Manufacturing Process for the Software Applications

Software’s greatest irony is that after taming the complexity of every other discipline of the engineering (e.g. CAD or chip design), goods and services, software researchers still not been able create rational model to control or manage the complexity of the software projects.

OK! Software is unique and it faces a unique set of problems... So What? It should not be an excuse. The software, on the other hand, can be made highly intelligent and flexible, unlike the physical objects, like light bulb or automobile engine. How can we compare a software component (i.e. an intelligent code module) with piece of dumb metal (e. g. engine)? We must be ashamed of it?

The NIST/ATP’s web page (http://www.atp.nist.gov/focus/cbs.htm) says in the Technology Challenge section:

Examples from the physical world often are invoked to explain software systems - - in some systems: for example, standard software interfaces for network communications are called "sockets". The analogies are insidious, however, because the realm of software is nothing like the realm of physical objects. The idea of manufacturing only one kind of light bulb, which would be reconfigured automatically at the point of use to fit into any desired socket at any voltage, is absurd. But for software components, the idea is not only feasible - - it could be the necessary enabling technology for the complex systems software needed for new, advanced information technology applications.

In other words, ATP is saying that, you need to build a configurable component that can be used in any car one can make at that time. That is, you should have a universal engine that fits, Camry, Civic, BMW, Porch, Cadillac and Taurus. Of course, it is physically impossible and absurd.

OK! Lets see, how to overcome this problem? How to setup an automobile assembly line, in software? We need to build a Software module, a factory that takes the parts and assembles them to build the automobile. For Example:

Do you get the picture? You supply the appropriate parts and the factory assembles them to build the Automobile for the customer. If you are manufacturer of the components, such as, the Stereo Player or CD-Player, You may use the same process to set up the assembly line that assembles its subcomponents. This process to setup a factory works well for any product.

We know this process works very well for manufacturing. Toyota setup a factory to make Camry and Honda setup a factory to make Accord. But, most experts argue that it doesn’t work for software, because it is so unique. Why is it so unique? The problem is not the software’s uniqueness, but we are unable to leverage the intelligence, we can program into the software modules, which can easily be far more intelligent and flexible compare to a piece of metal (e.g. engine) possible can offer. Therefore, the intelligence, which we can include in the software-modules, must overcome the complexity and uniqueness.

We all know standardized or predefined plug-in interfaces for the parts revolutionized the product manufacturing. It is not substantiated here, but has discussed in other places and of course experts many software researchers agree that: If we can invent loosely coupled systems (i.e. systems assembled using plug-in parts), we can eliminate 80% of integration complexity and also reduces the cost of the parts by allowing specialists (having skills in the relevant domain) to independently design and refine manufacturing of each interchangeable or plug-in part.

We must overcome two main obstacles: (1) the applications doesn't have such interchangeable parts today, so we must invent software interchangeable parts. (Also review, process for assembling interchangeable parts) (2). Two Camry could have exactly same engines. All the engines are identical twins and it is very hard to make out any difference. But, in the software, every component is unique, for example, a user's portfolio chart for e-trade account. The chart changes from user to user and minute to minute (e.g. company stocks are sold/bought or stock values fluctuate).

The software is unique. It needs to create highly custom application for each user. This is akin to building a universal automobile manufacturing plant, which builds any car you want (e.g. Camry, BMW or Accord). That means, you should have a universal engine that fits, Camry, Civic, BMW, Porch, Cadillac and Taurus. Of course, it is physically impossible. However, it is possible for the software overcome these problems, by employing a simple indirection.

We could do this by employing two intelligent software modules and partitioning the responsibilities between them. We could have a “Component Factory” (or “CF”) that can dynamically build custom “Application Component” (or “AC”) on the fly (i.e. in real-time) using up to the minute information based on user account number. The same CF creates a different AC after few minutes even for the same user, if stock values fluctuate. (Please review Examples for Component Factory or This-CF example)

Now, you setup the software-manufacturing factory, which uses the CF (the indirection) instead of using the parts directly. We make the CF intelligent enough to custom manufacture appropriate component for the Product/System. Likewise, the CF for the component may use one or more other CFs to build subcomponents. The figure#1 shows the manufacturing supply chain.

Both (car and application) are assembled using 'replaceable-parts'. To build a custom online-application, we are setting up a supply chain for the parts in the web page (or an application screen). In this supply chain, each CF builds appropriate component (or plug-in AC) for the custom application, based on each user's profile and preferences. The real innovations are: Ready-to-assemble and easily-replaceable 'code-block' for the loosely coupled parts (which doesn’t exist today, in Object Oriented Paradigm) and the “CF-indirection” to custom build the plug-n-play AC at real-time.