Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!bellcore!dduck!duncan
From: duncan@dduck.ctt.bellcore.com (Scott Duncan)
Newsgroups: comp.sw.components
Subject: Re: Non-Code Software Components
Message-ID: <17894@bellcore.bellcore.com>
Date: 16 Oct 89 12:32:43 GMT
References: <598@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu> <16210@vail.ICO.ISC.COM>
Sender: news@bellcore.bellcore.com
Reply-To: duncan@ctt.bellcore.com (Scott Duncan)
Organization: Bellcore, Piscataway, NJ
Lines: 45

In article <16210@vail.ICO.ISC.COM> rcd@ico.ISC.COM (Dick Dunn) writes:
>
>    (in an organization which does a LOT of contract development of soft-
>ware), we re-use bits and pieces all through projects.  We'll start looking
>at a new contract, say at the proposal phase, and realize that it has some
>major pieces which are close to major pieces of other contracts we've done.
>It's only natural to find that, since our repeat or referred business is
>based on a reputation established from previous work.
>
>Dick Dunn     rcd@ico.isc.com    uucp: {ncar,nbires}!ico!rcd     (303)449-2870
>   ...No DOS.  UNIX.

This brings up a point that came up when I was talking to people who do con-
tracting for the US Government.  They felt that, in many instances, reuse was
discouraged for this very reason.  That is, if a vendor/contractor were using
software, documentation, e.g., anything developed on another contract, the
government agencies did NOT want to have the bid include any cost for reuse of
such software.  After all, it had been paid for already.

Has your organization been able to solve this problem in some way or do you,
in fact, reduce the contract bid based on the cost saved by not redeveloping
the software (or whatever other artifacts are reused)?

Another issue was reuse of software by one contractor which had been develop-
ed by another.  Supposedly this could save the government (and the contractor
reusing it) money (and time), but there was no incentive to do so because of
maitenance issues and because it actually represented a loss in revenue to the
firm reusing the software since they could NOT charge for its redevelopment.

It seems to me that within organizations and between them, the issues of who
does ongoing support for reused software and how reused software will be paid
for are major, non-technical, stumbling blocks to moving ahead with large re-
use efforts.

What opinions/experiences do other people have?  One contractor suggested to me
that the governmment might consider offering a 'reward' for reuse in that half
the savings would be passed along to the government while half would be divided
equally between the developing and reusing organizations.  This would provide
incentive to both develop reusable software as well as make use of it,
presumably.

Speaking only for myself, of course, I am...
Scott P. Duncan (duncan@ctt.bellcore.com OR ...!bellcore!ctt!duncan)
                (Bellcore, 444 Hoes Lane  RRC 1H-210, Piscataway, NJ  08854)
                (201-699-3910 (w)   609-737-2945 (h))