  is ready to be sent to the software factory, then it is sent to the service induction process  926 . 
     Once the factory project proposal  904  has gone through the SAR process  912  and any third party coordination has been met, scored and classified, the factory project proposal  904  is then inducted (pre-qualified for approval) by the service induction process  926 . During the service induction process  926 , the scored and classified project is sent through a Conceptual Requirements Review, which utilizes a service repository scorecard  928  to determine if the software factory  100  is able to handle the candidate project  902 . That is, based on the checklists, evaluations, scorecards and classifications depicted in  FIG. 9 , the candidate project  902  receives a final evaluation to determine that the software factory  100  has the requisite resources needed to successfully execute the candidate project  902 . If so, then the candidate project becomes a factory project  930 , and a contract agreement is made between the client and the service provider who owns the software factory  100 . 
     Dynamic Generation of Software Packets 
     As described herein, work packets are created in accordance with the client&#39;s needs/capacities. An optimal way to determine what the client&#39;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. 
     As now described, the Software Factory Meta-Morphic Dynamic Restructuring Logic Tree Model qualifies answers to checklist questions to determine if a next checklist is relevant to what is needed to determine what type of work packets are needed for the client&#39;s project. This expedites the data collection and analysis process, and thus provides a scalable flexibility to data collection and logic decision tree processing and constructions. 
     Referring now to  FIG. 10B , a software diagram  1004  shows a relationship between different software objects used to dynamically generate checklists used to determine what work packets are needed to create a deliverable. Objects  1005   a - d  are used to track and receive answers to a particular checklist, while objects  1007   a - c  are used to evaluate each checklist to determine if it is relevant to the inquiry needed for determining what work packets are needed for a project related to a particular checklist category. 
     Referring now to  FIG. 10C , a Software Factory Packet Pattern Analysis and Predictive Forecasting Model  1006 , which is an excerpt of a Software Factory data model, shows the relational pattern between areas of pattern analysis.  FIG. 10D  shows a pattern  1012  of relationships between different assets, project types, templates, schema, tasks and processes. These relationships are a by-product of the Software Factory Packet Pattern Analysis and Predictive Forecasting Model  1006  shown in  FIG. 10C . 
     To tie together the details shown in  FIGS. 10B-D , a high-level flow-chart of steps taken to dynamically manage checklists used to select appropriate work packets in a software factory is presented in  FIG. 10E . After initiator block  1014 , which may be prompted by a client requesting a deliverable from the software factory, an initial checklist is presented (block  1016 ). This checklist consists of a series of question groups, which are categorized according to a particular type of deliverable. For example, a security software program may be associated with a particular checklist category for “security software.” As described in block  1018 , answers to the first group of questions are received by the Software Factory Packet Pattern Analysis and Predictive Forecasting Model  1006  shown in  FIG. 10C . If the received answers prompt a new series of questions (query block  1020 ), then a dynamically generated new checklist is created (block  1022 ). Note that this new checklist is not merely an existing node in a decision tree. Rather, based on received answers, a new checklist is dynamically created using stored questions that are tagged and associated with a particular set of answers. Thus, if a set of two questions resulted in respective answers “True” and “False”, this would result in a different set of next questions than what would be generated if the respective answers were “True” and “True” (or any other combination of answers other than “True” and “False”). 
     Referring now to block  1024 , answers to the new checklist are evaluated based on their contextual reference and the nature of the questioning objectives. That is, based on what question parameters are used for the work packets being generated, a determination can be made as to whether additional new checklists need to be constructed (query block  1026 ). If so, then the process returns to block  1022  in an iterative manner. If not, then the process ends (terminator block  1028 ), indicating that the checklist process for determining what qualities are needed in the work packets has concluded. 
     Referring again to block  1024 , note that leading indicator can influence how answers are evaluated. Such leading indicators include descriptors of the final deliverable that will be generated by the software factory, a client&#39;s name or field, etc. As leading indicators change, they can change content relevance and perspective reference points and drive the restructuring of relevant questions that can be restructured along that leading indicator relative perspective. 
     As thus described, for every answer collected by a question posed on a checklist and the scope of the question, all answers are evaluated for relevancy (scope, project type and contextual reference etc.). If a question becomes irrelevant, then that question is filtered and not asked in future questionnaires having a similar context. This provides a highly flexible solution for essential pertinent data collection. That is, the line of questioning and the decision tree changes with each new iteration (thus creating a dynamic logic tree that restructures itself, depending on how it used by maintaining a contextual reference base). Like water reforming into a drop, no matter how many times and in what manner a set of questions is parsed into segments, the set of questions reforms its remnants into a new wholly formed structure. 
     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&#39;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&#39;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 
     
