Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting an Application Lifecycle Management and Devops Solution, 2019–20

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting an Application Lifecycle Management and Devops Solution, 2019–20 Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting an Application Lifecycle Management and DevOps Solution, 2019–20 Publication Date: 27 Jun 2019 | Product code: INT003-000374 Michael Azoff Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting an Application Lifecycle Management and DevOps Solution, 2019–20 Summary Catalyst Software lifecycle management (SLM) is the management of software development by taking a lifecycle approach from concept through the management of requirements, testing, coding, deployment, upgrades, maintenance, and final retirement. The market provides tools to support this lifecycle in the form of application lifecycle management (ALM) tools and, with the rise of DevOps, tools that provide DevOps-style release management, orchestration, and automation. This Ovum Decision Matrix (ODM) examines ALM tools that cross over into DevOps to support the full arc of the lifecycle from application/product concept to deployment into production. Ovum view ALM origins and trends The need for taking an SLM approach is best thought of as good practice in the relatively young art of software development. The ALM tools market has evolved to support SLM through the years; at its core is the development methodology or work process, and this has evolved over time, starting with waterfall or linear stage-gate processes and incorporating various innovations such as Tom Gilb's evolutionary delivery, Barry Boehm's spiral model, and Rational's unified process, before Agile and lean swept the board with examples such as Scrum, extreme programming, and Kanban boards post- 2001 (when the Agile Manifesto was created). The integrated ALM suite tools market really took off around 2003 but supported waterfall because Agile was still under the radar. By 2010, Agile became mainstream and ALM tools were revolutionized by it, so next-generation ALM tools had to support hybrid processes (because enterprises were spread across the spectrum of adoption) or go all in for Agile (a subsector of the ALM tools market and several vendors in this category avoided the term ALM). Just as Agile hit the mainstream around 2009–10, DevOps was born, and it gained mainstream status by 2016, much faster than Agile. DevOps had less impact on ALM than Agile, because DevOps tooling formed a separate tools market from ALM, being focused on creating continuous delivery (CD) pipelines and, at the top end of the tools market, managing them for large-scale enterprise use. Bridging ALM and DevOps A key question addressed in this report is whether ALM should extend into DevOps, and the answer, as always, depends on customer needs. First, we are talking about management tools – tools used by project/product managers and team leaders. These tools integrate with core developer tools, which in recent years have become dominated by open source software (OSS) tools and which tend to go through relatively fast cycles of fashionable adoption as styles of programming change. But the management tools need to be more stable and long lasting, because they carry significant assets for the business; for example, product requirements in engineering manufacturing are mission-critical assets. Second, highly regulated industries need to comply with deep traceability requirements, and it is only by connecting traditional ALM with DevOps release management tools that the traceability can be performed seamlessly and rapidly at command to support auditing and a host of compliance activity: © Ovum. All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. Page 2 Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting an Application Lifecycle Management and DevOps Solution, 2019–20 automating deep traceability makes it an every-workday benefit rather than an exercise performed mainly for auditing because of the manual labor involved. The modern computing environment is rapidly being transformed beyond DevOps with cloud-native computing (microservices in containers, managed by Kubernetes, as well as use of serverless computing), but DevOps CD pipelines underpin cloud-native computing. Agile and DevOps development are therefore an essential foundation for doing cloud-native computing. Managing software development will become fragmented if the management tools become fragmented, so Ovum believes there is a strong case for ALM to bridge into DevOps release management, whether as one integrated suite or through out-of-the-box integrations with best-of- breed DevOps management tools. And there is an advantage in the former for the customer in only needing one management tool for the whole span of the development lifecycle. Figure 1: ALM and DevOps technology stack Source: Ovum Figure 1 shows the technology stack covered by ALM and DevOps. The bottom four layers are practitioner tools in which OSS has a large presence. The layers above are mostly focused on management, and there is a demarcation between ALM practiced in advanced engineering manufacturing (i.e., with large software content) and in