One of the best ways an organization can accelerate integration projects and recoup investment in infrastructure, people and implementation costs is through reuse of assets produced in previous integration projects. In my experience, “Re-Use” is often touted by vendors in the data integration marketplace but very little information is truly published in this area. Why is that the case?
For one reason it is an “after the fact” measurement attainable only where technology is used over time to deliver on multiple projects. It also means different things to different people. “Re-Use” in one technology context may be simplistic copying of objects within a design interface, saving time and effort but only a micro-scale. “Re-Use” in another technology context may mean “complete project section” reuse where surrounding environmental ties of a project implementation are removed and large blocks of implementation are repurposed across efforts. The latter is a more powerful concept, truly leveraging large amounts of previous work and making change faster, and more accurate. SOA is certainly driving more examination of this topic as well, some positive, some negative.The biggest examples I’ve seen of recouping value through reuse are in “ICC” environments or Integration Competency Centers. In an ICC, success *depends* on implementing reuse over time. Fundamental to planning and deployment of an ICC is identifying and documenting tiered re-usable assets, creating naming standards, broadcasting awareness of an “asset catalog” and planning for subsequent project acceleration through reuse in early pilot efforts.
On the topic of measurement, we’ve actually worked hand and hand with our ICC customers to document their reusability success. Many of these customers justify further investment in an ICC through reusability metrics. Examples are documented throughout our customer ICC references.
I’ve seen two schools of thought evolve in the measurement area. One is from the technical, repository point of view where reports are created that document paths of reuse and a dollar value placed on the “path count”. The other method involves a more holistic look at each initial and subsequent project from an overall costing perspective. Both have shown to be successful for various audiences from technical to business.
Do you have a success story or frustration to share on “Re-Use” and the subsequent improvement in time/value?
