Author Archives: Andrew

I’ve just read an excellent paper by Pat Helland of Microsoft, in which he likens the development of cities and manufacturing in the 19th century to the development of systems and business models now. His conclusion – IT at the moment is about at the same stage as America in the 1880s, when they were just starting to turn the Wild West into an industrialised nation!

Three short quotes from Helland’s conclusions bear repeating directly. On heterogeneity he says:

Remember that heterogeneity happens. Unless you have a very simple application portfolio, shared services will not be achieved by trying to put all
of your applications on one version of one platform. Even if you could, the next
merger would change that! Rather, you have to design for interoperability and
integration across platforms. This is the force that is driving the industry
wide work in service-oriented architectures.

He extends the popular “city planning” metaphor to IT investment:

IT investment is a balance of funding the sacred, protecting historic monuments, and allocating spending between infrastructure and business opportunity. Striking this balance is a key facet in effective governance, and in realizing the potential of IT in your organization.

And finally, those who seek to maintain control of their enterprise
architecture through heavy governance would be well advised to note:

You have to maintain a light hand. It is counterproductive to try to dictate
what happens in every structure in town, what color shirts are made, and how much is charged for soap. You have to embrace the semi-autonomous approach to governance that is characteristic of our cities, and allow the process owners to optimize and achieve efficiencies with as few constraints as
possible.

Arnon Rotem-Gal-Oz has set up an interesting new site / blog dedicated to software architecture. Of particular note, he’s trying to put some detail on the architecture “process” which is often negelcted as a single box on the development process picture. His approach has the name SPAMMED, catchy, but might cause the odd problem with email filters 🙂

In an interesting echo of my last piece (Why Software Isn’t Like Building Construction), Scott Ambler has analysed bureaucratic processes as a response to management fear about what can go wrong in software development. His conclusion is that these processes only give the illusion of addressing the underlying fear. His article is well worth reading.

Many software development and management methods are founded on a basic assumption – that constructing software is rather like building a bridge or a house. Once we’ve “done the design”, actually generating the software ought to be a completely predictable, relatively low-skilled process. However four decades of failure to achieve this vision might suggest that we should revisit
the assumption.

In a paper entitled “The New Methodology” Martin Fowler, the guru of object-oriented development, suggests a couple of reasons why this might be.

My article answers Martin’s, suggesting a couple of other considerations, and whether we have to completely abandon the physical construction analogy as a result.

I recently attended a day of the Butler Group “Application Development Strategies” Symposium. I’ve just posted a short report on some of the more interesting discussions and presentations.

Almost all of the presentations shared a reminder that we still have a “software crisis” – the vast majority of software projects fail to deliver to their original targets and estimates. The presentations suggested three independent, but not exclusive, approaches to try and resolve the problem:

• Adopting better, more agile processes to address fundamental weaknesses in “waterfall” processes,
• Adopting better tools and techniques to improve development productivity and the integration of the application life-cycle,
• Enforcing a stronger “enterprise architecture” framework for development.

This last one was surprising, with several papers echoing my view that a strong architecture is essential if agile development is to succeed on a large scale or in complex and critical applications.

There was also surprising agreement on things which won’t solve the problem:

• No-one was promising a technical or product “silver bullet”. This includes web services!
• No-one was suggesting that we should just “try harder” with old-fashioned tools and processes.
• There’s no “one size fits all” solution. For example it’s a mistake to force a formal, high-ceremony process onto small business systems developments.
• Excessive technical standardisation is also not the answer. The drawbacks include “lowest common denominator” technical solutions and inflated costs where the standard solution is “overkill”.

Read my report for more details.