Links for 2008-09-11 [del.icio.us]
Labels: MWD
Links for 2008-09-12 [del.icio.us]
Labels: MWD
Links for 2008-09-08 [del.icio.us]
Labels: MWD
Links for 2008-09-07 [del.icio.us]
Labels: MWD
Links for 2008-09-04 [del.icio.us]
Labels: MWD
Links for 2008-08-28 [del.icio.us]
Labels: MWD
Links for 2008-08-27 [del.icio.us]
Labels: MWD
Links for 2008-08-26 [del.icio.us]
Labels: MWD
The dilemma of "good enough" in software quality
I recently finished some research on the cost and quality benefits of upfront, automated code and design review (i.e. prior to and during the development and build process) through static analysis. One of my conclusions was that the case for "good enough" is no longer good enough in delivering software. But some might argue that this viewpoint is promoting the notion of static analysis as a means of perfecting something - "gilding the lily" - rather than an essential tool for knowing whether something is "good enough".
Not so. In many fields, it is widely accepted that it is not necessary to apply a rigorous quality or testing schedule without first understanding what is at stake, what the risks might be in the event of failure and the severity of those risk. And from there deducing the level of, and appropriateness of, testing techniques, processes and tools to ensure that what is delivered is fit for purpose or "good enough".
In software delivery I would argue that too often the desire to deliver something quickly - especially to meet a deadline, however ambitious or unrealistic - overrides the key question of (fully determining) whether what is being delivered is actually "good enough".
The attitude of 'good enough' has been hijacked as an excuse for "sloppy" attitudes and processes and a "lets suck it and see" mentality. Surely such an attitude cannot continue to exist in delivering software that is increasingly underpinning business critical applications?
It is, you could say, a problem of managing expectations. A one star hotel probably offers adequate and "good enough" services for those on a budget. But this would not be sufficient for five-star luxury seekers. The key, though, is that customers of each know what they are getting for their money and whether it is fit for their purpose. There is a quantifiable means of grading what is delivered and matching that to what is expected.
Software technology advances allow varying levels of sophistication and capabilities and enable much more to be achieved. Software is increasingly becoming deep rooted in every aspect of our modern lives. New business models are being founded on applications and systems developed with many of these new technologies and approaches. If organisations start to restructure their working practices around applications and systems which rely on the new generation of communication and collaboration technologies and approaches, then failure due to poor code or application quality becomes even less acceptable.
The inclusion of rich media and visuals; the push for greater collaboration through the Internet; and unified communications for richer interactive social or work activities, means that any failure in such services would not only have the potential of creating higher levels of frustration - it would reduce productivity more sharply. On top of this, company brands become more easily exposed to damage.
Increasingly when people buy or use software they expect, if not 5-star performance, then performance and quality that is at least "good enough".
How many companies can rigorously look at their testing programs and say that is what they are delivering?
If you set out to deliver something that is important then applying the sloppy, suck-it-and-see "good enough" mentality just doesn't stand up.
What I find incredible after all this time - given the weight of evidence and eminent studies on the cost savings and the growing complexity and importance of software in our modern lives - is that the "sloppy" mentality and attitude still holds such sway in software delivery processes.
Many organisations don't spend nearly enough effort on improving the quality of the software they produce. More often than not they pay lip service to the concept whilst secretly holding the belief that it is a waste of resources (time, staff and money). As I stated at the start, the reality couldn't be further from the truth. In a future blog and report I will examine and discuss the evidence in more detail.
Clearly there is more to this debate: especially as we place a greater reliance on software and grapple with the growing pressure to release new features and functions more quickly both to differentiate in the market and to gauge users' reactions and acceptance.
Is it better to just get something out there that is of reasonable quality and worry about more deep-rooted bugs later, since it is a well known fact that software is never flawless?
This certainly is the option taken by many in the business of delivering software who have met with varying degrees of success and, if you are on the receiving end, - frustration, disappointment and loss.
In the end it boils down to one's interpretation of "good enough" and the answer to the intriguing questions: who and what should dictate what constitutes "good enough" software quality and how do you go about governing it?
