Entonces, para cerrar ese documento, se despliegan ahora los dos o tres puntos de algún interés y de los que aún no se haya hablado...
Cusumano sobre la industria japonesa
Dice Cusumano sobre la industria japonesa del software, para el período 1970/90, reconociendo diferencias entre procesos a los que se puede aplicar un estilo de factoría de software, y aquellos donde no es adaptable:
As for the future of Japanese-style factories as a way of organizing software development (and perhaps other types of design and engineering work), it remained possible that large centralized factory organizations represented a transitional stage in the evolution of Japan's approach to managing software development technology.
Between the late 1960s and the early 1990s, the factory initiatives provided a useful mechanism to centralize, study, and manage a series of projects more efficiently than treating each effort as separate, with scale economies restricted to individual jobs and no scope economies systematically exploited. With improvements in electronic communications technology, it was no longer essential to concentrate large numbers of people in single locations, as seen in the NEC and Fujitsu cases, although Hitachi and Toshiba managers clearly preferred to bring people together, and it seemed more likely that factory-like organizations would continue to co-exist with job shops, depending on the kind of software being built as well as company objectives.
In general, factory strategies appeared best suited for software systems that could rely on reusable designs and components as well as common development tools and techniques. For totally new or innovative design efforts, Japanese software producers tended to utilize less structured organizational forms, such as special projects, laboratories, or subsidiaries and subcontractors, that gave individual engineers more freedom to invent and innovate. To the extent that Japanese firms wished to place more emphasis on individual creativity, they were likely to build more software in non-factory environments as well as emphasizethe design and engineering roles of personnel in internal projects, especially since new engineering recruits in Japan seemed to prefer labels other than "factory" to describe their places of work.
(Cusumano, Shifting Economies: From Craft Production to Flexible Systems and Software Factories, pag 46)
Reflexiones de Aaen, Bøtcher y Mathiassen sobre flexibilidad
Del trabajo de Ivan Aaen, Peter Bøtcher y Lars Mathiassen (Software Factories), mencionado al inicio de esta serie, quisiera destacar el enfoque abierto de su investigación:
The term factory signals a commitment to long-term, integrated efforts—above the level of individual projects—to enhance software operations. This is not only a powerful, but also a necessary idea taking the challenges involved in professionalizing software operations into account. But for many the term factory has at the same time the controversial connotation that software development and maintenance is comparable to mass-production of industrial products, and arguably this is not the case. This can easily lead to illusions with respect to the kinds of interventions that can, in fact, improve software operations. It is not surprising, therefore, that some software professionals like the concept while others do not.Algunas líneas sobre fuentes reconocidas
The term factory can be used to denote either one or more buildings with facilities for manufacturing or the seat of some kind of production. To many people the concept of a factory also implies a particular way of organizing work with considerable job specialization,formalization of behavior and standardization of work processes.
In this paper we will not adopt this historically based connotation. Rather we use the term without assumptions regarding particular ways to standardize, formalize, specialize, or achieve functional
grouping. The factory is an organization inhabited by people engaged in a common effort, work is organized one way or the other, standardization is used for coordination and formalization, and systematization is important, but there will be several options for the design of a particular software factory. This paper investigates how existing approaches to the software factory has chosen among such options by fitting each approach into one of Henry Mintzberg’s five basic organizational structures (Mintzberg, Structures in Fives: Designing Effective Organizations, Prentice-Hall 1983): the simple structure (organic, centralized, direct supervision); the ad-hocracy (organic, decentralized, mutual adjustment); the machine bureaucracy (bureaucratic, centralized, standardized processes); the professional bureaucracy (bureaucratic, decentralized, standardized skills); and the divisionalized form (decomposed based on standardized output).
(...)The goal is to clarify useful contributions and possible illusions related to the idea of a software factory.
