There are a number of recent additions to the literature relating to the position we elaborate here. Concerning maturity and its assessment, the recent special issue of IEEE Software (particularly [#!dion93!#]), Pfleeger's paper on process maturity and metrics [#!pfleeger90!#], and the reuse maturity model formulated in [#!SPC92!#] relate the kind of activity we see being directed eventually not just toward processes and organizations, but toward domains as well.
Progress toward our near-term goals is indicated by reports such as those by Daskalantonakis [#!daska92!#] and Pfleeger [#!pfleeger93!#]. Recent efforts by DoD and SEI on the derivation of a standard set of core metrics will lead to more uniform reporting and comparison of such efforts.
Finally, and perhaps more critically, cost models are beginning to be discussed in the literature, indicating a new phase in the maturation of reuse: [#!margono92!#], [#!poulin93a!#], [#!poulin93b!#]. Such models typically involve a single organization and the benefits derived from reuse activities. Their relevance to multiple contractor contexts, particularly government projects such as those done by DoD and NASA, have yet to be established.
It important to note that the work described in these references commonly starts from widely varying premises. There is demonstrable benefit derived from adaptive reuse, and we provide different weightings for verbatim reuse and adaptive reuse in the cost models that we are exploring. Poulin, however, counts only verbatim reuse in the calculation of return on investment [#!poulin93a!#]. The variations in results make comparison difficult. The reuse community needs to arrive at a consensual cost model approach that allows proper comparison, so that the benefits of a mature reuse program are clear and unarguable. Only then will institutionalization of reuse become a reality.