FORM 2
THE PATENTS ACT, 1970
(39 of 1970)
&
THE PATENTS RULES, 2003
COMPLETE SPECIFICATION
(See section 10, rule 13)
1. Title of the invention: REUSABILITY MATURITY MODEL
2. Applicant(s)
NAME NATIONALITY ADDRESS
TATA CONSULTANCY
SERVICES LIMITED
Indian Nirmal Building, 9th Floor, Nariman Point,
Mumbai, Maharashtra 400021, India
3. Preamble to the description
COMPLETE SPECIFICATION
The following specification particularly describes the invention and the manner in which it
is to be performed.
1
2
TECHNICAL FIELD
[0001] The present subject matter described herein, in general, relates to asset
reusability, and more particularly to building a maturity model for asset reusability in an
organization.
BACKGROUND
[0002] Organizations, such as financial institutions and Information Technology (IT)
organizations have grown their business efforts tremendously over the past several years,
resulting in creation of large volumes of assets, such as documentation, data, designs,
software snippets or codes, architectures, frameworks, estimates, requirements, functional
blocks, test cases and test scenarios, and the like. In one example, an IT organization may
have a significant number of ongoing software development projects at any one time, ranging
in size from small projects involving a handful of programmers to massive endeavors
involving hundreds of programmers, leading to frequent creation of new assets.
[0003] In the past few years, there has been a tremendous amount of work in the area
of reuse of assets, such as software assets across various software development projects.
Reusing assets may have significant advantages, for example, reduction in the resources,
expense, and development time for a project. To facilitate asset reuse, the assets developed in
various projects are collated and stored within repositories dispersed throughout the
enterprise. Such repositories are periodically updated to maintain the assets for facilitating
reuse of the assets across various projects.
[0004] Conventionally, several organizations, such as Information Technology (IT)
organizations build asset reuse models for reusing assets in the organization. In one example,
an IT organization involved in the business of developing software applications may reuse a
lot of assets, such as software snippets while developing such software applications for
several of its clients. By reusing these assets the IT organization may save a lot of man hours,
money, turn around time, and therefore may also be able to build a better reputation in front of
the clients.
SUMMARY
3
[0005] This summary is provided to introduce concepts related to systems and
methods for providing a dynamic reusability maturity model (DRMM) and determining an
overall maturity level of the organization based upon the DRMM, and the concepts are further
described below in the detailed description. This summary is not intended to identify essential
features of the claimed subject matter nor is it intended for use in determining or limiting the
scope of the claimed subject matter.
[0006] In one implementation, a system for determining an overall maturity level of
an organization in reusing assets is disclosed. The system comprises a processor and a
memory coupled to the processor. The memory comprises an assessment module configured
to determine an operational reusability maturity (ORM) score based upon a maturity level of
the organization for each of a first set of parameters associated with reuse of assets. The
assessment module is further configured to determine an outcome oriented reusability
maturity (O2RM) score based upon a maturity level of the organization for each of a second
set of parameters associated with reuse of assets. The assessment module is further configured
to determine a composite reusability maturity (CRM) score based upon the ORM score and
the O2RM score. The CRM score is indicative of the overall maturity level of the organization
in reusing the assets.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
[0007] The detailed description is described with reference to the accompanying
figures. In the figures, the left-most digit(s) of a reference number identifies the figure in
which the reference number first appears. The same numbers are used throughout the
drawings to reference like features and components.
[0008] Figure 1 illustrates a network implementation of a system for providing a
dynamic reusability maturity model (DRMM) and determining an overall maturity level of the
organization based upon the DRMM, in accordance with an embodiment of the present
subject matter.
[0009] Figure 2 shows a flowchart illustrating a method for building a maturity model
for reusing assets in an organization, in accordance with an embodiment of the present subject
matter.
4
DETAILED DESCRIPTION
[0010] Systems and methods for building a dynamic reusability maturity model
(DRMM) for reusing assets in an organization are described. The DRMM may be used to
determine an overall maturity level of the organization in reusing assets of the organization.
Examples of the assets may include documentation, data, designs, software snippets or codes,
architectures, frameworks, estimates, requirements, functional blocks, test cases and test
scenarios, and the like that may be reused in the organization for saving time and money.
[0011] In one example, the organization, such as a large Information Technology (IT)
organization involved in developing software applications, may need to build several software
applications for several clients. These software applications may be built of several software
components. As certain software components are repetitively used, reuse of a previously
existing component rather than developing it each time for different projects is practiced
based on various approaches.
[0012] Conventional techniques for reuse of existing assets involves collating assets
developed during various software development projects and storing such assets within a
centralized repository or repositories dispersed throughout the enterprise.
[0013] In some conventional approaches, attempts have been made to create
repositories and classify reusable assets, for example, on the basis of the technology domain.
This approach however is only limited to classifying the reusable assets, maintaining the
available reusable assets and making the asset more accessible. Such conventional techniques
fail to promote reuse of assets in actual practice. Further, these approaches do not provide an
insight into the extent to which reusable assets are actually being incorporated in future
projects. Conventionally, though several organizations have tried to build such asset reuse
models for reusing assets in the organization, these asset reuse models are static and help
neither in assessing an existing reuse capability of the organization nor in suggesting a
roadmap for planned movement of the organization to enhanced levels of maturity in reusing
assets in the organization.
[0014] The present subject matter, in accordance with one embodiment of the subject
matter, provides a system for building a dynamic reusability maturity model (DRMM)
including a reusability repository facilitating methodological asset reuse in the organization.
5
The DRMM facilitates reuse of assets in an organization in a systematic way. In one example,
the asset reuse model may be used by the organization to retrieve relevant previously existing
software components while developing the software applications. The DRMM may also be
used to determine an overall maturity level of the organization in reusing assets in the
organization and, based on the same, provide a roadmap for improvisation such that the
organization may achieve greater competitiveness and/or productivity.
