Software Methods are like a fashion show

Software Engineer #1:  What methodology are you using these days?

Software Engineer #2:  We’re into Lean in a big way …. with a few XP practices thrown into the mix. We were very into Scrum last year, but then I read this amazing book and really got hooked on Lean.

SE #1: I remember the arguments we used to have a few years ago. You tried to convince me that Agile was a recipe for disaster. I think you were very keen on RUP at the time.

SE #2: That’s right. I was very young and immature then. I’ve got a much deeper understanding now of how software development really works, and I have absolutely no doubt that Lean and Kanban have all the answers for me.

Does this conversation sound familiar to you?  Ivar Jacobson, one of the world’s leading software engineering practices and methods gurus, has said that software development looks like a fashion industry.  It’s not that most of the methodologies we’ve seen coming and going over the past few decades are bad. They all have very sound practices and advice that can be incredibly useful to software engineers.

Jacobson, and several other prominent experts believe that Software Engineering (SE) is “gravely hampered today by immature practices”. They list some specific problems as:

• The lack of a sound, widely accepted theoretical basis.
• The huge number of methods and method variants, with differences little understood and artificially magnified.
• The lack of credible experimental evaluation and validation.
• The split between industry practice and academic research.

With this in mind Jacobson, Bertrand Meyer (famous for the OO language Eiffel and the concept of “design-by-contract”) and Richard Soley (CEO of the Object Management Group (OMG) ) established an initiative in September 2009 called “SEMAT”( = Software Engineering Method and Theory). Supporters of the initiative have signed a declaration – somewhat reminiscent of the famous Agile Manifesto – that says the following:

“We support a process to refound software engineering based on a solid theory, proven principles and best practices that:

• Include a kernel of widely-agreed elements, extensible for specific uses
• Addresses both technology and people issues
• Are supported by industry, academia, researchers and users
• Support extension in the face of changing requirements and technology”

Over the past two years a great deal of work has been carried out on defining the “kernel of widely-agreed elements”.  This will soon appear in a new book by Ivar Jacobson and others. It holds out the promise of fundamentally changing the discipline of software engineering.

If you’re interested in any of this you can find out a lot more by visiting the SEMAT website (www.semat.org). You can even become a signatory of the SEMAT declaration on the website.  Better still you can hear Ivar Jacobson speak about SEMAT and other interesting topics  in Johannesburg or Cape Town (between 7^th and 11^th May 2012) when he visits South Africa as the 2012 “JCSE Distinguished International Lecturer” (details on www.jcse.org.za).  On the evening of Tuesday 8^th May a South African Chapter of SEMAT is to be launched at Wits University (again look on www.jcse.org.za for details).

You’re reversing your car when, suddenly, you hear a loud crunch as you drive over something. You stop, jump out and run to see what you’ve hit. It’s your 5-year-old daughter’s tricycle crushed under your back wheel. Someone must have left it in the driveway yesterday. What do you do next?

a) Feel extremely relieved that your daughter wasn’t sitting on the tricycle when it got crushed under your car …. and then forget all about the incident;

b) Feel irritated that you’ll now have to buy another tricycle … and then forget all about the incident;

c) Feel angry that the tricycle was left in the driveway … and then forget all about the incident;

d) Spend the rest of the day thinking about how it could have happened that you reversed over a child’s tricycle (with or without a child on it). You analyse your routine, you think about precautions you will take in the future and you get your family together to discuss how a similar incident can be avoided in future.

To be honest I probably fall into category a), b) or c).  I would probably think, “thank heaven’s no one got hurt!” and then forget about it. Life is busy and who has time to worry about what might have happened.

I met someone recently who definitely falls into category d). His name is Ted Keller and he worked for IBM as the software quality manager on NASA’s Space Shuttle programme. Before each Shuttle launch a number of senior managers were required to sign a form certifying that the launch could proceed. In signing this form Ted Keller was making a very specific and terrifying statement. He was formally certifying that the Shuttle’s software was 100% correct and free of defects and errors. As he says, “Anyone who knows anything about large and complex software systems would probably have to be an idiot to make such a statement.” Not only was Ted Keller’s professional reputation on the line every time he signed the “Flight Readiness” certificate – he was also accepting responsibility for a $4 billion space vehicle and the lives of 7 astronauts, many of whom were his personal friends and neighbours.

