Mike MacDonagh's Blog

Somewhere in the overlap between software development, process improvement and psychology

Tag Archives: Jazz

How to deal with line feeds in Jazz RTC SCM

I’ve found that there’s sometimes a bit of confusion over how Eclipse & RTC deal with line feeds, especially when migrating files from ClearCase so thought I’d post about it.

By default RTC tries to be helpful when opening text files on windows and linux platforms by rewriting the text file contents to either windows standard or linux standard depending on which platform you’re currently using. This is generally quite helpful as it means that when you load a workspace on whatever platform and use an external editor to mess around with text files they’re in the right format to make sense to your editor.

There are some cases when this behaviour isn’t quite so helpful however which can often come up during migration from ClearCase or other SCM tools. During migration you tend to copy a set of files from a location, change permissions on them and then stick them into a workspace for sharing into Jazz SCM. If you do this on windows then your files will be converted to windows format. As I said in the previous paragraph this is generally helpful but in some cases isn’t, as if the team generally develop on linux then when they load the files they’ll convert the format again making a change set which can interfere in a simple understanding of the history of files or when doing a file contents comparison.

Similarly if you build on windows and then deploy to linux and run some bash scripts or similar in your set of files you can hit problems as the files loaded on windows will be converted to windows format, if they’re copied to a server without running a dos2unix (or similar) conversion on them then the scripts won’t run on the target server.

There are a couple of features that you can use to prevent these problems, which although minor and easily corrected, can sometimes dent confidence in adopting teams. I’ve heard teams say they want exactly the same files (in binary terms) that they had in ClearCase and they don’t want RTC to rewrite to platform… that’s easily achievable you just need to fiddle with some settings. Of course other teams simply don’t notice as the apparent contents stay the same whatever platform you’re on.

My advice for avoiding these issues is:

  1. Set a sensible set of default file format options in Eclipse before starting (Window -> Preferences -> Team -> File Content) including setting to “binary” any file formats you don’t want to change such as .sh (unfortunately this doesn’t have a */other files setting)
  2. Do the migration on the normal development platform the team will use with a bias towards linux – My process for doing migrations
  3. Ensure the adopting team is aware of the difference between line feed settings on different platforms and knows how to change them in their project.

RTC provides features to work around line feed formats, if you right click on a project in project explorer you can select Team -> Change File Properties to change the properties of the files in your project.  The setting text/plain : platform indicates that RTC should rewrite files to the current platform, so setting .sh files delimiter to LF (Unix) will prevent problems in the previous scenario even if the  project is built and deployed on Windows. Choosing next on this wizard allows you to set general preferences for types as well.


First Look: CLM 2011 RTC + RRC + RQM 3.0.1 review and screenshots

What is it?

CLM 2011 is a suite of tools making up IBM Rational Team Concert, Rational Requirements Composer and Rational Quality Manager properly integrated for what is arguably the first time. In my opinion this release is the closest to my interpretation of the original Jazz vision that IBM have delivered yet. It’s not perfect but I like the direction it’s heading in.

It’s taken me a while to write this, mainly because I’ve been very busy but also because it seemed to take some deep magic to get all of this stuff installed and running properly. But I’ve done it a couple of times now so I thought I’d post some screenshots and comments. Of course if you look back on my posts of the original RTC review you’ll see that life is harder these days already. With RTC 1 and 2 you could just download a zip, extract, run a script and you were off and away. Installation isn’t too bad… it’s not great and simple but this is a big complex suite of tools so I don’t really expect it to be trivial.

Lifecycle Project Administration

To start with, the management of projects across these separate tools has been significantly improved by the introduction of Lifecycle Project Administration which allows you to create an integrated cross tool project in one step and simply manage members and roles across them. This is a big step forward although there are still some problems in that it’s not easy to do these kind of things at scale. For example if I want to add 3 people with a set of roles to 40 projects I’m going to be doing a lot of manual clicking. In fact generally it’s not so easy to deal with project areas at scale in the Jazz toolset and that hasn’t significantly improved yet although Lifecycle Project Administraton is an important step in that direction.