If you are looking to answer these questions you will need to adopt a combination of strategies:
- You will need the support of good processes. Static analysis is certainly one way of improving the processes and being efficient with it. It is a tried and tested means for progressing software quality, predictability and lowering software costs. However, it is not the only tool for software quality. It is part of an arsenal of tools and processes needed for a wider and more lasting, cost effective approach to delivering quality software.
- You will need a clear vision, and an understanding of the goals (business and technical) to establish whether something is actually "good enough".
- You will need to put in place a connected tools and communication framework to underpin and support your governance process.
Labels: development, MWD, Software Quality, Static Analysis, Testing
Links for 2008-07-31 [del.icio.us]
- Johannes Ernst - NetMesh: On OpenID's Relying Party Adoption "Problem"
Johannes Ernst discusses the disparity between the number of OpenID identity providers and associated identities (lots) and relying parties (few) and whether the ratio is likely to change over time, with thoughts on differing objectives and requirements - More tech details emerge on Microsoft’s ‘Midori’
Mary Jo Foley over at All about Microsoft comments on an SD Times article on Eric Rudder's distributed operating system project, Midori. Microsoft may claim it's a research project but the callibre of the individuals involves would suggest otherwise
Labels: MWD
Links for 2008-07-28 [del.icio.us]
Labels: MWD
BPM isn't yet "the killer app for SOA"
As part of our
BPM Continuous Advisory Service, we're carrying out twice-yearly research studies which capture information about the state of maturity and practice of BPM in European businesses. We've finally finished analysing the results of our first study, and published the report.
One of the most interesting things for me in processing all the findings from the study was that for now at least, making too simplistic a connection between BPM and SOA looks like being a risky thing to do. Where BPM and SOA initiatives exist in organisations today, all the signs point to them being conducted in completely separate worlds, by completely separate teams with wildly differing sets of assumptions and expectations.
We've highlighted other key findings of the study over on our
BPM blog, which is a key element of our BPM service but is freely accessible by anyone.
Labels: BPM, MWD, SOA
If you want our take on where Oracle's taking BEA...
Read
this new report.
I know we're not the quickest off the mark, but we wanted to get the whole team working together to author something comprehensive, and with travel and so on, that took a few days.
We'll admit to being pessimistic about BEA's prognosis going into the Oracle acquisition, but Oracle's early communications highlight its understanding of the strengths of the BEA technology, as well as of BEA's market footprint. What's more, the company is also openly committing to support BEA customers' existing working relationships and arrangements, and has pledged not to force product migration on any customer. There is more that Oracle needs to do, of course, but this is a good start.
Labels: BEA, MWD, Oracle
New Collaboration Service Launch!
We are delighted to announce the launch of our second Continuous Advisory Service (CAS), which focuses on collaboration. Following the same format as our BPM Continuous Advisory Service (introduced in May), the
Collaboration service offers a combination of in-depth reports, an interactive online vendor comparison tool, and optional analyst access relating to topics covered within the service.
The service launch sees the publication of our first
Strategic Insight report, which examines the relationship between collaboration and knowledge management, and our first
Market Insight report, which assesses the value of consumer social networking standards such as OpenSocial within the enterprise.
In parallel with the new premium service, we have published four new reports into our free "Guest pass" research library: two reports which outline our approach to assessing collaboration software, and two new Vendor Capability Assessments (VCA) which focus on the collaboration software portfolios of
Microsoft and
IBM respectively.
If you want to have a look at the Collaboration Continuous Advisory Service for yourself, we're offering free, no-obligation trials that run for 7 days. You can register for a trial
here.
Labels: collaboration, MWD
Links for 2008-07-04 [del.icio.us]
Labels: MWD
Links for 2008-07-04 [del.icio.us]
Labels: MWD
A comprehensive analysis of IBM's BPM Suite
After months of tweaking and review, our coverage of IBM's BPM technology offering is now live. It joins our coverage of
Appian,
BEA (we're keeping an eye on this, of course, and will update it as soon as is practical),
Lombardi,
Software AG and
TIBCO.
