Comments on “IBM And Microsoft Have Dueling Visions For Software Modeling” Mon, 2007.12.17
Posted by tevirselrahc in ibm, microsoft, software, software-development, solution, systems, tools, websphere, work.add a comment
According to InformationWeek, IBM And Microsoft Have Dueling Visions For Software Modeling. However, the article only compares Rational’s contribution to the modeling space and seems to completely ignore other Software Groups contribution. The Microsoft part talks about proprietary models that drive business execution directly. That is all fine, but there is no mention of WebSphere Business Modeler (WBM). In WBM, the organisation can be modeled and then code (BPEL) can be generated to drive WebSphere Process Server. Granted, there is a “code generation” step, but it is a lot closer to the Microsoft model than the comparison the article makes with the use of UML. IBM has a richness of environment to help our customers with their various needs – and this article seemed to only concentrate on a piece of our offerings.
And of course, the recent IBM announcement was in regards to the Complex Systems space and Olso is apparently geared towards IT. I wonder how Microsoft’s Oslo would fare in the development of complex systems?!?
Powered by ScribeFire.
Dr. Dobb’s article on Green Threads Tue, 2006.12.19
Posted by tevirselrahc in ibm, solution.add a comment
It had to happen eventually! An IBMer has gone out and written an article on green threads for Dr. Dobb’s!
The article does a decent job of describing what green threads are all about and if you have any interest whatsoever in how customer-driven scenarios can be used to drive product requirements and improvements, you should definitely read it and then ask questions. However, I am not sure I would describe green threads as a “project”… It is much more a way of looking at the usage scenarios involving our tools (alone or in combination). As such, it is much more a “program” than a “project. Granted, there is an effort to standardise on the basic infrastructure for green threads, but that is a herculean effort given the number of teams playing in this field and the diversity of applications and infrastructures involved!
In as far as the history is concerned, I will reveal that the “red thread” concept is one that was alive and well within pre-acquisition Rational. The “green” moniker was then used to put a more positive spin on things and to concentrate on the positive.
I especially liked the conclusion:
It’s not difficult to get people to agree that cross-product interactions are broken and to identify the root causes. It is far more challenging to find ways to introduce concrete change into the development process to improve the situation.
I do have a problem, however, with the author’s comparison of green thread and use cases in a side box at the end of the article. In my mind, green thread are most certainly business-level use cases: they should represent a process that a typical customer would follow to have some business value realised. His definition of use cases is too limited and limiting and do not reflect the spirit in which they were first established. I would recommend to anyone who have an interest in use cases read up independently on them, especially the works of Ivar Jacobson.
My present as a Solution Architect Thu, 2006.11.30
Posted by tevirselrahc in governance, ibm, product-management, solution.1 comment so far
In a previous post, I had mentioned that I had, in the past, been a product manager for IBM. Well, my title is now “Solution Architect”. Sounds fancy, right? It may be interesting to note that, with the size of IBM, I have discovered that there are other “solution architects” out there who do different jobs… So the only talk about is what I do…and then probably not in details.
So, my job is to investigate a particular area/domain and to come up with a way to use out tools in that space. In particular, I am currently looking into the (very broad) domain of governance, risk, and compliance. In this domain, I have to answer the question: How can IBM Rational tools be used to help our customer better plan, define, enable, and measure a software (and systems) development governance infrastructure? Exciting, isn’t it?
So what is governance? Well, back in June, there was an announcement from IBM that defined it as:
- Establishing chains of responsibility, authority and communication to empower people (decision rights)
- Establishing measurement, policy and control mechanisms to enable people to carry out heir roles and responsibilities
I prefer to reduce this definition to:
- Governance is the process of specifying, deploying, and managing decision rights, measures, and controls.
Or even:
- Make sure the right people do the right thing at the right time.
OK…that last one might be oversimplifying things…thereby breaking Einstein’s rule! And of course, software development governance would simply be these definitions applied in a software development organisation.
Now, we have a pretty good idea on how to use our tools in the management of the software development process. The question then becomes, how do we help our customers set up this environment? This is a question that is beyond the scope of this blog entry.
So how is this different from what I used to do as a product manager? Well, I am no longer concentrating on a single product, but on a usage pattern for a set of products. Asides from this, I am still looking at the products (plural this time), creating usage scenarios, and writing requirements.
And in fact, I have not even bothered changing my business cards that describe me as a product manager.
So Kelly, does that meet your needs?