[0015] In one implementation, the DRMM may have a plurality of parameters
associated with reuse of assets in the organization. The plurality of parameters provides
details of reusing assets in the organization. The details are indicative of an object being
reused, advantages of reuse, mode of reuse, and the like. In one implementation, the plurality
of parameters may include an object of reuse, a mode of reuse, a quality of reuse design, a
reuse responsibility, a reusability index, a reuse motivation, reuse as value proposition, a
saving potential, new opportunities, speed to market, and the like.
[0016] In the present implementation, each parameter of the plurality of parameters
has a plurality of maturity levels. For example, the object of reuse has four maturity levels,
namely, Emerge (E1), Establish (E2), Excellent (E3), and Evolved (E4). Similarly, all other
parameters of the plurality of parameters have four maturity levels, namely, E1 to E4. In one
implementation, the organization may be assessed to fall in one maturity level with respect to
each of the parameters. For example, the organization at any given point of time may have a
maturity level of E2 in object of reuse, E1 in mode of reuse, E3 in quality of reuse design, and
so on based upon criteria defined in these parameters for attaining a maturity level. For
example, if the organization is primarily using source codes, software snippets or components,
then the maturity level of the organization in ‘object of reuse’ is E2.
[0017] Based upon the maturity level of the organization in each of the parameters, an
operational reusability maturity (ORM) score and an outcome oriented reusability maturity
(O2RM) score may be determined. The ORM score is indicative of operation’s perspective of
the organization with respect to the reuse of assets in the organization, whereas the O2RM
score is indicative of business perspective of the organization with respect to the reuse of
assets in the organization. For example, the O2RM is indicative of savings accomplished and
new opportunities being created due to reuse of asserts in the organization. Based upon the
6
ORM score and the O2RM, a composite reusability maturity (CRM) score is determined. The
CRM score is indicative of an overall maturity level of the organization in reusing assets.
[0018] The overall maturity level of the organization may not be in line with a target
maturity level that the organization wishes to have in reusing the assets. Therefore, in one
implementation, the system may analyze the overall maturity level and the target maturity
level to develop a framework for attaining the target maturity level. The system suggests a set
of activities to be performed by the organization in order to achieve the target maturity level.
In one implementation, the set of activities are suggested to the organization based upon
feedback indicators provided by a reuse governance board of the organization.
[0019] Therefore, it may be understood that the present subject matter provides a
system for providing a dynamic reusability maturity model (DRMM) and determining an
overall maturity level of the organization based upon the DRMM. The system may also be
used to chart out a roadmap for achieving the target maturity level based upon closed loop
feedback provided by the reuse governance board.
[0020] While aspects of described system and method for providing a dynamic
reusability maturity model (DRMM) and determining an overall maturity level of the
organization based upon the DRMM may be implemented in any number of different
computing systems, environments, and/or configurations, the embodiments are described in
the context of the following exemplary system.
[0021] Referring now to Figure 1, a network implementation 100 of system 102 for
providing a dynamic reusability maturity model (DRMM) and determining an overall
maturity level of the organization based upon the DRMM is illustrated, in accordance with an
embodiment of the present subject matter. In one embodiment, the system 102 may be
implemented in the organization, such as an Information Technology (IT) organization, a
financial institution, law firm, telecommunication organization, and the like. The present
subject matter may be explained considering the organization to be an IT organization,
however, it may be understood that the organization may be any other organization capable of
reusing assets present therein.
[0022] In one implementation, the system 102 may be used to provide a
methodological way of reusing assets in the organization. Examples of the assets may include
7
documentations, text based assets, drafting templates, source code or software components or
software snippets, designs, estimates, test cases, test scenarios, architectures, frameworks, and
the like. In one example, an IT organization may wish to reuse certain code snippets again and
again while developing software applications in order to save time, effort, and money.
Therefore, the system 102 may be used by these organizations for facilitating systematic reuse
of assets in order to make these organizations more efficient and effective.
[0023] The system 102 may be implemented in a variety of computing systems, such
as a laptop computer, a desktop computer, a notebook, a workstation, a mainframe computer,
a server, a network server, and the like. It will be understood that the system 102 may be
accessed by stakeholders through one or more client devices 104-1, 104-2,…104-N,
collectively referred to as client devices 104 hereinafter, or applications residing on client
devices 104. Examples of the client devices 104 may include, but are not limited to, a portable
computer, a personal digital assistant, a handheld device, and a workstation. The client
devices 104 are communicatively coupled to the system 102 through a network 106.
[0024] In one implementation, the network 106 may be a wireless network, a wired
network or a combination thereof. The network 106 can be implemented as one of the
different types of networks, such as intranet, local area network (LAN), wide area network
(WAN), the internet, and the like. The network 106 may either be a dedicated network or a
shared network. The shared network represents an association of the different types of
networks that use a variety of protocols, for example, Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP),
Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP), Wireless Application Protocol
(WAP), and the like, to communicate with one another. Further the network 106 may include
a variety of network devices, including routers, bridges, servers, computing devices, storage
devices, and the like.
[0025] In one embodiment, the system 102 may include at least one processor 108, an
I/O interface 110, and a memory 112. The at least one processor 108 may be implemented as
one or more microprocessors, microcomputers, microcontrollers, digital signal processors,
central processing units, state machines, logic circuitries, and/or any devices that manipulate
signals based on operational instructions. Among other capabilities, the at least one processor
8
108 is configured to fetch and execute computer-readable instructions stored in the memory
112.
[0026] The I/O interface 110 may include a variety of software and hardware
interfaces, for example, a web interface, a graphical user interface, and the like. The I/O
interface 110 may allow the system 102 to interact with a user directly or through the client
devices 104. Further, the I/O interface 110 may enable the system 102 to communicate with
other computing devices, such as web servers and external data servers (not shown). The I/O
interface 110 can facilitate multiple communications within a wide variety of networks and
protocol types, including wired networks, for example, LAN, cable, etc., and wireless
networks, such as WLAN, cellular, or satellite. The I/O interface 110 may include one or
more ports for connecting a number of devices to one another or to another server.
