jump to navigation

Everybody does support Tue, 2009.08.18

Posted by tevirselrahc in Uncategorized.
2 comments

This is something that has been in my head since the Rational Software Conference in June…

With the advent of all the social networking opportunites out there, it has become evident to me that support for a company’s products is no longer just limited to the official support organisation. Granted, that organisation is still required as there is a need for customers to call in when they are faced with a problem – we can’t get away from that! However, we must also recognised that our customers are also part of one, and often, many, social networks.

In such a new world order, it belongs to us to become aware of what is being said about our company and our products and to take action when one feels it is required. That action can be to either speak out ourselves – if we have the knowledge – or use our companies networks to inform people who would need to know. And when problems are brought up and discussed in social network fora, we might want to get our support organisation involved!

Does that open the door in our organisation for “social networking monitors”? Perhaps that is not a bad thing!

MDA, MDD, MDE Mon, 2009.07.27

Posted by tevirselrahc in blog, dsl, software, software-development, tools.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

Jordi Cabot has an interesting Blog on Modeling Languages. In it (an on LinkedIn) there was a discussion recently on the difference or similitudes between MDA, MDD, and MDE. It’s interesting that Wikipedia treats the last two as the same thing – I like Jordi’s description better.

However, as I read Jordi’s blog posting, I found that his explanation certainly makes sense and is probably correct nowadays, in a more modern sense of the terms.

However, “MDD” has been used for quite a long time to describe model-based (as opposed to model-driven) development. That use of the term would not fit within the definitions presented by OMG as part of MDA (e.g., the CIM/PIM/PSM levels of abstractions and transformations). I suspect that this approach may also still be in use today – although probably not the best way of working with models. This may especially be true of some of the model uses seen in “agile” approaches.

So perhaps there is a need, in the diagram shown on that blog, to also have a model-based development (MBD?) circle that would intersect with MDD, but not the others?

All this also can not be discussed without mentioning the standards, processes, and methods (and the effect of tools on these) surrounding these approaches. Models need to have a standard representation to be useful – and the UML (and SysML) is certainly one that is common these days. However, other notations such as BPMN, ERD, etc., should not be discounted as they represent interesting domain specific modeling languages – and not all can be easily expressed using UML . Tools are too often viewed as a panacea to what ails software development – when they can be a hindrance when one does not understand the standards, processes, and methods they support.

IBM’s accomplishments… Thu, 2009.07.16

Posted by tevirselrahc in ibm.
Tags: ,
add a comment

This list is both a bit scary and something of which to be proud…

What to do with “legacy” products? Wed, 2009.07.15

Posted by tevirselrahc in ibm, product-management.
Tags: , ,
add a comment

I am now in charge of the product management for a bunch of “legacy” products. You know, those products that are old and, some cases, decrepit, but that our customers just love to keep around. They are comfortable like a well-work pair of jeans or broken-in shoes. But these products are based on old technology and we now have new platforms, enhanced capabilities, new UIs, etc. that should entice our clients to move…but some of them are stubborn.

So what do we do with these products that still bring in revenue (mostly maintenance, but some transactional)? They bring too much revenue for us to simply decide to throw that away (especially in this time of economic upheaval) as we fear those stalwart clients will move to the competition. And our new offerings, although more powerful, are scary in just those additional capabilities!

There are a few things that we have to look at for those products.

  1. First, to borrow from the medical profession, do no harm. This means that our current clients must feel they are not in a dead end – even though the product itself will not be updated. These users like the product as it is, so we need to work with them to determine why it is still the best tool for them. We need to see if this is a niche that we need (want) to address with an offering, perhaps a modified version of an existing, high capability offering.
  2. Second, we need to get these clients to move to something that we will want to support and augment in the future. We need to make this transition as painless as possible both from tool migration and from usage perspectives. Note that I states “as painless as possible” as it is often difficult to make this painless. Sometimes the artifacts do not migrate properly between the tools and require manual changes, sometimes the user experience is different. In either case, there will be some pain. From a tool perspective, the goal is to make sure that not information/data is lost in migrating the artifacts and to document the migration caveats. From a usage perspective, we need to document the changes in the way the tools look and in the way standard or common tasks are accomplished. This is where the user-centric design teams are very important. In all cases, we would want to consider services to help these clients including consulting, training, and pre/post-sales support.
  3. Third, we need to arrange the two previous points so that our development, maintenance, and support costs are minimised. These are legacy products and are typically not expected to be a drain on resources. We also want to be able to move the resources from these products to our strategic offerings (which should be the migration targets!). Although this is not directly related to our clients, we can’t expect them to stay on the old, comfortable applications forever and, at some point, all these resources will have to move.

