IBM Software Group Competing and Integrating with Open Source Technologies Khurram Nizami (knizami@us.ibm.com) Gary Cernosek (gcernosek@us.ibm.com) Rational Enablement Friday March 1, 2013 Hosted by: Sam Seymour sseymour@ca.ibm.com WW Rational Enablement 2010 IBM Corporation
Agenda Overview of the Open Source Competitive Landscape Market Overview Hudson / Jenkins / Maven, Subversion, Git / GitHub, Competing / Integrating Tips Some examples from past opportunities Where to go for backup 2
Customers are increasingly managing heterogeneous tools to meet their lifecycle tool requirements How many commercial lifecycle tool vendors are you working with? How much do you rely on heterogeneous tools working together 2 Vendors 6% 3-5 Vendors 28% In-house developed tools preferences Not Frequently 23% 1 Vendor 6% No 11% Many 60% Some, but try to minimize their use 33% Concerted strategy for inhouse tools 33% Key Market Trends Application lifecycle market (ALM) market is increasingly fragmented resulting in complexity for our customers While individual tool vendors continuously improve collaboration across their toolset, today, most customers need to manage projects and teams across a set of diverse toolset Current IT investment environment makes it difficult to rip and replace existing tools Heavily We need all of our tools, regardless of their source, to integrate and work well together, and rely on automation to make this happen 30% None The users of each tool operates independently and exchanges related data informally 6% Selectively We have automated integrations between the most critical pairings, and manually manage the others 64% Open Source tools preferences Concerted strategy for open source tools 35% Not Frequently 6% No 6% Some, but try to minimize their use 53% Sources: Voice Report: Expanding the role of Jazz for comprehensive lifecycle tool integration, Nov 2010, Gartner: MarketScope for Application Life Cycle Management, 2010 obtained from Rational s 2011 Market Insight 3
Commercial Vendors are Embracing Open Source If you can t beat them, at least make friends Most commercial vendors have invested their limited resources in a specialty, outsourcing what their missing in ALM to open source The Change & Configuration Management segment of ALM has the most open source competition HP s ALM solution relies on open source for supporting development lifecycle activities Microsoft recently announced support for Git We recently announced availability of our Lifecycle Integration Adapters including integration to Git 4
Popular Open Source Tools Overview Subversion (SVN) Most popular open source version control system in use today, broad adoption Initially developed to replace CVS s shortcomings Strong online community, many commercial and open source products integrate to SVN Still has its faults / weaknesses, big bang commits, no private workspaces / isolation, branch based, no SCM concepts built in Git Distributed open source version control system, initially developed to support Linux, now also the standard for android distributions. Growing fast, many leaving subversion and going with Git Strong online community, strong cloud presence with GitHub No platform for lifecycle management and difficult to link and automate lifecycle activities with it Distributed nature raises concerns for IP security Difficult to implement and enforce SCM controls and methodology across user base Security, Management, Reusability, Total Cost of Ownership - many different ALM open source component dependencies and lack of holistic management, support approach 5
Popular Open Source Tools Overview Hudson / Jenkins Most popular open source continuous integration solution on the market today Many open source integrations available to other open source lifecycle tools like Maven, Subversion, Git, etc.. Fully web based, user friendly, extensive plugin support making it possible to integrate various tools and automate their contribution to a build. Beyond the "developer" role - Hudson doesn't integrate or automate across other roles and activities such as planning, requirements, testing Traceability is usually a basic hyperlink to a related asset in some other tool Jenkins is a separate incarnation of Hudson by a number of the core developers for Hudson. Both have essentially the same foundation but are now on separate development paths Maven Maven is build definition / automation framework. It is similar in nature to other build definition frameworks like ant Many practitioners now with maven experience and advocates of maven as their build definition framework of choice. Maven is rarely used by itself - usually used in conjunction with something like CruiseControl, Hudson, or cron jobs to automate the build process and enable continuous integration 6
Common Customer Challenges with Open Source Time spent in integrating, customizing, training, and maintaining an ALM solution based on open source technologies Increased risk of disconnects and bottlenecks with team members and stakeholders Increased risk to security of assets and reliability of development process Reduced project productivity due to gaps in a connected development and delivery lifecycle Sub optimal reuse of assets 7
Approaching Open Source Customers Bring the big picture into focus understand and validate their lifecycle needs Know what Rational products, cross brand products, and competitive products they have and how they are being used before you engage with them Don t leave the conversation at a comparison of open source tool X compared to Rational tool Y 1. Surround Open Source - Integrate open source tools used for a particular development activity with our open ALM platform to accelerate their software development and delivery 2. Compete with Open Source - Import and transition open source tools used within a particular development activity to Jazz establishing an open ALM platform to increase transparency, reduce risk, and improve collaboration A mix of 1 & 2 might be in play 8
Mixed-mode selling to eventually compete Migrate to additional Rational products Marginalize those tools to contain their growth Surround their tools with Rational products Embrace the customer s choice Surround strategy can later lead to migration from open source to Rational products 9
When to Surround Open Source Tools You should look for the following characteristics in your customer base to determine if surrounding their open source adoption is the best route: When we have an integration to the open sources tools being used, either from Rational or from a Business Partner When a significant percent (>~30%) of the developers / users are actively using open source tools on their projects When our products / solutions have already been presented to a development group and they have chosen to use open source tools instead. When there is a strong community, mind share, and history of using open source tools in the organization and decision makers don t recognize common problems 10
When to Compete with Open Source Tools You should look for opportunities to compete with open source tool usage when the following characteristics apply: When no integrations are available or planned for the tools the customer is using There is a growing problem with measurement, transparency, and accountability in the development organization attributable to limitations of open source New or emerging software development process improvement initiatives and goals are showing strain on use of open source There is a growing need for development / software architecture improvement, reuse, and innovation There are too many tools, need for consolidation and better integration Practitioners are not effectively collaborating, sharing, and reusing across organizationally and geographically distributed boundaries within the organization When an organization or group has outgrown what open source tools they are using can do for them When they are regularly using Rational and cross-brand IBM products that are and have established processes with them 11
Where Do Your Customers Stand With ALM? Start Here Lack of ALM SW investments not delivering the expected value Time to market issues due to delayed projects Customer satisfaction issues due to poor quality Inaccurate project planning Inability to invest on Innovative projects due to cost constraint Chaotic Silo-ed teams no no collaboration lack of of and/or disjoint process Repeatable Point tools & integrations (RM, QM, CCM, ) ) Best practices are are documented I used to think collaboration was a hippie word leftover from the 1960 s now I define it as survival - A speaker at Innovate 2011, Rational user conference Automated Integrated ALM Built in in Agile, Formal, Hybrid process support Built-in lifecycle traceability Collaborative Lifecycle Management Maximize product value with In-Context Collaboration Accelerate time to delivery with Real-Time Planning Improve quality with Lifecycle Traceability Achieve predictability with Development Intelligence Reduce costs with Continuous Improvement Learn more at ALM Everywhere Managed Real time planning & reporting In In context collaboration Development Intelligence Agility@scale Optimized 1 2 3 4 5 Continuous improvement Continuous Deployment (integration with IT IT Operations) IBM ALM and adoption Business steps Partner Internal Use Only 12
When developing applications with open source tools, how do you confidently make key decisions across the lifecycle? The Open Source Heat Map for Project Managers success: Little/No Open Source unique value, least resistance Requirements and Portfolio Management help give confidence that projects are working on the Right Things First Some Open Source or Low-cost vendors feature wars, broaden value Mature/Established Open Source tools ROI required, developer trust CM Open Source testing mostly focused on code. Rational Testing and Quality Capabilities help confidently answer: Are we ready to release? Jazz both integrates & enhances open source CM tools like CVS, Subversion. 13
