Pax-6 is a control gene; it triggers eye development in human embryos. It also triggers eye development in chimpanzees, apes, mice, rats, cats, bats, and fruit fly’s. The Pax-6 gene triggers eye development in basically every creature that has eyes. So even though the eyes in a spider and a dog look very different they have the same starting point.

But there is something more important about Pax-6 – its old, very, very old. Over 500 million years ago sometime in the Cambrian period the first proto-eye developed. Those early eyes just detected the presence or absence of light, a simple but major evolutionary milestone. And Pax-6 was there, the trigger for that first proto-eye.

Pax-6 is so good at what it does that is has been passed down and across species unchanged. It’s position within species chromosomes changes but its still Pax-6. Its replication across the species is so good that you can take the Pax-6 of a mouse, transplant it into a fruit fly embryo which will then go on to develop eyes as normal. Genes for arms and fins have come and gone (and in some cases come back again) but Pax-6 remains.

So at this point you probably think thanks for the lesson on gene evolution but what has this to do with a software components? The answer – Pax-6 is an example of a fundamental building block in nature, a tiny component. It’s simple but so perfect that its on every creatures top 10 list of genes I like to have – ultimate reuse.

Could you imagine the equivalent of cross species reuse in IT? Taking a core component of SAP or Oracle and dropping it into every package application, regardless of version, on the planet and expecting the component to still work!!! We still have trouble doing that within the same package, even when we design for it.

The most impressive thing about Pax-6 is it was not designed to be this uber-gene with the power to cross species. The first creature to have the gene did not evolve it as some sort of altruistic gesture designed to be reusable by other animals. The reason why its still doing the job today is because its simply the best way of getting the job done.

When developing services and components we talk about designing for reuse. Maybe we should take a lesson from Pax-6, and focus less on designing for reuse and focus more on designing the simplest, most stable component for the task. And let reuse come from the component being selected and pulled because it’s the obvious choice, not pushed (rammed down your throat in some cases) into the solution.

Now I can hear you say “But Dave one of the principles of evolution is mutation may do nothing or even harm the species – and nature may have many attempts at getting it right” Yes that’s true our tiny Pax-6 component was probably not the first attempt – the control gene that placed a eye on your tail was never going to catch on. But that highlights another problem with IT. You either try and design the perfect “gene component” from the start which is a bit like trying to create a complex multicellular organism from nothing. Or you start with basic building blocks and evolve, adapt, add, and take away over time. The former has risk of outright failure the later has risk of individual “component mutations” failing but higher probability of overall success. The above is a long winded way of saying incremental change is better than big bang.

We could take this analogy further saying gene evolution is an example of an open system, with feedback – adaptive to changes in the environment. Individual sub-systems and components may be unaware of their outer environment but the system they are in is. In IT we often ignore that feedback or react to it too late, we need to make a conscious effort to seek out and act on feedback. This is also a guiding principle of agile and adaptive systems development.

So what can a billion years of evolution tell us? Focus on doing the job in hand, reuse needs low level simplicity even when dealing with complex systems, and complex systems do not just come into being, they are built up over time based on continuous feedback.

“Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. but it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”  When Winston Churchill spoke those words in 1942 he was talking about a turning point in WW2, I am talking about a turning point in agile development.

In my last blog I mentioned that agile has reached its tipping point. My internal indicators – inquiry rate, request for agile workshops, agile vendor briefings and adoption metrics have all shot of the chart. And external indicators, books, blogs, and my personal favorite, pub conversation – all indicate agile is now mainstream. 

But that’s only half the story. It’s not simply a mater of greater XP or Scrum adoption. IT organizations are applying Lean and agile practices to their whole SDLC including, architecture, PMO, maintenance and operations.  It’s no longer small collocated teams but large distributed projects, mission critical solution and even non IT. For example this week at the Agile 2009 conference I have meet people using Scrum in sales and market, legal departments and to support venture capital funding decisions.   