enterprise IT: Ovum uses the terminology ALM and Agile project management to separate these segments in the figure but uses the name ALM in its broadest sense across both engineering and enterprise IT in this report. © Ovum. All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. Page 3 Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting an Application Lifecycle Management and DevOps Solution, 2019–20 DevOps spans everything from development to operations, but the DevOps tools market is mainly focused on release management, orchestration, and automation, relying on other tools for everything else, often OSS for continuous integration/continuous delivery. Market size and forecasts Ovum has a separate research product on sizing of the ALM market and forecasts. In summary, the market has slowed down its rate of growth despite software activity increasing globally. Ovum believes increasing adoption of OSS tools and low-cost pricing models by the leading players has dampened the ALM market size. The actual shrinkage over the last two years has had an impact on ALM vendors, leading to acquisitions and mergers, the largest one being the divestment of HPE's ALM software into a joint venture with Micro Focus. Micro Focus has emerged as an important ALM player, having acquired the assets of several prominent ALM vendors of past decades. There is also evidence that segmenting the ALM market between engineering manufacturing and enterprise IT reveals growth in the former as digital transformation impacts advanced products with more software content and the need for managing its process. Future of ALM While styles of programming in software development continue to evolve (the latest paradigm is cloud-native computing), the management tools need to remain more stable and long lasting. However, it is software development processes undergoing significant change that has the largest impact on ALM tools. The current wave of activity in artificial intelligence (AI) will have an increasing impact on how software is developed and managed in production and on the use of AI within software applications. A benefit of integrating ALM and DevOps is raising new data that can be mined with machine learning (ML) tools. We are already seeing several vendors exploring the use of ML in ALM/DevOps and combining the data across the tool lifecycle to provide insights into software quality and team velocity. Several DevOps vendors have introduced value-stream management/mapping (VLM), a lean methodology practice. With greater automation and use of DevOps pipelines, it becomes feasible to measure team velocity, identify bottlenecks, and generally track time delays in the delivery process. A combined ALM and DevOps solution with ML mining VLM data is likely to prove fruitful. The use of AI in operations has led to the burgeoning of AIOps tools; these tools increase DevOps automation through AI principally in the operations segment. Application performance management (APM) tools are another category of essential tools in software engineering; historically they have focused on development or operations but the best today span the DevOps arc, including end user monitoring. APM is beginning to be impacted by AI. AIOps and APM lie outside the scope of this report and deserve separate ODMs. With the rollout of 5G, there will be increasing use of Internet of Things (IoT) and edge applications. We are witnessing the growth of an edge technology stack around containerization, and this will increase the role of DevOps in the advanced engineering and manufacturing space, giving greater momentum for ALM vendors to address the needs of DevOps teams. Finally, there is the increasing use of ML in software applications. Where do you draw the line between an ML application and a "traditional" software application that has ML content? We will see all grades between a "pure" ML application (however you wish to define that) and a software application with no ML content. The point is that the ML lifecycle has parallels with ALM but has © Ovum. All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. Page 4 Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting an Application Lifecycle Management and DevOps Solution, 2019–20 additional needs. This will lead to a collision between tools that cater for the ML lifecycle and traditional ALM (even our advanced ALM and DevOps). The second point to be made is that ML applications need all the capability of traditional ALM plus ML/data science-specific lifecycle management needs. This will become a hot area in the tooling market. Market overview The makeup of the market since Ovum's last ODM on ALM in 2016–17 has evolved; the following vendors have had notable changes: . Atlassian had an IPO in 2015 and has continued to almost double its revenue year on year since then: its 2018 annual report quotes $874m. This makes it the largest player by revenue in the ALM market. Its operating model is disruptive, dispensing with a sales team (except for the largest accounts), with an attractive pricing model and the sticky nature of its collaboration/issue tracking solution JIRA, which has been pivotal in its success. The company does not use the term ALM. Atlassian declined to participate in this report.
