The Agile Executive

Making Agile Work

Archive for September 2010

The Gat/Highsmith Joint Seminar on Technical Debt and Software Governance

leave a comment »

Jim and I have finalized the content and the format for our forthcoming Cutter Summit seminar. The seminar is structured around a case study which includes four exercise. We expect the case study/exercises will take close to two-thirds of the allotted time (the morning of October 27). In the other third we will provide the theory and practices to be used in the seminar exercises and (hopefully) in many future technical debt engagements participants in the workshop will oversee.

The seminar does not require deep technical knowledge. It targets participants who possess conceptual grasp of software development, software governance and IT operations/ITIL. If you feel like reading a little about technical debt prior to the Summit, the various posts on technical debt in this blog will be more than sufficient.

We plan to go with the following agenda (still subject to some minor tweaking):

Agenda for the October 27, 9:30AM to 1:00PM Technical Debt Seminar

  • Setting the Stage: Why Technical Debt is a Strategic Issue
  • Part I: What is Technical Debt?
  • Part II : Case Study – NotMyCompany, Inc.
    • Exercise #1 – Modernizing NotMyCompany’s Legacy Code
  • Part III: The Nature of Technical Debt
  • Part IV: Unified Governance
    • Exercise #2 – The acquisition of SocialAreUs by NotMyCompany
  • Part V: Process Control Models
    • Exercise #3 – How Often Should NotMyCompany Stop the Line?
  • (Time Permitting – Part VI: Using Technical Debt in Devops
    • Exercise #4 – The Agile Versus ITIL Debate at NotMyCompany)

By the end of the seminar you will know how to effectively apply technical debt techniques as an integral part of software governance that is anchored in business realities and imperatives.

Written by israelgat

September 30, 2010 at 3:20 pm

What 108M Lines of Code do not Tell Us

leave a comment »

Source: Nemo

Coming on the heels of Gartner’s research note projecting $1 trillion in IT Debt by 2015, CAST’s study provided a more granular view of the debt, estimating an average of over $1 million in technical debt per application in a sample of 288 applications. Between these two studies, the situation examined at the micro-level seems to be quite consistent with the state of affairs estimated and projected at the macro-level.

My hunch is that the gravity of the situation from a software quality and maintenance perspective is actually masked by efforts of IT staffs to compensate for programming problems through operational excellence. For example, carefully staged deployment and quick rollback often enable coping with defects that could/should have been handled through higher test coverage, lesser complexity or a more acceptable level of code duplication.

Part of the reason that the masking effects of IT staffs are not always fully appreciated is that they are embedded in the business design of IT Outsourcing companies. The company to which you outsourced your IT is ‘making a bet’ it can run your IT better than you can. It often succeeds in so doing. The unresolved defects in your old code plus those that evolved over time through software decay have not necessarily been fixed. Rather, the manifestations of these defects are  handled operationally in a more efficient manner.

Think again if your visceral reaction to the technical debt situation described in the Gartner research note and the CAST study is of the “This can’t possibly be true” variety. It is what it is – just take a quick look at Nemo to see representative technical debt data with your own eyes. And, as indicated in this post, it might even be worse than what it looks. As Gartner puts it:

The results of such [IT Debt] an assessment will be, at best, unsettling and, at worst, truly shocking.

What 108M Lines of Code Tell Us

with 16 comments

Results of the first annual report on application quality have just been released by CAST. The company analyzed 108M lines of code in 288 applications from 75 companies in various industries. In addition to the ‘usual suspects’ –  COBOL, C/C++, Java, .NET – CAST included Oracle 4GL and ABAP in the report.

The CAST report is quite important in shedding light on the code itself. As explained in various posts in this blog, this transition from the process to its output is of paramount importance. Proficiency in the software process is a bit allusive. The ‘proof of the pudding’ is in the output of the software process. The ability to measure code quality enables effective governance of the software process. Moreover, Statistical Process Control methods can be applied to samples of technical debt readings. Such application is most helpful in striking a good balance in ‘stopping the line’ – neither too frequently nor too rarely.

According to CAST’s report, the average technical debt per line of code across all application is $2.82.  This figure, depressing that it might be, is reasonably consistent with quick eyeballing of Nemo. The figure is somewhat lower than the average technical debt figure reported recently by Cutter for a sample of the Cassandra code. (The difference is probably attributable to the differences in sample sizes between the two studies). What the data means is that the average business application in the CAST study is saddled with over $1M in technical debt!

An intriguing finding in the CAST report is the impact of size on the quality of COBOL applications.  This finding is demonstrated in Figure 1. It has been quite a while since I last saw such a dramatic demonstration of the correlation between size and quality (again, for COBOL applications in the CAST study).

