Borland's Own ‘Journey' to Agile Development Forms Real-World Foundation for New Software Delivery Management Solutions

Transcript of BriefingsDirect podcast on Agile Development principles and practices with Borland Software.

Listen to the podcast. Sponsor: Borland Software.

Dana Gardner: Hi, this is Dana Gardner, principal analyst at Interarbor Solutions, and you’re listening to BriefingsDirect. Today we present a sponsored podcast discussion about Agile software development.

We're going to be talking to a software executive from Borland Software about Borland's own Agile “journey.” They deployed Agile practices and enjoyed benefits from that, as well as gained many lessons learned, as they built out their latest application lifecycle management (ALM) products. [See product and solution rundowns.]

We're going to talk with Pete Morowski, the senior vice president of research and development (R&D) at Borland Software. Welcome to the show, Pete.

Peter Morowski: Thank you, Dana. It's good to be here.

Gardner: Before you get into Borland Software's journey, I want to get a level-set about Agile Development practices in general. Why is Agile development a good idea now? What is it about the atmosphere in the evolution of development that makes this timely?

Morowski: From the standpoint of software development, it's a realization that development is an empirical process, a process of discovery. Look at the late delivery cycles that traditional waterfall methodologies have brought upon us. Products have been delivered and end up on the shelf. The principles behind Agile right now allow teams to deliver on a much more frequent cycle and also to deliver more focused releases.

Gardner: There are also, I suppose, technical and business drivers: better quality, faster turnaround, more complexity, and, of course, distributed teams. What is it about the combination? Why is this important now in terms of some of these other technical business and even economic imperatives?

Morowski: With the advent of Web applications, businesses really expect a quicker turnaround time. In addition, when you look at cost structures, the time spent on features not used and other things are critical business inhibitors at this point.

Gardner: Let's help out some folks out who might not be that familiar with Agile and its associated process called Scrum. Tell us a little bit from an elevator-pitch perspective. What is Agile and what is Scrum?

Morowski: Agile really is a set of principles, and these principles are based on things like self-directed teams, using working code as a measure of progress, and also looking at software development in terms of iteration. What we mean by that is that when you look at traditional software development, we talked about things like design, code, and testing as actual phases in a development lifecycle. Within Agile, in an iteration, these are just activities that occur in each iteration.

Now, when you talk about Scrum, that is more of a process and a methodology. This is actually taking those Agile principles and then being more prescriptive on how to apply them to a software-development cycle.

In the case of Scrum, it's based upon a concept called a sprint, which is a two-to-four week iteration that the team plans for and then executes. In that two-to-four weeks, whatever they get done is considered completed during that sprint, and what work hadn't been completed goes into what they call "product backlog" for prioritization on what is done in the next sprint. You chain these several iterations together for a release.

The beauty of this is that now you have a way to induce change on the borders of those iterations. So, one of the things that's really advantageous to Agile is its ability to adapt the changing requirements.

Gardner: When I try to explain Agile to people, some of them come away thinking that it's an oxymoron or is conflicted because they say, "Okay, your goal is to do things better and faster, but you are telling people use fewer rules, use less structure, and have your teams be self-selecting." People see a conflict here. Why isn't that a conflict?

Morowski: I think it's a misnomer that self-directed teams and that type of thing mean that we can do whatever we want. What it's really about is that teams begin to take ownership for delivering the product. What happens is that, by allowing these teams to become self-directed, they own the schedule for delivery.

What happens is that you see some things like traditional breakdowns of roles, where they are looking at what work needs to be finished in a sprint, versus "Well, I am a developer. I don't do testing," or "I am a doc writer, and I can't contribute on requirements," and those types of things. It really builds a team, which makes it a much more efficient use of resources and processes, and you end up with better results than you do in a traditional methodology.

Gardner: It almost sounds like we're using market forces, whereby entrepreneurs or small startups tend to be more energized and focused than teams within a larger, centralized organization. Is that a fair characterization?

Morowski: Yeah, I think it is very fair.

Gardner: And, given that we're looking for this empirical learn-as-you-go, do what's right for you, I suppose that also means that one size does not fit all. So, Agile would probably look very different from organization to organization.

Morowski: It could. One thing we chose to do, though, was to really to set a benchmark process. So, when Borland first started developing in Agile, we had multiple locations, and each site was, in essence, developing its own culture around Agile. What I found was that we were getting into discussions about whose Agile was more pure and things like that, and so I decided to develop a Borland Agile culture. [See case study on Borland and Agile.]

We broke that up on geographic bases, where we started with one site, had one "ScrumMaster" and we built what we call the reference process. As we've grown, and our projects are getting more complex, the fact that we evolve from site-to-site based on the same process and the same terminology has allowed us to now choose more complex agile techniques like Scrum of Scrums or work across organizations, and have a common vocabulary, and that kind of common way of working.

Gardner: It also sounds like you are taking the best of what a centralized approach offers and the best of what a decentralized approach offers, in terms of incentive; take charge, and local ownership, and then making them co-exist.

Morowski: That's correct.

Gardner: All right, let's get specifically into Borland's situation. What is it about the way that Borland has been developing software, which is of course a core competency for a large independent software vendor (ISV) like yourselves, and it has been for 15-plus years … How difficult was it for you to come into this established organization and shake things up?

Morowski: Initially, it wasn't an issue because, like most organizations, when we went through and looked at it, there were a couple of grassroots efforts underway. From an Agile perspective, one of the things we did was to begin to leverage that activity and the successes that it had to use as a benchmark with other teams. As we grew and moved into other organizations that were not necessarily grassroots efforts, there were some challenges.