We've been working on this assessment since the autumn of 2007: the delay is mostly due to the breadth of IBM's portfolio (the assessment report runs to 33 pages, whereas most of the others come in around 20 pages) - combined with the fact that, just as we were about to finalise the report, IBM changed its portfolio positioning, introducing the
BPM Suite. Anyhow the effort has been worth it - we think the result is pretty comprehensive and definitely worth reading if you're in the process of selecting a BPM technology vendor.
The IBM BPM assessment report is available as part of our
Guest Pass library, here; the detailed comparative scoring information, which you can personalise in line with your preferences and constraints, lives in the online vendor comparison tool that's part of our
BPM continuous advisory service. Although this service isn't free, you can get a 7-day free trial, so you can use the tool now to see how IBM stacks up in the context of your own environment and preferences -
just fill in this form.
Next up is Pegasystems - the assessment process is already underway.
Labels: BPM, ibm, MWD
Compuware "2.0" - passion or mis-step?
Just to let you know that as well as publishing
two new BPM reports in the last couple of days, we've got another new report in our library too.
Our new analyst
guru Bola Rotibi just finalised her second MWD report, looking at Compuware's recent
"Compuware 2.0" relaunch. Is it a welcome display of passion from a company long known for hiding its light under a bushel, or a move that exposes further weaknesses?
Labels: Compuware, MWD
Two new BPM reports
We just published two new "On The Radar" reports on business process technology vendors in our open "Guest Pass" research library. Both vendors are taking an approach that's outside the mainstream, and both are focusing primarily on opportunities with small-to-medium businesses.
RunMyProcess provides a process design and deployment platform that's been designed up-front to be delivered through a software-as-a-service (SaaS) model - aimed at helping SMEs with commitments to investing in SaaS integrate their applications and augment them with hosted process flows.
Colosa, on the other hand, offers an open-source BPM technology toolset, ProcessMaker, that's entirely written in PHP.
We hope you enjoy them! As always, you can access these reports with a free subscription (you can enrol here if you're not one of the 3,000 or so existing members).
Labels: BPM, Colosa, MWD, RunMyProcess
Links for 2008-06-16 [del.icio.us]
Labels: MWD
Embarcadero rescues CodeGear
In our
most recent report, our new analyst
Bola Rotibi looks at Embarcadero's recent acquisition of CodeGear (the Borland subsidiary that it's been trying to offload for many months) - and asks: has Embarcadero made a smart move or a stupid one, and what does it mean for organisations looking at investing in development tools?
You can
download the report if you have access to our guest pass research: if you're not a member, it's easy - you can
register for free.
Labels: borland, codegear, development, embarcadero, MWD
IIAR Analyst of the Year survey
We were pleasantly surprised here at MWD by the results
of a recent survey by the Institute of Industry Analyst Relations, which surveyed almost 120 analyst relations professionals (for those of you who aren't aware, these are the people that act as our interface with vendors) across the globe.
It won't come as a total shock that we came out of it rather well - why else would I be blogging about it:
- Our most recent recruit, Bola Rotibi, was the number 8 analyst
- MWD was similarly ranked in the analyst firm category on a global basis and was number 5 in EMEA
- We were the number 5 software analyst firm
- We came in at number 8 when it comes to relevance (and number 5 in EMEA)
We're particularly proud of that last one given this from
Jonny Bentwood commenting on the results:
One of the interesting results from the survey is the distinction made between relevant and important analyst firms. From my perspective it appears that people made the recognised tier 1?s (Gartner, Forrester, IDC) as the most important as they realise that these companies have a strong impact on sales due to their customer base and research viability. However, relevant firms did not necessarily map on to these same firms and the ones ranked most highly tended to have a greater focus on bespoke advice (largely gained through inquiry time).
When we founded MWD back in February 2005 we set out to differentiate ourselves from the big analyst firms with a very open and flexible approach which allows us to offer tailored advice to our customers. It seems to be paying off.
Obviously, we're really chuffed with this recognition, particularly as it comes from a group of individuals whose job it is to work with analysts on a daily basis.
We're equally pleased that other independent analysts did so well, particularly our business partners over at Freeform Dynamics and RedMonk.