How did Keller feel confident enough to sign the “Flight Readiness” form time after time? He attributes his faith in the Shuttle software to two things: (i) the capability and dedication of the team of software engineers who developed it, and (ii) the processes they followed to ensure that everything humanly possible had been done to ensure quality. Every time a defect was detected in software testing, causes were analysed and processes were changed to ensure that the same error never occurred again – category d) in the tricycle example. And it paid off. The Space Shuttle flew for 30 years and did not experience a single mission critical software defect. Keller’s confidence in his software was justified.

I met Ted Keller last week at the SEPG North America Conference in Albuquerque, USA, where he presented a really interesting paper. He spoke about his frustrations and successes in bringing the lessons learnt on the Shuttle programme to other domains. On leaving the Shuttle programme Keller began working as a consultant trying to convince software product companies, banks and others engaged in software development that they should follow NASA’s lead in developing high quality software. To his surprise managers and developers showed very little enthusiasm for the message he brought. In their domains quality just had to be “good enough”.

Over time Keller has changed his approach. He now begins by understanding the “pain points” experienced by software developers and their managers. While, in the case of the Shuttle, defect free software was the key business goal, other domains have their own business drivers.  These may include getting a product to market quickly, keeping a project within budget, or eliminating the need for team members to work overtime. In each case Keller has been able to draw on the lessons he learnt working on the Shuttle and come up with a process improvement strategy that helps an organization eliminate its specific pain points.

He listed the following as some of the lessons he has learnt over his long and distinguished career:

1. Don’t treat process improvement as a “textbook” activity. Textbooks provide guidance but DO NOT teach how to improve processes for any real world situation.
2. “Process tailoring” has evolved to “process crafting” to create a process improvement method that is appropriate to a specific organization.
3. It is important to understand which aspects of the organization’s performance can be changed. “Traditional” parameters such as cost, quality and even the skills of workers may not be alterable. Restrictions on education, population, time, materials, workable hours, travel, schedules, etc. can limit or prevent many “text-book” process improvement activities.
4. Before starting on a process improvement journey one should make certain of senior executives support.  It is not always true or obvious that there will be a positive ROI or that any financial benefit can be realized soon enough to justify the impacts and perceived risk to the business.
5. One of the most successful approaches to achieve process improvement buy-in and stakeholder participation (with or without Executive endorsement) is to build and advertise the intent as a remedy for serious “pain points” being experienced by the stakeholders.

In summary Ted Keller is not an advocate of textbook process improvement but recommends an agile, flexible and pragmatic approach. This is interesting and somewhat surprising coming from the man who successfully shaped the software development processes at the heart of the Shuttle programme.

Welcome back to my blog. It has a fresh look and I hope you will follow me and share your comments in the year ahead.

In May 2000 the Economist magazine labelled Africa “The hopeless continent”. In December 2011 the same magazine featured an article entitled “The hopeful continent: Africa Rising”  (View the article) . This dramatic U-turn by the Economist put a smile on my face. I’ve never doubted the incredible potential of the continent on which I live. Did you? Now we are seeing that potential being translated into high growth rates and thriving economies.

But … as I shake off the beach sand and get my head back into gear for a busy 2012 I am starting to think of the challenges that lie ahead in the coming years.

Both in South Africa and throughout Africa the successful future forecast by the Economist is not assured. A great deal of hard work needs to be done. Challenges include infrastructure, health, education, political and economic stability … and many more. Somewhere within each of these challenges is Information and Communication Technology (ICT) – the key factor that underpins modern economic and social life.

Africa’s ICT sector needs to rise to the challenge of supporting growth and development on our continent.

As I sit at my desk drawing up plans, strategies and to-do lists for the year ahead … (Gosh!  Its already February and I’m still planning! ) … I find myself feeling really excited. All of us – the Software Engineering and ICT community of Africa – have a wonderful opportunity to rise to the challenge to ensure that Africa keeps on Rising!

I think that I’m ready to make my contribution. Are you ready?

Barry Dwolatzky with the Taiwan Team

Imagine Cup 2011 has come to an end.  It was a truly incredible experience to be part of it. The award ceremony was held in the famous Koch Theatre at New York’s Lincoln Centre. Being in that theatre surrounded by the energy and enthusiasm flowing from 400 excited students was truly amazing.

I took the opportunity before the awards to view some of the projects and chat to several of the competitors. While the quality and sophistication of the entries varied widely, every single student I spoke to was filled with a deeply held belief that they could and would change the world. Maybe they will … or maybe they won’t – it’s not really important. What is important is that they all have vision and ambition! I guess that’s what Imagine Cup really achieved.