Gardner: So, it might be quite possible that lot of organizations that do development have people who are Agile-minded and perhaps even followers of Agile doing this already. Perhaps they should look for those and start there.

Morowski: I would recommend that you start with your grassroots efforts, establish your benchmark process, and then begin to move out from there.

One thing we clearly did was, once that we saw the benefits of doing this, we had a lot of executive sponsorship around this. I made it one of the goals for the year to expand our use of Agile within the organization, so that teams knew it was safe to go ahead and begin to look at it. In addition, because we had a reference implementation of it, it also gave teams a starting point to begin their experimentation. We also paid for our teams to undergo training and those types of things. We created an environment that encouraged transformation.

Gardner: Let's learn a little bit more about you, Pete. Tell us a little bit about your background and how you came into development and then into Agile?

Morowski: I've been in this business a little over 25 years now. I started in the defense and aerospace industries and then moved into commercial ISVs later in my career. I've been an executive at Novell. I've also been a CTO at IBM Tivoli, and prior to Borland, was the vice president of software at Dell.

Gardner: You've taken on this Agile project at Borland, and you've written a paper on the “Borland Agile Journey.” I've had the pleasure of reading it. I think it's a really nice read and I commend for you it.

Morowski: Oh, thank you.

Gardner: Tell us about this particular product set [Borland Software Delivery Management information] that Borland is coming out with. It's a product set about helping people develop software. Is there a commonality between some of the lessons you learned and then what you may have actually visited in terms of requirements for your products? [See demo and see launch video.]

Morowski: Oh, absolutely. One of the interesting things about the products that we are delivering is that one of them is a product for managing Agile development, especially in distributed teams and managing the requirements. So, we had the advantage of actually using the tools as we were developing them.

Now, we were also very cautious because you can get myopic about that type of thing, where we also using Agile principles, and we involved our customers in the process, as well. So we were getting kind of the best of both worlds.

Gardner: What makes software development different? In reading your paper, I was thinking about how these principles about self-empowerment and working quickly and then setting these boundaries -- "Okay, we're going to just work and do this for three weeks and then will revisit any changes," -- that might be something it would apply to almost any creative activity where a team is involved.

Is Agile something you think applies to any creative activity, a complex team-based activity, or is there something about it that really is specific and germane to software development?

Morowski: If you look at Agile principles, conceptually, they do apply to a lot of things. Anything in which you are going into a period of discovery, one of the key things is knowing what your goal or mission is. In the case of software, that's a requirement, and what you want the product to be.

But in any kind of empirically based endeavor, this would be something that you could apply. Now, when you get down to the actual Scrum process itself, it's the terminology, the measures, the metrics, and all those types of things are really tailored for software development.

Gardner: When I read your paper, I also came away with some interesting observations. You say, there is a difference between how development is supposed to work and how it actually works. It's sounds like many companies are living in denial or a certain level of dysfunction that they are not necessarily facing.

Morowski: It's one of the issues with laying a manufacturing process over something that's inherently an empirical process. In the end, all software R&D organizations or IT shops responsible for applications are responsible to the business for delivering results. And, in doing so, we all try to measure those things.

What I have observed over my career was the fact that there really existed two worlds. There is what I call the "management plane," and this is a plane of milestones, of phase transitions and a very orderly process and progress through the software development lifecycle.

Underneath it though, in reality, is a world of chaos. It's a world of rework, a world of discovery, in which the engineers, testers and frontline managers live. We traditionally use Gantt as a measure that is task-based. It requires a translation from the implementation world to the management world to show indications of progress. Any time you do a translation, there can be a loss of information, and that's why today software is such an experienced-based endeavor.

Gardner: And it's often been perceived as sort of a dark art. People don't appreciate or understand how it's done, and that those who do it should say, "Hey, leave me alone, get away from me. I'll come back with the results in three months."

Morowski: Exactly.

Gardner: But that doesn't necessarily or hasn't historically been the best approach.

Morowski: Absolutely not.

Gardner: Also, at times, you see them downplay process and say that doing good hiring probably is the biggest issue here. What's the relationship between hiring and what people, not always affectionately, refer to as human resources? What's the relationship between HR and Agile?

Morowski: Well, first of all, just getting back to a little bit on hiring thing. Hiring is important, regardless of what methodology you use, and I tend to stress that. I do contend there are different kinds of personalities and skill sets you are going to be looking for when you are building Agile teams, and it's important to highlight those.

It's very important that whoever comes onboard in Agile team is collaborative in nature. In traditional software environments, there are two roles that traditionally you may struggle with, and you have to look at them closely. One is the manager. If a manager is a micromanager-type, that's not going to work in an Agile environment.

And, the other thing, interestingly enough, is the chief architect role. What's interesting about that is that you would think you would fit in Agile very easily, but in a lot of traditional software organizations, all decisions of a technical nature on a project go through the chief architect. In an Agile world, it's much more collaborative and everybody contributes. So for some personalities, this would be a difficult change for them.

Gardner: So there is that grassroots element, and you have to be open to it.

Morowski: Right.

Gardner: What is it about the structures here? Again, for folks who might not be that familiar with Agile, tell us a little bit about some of the hierarchy.

Morowski: There are really two key roles. There is the ScrumMaster and the ScrumMaster runs what they call the daily stand-up. This is basically a meeting, where everybody on the team gets together on a daily basis and they answer three questions. "What did I get accomplished yesterday?" "What am I going to do today?" And "What's blocking me?"

Everybody goes around the room. It's a 15- minute meeting. You solve any particular problems, but you log things. The role of ScrumMaster is to run that meeting and to remove blocks to the team, and it's a very key role.