Creating a new Lifecycle Project

Creating a new Lifecycle Project

A Lifecycle Project

A Lifecycle Project

Editing roles accross tool project areas

Editing roles accross tool project areas

I’m not a big fan of the navigation between project areas (linked or unlinked) as the user needs to understand the architectural relationship between personal dashboards, Change and Configuration Management (which has the RTC bits like plans, work items, source control, builds etc.), Quality Management (which has the RQM bits like test plans, cases, scripts etc.) and Requirements Management (which has the RRC bits like diagrams, UI sketches, docs, requirements etc.) to navigate the stuff in their single project. I think it’s a mistake to build the UI navigation around the architecture, I would prefer to see a unified project interface and navigation structure with the extra products adding to the project mass like aspects on a foundation. As before this becomes even more of an issue when you scale up to hundreds of projects. Incidentally, aspect orientation is how we apply practices to process kernels while still providing a seamless user experience of composed practices.

Cross (linked) project navigation

Cross (linked) project navigation

So although the three products are closer together than ever before, sharing a UI and a common architecture they still are separate products and that’s clear in terms of navigation, UI differences  and linking items between them. This is a shame for many reasons but one of the most important is that it’s still providing niche tools for separate roles, building walls between people in development teams and making cross-functional teams harder to create as individuals have to learn specific skills. These differences are not a strength, they make the whole game of software development harder.

To be fair though I’m yearning for an ideal perfect solution, CLM 2011 isn’t that idealised perfect solution but it’s a lot closer to it than anything else I’ve used!

Let’s start with IBM Rational Requirements Composer

RRC 3.0.1 is a totally different beast than RRC 1 (see my original 2008 review here) and shouldn’t be thought of in the same light as RRC1. The old version was eclipse only, badly integrated, dependent on IE and full of bugs – this version is entirely web based, deeply integrated into the Jazz platform and not dependent on IE! As for bugs, I don’t know yet but it’s actually usable which v1 wasn’t!

What it does:

  • Tracks requirements of different types with different attributes and links
  • Web based diagram editing (via browser plugin for FireFox or MSIE ), although someone used Microsoft CAB technology inside the FireFox xpi so don’t expect to do any diagram editing from linux or a mac 😦
  • Ability to produce use case diagrams, UI prototypes, UI storyboards

For me this is the first time RRC has lived up to some of my early hopes for it. I see this as a replacement for ReqPro, and indeed a replacement for DOORS in time.

Creating Requirements Artifacts

Creating Requirements Artifacts

Linking a requirement to a new implementation story

Linking a requirement to a new implementation story

Unfortunately I only use linux at home so I couldn’t take screenshots of the RRC web editor, even in a virtual machine running windows on an explicitly supported browser I can’t get the plugin to work. When I’ve used it my office environment I’ve really quite liked it though, although it’s got quite a lot of basic usability problems. I’m looking forward to when it’s more mature.

There is also a dependency/traceability tree viewer but that’s a separate download at the moment.

Next Implement something in IBM Rational Team Concert

RTC hasn’t changed that much from a user perspective, it’s still a great tool for tracking work items, making atomic multi-file change sets in parallel with continuous integration and build management. I’ve been using RTC in anger for 3 years now and still like it and think it can help drive agile benefits in development teams. Granted it’s got some issues like any tool, enterprise scalability issues and annoyances the biggest of which is the lack of cross-project queries which is practically unforgivable from my perspective. See this work item on jazz.net and demand cross-project queries from IBM!

With that said, working in Eclipse from workitems, fully using Jazz SCM and continuous build is awesome.

Edit a work item in RTC

Edit a work item in RTC

Sprint plan in RTC

Sprint Plan in RTC

Making code changes in RTC Eclipse

Making code changes in RTC Eclipse

Looking at build results in Eclipse

Looking at build results in Eclipse

Looking at Build results in the web

Looking at Build results in the web

Then Test via IBM Rational Quality Manager

I’ll admit it, I’m not a cross-functional ideal. I’m a typical developer, I’m not a tester, nor am I a test manager so I’ll leave the finer points of testing theory to others. However I do have some things to say about RQM from a cohesive logical process perspective.