[0027] The memory 112 may include any computer-readable medium known in the art
including, for example, volatile memory, such as static random access memory (SRAM) and
dynamic random access memory (DRAM), and/or non-volatile memory, such as read only
memory (ROM), erasable programmable ROM, flash memories, hard disks, optical disks, and
magnetic tapes. The memory 112 may include modules 114 and data 116.
[0028] The modules 114 include routines, programs, objects, components, data
structures, etc., which perform particular tasks or implement particular abstract data types. In
one implementation, the modules 114 may include a definition module 118, an assessment
module 120, a gap analysis module 122, a feedback module 124, and other modules 126. The
other modules 126 may include programs or coded instructions that supplement applications
and functions of the system 102.
[0029] The data 116, amongst other things, serves as a repository for storing data
processed, received, and generated by one or more of the modules 114. The data 116 may also
include a reusability repository 128, and other data 130. The other data 130 may include data
generated as a result of the execution of one or more modules in the other modules 126.
[0030] In one implementation, the definition module 118 may define a dynamic
reusability maturity model (DRMM). The DRMM may provide a methodological way of
reusing assets in the organization. Further, the DRMM may be reconfigured or modified from
time to time based upon an extent of reuse of assets in the organization. The DRMM may be
9
modified based upon the feedback indicators provided by the reuse governance board. In one
implementation, the DRMM may include a plurality of parameters. The plurality of
parameters are associated with reuse of the assets in the organization and provide details
relating to methods of reuse, effects of reuse, and the like about the assets present in the
organization. In the present implementation, the plurality of parameters may include an object
of reuse, a mode of reuse, a quality of reuse design technique, reuse responsibility index, a
multiuse reusability index, a motivation, reuse as value proposition, a saving measurement,
new opportunities measurement, and speed to market. Further, the DRMM may be stored in
the reusability repository 128.
[0031] In the present implementation, each parameter of the plurality of parameters
has a plurality of maturity levels. For example, the object of reuse has four maturity levels,
namely, Emerge (E1), Establish (E2), Excellent (E3), and Evolved (E4). Similarly, the mode
of reuse has four maturity levels, E1 to E4. Similarly, all other parameters of the plurality of
parameters have four maturity levels, namely, E1 to E4. The organization may belong to one
maturity level in each of the parameters. In one implementation, each parameter of the
plurality of parameters is measured across a number of assets to come to a conclusion about
the maturity level of the organization in each of the parameters. For example, the organization
may have a maturity level of E2 in the object of reuse, E1 in the mode of reuse, E3 in quality
of reuse design, and so on. The maturity levels are indicative of organization’s capability in
reusing assets.
[0032] Each parameter is explained in detail in the following description.
[0033] A first parameter, i.e., the object of reuse is indicative of an object being
reused. In other words, the object of reuse provides details of a type of asset that is being
reused in the organization. Based upon the type of asset being reused, a maturity level may be
assigned to the organization in the parameter called ‘object of reuse’. In one implementation,
the object of reuse is measured across a number of assets to come to a conclusion about the
maturity level of the organization in the object of reuse. Further, based upon the object of
reuse, the organization may be assigned a maturity level. For example, if the objects of reuse
are predominantly documentations and text based assets, then the maturity level of the
organization in the ‘object of reuse’ is E1. Further, if the objects of reuse are predominantly
10
source codes, software snippets or components, then the maturity level of the organization in
the ‘object of reuse’ is E2. Furthermore, if the objects of reuse are predominantly designs,
estimates, test cases and test scenarios, then the maturity level of the organization in the
‘object of reuse’ is E3. Similarly, if the objects of reuse are predominantly architectures,
frameworks, and structured code reuse, then the maturity level of the organization in the
‘object of reuse’ is E4. In one implementation, based on a nature of operations and strategic
goals of the organization, a set of stakeholders, such as a reuse governance board may
constantly review and expand a scope of objects that are being reused in the organization.
Table 1 summarizes the object of reuse and corresponding maturity levels.
Table 1: Object of reuse and corresponding maturity levels
[0034] Referring now to a second parameter, i.e., the mode of reuse which refers to an
infrastructure in the organization to promote and facilitate structured reuse of assets. In one
implementation, the mode of reuse is measured across a number of assets to come to a
conclusion about the maturity level of the organization in the mode of reuse. In one example,
if the infrastructure to promote reuse is distributed, individualized and restricted to
individual’s computing systems, then the maturity level of the organization in the ‘mode of
reuse’ is E1. For example, if only certain employees of the organization are practicing reuse
of assets without proper norms, then the organization may have a maturity level of E1.
However, in E2 level of maturity, a catalog of assets may be used by the organization. The
catalog may be used by the organization for selecting assets for reuse. The catalog is
indicative of aggregation of assets, however, at E2 level, there is no custodian of the catalog
in the organization level. In E3 level of maturity, there is a dedicated repository, such as the
reusability repository 128 where the assets may be stored. Finally, in E4 level of maturity,
there is an organization wide reuse repository, such as the reusability repository 128 with
E1 The objects of reuse are predominantly documentations and text based
assets.
E2 The objects of reuse are source codes, software snippets or components.
E3 The objects of reuse are designs, estimates, test cases, and test scenarios.
E4 The objects of reuse are architectures and frameworks. The reuse is
systematic.
11
advanced features and enhancements. Table 2 summarizes the mode of reuse and
corresponding maturity levels.
Table 2: Mode of reuse and corresponding maturity levels
E1 The infrastructure to promote reuse is distributed, individualized and
resides on individual computing systems.
E2 Marks the presence of a catalog of assets. The catalog may be used by
employees of the organization for choosing assets therefrom.
E3 The catalog of assets in E2 matures into an organization wide reuse
platform. Beyond a static listing of assets as seen in the catalog of reusable
assets, the organization wide reuse platform makes a process of reuse more
interactive.