My attendance at Agile 2009 has confirmed my view we have reached a major mile stone. Dr Alistair Cockburn keynote on Tuesday entitled “I Come to Bury Agile, Not to Praise It” was both dramatic and thought provoking. The drama was in the form of a lone bagpiper playing “Amazing Grace” at the start of the presentation followed by Alistair reciting a modified version of “Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears” from Shakespeare Julius Caesar.

“I come to bury Agile, not to praise it;

            The evil methods do lives after them,
            The good is oft interred with their bones,
            So let it be with Agile.”

Alistair went on to say software engineering in the 21st century will use craft, cooperative game, lean principles and knowledge acquisition. So whilst not burying agile he emphasized what we call agile today is very different from what we called agile 10 years ago. I recommend having a look at Alistair full presentation and related article.

I Come to Bury Agile, Not to Praise It

From Agile Development to the New Software Engineering

This week I am in Chicago attending the Agile 2009 conference. Now in its 8^th year this is the major event in the agile calendar.  The event kicked off today boasting over 1400 delegates, a measure of the interest in agile in these austere days of travel bans and belt tightening.  With over 300 session its looks to be a busy week, its times like these I wish had a clone.    

Even though the conference has grown year on year it still has its agile vibe. The coffee breaks were a mix of ice breaker conversation plus enthusiastic exchange of ideas, and “call me, I love to help”.

With 2009 being the tipping point for agile adoption (in no small part due to the economic melt down) it’s no surprise Agile 2009 is a more mature affair. Fresh faced developers rubbing shoulders with gray haired senior management. And there is no shortage of Fortune 100/500 delegates walking around. GE and Nokia is a couple I spotted, with a large contingent from finance.  

One thing I am really pleased to see is a great emphasis on agile with a capital “A” – its not just XP and Scrum. There are session on project management, product owner, agile and CMMI and even agile with system engineering. All signs agile has gone mainstream.              

Finally, one of the hardest things to do in the world is to grow up with a sense of wonder and inquisitiveness intact. It’s easy to accept the status quo and stop asking why? Why do we have to do it this way? Why can’t we do if differently? It’s good to see agile growing up but still asking why and challenging the established view of IT.

I am looking forward to a very busy and interesting week

Each member of the panel gave a short speech as to why they felt the Technology Manifesto was important and why Britain needs such a cross party initiative. The official press release quotes all three Lords, I include a shortened version to give an idea of their introductory speeches.  

“We have an urgent need to reinforce the development and use of new technology across all sectors of our economy so as to increase our productivity and create more employment”.  Lord Young.

 “I am similarly pleased to be adding my sponsorship…””for generating the extra employment desperately needed by the UK,” Lord Harris 

“Britain needs to be at the forefront of technology. If we can improve our technology base we can be a world leader, I am joining this cross-party support for the Micro Focus Manifesto’s commitment to generating more high quality jobs, better products and increased innovation to sell overseas, and make Britain a world class industrial player,”  Lord Razzall. 

So what of the manifesto? It is not my intention go into great detail as it is available in full on-line. (See http://www.makingbritaingreat.co.uk/ )  At its core it covers five areas: 

1. Increase the supply of world-class technology talent in the UK
2. Harness the expertise and goodwill of successful leaders around the world to mentor leaders of UK-based emerging technology businesses
3. Radically change the tax incentives available to companies and individuals who want to invest in growing technology businesses in the UK
4. Implement specific fiscal incentives for UK-based tech companies seeking to accelerate world-leading R&D
5. Proactively encourage international technology companies to invest in a UK hub

The manifesto has a very clear goal – create jobs, to be specific 250,000 Technology jobs over the next 10 years. To put this in context it means an increase in the technology sector from its current level of 1.5 Million to 1.75 Million jobs, a 16.7% rise. However a manifesto by itself is meaningless; it must be supported by policy and ultimately action. Micro Focus hopes to have the manifesto adopted as policy by the major political parties in time for the next round of party conferences, hence the cross party panel support.  

Each of the five areas covered by the manifesto raise social, economic and technological issues that need to be addressed if the manifesto is to be taken seriously.  

