Planet SCM

In a podcast on IBM developerWorks, Dave Michell explains about Software as a Service (Saas):

the customer does not take ownership of the software, but they're going to rent this solution in a subscription model, and it's delivered remotely. And that's very different from the ASP model. In the ASP model, or the application hosting model, what the customer is doing is they're buying the software.
[...]

In the Software as a Service model, again, the customer does not own the software. They subscribe to an offering and they buy that offering in a subscription model per user per month. So there's no software purchase to be made.

And the other key point here is in the Software as a Service model, the customer really has no say over what the infrastructure is. They don't get to decide what the hardware is or the middleware or the database — and more to the point, they don't really care.

So in the SaaS model, the customer says "I want to buy that application functionality. I'm willing to pay this much per user per month," usually is their typical model. "And the service-level agreement meets my needs. So I'm going to acquire that application that way."

Considering a configuration management system, such as ClearCase, many customers struggle with configuring the system for optimal performance, setting up and configuring servers, network and client parameters. In many cases, the users don't really care whether it is ClearCase, Synergy or Subversion behind the scenes, as long as that can do version control, baselining (or labeling or tagging), parallel development (or branching or streaming), delivery, rebasing, releasing, status promotion, structuring, setting attributes, and all the other CM stuff. Users don't care about sufficient licenses, disk space, replication across sites and other IT issues; they just want the system to be available and to work properly to their needs.

So, the CM system seems a perfect candidate to be deployed as Software as a Service. Even more, if the CM service is offered as a Web 2.0 application, the internet will be the platform allowing local and global accessibility.

If in addition there would be a standard set of CM service features, the CM back-end could be supported by just any CM vendor that complies with this standard. The front-end could even be of a different vendor or proprietary to the customer, e.g. as a dedicated integration with other systems. Customers could then focus more on the tool-vendor that suites best with their organizational and IT needs, and users could better focus on dealing with true configuration management issues, rather than being hampered by infrastructure and IT issues.

Why wouldn't a product like ClearCase be offered an SaaS model, if IBM is such a promotor of SaaS?

Recently, I have created a Configuration Management space with an underlying Configuration Management wiki on IBM developerWorks. Initial focus will be on IBM products (ClearCase, ClearQuest and UCM) and on CM concepts and practices. Later, it is my intention to extend it to other CM products too. The space and wiki are an extension to the existing discussion forums on dW.

The content is still in its initial stages, so bear with me to let it grow. For that purpose I am still looking for co-editors who are willing to put more content to it. Although wiki's are intended for open collaboration, I want to be careful with making it completely open for modification to the world to assure proper structure and quality.

For new events or other news and changes on the CM space portal, feel free to contact me.

Marc Siegel, IBM Rational's community manager, has introduced the IBM Rational Discussion Facilitators in an article on IBM DeveloperWorks.

Many customers may have noticed that since Rational has been taken over by IBM some years ago, the communication between the customer (including the responsible IT and Development managers, and the actual users working with the tools) and IBM Rational (including sales and support) has changed considerably, not for the better in most cases. User to User communication is an emerging (support) strategy for customers, and it has proven its effectiveness for open-source software for many years.
However, User-to-ToolVendor communication has been difficult in the past and will become more difficult in the future due to cost-saving on service organizations. For that reason, I think that IBM has made a smart move to institutionalise the use of Discussion Facilitators for direct communication with Product Management, as they are not on the payroll of IBM (i.e. they are ordinary customers themselves) while they provide a bilateral service to the user community.

The IBM Rational discussion forums are the discussion forums for users of Rational products. The IBM website, including the DeveloperWorks website, are rather difficult to navigate through so you'd best go to it through the direct link.

In a blog, I read how IBM enters the gaming world and this brought me the idea that there may be more commonality between software development and online gaming then we might expect, such as

• Team game
• Strategic approach
• Online community
• Common goal
• Common set of rules
• Computer infrastructure
• Continuous learning

One of the nice things about strategic games is that the game vendor has created a virtual world that contains almost every capability to face the game challenges in order to achieve the ultimate goal of the game. You can give instructions, set assignments, get status report of all kind of aspects, do what-if analysis, and much more. Everything is represented in colorful, 2-D or 3-D graphics, accurate reposiories of artifacts, drag-n-droppable, interactive, on-line multiplayer and joyful to do. And how much does this game cost? A few dollars or euros. How much time to install it, get it working, learn it? A few hours, or may be a day or two.

Compare this to the software development environment that an average software development organization provides to its developers and the costs and efforts that are involved in setting this up, determining the rules of the "game" (procedures, practices, workflows, quality criteria, etc.). Expensive CM systems, SDE tools, a lot of in-house made scripting to achieve automation and reporting in spreadsheets and intranet sites.


What if we would create a software development environment à la Command & Conquer or Pharao? What if we would make an interactive, on-line multiplayer game for software development? My first intuition says that it can't be done or else it would have been done before. My second intuition says that if we spend billions on movies and games in the entertainment industry and find millions of people enthousiastic about it, then apparently that's the way to get people moving.

I am reading a lot about Second Life lately. Various companies are looking into it as a way to promote their and show their new products, even to have them tried out, yet withou really understanding or even visioning the business value that it might bring. I wonder what they are really looking for.

IBM for instance is planning to have meetings, lectures and trainings in Second Life. Recently Grady Booch announced that his virtual self is giving a virtual lecture in the virtual world. But I don't see my virtual self sitting in a virtual classroom looking at and listening to a virtual speaker and virtual peers. Not if there are non-virtual (first life) video conferencing applications available that show real people with real voices and, more over, real expressions. I don't see myself watching a movie sitting (virtually) in a virtual cinema - and sitting behind the computer in reality - if I can see the same movie in much better quality and performance using Media Player applications.
I don't even see my try out new Nike shoes just by looking how well they fit my avatar, if I can't try them on at my own real feet. Haven't you seen the fancy flash applications of cars, where they show intereriors, exteriors, engines, safety features, in-car entertainment systems. You don't need a complete virtual world where you can travel between islands to show those products.

Second Life is typically an application to build virtual communities: build social networks and interacting with people within your network. From that perspective it is nothing more - and nothing less - than an ordinary chatroom with a (3D) graphical interface.

IBM and other companies are going to invest in Second Life to explore the business potentials, but they hardly invested in exploring the potential of previous social networks. Take for instance the IBM DeveloperWorks "community": it's just a newpaper-like publication board with discussion forums. The community building primarily comes from the people who contribute to the discussion forum. Originally discussion forums were just Q&A; forums, where a user could post a question and many users posted answers to the question. But already in the Rational days there was the Rational Developer Network, a thriving community where people not only posted questions and answers, but also shared knowledge and experience. And not only on the product specifics, but also more general about professional interests, such a configuration management, process management, modeling, etcetera.

In 2003, Rational recognized the value of user communities. They formed a group volunteers (called Discussion Facilitators) to foster the user community. The social community would be a (low-cost) extension of the support service, and at the same time be a promotional instrument more powerful than the sales force could be. There were plans to create a real user community, where people feel the social connection and support. And then IBM took over and the focus was completely turned to sales. Rational lost its position as methodology leader, products lost their top class position and the community slowly degraded into a simple Q&A forum and website.

And now there is Second Life, a virtual world where social networks are primarily build around dating and gambling. Like many 3D MMORPG (games) I think there is a future to it, as an entertainment platform. Some people may get rich from Linden Dollars, but as a business platform I think it's just a hype.