E4 In addition to the organization wide reuse platform, in E4 level of maturity,
advanced features like proactive capture of component demand from
various units within an organization and co-development of reusable assets
are demonstrated.
[0035] Referring now to a third parameter, i.e., the quality of reuse design (QRD)
methodology which is indicative of practices being adopted by the employees in reusing
assets in the organization. In one example, the QRD methodology includes standard
documentation and design guidelines that need to be incorporated while reusing assets in the
organization. Based upon the QRD methodology specified for each asset stored in the
reusability repository 128, a QRD score may be assigned to each asset. A degree of adherence
of the asset to the QRD methodology determines the QRD score. The QRD score may also
depend on whether the asset stored in the reusability repository 128 was developed by the
organization or was bought from an outside agency. Further, the QRD score may range from 0
to 100 and may be used to measure the reusability of an asset and its supporting document
artifacts. After the QRD score is assigned to each asset stored in the reusability repository
128, a mean QRD Score may be determined. The mean QRD score is indicative of the
maturity level of the organization in ‘QRD methodology’.
Mean QRD Score = QRD Scorei
where, n is the total number of assets in the reusability repository 128; and
QRD Scorei is QRD score for each of the n assets.
12
[0036] Table 3 summarizes the QRD methodology and corresponding maturity levels.
Table 3: QRD methodology and corresponding maturity levels
E1 No quality of reuse design in programming of reusable assets is
demonstrated. The reusability repository 128 is nonexistent. Calculation of
QRD score is not possible because of the absence of reusability repository
128.
E2 Rudimentary presence of QRD methodology. Reusability repository 128 is
present, but it is not mature enough to generate a QRD Score.
E3 The QRD methodology has been formally adapted and implemented.
Mean of the QRD Score of all the assets present in the reusability
repository 128 is calculated. The mean QRD score is less than 60 in E3
level of maturity.
E4 The QRD methodology has been mastered. The mean of the QRD score of
all the assets present in the reusability repository 128 is calculated. The
mean QRD score is more than 60 in E4 level of maturity.
[0037] Referring now to a fourth parameter, i.e., the multiuse reusability index. The
multiuse reusability index (MRI) is indicative of a frequency of reuse of an asset stored in the
reusability repository 128. In other words, the MRI indicates about an appropriateness of an
asset in terms of its reusable potential compared to the other assets stored in the reusability
repository 128. The MRI uses asset quality characteristics, such as supporting artifacts,
reusability of the programming, program, and dependencies on external software. The MRI
also uses usage characteristics, such as ratings, download counts, and the like. Based upon the
MRI, a Reusability Index (RI) score may be determined. The RI score may range from 0 to
100 and may be assigned to each asset stored in the reusability repository 128. Based upon the
RI score assigned to each asset, a mean RI score may be calculated. The mean RI score is
indicative of the maturity level of the organization in ‘MRI’.
Mean RI score = RIi score
where, n is the total number of assets in the reusability repository 128; and
RIi score is the RI score for each of the n assets.
[0038] Table 4 summarizes the MRI and corresponding maturity levels.
13
Table 4: MRI and corresponding maturity levels
E1 The reusability repository 128 is nonexistent. Calculation of RI score is
not possible because of the absence of the reusability repository 128.
E2 The reusability repository 128 is present, but it is not mature enough to
generate the RI score.
E3 The mean RI score of all the assets present in the reusability repository
128 is calculated. The mean RI score is less than 65 in E3 level of
maturity.
E4 The mean RI score of all the assets present in the reusability repository
128 is calculated. The mean RI score is more than 65 in E4 level of
maturity.
[0039] Referring now to a fifth parameter, i.e., the reuse responsibility index. The
reuse responsibility index is indicative of stakeholders primarily responsible for reuse of
assets stored in the reusability repository 128. In E1 level of maturity, the responsibility rests
with individual developers who develop the assets to be reused. In E2 level of maturity, the
responsibility rests with a Single Point of Contact (SPoC). In E3 level of maturity, the
responsibility rests with a dedicated reuse team. Further, in E3 level, a metrics providing
information about people Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, and Informed (RACI) in
matters related to reuse of assets is drawn out. The metrics may be referred to as RACI
metrics. The E4 level of maturity mandates a presence of the dedicated reuse team which
periodically reviews reuse of assets in the organization and provides directions for future
growth. Further, in E4 level, there is a SPoC in each sub-unit of the organization. Table 5
summarizes the reuse responsibility index and corresponding maturity levels.
Table 5: Reuse responsibility index and corresponding maturity levels
E1 Responsibility is with the individual associates or developers.
E2 Responsibility rests with a Single Point of Contact (SPoC).
E3 Responsibility is with the dedicated reuse team. Further, a RACI Matrix is
charted out.
E4 Responsibility is with the dedicated reuse team with named SPoCs in
each sub-unit of the organization.
14
[0040] Referring now to a sixth parameter, i.e., the motivation index. The motivation
index refers to a drive and commitment of employees involved in reusing the assets. The
motivation index is dependent upon an overall organizational culture. The motivation index
begins at individual level and graduates towards process evangelization and fraternity
benefits. In the E1 level of maturity, asset reuse is essentially individual driven. In E2 level of
maturity, reuse is encouraged, but not rewarded or incentivized. In E3 level of maturity, asset
reuse is reinforced and rewarded by the organization. In E4 level of maturity, asset reuse
exists even in the absence of rewards or other incentivized benefits since it is ingrained in the
organizational culture. Further, in E4 level, asset reuse is driven more as a habit and happens
naturally. Table 6 summarizes the motivation index and corresponding maturity levels.
Table 6: Motivation index and corresponding maturity levels
E1 Asset reuse is individual driven.
E2 Reuse is encouraged, but not sufficiently rewarded.
E3 Reuse is reinforced and rewarded.