In this example I’ve created a Test Case based on the pizza requirement I entered in RRC (in exactly the same way that I created the implementation story). At this point frankly I’m a little disappointed because my Test Case has been created and is linked to the requirement (good) but it has no knowledge of the implementation story that I also created from RRC.

Test Case in RQM

Test Case in RQM

Test Case link back to requirement

Test Case link back to requirement

No pre-existing link to development items

No pre-existing link to development items

The Missing Link

For me this is the missing link. I realise it’s not as a simple as their always being a related triangle of 1-1 associations between these different types of artifacts, but the link between the test and the development items should at least be suggested as the odds are fairly strong that if a requirement is developed by an bit of code the test for the requirement is likely to need to test the aforementioned bit of code. Obviously I can manually create this link but that’s not the point.

In fact this is symptomatic of the fact that these CLM tools are still separate and then integrated. There is a separation between requirements in RRC, development plan items and tasks in RTC and test plan items and tests in RQM. I have to create work items /artifacts  in each tool to represent these different things and link them all together. Which is not really what I want to do.

I don’t want to spend a lot of my time creating at least 2 items for every requirement in my product (1 dev story+tasks and 1 test case+scripts).

What I want to do is elaborate a set of requirements in a simplistic user friendly UI with nice diagrams (RRC can do this) then view that candidate backlog immediately in my planning tool and further refine it – not copy it (even in bulk) to RTC but to actually manipulate the same work items, albeit a different aspect of them, in RTC. I want testing to be an inherent part of development with quality management and assurance being just another aspect of the system. Every requirement should have quality dimensions and be a test case although I might want to add more of course.

I want to have requirements with dev tasks and tests hanging off them.

Basically I want to define something that needs to be done, plan it, do it and test it all as one high level thing. I might drop off loads of tasks, different types of tests, supporting sketches etc. but I want a holistic understanding of a development item with the ability to project different views to different types of stakeholders (customer requirements views, test professional views, management views, development views).

Some conclusions

CLM2011 is a serious step in the right direction from IBM. In my opinion Jazz always has been but it’s been suffering from too many silly little problems and a lack of meaningful deep integration (ironic considering the original mission). If I had a magic wand I would do the following feats of greatness to the Jazz platform which I believe are all necessary to turn what is a good suite of tools into a true killer software development environment.

  • all jazz tools to apply new aspects to projects rather than creating seperate project areas which then need linking and administration via LPA
  • all artifacts and workitems to be viewable as native items in any tool interface
  • all artifacts and workitems created by all three tools (and other future ones) be instantiated and linked with truly consistent UI, all taggable and commentable
  • all artifacts, scm/build elements and work items queryable via a single query engine (across linked and un-linked project areas)
  • the ability to self serve projects (without granting massive impractical rights), finer grained security and permissions control
  • parent-child change sets
  • smoother flow of work items between tool aspects rather than creating new ones with links between them
  • make RRC diagram editing work on linux – things that only work on Windows are not enterprise deployable, and if they’re browser based and only work on windows someone needs shouting at. Even a much maligned school boy shouldn’t be making this error
  • a decent reporting solution and technology

Finally , being able to capture and elaborate requirements, plan iteratively, develop code, continuously integrate with unit tests, system test and manage test plans (amongst other things!) in what feels close to a single tool is extremely powerful. If only navigation wasn’t architecturally focused this strength would be much stronger and be a killer feature for IBM and Jazz.

If they sort out cross-project querying.

RTC: Structural patterns for Project Areas vs. Team Areas

How big should a project area be? What’s the relationship between Project Areas and Team Areas is an interesting problem and for new users the relationship can be a little hard to understand. This post describes the relationship between them and some experiences of using them.