The second major role within Scrum is really the product owner, and this is the individual that's responsible for prioritizing the requirements or what we call the product backlog -- what is what is going to be done during the sprint, which features are going to be completed. Those are the two primary roles, and then from there everybody is pretty much a team member.

Gardner: When you decided to bring this into play at Borland, a very large, distributed organization, you didn't try to bite off too much. You didn't say, "We are going to transform the entire company and organization." You did this on more of an iterative basis. It seems that most people, when they do Agile, will probably follow similar path. They'll take a project basis and then say, "Now we need to expand this and make it holistic."

Many organizations, however, across all kinds of different management activities, can stumble at that transition from the project, or the tactical, into the holistic, or general, across an organization. What did you learn in making this transition from small to large scale at Borland?

Morowski: A couple things. One is that, as we rolled it out, let's say starting by site-by-site, we grew from teams-to-teams. The ScrumMasters worked very collaboratively to help each other out, because, in the end, they were responsible for delivering at the end of those sprints. That was a very positive effect.

As we moved out to distributed teams, there were a number of challenges, things like the daily stand-up, or if I have people in Singapore that are supporting a particular sprint, say, from the system testing point, that made things difficult. But, what I found is the team was pretty creative in involving those individuals, whether they recorded sprints, whether they shifted time zones, and they did this all on their own.

That was the absolute positive, one of the things that surprised me. It was an interesting discovery.

As we started to be more broad with the interaction with the non-Agile parts of the organization, this was a little bit more of a challenge, and I learned a couple of things. In doing any kind outsourcing, if you try to match a traditional, contractual base -- the statement of work (SOW)-type outsourcer -- with an agile team, that's going to present problems. The outsourcer is expecting very detailed specifications as a statement of work and that's just not produced during an agile or sprint/Scrum type of development activity.

The other thing is internally, and what I would say at the end of the pipe and at the beginning of the pipe, working with marketing and our new product introduction processes and support and getting sales out. One of the things that we found is that we started to have a capacity to release more often, but the organization, as a whole, had to adjust now to: A) provide market requirements to us in a different manner, and B) we had to adjust our process at the end to be able to accept more rapid releases.

Gardner: So in order to get the most out of Agile, it sounds like, for those organizations where software development is core competencies, important to their successes as a company, or as a government organization, or a public not-for-profit, that the edges of Agile start to blend into other departments. The whole competency around their organization can perhaps borrow some of these principles from development and extend them into the entire lifecycle.

Morowski: Yes, we no longer look at it as strictly an R&D thing anymore, just because of that. And, it's interesting. You know you are making progress from a development team perspective, when you are starting to output more than the organization can accept.

Gardner: Interesting. So, adjustments along the way, and that's again a principle of the approach.

All right. In this age of Agile and your Agile journey, you came away with three basic observations about the benefits. One was around self-directing teams; second around being able to manage change well; and, third, about how to do the relationship with the customer, in this case the customer being the folks who are interested in getting the software. Tell us about these three benefits and what you have learned?

Morowski: Well, we touched on the self-directing teams, and the key to that is one of the most important things as an executive is that you really have to take the lead and let your teams go and develop -- let them truly own their projects. There will be mistakes along the way, but once they do, it's an extremely powerful concept.

One of the great things about agile is that it's a very open and very visible methodology. During daily stand-ups, I can attend any daily stand-up and sit there and listen to what's going on. I can't contribute in those meetings, because that's run by the ScrumMaster. But, one of the times I was attending the daily stand-up, I knew the teams had progressed a great deal.

When they were looking at their remaining work backlog that they had for that particular sprint, and there were a couple of tests that need to be run that there was nobody assigned to. One of the developers had time, looked at that, and picked it up.

Now, normally, that would never happen, because we behave in a silo fashion. "I am an engineer." "I am a tester." It's an "I am a …" type of thing. But, when you really have a self-directing team, the team owns that schedule and it's very interested in making sure that they meet their commitments.

Gardner: I suppose that also fosters willingness of people to move in and out of role, without just saying, "Well, that's not my job …", but taking more group responsibility, and even as an individual.

Morowski: Absolutely correct, and that to me has been one of the more powerful things that I have personally observed.

Gardner: Change management has often been something that drives developers crazy. They hate when people come in and start changing requirements when they are in the middle of doing code or test. On the other hand, things don't stay the same, and change is part of everything in life and business, perhaps more so today than ever. How do you reconcile those two?

Morowski: Well, I think the reality is that there is going to be change during these development cycles, and so the question is what's the best way to handle it? If you look in a traditional waterfall methodology, you march along phase transitions. Even if you have iteration in place, if you discover a design or coding defect late in the game, you have to go backwards to a different phase and start going into the design or fixing the code. Then, you repeat the process again, and you continue to move along your space transition line.

The thing that's interesting is that with Agile you have an orderly way of injecting change. In other words, as a sprint completes and you've demonstrated the code -- and you demonstrate it after that three-week iteration -- if something has changed and you need to change the prioritization, you have a way to inject that change along that boundary, and then let the team go forward. That's what I always like to say, "We're always going forward in Agile."

Gardner: And how do the teams adjust to that?

Morowski: It's part of the process. The changes go into the backlog. The product owner looks at them and then prioritizes it based upon the complexity of the work and the timing and so on and so forth, and just how important that is. If it's important enough, it will go into the next iteration. The teams are used to doing that, because you are not, in essence, disrupting at a random point. They have already finished what work they were working on, and now there is a cleaner opportunity to inject that change.

Gardner: So, boundaries allow for those who want change to get it done without having to wait for a particularly long period of time or until the project is done. But, for those involved in the project, they have these sections where it's not going to become chaotic and they are not going to lose track of their overall process, because of this injection of change.