E4 Reuse is a way of life. Reuse is ingrained in the organizational culture.
[0041] Referring now to a seventh parameter, i.e., reuse as value proposition (RVP).
The RVP is derived out of asset reuse and an extent of application of the asset for various
purposes. In E1 level of maturity, RVP through asset reuse is a challenge. In E2 level of
maturity, reuse benefits are shared internally, for example, within a same project. In E3 level
of maturity, not only the project generating the assets, but other internal units also leverage
reuse benefits. In E4 level of maturity, reuse benefits attract consumers from entire
organization. Table 7 summarizes the RVP and corresponding maturity levels.
Table 7: RVP and corresponding maturity levels
E1 Realization of benefits through reuse of assets is a challenge.
E2 Reuse benefits are shared internally (within the same project).
E3 Other projects and internal units leverage reuse benefits.
E4 Reuse benefits attract consumers from the entire organization.
15
[0042] Referring now to an eighth parameter, i.e., saving measurement. Saving
measurement refers to measuring an amount of effort and money saved due to reusing of
assets in the organization. In the E1 level of maturity, there is no effort spent to either record
or measure the savings accrued due to reuse of assets. In the E2 level of maturity, savings are
only recorded partially. Also, in E2, tracking of savings is essentially manual and
quantification of savings is a challenge. In E3 level of maturity, there are specific organization
wide templates for savings measurement and data collected while measuring the savings has
very less dependence on manual processes. In E4 level of maturity, both data collection and
analysis is essentially derived from an advanced reuse platform. The data collected while
measuring savings is quantified based upon man hours, no. of employees, and the like. In one
implementation, for the purpose of assignment of maturity level, a ratio of effort saved due to
asset reuse and a total effort expended (expressed as a percentage) may be utilized.
Reuse Savings Measure (RSM) = (Effort saved due to asset reuse / Total
effort)*100
[0043] In one example, if the number of hours saved are 3 hours and the total number
of hours expended are 10 hours, then RSM would be 30%. Depending on the nature of
organization, a reuse governance board may fix values of RSM limits for each of the maturity
levels. For example, if RSM is less than 20%, then the maturity level E1. Similarly, if RSM
is between 20% and 40%, then the maturity level is E2, and so on. Table 8 shows RSM limits
for Telecom domain for various maturity levels and Table 9 shows savings measurement and
corresponding maturity levels:
Table 8
Maturity
Level E1 E2 E3 E4
Reuse
Savings
Measure RSML1≤ 20%
20% >
RSML2 ≤
40%
40% >
RSML3 ≤
65%
65% >
RSML4 ≤
100%
16
Table 9: Savings measurement and corresponding maturity levels
E1 Savings are not recorded or measured.
E2 Savings are partially recorded. Manual tracking of savings, if any
E3 Savings are diligently recorded. Organization wide reuse savings
templates are used. Data Collection has less dependence on manual
process.
E4 Savings are recorded and thoroughly analyzed. Data Collection and
analysis is essentially automated and derived out of the reuse platform.
[0044] Referring now to a ninth parameter, i.e., the new opportunities measurement.
The parameter ‘new opportunities measurement’ is indicative of an extent to which reusable
assets help in winning and closing new opportunities and deals. In E1 Level of maturity, since
there is minimal reuse, the potential to win a new opportunity through showcasing the existing
reusable assets is very less. In E2 Level of maturity, there are traces of winning new
opportunities through reuse, but the maturity is not to the extent of quantification. In E3 Level
of maturity, reuse significantly drives creation of new business opportunities. In E4, reuse is a
major factor contributing towards new business opportunities. In one implementation, for the
purpose of assignment of maturity level, a ratio of new opportunities acquired due to asset
reuse to a total number of new opportunities (expressed as a percentage) may be utilized.
New Opportunity Measure (NOM) = (New opportunities due to reuse / Total
new opportunities)*100
[0045] Depending upon the nature of organization and other environment factors,
reuse governance board fixes values of new opportunities measure limits for each of the
maturity levels. For example, if NOM is less than 20%, then the maturity level E1. Similarly,
if NOM is between 20% and 40%, then the maturity level is E2, and so on. Table 10 shows
NOM limits for Telecom domain for various maturity levels and Table 11 shows new
opportunities measurement and corresponding maturity levels:
17
Table 10
Maturity Level E1 E2 E3 E4
New Opportunity
Measure NOML1 ≤ 20%
20% >
NOML2
≤ 40%
40% >
NOML3
≤ 65%
65% >
NOML4
≤ 100%
Table 11: New opportunities measurement and corresponding maturity levels
E1 Reuse does not contribute towards obtaining new opportunities.
E2 Reuse contributes towards new opportunities, but cannot be quantified.
E3 Reuse explicitly demonstrates winning new opportunities.
E4 Reuse is a major factor in getting new opportunities.
[0046] Referring now to a tenth parameter, i.e., the speed to market which is
indicative of a time taken in a development process from initial ideation phase to a final
marketability phase. Further, incorporating structured asset reuse may significantly reduce the
time to market thereby having a positive impact on competitiveness and marketability. In one
implementation, for the purpose of assignment of maturity level, the ratio of time saved due to
asset reuse to an amount of time taken in the absence of asset reuse (expressed as a
percentage) may be utilized.
Speed To Market Measure (STMM) = (Time Saved due to Reuse / Time Taken
in the absence of reuse)*100
[0047] Depending upon a technology domain of the organization and other
environmental factors, the reuse governance board may fix values of STMM limits for each of
the maturity levels. For example, if STMM is less than 20%, then the maturity level E1.