Whiteboard with customers on the complementary benefits of core CLM products to their existing investments The jazz whiteboard is a good place to start a conversation about improving CLM Illustrate their current core CLM investment and then illustrate how they are handling +1 and/or +2 today Discuss the challenges they may be facing such as for: Requirements: gold plating, lack of stakeholder participation, lack of consensus on requirements, late discovery of requirement changes.. Quality: Duplicate defects, manual and inefficient dev<->test cycles, defect density, risk based testing, etc Describe how addressing the imperatives with a +1/+2 investment can help them improve CLM New whiteboard video walking through the ALM imperatives to share with customers! http://www.centerline.net/review/#/3266_ibm_imperatives 14 26
Beyond open source: When the customer is committed to other non-ibm tools Requirements Design Develop Build Test Test Deploy Manage & Monitor Traceability Visibility Collaboration The ALM Integration Problem / 15
Do your customers love (and hate) their existing software delivery solution? Grow in the directions you need and maintain lifecycle traceability and transparency Rational CCM Tools Open Source Tools ClearCase ClearQuest Synergy Change 16
Introducing the Rational Lifecycle Integration Adapters Integrating Rational products with select 3 rd -party tools Rational Lifecycle Integration Adapters Standard Edition Rational Lifecycle Integration Adapters Tasktop Edition Common across both editions: IBM Rational branding Available through standard IBM sales channels Supported by standard IBM customer support channels 17
Rational Lifecycle Integration Adapters Standard Edition Rational ClearQuest OSLC-based Linking Rational Requirements Composer Rational Team Concert Rational Quality Manager 18
But what happens when you want OSLC and more? What if you want to Have aggregated reporting in one tool Modify third-party information within Collaborative Lifecycle Management (CLM) Have solo'ed teams that don t log into each other s systems Manage projects that include third-party information Be actively notified of changes in third-party tools Have the same data edited in different tools Improve disconnected and slow tools Collaborate with third parties who don t have access to your tools 19
Rational Lifecycle Integration Adapters Tasktop Edition Syncing with OSLC-based Linking Rational Team Concert 20
Which Edition do I sell? Standard Edition 3 rd -party tools in play? Tasktop Edition See use cases v11 HP tool version number? JIRA tool version number? V4.4.0 See use cases HPQC v10 other Tasktop Edition Tasktop Edition 21
Use cases for HP ALM/QC and JIRA Factors to consider Good fit for Standard Edition Good fit for Tasktop Edition Reporting & Dashboarding Modifying external work items Collaboration across roles Practitioners rely on their CLM dashboard to view and track progress of their projects Standard Edition supports opens social gadgets for HP ALM Practitioners are accustomed and comfortable navigating to tools and creating links Practitioner create links to monitor status of external artifacts across multiple roles and tools Organization has invested in customized workflows and reports inside HPQC or RTC Tasktop Edition synchronizes artifacts between RTC and HP ALM Practitioners refuse to leave their role-specific tool to affect external work items Project teams are solo'ed and require tight real-time cross-repository collaboration See backup slides for example scenarios of both Editions in action 22
New RLIA pricing strategy NOW AVAILABLE http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/cgibin/ssialias?subtype=ca&infotype=an&appname=isource&supplier=897&letternum=enus213-109 Goals: Offer PVUs at an entry level price that allows customers to start with a small user base and gradually ramp up with the intention of crossing over to PVU when that ramp up takes place Accommodate low end deployments that won t ever convert to PVUs with a low user-based fixed term price Strategy: 1. Maintain the perpetual Managed PVU pricing metric @ $500/PVU Supports customers that have or about to purchase a large # of Rational seats 2. Create a fixed term (12 months) managed PVU pricing metric @ $235/PVU NEW Supports customers that benefit from PVU model but want to structure deals on a yearly basis for budget management reasons, e.g., Disney 3. Create a user based licensing, single authorized user, fixed term (12 months) subscription model @ $300/user Matches Tasktop user based licensing model Counts all users on both sides of the integration (all users that may potentially benefit from the integration are counted, not just those using the 3 rd -party tools) Supports customers that want to have a staggered roll out of Rational products NEW Supports customers that will never have more than a few practitioners that benefit from integrations 4. Create a user based, floating fixed term (12 months) subscription model @ $900/User Available, but hold use Matches how many Rational products use a 3:1 ratio for floating users Will allow us to eventually enable Token licensing on Standard Edition when compliance checking gets enabled Future 23
