DAN STURTEVANT: Hi. My name is Dan Sturtevant. I'm at Silverhread. And I just hit the button wrong. Let's see. Back. Back. OK.
So if you are in a large software enterprise, many of the projects that you have are at risk. Right? Some are on time. Some are delayed. Some fail. And all of the extra time that you spend on these software projects is money and resources wasted.
We have been working with customers who feel that our technology is capable of helping them do things faster so that they can get more done. Now, the way that we do this is we've developed technology over the course of the past 15 years out of MIT and Harvard to assess the technical health of software systems, from both a code quality standpoint, which is what people traditionally look at, and also, using graph theory to reason about the architecture of health of the system.
Is it modular? Does it have tight APIs? Good layering? Reuse? And so on. Motherhood and apple pie of software architecture.
We've also done a lot of studies showing that there's a strong economic impact of that architectural health. In this system, where architectural health was degraded, a developer was only able to produce 8,000 lines of code or 8 features per year.
And they were spending 69% of their time fixing bugs. In this healthy system that we studied, that same developer was able to produce 20 features in a year, and only spend 20% of their time fixing bugs. So clear economic and risk-related differences. And we've done a lot of studies like this over the course of that time, and now we're commercializing this technology.
We've been working with the United States Air Force, for example, and they said that we gave them a greater than 20x ROI on the activities that we did with them. We were able to assess their portfolio of software applications. This is 100 major systems in the United States Air Force. Some of them were healthy. And in the healthy ones, we could actually reward those teams for doing well.
Some were challenged. And the ones that were challenged, we used our technology to help them fix those systems so that they could improve and reinforce the architectural boundaries in their system, and actually measure the ROI of the fixes that they did. So they can measure their economies before and after, and know that they got to say, $10 million back for every million dollars they invested in the improvements of this system.
And then finally, there have been several programs where we assess the health of those systems. Realize that refactoring was not feasible in the system anymore or the economics of it weren't worthwhile. So they recapitalized several programs because of that.
But imagine if you're a software executive with a portfolio of 100 or 1000 systems out there, if you could make these decisions more effectively, there's a lot of money to be saved. And if you could fix the systems where refactoring was a rational option, being able to build the business case for it is critically important, because it's very hard to do.
In conclusion, if you'd be interested in working with us, we have some ways of doing pilots. First of all, we would love to be able to do diagnostics on some of the systems that you have to assess the architectural health and benchmark it. And then we have the tooling to help your engineers fix these systems. And then we'd also like to be able to run diagnostics across your entire portfolio to help you target where you want to attack with these diagnostics. So thank you.