Similarly, if STMM is between 20% and 40%, then the maturity level is E2, and so on. Table
12 shows STMM limits for Telecom domain for various maturity levels and Table 13 shows
‘speed to market’ and corresponding maturity levels:
18
Table 12:
Maturity Level E1 E2 E3 E4
Speed to Market
Measure STMML1 ≤ 20%
20% >
STMML2
≤ 40%
40% >
STMML3
≤ 65%
65% >
STMML4
≤ 100%
Table 13: Speed to Market and corresponding maturity levels
E1 Reuse does not contribute towards speed to market
E2 Reuse may contribute towards ‘Speed to Market’, but is not quantified
E3 Reuse helps in Speed to Market and benefits are quantified.
E4 Reuse is a major contributor Speed to Market and acts a major value
differentiator.
[0048] For the ease of reference, each of the plurality of parameters may be
summarized in Table 14 as shown below:
19
[0049] Table 14: Summarizing the plurality of parameters and corresponding maturity
levels
Dimension
Parameters Emerging – E1 Established – E2 Excellent – E3 Evolved – E4
Operational Metrics
Object of
Reuse
Documentation Source Code Design,
Estimates, Test
Cases
Architecture,
Structured Code
Reuse
Mode of
Reuse
Opportunistic Catalog Based Tool/ Reuse
Platform Based
Tool/Reuse Platform
with advanced
features
Quality of
Reuse
Design
Non-Existent Exists, but not
structured
Formal QRD
Exists
QRD methodology
mastered
Reuse
Responsibilit
y
Individual Named Individual Dedicated Group Centralized group with
named SPOC
Reusability
Index
Repository nonexistent
Repository is
present, but index
not calculated
Mean Reusability
Index is ≤ 65
Mean Reusability
Index > 65
Reuse
Motivation
Individual Encouraged Reinforced and
rewarded
Ingrained.
Reuse as
Value
Proposition
Reuse Value
realization is a
challenge
Reuse benefits
internal
( within the same
project)
Other projects
and internal units
leverage reuse
benefits
Reuse capabilities
help attracting
customers and new
business
Outcome Oriented Metrics
Savings
Potential
Insignificant
Not recorded or
measured
≤ RSML1
Less
Partially recorded
≤ RSML2
Medium
Org. wide reuse
templates
≤ RSML3
High
Savings derived from
Reuse platform
≤ RSML4
New
Opportunities
No Contribution
≤ NOML1
Less Contribution
≤ NOML2
Medium
Contribution
≤ NOML3
Significant
Contribution towards
new opportunities
≤ NOML4
Speed to
Market
No contribution
towards STMM
≤ STMML1
Contributes
towards Speed-to-
Market
≤ STMML2
Speed to market
is quantified
≤ STMML3
Enhanced Speed-to-
Market
≤ STMML4
20
[0050] The plurality of parameters explained above may be used to determine an
overall maturity level of the organization in reusing assets. At first, the maturity level of the
organization may be determined in each parameter. In one example, at any given point of
time, the organization may have the following maturity levels as shown in Table 15:
Table 15:
Dimension Multiplier Parameters E1 E2 E3 E4
Level >> 1 2 3 4
Operational A1 P1 - Object of reuse 
A2 P2 - Quality of Reuse
Design Technique

A3 P3 - Mode of reuse 
A4 P4 - Motivation 
A5 P5 - Reuse responsibility
index

A6 P6 - Multiuse reusability
index

A7 P7 - Reuse as value
proposition

Outcome Oriented B1 P8 - Savings Potential 
B2 P9 - New Opportunities 
B3 P10 - Speed to Market 
[0051] Where, E1, E2, E3 and E4 are maturity levels. Further, A1 to An may be
referred as a first set of weighted multipliers for a first set of parameters of the plurality of
parameters. In one implementation, the first set of parameters may include the object of reuse,
the mode of reuse, the quality of reuse design technique, the reuse responsibility index, the
multiuse reusability index, the motivation, and the reuse as value proposition. In one
implementation, the first set of weighted multipliers may be determined based upon a field of
business of the organization.
[0052] Similarly, B1 to Bn may be referred as a second set of weighted multipliers for
a second set of parameters of the plurality of parameters. In one implementation, the second
set of parameters may include the saving measurement, the new opportunities measurement,
and the speed to market. In one implementation, the second set of weighted multipliers may
be determined based upon a field of business of the organization.
21
[0053] In one implementation, based upon the maturity level of the organization in
each of the parameters, the assessment module 120 may determine an operational reusability
maturity (ORM) score and an outcome oriented reusability maturity (O2RM) score may be
determined. In the present implementation, the first set of parameters may be used to
determine the ORM score. The first set of parameters and the ORM score are indicative of
operations perspective of the organization with respect to the reuse of assets in the
organization. In one example, the ORM score may be used by project managers involved in
operations, such as developing a software program, testing software programs, and the like.
The ORM score is computed as a weighted average of assigned maturity levels for each of the
first set of parameters.
ORM score = Σ (Ai Li/ Σ Ai)
Where, Ai = Weighted multiplier of each of the first set of parameters, and
Li = Level multiplier for each maturity level of each of the first set of parameters.
[0054] Further, the second set of parameters may be used to determine the O2RM
score. The second set of parameters and the O2RM score are indicative of business
perspective of the organization with respect to the reuse of assets in the organization. In one
example, the O2RM score may be used by a senior leadership team for taking macro level
strategic decisions from a business perspective of the organization. The O2RM score is
computed as a weighted average of assigned maturity levels for each of the first set of
parameters.
O2RM score = Σ Bi Li/ Σ Bi
Where, Bi = Weighted multiplier of each of the second set of parameters, and
Li = Level multiplier for each maturity level of each of the second set of parameters.
[0055] Based upon the ORM score and the O2RM score, a composite reusability
maturity (CRM) score is determined. The CRM score is indicative of an overall maturity level
of the organization in reusing assets. The CRM score may be determined using a following
formula:
CRM score =
22
Where, α = Coefficient of Operational Maturity, and
Coefficient of Outcome Oriented Maturity.
