Are you John Doe?

AreYouJohnDoe

The 1st episode of the AreYouJohnDoe series is available.

As part of our commitment to the developer community, we are very happy to support this initiative from Julien and Soumow Dollon, two committed and passionate developers.

They interview developers from different organizations in a dynamic way.

SoftFluent releases new product: LogToMail!

LogToMail is a light program (the whole thing is less than 1 MB), which can run as a Windows Service or in command line, and which monitors the event log of a server.

 

Whenever a new entry is logged, it can send an email with the content of the log entry to the appropriate person.

Defining which type of entries should trigger an email (all by default) and to whom (default is the administrator email specified at installation time) can be done through the configuration file of the tool.

Pricing has also been made as simple as the usage of the tool starting at only $69:

Trial

Get it for free!

Single machine

$69 > Add to Cart

Up to 3 machines

$139 > Add to Cart

Up to 10 machines

$399 > Add to Cart

Unlimited site-wide

$799 > Add to Cart

Unlimited Enterprise-wide

$1299 > Add to Cart

Hope you will enjoy this 3rd product from SoftFluent.

The SoftFluent team

Microsoft Released Visual Studio 11 Beta

Microsoft released on Wednesday February 29th several betas of their main products including a beta version of Microsoft Visual Studio 11 (a.k.a. vNext) which you can get here:

Our customers will be glad to know that the following day, our CodeFluent Entities product team announced on their blog http://blog.codefluententities.com that the latest CodeFluent Entities release already runs and installs in VS 11 without any changes needed!

Read the blog post to know more: CodeFluent Entities & Visual Studio 11 Beta

Microsoft development technologies: Link listing series

On a regular basis, our R&D team makes a compilation of interesting links related to developing with Microsoft technologies. They usually select the most important news that one need to follow relative to technologies such as:

  • Microsoft .NET Framework,
  • Visual Studio,
  • WIndows & SQL Azure,
  • Windows Phone,
  • Office as a development platform,
  • SharePoint,
  • SQL Server,
  • and various coding tips.
    We recommend Microsoft developers that want to easily keep track on crirical news to monitor our link listing series which is a specific cateory of our product team blog.

Happy reading,

Daniel COHEN-ZARDI

Infragistics signs strategic alliance with SoftFluent

infragistics_1

Infragistics, the user experience software company and a world leader in user interface (UI) development tools has announced today that it has entered into a strategic alliance with SoftFluent, the creator of CodeFluent Entities, a full model-first continuous code generation tool for all application layers.

Infragistics NetAdvantage and SoftFluent CodeFluent Entities are Visual Studio extension tools. As such, the strategic alliance confirms the ability to seamlessly use both toolsets in a Visual Studio application, saving the developer time and resulting in a well-designed and robust application.

The partnership will result in enhanced technical compatibility between the two products in a Visual Studio environment and will provide additional opportunities for cross promotion.

Read the full Media Alert

The R&D lead role at ISVs and its evolution

From my experience as Microsoft ISV lead for France and from my experience at SoftFluent working with software companies or investors, as well as per my active role in the French ISV association, I have been continuously in contact with both CEOs and their R&D lead. Whether you name him/her (I will use a feminine in the rest of the article) VP R&D, CTO or technical director depending on the size of the company, the person leading the Research & Development effort inside a software company plays a major role.

The importance of the R&D leader

Why is the R&D lead so important for ISVs? Simply put, the R&D department bears the responsibility for the long-term success of the company. Whereas the sales department is primarily focused on short to mid-term sales execution, the R&D department is supposed to build the next generation of products that will make the company successful in the future.

Of course, one could argue that the sales department is even more important, because if you do not financially survive, it does not matter whatever you prepare for the long-term. But ISVs that are just selling without managing their R&D will be swept away at the next technology wave, even if with the best sales team, and especially with the pervasiveness of Internet and the emergence of “Software as a Service” models.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to underemphasize the role of sales departments, because the more you are able to sell in the short-term, the more investment you are able to make into future products. But if you do not have the right R&D team and leader to properly leverage this investment, you are not preparing the quantum leap that you may hope to achieve.