Recommended publications
  • Defect Tracking System Project Documentation
    Defect Tracking System Project Documentation Tottering Barr azotise some Faust and gyps his surplices so sweetly! Northrup remains impellent after Sigfried havers nominally or fluorescing any good-byes. Remus orientalize thunderously? So much like automation and project defect tracking documentation but not win any kind of the organization tries to track the list by the beginning development team and let an. The amount of tracking system project defect tracking system! All comments are moderated before publication and desire meet our guidelines. Testing is a lousy part of mature software life cycle, and recent trends in software engineering evidence the importance all this activity all survey the development process. Diving deeper into program language theory is a great way data grow outside a developer. Your comment has been received. Bug reporting by the Web and email. Her homeland of interests are Wireless Networks and Database Management Systems. As projects grow in size and complexity, the limits of an Excel story for tracking issues begin to show which quickly. Thank who for using our services. Ten reports engine is a few lines of system project defect tracking documentation appears every single pane contains the. Defect tracking is responsible system authority is applied for any system software so run system performs well. User interface and learning curve the system user interfaces are more user friendly than others. Switch to fullscreen mode always show business bug attributes at once. Some custom structure for large body usually, evaluating and tracking system project defect documentation related documents, planning with your development organization efficiently and eliminate bad.
    [Show full text]
  • Application Lifecycle Management Tools Open Source
    Application Lifecycle Management Tools Open Source Posh and tropistic Christofer congees almost despondingly, though Sam humiliating his breastworks recoins. Jorge usually assassinates astringently or disrupt crustily when interterritorial Marko voids streakily and convivially. Irresponsible Vijay unround broadly. With the software changes into three core business reason for anyone using powerful lifecycle tools across public activity management The package includes OSS project management tool Redmine and version. This year open source ALM tuleap httpwwwenaleancomentuleap is altogether good start. ALM tools automate the software development and deployment processes help. Micro Focus Application Lifecycle Management ALM software and solutions. Virtual flavor of the product with its embedded and application software before. Greg Lindhorst Principal Program Manager Thursday January 14 2021. The more List and Open-source Tools View ahead complete list ANT Anypoint Platform. Application Lifecycle Management Tools ALM is the continuous process of. Top 10 Application Lifecycle Management Tools For end Year. A degree to two the limitations of save open-source circuit otherwise inadequate tool. Best Free Application Lifecycle Management Software 2021. Each document type main source code is managed with SubversionSVN with. It is free of tools are the advent of the use after year after going through it connects people meet business outcomes as and open application source tools? Application Lifecycle Management SoftLanding. Top Application Lifecycle Management ALM Toolsets InfoQ. They also have original single proponent of truth providing any relevant. Then view the software projects, open application lifecycle management tools on open source option, and hybrid it can create and. Software lifecycle management SLM is the discipline for managing.
    [Show full text]
  • The Timeboxing Process Model for Iterative Software Development
    The Timeboxing Process Model for Iterative Software Development Pankaj Jalote Department of Computer Science and Engineering Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur – 208016; India Aveejeet Palit, Priya Kurien Infosys Technologies Limited Electronics City Bangalore – 561 229; India Contact: [email protected] ABSTRACT In today’s business where speed is of essence, an iterative development approach that allows the functionality to be delivered in parts has become a necessity and an effective way to manage risks. In an iterative process, the development of a software system is done in increments, each increment forming of an iteration and resulting in a working system. A common iterative approach is to decide what should be developed in an iteration and then plan the iteration accordingly. A somewhat different iterative is approach is to time box different iterations. In this approach, the length of an iteration is fixed and what should be developed in an iteration is adjusted to fit the time box. Generally, the time boxed iterations are executed in sequence, with some overlap where feasible. In this paper we propose the timeboxing process model that takes the concept of time boxed iterations further by adding pipelining concepts to it for permitting overlapped execution of different iterations. In the timeboxing process model, each time boxed iteration is divided into equal length stages, each stage having a defined function and resulting in a clear work product that is handed over to the next stage. With this division into stages, pipelining concepts are employed to have multiple time boxes executing concurrently, leading to a reduction in the delivery time for product releases.