[0056] In one implementation, both α and are determined based upon a nature of
organization, business environment, and other strategic factors. In one example, for
telecommunication sector, α is 0.8 and is 3.2. The overall maturity level is derived after
rounding off the CRM score to the nearest maturity level. Table 16 shows an example of
calculating the overall maturity level at time T0:
Table 16: Maturity level of the organization at time T0
Parameter
Maturity Level
(L)
Weighted
Multiplier
(A)
Level *
Multiplier L*A/ ΣAi
P1 2 0.4 0.8 0.235294118
P2 3 0.5 1.5 0.441176471
P3 2 0.7 1.4 0.411764706
P4 4 0.2 0.8 0.235294118
P5 1 0.1 0.1 0.029411765
P6 4 0.8 3.2 0.941176471
P7 3 0.7 2.1 0.617647059
ΣAi 3.4 2.91
Parameter
Maturity Level
(L)
Weighted
Multiplier
(B)
Level *
Multiplier L*B/ ΣBi
P8 1 2.4 2.4 0.363636364
P9 2 1.2 2.4 0.363636364
23
P10 3 3 9 1.363636364
ΣBi 6.6 2.09
[0057] Based upon the Table 16,
ORM score = 2.91,
O2RM score = 2.09,
CRM score = 0.8 * 2.91 + 3.2* 2.09 / (0.8 + 3.2)
= 2.252
Rounding off the CRM score, the overall maturity level may be obtained. In the present
example, since the CRM score is 2.252, the overall maturity level at time T0 would be 2. It
may be understood that the coefficient of operational maturity and the coefficient of outcome
oriented maturity may be different for different domains and may be determined by the reuse
governance boards of the respective organizations.
[0058] Once an initial maturity assessment is conducted and the overall maturity level
is assigned to the organization at time T0, the reuse governance board along with the
project/reuse team sets up target maturity levels. In one implementation, the feedback module
124 may be configured to receive feedback indicators from the reuse governance board. The
feedback indicators include information about the target maturity levels. Based upon the
overall maturity level and the target maturity levels, the gap analysis module 122 may develop
a framework for attaining the target maturity levels before time T1. The framework may
include step wise step instructions to move to the target maturity levels.
[0059] In one example, the organization may have the target maturity levels of E4 to
be attained before time T1 in each of the plurality of parameters. However, the maturity level
of the organization at time T0 in the parameter P1 i.e., the object of reuse is E2, which
indicates that the object of reuse is predominantly source codes. If the organization has to
move to the maturity level E4, the gap analysis module 122 may suggest that the scope of the
objects that are reused has to be changed to include architectures and frameworks. Similarly,
the maturity level of the organization at time T0 in the parameter P3, i.e., the mode of reuse is
24
E3, where the catalog of assets is widely used in the organization through a platform, but has
only the basic features. If the organization has to move to maturity level E4, the gap analysis
module 122 may suggest that the mode of reuse should be enhanced to reuse platform with
advanced features. Similarly, the gap analysis module 122 may suggest ways to move to
higher maturity levels in each of plurality of parameters.
[0060] Based upon the suggestions provided by the gap analysis module 122, the
reuse governance board may direct the employees of the organization to follow the
suggestions. Furthermore, in one implementation, the assessment module 120 may again
determine RSM, NOM, and STMM at time T1 to understand a difference between the target
maturity levels and actual maturity levels at time T1.
[0061] Therefore, it may be understood that the system 102 may be used for providing
a dynamic reusability maturity model (DRMM) and determining an overall maturity level of
the organization based upon the DRMM. The system 102 also provides a framework for
attaining target maturity levels based upon closed loop feedback provided by the reuse
governance board in form of feedback indicators.
[0062] Referring now to Figure 2, a method 200 for building a maturity model for
reusing assets in an organization is shown, in accordance with an embodiment of the present
subject matter. The method 200 may be described in the general context of computer
executable instructions. Generally, computer executable instructions can include routines,
programs, objects, components, data structures, procedures, modules, functions, etc., that
perform particular functions or implement particular abstract data types. The method 200 may
also be practiced in a distributed computing environment where functions are performed by
remote processing devices that are linked through a communications network. In a distributed
computing environment, computer executable instructions may be located in both local and
remote computer storage media, including memory storage devices.
[0063] The order in which the method 200 is described is not intended to be construed
as a limitation, and any number of the described method blocks can be combined in any order
to implement the method 200 or alternate methods. Additionally, individual blocks may be
deleted from the method 200 without departing from the spirit and scope of the subject matter
described herein. Furthermore, the method can be implemented in any suitable hardware,
25
software, firmware, or combination thereof. However, for ease of explanation, in the
embodiments described below, the method 200 may be considered to be implemented in the
above described system 102.
[0064] At block 202, a dynamic reusability maturity model (DRMM) is defined. The
DRMM comprises a plurality of parameters associated with reuse of the assets in the
organization. The plurality of parameters is distributed among a first set of parameters and a
second set of parameters. Examples of the plurality of parameters may include an object of
reuse, a mode of reuse, a quality of reuse design technique, reuse responsibility index, a
multiuse reusability index, a motivation, reuse as value proposition, a saving measurement,
new opportunities measurement, and speed to market. Further, each parameter of the plurality
of parameters has a plurality of maturity levels, such as Emerge (E1), Establish (E2),
Excellent (E3), and Evolved (E4). The organization is associated with a maturity level in each
parameter. In one implementation, the DRMM is defined by the definition module 118.
[0065] At block 204, an operational reusability maturity (ORM) score is determined
based upon the maturity level of the organization in each parameter of the first set of
parameters associated with reuse of assets. The ORM score is associated with operations
perspective of the organization with respect to the reuse of the assets. In one example, the
ORM score is determined by the assessment module 120.
[0066] At block 206, an outcome oriented reusability maturity (O2RM) score is
determined based upon the maturity level of the organization in each parameter of the second
set of parameters associated with reuse of assets. The O2RM score is associated with business
perspective of the organization with respect to the reuse of the assets. In one implementation,
the O2RM is determined by the assessment module 120.