         
         
           
             Compliance—reporting responsibility, procedural and policy execution 
             Continual Process Improvement 
             Comparative analysis against baseline and performance objectives 
             Factory Contractual Analysis 
             Financial—Profitability
           Increase Revenue   Lower Costs
 
Design Center—Metrics
   
         
             Asset Type Creation Analysis per project type 
             When (date/time) Work Packets Definitions are created by project 
             Work Packet creation Rate 
             Work Packet to Project Type Pattern Analysis 
             Design Compliance (Assembly Lines and/or Job Shops), Asset/Artifact Reuse 
             Design Solution Pattern Analysis per Work Packet Type
 
Asset Management—Metrics
 
             Asset Repository Growth Rate 
             Asset Repository Mix 
             Asset Reuse Rate 
             Project Asset Usage Patterns
 
Project—Metrics
 
             Project Proposal Induction Attempt/Success Ratio 
             Factory Project Client/Industry Analysis 
             Resource Availability, Activity and Tasks Status 
             Milestone Achievement Rate/Status 
             Schedule Analysis 
             Budget/Cost Analysis 
             Risk Identification 
             Issue Tracking 
             Defect Tracking Resolution, Project Asset Usage Patterns 
             Intelligent Forecaster
 
Factory Operations—Metrics
 
             Approved Project Pipeline 
             Project Throughput Rate Analysis 
             Informational Analysis 
             Work Packet Distribution Analysis 
             Capacity Planning (Forecast/Logistics/Availability) 
             Resource Inventory Levels 
             Factory Utilization Rate 
             Workload Characterization 
             Transactional Analysis 
             Performance Analysis Distribution 
             Traffic Analysis 
             Equipment and facilities 
             Headcount and Human Resources data applied to physical resources 
             Worker Turnover Rate 
             Labor Analysis (hours, overtime, per type of factory worker) 
             Process Technologies Used 
             Production Volumes 
             Factory Operation Trouble Ticket/Problem Resolution (e.g. internal factory operations (infrastructure) maintenance)
 
Factory Financials—Metrics
 
             Revenue per project 
             Operational Costs per Project
           Fixed   Variable   
         
             Profit per Project 
             Profit per Project Type
 
System Engineering Analysis
 
             System Engineering—Project Risks 
             System Engineering—Software Defects 
             System Engineering—Issue Tracking and Resolution 
             SEAT Review Scorecards Results
           CRR—Conceptual Requirements Review   BRR—Business Requirements Review   SRR—System Requirements Review   PDR—Preliminary Design Review   CDR—Critical Design Review   TRR—Test Readiness Review   PRR—Production Readiness Review   FRR—Factory Readiness Review   
         
             Quality Assurance Cause Effect Correlation Analysis
 
Assembly Lines and Job Shops—Metrics
 
             Work Packet Consumption Rate
           Start (date/time) Work Packet Execution   Finish (date/time) Work Packet Execution   
         
             Number of Cross Trained Assembly Line/Job Shop Workers 
             Availability Rate 
             Quality Rating per Worker 
           
         
       