    [Show full text]
  • Project Management Software March 2019
    PROJECT MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE MARCH 2019 Powered by Methodology CONTENTS 3 Introduction 5 Defining Project Management Software 6 FrontRunners (Small Vendors) 8 FrontRunners (Enterprise Vendors) 10 Runners Up 22 Methodology Basics 2 INTRODUCTION his FrontRunners analysis minimum qualifying score of 3.96 Tis a data-driven assessment for Usability and 3.91 for User identifying products in the Project Recommended, while the Small Management software market that Vendor graphic had a minimum offer the best capability and value qualifying score of 4.55 for Usability for small businesses. For a given and 4.38 for User Recommended. market, products are evaluated and given a score for Usability (x-axis) To be considered for the Project and User Recommended (y-axis). Management FrontRunners, a FrontRunners then plots 10-15 product needed a minimum of 20 products each on a Small Vendor user reviews published within 18 and an Enterprise Vendor graphic, months of the evaluation period. based on vendor business size, per Products needed a minimum user category. rating score of 3.0 for both Usability and User Recommended in both In the Project Management the Small and Enterprise graphics. FrontRunners infographic, the Enterprise Vendor graphic had a 3 INTRODUCTION The minimum score cutoff to be included in the FrontRunners graphic varies by category, depending on the range of scores in each category. No product with a score less than 3.0 in either dimension is included in any FrontRunners graphic. For products included, the Usability and User Recommended scores determine their positions on the FrontRunners graphic. 4 DEFINING PROJECT MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE roject management software and document management, as well Phelps organizations manage as at least one of the following: time and deliver projects on time, on tracking, budgeting, and resource budget and within scope.
    [Show full text]
  • Best Practice of SOA
    JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 2, ISSUE 2, FEBRUARY 2010, ISSN: 2151-9617 38 HTTPS://SITES.GOOGLE.COM/SITE/JOURNALOFCOMPUTING/ Improvement in RUP Project Management via Service Monitoring: Best Practice of SOA Sheikh Muhammad Saqib1, Shakeel Ahmad1, Shahid Hussain 2, Bashir Ahmad 1 and Arjamand Bano3 1Institute of Computing and Information Technology Gomal University, D.I.Khan, Pakistan 2 Namal University, Mianwali , Pakistan 3 Mathematics Department Gomal University, D.I.Khan, Pakistan Abstract-- Management of project planning, monitoring, scheduling, estimation and risk management are critical issues faced by a project manager during development life cycle of software. In RUP, project management is considered as core discipline whose activities are carried in all phases during development of software products. On other side service monitoring is considered as best practice of SOA which leads to availability, auditing, debugging and tracing process. In this paper, authors define a strategy to incorporate the service monitoring of SOA into RUP to improve the artifacts of project management activities. Moreover, the authors define the rules to implement the features of service monitoring, which help the project manager to carry on activities in well define manner. Proposed frame work is implemented on RB (Resuming Bank) application and obtained improved results on PM (Project Management) work. Index Terms—RUP, SOA, Service Monitoring, Availability, auditing, tracing, Project Management NTRODUCTION 1. I 2. RATIONAL UNIFIED PROCESS (RUP) Software projects which are developed through RUP RUP is a software engineering process model, which provides process model are solution oriented and object a disciplined approach to assigning tasks and responsibilities oriented. It provides a disciplined approach to within a development environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Agile Playbook V2.1—What’S New?
