November 14, 2005. Call in at 12:55 p.m. Eastern Time

1
November 14, 2005. Call in at 1255 p.m. Eastern
Time
2
Agenda

• Defining process-centric SCM
• Evaluation criteria and evaluated vendors
• Findings
• Recommendations
• What it means

3
Agenda

• Defining process-centric SCM
• Evaluation criteria and evaluated vendors
• Findings
• Recommendations
• What it means

4
Defining process-centric SCM
The automation of software development life-cycle
management processes through unified software
configuration management and software change
management.
5
Segments core capabilities and constituent
solutions
Solutions
Segment
Core capabilities
6
Process-centric SCM

• Most appropriate for shops with
• Extensive processes
• An emphasis on process enforcement
• Difficulty enforcing processes
• Challenges around coordination of work across
  organizations or locations
  
• Less skilled or less experienced users

7
The benefits of a process-centric SCM solution

• Task orientation keeps developers focused on
  functionality, not files.
  
• Traceability provides the business with better
  visibility into IT.
  
• Processes can be defined in terms of recognizable
  events.

8
Business drivers behind the adoption of
process-centric SCM solutions

• Demand for visibility into IT
• Internal and external compliance requirements
• Globally distributed development
• SOA and asset reuse initiatives
• Cross-platform development

9
Agenda

• Defining process-centric SCM
• Evaluation criteria and evaluated vendors
• Findings
• Recommendations
• What it means

10
Vendors evaluated
11
The Wave process

• Open process to select 120 evaluation criteria
  
  
• Interviewed vendors, experts, and SIs
• Vendor self-evaluations
• Interviews on vendor strategy
• Product demonstrations
• Extensive fact-checking
• Spoke with 20 customer references to ensure
  accuracy of vendor claims

12
Customer references
Borland BT, Verizon Wireless, 50B pharmaceutica
l company CA NATO, 50B bank IBM Convergys, E
PL, MetaSolv Software Microsoft Comprehensive So
ftware Systems, 10B services firm
MKS Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, Fluor
Hanford, TEVA Pharmaceuticals, 10B retailer
Serena American Century Investments, World Saving
s, 1B healthcare company Telelogic Applied Sig
nal Technology, 10B defense contractor, 1B
services firm
13
Evaluation criteria

• Forrester evaluated these seven vendors
  solutions across 121 criteria
  
• These criteria fell into three categories (and 19
  sub-categories)
  
• Current offerings
• Strategy
• Market presence

14
Current offerings criteria
Platform support
What platforms does the product run on?
Security
How does the product support encryption,
authentication, authorization, and auditing?
Scalability
What size deployments can the product support?
Administration
How easy is the product to implement and
administer?
Geographical distribution
How does the product support geographically
distributed development?
Versioning and configuration management
How well does the product manage changes to
development artifacts?
Process management
How does the product support development process
definition, implementation, and enforcement?
Collaboration
What support does the product provide for
collaboration?
Reporting and analytics
What reporting and analytics capabilities does
the product include?
Life-cycle integration
How well does the product support various
application life-cycle activities?
15
Strategy criteria
Product strategy
How strong is the vendor's product strategy?
Corporate strategy
How strong is the vendor's corporate strategy?
Price
What is the price of this product?
RD
What RD resources has the vendor committed to
this product line?
16
Market presence criteria
Installed base
How large is the vendor's installed base?
Financial strategy
How financially healthy is the vendor?
Employees
How many employees does the vendor have?
Services and support
How strong are the vendor's implementation,
training, and support services?
Partners
Who are the vendor's go-to-market partners for
this product?
17
Characteristics of a leading solution

• Process management and versioning and
  configuration management capabilities
  
• Support for multiple platforms and support for
  development across these platforms
  
• Scalability in terms of users, locations, and
  total size of assets managed

18
Agenda

• Defining process-centric SCM
• Evaluation criteria and evaluated vendors
• Findings
• Recommendations
• What it means

19
Findings

• One Leader
• IBM
• Five Strong Performers
• Borland
• CA
• MKS
• Serena
• Telelogic
• One Contender
• Microsoft

20
The Forrester Wave Process-Centric Software
Configuration Management, Q4 05
21
Overall rankings (50 current offering, 50
strategy)
Vendor
Ranking
IBM
3.77
Serena
3.26
Borland
2.92
MKS
2.91
Telelogic
2.88
Microsoft
2.60
22
Vendor profile Borland

• Strengths
• Broker-mediated remote access rich APIs
• Weaknesses
• Windows and Unix only missing some basic
  workflow and configuration management
  capabilities
  
• Coming attractions
• Closing functionality gaps driving functionality
  into the platform
  
• Best for
• Java shops shops with many medium-size sites
  Agile shops

23
Vendor profile CA

• Strengths
• Cross-platform capabilities integration with
  other CA BSO products
  
• Weaknesses
• Versioning and configuration management process
  management security reporting
  