    
     Referring now to  FIG. 11 , an environment for Software Factory Analytics and Dashboard is presented in a software factory  100 . Note that three exemplary service endpoints  1102   a - c  are depicted. Service endpoint  1102   a  provides analytic service for measurements taken in the software factory  100 . Service endpoint  1102   b  provides an audit service, which determines which analytic measurements should be taken. Service endpoint  1102   c  provides a web service that affords analytic measurements and dashboards to be transmitted in HTML or other web-based format to a monitor. Details of a service endpoint include the application (service software)  1104 , an application interface  1106 , a resource adapter  1108 , a managed connection  1110 , a client interface  1112 , an ESB endpoint  1114 , an invocation and management framework  1116  (protocol stacks that can be sued for transporting messages across an ESB), and a service container  1118  (an operating system process that can be managed by the invocation and management framework  1116 ). 
     Each service endpoint  1102  is coupled to the Enterprise Service Bus (ESB)  1120 , to which XML message  1122  (or similar markup language formatted messages) can flow to governance monitors  1124 , factory operations monitors  1126  and/or system engineering monitors  1128 , on which the messages generate dashboard progress messages. 
     With reference now to  FIG. 12 , a flow-chart of exemplary steps taken to monitor the health of a software factory is presented. After initiator block  1202  (which may be prompted by the acceptance of a work project as described above), work packets are first defined (block  1204 ). As described above, these work packets are then sent to the assembly area. This transmittal is tracked (block  1206 ) by sending a message  1122  to the ESB  1120  shown in  FIG. 11 . This message  1122  contains information about where and when the work packet was sent to the assembly line. If the work packet pulls an artifact (such as artifacts  404  described in  FIG. 4 ), another message is sent to the ESB for tracking purposes (block  1208 ). Similarly, messages are sent to the ESB if there are any on-going changes of work activities contained in the work packets (block  1210 ). Execution of the work packets is monitored to ensure that such execution conforms with governance guidelines that have been previously set for the software factory (block  1212 ). Similarly, the software factory is monitored to ensure that work packets comply with the architecture of the software factory (block  1214 ). 
     Quality metrics are also monitored for the execution of the work packets in the assembly line area (block  1216 ). 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  1206  to  1214 ) is sent on the ESB to a dashboard in a monitoring display, as described in  FIG. 11  above. 
     With reference now to  FIG. 13 , there is depicted a block diagram of an exemplary client computer  1302 , in which the present invention may be utilized. Note that some or all of the exemplary architecture shown for client computer  1302  may be utilized by software deploying server  1350 , as well as monitors  1124 ,  1126  and  1128  shown in  FIG. 11 . 
     Client computer  1302  includes a processor unit  1304  that is coupled to a system bus  1306 . A video adapter  1308 , which drives/supports a display  1310 , is also coupled to system bus  1306 . System bus  1306  is coupled via a bus bridge  1312  to an Input/Output (I/O) bus  1314 . An I/O interface  1316  is coupled to I/O bus  1314 . I/O interface  1316  affords communication with various I/O devices, including a keyboard  1318 , a mouse  1320 , a Compact Disk-Read Only Memory (CD-ROM) drive  1322 , a floppy disk drive  1324 , and a flash drive memory  1326 . 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  1302  is able to communicate with a software deploying server  1350  via a network  1328  using a network interface  1330 , which is coupled to system bus  1306 . Network interface  1330  may include an Enterprise Service Bus (not shown), such as ESB  1120  shown in  FIG. 11 . Network  1328  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  1350  may utilize a same or substantially similar architecture as client computer  1302 . 
     A hard drive interface  1332  is also coupled to system bus  1306 . Hard drive interface  1332  interfaces with a hard drive  1334 . In a preferred embodiment, hard drive  1334  populates a system memory  1336 , which is also coupled to system bus  1306 . System memory is defined as a lowest level of volatile memory in client computer  1302 . 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  1336  includes client computer  1302 &#39;s operating system (OS)  1338  and application programs  1344 . 
     OS  1338  includes a shell  1340 , for providing transparent user access to resources such as application programs  1344 . Generally, shell  1340  is a program that provides an interpreter and an interface between the user and the operating system. More specifically, shell  1340  executes commands that are entered into a command line user interface or from a file. Thus, shell  1340  (as it is called in UNIX®—UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group in the United States and other countries), also called a command processor in Windows® (WINDOWS is a registered trademark of Microsoft Corporation in the United States and other countries), 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  1342 ) for processing. Note that while shell  1340  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  1338  also includes kernel  1342 , which includes lower levels of functionality for OS  1338 , including providing essential services required by other parts of OS  1338  and application programs  1344 , including memory management, process and task management, disk management, and mouse and keyboard management. 
     Application programs  1344  include a browser  1346 . Browser  1346  includes program modules and instructions enabling a World Wide Web (WWW) client (i.e., client computer  1302 ) to send and receive network messages to the Internet using HyperText Transfer Protocol (HTTP) messaging, thus enabling communication with software deploying server  1350 . 
     Application programs  1344  in client computer  1302 &#39;s system memory (as well as software deploying server  1350 &#39;s system memory) also include a Software Factory Program (SFP)  1348 . SFP  1348  includes code for implementing the processes described in  FIGS. 1-12  and  14   a - 17 . In one embodiment, client computer  1302  is able to download SFP  1348  from software deploying server  1350 . 