[0067] At block 208, a composite reusability maturity (CRM) score is determined
based upon the ORM score and the O2RM score. The CRM score is indicative of an overall
maturity level of the organization in reusing the assets. In one implementation, the CRM score
is determined by the assessment module 120.
[0068] Although implementations for methods and systems for providing a dynamic
reusability maturity model (DRMM) and determining an overall maturity level of the
organization based upon the DRMM have been described in language specific to structural
26
features and/or methods, it is to be understood that the appended claims are not necessarily
limited to the specific features or methods described. Rather, the specific features and
methods are disclosed as examples of implementations for DRMM.
27
I/We claim:
1. A system for determining an overall maturity level of an organization in reusing assets
of the organization, the system comprising:
a processor;
a memory coupled to the processor, the memory comprising:
an assessment module configured to,
determine an operational reusability maturity (ORM) score
based upon a maturity level of the organization for each of a first set of
parameters associated with reuse of assets, wherein the maturity level is
indicative of capability of the organization in reusing assets, and
wherein the first set of parameters and the ORM score are associated
with operational aspects of reuse of the assets;
determine an outcome oriented reusability maturity (O2RM)
score based upon the maturity level of the organization for each of a
second set of parameters associated with reuse of assets, wherein the
second set of parameters and the O2RM score are associated with
business aspects of reuse of the assets; and
determine a composite reusability maturity (CRM) score based
upon the ORM score and the O2RM score, wherein the CRM score is
indicative of the overall maturity level of the organization in reusing
the assets.
2. The system of claim 1, further comprising a definition module configured to define a
dynamic reusability maturity model (DRMM) having a plurality of parameters
associated with reuse of the assets in the organization, wherein the plurality of
parameters includes the first set of parameters and the second set of parameters.
3. The system of claim 1, further comprising a gap analysis module configured to
receive the overall maturity level of the organization from the assessment
module;
28
analyze the overall maturity level and a target maturity level; and
develop a framework for attaining the target maturity level.
4. The system of claim 2, wherein the plurality of parameters comprise at least two of an
object of reuse, a mode of reuse, a quality of reuse design technique, reuse
responsibility index, a multiuse reusability index, a motivation, reuse as value
proposition, a saving measurement, new opportunities measurement, and speed to
market.
5. The system of claim 1, wherein the maturity level is selected from a plurality of
maturity levels comprising Emerge (E1), Establish (E2), Excellent (E3), and Evolved
(E4).
6. The system of claim 2, further comprising a feedback module configured to receive
feedback indicators from a set of stakeholders for modifying the DRMM.
7. The system of claim 6, further comprising a reusability repository configured to store
the ORM score, the O2RM score, the overall maturity level, a target maturity level, the
DRMM model, and feedback indicators.
8. The system of claim 1, wherein the CRM score is based in part upon a first coefficient
associated with ORM score and a second coefficient associated with the O2RM score,
and wherein the first coefficient and the second coefficient are based upon a
technology domain of the organization.
9. The system of claim 1, wherein the ORM score is based in part upon a first set of
weighted multipliers associated with the assets, and wherein the first set of weighted
multipliers is based upon a technology domain of the organization.
29
10. The system of claim 1, wherein the O2RM score is based in part upon a second set of
weighted multipliers associated with the assets, and wherein the second set of
weighted multipliers is based upon a technology domain of the organization.
11. A computer implemented method for building a maturity model for reusing assets in
an organization, the method comprising:
defining a dynamic reusability maturity model (DRMM) having a plurality of
parameters associated with reuse of the assets in the organization, wherein the
plurality of parameters include a first set of parameters and a second set of parameters,
and wherein each parameter of the plurality of parameters is associated with a maturity
level indicating a capability of the organization in reusing the assets;
determining an operational reusability maturity (ORM) score based upon the
maturity level of the organization in each parameter of the first set of parameters
associated with reuse of the assets, wherein the first set of parameters and the ORM
score are associated with operational aspects of reuse of the assets; and
determining an outcome oriented reusability maturity (O2RM) score based
upon the maturity level of the organization in each parameter of the second set of
parameters associated with reuse of assets, wherein the second set of parameters and
the O2RM score are associated with business aspects of reuse of the assets.
12. The method of claim 11, further comprising determining a composite reusability
maturity (CRM) score based upon the ORM score and the O2RM score, wherein the
CRM score is indicative of an overall maturity level of the organization in reusing the
assets.
13. The method of claim 12, further comprising:
receiving the overall maturity level of the organization from the assessment
module;
analyzing the overall maturity level and a target maturity level; and
developing a framework for attaining the target maturity level.
30
14. The method of claim 11, wherein the plurality of parameters comprise at least two of
an object of reuse, a mode of reuse, a quality of reuse design technique, reuse
responsibility index, a multiuse reusability index, a motivation, reuse as value
proposition, a saving measurement, new opportunities measurement, and speed to
market.
15. The method of claim 11, wherein the maturity level is selected from a plurality of
maturity levels comprising Emerge (E1), Establish (E2), Excellent (E3), and Evolved
(E4).
16. The method of claim 11, further comprising receiving feedback indicators from a set
of stakeholders for modifying the DRMM.
17. The method of claim 12, wherein the CRM score is based in part upon a first
coefficient associated with ORM score and a second coefficient associated with the
O2RM score, and wherein the first coefficient and the second coefficient are based
upon a technology domain of the organization.
18. The method of claim 11, wherein the ORM score is based in part upon a first set of
weighted multipliers associated with the assets, and wherein the first set of weighted
multipliers is based upon a technology domain of the organization.
19. The method of claim 11, wherein the O2RM score is based in part upon a second set of
weighted multipliers associated with the assets, and wherein the second set of
weighted multipliers is based upon a technology domain of the organization.
20. A computer-readable medium having embodied thereon a computer program for
executing a method for building a maturity model for reusing assets in an
organization, the method comprising: