A Case-study of Investigation of CM Tools Ivica crnkovic Ivica.Crnkovic@mdh.Se Automation Products AB Page 1
Automation Drives CM migration US INY Industrial Systems Industrial Systems Industrial Products Network Partner Elsag? Bailey Automation Systems Automation Products DE IND 1991 1995 1998 AlfaLaval Automation Page 2
Oslo Distributed Development Linköping Luleå Västerås Development Outsource Delivery Malmö Mannheim Rochester Columbus Bangalore Page 3
CM Status Before Investigation Long tradition in using CM - internally developed tools MaMethod (VAX/VMS) SDE (Unix) WinSDE (Windows NT) 1987 1991 1996 1998 Covering all main CM disciplines Version management, change management, release management, etc. Page 4 CMM
Why New CM Tool? Faster development Outsourcing & consulting COTS (commercial components) Component based development Emphasizes on NT as development platform Development environment - a part of products Improved CM tools on the market More choices, better quality, lower costs Better awareness of CM on the market Page 5
We shall investigate the market, find and introduce a proper CM tool We shall concentrate on development of our main business Page 6
Investigation Process Specify Requirements Investigate the market CM group Select two - three most interesting tools Dev.Projects Test selected tools Do analysis and recommend a tool SEPG group Line Organizations 98-05 98-06 98-09 98-011 Page 7 Make decision Define deployment
Basic Requirements on CM (A) Version management (VM) Configuration management (CM) Build management (BM) Work space management (WM) Change management (ChM) Release management (RM) Parallel development (PD) Distributed development (DD) Page 8
Basic Requirements on CM (B) Integration with other tools Migration from the current tool (WinSDE) Vendor s marketing position Support for the tool Possible risks Possible tool s acceptance internally and from other companies Possibility of improvements Price Page 9
Inputs to Investigation Experience from our processes General experiences (conferences, etc.) Courses in some tools, consultant help Investigations from development projects, reports from other companies Ovum evaluation: CM tools Internet (CM Yellow pages), news groups, etc. Experience from others (Ericsson, Sveriges Verkstadsindustrier) Page 10
Selected Tools Rational ClearCase CC Microsoft Visual SourceSafe (VSS) Page 11
Fulfilled Requirements (A) VSS CC WinSDE PD DD VM 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% CM BM PD DD VM 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% CM BM PD DD VM 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% CM BM RM WS RM WS RM WS ChM ChM ChM 100% = Take it as it is 90% = some adaptations required 70% - Additional development 30% - Not too much to use Page 12
Technical Characteristics Overview 23 24 25 26 10 2 8 6 3 4 5 23 24 25 26 10 2 8 6 3 4 5 23 24 25 26 10 2 8 6 3 4 5 22 21 20 4 2 0 6 7 8 22 21 20 4 2 0 6 7 8 22 21 20 4 2 0 6 7 8 19 9 19 9 19 9 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 ClearCase VSS WinSDE Page 13
ClearCase Technical Characteristics Very good for organizations which have control over CM-processes (follow CMM) Support for distributed development Powerful build features Easy for developers, if the process is well defined - Integration with ClearQuest must be improved - GUI can still be improved Page 14
SourceSafe Technical Characteristics Easy to deploy, simple to use A part of MS development tools Flexible for adding new functions - Not sufficient for a mature CM process - Oriented to latest versions of objects, little support for maintenance and parallel development - Not reliable for large project according to different reports Page 15
ClearCase - Market Position ClearCase is one of the leading CM tools on the market Excellent support from Rational - Expensive product - Growing challenge to compete with VSS - Risk for late integration with Microsoft development tools Page 16
SourceSafe - Market Position Low license cost Increasing market position Additional tools/features are developed by other companies - Support from Microsoft as for other MS products Page 17
ClearCase Requirements on the Organization A mature organization with a systematic approach to CM is required CM experts are required The hidden costs in the projects are minimized Introduction of ClearCase requires extra efforts (education, process definition, powerful servers) Page 18
SourceSafe Requirements on the Organization High discipline in the projects required There is a risk for high hidden and unpredictable costs Additional support is required CM process definition and implementation based on VSS and other tools Internal programming Additional software Page 19
Initial Costs Initial Costs Costs Difference between CC and VSS Costs Maintenance Costs: CC - VSS 7000 7000 6000 6000 5000 5000 4000 4000 3000 3000 2000 2000 1000 1000 0 VSS CC 0 First Year Next Years Internal External Costs for Change Management implementation - NOT included for VSS Other costs for VSS are calculated to achieve WinSDE functionality Page 20
Return on investment Experiences CC - 20% increase of efficiency in development (external reports) VSS - no data available References CC - Ericsson VSS - ALA, USINY (some parts) - satisfied with VSS Page 21
Recommendation and Decision CM-group: if we want to aggressive go for higher quality and process control we should use CC. SEPG: having in mind requirements from several development projects and other sites, take VSS. At least the same functionality as in WinSDE must be achieved. DECISION (line organization): VSS Page 22
Was it a good decision? It was an easier decision The Microsoft argument Lower (visible) costs in the beginning Down to up approach Some organizations have already used VSS More tools integrated with VSS available Easier to deliver VSS than CC The decision, however, implies further in-house development Page 23
Support for Distributed Development? Additional software (internal and external) required System architectures well defined with sites responsibilities - hopefully no need for an extensive exchange of information Some (similar as before) manual procedures required Page 24
What next? A new project has started: Additional support for VSS and Visual Studio: Development Structures Configuration Management Build and release support Define procedures for parallel and distributed development Page 25
Conclusion Will the company succeed with VSS? No doubt Could the company be more effective with another tool? Probably, but not necessary Page 26