     The hardware elements depicted in client computer  1302  are not intended to be exhaustive, but rather are representative to highlight essential components required by the present invention. For instance, client computer  1302  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. 
     Note further that, in a preferred embodiment of the present invention, software deploying server  1350  performs all of the functions associated with the present invention (including execution of SFP  1348 ), thus freeing client computer  1302  from having to use its own internal computing resources to execute SFP  1348 . 
     It should be understood that at least some aspects of the present invention may alternatively be implemented in a computer-readable medium that contains a program product. Programs defining functions of the present invention can be delivered to a data storage system or a computer system via a variety of tangible signal-bearing media, which include, without limitation, non-writable storage media (e.g., CD-ROM), writable storage media (e.g., hard disk drive, read/write CD ROM, optical media), as well as non-tangible communication media, such as computer and telephone networks including Ethernet, the Internet, wireless networks, and like network systems. It should be understood, therefore, that such signal-bearing media when carrying or encoding computer readable instructions that direct method functions in the present invention, represent alternative embodiments of the present invention. Further, it is understood that the present invention may be implemented by a system having means in the form of hardware, software, or a combination of software and hardware as described herein or their equivalent. 
     Software Deployment 
     As described above, in one embodiment, the processes described by the present invention, including the functions of SFP  1348 , are performed by software deploying server  1350 . Alternatively, SFP  1348  and the method described herein, and in particular as shown and described in  FIGS. 1-12  and  14 A- 17 , can be deployed as a process software from software deploying server  1350  to client computer  1302 . Still more particularly, process software for the method so described may be deployed to software deploying server  1350  by another service provider server (not shown). 
     Referring then to  FIGS. 14A-B , step  1400  begins the deployment of the process software. The first thing is to determine if there are any programs that will reside on a server or servers when the process software is executed (query block  1402 ). If this is the case, then the servers that will contain the executables are identified (block  1404 ). The process software for the server or servers is transferred directly to the servers&#39; storage via File Transfer Protocol (FTP) or some other protocol or by copying though the use of a shared file system (block  1406 ). The process software is then installed on the servers (block  1408 ). 
     Next, a determination is made on whether the process software is to be deployed by having users access the process software on a server or servers (query block  1410 ). If the users are to access the process software on servers, then the server addresses that will store the process software are identified (block  1412 ). 
     A determination is made if a proxy server is to be built (query block  1414 ) to store the process software. A proxy server is a server that sits between a client application, such as a Web browser, and a real server. It intercepts all requests to the real server to see if it can fulfill the requests itself. If not, it forwards the request to the real server. The two primary benefits of a proxy server are to improve performance and to filter requests. If a proxy server is required, then the proxy server is installed (block  1416 ). The process software is sent to the servers either via a protocol such as FTP or it is copied directly from the source files to the server files via file sharing (block  1418 ). Another embodiment would be to send a transaction to the servers that contained the process software and have the server process the transaction, then receive and copy the process software to the server&#39;s file system. Once the process software is stored at the servers, the users, via their client computers, then access the process software on the servers and copy to their client computers file systems (block  1420 ). Another embodiment is to have the servers automatically copy the process software to each client and then run the installation program for the process software at each client computer. The user executes the program that installs the process software on his client computer (block  1422 ) then exits the process (terminator block  1424 ). 
     In query step  1426 , a determination is made whether the process software is to be deployed by sending the process software to users via e-mail. The set of users where the process software will be deployed are identified together with the addresses of the user client computers (block  1428 ). The process software is sent via e-mail to each of the users&#39; client computers (block  1430 ). The users then receive the e-mail (block  1432 ) and then detach the process software from the e-mail to a directory on their client computers (block  1434 ). The user executes the program that installs the process software on his client computer (block  1422 ) then exits the process (terminator block  1424 ). 
     Lastly a determination is made as to whether the process software will be sent directly to user directories on their client computers (query block  1436 ). If so, the user directories are identified (block  1438 ). The process software is transferred directly to the user&#39;s client computer directory (block  1440 ). This can be done in several ways such as but not limited to sharing of the file system directories and then copying from the sender&#39;s file system to the recipient user&#39;s file system or alternatively using a transfer protocol such as File Transfer Protocol (FTP). The users access the directories on their client file systems in preparation for installing the process software (block  1442 ). The user executes the program that installs the process software on his client computer (block  1422 ) and then exits the process (terminator block  1424 ). 
     VPN Deployment 
     The present software can be deployed to third parties as part of a service wherein a third party VPN service is offered as a secure deployment vehicle or wherein a VPN is build on-demand as required for a specific deployment. 