A bunch of young software developers from around the world learnt to see themselves as masters of their own future. Anyone who works as a teacher in a University – as I have for the past 22 years – will understand that this is why we do what we do.

I take my hat off to Microsoft for running this unique student competition. I’m sure that the benefits are hard to track in Dollars or Rands, but the effect that this event has on the hundreds of students who come to the finals – and the software industry they will soon be working in – are substantial.

So – back to the Awards. The Mayor of New York, Michael Bloomburg, and a host of other dignitaries were there. The music was loud, the atmosphere was electric. There are, in fact, 7 competitions in Imagine Cup.  These include Game Design, Embedded Systems and Interoperability. The “big one” however is Software Design.

From the 67 entries 6 finalists were selected – USA, China, New Zealand, Ireland, Jordan and Romania. Places 1,2 and 3 went to Ireland, USA and Jordan in that order.  The winning team from Ireland developed a system that is installed in the car of a young driver. It aims to encourage him/her to drive safely – thus reducing accidents. It monitors how the driver behaves and if he/she is reckless or dangerous the system reports this to the owner of the car (presumably the parent) via sms.

So – the winner is …. Who? Is it the team from Ireland? Is it Microsoft? Or is it the software industry as a whole? I vote for the latter!

My challenge now to my colleagues in SA Universities is this: let’s encourage our students to compete and let’s send the WINNING team to Imagine Cup 2012. It will be held in Sydney, Australia.  I hope I’m there.

SA Team at Imagine Cup 2011

Exactly a year ago today (July 11) the FIFA World Cup 2010 drew to a spectacular end in South Africa. I know that there is no comparison in size and content between that World Cup and “Imagine Cup 2011” … but I have had some déjà vu moments.

On Saturday night – after a day of expectation, jangling nerves, high energy and sudden anti-climax – all of the competing national teams gathered in the Ballroom at New York’s Marriott Marquis Hotel in Times Square. All through Saturday, working to a tight schedule, competitors presented their “solutions to problems that would change the world” to panels of judges. Like in a soccer match – the team had one chance to make an impression and score that winning goal. No second chances! And suddenly – after months of frantic preparation and building excitement – the presentation was done, and then all there was to do was wait for an announcement at 10pm on Saturday night.

As we sat in that Ballroom at 10pm – competitors, judges, organizers, journalists – the pent-up tension and expectation escaped as some teams danced, chanted, waved flags, sang songs and jumped up and down. It was now a contest of who could make the most noise and show the highest level of national spirit. The last time I witnessed something similar was before the opening FIFA World Cup match at Soccer City last year when Mexico’s fans faced us – the fans of Bafana Bafana – in a high-spirited and good-natured confrontation.

Other teams sat quietly and watched – maybe they were just exhausted, or maybe that’s what real computer geeks do?

Lisa Harper, Microsoft’s super-energetic organizer of Imagine Cup 2011, announced at 10pm that the results were still being collated and that there would be a delay. The noisy teams got louder and the quiet ones sank deeper into their seats.

At about 10:30pm the announcement was made of the 18 teams (from the original 67) that would progress into Round 2 of the “software design” competition. The names were called in a random order.

As a judge, entrusted with the task of being objective and non-partisan (like the referee in a soccer match), it wasn’t appropriate for me to sit with the South African team or align myself with them. We – the judges – had no opportunity to assist or favour our national team in any way. (The fairness of the judging process has really impressed me.) I nevertheless still found myself desperately hoping to hear “South Africa” read out as one of the 18 teams.

As the 18^th name was called I had to accept the disappointing fact that our team hadn’t made it through to the second round. I experienced the same feeling I had when South Africa was eliminated in the group stage of the World Cup. Oh well! “Everyone here is a winner. It’s not about winning, it’s about taking part. We’ll take the lessons learnt and do better next time.” While all of these are true – it still would have been wonderful to win!!

I didn’t see the SA team’s presentation, so I can’t say anything about how they performed and how close they were to going through. I did, however, see their project as one of the judges in the South African competition held in December 2010.  I thought it was a really great piece of work. The Team is from UCT and consists of Mohammed Irfaan Imamdin, Pieter Roodt, Junaid Parker and Richard Sadie. Their mentor is Prof Derek Smith. They developed an application that uses a “crowd sourcing” strategy to collect and collate geo-coded data as part of disaster management (flood, fires, earthquakes).