I’m going to write a series of posts on top tips based on experience and real projects of using IBM RTC for Disciplined Agility. It’s a bit of a brain dump, but here goes… they’re all tagged as rtc_tips if you want to read the whole set :

Simply put a Project area is for work that will share the same work items, workflows, visibility (as of v2, v3 improves on this). Team areas are areas inside a Project Area that you can use to scope plans, burndown charts, dashboards etc. Initially therefore it might sound sensible to create quite large Project Areas and then create Team Areas inside the large area for each project/endeavour (what I call Model C) but there are some problems with this idea:

  • it’s not easy for users to create new team areas with all the associated things that need to go with them (timeline, categories, dashboard etc. – the team dashboard templating is rather limited so you can’t easily parameterise queries on a template)
  • people with rights to a project area can see all work items in that area (true for v2 but this has been somewhat improved in v3 allowing you to set 1 arbitrary project area to control the access to a work item regardless of it’s “parent” area)
  • once you have more than 2 teams and more than 2 timeline the navigation of current plans and understanding how to scope plans/charts etc. gets too messy for the average user. Indeed every real life team I’ve worked with that has used multiple timelines & multiple team areas in a project has after a while decided to split them up into separate project areas.

These factors have pushed me to always create a Project Area per project/endeavour (which I call Model A) which gives you better access control/visibility, permissions control, well templated project dashboards & navigability. However there are some downsides:

  • You can’t write cross-project queries. Or at least the capability is severely limited even if you exploit bugs in the querying engine. It is possible to put viewlets from multiple projects side by side on a dashboard but it’s not possible to do things such as “Show me the top risks by priority for these 5 projects” or more importantly “Show me all my tasks by priority from all of the projects I’m a member of” – see Jazz.net work item 94575 for more on this.
  • As a result it’s not so easy for an individual to work across a number of projects although cross project dependencies and traceability queries are just about ok (in Eclipse if you show relationships, but not really in the web)
  • Once you get a large number of projects on your server it becomes a little annoying that you can’t manage them other than as a flat list (sort by “My projects” then “All projects”)

I’ve come to think of these different options for structuring RTC on a scale of simplicity to complexity and factors that push you one way or another:

Structural choices for RTC configuration

Model A says [0..]1 Team Areas because although it’s possible to configure RTC to only have 0 team areas and make everything scoped to the project area I’ve found that to be a bit buggy, especially in templated charts on dashboards. So the simplest model I recommend is 1 Project Area with 1 Team Area. You can do quite a lot with Model A by using categories well, and having views of plans by category with different category owners. I’ve used this model with teams from 3 to 50! The best advantage of this model is that for any time period there’s only 2 plans, the overall Product Backlog and the current Sprint Plan. (Maybe a release plan, but that can be optional as it’s just a subset of the Product Backlog).

For non-software this Model still works but depending on the required simplicity I would either go for no plans at all, or a single plan that is a mix of the Product Backlog and Sprint plan views.

Model B offers a bit more complexity in that there are multiple teams, seperated by categories but sharing a timeline. The advantages of this model are that you can manage multiple teams in seperate backlogs and plans but you can also create backlogs/plans that span all of the teams giving you individual views and an overall view. The downside is that this can start getting quite complex in terms of navigation as for any time period there can be a multitude of plans, not including release plans (as optional as before) that leads to 2 * (no. teams +1) plans if you’ve got 3 sub-teams and you’re on 2 week sprints that can be 8 plans for the next two weeks!

Model C offers fully seperated teams in their own timelines and categories. This is a bit like Model B but they can be on their own rhythms. In fact in this model the My Work box in Eclipse can’t quite cope with the multiple timelines so users really are quite seperated, to the extent that they may as well be in different projects – so I say they should be. It’s better to have multiple Model A’s than a single Model C.

Obviously this is all generalised stuff based on the projects I’ve been involved with and other factors would affect the decision, notably SCM considerations over how component source needs to be dealt with across teams. Having multiple somewhat seperated teams, on their own timelines editing the same code base might make you want to adopt Model C but if you’re in that situation you’ve got bigger problems than navigating a set of complex plans! In fact to unpick the problem I would still recommend multiple Model A’s with their own dev streams, then deal with integration from an requirements, test and SCM perspective in a master project, which is where your Scrum of Scrum behaviours can be implemented.

RTC: What should and shouldn’t go on the backlog?