     A virtual private network (VPN) is any combination of technologies that can be used to secure a connection through an otherwise unsecured or untrusted network. VPNs improve security and reduce operational costs. The VPN makes use of a public network, usually the Internet, to connect remote sites or users together. Instead of using a dedicated, real-world connection such as leased line, the VPN uses “virtual” connections routed through the Internet from the company&#39;s private network to the remote site or employee. Access to the software via a VPN can be provided as a service by specifically constructing the VPN for purposes of delivery or execution of the process software (i.e. the software resides elsewhere) wherein the lifetime of the VPN is limited to a given period of time or a given number of deployments based on an amount paid. 
     The process software may be deployed, accessed and executed through either a remote-access or a site-to-site VPN. When using the remote-access VPNs the process software is deployed, accessed and executed via the secure, encrypted connections between a company&#39;s private network and remote users through a third-party service provider. The enterprise service provider (ESP) sets a network access server (NAS) and provides the remote users with desktop client software for their computers. The telecommuters can then dial a toll-free number or attach directly via a cable or DSL modem to reach the NAS and use their VPN client software to access the corporate network and to access, download and execute the process software. 
     When using the site-to-site VPN, the process software is deployed, accessed and executed through the use of dedicated equipment and large-scale encryption that are used to connect a company&#39;s multiple fixed sites over a public network such as the Internet. 
     The process software is transported over the VPN via tunneling which is the process of placing an entire packet within another packet and sending it over a network. The protocol of the outer packet is understood by the network and both points, called tunnel interfaces, where the packet enters and exits the network. 
     Software Integration 
     The process software which consists of code for implementing the process described herein may be integrated into a client, server and network environment by providing for the process software to coexist with applications, operating systems and network operating systems software and then installing the process software on the clients and servers in the environment where the process software will function. 
     The first step is to identify any software on the clients and servers, including the network operating system where the process software will be deployed, that are required by the process software or that work in conjunction with the process software. This includes the network operating system that is software that enhances a basic operating system by adding networking features. 
     Next, the software applications and version numbers will be identified and compared to the list of software applications and version numbers that have been tested to work with the process software. Those software applications that are missing or that do not match the correct version will be upgraded with the correct version numbers. Program instructions that pass parameters from the process software to the software applications will be checked to ensure the parameter lists match the parameter lists required by the process software. Conversely parameters passed by the software applications to the process software will be checked to ensure the parameters match the parameters required by the process software. The client and server operating systems including the network operating systems will be identified and compared to the list of operating systems, version numbers and network software that have been tested to work with the process software. Those operating systems, version numbers and network software that do not match the list of tested operating systems and version numbers will be upgraded on the clients and servers to the required level. 
     After ensuring that the software, where the process software is to be deployed, is at the correct version level that has been tested to work with the process software, the integration is completed by installing the process software on the clients and servers. 
     On Demand 
     The process software is shared, simultaneously serving multiple customers in a flexible, automated fashion. It is standardized, requiring little customization and it is scalable, providing capacity on demand in a pay-as-you-go model. 
     The process software can be stored on a shared file system accessible from one or more servers. The process software is executed via transactions that contain data and server processing requests that use CPU units on the accessed server. CPU units are units of time such as minutes, seconds, hours on the central processor of the server. Additionally the accessed server may make requests of other servers that require CPU units. CPU units describe an example that represents but one measurement of use. Other measurements of use include but are not limited to network bandwidth, memory utilization, storage utilization, packet transfers, complete transactions etc. 
     When multiple customers use the same process software application, their transactions are differentiated by the parameters included in the transactions that identify the unique customer and the type of service for that customer. All of the CPU units and other measurements of use that are used for the services for each customer are recorded. When the number of transactions to any one server reaches a number that begins to affect the performance of that server, other servers are accessed to increase the capacity and to share the workload. Likewise when other measurements of use such as network bandwidth, memory utilization, storage utilization, etc. approach a capacity so as to affect performance, additional network bandwidth, memory utilization, storage, etc. are added to share the workload. 
     The measurements of use used for each service and customer are sent to a collecting server that sums the measurements of use for each customer for each service that was processed anywhere in the network of servers that provide the shared execution of the process software. The summed measurements of use units are periodically multiplied by unit costs and the resulting total process software application service costs are alternatively sent to the customer and/or indicated on a web site accessed by the customer which then remits payment to the service provider. 