Morowski: No, as a matter of fact, the process encourages it.

Gardner: How about this, what you call customer relationships? It sound to me as thought it's just being transparent.

Morowski: It is. It's a different approach, in the sense that you are actually bringing in the customer as what I would call a partner in the development. They participate in sprint reviews, and sprint reviews at the end of a sprint, where you show the working code, what you have completed and so. Those are done on an every-three-week basis, and we involve our customers.

They also take early drops of the code and provide input into the product backlog on requests that they want, and things like that. It's proven to be very beneficial for us. The one thing is that, when you choose these customers to participate, it's important for them to be Agile, as well, and understand that, and they need to approach this as a partnership not just an opportunity to get their particular features or requirements in.

Gardner: And, that must also help keep expectations in line, right?

Morowski: Absolutely. What I have found is that the customers we have involved want to get used to our cycles and our delivery rhythm. They are less adamant about getting every feature on a list in a particular release, because they know it's a relatively short time before the next one comes around.

Gardner: When we describe these customers, would that, in many organizations, include bringing the marketing people in, and the salespeople. Can they get involved so that this becomes something that will enter the market as an agile activity, rather than having Agile happening on the development side, and then falling back into a waterfall mentality when it comes to the go-to-market activities?

Morowski: Yes, we do, and the transparency that's there actually helps build confidence in the rest of the organization on what we are delivering, because they see it as we progress along. It's not something that mysteriously shows up on their doorstep.

Gardner: It certainly sounds great in theory, and it sounds like you've been able to accomplish quite a bit in practice, but what about metrics of success? How have you been able to say, "it works?" Has Borland cut their cost, their time to development? Do they have better products? All of the above? How do we know we are succeeding?

Morowski: I'd say it's combination of all the above. The first thing is that by putting these teams together, they are much smaller teams than in traditional organizations. So, if you look at it, my teams are almost 30 percent smaller on the Agile side than they are on the traditional side.

Gardner: And what's accounting for that change?

Morowski: I think one, is the ownerships of the teams, and two, the breakdown of very specific roles.

Gardner: Would I be going out on a limb in saying you have eliminated the middle management factor?

Morowski: There is absolutely that as well. The other thing is the fact that we're delivering working code and involving with customers. We are developing fewer superfluous features. When a product goes out the door, it generally has the most important features that were entailed for this release. So, it really helps the prioritization process.

Gardner: Not too many cooks in the kitchen?

Morowski: Exactly.

Gardner: Cool! Tell us a little bit about what surprised you the most about this Agile journey of Borland.

Morowski: I think the power of the daily stand-up. I mean, yes, we got a lot of benefits, and yes, we had a number of successes, we were able to transition code from locations and things like that, but I owe that a lot to the daily stand-up. The thing that surprised me is how powerful it is each morning when everybody gets around the table and actually goes through what they've done, basically saying, "Have I lived up to my commitments? What I am committing to the team today? And then is there anything blocking?"

Generally speaking, a lot of developers tend to be quiet and not the most social. What this did is that it just didn't allow the few people who were social to have input on what was going on. This daily stand-up had people, everybody on the team, contributing, and it really changed the relationships in the team. It was just a very, very powerful thing.

Gardner: It sounds like balance among personality types, but that balance directed toward the real activity that is developing code.

Morowski: Absolutely.

Gardner: Interesting! Well, congratulations. I enjoyed reading your paper, and this certainly sounds like the future of development, I know that's what many people in the business think. We've been talking about Agile development practices and principles and how Borland Software has been undertaking an Agile journey itself, in a development project around development process tools and application lifecycle management products.

Back to those products. Is there anything about the synergy between doing it this way and then presenting products into the field that you think will help other people engage with Agile benefits?

Morowski: Are you talking about the products themselves?

Gardner: Yes.

Morowski: The products themselves, absolutely. We have a product coming out called Team Analytics. The key to this is that, while we talked about self-directed teams, we still have responsibilities to reporting to the business and how we are progressing.

Team Analytics gives us a view into the process, gives us the ability to go ahead and look at how the team is progressing, and those types of things, what features have been included or dropped, without having to go into the team and request that information. So that's a very powerful thing.

Gardner: Right. So, it's one thing to agree that visibility and transparency are good, but it's another to actually accomplish it in terms of complexity in large teams and hierarchy.

Morowski: Absolutely. This allows us to move to what I call a "monitored" from a "reported" kind of methodology of metrics. What I mean by that is, typically, at the senior vice president or vice president level, you really get to look at the state of your products once a month, in the sense that you have operations reviews or some kind of review cycle where all your teams come in and then they report the progress of what's going on.

With Team Analytics, you are able to actually look at that on a daily basis and see if anything’s changed over time. That way, you know where you need to spend your time and that's why we call it monitored, at this point.

Gardner: Super! Well, thank you for sharing your insights. I think there is a lot to be taken away here and learned.

We have been talking with Pete Morowski, the senior vice president of research and development for Borland Software. We were looking at Agile principles in the context of Borland's Agile journey.

Thanks, Pete.

Morowski: Thank you, Dana.

Gardner: This is Dana Gardner, principal analyst at Interarbor Solutions, and you’ve been listening to a sponsored BriefingsDirect podcast.

Thanks for joining us and come back next time.

Listen to the podcast. Sponsor: Borland Software.

Transcript of BriefingsDirect podcast on Agile development principles with Borland Software. Copyright Interarbor Solutions, LLC, 2005-2008. All rights reserved.