I’m going to write a series of posts on top tips based on experience and real projects of using IBM RTC for Disciplined Agility. It’s a bit of a brain dump, but here goes… they’re all tagged as rtc_tips if you want to read the whole set 🙂

So theoretically anything that the product owner wants goes on the backlog, but in RTC we tend to have other work item types like lessons learned, risks, etc. and it’s not always clear what should and shouldn’t be on the backlog.

I recommend using work item types such as:
Story – sized by points, used for Product Owner requirements
Objective – something you’ve got to do that will decrease you’re velocity (see below)
Defect – for bugs
Change Request – for changes

All of these I would configure as top level work items that I would expect as parents on the backlog. I use Objectives in a number of ways to deal with things that will reduce velocity (such as get a test environment ready). Of course it’s possible to phrase these as stories but that starts getting a bit silly, in a tool like RTC it’s far easier to read “Get Test Environment ready” rather than “As a customer I want the team to get a test environment ready so that I can have testing done without affecting the live system in a bad way”. I use them to act as a parent for work to do something such as mitigate a risk, improve team ways of working and other overhead activities. This means that overhead is explicit and honest, the Product Owner can see how much there is, what it is and discuss with the team if any of it can be reduced to improve velocity. “Hiding” these things as stories feels dishonest.

Naturally below all of these I’d then have task breakdown with time estimates. Tasks don’t belong on the Product Backlog but do exist on Sprint Plans.

I also configure RTC to manage a number of other work item types depending on the needs of the team:
Risk – no one ever delivered an important project successfully without managing risks
Impediments – raised at daily standups they should be resolved as quickly as possible, if that’s going to take longer than a morning then track them as work items, in distributed teams record them straight away.
Lessons Learned Capture them as you go
Milestone Not on the backlog but with dependencies on to Stories and Objectives which are you can then query for Milestones dependant on the current iteration, sorted by date, showing depends relationships. The team can then use high level milestones to communicate to external stakeholders in terms of progress towards major releases. A backlog full of detail is too complicated to give a headline summary, using Milestones is a good work around. I was interested to see this make it into RTC v3 formal project template as I’ve been doing it for a while in RTC v2. Milestones are especially useful as a point of integration between the dev project in RTC and higher level portfolio plans if you’re in that kind of environment.

So none of these latter work item types I would have on the backlog. I might create related objectives or stories to do something relevant to them but I wouldn’t directly put them on the backlog. For example a risk might have a mitigation strategy (objective) which involves some work (tasks) but once that objective has been done the risk may still exist. These things are all useful to manage and view separately from the detail and complexity of the backlog – also they just add noise when it comes to prioritising and gardening a detailed backlog.

Of course I would never follow these “rules” when they’re not practical. If there’s a risk that needs a simply investigatory task then I wouldn’t create an intermediary objective just to keep hierarchical rules perfect – that way leads to madness and the process police.

RSC 2009 – What to expect

I’m not attending the IBM Rational Software Conference (what used to be RSDC, RUC etc. etc.) this year however since it started today for partners and tomorrow for delegates so I thought I’d cast my opinion on what to expect this year. Of course I could be wrong since it’s just assumption but I suspect the main themes will be:

A vision of one notion of process for all Rational tools, made explicit in the relevant tools, surfaced through process rules and defined in practice libraries allowing easily composable and customisable processes based on the Jazz Process architectural elements.

So to tie  it all together the Process Library (which of course is practice based probably driven by Rational Asset Manager) feeds definition of processes in RMC, which is measured by MCIF and delivered by the Rational Software Development Platform. So what does that really mean:

Rational Team Concert 2 beta – because it’s a lot better than RTC 1 which was pretty good to begin with!