• Coming attractions
• Further integration with other CA BSO products
  folding Enterprise Workbench into both Harvest
  and Endevor leveraging common CA technologies
  
• Best for
• Shops using Endevor for mainframe SCM and shops
  using other CA BSO products

24
Vendor profile IBM

• Strengths
• Versioning and configuration management modeling
  and development tool integrations scalability
  across multiple dimensions
  
• Weaknesses
• Minimal support for custom process
  implementation no integration with IBM Tivoli
  products
  
• Coming attractions
• Improved remote access integrated test
  management integration with IBM Tivoli products
  
  
• Best for
• Shops with complex SCM requirements shops
  willing to use IBM Rational UCM shops using or
  willing to use IBM Tivoli products

25
Vendor profile Microsoft

• Strengths
• Integration with Visual Studio 2005 and its
  extensions reporting and analytics
  extensibility low price point
  
• Weaknesses
• Windows only scalability and performance custom
  programming requirements reliance on third
  parties for critical functionality
  
• Coming attractions
• Improved performance and scalability integration
  with other Microsoft technologies
  
• Best for
• Small .NET-only development shops

26
Vendor profile MKS

• Strengths
• Process design and implementation security
  cross-platform capabilities
  
• Weaknesses
• Basic versioning and configuration management
  too easy toover-engineer processes
  
• Coming attractions
• Specialized support for asset reuse better
  deployment support integrated project portfolio
  management
  
• Best for
• Shops facing compliance requirements shops
  developing across mainframe, midrange, and
  distributed platforms

27
Vendor profile Serena

• Strengths
• Platform support, integration with Serenas and
  third-parties life-cycle tools
  
• Weaknesses
• Scale of existing deployments, reporting and
  analytics
  
• Coming attractions
• Continued product rationalization and
  integration, support for the Eclipse ALF,
  dashboards
  
• Best for
• Shops facing compliance requirements, shops
  developing across mainframe and distributed
  platforms

28
Vendor profile Telelogic

• Strengths
• Transparent task orientation, versioning and
  configuration management, reporting
  
• Weaknesses
• Distributed platforms only, integrations with
  third-party tools
  
• Coming attractions
• Better support for geographically distributed
  development, improved integrations with Telelogic
  and third-party tools
  
• Best for
• Shops that use Telelogic DOORS for requirements
  management, shops developing software for
  embedded and real-time systems

29
Agenda

• Defining process-centric SCM
• Evaluation criteria and evaluated vendors
• Findings
• Recommendations
• What it means

30
Recommendations

• When choosing a solution, consider
• Whether the goal is project-level,
  department-level, or enterprisewide SCM.
  
• The extent of platform heterogeneity and the
  likelihood of cross-platform development.
  
• Where developers are located today and how thats
  likely to change.

31
How you can use the Wave spreadsheet

• Determine how much each of the evaluation
  criteria matters to you.
  
• Set your own weights.
• Read the score explanation text to familiarize
  yourself with these tools and vendors.
  
• Follow up with demos, trials, and pilots.

32
Agenda

• Defining process-centric SCM
• Evaluation criteria and evaluated vendors
• Findings
• Recommendations
• What it means

33
Microsoft will grow the market but wont disturb
installed bases

• Multi-platform shops will ignore Microsoft.
• Large shops looking for enterprisewide SCM will
  avoid Microsoft.
  
• Small .NET-only shops will use Microsofts
  solution.
  
• Pure Java shops will continue to use IBM and
  Borland.
  
• Competition will heat up over shops using both
  Java and .NET.
  
• Serena and CA will maintain their hold on the
  market for cross-platform SCM.

34
The Microsoft threat continues to loom large

• Other process-centric SCM vendors get a reprieve,
  not a full pardon.
  
• Microsoft and its partners gear up to address
  Team Foundation Servers major shortcomings
  
• Performance
• Scalability
• Platform support
• Planned enhancements resolve some of the primary
  obstacles to enterprise adoption of Team
  Foundation Server.

35
The next battleground Change management for the
entire IT shop

• The next battleground for process-centric SCM
  vendors will be the management of change across
  development and operations.
  
• Three of the vendors Forrester evaluated also
  have solutions for operations
  
• CA has the products in its BSO business unit.
• IBM has its Tivoli brand products.
• Microsoft has System Center.
• Shops that want unified change management across
  development and operations have only one choice
  today CA.
  
• It is only a matter of time before IBM and
  Microsoft catch up.

36
Thank you
Carey Schwaber 1 617/613-6260 cschwaber_at_forrest
er.com
www.forrester.com
37
Selected bibliography

• November 14, 2005, Tech Choices The Forrester
  Wave, Q4 2005 Process-Centric Software
  Configuration Management
  
• September 2, 2005, Quick Take Dont Rely On Just
  One Method For Distributed Access To Development
  Artifacts
  
• July 22, 2005, Trends The Expanding Purview Of
  Software Configuration Management
  
• July 19, 2005, Quick Take Software Configuration
  Management Tools Ease The Burden Of Compliance