New Eclipse-Based Tools Offer Developers More Choices, Migrations and Paths to IBM WebSphere

Transcript of BriefingsDirect podcast on Eclipse-based tool choices for IBM WebSphere shops.

Listen to the podcast here. Sponsor: Genuitec.

Dana Gardner: Hi, this is Dana Gardner, principal analyst at Interarbor Solutions, and you’re listening to BriefingsDirect. Today, a sponsored podcast discussion about choices developers have when facing significant changes or upgrades to deployment environments. We'll be looking at one of the largest global installed bases of application servers, the IBM WebSphere platform.

Eclipse-oriented developers and other developers will be faced with some big decisions, as their enterprise architects and operators begin to adjust to the arrival of the WebSphere Application Server 6.1. That has implications for tooling and infrastructure in general.

The platform depends largely on the Rational Application Developer (RAD), formerly known as the WebSphere Studio Application Developer. This recent release is designed to ease implementations into Services Oriented Architecture (SOA) and improve speed for Web services.

However, the new Rational toolset comes with a significant price tag and some significant adjustments. Into this changeable environment, Genuitec, the company behind the MyEclipse IDE, is offering a stepping-stone approach to help with this WebSphere environment tools transition.

The MyEclipse Blue Edition arrives on March 15, after a lengthy beta run, and may be of interest to developers and architects in WebSphere shops as they move and adjust to the WebSphere Application Server 6.1.

To help us understand this transition, the market, and the products we are joined by Maher Masri, president of Genuitec. Welcome to the show, Maher.

Maher Masri: Thank you, Dana.

Gardner: Also, James Governor, a co-founder and industry analyst at RedMonk. Welcome, James.

James Governor: Hi, Dana.

Gardner: James, let’s start with you. We’re looking at a pretty dynamic marketplace around tools. There are certainly lots of different frameworks and approaches floating around. Folks are dealing with SOA, with Software as a Service (SaaS), with agile development. They are dealing with mashups and Enterprise 2.0 issues. We’re seeing increased use of REST and SOAP. This is just a big, fluid, dynamic environment.

On the other hand, we’re also seeing some consolidation around runtimes. Organizations looking to cut cost and infrastructure and trying to bring their data centers under as few runtime environments as possible. So, we’re left with somewhat of a conundrum, and into this market IBM is introducing a major upgrade.

Maybe you could paint a picture for us of what you see from the enterprises and developers you speak to on how they deal with, on one hand, choice and, on the other hand, consolidation.

Governor: It's a great question. In this industry we can expect continuing change. If anything is certain, it's that. When we look at this marketplace, if we go back a couple of years into the late 1990s, there was a truism that you could not make money as a tools company. The only way you could really sustain a business would be connected to, and interwoven with, the application server and the deployment environment. So it's interesting that now, sometime later, we’re beginning to rethink that.

If you look at a business like Genuitec, the economics are somewhat different. The Eclipse economics, in terms of open source and the change there, where there is a code based being worked on, have meant that it's actually easier to maintain yourself as an independent and work on a specific set of problems.

In terms of your question about Web 2.0, agile development, and so on, there are an awful lot of changes going on. That does create some opportunities for the third parties. Frankly, when you look at the very largest firms, it's actually quite difficult for them to maintain the sorts of innovation that we’re seeing from some of the smaller players.

In terms of the new development environments, it might be something like the fact that we’re seeing more Ruby on Rails. P scripting languages continue to be used in the enterprise. So, supporting those is really important, and you are not always going to get that from the lead vendors.

I'll leave it up to Genuitec to pitch what they do, but one of the interesting things they did, which you certainly wouldn’t have seen from IBM, was a while back, when they bridged the Eclipse world with the NetBeans ’ Matisse GUI building application development set.

Crossing some of those boundaries and being able to deal with that complexity and work on the customer problems, it's not surprising to me that we’ve seen this decoupling, largely driven by open source. Open source is re-enabling companies to focus on one thing, rather than saying, "Okay, we've got to be end-to-end."

Gardner: So, we've got a dynamic environment. We have some amazing uptake in Eclipse over the past several years becoming a dominant job oriented IDE. We have WebSphere as the dominant deployment platform.

As you pointed out, the economics around tools have shifted dramatically. It seems that the value add is not so much in the IDE now, but in building bridges across environments, making framework choices easier for developers, and finding ways of mitigating some of these complexity issues, when it comes to the transition on the platform side.

Let’s go to Maher. Tell me a little bit about why Eclipse has been so successful, and do you agree that it's the value add to the IDE where things are at right now?

Masri: Let me echo James’ point regarding the tools environment, and software companies not being able to make money at that. I think that was based on some perceived notion that people refuse to pay money for software. In fact, what we've found is that people don’t mind paying for value, and perceived value, when it’s provided at their own convenience and at their own price point.

That’s why we set the price for the MyEclipse Enterprise Workbench at such a low point that it could be purchased anywhere in the world without a series of internal financial company decisions, or even a heartbreaking personal decision.

Although the product was just the JSP editor when it was first launched, today it's a fully integrated development environment that rivals any Tier 1 product. It's that continuity of adding value continually with every release, multiple releases within the same year, to make sure that, a) we listen to our customer base, and b) they get the value that they perceive they need to compensate for the cost that we charge them.

Eclipse obviously has become the default standard for the development environment and for building tools on top of it. I don’t think you need to go very far to find the numbers that support those kinds of claims, and those numbers continue to increase on a year-to-year basis around the globe.

When it started, it started not as a one-company project, but a true consortium model, a foundation that includes companies that compete against each other and companies in different spaces, growing in the number of projects and trying to maintain a level of quality that people can build upon to provide software on top of it from a tools standpoint.