Rational Tara –  a Jazz based PPM (Project Portfolio Management) tool. Think MS Project by IBM on Jazz with better Resource Management stuff. It’s part of the replacement suite for Rational Portfolio Manager (RPM).  Should be interesting to see how it ties into the other products (inc. some of the Telelogic ones). I expect this one to be big news – it should be. Gantts, bubble charts, resource utilisation views, agile dashboards etc. will abound. (Now known as Focal Point for Project Management)

Rational Insight – used to be codenamed Vega and is a data warehousing and RTL solution on top of Jazz. Cross project reporting goodness. Of course I’m sure there will also be integration through to the “classic” rational tools. Interestingly I read a bit of blurb recently from somwhere that referred to their old tools as the “classic rational toolset” I wonder if they borrowed that from me 🙂

MCIF – Measured Capability Improvement Framework – It’s been around for a while but with more emphasis from IBM now on practice based process the story between a more practice orientated Rational Method Composer, Health Assessment tools and Self Check tools is a bit tighter.

Telelogic – I expect there to be some announcements about the integration of the Rational and Telelogic brands. Especially around FocalPoint.

I’d also expect some stuff on other Jazz based tools like Requirements Composer, Quality Manager, Ensemble, Governor and stuff like that.

As I said due to other commitments I’m not there myself, but if you are there then please stop by the Ivar Jacobson International stand in the Exhibit Hall downstairs when they let you in. Grab a free beer and talk to my colleagues about how to achieve tangible process improvement with the use of effective practices in a proven framework. Also talk to them about achieving “Agile for Grown Ups” (TM of the MacDaddy) in your organisation. Ivar, Ian Spence, Kurt Bittner are all speaking at the conference and a bunch of other IJIers will be there so go along and say hi.

And ask for a free bag, they’re great for carrying around your exhibit hall swag 🙂

Rational, Telelogic and Jazz roadmap

There’s a lot of interest in the IBM Rational space about the future roadmap of Telelogic products like DOORS and Rational Requisite Pro and some murmurings of new shiny future things like Tara, Vega, MCIF, FocalPoint, Rational Change Management etc. etc.

I’m sure as the year continues we’ll learn a lot more about these things (or at least be able to talk about what we already know under NDA as IBM Rational and Telelogic are bound to make some statements and showcase the future at RSDC09. This year the RSDC is combined with the Telelogic User Conference (Innovation) which is a public sign of how integrated IBM want the Rational and Telelogic brands to become in the future.

All of this is very important for existing Telelogic and Rational customers, as well as people interested in Jazz or using Jazz. So I noticed a presentation from RSDC in Italy that covers some high level information on the joint product roadmap:

Microsoft VSTS, Camano and UML

I recently had the pleasure of going to visit the Microsoft Technology Centre to learn about all things MS for software engineering. Having long been a Visual Studio user and a VSTS (Visual Studio Team System) user since it turned up I was really pleased to see VSTS 2008 and some interesting stuff coming in 2010.

VSTS seems to be really maturing and now has a nive new non-sharepoint web UI. It will be interesting to see what happens in terms of Microsoft VSTS vs. IBM Jazz. I’ve written about Jazz before on this blog and haven’t gotten around to a detailed comparison yet but I was excited to see how mature VSTS is now looking and how nice it is to use. It’s designed to make developing easier and use the tools people already have in many cases. For example, using MS Project, Excel, Word, SharePoint etc.

Things of special note were the automated testing support (including coming soon recording and playback of GUIs other than web), the upcoming cool manual test runner, Camano for test management and test execution by proper testers not just developers doing unit tests etc. etc. Also checking out the project + project server for portfolio and project management views was interesting.

What I really really liked are the VSTS 2010 architecture tools. Microsoft has seen the light and embraced UML + DSLs (or DSLs + UML if you prefer) as the pragmatic modelling solution. I really like the idea of being able to do just enough  modelling, using the most appropriate language such as a high level architecture diagram that then imposes constraints on the code through things like check in policies!

I think this stuff is going to be really powerful and I can’t wait to get my hands on it properly (and somehow conjure the time from somewhere) to do some detailed analysis and also a comparison against competing products/toolsets.

Of course if you are using Visual Studio (or Eclipse) you can still use EssWork to use practices and processes directly inside your IDE

EssWork in Visual Studio

EssWork in Visual Studio

RSDC 2009 Call for papers

So it seems like RSDC 2008 has only just finished. In fact RSDC 2008 UK was only a few weeks ago! But things are starting up for RSDC 2009 already. I hear that call for the papers will open tomorrow. The website isn’t up yet so I don’t know what the theme will be but you can expect more stuff turning up at www.ibm.com/rational/rsdc over the next few months.