Yesterday (Sunday) the 18 were cut down to the final 6 after the second round of judging. The remaining teams that will compete for the fist prize are from China, USA, New Zealand, Ireland, Jordan and Romania. Visit (www.ImagineCup.com) to find out more about this really great student competition.

Steve Ballmer - CEO of Microsoft - opens Imagine Cup 2011 in NYC

For those of you who don’t know about it, the Microsoft Imagine Cup is a bit of a “geek show”. University students – working in small groups – develop software applications and then compete for prizes. Microsoft runs national competitions, the winners of which are entered into the World Finals.

Over the past few years I’ve been involved in Imagine Cup South Africa as a judge. The competition always attracts a good cross-section of socially awkward technology obsessive South African youth. Race, religion, social background, gender – none of this matters. They all share a common “geek-ness”. From the SA competition we have always carefully selected the best team of local geeks and sent them off to compete in the World Finals. And here I am at the World Finals!!!

Over the past year 350,000 computer geeks from 183 countries have competed to represent their species at the Imagine Cup World Finals-  the “Computer Nerds World Cup”. And here they are at the 40-storey New York Marriott Marquis Hotel in Times Square. 124 competing teams from 40 countries together with 80 judges and 140 journalists. They come from every corner of the world. Most have never flown in an airplane. Some have never stepped onto an escalator … and yet they share something in common … a love for software technology.

Last night Steve Ballmer, CEO of Microsoft, opened the event. It’s the first time I’ve seen him live. If an alien from outer space came to earth looking for a good specimen of a “1970’s computer nerd” to send back home to a zoo in their distant planet, Steve Ballmer would be a wonderful choice. He is everything his generation (my generation?) represented – and more! When he announced that every contestant would receive an XBOX Kinect to take home with them, a cheer went up that must have been heard on the moon. (Thinking about it… the cheer wasn’t instantaneous .. It took about a minute for Ballmer’s announcement to be understood in 40 different languages.) In any other audience most people in the room would have been sitting there saying “what’s an XBOX Kinect, and what will I do with it?” My only regret is that I’m a judge and not a contestant.

There were also speeches from Jeffrey Sachs, Professor of Economics from Columbia University and special advisor to the UN on poverty alleviation, and from Dennis Crowley, co-founder of FourSquare [I admit to having to ask someone what "FourSquare" is]. Jeffrey Sachs was there because: (1) he was at nursery school with Steve Ballmer, and (2) the theme of Imagine Cup 2011 is “Imagine a world where technology helps solve the world’s toughest problems”. The challenges of the UN’s Millenium Development Goals are a particular focus for contestants.

Everywhere you look in the hotel there are groups of students dressed in their team t-shirts sitting around fiddling with devices – laptops, tablets, smart phones, fancy cameras, i-pods, etc. I can’t understand many of the conversations but I’m prepared to bet that its about the latest app, download or gadget.

Today I will be working hard. I’m a judge in the Software Design section. I will be listening to and marking presentations by the teams from Mexico, Taiwan, New Zealand, Australia and Greece. By the end of today the top 18 groups will go through to round 2, which we will judge tomorrow. The final is on Tuesday and the winners will be announced at a gala event at the Lincoln Centre.

I’m in Geek Heaven!

In my role as Director of the JCSE at Wits University I have, over recent years, been interacting with a large number of South Africans who earn their living as software developers. In some of these interactions I’ve had the opportunity to formally assess their skills and abilities. I’ve been shocked to find that some – a small but significant minority – of our “professional software developers” find it difficult to write working programs – even simple ones. Some of these developers have degrees and diplomas in IT-related disciplines from local Universities and Universities of Technology. 

As an academic responsible for educating software developers, and as a person deeply concerned about the successful future of the South African software sector, this situation has troubled me deeply.

What is a “software developer”?

Before I go any further, let’s be sure that we’re on the same page with respect to terminology. I understand the term “software developer” to refer to the individual at the sharp end of the software industry entrusted with the task of putting hands to keyboard to write software.  In the past we called these people “computer programmers” – (I’m not sure when and why they were rebranded as “developers”).

We can debate in some detail the set of generic and specific skills that a “software developer” should have (I will come back to this later). There is however one absolutely critical ability that (in my mind) is never negotiable. A software developer must be able to write a program!  In other words he or she must be able to convert a specification or requirement into a set of instructions in a “programming language” (of some sort) which can then be run successfully on a “computing device” (of some sort).