A lot of people forget that Eclipse is not just a tools platform. It's actually an application framework. So it could be, as we describe it internally, a floor wax and a dessert topping.

The ability for it to become that mother board for applications in the future makes it possible for it to move above and beyond a tools platform into what a lot of companies already use it for -- a runtime equation.

The next Ganymede 3.4 and the 4.0 extension of Eclipse is pushing it in exactly that direction. The OSGi adoption is making a lot of people reconsider their thought in terms of, "What application do I write for productivity applications internally, for tools that I provide to my internal and external customers, for which client implementations?"

It's forcing quite a bit of rethinking in terms of the traditional client/server models, or the Web-only application model, because of productivity requirements and so on.

IBM was the company that led the way for all of the IBM WebSphere implementation and many of their internal implementations. A lot of technologies are now based on Eclipse and based on Eclipse runtime.

Gardner: So, we have this big bear, Eclipse, in the market and we have this big bear, WebSphere, in the market. Why is there a need for someone like you to come in between and help developers?

Masri: The story that we hear internally from our own customers is pretty consistent, and it starts with the following. "We love you guys. You provide great values, great features, great support, except I cannot use you beyond a certain point." Companies for whatever internal reasons, from a vendor standpoint, are making the choices today to move forward with WebSphere 6.1, and that’s really the story we keep hearing.

"I am moving into 6.1, and the reason for that is I am re-implementing or have a revival internally for Web services, SOA, Rich-net applications, and data persistence requirements that are evolving out of the evolution of the technology in the broader space, and specifically as implemented into the new technology for 6.1."

Gardner: They need to modernize it.

Masri: But their challenge is similar. Every one of them tells us exactly the same story. "I cannot use your Web service implementation because, a) I have to use this web services within WebSphere or I lose support, and b) I have invested quite a bit of money in my previous tools like WebSphere Application Developer (WSAD), and that is no longer supported now.

"I have to transition into, not only a runtime requirement, but also a tools requirement." With that comes a very nice price tag that not only requires them to retool their development and their engineers, but also reinvest into that technology.

But the killer for almost all of them is, "I have to start from scratch, in the sense that every project that I have created historically, my legacy model. I can no longer support that because of the different project model that’s inside."

For example, Rational 7.0 is only one of the few versions of WebSphere that supports 6.1 and supports all of the standards for Web services, for AJAX support, for persistence requirements that they need to modernize. They have to implement it, but cannot take, for example, an existing WSAD project, import it into Rational 7.0, and continue development. They pretty much start from scratch.

Gardner: Let’s go to James for a moment. James, you’re familiar with the IBM stack and their road map. Why are they doing this? It seems to me that there is an application lifecycle management (ALM) set of benefits that the Rational toolset and platform bring that IBM is trying to encourage people to take advantage of. It does require transition, but they have a larger goal in mind. Perhaps we should address this ALM, or do you have other thoughts about this transition?

Governor: From an IBM perspective, it’s a classic case of kind of running ahead of the stack. If you see the commoditization further down the stack, you want to move on up. So IBM looks at the application developer role and the application development function and thinks to itself, "Hang on a second. We really need to be moving up in terms of the value, so we can charge a fair amount of money for our software," or what they see is a fair amount of money.

From an IBM standpoint, I think they really looked at players such as Genuitec, looked at where Eclipse was going, and they thought, "Wait a second. We really do need to be moving forward with this notion of software development."

If you talk to a lot of developers, they don’t really think of the world that way, but many of their managers do. So, the idea of moving to situation where there is better integration of the different datasets, where you've got one repository of metadata moving forward with that kind of stuff, that’s certainly the approach they are taking.

The idea is you've got "auditability," as you build applications. You’re going from a classic distributed development, but you’re doing a better job of centralizing, managing, and maintaining all the data that’s associated with that.

The fact that IBM is making that change is indicative of the fact that when they look at the market more broadly, they think to themselves, "Well, where is our margin coming from?"

IBM’s strategy is very much to look at business process as opposed to the focus on just a technical innovation. That certainly explains some of the change that's being made. They want to drive an inflection point. They can't afford to see orders-of-magnitude cheaper software doing the same thing that their products do.

Gardner: As we mentioned earlier, there are so many complexities involved in decision making now, different approaches to creating services, that the operators and the vice presidents of engineering are saying, “Wow, we need to manage this complexity.”

They are looking for life cycle approaches, ways of bridging design time and runtime. IBM is addressing some of these needs, but, as you point out, developers are often saying, "Hey, I just want my tool. I want to stick with what I know." So we’re left with a little bit of a disconnect.

I’m assuming, Maher, that this is where you’re stepping in and saying, "Aha, perhaps we can let the developers have it their way for a time to mitigate the pain of the transition, at the same time recognizing that these vice presidents of engineering and development are going to need to look at a much more holistic life-cycle approach. So, perhaps we can play a role in satisfying both." Am I reading too much into that?

Masri: No. We understand internally that different technologies have different adoption life cycle behind them. ALM is no different. It’s going to take a number of years for it to become the standard throughout the industry, and it is the right direction that almost every company is going to have to face at some time in the future.

The challenge for everybody, us and IBM, is the bottom-up sale process, to provide the tools and the capabilities for companies to embrace, for people to embrace those technologies, and, at the same time, putting the infrastructure in place for managers to be able to continue to manage projects into success.

Our decision is very simple. We looked at the market. Our customers looked back at us and basically gave us the same input. If you provide us this delta of functionalities, specifically speaking, if you’re able to make my life a little easier in terms of importing projects that exist inside of WebSphere Application Developer into your tool environment, if you can support the web services standard that’s provided by WebSphere.

