Dear David,

It makes sense that technology can be used to add lifespan to a typical system that, on the average may live between 3-5 (effective lifecycle) years. For defense systems, equipment could be expected last 3 times that time period. But I doubt software can ever remain static. It just simply cannot. In fact, I would probably look at it  with a pair of propitiatory glasses on. How would I be running a manufacturing venture that so crucially relies on software computation? Particularly in some form of arms race (well technically every business endeavour is an arms race, market share being territories).

It is fairly common to have industrial software solutions intended for consumer use to be built on a specific prototype that evolves overtime. So, you will always have large portions of the source code that may have been inherited from an earlier version or some legacy system. This is quite common practice. 

So the so-called 'technology mediation' process to enhance lifecycle is not really mediation for improvement, rather it is the process of enhancing compatibility with newer platforms that might have better libraries.

In fact, if a system is large but popular, an interpreter (assuming different platform/RTE) is usually preferred over a complete overhaul. So, having gone through the slide, Raytheon's application simply goes on to reify what we perceive to be one of the standard product (even new product development, as there is nothing 'new' about a successor to a version of a particular solution, going by the term literally), development practices.

In fact, 'Manufacturing Process Maturity' (PPT definition) is expected to increase with development investment overtime. If a development environment has undergone some form of evolution based on previous undertakings, the level of maturity can easily be benchmarked so that processes are easily replicated for productivity.

Proprietary systems may not even need technology mediation for quality purposes (as enhances will be always built on top!).

Culture / Expertise are older but rather important factors but they come with process maturity. 

I am interested in the process of entropy in software systems, but I think software quality and qualification of the different stages of a typical lifecycle are not quite that inter-linked given quality is expected to depreciate over time due to the rapid rate of evolution software systems tend to incur.

What is interesting is the approach of manufacturers such as Raytheon and their application of principles that are commonly practiced by vocational software engineers.  Only goes on to say, scale does not matter. In fact, the larger the scope of a software, the more standardized it needs to be for proper product management! Hope this has helped.

One aspect that might be overlooked is the cost and transformation related to the implementation of a new information system. I have found that introducing new information systems and procedures may lead to a plethora of problems particularly when looking at sociotechnical systems. These include (from the top of my head) mismatched data, shortage of historical data, over reliance on what is believed to be a cutting edge technology, slow adaption in terms of learning the system, costly organizational changes, loss of previous expertise, overly optimistic expectations, the cutting down on personnell while loosing human based skills based on experience and insider knowledge, and other related problems. All of them affecting the responsivness and adaptability of the system.

My previous studies and articles include case studies of information systems with regard to organizational responsiveness and a potential for facilitating sustainable mobility and transportation. I have a forthcoming article that looks at one case in particular concerning an early web based travel planning service for "smart" multimodal travel launched already in 2000. This article titled 'From Maps to Apps: Tracing the Organizational Responsiveness of an Early Multimodal Travel Planning Service' is scheduled to be published online in December, 2015. In the meantime I would humbly recommend looking at my other studies found on my profile page. They might be useful for answering your question.

Good luck and best regards,

Carlos

Carlos,

Well said.

"One aspect that might be overlooked is the cost and transformation related to the implementation of a new information system. I have found that introducing new information systems and procedures may lead to a plethora of problems particularly when looking at sociotechnical systems."

Partially for that reason industrial (Raytheon, ...) have a technology readiness requirement of 3-4 stages/years rather than the US Air Force  and NASA (e.gs) technology readiness that spans 10 stages/years.

Thanks.

How can technology readiness improve sustainability of software quality? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_can_technology_readiness_improve_sustainability_of_software_quality [accessed Nov 9, 2015].

David,

Very interesting the different readiness requirements of an industry actor such as Raytheon and a government agency like NASA.

I find observations from real-life situations such as the ones you mention to be very beneficial for understanding the importance of institutional settings and organizational behavior.

All the best,

Carlos