Although this may seem obvious, let me expand on this last sentence.

Suppose, as a very simple example, that the “programming language” is C++ and the “computing device” is a PC. The specification might say “Read a set of numbers from a text file. Add them up and write the total to another text file.” Anyone who calls him/herself a “C++ software developer” must – in the very least – be capable of translating the specification to (something like) the following:

The C++ developer must also be able to get this program to run successfully on the target computing device. This will require compiling, loading, testing and (possibly) debugging the above program.

 In modern software development, there are many different languages, environments and devices.  Developers need many specialized skills and abilities. However, any developer, must be able – in the very least –  to do something conceptually equivalent to the task described above.  The target language may be very different from C++. The target device may look very different from a PC. The specification may look very different – it will undoubtedly be much more complex. But every software developer needs to be able to successfully translate a specification into a “program” that can run on a “computer”.  I’m sure that no one will dispute this.

 Other generic and specific skills

Given that a “software developer” can write a working program, what other skills should they have? This is a topic that I’m sure we could debate for a long time. My suggestion would look something like this:

Generic skills and abilities

• Detailed design: Any software developer should be able to develop a number of alternative detailed designs that would satisfy a given requirement. He or she should then be able to examine these alternatives and select the one that best meets the requirement.  In many cases the requirement may correspond to a small piece of functionality and the design options may be relatively simple.
• Unit testing: The developer should be able to test the program that (s)he has developed. Test cases may be given as part of the requirement. They may also have to be devised by the developer. In either case the developer will need to run the tests in a systematic way and record the results.
• Documentation: The software developer is responsible for low level documentation. In many cases these are added to the code being written in the form of comments.
• Estimation: If asked the question “How long will it take you to write a program to do X?” can the developer provide an estimate? (S)he should be able to do so with some degree of accuracy. Furthermore, what is this estimate based on? Is it an “educated guess”, or is it based on data collected by the developer from previous tasks?

Specific skills and abilities

• Different software developers need a vast array of specific skills relevant to their specific technical environment. They also need to have some understanding of the domain (eg. financial services, health care, etc.) in which they are working. Many of these skills are acquired “on the job”. They are not taught at universities and colleges.

The problem we face

As I said in my introductory comments I have a concern that some of our local “professional software developers” do not have the “entry level” generic skill of being able to write a program. If this is true then none of the other generic and specific skills really matter.

My concern, however, is based purely on a perception gained in interaction with a number of developers over recent years – it is not based on any research I’ve done.  I may be wrong!

My question to you – the readers of this blog is: Do you share my perception? Can all professional South African software developers write a program? If (in your experience) they can’t, what should we be doing about this? Is it a problem? Am I wrong to assume that “software developers” need to know how to program? 

I would welcome any comments on this issue.

The story so far…. In a previous blog posting I outlined a strategy based on the “Franchisor/ Franchisee” model for setting up software development units capable of delivering extremely high quality software in a very predictable way. I made a commitment that over a 3 year period I would set up 40 such units, each employing 25 people. In this way we could create 1,000 new software development jobs. I will call these new software development units “High-Maturity Units” or “Hi-Mat Units”.

I ended with two questions: Where will all the skilled people come from to staff these units, and where will all the software projects come from to keep them busy?

Finding the skilled people

We have all heard about (and some of us have experienced) the “skills crisis” in the South African IT sector. Both large and small companies struggle to find suitably skilled and experienced people, and – when they do – find that they have to pay top salaries to attract and retain staff. At the same time we have the paradoxical situation of large numbers (hundreds of thousands) of unemployed graduates. Some of these graduates even have degrees in computer science, information systems and other IT-related disciplines. 

I believe that the root cause of this paradox is that we as South Africans have not been at all successful at matching people to jobs. There is frequently a mismatch between aptitude and interest on one hand and education and training on the other. We have the situation where a person chooses to study computer science (for example) when he or she is not well-suited to working in the IT sector. We also have people with a degree in (say) psychology who land up working in software development.

Part of the solution to the “skills crisis” is therefore aptitude testing and career counselling. In other word putting “round pegs in round holes”. In finding people to staff the “Hi-Mat Units” our focus will be on identifying people with the right aptitude and a high level of enthusiasm. While experience and formal qualifications are important, aptitude and ability will be the determining factors.