     In another embodiment, the service provider requests payment directly from a customer account at a banking or financial institution. 
     In another embodiment, if the service provider is also a customer of the customer that uses the process software application, the payment owed to the service provider is reconciled to the payment owed by the service provider to minimize the transfer of payments. 
     With reference now to  FIGS. 15A-B , initiator block  1502  begins the On Demand process. A transaction is created than contains the unique customer identification, the requested service type and any service parameters that further, specify the type of service (block  1504 ). The transaction is then sent to the main server (block  1506 ). In an On Demand environment the main server can initially be the only server, then as capacity is consumed other servers are added to the On Demand environment. 
     The server central processing unit (CPU) capacities in the On Demand environment are queried (block  1508 ). The CPU requirement of the transaction is estimated, then the server&#39;s available CPU capacity in the On Demand environment are compared to the transaction CPU requirement to see if there is sufficient CPU available capacity in any server to process the transaction (query block  1510 ). If there is not sufficient server CPU available capacity, then additional server CPU capacity is allocated to process the transaction (block  1512 ). If there was already sufficient available CPU capacity then the transaction is sent to a selected server (block  1514 ). 
     Before executing the transaction, a check is made of the remaining On Demand environment to determine if the environment has sufficient available capacity for processing the transaction. This environment capacity consists of such things as but not limited to network bandwidth, processor memory, storage etc. (block  1516 ). If there is not sufficient available capacity, then capacity will be added to the On Demand environment (block  1518 ). Next the required software to process the transaction is accessed, loaded into memory, then the transaction is executed (block  1520 ). 
     The usage measurements are recorded (block  1522 ). The utilization measurements consist of the portions of those functions in the On Demand environment that are used to process the transaction. The usage of such functions as, but not limited to, network bandwidth, processor memory, storage and CPU cycles are what is recorded. The usage measurements are summed, multiplied by unit costs and then recorded as a charge to the requesting customer (block  1524 ). 
     If the customer has requested that the On Demand costs be posted to a web site (query block  1526 ), then they are posted (block  1528 ). If the customer has requested that the On Demand costs be sent via e-mail to a customer address (query block  1530 ), then these costs are sent to the customer (block  1532 ). If the customer has requested that the On Demand costs be paid directly from a customer account (query block  1534 ), then payment is received directly from the customer account (block  1536 ). The On Demand process is then exited at terminator block  1538 . 
     “On Demand” Factories 
     While the process described above has been described in an exemplary manner as utilizing one software factory, this factory might be dynamically configured from a number of design centers, assembly lines, and/or job shops that are part of a global delivery network, or have contractual relationships with a potential customer of the factory. A global delivery network consists of competencies and delivery teams that are geographically distributed and may be configured into one or more software factories in order to deliver on contractual agreements with customers. To accomplish this feature, steps need to be taken to ensure that the different components of a potential software factory meet the qualifications set by the customer and/or the project (including work packets that may be handled by such components). 
     In order to accomplish this flexibility, each software factory that is initialized and enabled is set up using Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) principles to select, assemble and enable the right work teams as “SOA components” of an End-to-End (E2E) topology. That is, in such an E2E topology, design centers, assembly lines, and job shops are treated as SOA components. Note again that an assembly line or a job shop is defined herein as any human team that is initialized, skilled and certified to accept application factory work packets from a factory design center. As such, any assembly line or job shop that is set-up to perform a specialized service type may have an affinity to perform such a service for not only one, but many software factories. Thus, the capacity usage of design centers, assembly lines and/or job shops across multiple factories can be maximized as a result of standardization on how these entities are initialized, designed, placed into operation and trained, all based on common standards. These standards may be set by the entity that operates one or more software factories, or the standards may be set by a customer, either in an on-going manner or for a particular deliverable. 
     As described above, a Software Factory is composed of multiple well-defined (in terms of interfaces, Quality Assurance processes, etc.) organizational units, including assembly lines, job shops, governance teams, design centers, and details regarding factory operations. Assembly lines and job shops (human teams) are responsible for working on individual units of work composed into contractual templates called “work packets.” The governance team is responsible for ensuring that factory processes that ensure accountability, transparency and responsibility are properly enforced. The governance team is also responsible for initiating risk management activities when appropriate. The design center is responsible for overall factory architecture updates, designing new work packets etc. Factory operations personnel are responsible for the upkeep of the various systems that constitute the factory, ensuring proper coordination of the various teams in the factory, and appropriate transfer/maintenance of factory deliverables etc. The level of specialization of these organizational entities may also depend on the scope of the factory or the complexity and size of the enterprise it serves. Thus, the process below describes a configuration procedure that takes a generic organizational entity and specifies it