Labels: MWD
More BPM coverage, and our other blog(s)
In my recent post highlighting our
new line of services, I neglected to mention an important facet of our new BPM continuous advisory service, and the other services we're working on: each service has a companion blog.
The "service blog" allows our analyst teams to not only highlight new research in the service, upgrades, outages etc - but also highlight other research or information out there that's likely to be of interest to anyone working in the area of service coverage. The idea is to make each service blog a valuable resource in its own right.
Here's our new BPM service news blog. The latest post highlights the addition of
coverage of BPM specialist supplier Appian.
In keeping with our philosophy, anyone can
subscribe to the blog - it's not exclusively for our paid-for subscription customers. Anyone can access the
Appian assessment, too - it's part of our "guest pass" research library that we're continuing to add to, even though we're now also offering paid-for subscription services. Just
sign up for free and you can look at what we think of Appian's BPM offering, as well as checking out
BEA,
Lombardi,
Software AG and
TIBCO. If you're a paid-for subscription service licensee you'll get access to additional data that will help you compare these vendors side-by-side, in the context of your own environment and priorities - as well as gaining access to exclusive BPM research study findings, best-practice case studies, one-on-one analyst access, and more.
Of course, if you want to see how all this paid-for subscription stuff looks, you can
sign up for a free trial of that, too... it's easy.
We'll be adding IBM to our BPM coverage in the coming week or two, and Pegasystems should follow in the next month. If you want to make sure you're up-to-date with what we're doing in BPM, just
point your feed-reader here.
Labels: BPM, MWD
Links for 2008-05-28 [del.icio.us]
Labels: MWD
A "Start" button for a new phase of our business
Here's a little snipped screenshot from the MWD website
homepage, as it appears from today. That little green box above our main menu doesn't look like much, but it's a big deal for us - as of today, we're launching a completely new line of business that we expect to drive significant growth for us and hugely increase our ability to scale our business.
Over the past few months we've mentioned, in passing, the fact that we're developing some new services.
In mid-April we quietly published six Business Process Management (BPM)-focused reports into our free "guest pass" research library: two documents outlining our approach to BPM technology assessments, together with assessments of offerings from BEA, Lombardi, Software AG and TIBCO (you can find links to those on our
homepage - under "highlights"). These assessments follow the tried-and-tested approach we've used to great effect in the past when looking at SOA infrastructure and identity management offerings, working from a common assessment framework that seeks to get under the covers of what's important.
The publication of these reports coincided with us launching a new BPM service to a small handful of our existing paying customers. After a couple of weeks of testing and tweaking, we're now finally ready to make a lot more noise about it.
Our new
BPM Continuous Advisory Service builds on the foundation of our "guest pass" research mentioned above, but adds much more. There are three main elements:
- A deeper set of "premium" research reports covering BPM strategy issues, case studies, findings from Europe-wide surveys (which we're conducting twice a year) looking at BPM adoption, maturity and best practice, and industry news and analysis. This base is continuously added to as we go.
- An innovative online interactive vendor comparison tool which allows you to compare and rank vendor capabilities based on your specific business and IT requirements (is a rules capability particularly important to you? Is simulation not interesting? Is it imperative that you only consider vendors which support BPMN, or run on WebSphere? Specify your preferences in the tool and it will dynamically rank and filter vendors accordingly). Our guest pass assessment reports don't include comparative scoring; the tool does. All the vendors we cover in our guest pass research reports are included in the tool's database (and we're currently working on extending the list of vendors - watch this space).
- An optional Analyst Access facility, giving direct access to our analysts so that you can engage with us on topics relating to the advisory service content.
The service is licensed on an annual subscription basis, and we're pursuing an "open licensing" policy, rather than working on the established model of charging per-seat. One license covers a customer for anyone, anywhere in the world, who wants to access the research and tools.
Sounds like a good deal, doesn't it?
If you work for a company looking at BPM technology or currently exploring a BPM initiative, you should check out how our service can help you to define your strategy, implementation approach, and technology procurement (particularly if you're based in Europe). More information about the service, together with pricing, is available
here. And if you work for a supplier of IT products or services and want to get more of a handle on what's really going on in the world of BPM (again, particularly in Europe), you'll want to check out
this information.