Connect our capabilities with the customers needs to differentiate against open source as the standard Assess Needs Application Lifecycle Management Compliance Continuous Deployment and Testing Packaged Applications Outsourcing Mobile Delivery Embedded Systems Delivery 24 IBM Rational Accelerator Solutions
ALM Cross Brand Ecosystem - Example: Focus on Quality Service Virtualization Out of the box EDI industry standards support; GSMA One, REST API for Mobile and Worklight support; Sift and pass through between real and virtual services for WebSphere MQ and more Features and capabilities System Z Continuous Integration Testing Clz extends continuous integration practices to include mainframe environments - unit testing, simplified test environment and data provisioning and configuration New SAP Integration IBM is first third-party partner with RQM integration to SAP Business Process Change Analyzer for precise impact analysis of process changes Productivity & Consumability Enhanced clustering for high availability, scalability and reliability, Optimized flow of key RQM test scenarios CLM 2012 integration Automated nightly builds for stronger integration testing; Performance test analytics for greater RQM visibility IBM Services: QuickStarts, Deployment and Training to optimize your investment in software Load & Scalability Testing Parallel load agent startup, Increased agent scalability and simplified deployment DevOps Integration Tivoli Composite Application Manager use of RPT for proactive SLA monitoring; RPT use of Tivoli Monitoring for bottleneck identification Test Data Management RTW integration with IBM Optim for creation and management of test datasets 25
Use Token Licensing to Compete Broadly Against Open Source Token license agreements allow organizations to rent licenses for a given period of time leveraging their OPEX budget with no entitlement rights at end of term Token licenses can float across users and across products A token constitutes a unit of value which can be repeatedly exchanged via server for a mix of software licenses - Essentially unlimited REALTIME substitution Each Rational user borrows tokens from the pool to gain access to whatever tool they need for their job. Pool Rational Method Composer 4 Token Per User Analysts Rational Team Concert 7 Token Per User Developer Rational Performance Tester 3 Token Per User Program Manager No need to buy licenses for specific roles/tools with the inherent limits that imposes: you can use as many or as few of each tool as you like with no penalty. Customer is NOT charged on peak per product usage but on average portfolio usage 26
Wrap up with contacts and further content Rational Competitive Central Landing page on Sellers Workplace for finding competitive information AskRatCI@us.ibm.com if you are in a competitive opportunity, get direct support using this e-mail address CLM for IT Sales Kit Primary site for CLM assets and enablement materials Open Source Playbook More details on what we covered in this call Lifecycle Integration Adapters Resource Page Customer presentation, links and other assets 27
THE LINES ARE NOW OPEN. 28
IBM Software Group Backup 2010 IBM Corporation
Countering competition that leverage OSS as a development model: Yes, and... Objection Open Source is free, commercial licenses are expensive Discussion Yes, and we re a big supporter of making basic, commodity functionality free to own, for example in Eclipse. Then we enhance it with high-value add-ons. However, most of the lifetime cost of software comes in supporting and operating it, and that will also be true of open source. This cost impact is particularly high in maintaining integrations between software applications To get the functionality you want and the support you need, will the TCO really be significantly different? Industry research suggests not. Open source gives me business flexibility and avoids vendor lock-in Yes, and we believe that open source and open standards complement each other in avoiding lock-in. However, you can get locked into an OSS project too, e.g. through skills and assets. And with no business relationship with the developers, there is a risk that they will take it in directions that are against your interests, fork or fragment it or that it might be acquired by a commercial vendor that you didn t choose (e.g. Hudson/Jenkins; MySQL). What will your recourse be if you don t like where the project is going, or if the community loses interest and moves on to something new? (e.g. the migration from CVS to Subversion and now to Git) Open source is better quality/higher security because many eyes are examining the code Yes, open source can often produce very high quality implementations, and that s one reason we often use it as the basis of our commercial products. However, in reality, for most projects few people are actually looking deeply at the code, and just a handful may be committing changes, while many may be submitting bugs and enhancement requests. With a community-based development model, you have little leverage to get the bugs that most concern you prioritized, unless you re willing to roll up your sleeves and do it yourself. That s what IBM does when we build on open source: we typically have many professional developers committing to the code base. 30