    AGILE P L AY B O OK TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................4 Who should use this playbook? ................................................................................6 How should you use this playbook? .........................................................................6 Agile Playbook v2.1—What’s new? ...........................................................................6 How and where can you contribute to this playbook?.............................................7 MEET YOUR GUIDES ...................................................................................................8 AN AGILE DELIVERY MODEL ....................................................................................10 GETTING STARTED.....................................................................................................12 THE PLAYS ...................................................................................................................14 Delivery ......................................................................................................................15 Play: Start with Scrum ...........................................................................................15 Play: Seeing success but need more fexibility? Move on to Scrumban ............17 Play: If you are ready to kick of the training wheels, try Kanban .......................18 Value ......................................................................................................................19
    [Show full text]
  • Descriptive Approach to Software Development Life Cycle Models
    7797 Shaveta Gupta et al./ Elixir Comp. Sci. & Engg. 45 (2012) 7797-7800 Available online at www.elixirpublishers.com (Elixir International Journal) Computer Science and Engineering Elixir Comp. Sci. & Engg. 45 (2012) 7797-7800 Descriptive approach to software development life cycle models Shaveta Gupta and Sanjana Taya Department of Computer Science and Applications, Seth Jai Parkash Mukand Lal Institute of Engineering & Technology, Radaur, Distt. Yamunanagar (135001), Haryana, India. ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Article history: The concept of system lifecycle models came into existence that emphasized on the need to Received: 24 January 2012; follow some structured approach towards building new or improved system. Many models Received in revised form: were suggested like waterfall, prototype, rapid application development, V-shaped, top & 17 March 2012; Bottom model etc. In this paper, we approach towards the traditional as well as recent Accepted: 6 April 2012; software development life cycle models. © 2012 Elixir All rights reserved. Keywords Software Development Life Cycle, Phases and Software Development, Life Cycle Models, Traditional Models, Recent Models. Introduction Software Development Life Cycle Models The Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC) is the entire Software Development Life Cycle Model is an abstract process of formal, logical steps taken to develop a software representation of a development process. SDLC models can be product. Within the broader context of Application Lifecycle categorized as: Management (ALM), the SDLC
    [Show full text]
  • Multi Objective Analysis for Timeboxing Models of Software Development
    MULTI OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS FOR TIMEBOXING MODELS OF SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT Vassilis C. Gerogiannis and Pandelis G. Ipsilandis Department of Project Management, Technological Education Institute of Larissa, Larissa, Greece Keywords: Software Project Management, Iterative Development, Timeboxing, Project Scheduling, Linear Programming, Multi-Objective Optimization. Abstract: In iterative/incremental software development, software deliverables are built in iterations - each iteration providing parts of the required software functionality. To better manage and monitor resources, plan and deliverables, iterations are usually performed during specific time periods, so called “time boxes”. Each time box is further divided into a sequence of stages and a dedicated development team is assigned to each stage. Iterations can be performed in parallel to reduce the project completion time by exploiting a “pipelining” concept, that is, when a team completes the tasks of a stage, it hands over the intermediate deliverables to the team executing the next stage and then starts executing the same stage in the next iteration. In this paper, we address the problem of optimizing the schedule of a software project that follows an iterative, timeboxing process model. A multi objective linear programming technique is introduced to consider multiple parameters, such as the project duration, the work discontinuities of development teams in successive iterations and the release (delivery) time of software deliverables. The proposed model can be used to generate alternative project plans based on the relative importance of these parameters. 1 INTRODUCTION team of experts is usually assigned to each stage, i.e., a team for a stage performs only the activities In iterative and incremental development, software for that stage.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparison Between Five Models of Software Engineering
    IJCSI International Journal of Computer Science Issues, Vol. 7, Issue 5, September 2010 94 ISSN (Online): 1694-0814 www.IJCSI.org A Comparison Between Five Models Of Software Engineering Nabil Mohammed Ali Munassar1 and A. Govardhan2 1Ph.D Student of Computer Science & Engineering Jawahrlal Nehru Technological University Kuktapally, Hyderabad- 500 085, Andhra Pradesh, India 2Professor of Computer Science & Engineering Principal JNTUH of Engineering College, Jagityal, Karimnagar (Dt), A.P., India Abstract increased recently which results in the difficulty of This research deals with a vital and important issue in computer enumerating such companies. During the previous four world. It is concerned with the software management processes decades, software has been developed from a tool used for that examine the area of software development through the analyzing information or solving a problem to a product in development models, which are known as software development itself. However, the early programming stages have life cycle. It represents five of the development models namely, created a number of problems turning software an waterfall, Iteration, V-shaped, spiral and Extreme programming. These models have advantages and disadvantages as well. obstacle to software development particularly those Therefore, the main objective of this research is to represent relying on computers. Software consists of documents and different models of software development and make a programs that contain a collection that has been comparison between them to show the features and defects of established to be a part of software engineering each model. procedures. Moreover, the aim of software engineering is Keywords: Software Management Processes, Software to create a suitable work that construct programs of high Development, Development Models, Software Development Life quality.