to an extent that makes it “deployment ready” in the context of a factory instance for a client. If there is a set of existing resources already organized in the form of organizational entities, such existing resources can be pre-qualified for deployment by a client. Exemplary items that form a pre-qualification list for a design center, an assembly line and/or a job shop include, but are not limited to, reputation (historical, as measured by performance in prior factory deployments), qualifications, industry/geo restrictions, etc. Thus, dynamic instantiation of the factory involves pulling together multiple pre-qualified organizational units for a customer through an accelerated process. The acceleration may be achieved by automating one or more steps of the instantiation process. However, in most practical situations, at least a few steps may need to be manual or consist of approval processes that require human intervention. An example would be a wizard-driven instantiation of the factory using a process design tool which has access to the availability and other characteristics of the various organizational units. 
     With reference to the Software Factory  100  shown in  FIG. 1 , note that the software factory governance board  108  may coordinate multi-factory operations. That is, software factory governance board  110  includes humans and software logic that coordinates operations between multiple configurations of a Software Factory (not shown, but each having the architecture shown for Software Factory  100 ) in order to offer a scalable and flexible approach to implementing the requirements of multiple lines of business for a select customer or the requirements of multiple customers. For example, the software factory governance board  108  may receive, from an enterprise customer, the enterprise customer&#39;s minimum standards (benchmarks) for the design center  112 , assembly lines and/or job shops  120 . Using these benchmark standards, the software factory governance board  108  may determine that the assembly lines and/or job shops associated with the current Software Factory configuration  100  do not meet the standards of the customer, and thus will initiate a search for better-matched assembly lines and/or job shops in their global delivery network (not shown). 
     As noted above, one of the functions of the software factory governance board  108  is to ensure that assembly lines and/or job shops (teams of humans) measure up to the requirements of a project and/or a customer. Exemplary steps taken to ensure such a process are shown in  FIG. 16 , which is a high-level flow chart of exemplary steps taken to measure competence levels of human software teams, in order to assign an appropriate team to a particular job, is presented. After initiator block  1602 , an instance of a template for an initial work packet is created (block  1604 ). This template provides a general outline for the initial work packet (wherein a work packet is generally defined within the context of a software factory as being a self-contained work unit that is composed of processes, roles, activities, applications and the necessary input parameters that allow a team to conduct a development activity in a formalized manner). As described in block  1606 , a partially instantiated work packet is then created by populating the template with details that describe pre-conditions and post-conditions necessary to execute the work packet. Examples of such pre-conditions include, but are not limited to, software (e.g., operating system) environment requirements, input data formats, etc. The post-conditions include, but are not limited to, output formats (e.g., Hypertext Media Language—HTML for displaying output as a webpage, etc.). The partially instantiated work packet is still not an executable process, since the roles associated with its activities will need to be assigned to a human team that will perform these activities. 
     One or more human teams are provisionally selected to assume roles in the partially instantiated work packet in order to perform the final work packet (block  1608 ). This initial selection may be fairly low-level, such as selecting one or more teams from a list of available vendors, internal teams, etc. As shown in block  1610 , a detailed evaluation of prospective teams is then performed to determine which team(s) is/are competent to perform the activities of the final work packet. This determination may be based on functional criteria, such as team members&#39; experience/expertise with the particular type of work packet, customer, software/hardware environment, etc., and/or the determination may be based on non-functional criteria, such as time constraints (time availability) for a particular team, past performance of a team (on-time, minimum number of software bugs or downtime on past similar projects, etc.), etc. When determining whether a particular team meets the requisite functional criteria, a look-up table (which may be part of the SFP  1348  shown in  FIG. 13 .) may be utilized for acceptable substitutes. For example, if a work packet is to be written in a program such as LINUX® (LINUX is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in the United States and other countries), a lookup table may indicate that teams experienced in UNIX® (UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group in the United States and other countries) are acceptable. 
     Note that in one embodiment, the determining step described in block  1610  may be performed to determine the competence of multiple human teams, in order to select the most competent team from the multiple human teams. For example, the most competent team may be the team that 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. These historical records, which describe whether individuals/teams/departments have met such performance parameters, may be kept in a performance parameter table, which is also part of the SFP  1348  shown in  FIG. 13 . 
     Once one or more human teams are determined to be competent (or most competent) to perform the activities of the final work packet (query block  1612 ), that (most) competent human team is assigned the job of performing the activities of the final work packet (block  1614 ). As indicated in block  1616 , the performance of the selected competent human team while working on the final work packet is then tracked and recorded, in order to update the performance parameter table that contains a history of how well human teams have performed, and met the performance parameter requirements of, specific types of jobs. The process ends at terminator block  1618 . 