If you can integrate better with ClearCase from a code management standpoint, and if you could provide a richer deployment model into WebSphere so my developers could feel as if they’re deploying it from within the IBM toolset, I don’t have the need to move outside of your toolset. I can continue to deploy, develop and run all my applications from a developer's standpoint, not from an administrator's.

Obviously if you are an administrator and have one to three people within the company that maintain a runtime version of WebSphere, you will need specific tools for that. We’re not targeting those one to three people. We’re targeting the 10 to 500 developers internally that need to build those applications. That’s really where Blue is coming from.

Governor: Maher, can you be a little bit more specific about it. You just used the top-down bottom-up or top-down in terms of your argument. Can you talk a little bit more to sort of that and your sales staff?

Certainly, from RedMonk’s standpoint, we do tend to be more aligned with the bottom-up, just in terms of our customer and community base. But, in terms of what you’re seeing and saying, how is what you do different from IBM? I didn’t quite get that from your last comments.

Masri: I'll give you a very simple example. Just take the experience of a developer installing MyEclipse or installing RAD from ground zero. MyEclipse, you can install in a two-megabyte root install. It installs a 600-megabyte version on your desktop that contains all the tools. You no longer need to buy additional tools from somewhere else. If you need to do UML development, if you need to do UI design, all that is included as one bundle within MyEclipse.

If you install RAD, you need a multi-DVD, six or seven gigabytes, I understand, in order just to begin the installation. The configuration is a nightmare. Everyone is telling us that it's a very difficult configuration process just get started.

MyEclipse is part of a very rich, simple profile that a user can download directly through the MyEclipse site or through our managed application environment inside of Pulse. You can be up and running with tools, with runtime configurations, and with examples, literally within minutes, as opposed to within hours or days beyond that.

On the issue of simplicity, the feedback that we keep getting is that our response level in terms of request for features, request for innovations, request in the technologies, we can deliver within months, as opposed to years or multi-months, when looking at the competition. All of that becomes internalized from the developer standpoint into, "I like this better, if it can bridge that gap that I now have to use this technology, in order to satisfy my business requirements."

Gardner: Perhaps another way of asking a similar question is: you are in beta now. You’re going to be coming out on March 15 with MyEclipse Blue Edition. What's the difference between MyEclipse and MyEclipse Blue Edition?

Masri: Excellent point. MyEclipse Blue Edition is inclusive of all MyEclipse professional features. It’s roughly on the order of 1,000 to 1,500 features above and beyond what the Eclipse platform provides, as well as the highly targeted functionalities that I mentioned. It can import and manage an existing project that you had previously inside WebSphere application developer and can develop to the Web services SOA standards that are specified into the WebSphere runtime.

It has much better integration into IBM code management, ClearCase technology, and almost an identical implementation of what you possibly could see inside Rational for deployment model and the ability to debug an existing project or a new project into the runtime environment.

Gardner: Developers, of course, are hard to come by in a lot of regions around the globe. There’s a lot of competition. Organizations like to keep their developers happy and productive. At the same time, they need to deal with some of the complexity issues of moving to SOA. If they're WebSphere shops, they know that they are going to be tied into that for some period of time. It does sound like you are trying to give both of these parties something to be a little bit cheery about.

Governor: The one of the things that I think is important about open source and understanding open source in the enterprise, but also more broadly. Sometimes you think about open source as a personal trainer for proprietary software companies. You've got these fat, flabby toys and they need to get a life. They need to get on the treadmill. They need to get thinner and more agile. They need to get more effective. Frankly, it was ever thus with IBM. IBM is a pretty big beast.

Let me go back to the old mainframe times to think about Amdahl as a third party. When the IBM salesperson came in, you always made sure you had an Amdahl mug on the desk, right in front of the salesperson. Obviously, we’re a few years on now, but that dynamic remains important. As much as organizations balance BEA WebLogic and WebSphere against one another, or WebLogic and JBoss Application Server against one another, you would also want a balance in your toolsets.

One interesting thing here is that because you've got the specificity around WebSphere, and the sort of value prop the third party is putting forward, you're able to start that balance, that conversation to drive innovation, to drive price down. That’s one of the really useful things that Eclipse has enabled and delivered in the marketplace. It helps to keep some of the bigger vendors honest.

Gardner: So, the need to support heterogeneity is going to remain in both tools and runtime, but we’re also facing the time when heterogeneity isn’t going to include hybrid approaches to deployment. And so, we’re seeing more people interested, particularly if they are ISVs or perhaps small- to medium-size businesses in taking advantage of some of these cloud-computing options. I'm thinking of course of Amazon and some others. Tell us, Maher, how this choice in tool and heterogeneity plays into some of these hybrid approaches of deployment in a cloud of some sort.

Masri: Let me expand on James’ point and then I’ll add to it. I just want to make sure that we’re not trying to present MyEclipse Blue as if we are trying to compete with IBM, which is really could be easily perceived there. What we see is an under-served market and people that are trying to make the decision, but cannot afford to make that decision.

There are companies that are always going to be a pure IBM shop and no one is going to be able to change their mind. The ability to provide choice is very important for those that need to make that decisions going forward, but they need some form of affordability to make that decision possible. I believe we provide that choice in spades in our current pricing model and our ability to continue to support without the additional premium above that.

Going forward, I fully agree with you that the hybrid model is very interesting, and we see it in the way that companies come back to us with very specific feedback on either MyEclipse or our Pulse product. There's quite a bit of confusion out there, in terms of how Web 2.0, Rich Internet Application (RIA), and Rich Client Application are designed and geared to provide and all the underlying technology to support that in terms of runtime.