Countering competition that leverage OSS as a business model: Yes, but... Objection Open Source is free, commercial licenses are expensive Discussion Yes, the code itself is free but the support and maintenance will still cost. And if the company is contributing significantly to the community, it s still incurring that development cost. In fact, in some cases of OSS as a business model, the company supporting it is the only one significantly developing it, so they still have all the development cost. They just hide the cost in the support or hosting fees! In some cases, you also have to check carefully what you can get for free. Is it really the product functionality you need, or is it just a teaser to get you on the path to a full, commercial edition? Open source gives me business flexibility and avoids vendor lock-in And if ensuring that you will have support over a long product lifecycle is of concern to you (for example 10+ years) then OSS may inject risk as there are no guarantees that the project will be maintained for such a long period. Yes, but how true is that of the kind of open source project that is really only contributed to by one company? If that company decides to take future releases into a closed model, or reserve some enhancements for a proprietary commercial edition, are you any less locked in? Open source is better quality/higher security because many eyes are examining the code Conversely, if the business is based on an open source project with a true community, what happens to your vendor if the community takes the project in a direction you don t like, moves on to something else, or even takes it commercial with a competitor? [e.g. Hibernate was acquired by JBoss, which in turn was acquired by Red Hat. Similarly MySQL and NetBeans customers are anxiously awaiting the consequences of Oracle s acquisition of Sun, and the Hudson community was driven to fork Jenkins.] Open source without open standards risks becoming just another kind of lock-in. Yes, this can be true when a large community is examining the code. But if the code is open source in name only, and in reality only the company promoting it is examining it and fixing it, will it really deliver better quality than a commercial product? 31
Q3 Systems Success Story: Crane Aerospace Rational Deal Size $1.4M licenses & S&S Rational Products RTC Rational Change Rational DOORS RMC Publishing Engine Rational Rhapsody Rational Synergy System Architect RQM RRC Platform Linux / Windows Competition Open Source (Jira & SVN) Deal Contact Patrick Stein Rational Sales Specialist, U.S. Crane Aerospace supplies critical systems and components to the aerospace and defense markets. The company is a division of Crane Co. with 2010 revenues of $577M and 2,800 employees. Several large engineering projects concluded in 2010, resulting in a budget cut of 10% for tooling infrastructure in 2011. Business Need/Client Pain Points 64 enterprise tools and growing/escalating costs Speed of innovation/globalization put strain on collaboration Better support for lean programs/proliferation of open source Rational Approach and Solution Focused on reducing operating costs, time to market and productivity Single integrated collaborative platform for lean, and eventually larger programs Token licensing model enabled tool consolidation and flexible migration Key Reasons Why We Won Line of business buy-in from lean programs provided needed funding Strong executive sponsors from engineering and line of business Lessons Learned Change the playing field with token licensing model 32 IBM Confidential 32
Q3 Security Success Story: State of Illinois Government Rational Deal Size $361K ~$100k services PLUS more Rational Rational Products AppScan Standard AppScan Source Reporting Console Policy Tester A/Q/P Competition HP/Fortify Deal Contacts Maria Stroinski, Rational Security & Compliance Sales Specialist, U.S. Jason Farmer, Rational Sales Specialist, U.S. Business Need/Client Pain Points With 75+ agencies and 4 large data centers, State of IL was struggling with centralizing application security and website accessibility was always looming issue Central Management Services (State s largest IT agency) wanted to develop a Security Center of Practice New Governor, new Chief Security Officer, state of bankruptcy, new procurement laws Rational Approach and Solution Awareness & Education HFS success; CoP guidance; speaking engagements Solutions proof is in the pudding, > scan results with AppScan & Policy Tester Trusted Advisors more awareness & speaking engagements; profitable charge backs Key Reasons Why We Won Solutions are scalable, accurate and reasonable Charge back system as part of the Security Center of Practice IBM Team not just selling Lessons Learned Just because they don t have money, doesn t mean they can t buy! Be consultative and patient! 33 IBM Confidential 33
IBM Confidential 34
Use cases - Rational Lifecycle Integration Adapters Standard Edition 35 2013 IBM Corporation