    [Show full text]
  • Software Development a Practical Approach!
    Software Development A Practical Approach! Hans-Petter Halvorsen https://www.halvorsen.blog https://halvorsen.blog Software Development A Practical Approach! Hans-Petter Halvorsen Software Development A Practical Approach! Hans-Petter Halvorsen Copyright © 2020 ISBN: 978-82-691106-0-9 Publisher Identifier: 978-82-691106 https://halvorsen.blog ii Preface The main goal with this document: • To give you an overview of what software engineering is • To take you beyond programming to engineering software What is Software Development? It is a complex process to develop modern and professional software today. This document tries to give a brief overview of Software Development. This document tries to focus on a practical approach regarding Software Development. So why do we need System Engineering? Here are some key factors: • Understand Customer Requirements o What does the customer needs (because they may not know it!) o Transform Customer requirements into working software • Planning o How do we reach our goals? o Will we finish within deadline? o Resources o What can go wrong? • Implementation o What kind of platforms and architecture should be used? o Split your work into manageable pieces iii • Quality and Performance o Make sure the software fulfills the customers’ needs We will learn how to build good (i.e. high quality) software, which includes: • Requirements Specification • Technical Design • Good User Experience (UX) • Improved Code Quality and Implementation • Testing • System Documentation • User Documentation • etc. You will find additional resources on this web page: http://www.halvorsen.blog/documents/programming/software_engineering/ iv Information about the author: Hans-Petter Halvorsen The author currently works at the University of South-Eastern Norway.
    [Show full text]
  • Agile/Devops Development and Agile Acquisition: Differences, Similarities
    GSAW 2006 Tutorial F: Evolutionary Acquisition & Spiral Development Length: Half day Overview: The publication of Department of Defense (DoD) Directives 5000.1and 5000.2 in 2003 established a preference for evolutionary acquisition and spiral development in the acquisition of complex weapon systems. Similarly to the original DoD directives, National Security Space Acquisition Policy 03-01 also positioned evolutionary acquisition and spiral development as preferred strategies for the Space domain. The policy was based on the assumption that the implementation of these strategies would drastically reduce the time to deliver complex weapon systems to the war-fighter. Nevertheless, the DoD still struggles with substantial cost and schedule overruns. Spiral development is blamed, and a revision to the 5000 Directives is expected. Also, as recently as June 8, 2005, Michael Griffin, the newly appointed NASA Administrator was quoted saying with respect to the Crew Exploration Vehicle program that "… I hope never again to let the words spiral development cross my lips." It is unfortunate that even though evolutionary concepts were introduced in the early 1960's and spiral development in the1980's, so much controversy remains about their use. Technical difficulties with the Spiral Development fundamentally stem from the flexibility of the model. While it was originally introduced as a software development life cycle model, in reality it is much more; it is a meta-model, with multiple applications. Itis, in fact, a risk-driven process generator that is applicable not only to Software Engineering, but Systems Engineering as well, and it can be applied to the development of any process, concurrently with product development.
    [Show full text]
  • Using the Rational Unified Process for Small Projects: Expanding Upon Extreme Programming
    UUssiinngg tthhee RRaattiioonnaall UUnniiffiieedd PPrroocceessss ffoorr SSmmaallll PPrroojjeeccttss:: EExxppaannddiinngg UUppoonn eeXXttrreemmee PPrrooggrraammmmiinngg Gary Pollice Rational Software White Paper TP 183, 3/01 Table of Contents Abstract.................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction............................................................................................................................................................................. 1 A Short Story......................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Overview............................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Project Start — Inception ...................................................................................................................................................... 3 An approved Business Case .................................................................................................................................................. 4 Risk List ................................................................................................................................................................................ 4 Preliminary Project Plan.......................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]