There seems to be a dichotomy. I could go in the Web 2.0 world and provide a very rich, all Web enabled, all Web centric technologies for my end-users because I need to control my environment. The other side of that is the rich client application, where I have to have some form of a rich client implementation with full productivity applications for certain people, and I have to divorce the two because there is no way I can either rely on the Web or rely on the technologies or rely on anything else.

Everyone that we’ve talked to so far has a problem with that model. They have to have some form of very strong, rich implementation of not necessarily a very fat client, but some form of a client on the end-user’s desktop. They need to be able to control that, whether you are using very specific implementation of Web Services, talking to somebody else’s Web services, need to use a very specific persistent architecture, or have to integrate with other specific architectures. It gets very dicey very quickly.

That’s really where we saw the future of the market. This is probably not the right time to talk about this specifically, since the topic is Blue, but that’s why we also moved into the managed-application space and into our other product line called Pulse. This is for end-users who are using Eclipse-based technology right now, and in the future far more than that. They'll be able to assemble, share, deploy and manage a stack of applications, regardless of where those applications reside and regardless of the form of technology itself.

Take, for example, a rich-client runtime of Eclipse running on someone’s desktop. All of a sudden, you have a version of software that’s you can deploy and manage, but it already has an interface into a browser. You can provide other Web 2.0 and RIA models, as well as other rich Internet technology, such as a Flex and Flash. These technologies are merging very quickly, and companies have to be right there to make sure they meet those growing demands.

Gardner: It sounds like you're really talking about risk mitigation, trying to find some focal point that allows you to support your legacy, move to the rich-client and SOA activities, as well as be ready to go to what some people call Web Oriented Architecture, and take advantage of these new hybrid deployment options. Does that sound like what you're doing?

Masri: That's a fair statement.

Gardner: James, is this something that we can expect to shake out soon, or are companies going to be dealing with heterogeneity -- not just in terms of technology, but in approaches -- for some time?

Governor: We actually see an acceleration in this area -- tools and apps that span clients and the Web. I’ve taken to calling it the "synchronized Web." How can you have two different sets of services talk to one another? In terms of how you develop in that environment, you’ve got to develop conversationally. It’s about message passing. Because of that, we all are going to see some changes around the language choices.

We're seeing some interest in terms of some interesting new development languages, such as Erlang and Haskell. We are certainly seeing interest from developers in those areas.

It's like enterprise software companies not having an open-source strategy. Basically, you need one. From an economic standpoint, you just don't have a choice. Any software company that doesn’t have a thorough-going strategy for understanding and developing both for Web modes and offline modes is really missing the point.

Whether we're thinking of our clients that come from Google Gears, whether we are thinking about offline clients using an environment like Adobe's Apollo Integrated Runtime (AIR), we're already thinking about spanning clients and websites.

From an enterprise standpoint, the same choices need to be made. User expectations now are that, they are going to be able to have some of those benefits and centralization, but they are also going to be able to have rich experiences that they're used to on desktop clients.

This is a very important transition and, whether it’s Pulse or any number of the Web apps we're seeing this from, we are definitely seeing this in enterprise Web development. It's really important for us to be thinking about the implications, in terms of the language support and in terms of runtime. We've already mentioned the Amazon Web services back end. We're going to be seeing more and more of that stuff.

There’s a little company called Coghead, and it’s really focused on these kinds of areas and it’s now excellent. They've chosen Amazon Web services as a back end and they've chosen Derby Flex as a front-end to give that interactivity. The Amazon model teaches, or should teach, a lot of software companies some important lessons. When I look at developers, certainly grassroots developers, it has almost become a badge of honor that you're getting, "This is what Amazon charged me this week."

The notion of the back end in the cloud is growing in importance again. That’s probably why IBM just announced yet another one of its, "Hey, we're going to take a billion dollars and move it towards cloud-computing" kind of initiatives.

Gardner: Right. We’ve obviously seen a lot of change in the market. Organizations and enterprises that depend on an ongoing evolution on a single-stack approach need to try to come up with the tooling and framework and environment that allow them to accomplish what they need from the backwards-compatibility perspective. They also need to put themselves into as low a risk position as possible for taking advantage of these dynamic environments and the change in the economics and the landscape.

We've been talking about the transition to WebSphere Application Server 6.1 and the implications for tooling, the pending arrival of MyEclipse Blue Edition from Genuitec, helping companies find some additional choices to manage these transitions.

Helping us weed through some of this -- and I have enjoyed the conversation -- we have been joined by Maher Masri, president of Genuitec. Any last words, Maher?

Masri: Just a reminder that the Blue Edition first milestone releases will be available in February. There will be a number of milestone releases that will be available for immediate access and we encourage people to download and try it.

Gardner: Very good. And, also James Governor, co-founder and industry analyst at RedMonk. What's your parting shot on this one, James?

Governor: Let’s get specific again. Some of this has been a little bit blue sky. I think it’s very interesting that IBM is has posted a pretty good set of financial results today.

Gardner: They're not going away, are they?

Governor: They are not going away. That’s exactly right. It used to be said that IBM is not the competition; it is the environment in which you compete. It seems to me that Genuitec and many others are probably a pretty good example of that. That was well put by you. IBM isn't going away.

Gardner: Well, thanks. This is Dana Gardner, principal analyst at Interarbor Solutions. You’ve been listening to a sponsored BriefingsDirect podcast. Thanks, and come again next time.

Listen to the podcast here. Sponsor: Genuitec.

Transcript of BriefingsDirect podcast on tool choices for WebSphere shops. Copyright Interbarbor Solutions, LLC, 2005-2008. All rights reserved.