Reference use case: Extending Rational CLM to 3 rd -party tools Bob Product Owner Scott, Deb, Marco Developers Tanuj Tester Defines & links requirements and defect to influence the development plan Plan the iteration from requirements Develop & deliver changes Validate requirements Submit defects Test the iteration Plan Requirements Find & Fix Defects Rational Team Concert Rational Requirements Composer Requirements driven testing The Rational Solution for Collaborative Lifecycle Management (CLM) We need a way for customers to apply the CLM usage model in a heterogeneous environment Rational Quality Manager 36 2013 IBM Corporation
Example: A Tester managing quality with HP Quality Center Bob Product Owner Scott, Deb, Marco Developers Tanuj Tester Defines & links requirements and defect to influence the development plan Plan the iteration from requirements Develop & deliver changes Validate requirements Submit defects Test the iteration Plan Requirements Find & Fix Defects Rational Requirements Composer Rational Team Concert OR Rational ClearQuest Requirements driven testing Quality Center Analyst creates requirements collections to drive development and test cases Tester links test plans to associated requirements collections Tester executes test scripts, logs defects for Development to fix 37 2013 IBM Corporation
Example: OSLC in action for RRC and HPQC Rational Requirements Composer HP Quality Center Rational Team Concert The Test Plan in HPQC can be previewed from RRC or linked to directly 38 2013 IBM Corporation
Example: OSLC in action for ClearQuest and HPQC ClearQuest record Developer Enhancement requests tracked in ClearQuest to make sure that each enhancement is tested by at lease one test case in HP ALM. HP ALM test case Tester Test cases in HP ALM are linked to enhancement requests tracked in ClearQuest. Illustrates how the same OSLC interfaces can be implemented for multiple and disparate lifecycle tools 39 2013 IBM Corporation
Example: An Analyst links requirements artifacts to issues in JIRA Bob Product Owner Scott, Deb, Marco Developers Tanuj Tester Defines & links requirements and defect to influence the development plan Plan the iteration from requirements Develop & deliver changes Validate requirements Submit defects Test the iteration Plan Requirements Find & Fix Defects Rational Requirements Composer Requirements driven testing Rational Quality Manager Analyst (the product owner) links requirements created in Rational Requirements Composer to issues in JIRA Developer now inspects JIRA for new issues and sees which requirements they relate to 40 2013 IBM Corporation
Example: A Developer versioning source code with Git Bob Product Owner Scott, Deb, Marco Developers Tanuj Tester Defines & links requirements and defect to influence the development plan Plan the iteration from requirements Develop & deliver changes Validate requirements Submit defects Test the iteration Plan Requirements Find & Fix Defects Rational Team Concert Rational Requirements Composer Requirements driven testing Rational Quality Manager Developers use annotated Git commits that create links to Rational Team Concert work items A commit can reference multiple work items; same work item can be referenced in multiple commits 41 2013 IBM Corporation
Use cases - Rational Lifecycle Integration Adapters Tasktop Edition 42 2013 IBM Corporation
Rational Lifecycle Integration Adapters Tasktop Edition Instant bi-directional data synchronization between RTC and 3 rd party tools Why augment OSLC linking with full data synchronization? Comprehensive reporting and project management across systems in RTC Create & update third party work items in RTC Preserve complex custom workflows established in third party systems while providing cross-tool access, communication, and management visibility in RTC sync Work Item in RTC External Work Item 43 2013 IBM Corporation
Example: Comprehensive reporting & planning visibility with RTC A key component is being developed by a remote team that tracks defects in Microsoft TFS, HP Quality Center, JIRA, Bugzilla or Mingle Marco, the PM, needs a comprehensive view of all defects in a single system of record to plan effectively and adjust priorities Synchronizing work items enables effective decision making and planning across tools Marco Manager Developers using external tools Report on ALL defects in RTC and external tools Change priorities Plan iterations in a single system of record External tools sync Rational Team Concert RTC Developers 44 2013 IBM Corporation
Example: Workflow preservation with RTC and HP Quality Center QA processes, customizations and workflows are established in HP Quality Center RTC is in place for development execution Tanuj Tester Deb Developer 1 3 Submit new defect Create test cases related to corrected defect link 2 Review defect Clarify with Tanuj Implement fix Update defect status sync HP Quality Center Rational Team Concert Defects are instantly synchronized between systems enabling practitioners to effectively collaborate across tool boundaries The development team can adopt RTC without disrupting existing processes established by the QA team 45 2013 IBM Corporation