This will be the 4th year in a row for the Rational Software Development Conference (May 31 – June 4) at the Swan and Dolphin in Orlando, and I heard somewhere that the next 6 will be as well! Not surprising really as it’s a great venue for the conference.

It seems call for papers starts earlier every year, but that’s no surprise seeing as there are more people submitting and going every year. Technically I expect this year to be about the maturation of the Jazz platform, and I would speculate that we will see some cool things like the Visual Studio integration (since screenshots have already been released). There should be some interesting uses of RTC out there (I’m planning to talk about this myself). I’d like to see something about Bluehouse, Focalpoint, Telelogic and Rational Jazz stuff.

I think that the words Tara, Vega and MCIF will be extremely prominent 😉

My Blog Stats

MMD WordPress Extension screenshot

I a blog stat fanatic. I’m obsessed. It’s so bad I wrote a FireFox extension to show me the current daily hit count of my blog. I started this blog in April 2008 and since then the readership has gone up month by month:

If you look at this on a weekly basis rather then on a monthly basis some more info is apparent. This graph below shows a slow start then some action starting when I started writing about IBM Jazz. Then the next peak was some RSDC blogging in June. All was then returning to the baseline readership level of about a 1000 hits/week until I posted some Google Chrome screenshots on the morning before Chrome was released. This led to over 3,000 people turning up in one day!

Finally the daily chart. Normally this goes up and down a bit (slow weekends, mid-week peaks etc.) Unfortunately the 3k Googlers completely flattened my graph 😦 At least that peak is about to drop off the side and the normal scale will resume 🙂

RSDC UK Agenda Published

The IBM Rational Software Development Conference UK (RSDC UK) will be held in (22 – 23 September 2008 Royal College of Physicians, London). At the moment the banner on the RSDC UK main page is misspelt 😀 Perhaps a little less “devlopement” and a bit more “testing” might be useful 😛

Anyway, this promises to be a great event with some great speakers. On Monday the keynote will be given by Erich Gamma in real life and Grady Booch in Second Life. Then on Tuesday the keynote will be given by Ivar Jacobson. Another colleague some of you may have heard of, Ian Spence, will also be speaking. I’ll also be speaking at the event, once with my client presenting a case study.

Me CUPID – Implementing the IBM Rational Unified Process at PricewaterhouseCoopers

P05 Monday 15:50 – 16:50, Presented by Mike MacDonagh (Me! Principal Consultant, IJI) and Linda Weedon (Methods & Tools Manager, PwC)

PricewaterhouseCoopers UK IT chose to adopt the IBM Rational Unified Process (RUP) as part of a Capability Uplift and Process Improvement Deployment (CUPID) program. This presentation focuses on the use of RUP to manage a large-scale deployment of RUP and the effective adoption of the IBM Rational tools when facing challenges such as geographically distributed development, the requirement for process governance, and the tailoring of RUP to an organizational change management process.
Me Live Jazz: Process execution in IBM Rational Team Concert

PPM05 Tuesday 16:30 – 17:30, Presented by Mike MacDonagh, (Me! Principal Consultant, IJI)

This session covers bringing software development practices to life using IBM Rational Team Concert. The demonstration includes kicking off a new project making use of Work Items, Agile Planning, Jazz SCM, Team Reports and other Jazz components in a seamless configured environment.

I’ve posted a lot about Jazz and Team Concert on this blog so follow some of the links to look around – this session at the RSDC UK is basically a big demo so it’s your chance to see RTC and get a really good understanding of what it can do.

I suppose I really should get around to uploading a new pic of myself. The one’s on this blog and all over the internet are about 6 years old… these days I’ve got a goatee beard and a lot more grey hair!

This conference is going to be a great gathering of thought leaders in the world of software development, an opportunity to see what’s coming in the future from IBM Rational and an opportunity to network with peers, partners and hassle friendly IBMers. So make sure you register and come along 🙂

%d bloggers like this: