On our recent webinar “Demystifying Cloud, The Next Generation Architecture” we had a number of thoughtful and tough questions related to security, intellectual property and risks. We provided answers to these questions in the recording, but I found the recent SD Times article “Cloud Providers Answer Tough Questions” an even better source. In this article, a number of experts on specific platforms from Microsoft, Google, Salesforce as well as Rally’s own Zach Nies answer questions about security, lock-in and IP.
Henry Ford didn't foresee the impact of the first car - do we foresee the true impact of the Cloud?
Daryl Plummer from Gartner also did a great job recently describing the real point of cloud computing as he reviews Russ Daniels recent Forbes article. Russ says:
“In my view, the ability to facilitate innovation and entrepreneurship in this new model is one of the most promising ways to ignite the next wave of economic growth. We can no more see the full impact of the cloud than Henry Ford foresaw the impact of his desire to produce more cars in less time.”
As a result of SD Times’ tough questions and our desire to “ignite the next wave of economic growth,” we decided to talk in our next webinar with Global Logic and IBM about how to go to the cloud and mitigate risk along the way. As with any pilot, the goal is to enter wisely, learn fast and then move forward. Given the iterative and incremental method of Agile is best suited for this fast-learning approach, we will title our next talk “Going to the Cloud – the Agile Way.”
We are structuring the content now, but I would love to hear your ideas, questions or feedback on this topic. I will also post a registration link for the webinar as soon as I have it.
Thesis: Taking a learning-first approach to your cloud efforts can help you avoid the risks of vendor lock-in, IP security and a spectacular failure
Proposed Agenda:
Review the innovation, benefits and risks
Typical approach – Choosing early, over selling, dramatic big bang
The Agile/Lean approach – Set-based, scientific and learning-based
In the last couple of months, IBM (via Scott Ambler) has blogged, hosted webinars and talked to the media about an Agile process maturity model (APMM). I am sure this will hit a new height today with the start of the Rational Users Conference and the release of the e-book. I have been asked to comment on this work by a number of press and analysts. Since my perspective will be published shortly, I thought I would go on record.
IBM splashes its way into Agile development
As the Agile market grows and takes hold in truly mainstream audiences, everyone is looking for easy, step-by-step guides to smooth Agile adoption. IBM is proposing one option under the name “Agile Process Maturity Model.” I think it is a nice marketing strategy for selling IBM’s Rational Team Concert products to companies that want to adopt the Jazz platform, copying their 90′s success with RUP. But I don’t believe it is actually an Agile process maturity model, and further, Agile doesn’t need one.
IBM’s proposal for an Agile Process Maturity Model
Scott says, “The goal of the APMM is to help categorize and understand agile processes, not to rate your adoption level (the CMMI Defined approach can address that need).”
He continues, “Unfortunately, the term ‘maturity’ is a loaded one within the software process realm, not the least because of the Software Engineering Institute (SEI)’s Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI). A lot of good work has been done to show that agile and CMMI can be applied together, and I look forward to seeing that strategy come to fruition. However, where the goal of the CMMI is to provide a framework for software process improvement the goal of the APMM is much more modest – it merely strives to define a framework which can be used to put the myriad agile processes into context. In short, the APMM and CMMI are orthogonal to one another…”
I am confused by the title and the orthogonality, so let’s peel the onion on this one.
What is a process maturity model?
The origins of process maturity models come from the manufacturing industry, but the software version was created in the 1990′s by Carnegie Mellon’s Software Engineering Institute (SEI). It is well known as three Capability Maturity Models – CMM for software, CMM for people and CMMI.
If you read Watts Humphrey’s work, you will see this is a management framework that measures the level of discipline of your organization. In essence, organizations that are certified Level 5 have implemented continuous improvement and have the disciplines and practices in place to effectively manage large complex projects with effective controls. The framework does not say anything about how the software should be developed. I make no claims to being a CMMI expert, but you can read a few of the “CMMI agile” search results to see how they work together.
Though not the stated intent of the framework, it has been closely associated with waterfall development and used to defend heavy process approaches. I disagree with that belief and prescribe to Jim Collin’s model of blending discipline and agility together to move from good to great. I think the CMM framework is a great checklist for organizations measuring their level of discipline… and we don’t need another one.
The 3 levels of IBM’s APMM
Scott’s APMM post describes three levels:
Core Agile Development
Disciplined Agile Delivery
Agility at Scale
I struggle to see how these three labels or the supporting details provide a framework that helps categorize and understand Agile processes. These titles grow in scope and scale, but do not speak to increasing agility. (Faster cycles, less waste, less work-in-progress, more value.) When you look deeper, it smells of a cookbook of when to apply processes and tools from IBM. That is fine, and I agree customers need this. However, I would argue this should not be used to guide companies in their Agile adoption.
By mashing size, scope, increased agility and disciplines on one scale, the APMM does none well. In addition, it will lead to amateur implementations where continuous improvement mentality never sets in. Where adopting scaling software agility is thought to be just a transition from A to B. To me that thinking is very limiting and will lead to gains followed by declines.
IBM in the Agile space – all good
I am thrilled with IBM’s entrance into the Agile space with their Jazz platform and related products – really. When I was at BEA/Weblogic, I can tell you that we did not have a market for Java Application servers until the industry’s gorillas, IBM and Oracle, entered for real.
During this year, Jazz and its supporting products will actually manage the workflow of projects in a way that works with Agile development instead of against it. This is huge change from the ALM 1.0 point products that actually reinforced the silos and phased approaches that created queues, caused hand-off delays and kept quality as an after-thought.
The IBM gorilla in the software development space will make the Agile sea rise and help break down major organizational barriers to bringing the benefits of Agile practices and tools to the mainstream development community.
There is no cookbook for adopting Agile
I believe that enterprises need an adoption model that helps them balance discipline and agility in an incremental fashion that creates incremental success and fuels continued investment and improvement. The enterprise Agile adoption model Jean Tabaka and I have synthesized is based on Lean concepts and is rooted in Deming’s work, just like Watts Humphrey and CMM. What Jean and I present in our whitepaper titled “Leaning IT: Moving to Program Pull” is how to move up the adoption curve of Agile by learning quickly, maturing before scaling and working incrementally.
This transition planning framework focuses on attaining benefits of agility by moving to lean states of flow, pull and ultimately the perfection of continuous innovation before adding the disciplines necessary to scale. It discusses the general steps, but does not prescribe a change approach to organizational, technological, process or strategy transitions. Your approach is dependent upon your corporate and technological situation. We recommend an iterative approach, facilitated by experienced coaches and peer support.
What does the Agile community need from IBM?
Mary and Tom Poppendieck’s new book called “Leading Lean Software Development” (out soon) has tremendously strong stories, models and insights from bringing lean concepts to software. In chapter six, they highlight a success story from working on lean with Sue McKinney at IBM. This success story, along with the Eclipse success stories, are critical for IBM to be telling the market regarding the impact of Agile and Lean in the large inside IBM.
In 2008 and four years after IBM started developing Jazz, we talked to IBM about integrating Rally’s award winning Agile Lifecycle Management solution onto IBM’s collaborative development platform, called Jazz Foundation. They said no, you have to wait until the GA release of Jazz. This would be a similar integration that we provide to Microsoft Team Foundation Server for managing code check-in’s and automated builds with a slick interface into the IDE. I am hopeful that IBM will GA the 1.0 version of the Jazz Foundation for partners to actually integrate with. They are saying all the right things on the Jazz.net site, here is hoping for some positive news at this week’s Rational User’s Conference. Finally, I am very excited about IBM’s global dialogue on Building a Smarter Planet. IBM needs to do a better job telling the story about how software agility is a critical component to building that sustainable planet. (It was nice to see the smarter planet splash at the front of the ebook, but it still represents a huge missed opportunity.)
What do you think? Does Agile need its own process maturity model?
Again, I was surprised by the title of IBM’s Agile Process Maturity Model and hope they will consider changing it before more marketing dollars are spent. It does not improve on the CMM, nor in my opinion does it help CMM certified companies adopt Agile. I assume IBM has a huge role to play in helping those CMM certified companies add agility and innovation to their highly disciplined organizations. If they don’t, we are glad to help today.
Is it a blob that will cause you to lose all control, including your job?
Or, is it an amazing innovation that will save your company from this world-wide recession?
Or the it's The Blob - Buy the classic @ Turner by clicking image
On April 15th, I will be fortunate enough to join Sachin Saxena from Global Logic and Mac Devine, the AIM SaaS/Cloud CTO at IBM, for a webinar to attempt to answer these questions (learn more and register here). They are both experts in internet technology and hold deep knowledge (along with beautiful slides) on the topic of cloud computing. Their goal is to help you understand the massive energy, time and computer savings made possible by the many cloud options.
Specifically, they will define the cloud, its opportunities and roadblocks. They both plan to highlight case studies, and my role will be as a customer and extensive user of cloud solutions. This is much the same role that I played at the New Jersey CIO summit in February. (If you can’t wait for the webinar – don’t miss Troy Angrignon’s opinion post at Sandhill.com about the implications on cloud computing on software firms.)
At Rally, we are very comfortable with the application of these technologies. As a 160 person SaaS firm provider, we have been in the early market for many of these technologies. It was fun for us to benefit from the fast move to free of hypervisor/virtualization portion of this wave. Listen to Mike Cote’s podcast on the topic at RedMonk. He has been covering the Cloud/virtualization for years as an open source analyst.
As a result, I believe that 100% of the companies who attend this webinar will leverage these technologies in 2009 in a strategy to reduce risk and cut costs. But what are the other rationales for the cloud? What are your stories? I think cloud/SaaS, Agile development and web 2.0 customer communities are an even bigger story, but one that will take longer to develop than the use of public/private clouds and virtualization technology.
Next up on this topic will be the actual energy savings reports from our virtualization and power management efforts lead by our internal green team.
RallyDev.com
and CMM. What Jean and I present in our whitepaper titled “