Source: First Annual CAST Worldwide Application Software Quality Study – 2010

One other intriguing findings in the CAST study is that “application in government sector show poor changeability.” CAST hypothesizes that the poor changeability might be due to higher level of outsourcing in the government sector compared to the private sector. As pointed out by Amy Thorne in a recent comment posted in The Agile Executive, it might also be attributable to the incentive system:

… since external developers often don’t maintain the code they write, they don’t have incentives to write code that is low in technical debt…

Congratulations to Vincent Delaroche, Dr. Bill Curtis, Lev Lesokhin and the rest of the CAST team. We as an industry need more studies like this!

The Supply Side of the Consumerization of Enterprise Software

with 10 comments

Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bertboerland/2944895894/

In my recent post about the consumerization of enterprise software I discussed two factors that are likely to accelerate the pace toward such consumerization:

  1. Any department/business unit that can get a service in entirety from an outside source is likely to do so without worrying about enterprise software and/or data center considerations. This is already happening in Marketing. As other functions start doing so, more and more links in the value chain of enterprise software will be “consumerized.” In other words, these services will be carried out without the involvement of the IT department.
  2. Once the switch-over costs from legacy code to state-of-the-art code are less than the steady state costs (to maintain and update legacy code), the “consumerization” of enterprise software is going to happen with ferocious urgency.

In this post I would like to add a third factor – the buying pattern. My contention is that the buying pattern for micro-apps will spread to enterprise application. Potential demand for buying in this way is huge. Supply for buying enterprise software as micros-apps is not quite there yet, but it would take only one smart vendor to start transforming the traditional pattern how enterprise software is chunked, offered and sold.

Think about your recent experience downloading an application to your smart mobile phone. You did not go through a six-month evaluation period; you did not do a comprehensive competitive analysis; you did not check how well the seller does customer support in Sumatra. You simply paid something like $7.99 and downloaded the application. You are more than happy if it fulfills your needs in a reasonable manner. If it does not, you simply buy another application with the functionality you desire. Maybe you are a little more cautious now and ask a friend or send an inquiry to your Twitter followers before you pick the new application. Whatever you might choose to do, the fundamental facts are: A) you can afford to lose $7.99; and, B) your time is more precious than the sunk cost of the application. You simply move on.

This buying pattern is not something that you are going to forget when you step into your office in the morning. It makes perfect sense to you and it would be good for your company. You would rather concentrate on your business than on the tricky language of clause number 734 in the contract that your department’s attorney prepared for licensing yet another piece of enterprise software.

The ‘$7.99 experience’ you and zillion other folks like you had over the past week or the past month makes enterprise software vendors extremely vulnerable. The “high-touch; high-margin; high-commitment” [1] business design is not sustainable once the purchase model changes.  The expensive machinery of professional services, system engineering and customer support is not affordable at the face of competition that constructs modular chunks of enterprise software and sells them at a price the customer can afford to write off (if they do not perform to satisfaction). Maybe the ceiling in the enterprise to ‘forget about this application and move on’ is no higher than $1,000 (instead of ‘no higher than $7.99’ for the private citizen), but a smart vendor can still make a lot of money on selling at one thousand dollars a pop to the enterprise.

The growing gap between “this lovely application on my iPhone” and the “headache of licensing traditional enterprise software” is an immense incentive for up-and-coming software vendors to use the ‘$7.99 experience’ as the heart of a new business design. This new business design can be simply summarized as “low-touch; low-margin; low commitment” [2]. And, yes, it is very disruptive to the incumbents…

My hunch is that the IT Service Management (ITSM) industry will be the first to crumble. The premise of “service delivery” sounds a little hollow in a cloud computing world characterized by “everything as a service” [3]. Would a buyer be really willing to pay for “service for the service” from a vendor who does not actually provide the underlying service?! It sounds like paying a Fidelity or a Vanguard investment manager to manage a portfolio of their own mutual funds for you…

All it takes for this shift to start – in ITSM or in another part of enterprise software –  is one successful vendor.

Footnotes:

[1] I am indebted to Annie Shum for this phrase.

[2] Ibid.

[3] I am indebted to Russ Daniels for this phrase.

Technical Debt Assessment, Sterling Barton LLC and the Moussaka

with one comment

A few month ago Chris Sterling and I were carrying out a Cutter Technical Debt Assessment and Valuation engagement for a venture capitalist who was considering a certain company. We discovered various things in the code of this company. More noteworthy, my deep domain expertise led to Chris discovering the great Greek dish Moussaka.