 Each “Hi-Mat Unit” will employ 25 people. A quarter of these (about 5 or 6) will be experienced in software development. The remainder will be recent graduates or unemployed graduates. After passing and aptitude test all recruits into the “Hi-Mat Unit” will be trained extensively. The focus of the training, which might require several months to complete, will be to teach the recruits to use the processes and tools specified in the “operations manual” for the Hi-Mat Unit. It’s like sending people employed to operate a McDonald’s franchise on intensive training before they are allowed to work in the store. Many of the successful Indian IT companies send new recruits to a training campus to learn how to work within the company’s environment. Intensive technical training will also be given to “Hi-Mat Unit” recruits.

Each “Hi-Mat Unit” will have a formal relationship with a local University and/or University of Technology. This will also assist in recruiting staff into the units.

Keeping the “Hi-Mat Units” busy

 Each “Hi-Mat Unit” should be capable of doing about R10 million worth of development work per year. Where will all of this work come from?

 In the first few years work will come from Government, NGO’s and parastatals. Some of the projects might have to be subsidised. Since the “Hi-Mat Units” will be unknown entities with no track-record, giving work to them may be seen to be relatively risky.  In time, however – on the assumption that the work done by the units will be of exceptionally high quality – they will win contracts to develop software on merit. They should also be well-placed to compete for work internationally.

 Next steps

 At this moment I have a proposal “in the pipeline” with Government to get seed-funding to set up the first 4 “Hi-Mat Units”.  These will be used to flesh-out the concept and as “proof-of-concept” pilots. Moving forward the “Hi-Mat Units” will be rolled out using profits and skilled people from each Unit to seed others.

If you have any questions or thoughts about this concept, please comment.

What does a “Big Mac with French Fries” have in common with software jobs in South Africa? At first glance …. not much, but I plan to change that! 

Bear with me while I explain this important relationship: When I left SA to live in London in the 1980’s I came to know the McDonald’s Big Mac Hamburger really well. As a poor post-doctoral researcher at Imperial College I realised that I could buy a meal of known quality, taste and nutritional value (or lack thereof) at a very modest price if I sought out the local McDonald’s. More than that – wherever I travelled around the world I could get the same hamburger at almost the same price. When I returned to SA in the early 1990’s I found that the Big Mac had also returned from exile. I could buy that same familiar burger at a McDonald’s “family restaurant” in Sandton, Sea Point and Port Elizabeth. 

 Okay – you’re still no closer to seeing the connection between burgers and software development! Let us reflect, however, on McDonald’s secret to success. How does it achieve such excellent consistency and predictability? What is McDonald’s business model? The famous hamburger chain, like many other international fast-food brands, is a franchise. As the “franchisor” McDonald’s has done the following:

•  It created the brand and the “brand promise”. McDonald’s continues to spend a huge amount on advertising to ensure that almost everyone on the globe understands what their brand offers consumers;
• It developed an “operations manual” to support its brand promise. Anyone setting up a McDonald’s restaurant will find procedures, processes and recipes in the operations manual covering everything from what colour to paint the walls to how to clean a fryer to how to set out the weekly financial reports;
• It provides standard training that helps “franchisees” (those who operate a restaurant) train their staff to work according to the “operations manual”. In many parts of the world one will find McDonald’s training centres called “hamburger universities”;
• It quality assures its franchisees. In this way it ensures that each McDonald’s outlet follows the methods as prescribed in the operations manual and achieves the “brand promise”.

 And what about the franchisees? What’s in it for them? By buying a McDonald’s franchise they are NOT setting up their own business in the true sense of the word. They are buying the right to operate a restaurant within the narrow constraints defined within McDonald’s operations manual. Why should they do this? Simply because they have a significantly higher chance of success. Research has shown that running a franchise gives the franchisee between 2 and 12 times better chance of success than running a similar business on his own.

 The other key element is that the franchisee sets up the business from scratch. One doesn’t take a “mom-and-pop” corner hamburger joint and attempt to convert it into a McDonald’s. You would shut the old store, tear down the building, rebuild and re-equip it as prescribed in the operations manual, recruit and train new staff and then run it as a McDonald’s.

Now … let us imagine a world …. where software development follows the same business model as a fast-food franchise. (I can hear a chorus of raised voices telling me that developing software is not even vaguely similar to making hamburgers!  Again, please bear with me.)

