Some enterprises may have formal asset creation and approval steps, with one or more asset manufacturing teams,
governing the process closely. Other enterprises may be less formal, without asset manufacturing teams or governance
around that team. Review the asset-based governance and development templates for variations on where the asset
manufacturing team resides.
There are several considerations when creating an asset manufacturing team, including:
-
Scope
-
Manufacturing process
-
Training
Scope
The intended scope of the team should be defined. Will the team be responsible for creating assets for the declared
reuse scope at the enterprise level or the divisional level? Will the team create the assets, or is the purpose of the
team to clean up assets and prepare them for reuse?
If the asset manufacturing team is in an organization dedicated to asset creation and promotion, such as a center of
excellence, then asset creation may happen just in that organization. However, asset identification and initial
harvesting is best done from the points where the actual artifacts have been used and proven. The asset manufacturing
team may then take on the responsibility of making the asset reusable, and packaging it for asset consumers.
Some enterprises may skip creating a formal manufacturing team, but rather create the governance policies, workflows,
and other items which are then followed by teams as they take on manufacturing as a role for some period of time. This
approach reduces the direct overhead of a full-time team, but may negatively impact quality and consistency.
The size and complexity of the assets, as well as the enterprise's business model for funding asset creation activities
need to be considered when creating asset manufacturing teams.
Manufacturing Process
Directly associated with the scope of the asset manufacturing teams mentioned previously is the manufacturing
process. There are several models to consider, and two are presented here. These models use the basic producer and
consumer model for assets. The premise is that an organization is focused on the creation of assets and another
organization is focused on the usage of assets.
In the first model, there is a formal, full-time asset manufacturing team. This team is dedicated to the specification,
creation, and publishing of assets. The team may specify their own assets or may take specifications and candidate
assets from asset consumers.
In this model the asset manufacturing team participates in the governance and review activities of the asset. One or
more governance boards may be involved. As shown in the image below there is a governance board focused on asset
specification, and another one on asset implementation. One or more of these governance boards are optional. As the
asset is approved and published in the asset repository one or more projects may use the assets. In this model, as the
asset is used, defects may be discovered and reported. The defect (or change management) tool is accessed by the asset
manufacturing team, and asset revisions are planned. The asset consumers may discover new assets, and specify them, or
they may optionally create candidate assets and hand them over to the manufacturing team for further refinement and
asset hardening.
Some of the variation points in this model include the use of asset governance boards, what asset consumers submit to
the manufacturing team (asset specifications, candidate assets, etc.), and the number and nature of the review
processes.
The constant element to this particular model is the existence of an asset manufacturing team which owns the assets,
publishes them, responds to defects, and submits updates.
In the second model, the main asset production responsibilities shift to the asset consumer projects. The asset
manufacturing team is an informal team, where participants play temporarily a role to review, approve, and publish
assets, but then return to their normal roles on projects.
This model has appeal if there is not the business model or support for the overhead of a full-time asset manufacturing
team. The defects are tracked by the original owners. Some challenges with this model can be lower quality, low asset
support, and slower turn-around time on defects.
Although this model has the potential benefit of rolling out faster initially, as there is typically less overall
coordination, it is critical that the stakeholders create the governance teams and establish the policies to minimize
any negative side affects of this model.
Some enterprises may consider beginning with this model, and then when the value of the assets for the business grow,
migrating to the first model presented. In the diagram below, consumer projects perform asset production. The asset
manufacturing team is an informal team, where participants temporarily take on review and publishing responsibilities.
Training
The teams producing assets, whether that is a formal asset manufacturing team or asset consumption projects need formal
training. A set of key artifacts is required as input to the task of setting up the asset manufacturing process, these
include:
-
Reuse Adoption and Incentive Plan
-
Resources and Training Plan
-
Asset Rules and Policies
-
Asset Type Specification
-
Community Map
-
Asset Workflow Specification
-
Classification Schema
The architects, developers, and others creating assets need to understand the policies and rules described in these
artifacts. The respective teams need to be trained on this material.
|