     Referring now to  FIG. 17 , a flow-chart of exemplary steps taken to utilize design centers, assembly lines and/or job shops across multiple software factory configurations is presented. Initiator block  1700  may be prompted by a work order to create a software deliverable to a specific customer. As described in block  1702 , a project to create the software deliverable is launched. As shown in block  1704 , pre-qualified factory organizational units are then identified. These units (i.e., the design center, the assembly lines and/or the job shops) are pre-qualified as being competent for a particular project by the factory governance board or the customer. The compatibility and performance characteristics of the entire Software Factory are then checked for compliance with requirements set by the factory governance board and/or the customer (block  1706 ). Note that the components of the software factory may be from a software factory under the governance of a single business governance board, or may be from multiple software factories each being governed by a different business governance board. The unit capabilities of the design center, assembly lines and/or job shops are re-confirmed as matching the customer&#39;s requirements (block  1708 ), and their availability/capacity is checked (block  1710 ). If the design center, assembly lines and/or job shops of the current Software Factory configuration are qualified and available (query block  1712 ), then that software factory is deployed by sending appropriate notifications to the design center, assembly lines and job shops (block  1716 ). However, if the current resources are not available, then design centers, assembly lines and/or job shops associated with the global delivery network are searched and matched (block  1708 ). 
     Upon the properly configured software factory being deployed, dynamic load balancing is performed between different components of the global delivery network (block  1716 ). That is, even after a project begins, if a particular design center, assembly line and/or job shop is overloaded while a design center, assembly line and/or job shop in the global delivery network is underutilized, then some or all of the project (e.g., work packet design and assembly) is swapped over to the underutilized component by reconfiguring the current software factory. The process ends at terminator block  1718 . 
     Note that the ecosystem of design centers, assembly lines and job shops can partner under Just-In-Time (JIT) conditions to create a virtual software factory that is best suited/served by the right design center, assembly lines and job shops, regardless of which individual factory instance is defined as their primary base of operation. By utilizing the processes described above, work packet migration/transportability between design centers, assembly lines and/or job shops, regardless of which factory such design centers, assembly lines and/or job shops are primarily associated with, is afforded. In one embodiment, a global Software Factory authority can establish JIT factory instances by mixing/matching the best design centers, assembly lines and job shops across all factories&#39; components that have been established from prior factory initializations and deployments, thus creating a JIT “factory on demand.” As such, the service levels committed to a given customer will guide the selection, configuration and deployment of software factory components in a global delivery network. 
     Furthermore, the software factory framework (e.g., of the global Software Factory) can maintain performance metrics of each design center, assembly line and job shop, thereby enabling reputation and trust scoring that can be used to determine future work assignments and potential team sunsets (automatic disbandment after some pre-determined time period). 
     In a preferred embodiment, the software factory comprises operations that include: 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; receiving a definition of 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. Preferably, these steps are performed in a software factory, which includes the components of 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 custom software. 
     In one embodiment, the design center includes: a requirements analysis team, wherein the requirements analysis team is responsible for determining system requirements for executing the deliverable custom software on the customer&#39;s system; and an architectural team, wherein the architectural team models the project proposal in accordance with customer constraints, and wherein the architectural team bundles the customer constraints together with the work packets for execution in the assembly line. 
     In one embodiment, 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. 
     The assembly line in the software factory may include software that automatically recognizes a project type for the project proposal, and wherein the assembly line assembles the work packets into the deliverable custom software in accordance with the project type that is recognized by the assembly line. In a preferred embodiment, the assembly line conducts an integration test, a system test, a system integration test and a performance test of the deliverable custom software, wherein the integration test tests the deliverable custom software for compatibility with the client&#39;s system, the system test checks the client&#39;s system to ensure that the client&#39;s system is operating properly, the system integration test tests for bugs that may arise when the deliverable custom software is integrated into the client&#39;s system, and the performance test tests the deliverable custom software for defects as it is executing in the client&#39;s system. 
     In one embodiment, the assembly line includes 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. 
     While the present invention has been particularly shown and described with reference to a preferred embodiment, it will be understood by those skilled in the art that various changes in form and detail may be made therein without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention. Furthermore, as used in the specification and the appended claims, the term “computer” or “system” or “computer system” or “computing device” includes any data processing system including, but not limited to, personal computers, servers, workstations, network computers, main frame computers, routers, switches, Personal Digital Assistants (PDA&#39;s), telephones, and any other system capable of processing, transmitting, receiving, capturing and/or storing data.