Additionally, CEOs are usually already aware that they need a good sales team, but underestimate the very specific profile they need for driving R&D, a profile that seems harder to find by the way.

According to me, it seems harder to find a good R&D lead than a good sales lead. ISV CEOs asked me countless times for advising them a good hire for R&D management, either at the top level, or for managing a team of developers. In both cases, I found the answer to be hard, as I know this job is probably one of the most challenging – though one of the most interesting for sure!

The reason why this job is hard lies in the fact that this role requires various – and often opposite – skills. My conviction is that being a good R&D manager requires technical expertise (for sure), management skills, but also strong business acumen and communication skills. And this will be all the more the case as I will explain in this article.

ISV Challenges today and what this means for R&D

Before trying to focus on what makes a good R&D manager, I would like to recall a number of key market trends that characterize the evolution of the software sector, as described by market analysts:

  • Accelerating pace of evolution,
  • Platform fragmentation including mobile devices,
  • Middleware standardization, leading to increased specialization (horizontal or vertical),
  • Internationalization and competition at the worldwide level,
  • Industry move towards Software as a Service and cloud-based models.

These challenges translate into specific challenges for the R&D:

  • Ability to keep up-to-date with latest technology standards,
  • Building differentiation based on relevant business scenarios,
  • Support for global and multicultural applications,
  • Web-based delivery models including closing the loop with customer usage and support,
  • Delivery aligned to shorter cycles of innovation.

What it takes to be a successful R&D manager

Of course, there are a couple of stable elements that have always been critical for managing an R&D department. First, the R&D lead must have strong technical skills to properly develop a professional engineering process to build products and have the legitimacy to drive developers, no question about it. Second, she must be a good manager, in all the classical dimensions of management, and especially in building teams, as technical developers are often positioning themselves in mutual competition. These two elements used to be critical to R&D managers’ success and I expect these to remain as relevant in the future.

But, as a matter of fact, my conviction is that you also need someone with strong business acumen and communication skills to drive the R&D effort. The good news is that this acumen can easily be developed by working jointly with the sales and marketing departments. But to do so, it is critical that the R&D manager develops communication skills, takes the relevant posture and really wishes to understand the specific business of the ISV and the faced challenges.

In our experience, without proper management, business and technical people tend to be like oil and water in a glass. They do not naturally meddle with each other. How many times did I hear technical people criticize the sales discipline? And how many times did I see sales representatives consider the technical staff as pure resources that should be aligned only to their own top objective?

Now what you need for short cycles of innovation is a real interpenetration between the business and the technology. The most relevant innovation, whatever business you are in, occurs when the technology directly serves innovative and valuable business scenarios. And to build these relevant scenarios, it is critical to have a positive and permanent cooperation between business analysts, sales people and R&D. And very often, the R&D lead (or her team) is the only person whose technology knowledge is sufficient to imagine the innovative solutions to create. And this cooperative process should be permanently sustained, even if it sometimes requires adjusting product plans to leverage a business priority opportunity.

In today’s fast changing world, it is also becoming impossible and economically inefficient for any R&D to try to invent its own solutions to any problems. On the contrary, as the need for speed increases, it is very likely that successful R&D departments will be the ones able to leverage external innovation, by buying components or licensing technology, and also able to leverage external development resources where appropriate, including potentially OffShore if it makes sense. Leveraging the web as a source of information for both technological and market trend information is also a key differentiating opportunity between R&D managers.

SkillEvolution

Schema #1 – Evolution of the R&D manager skills

So where past successes partly resided in having a strong process orientation and stable product plans to fit into long-term schedules based on a specific home-made methodology and toolbox, it is now time for the R&D lead to act quite differently. She should stay up-to-date with new technology opportunities, sorting out the hype from the real important elements that can be leveraged in the context of the ISV, depending on its specialty and the challenge of its business sector.