I have eaten a lot of good Moussakas over the years. Even against this solid gastronomic background I can’t forget how the eyes of Chris lit up when he took the first bite. It took him only a tiny little time to get on his iPhone and tweet on the culinary aspects of our engagement. I then knew it was going to be a very successful engagement…

The relationship with Chris deepened since this episode. For example, in collaboration with Brent Barton Chris contributed a great article to the forthcoming issue of the Cutter IT Journal on Technical Debt. In this article Chris and Brent  demonstrate how technical debt techniques can be applied at the portfolio level. They make the reader step into the shoes of the project portfolio planner and walk him through their approach to enhancing the decision-making process by using the software debt dashboard.

Chris has just published an excellent post entitled “Using Sonar Metrics to Assess Promotion of Builds to Downstream Environments” in Getting Agile and was kind enough to suggest I cross-post it in The Agile Executive. Here it is (please note that the examples given below by Chris have nothing to do with the engagement described above):

“For those of you that don’t already know about Sonar you are missing an important tool in your quality assessment arsenal. Sonar is an open source tool that is a foundational platform to manage your software’s quality. The image below shows one of the main dashboard views that teams can use to get insights into their software’s health.

The dashboard provides rollup metrics out of the box for:

  • Duplication (probably the biggest Design Debt in many software projects)
  • Code coverage (amount of code touched by automated unit tests)
  • Rules compliance (identifies potential issues in the code such as security concerns)
  • Code complexity (an indicator of how easy the software will adapt to meet new needs)
  • Size of codebase (lines of code [LOC])

Before going into how to use these metrics to assess whether to promote builds to downstream environments, I want to preface the conversation with the following note:

Code analysis metrics should NOT be used to assess teams and are most useful when considering how they trend over time

Now that we have this important note out-of-the-way and, of course, nobody will ever use these metrics for “evil”, lets discuss pulling data from Sonar to automate assessments of builds for promotion to downstream environments. For those that are unfamiliar with automated promotion, here is a simple, happy example:

A development team makes some changes to the automated tests and implementation code on an application and checks their changes into source control. A continuous integration server finds out that source control artifacts have changed since the last time it ran a build cycle and updates its local artifacts to incorporate the most recent changes. The continuous integration server then runs the build by compiling, executing automated tests, running Sonar code analysis, and deploying the successful deployment artifact to a waiting environment usually called something like “DEV”. Once deployed, a set of automated acceptance tests are executed against the DEV environment to validate that basic aspects of the application are still working from a user perspective. Sometime after all of the acceptance tests pass successfully (this could be twice a day or some other timeline that works for those using downstream environments), the continuous integration server promotes the build from the DEV environment to a TEST environment. Once deployed, the application might be running alongside other dependent or sibling applications and integration tests are run to ensure successful deployment. There could be more downstream environments such as PERF (performance), STAGING, and finally PROD (production).

The tendency for many development teams and organizations is that if the tests pass then it is good enough to move into downstream environments. This is definitely an enormous improvement over extensive manual testing and stabilization periods on traditional projects. An issue that I have still seen is the slow introduction of software debt as an application is developed. Highly disciplined technical practices such as Test-Driven Design (TDD) and Pair Programming can help stave off extreme software debt but these practices are still not common place amongst software development organizations. This is not usually due to lack of clarity about these practices, excessive schedule pressure, legacy code, and the initial hurdle to learning how to do these practices effectively. In the meantime, we need a way to assess the health of our software applications beyond just tests passing and in the internals of the code and tests themselves. Sonar can be easily added into your infrastructure to provide insights into the health of your code but we can go even beyond that.

The Sonar Web Services API is quite simple to work with. The easiest way to pull information from Sonar is to call a URL:

http://nemo.sonarsource.org/api/resources?resource=248390&metrics=technical_debt_ratio

This will return an XML response like the following:

  248390
  com.adobe:as3corelib
  AS3 Core Lib
  AS3 Core Lib
  PRJ
  TRK
  flex
  1.0
  2010-09-19T01:55:06+0000

    technical_debt_ratio
    12.4
    12.4%

Within this XML, there is a section called  that includes the value of the metric we requested in the URL, “technical_debt_ratio”. The ratio of technical debt in this Flex codebase is 12.4%. Now with this information we can look for increases over time to identify technical debt earlier in the software development cycle. So, if the ratio to increase beyond 13% after being at 12.4% 1 month earlier, this could tell us that there is some technical issues creeping into the application.

