Re: [AM] Do tools sell?

Jason Gorman wrote:

> Folks
>  
> I've been mulling over this issue of why it's difficult to sell agile 
> development to senior IT managers, and one possible reason might be that 
> it's much easier to sell tools than practices. XML and web services have 
> spread like wildfire. There are easily many more UML modeling tools out 
> there than people who know OOA/D. The demand for .NET has been almost 
> instantaneous. xUnit is an order of magnititude bigger than TDD. And so 
> on. It seems to me that tools and technology are much more quickly 
> adopted than practices and processes. It seems that managers like their 
> solutions to come in boxes with manuals. If it requires THEM to change 
> the way they work, then it doesn't seem to appeal as much.
>  
> Is it possible that MDA will outperform Agile because it's about tools? 
> Certainly, whenever I'm asked about my modeling skills, the words 
> "Rational" or "TogetherSoft" aren't far behind. On several occasions I 
> think it';s counted against me that I woiuld prefer to work on the 
> whiteboard 95% of the time - because I'm saying "we don't need 
> $5,000-worth of kit to be model-driven" - which not only developers, but 
> managers don't seem to want to hear.
>  
> How does other people's experience compare with mine? Is it easier to 
> say "let's get Rational" than "let's do a little design and then build 
> the thing"?

Yes, and I have seen one simple reason why: it's easier to do /something 
useful/ with tools than it is to do something useful with a paradigm 
shift or a culture change.

We see this in professional sports, especially in the 1980s and early 
1990s: a team acquires an expensive player who underperforms. The team's 
manager knows that he ought not use that player, because his poor 
performance hurts the team. The /general/ manager -- who spends the 
team's money on players -- puts pressure on the /field/ manager -- who 
decides who plays, and when -- to use the player, because "I'm not 
letting a $6M investment sit on the bench!"

Now just using the player is simple enough: let him play. Sure, the team 
suffers; and sure, the press and the fans get upset, but it's easy just 
to say to the guy "get in there and play." If he stinks, then he stinks. 
It's an easy way to get /something/ of value out of the player, even if 
other players would perform better.

I have seen managers say, "We're spending $xxx per seat on Rose. At 
least let's document our designs with UML diagrams prepared in Rose!" 
Even if the team doesn't use Rose for all it's supposed to do, at least 
the manager can show /her/ manager where the team's using Rose.

When looking at a radically different approach like Agile, it's not easy 
to say, "Sure, we're doing Agile." It's not as easy to fool upper 
management into thinking that their investment brings with it a positive 
return.

I don't claim that this is /the/ reason, but it is /a/ reason.
-- 
J. B. Rainsberger,
Diaspar Software Services
http://www.diasparsoftware.com :: +1 416 791-8603
Let's write software that people understand

For more information about AM, visit the Agile Modeling Home Page at www.agilemodeling.com
--^----------------------------------------------------------------
This email was sent to: [email protected]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?bUrKDA.bWnbtk.Z2NtYS1h
Or send an email to: [email protected]

TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
--^----------------------------------------------------------------