This work being done, the R&D lead should not be shy in leveraging external partners, either to embed innovative pieces of software that will make his R&D more competitive (and this is also an area where the R&D lead should develop business acumen), or to strengthen its development team to accelerate product delivery or buy specific skills. Signing strategic partnerships could be a key leverage factor in going fast and allowing parallelism in innovation.

She should be as comfortable with sales or marketing people as she is with technical people to act as a bridge between the departments and leverage the field and marketing knowledge to create the innovative solutions that will build the company’s future success, either by her personal involvement or by fostering this spirit inside the R&D department.

As software development gets more and more industrial, it is also critical to seize the opportunity to leverage the technology to change the development process in itself, adjusting the methodology to a fully industrial approach, both in terms of organization and tools.

We of course have a strong position about tools at SoftFluent, because this is one of our major value creation axis through CodeFluent Entities software factory. We are convinced that, whatever your own recipe is, automating your development is a huge leverage for creating value.

Doing so, the R&D lead will be closer to deserve the title of “Chief Technology Officer” than the “Chief Technical Officer” which I find too restrictive.

Possible R&D manager failures

The first and most common risk for R&D managers is to fail in managing the "product roadmap", a tricky process that requires balance.

On one side, we find R&D managers that are totally driven by customer requests and do not build real "product plans". This way of acting leads to a fragmented offering whose complexity grows exponentially with time and the absence of a real product.

On the other side, one can find R&D managers that put excessive rigidity in product planning. Of course, it is not a good idea to deeply modify product plans while in development phase. But being able to get some flexibility about the plans and to manage change should be built into the R&D methodology. Otherwise, the price to pay might be an offering which is not aligned to market needs.

A second risk is the NIH syndrome. The “Not Invented Here” syndrome is very well-known in software development and has prevented a lot of teams from leveraging major opportunities. External technologies are rejected, the R&D people finding a lot of more or less valid arguments to explain why they can do better, sometimes even unconsciously. This results in suboptimal time to market, as well as excessive cost. The team ends up with people mentally focused on technology whereas the need is to get a team that understand the drivers of their vertical market.

A third risk can be a lack of curiosity. If the R&D lead is not really interested by the business, it might happen that developers stay with what they know, just because they are comfortable about it. R&D lead really needs to have a desire to permanently evolve, read about new technology, test it and understand what is useful for the company’s business and what is not, including what may change the rules of its software development process. Otherwise, the innovative scenarios will emerge at competitors first and the company will be swept when a major technology wave arrives.

Table #1 – The 3 critical skills expected for the R&D lead

Critical Skill

Skill

Profile

Failure symptoms

1. Ability to bridge business people to technical people

Business knowledge and acumen

Openness

Curiosity

Communication

Difficult dialog between sales/marketing & R&D departments

Need for excessively formal specifications

Full waterfall-oriented and rigid process

Reluctance to change

2. Manage technical teams to deliver high quality products through an industrial process

Software development experience

Real developer experience

Rigorous engineering approach

Leadership

Product development going round in circles

Software deployment issues because of the variability of customer environments

Disconnection between R&D manager & teams

Offering built by aligning customer requests without a real strategic vision

3. Leverage external innovation and seize opportunities

Partnership contract management

Creativity

Communication

Humility

NIH syndrome

No third-party component leveraged

Limited partnerships on the R&D side

Inability to scale out the R&D effort

To maintain the proper culture in their R&D department, ISV CEOs should proactively:

  • Monitor their competitors and hire people from other companies in the same sector,
  • Send R&D people to customers when relevant, not only to solve issues, but also to make sure they see real world contexts of what is happening on the market,
  • Involve field resources like consultants or pre-sales engineers to work with the R&D on some specific projects to break silos,
  • Challenge their R&D department about looking at third-party opportunities on the market like existing software components or partner modules,
  • Regularly leverage external resources with strong expertise in software development to assess the R&D maturity in terms of organization, processes and technology skills.

In the end, the needed reactivity and innovation is just a consequence of having one foot in the R&D and one foot in the business, so involving the R&D manager with the business should be one of the key lessons of this article.