(... ) We agree with Cusumano that the challenge for software management is to find ways to “improve organizational skills—not just in one project but across a stream of projects. To accomplish this, however, and still meet the demands of customers, competitors, and the technology itself, requires firms to balance two seemingly contradictory ends: efficiency and flexibility” (Cusumano 1991, p. 5).
The inherent complexities involved in developing and maintaining software suggest that the appropriate organizational form for a software operation is the professional bureaucracy in which professional competence is viewed as more important than standardized procedures and advanced technologies. Software managers are therefore advised to view the professional bureaucracy as the ideal and dominant form while elements of the machine bureaucracy and other organizational forms (Mintzberg 1983) should be treated as supplements to cope with variations, to increase efficiency whenever industrialized procedures are feasible, and to allow for greater flexibility in unique situations where existing procedures and experiences are insufficient. For this reason any long-term management commitment to improve software operations should fundamentally be based on approaches focusing on software processes, (...) and view approaches focusing on infrastructure as supplementary strategies that can help develop environments in which processes and professionals are better supported.
Dos fuentes generalmente reconocidas sobre el tema, y con toda razón, son Michael Cusumano y Yoshihiro Matsumoto, citados y analizados por prácticamente todos los autores leídos. Luego, Michael Evans y Herbert Weber, todos ellos a fines de los ochenta o comienzos de los 90. Probablemente influídos por los estudios de estos autores, Hitachi, Toshiba, Fujitsu, el proyecto Eureka y el proyecto Thales son algunos de los más mencionados y analizados. Desde finales de los noventa, es CMM el conjunto de recomendaciones más analizado. En los últimos años se advierte una evolución de estos trabajos a investigaciones orientadas a desarrollo basado en modelos y a los conceptos de Lineas de Producto Software (SPL), que en general no se han comentado en estos apuntes, aunque sí en infinidad de otros.
En cuanto a obras básicas sobre Factorías, estas son algunas de ellas:
Cusumano, M. A. (1989): The Software Factory: A Historical Interpretation. IEEE Software, Marzo.
Cusumano, M. A. (1991): Japan’s Software Factories. Oxford University Press.
Matsumoto, Y. (1981): SWB System: A Software Factory. En H. Hunke (Ed.): Software-Engineering Environments. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Matsumoto, Y. (1987): A Software Factory: An Overall Approach to Software Production, En P. Freeman (Ed.): Software Reusability, IEEE.
Matsumoto, Yoshihiro y Ohno, Yutaka, “Japanese Perspectives in Software Engineering”, Addison-
Wesley Publishing Company, 1989.
M. Paulk, B. Curtis, M. Chrissis and C. Weber, Capability Maturity Model for Software (Version 1.1),
Technical Report, CMU/SEI-93-TR-024, Pittsburgh, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon
University, Febrero, 1993.
Weber, Herbert, (editor), “The Software Factory Challenge - Results of the Eureka Software Factory
Project”, IOS Press, 1997.
Michael W. Evans, The software factory: a fourth generation software engineering environment,John Wiley & Sons.
Un antecedente que en su momento apuntó Pedro Molina correctamente, es Parnas:
D. Parnas: On the Design and Development of Program Families. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, March 1976, antecedente también de SPL.
Algunos papeles leídos en el curso de esta recopilación, han sido:
Concepto y Evolución de las Fabricas Software, Javier Garzás, Mario Piattini
Software Factories, de Ivan Aaen, Peter Bøtcher y Lars Mathiassen.
Improving MDD Productivity with Software Factories, de Benoît Langlois, Jean Barata, y Daniel Exertier
Making the Software Factory Work: Lessons from a Decade of Experience, de Harvey P. Siy, James D. Herbsleb, Audris Mockus, Mayuram Krishnan y George T. Tucker
Diffusing Software-based Technologies with a Software Factory Approach for Software Development, A Theoretical Framework, de Lim, Ngang-Kwang, Ang, S. K. James, y Pavri, F.N.
Otros de Cusumano y Matsumoto han sido mencionados antes.