So how does this translate into actual plans and activities? This is where knowledge of your products and clients comes into play – and this is what I have to figure out for my products! I don’t yet have an answer, especially not a generic one. But I may just come back to this blog to let everyone know…

Professional use of social web Wed, 2009.05.20

Posted by tevirselrahc in Twitter, flickr, ibm, product-management.
Tags: , , , , ,
add a comment

I have been wondering what can be the professional uses of some of the social web’s most beloved applications.

Some are fairly evident: blogs have been around long enough that people understand their usefulness as an evangelical tool. This has even given rise to flogs (“False/Fake blogs – did I use the term right?) where companies use “actors” to promote their wares.

Wikis have similarly been around for a while as a means of publishing information. Some companies have even taken to providing editors to Wikipedia to ensure the “truth” is told about them.

Even Delicious and other tagging/tracking sites (e.g., Digg) have their use in helping potential users get to the information they need (I know I use this to more easily highlight information off the IBM web sites).

But what about newer offering? How would one use Facebook? MySpace? Flickr? Twitter?

Note quite sure. But the good folks at Pragmatic Marketing have an answer for using Twitter in product management.

Well, I’ll keep on thinking about this…

Yes…I’m Tweeting… Tue, 2009.05.12

Posted by tevirselrahc in Twitter, conference, ibm, iphone, rational, rsdc.
Tags: , , , , ,
add a comment

As part of RSC2009, we have been encouraged to use Twitter to promote the conference, as well as to report what is happening… So I broke down and got a Twitter account.

You can see the result of my efforts in the new tool I have added in the right column in this blog.

My tweeting tool of choice, at this point, is Tweetie, both on the Mac and on the iPhone.

Hopefully, network connectivity at the conference will be good (i.e., better than last year) so I can do live tweeting!

Rational Software Conference 2009 Tue, 2009.05.12

Posted by tevirselrahc in ibm, rational, rsdc.
Tags:
add a comment

Once again, the Rational Software Conference is being held at DisneyWorld in Orlando. Except that this year, we have lost the “Developers” (or was it “Development”?)! No matter, same location, new content – and even more content this year with all the Telelogic stuff from their Innovation 2009 conference! Two conferences for the price of one. In case you are wondering, here is the agenda as a Wordle graph (Thanks to the incomparable KellyPuff in her professional personna for this!):

Wordle: RSC2009 - w/o IBM, Rational, TM, and (R)

More information on the conference site!

If you go, look me up!

Blogging from iPhone Thu, 2009.01.15

Posted by tevirselrahc in apple, blog, iphone.
2 comments

I found myself looking at apps for the iPhone, and I found one that enabled me to post blog entries over the air. Of course, I had to try it out – and this is it!

I don’t know how flexible it is, or whether I need to enter HTML tags for line breaks. And the keyboard, although still usable, is still slower than a real hardware keyboard. Still, a bit painful…and no apparent integration with Safari.

What do you think? Is blogging from a phone, even the mighty iPhone, a useful thing?

IBM knows what to do with Telelogic Mon, 2009.01.12

Posted by tevirselrahc in blog, ibm, product-management, software-development, telelogic.
add a comment

This SD Times article is a bit old, but yes, we know where we are going with the Telelogic tools. You could say that it has been an interesting process (along the line of the curse)!

Contact your account team if you want to know more as I can’t talk about futures here…

Specialised keyboard Fri, 2009.01.09

Posted by tevirselrahc in dsl, humour, image.
add a comment

Now this is a good example of an ergonomic keyboard implementing a Domain-Specific Language!

I hope it has not been pirated…