And, to come back to the oil and water comparison, just remember what happens when you shake the glass, it should certainly give you a good hint to the solution!

Daniel Cohen-Zardi

SoftFluent CEO

Developeronomics: a very necessary debate!

Last month, I read the Venkatesh Rao’s article about Developeronomics, a new word invented to underline the huge value that can be embedded into a single valuable software developer. Leveraging the idea that made Freakonomics popular, the author emphasizes the endless need for more and more sophisticated software and argues on the very active talent war on the market, both for large technical companies and for active startups. Then he advises anyone with some surplus capital to invest it in a brilliant developer as you would invest in stocks or in good wine. By the way, wine certainly was a good financial investment to make before the 2008 crisis, but this is yet another story.

Basically, I tend to agree with the idea developed in the article; especially regarding top developers that in my experience can produce more than a typical team of 10 average developers… provided the team has the skills to overcome all the technical challenges. So it is always a better choice to have an over-skilled developer rather than an under-skilled one. It’s much more inexpensive in the end.

When I was working at Microsoft, I had the chance to hear Bill Gates tell the Windows NT story and how he hired Dave Cutler from Digital to do the job. When Bill asked Dave what the optimal team size would be, Dave’s first answer was "1". Then he added, "It is the optimal for efficiency but if we need to deliver within a reasonable timeframe, let us build a team of about 10 very good developers".

This is totally consistent with our own observations on the field. Still, people who have never written software themselves keep reasoning in man-month logic as if the man variable in this expression were commutable. And unfortunately, many people making strategic decisions about software development have never developed themselves.

This led to the huge "off-shore" trend that no one is really able to confirm as successful. I deliberately do not qualify this as a global failure, as I am lacking reliable data to validate that off-shore as such is a failure, but I am also lacking reliable data that demonstrates that it really works. The point here is that we are lacking a key metric about what has been produced (in value, not in cost) so we could really compare results, not expenses. I will post more in the future, on both software development measurement and off-shore, because these are also key topics.

Interestingly, Jesse Jiryu Davis posted a valuable reaction to the article that extends the discussion in my view. In the process, his "It almost never works" demonstrates at least that you cannot succeed with mediocre programmers (them being off-shore or not).

His other interesting major comment is his "Each year we write software that prevents us from having to write more software". That clearly strikes a chord to me. This is the history trend that everyone has to consider, but my personal opinion is that the opportunity to get more "out of the box" solutions also creates the need for more software. This is as infinite as the knowledge of the world and I cannot really imagine the day when we say "Ok, we are done with software development, now let us just maintain the worldwide code base!".

This is why our CodeFluent Entities approach is not to replace developers, but instead to allow them to go a mile further by automating the repetitive tasks for them. The idea is to let the tool do the tedious work so we, developers, don’t have to do it.

To conclude, software developers always have to adjust their skills to ever-improving tools and technologies. This is part of the fun and the value of this job, and these are the guys that I typically want to invest in.

Daniel COHEN-ZARDI

CEO, SoftFluent

CodeFluent Entities: new version and new pricing

Discover or rediscover what CodeFluent Entities can do for you !

We have added always more features for an investment that we made accessible to everyone. Our new build has been announced recently on the product blog.

Now, for only $599, one can generate any model, whatever the complexity and size (we have customers with models beyond 600 entities). Fo the price of about a day of development, save weeks and keep yourself the fun part.

We also recall you that non-commercial usage of CodeFluent Entities is TOTALLY FREE (personal or academic usage). So get your personal license now and test by yourself.

Discover the graphical modeler, an unique tool on the market, that includes for example the “solar view” as illustrated in the screenshot below:

10-cfe_solarlayout[5]

And take advantage of all the advanced producers (multi-databases, Microsoft Office, Microsoft SharePoint) and of all official “aspects”: ready-to-use features taking charge of multilinguism, full-text search, etc…using the full-featured Ultimate license priced at $2499. There are no add-on charges for extra producers any longer.

The SoftFluent team

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 183 other followers