Another way that the Sonar API can be used is from a programming language such as Java. The following Java code will pull the same information through the Java API client:

Sonar sonar = Sonar.create("http://nemo.sonarsource.org");
Resource commons = sonar.find(ResourceQuery.createForMetrics("248390",
        "technical_debt_ratio"));
System.out.println("Technical Debt Ratio: " +
        commons.getMeasure("technical_debt_ratio").getFormattedValue());

This will print “Technical Debt Ratio: 12.4%” to the console from a Java application. Once we are able to capture these metrics we could save them as data to trend in our automated promotion scripts that deploy builds in downstream environments. Some guidelines we have used in the past for these types of metrics are:

  • Small changes in a metric’s trend does not constitute immediate action
  • No more than 3 metrics should be trended (the typical 3 I watch for Java projects are duplication, class complexity, and technical debt)
  • The development should decide what are reasonable guidelines for indicating problems in the trends (such as technical debt +/- .5%)

In the automated deployment scripts, these trends can be used to stop deployment of the next build that passed all of its tests and emails can be sent to the development team regarding the metric culprit. From there, teams are able to enter the Sonar dashboard and drill down into the metric to see where the software debt is creeping in. Also, a source control diff can be produced to go into the email showing what files were changed between the successful builds that made the trend go haywire. This might be a listing per build and the metric variations for each.

This is a deep topic that this post just barely introduces. If your organization has a separate configuration management or operations group that managed environment promotions beyond the development environment, Sonar and the web services API can help further automate early identification of software debt in your applications before they pollute downstream environments.”

Thank you, Chris!

Why Spend the Afternoon as well on Technical Debt?

with 2 comments

Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/pinksherbet/233228813/

Yesterday’s post Why Spend a Whole Morning on Technical Debt? listed eight characteristics of the technical debt metric that will be discussed during the morning of October 27 when Jim Highsmith and I deliver our joint Cutter Summit seminar. This posts adds to the previous post by suggesting a related topic for the afternoon.

No, I am not trying to “hijack” the Summit agenda messing with the afternoon sessions by colleagues Claude Baudoin and Mitchell Ummel. I am simply pointing out a corollary to the morning seminar that might be on your mind in the afternoon. Needless to say, thinking about it in the afternoon of the 28th instead of the afternoon of the 27th is quite appropriate…

Yesterday’s post concluded with a “what it all means” statement, as follows:

Technical debt is a meaningful metric at any level of your organization and for any department in it. Moreover, it is applicable to any business process that is not yet taking software quality into account.

If you accept this premise, you can use the technical debt metric to construct boundary objects between various departments in your company/organization. The metric could serve as the heart of boundary objects between dev and IT ops, between dev and customer support, between dev and a company to which some development tasks are outsourced, etc. The point is the enablement of working agreements between multiple stakeholders through the technical debt metric. For example, dev and IT ops might mutually agree that the technical debt in the code to be deployed to the production environment will be less than $3 per line of code. Or, dev and customer support might agree that enhanced refactoring will commence if the code decays over time to more than $4 per line of code.

You can align various departments by by using the technical debt metric. This alignment is particularly important when the operational balance between departments has been disrupted. For example, your developers might be coding faster than your ITIL change managers can process the change requests.

A lot more on the use of the technical debt metric to mitigate cross-organizational dysfunctions, including some Outmodel aspects, will be covered in our seminar in Cambridge, MA on the morning of the 27th. We look forward to discussing this intriguing subject with you there!

Israel

Why Spend a Whole Morning on Technical Debt?

with one comment

In a little over a month Jim Highsmith and I will deliver our joint seminar on technical debt in the Cutter Summit. Here are eight characteristics of the technical debt metric that make it clear why you should spend 3.5 precious hours on the topic:

  1. The technical debt metric shifts the emphasis in software development from proficiency in the software process to the output of the process.
  2. It changes the playing fields from qualitative assessment to quantitative measurement of the quality of the software.
  3. It is an effective antidote to the relentless function/feature pressure.
  4. It can be used with any software method, not “just” Agile.
  5. It is applicable to any amount of code.
  6. It can be applied at any point in time in the software life-cycle.
  7. These six characteristics of the technical debt metric enable effective governance of the software process.
  8. The above  characteristics of the technical debt metric enable effective governance of the software product portfolio.

The eight characteristics in the aggregate amount to technical debt metric as a ‘universal source of truth.’ It is a meaningful metric at any level of your organization and for any department in it. Moreover, it is applicable to any business process that is not yet taking software quality into account.

Jim and I look forward to meeting you at the summit and interacting with you in the technical debt seminar!

Written by israelgat

September 22, 2010 at 7:32 am