If you want to have a look at the service for yourself, we're also offering free, no-obligation trials that run for 7 days. You can register for a trial
here.
In the coming weeks we'll be launching a new Continuous Advisory Service focused on Collaboration that is built from the same elements as the BPM service we're launching today. And over the coming months, you'll see us expanding our focus further. But all this new stuff doesn't mean the end of our commitment to delivering free research: we'll continue to make a whole raft of research, podcasts and blog posts available free of charge to our 1,500 (and growing) strong regular reader base.
Labels: MWD
Links for 2008-05-16 [del.icio.us]
- Compuware 2.0: We Make IT Rock
Compuware 2.0 - accompanied by a chugging "rawk" soundtrack and with a new COO. Part of the goal is to recruit bright young talent - but is this just like your Dad trying to look cool in a nightclub?
Labels: MWD
Links for 2008-05-14 [del.icio.us]
Labels: MWD
Links for 2008-05-13 [del.icio.us]
- United States Patent Application: 0080082465
A patent (which includes Bill Gates and Ray Ozzie amongs its inventors!) for an intelligent agent that monitors the environment, user characteristics and preferences to advise a user in "decision-making processes for efficiency or safety concerns" - itickr.com » Blog Archive » SignOn.com / Google Apps Integration
Ping adds support for SAML to signon.com (already supports OpenID and CardSpace) through integration with Ping Federate. Also supports Google apps - Dave and Vikas Hop on the Right Bus
Oracle's Clayton Donley explains how the Identity Governance Framework and, more specifically, CARML, to enable movement of data along an identity bus by providing a means for endpoints on the bus to understand the data being passed
Labels: MWD
Links for 2008-05-06 [del.icio.us]
Labels: MWD
Links for 2008-04-28 [del.icio.us]
Labels: MWD
Links for 2008-04-18 [del.icio.us]
- stackoverflow.com - Joel on Software
A new (free) programming Q&A community site. It'll be really interesting to see how this one pans out - what kind of structure will they put in place to enable open contributions, but also ensure the best quality answers? They're open to suggestions...
Labels: MWD
Links for 2008-04-14 [del.icio.us]
Labels: MWD
Links for 2008-04-12 [del.icio.us]
Labels: MWD
Links for 2008-04-09 [del.icio.us]
Labels: MWD
An identity management OTR
Today we published
another On The Radar report. This one looks at The Dot Net Factory which has taken its purpose-built workflow management platform (based on Microsoft's Windows Workflow Foundation) to create EmpowerID, a role-based identity and entitlement suite.
As the name of the company and the technology foundation of its offerings suggest, The Dot Net Factory should be of particular interest to organisations looking to bolster their provisioning and access management capabilities in a Microsoft environment.
Labels: MWD
Another On The Radar report
Those of you interested in application development and agile methodologies might want to take a look at
our latest On The Radar report, which looks at Portugal's OutSystems.
As well as offering a comprehensive set of application development and management capabilities, the company provides customers with a choice of on-premise or hosted deployment (with plans for hosted development too).
Labels: MWD
Links for 2008-04-07 [del.icio.us]
Labels: MWD
Links for 2008-04-03 [del.icio.us]
Labels: MWD
Links for 2008-03-26 [del.icio.us]
Labels: MWD
A couple of new reports
Sorry to butt in but I thought some of you might be interested in a couple of new On The Radar reports we have recently published.
The first looks at Macro 4's Application Performance Portal (A.P.P.), which is a multi-platform Java application performance management solution.
The second looks at StackSafe's Test Center, an IT infrastructure staging and operational testing solution.
Labels: MWD
Links for 2008-02-27 [del.icio.us]
Labels: MWD
Links for 2008-02-13 [del.icio.us]
Labels: MWD
Links for 2008-02-08 [del.icio.us]
Labels: MWD
Links for 2008-02-06 [del.icio.us]
Labels: MWD
Links for 2008-02-01 [del.icio.us]