CEO Stephen Kelly was up front about the current early state of the document so between now and September, Micro Focus working with Ernst & Young will consult with both academia and the industry to prepare a road-map including economic models. The fact that this launch event has received both mainstream and industry press coverage means the manifesto can not just fade away, if it fails is going to fail in a very public way, with blogs like “What ever happened to …..”. Although it is unlikely to hit Micro Focus’s revenue if it fails, it will hit their credibility. So I am willing to give Stephen Kelly the benefit of the doubt and say he sincere about the manifesto.  

So the manifesto achievable? First look at the five core messages of the manifesto; which political party would say no to these? They are framed in such a way that no one is going to say they are a bad idea in principle, more R&D – yes, tax incentives – yes, more talent – definitely. The political parties could adopt the “spirit” of the Technology Manifesto now just by spinning their current policies. So the time from now and until September is critical in defining a manifesto with bite, which calls for real political action not spin.  

Assuming Micro Focus and Ernst & Young can come up with the goods in September, what of the cross party sponsors? Can they push the message home? For the common man sitting in the Palace Of Westminster listing to three Lords does have a wow factor, but what about the people who decide party and government policy? They spend their days surrounded by Lord this and the Honorable that so it going to need more than a title. Gaining bipartisan support in the House of Commons will not be easy. Areas like tax incentives are very emotive, all the parties feel they do or could do it better than the others. The manifesto will have to walk a fine line between being too open, in which case it could be spun, and too specific, thereby possibly conflicting with party values.       

One key department that needs to buy into this is the Rt Hon. Lord Mandelson’s new brief – the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS). The BIS defines its brief on its web site as: “Investing in our future – Building a dynamic and competitive UK economy by: creating the conditions for business success; promoting innovation, enterprise and science; and giving everyone the skills and opportunities to succeed.” As discussed at the event the Technology Manifesto has similar goals to the BIS. 

Finally as a tax payer and someone who likes the idea of making Britain great (I had my Winston Churchill cufflinks on) I would like to see all the major parties’ support UK technology.  But I think Micro Focus are going to find it hard to get the parties to pay more than lip service to the manifesto, but that might just be me being cynical.   

I will keep you all posted and let see what happens in September.

This year marks a bit of a milestone for me, its 20 years since I did my first TQM training. Back then I was into real-time system, instrumentation and control. All the standards I followed started with MIL-STD (military). The process we followed was so heavy it had its own gravity.  Finally the powers that be said we have to do something about it and turned to TQM.  That marked my love affair with all thinks methodology and process. 20 years on the one thing I can say for sure is never insult someone’s mum or their favourite method – there is a lot of passion when it comes to methodologies. 

This passion and the search for the ultimate method has lead to schisms, the “its an art” camp, “we are engineers” brigade and my personal favourite “IT is clueless” from the business. Joking apart it does look like we are clueless with IT’s mix of formal, informal and just plane hacking, coupled with the very public method wars.  Passion is good but it does have side effects, one being it sometimes blinds us to common sense. Large amounts of energy have been wasted with camp A prompting their pet method and finding deficiency in camp B method or process. I will be the first to say I have been guilty to of this, if you ever meet me face to face ask me about MASCOT and you see what I mean. 

The truth is there is no perfect method but the last 30 years of “my method is better than you method” infighting had to happen – its IT growing pains. Agile has passed it stroppy teenage “what can you teach me” phase in relation to CMMI and is now “OK I do see some value in what you say – dad”. For its part the CMMI community has stopped being “father knows best – listen to me son” to “OK you may have something there” 

I can see real progress and convergence – commonsense at last. I am not saying its time to have the ticker tape parade. There is no perfect method but that does not mean we should stop looking for perfection so the debate will continue – as it should.  But we are closer now than at any other time of fitting the method jigsaw pieces together. 

Not a moment to soon. Because now more than ever we need a commonsense “Just Enough Process” approach to development and process improvement in the current economic crisis.