Last week I took a short sub-channel trip to attend CAST’s Annual CIO Conference on Risk and Productivity Measurement, in Paris. Having only fluency in English, and limited proficiency in Mandarin, I was a little nervous to travel alone to France – having been warned by a French colleague the Parisians could be especially intolerant when it came to bad French.
We just finished up the 30-minute webinar where Andrew Agerbak, Associate Director from BCG, described some of the ways IT executives use software measurement in driving transformational programs. Andrew cited four case studies, where output metrics helped drive transformation, or at the very least measure its results. We had a number of questions come up in the webinar, so we couldn’t get to them all, and not all of you could get to the Q&A session. We went 15 minutes over the 30 minute time slot for Q&A. The main point of this post is to document some of the more important questions and my summary of the answers provided by Andrew, especially for those of you who could not stay on past the half hour.
Avenue of The Americas in New York was awash with software quality metrics and quotes Thursday night as we celebrated our Software Quality Action Forum and AIP 7.3 Launch Party at the Eventi Hotel. Throughout the day, speakers discussed the current state of measurement in the IT industry and painted an inspiring picture of where software quality measures in software development are headed.
Speakers from IDC, CISQ, Coca Cola, and Capgemini presented how CAST’s Application Intelligence Platform and suite of software measurement services allowed them to improve their business and the quality of their work delivered to clients. During the sessions, live tweets from the speakers were being broadcast across the street on to the big screen, with attendees battling each other to see who could top the live tweet board.
The BCG matrix is a classic planning model devised in the 1960s by the Boston Consulting Group and copied henceforth by every other advisory firm. It is typically used to help organizations decide which areas of their business deserve more resources and investment. The matrix traditionally categorizes products within a company’s portfolio according to growth rate, market share, and cash flow.
Since we’re doing a webinar with BCG, we thought we would come up with one such matrix to sort what we do for a living. CAST’s variant — the Software Analytics Matrix — outlines the four key archetypes found amongst IT analysts and the two simple variables which define them.
In this era of big data, analytics has become an invaluable tool for IT organizations to succeed. Not only for ensuring a high quality product, but also keeping your customers safe from malicious hackers and application crashes. Despite the obvious need, some executives struggle with the business case for proper software analytics and opt for skunk-work metrics that are less accurate and more expensive.
That’s why for the newest release of our Application Intelligence Platform — AIP 7.3 — we focused on making an enterprise software analysis and measurement program more streamlined, informative, and customizable. You can read more about the newest release of AIP in a release we put out this morning, but we wanted to highlight some of the most important new capabilities here on the blog.
Gartner report highlights “application development managers need new ways to demonstrate and communicate the business value of software quality for innovation projects.”
Gartner’s recent report, “How to Demonstrate the Business Value of Software Quality for Systems of Innovation,” by analyst Maritess Sobejana and published July 31, 2014, attempts to tackle the longtime challenge of aligning business and application development perspectives. The most critical systems within an organizations’ portfolio — systems of innovation — are high-stakes applications for organizations and thus are good place to start.
Modern software systems have become so complex, with software components interacting across multiple application layers, there’s no way one single developer can hope to conceptualize how it all fits together. A National Research Council study found that as we demand higher levels of assurance, traditional testing cannot deliver the dependability required at a reasonable cost. At the intersection of these two realities lies the biggest problem facing software development today: architecturally complex violations.
Architecturally complex violations are structural flaws involving interactions among components that reside in different application layers. Although they constitute only 8% of the vulnerabilities in an application, they represent 52% of the repair effort, require 20 times more changes to fix, and are 8 times more likely to escape into testing and 6 times more likely to escape into operations.