 We start by defining a brand. My “brand promise” says that “Barry’s Software House” is able to produce and deliver software applications to order (i.e. bespoke development). I promise that each project I undertake will be delivered:

• within 10% of the scheduled date;
• within 5% of allocated budget;
• having less than 0.5 defects per 1,000 lines of code (KLOC) in delivered software.

This promise is impressive because international industry benchmarks, and current best practice in the South African software sector, shows that software projects are delivered:

• 27% to 112% late;
• 17% to 85% over budget, and
• Having 2 to 7 defects per KLOC.

 In other words “Barry’s Software House” promises to be significantly better than any other software developer in South Africa and on a par with the best in the world. Furthermore my promise is not simply a promise. I will collect data from every project to show that I’m meeting my performance targets.

How will my software house achieve these performance targets? I will develop an operations manual based on known and proven industry best practice. I will draw heavily on the work of the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) in the USA. My processes will be based on CMMI. My methods will be based on the Team Software Process (TSP), Personal Software Process (PSP) and various agile practices. I will seek out and integrate best of breed tools to support my operations. Everything set out in my operations manual will be designed to ensure that my targets are met in a quantifiable, data-driven, repeatable and predictable manner.

Together with my operations manual will be training. This will include both existing courses (such as those offered by the SEI) and new curricula that I will develop. Individuals completing the training will receive various levels of certification.

 In setting up “Barry’s Software House” I will use the franchise model. My own organisation will be the franchisor, defining and advertising the brand promise, creating the operations manual and developing and certifying training curricula. My organisation will also quality assure and certify franchisees.

These franchisees will be any individual or organisation that wants to acquire the “Barry’s Software House” franchise. The prerequisite is that they will set up the software development operation from scratch, will follow my operations manual exactly, recruit and train staff as I require, and undergo quality assurance activities.

Since these franchise operations are being established from scratch I will be able to count the number of new jobs created. My intention is that each franchise will employ about 25 people. In this way, by establishing 40 such operations over a 3 year period, I will have created 1,000 new jobs.

 But … where will all these skilled people come from, and where will all the software projects come from to keep them busy.

As they say in the best TV sitcoms – my story is “to be continued” in the next blog that I post.

 In the meantime, any comments – either supportive or howls of derision – will be welcome.

JOBS!  No … not merely jobs … DECENT JOBS. This is the topic on everyone’s lips as we rush headlong into 2011. Last Monday (31^st January) South Africa’s Communication Workers’ Union (CWU) entered the fray and gave the jobs debate an ICT angle. 

Speaking at the CWU’s national congress the union’s deputy president, Karthi Pillay, suggested that “advancement of technology in the ICT sector has cost thousands of jobs over the past few years.” He cited Telkom as an example where new telecomms technology was partly to blame for a reduction in the workforce from 69,000 to 23,000.

 While it is true that the rapid evolution in ICT technology does indeed lead to the loss of “old” jobs, they are invariably replaced with “new” jobs. Karthi Pillay is clearly aware of this … in his speech he insisted that “those who have been retrenched have to be retrained and opportunities  …  created for them.”

 The national theme for 2011 as the “year of job creation” was set early in January when President Zuma delivered the ANC’s annual policy statement.  He promised to create 5 million jobs over the next 10 years.  This undertaking led to a debate in the press and elsewhere around the difference between “jobs” and “decent jobs”.  The concept of a “decent job” has, in fact, been defined by the International Labour Organisation (ILO).  According to the ILO

“Decent Work involves:

• opportunities for work that is productive and delivers a fair income,
• security in the workplace and social protection for families,
• better prospects for personal development and social integration,
• freedom for people to express their concerns, organize and participate in the decisions that affect their lives and
• equality of opportunity and treatment for all women and men.”

I believe that in the 21^st Century the ICT sector provides the finest examples of “Decent Work”. I also believe that ICT has the potential to create large numbers of “Decent Jobs” – notwithstanding the CWU’s fear that advances in technology leads to the loss of jobs.

I’m particularly passionate about one important sub-sector of ICT, namely software development. Creating thousands of software development jobs in South Africa and other parts of Africa over the next few years would certainly make a meaningful contribution to the ILO’s Decent Work Agenda. It would also represent a significant element of President Zuma’s job creation promise.

As I settle down to work in 2011 the issue of job creation is on top of my “to-do” list. Late last year I developed an – admittedly ambitious – strategy to create 1,000 new software development jobs over the next three years. I’m now getting ready to implement it.

Watch this blog for updates as the plans unfold and contribute by submitting your comments.