IBM and MKS solutions are neatly outfitted to manage enterprise-level SCM

When it comes to software projects, maintaining productivity and software quality demands a tightly managed development and deployment process. Enterprise IT is turning to SCM (software configuration management) solutions either to boost efficiencies locally or to closely manage offshore projects.

Companies exploring SCM solutions should add IBM’s Rational ClearCase Change Management Solution 6.0 and MKS’s Integrity Solution 4.6 to their short list of candidates. During my tests, both products proved well-matched and well-prepared to tackle the rigors of process-centric SCM.

Both compare favorably to other SCM solutions, such as Merant Professionaland Serena’s TeamTrack, although IBM and MKS have higher price tags to go along with the power, flexibility, and functionality they offer.

For my tests, I executed two proof-of-concept projects. One examined how well the two products increased development efficiencies for a team in a localized medical facility.

The second project gauged how well the two solutions tackled the requirements of a fictitious insurance company whose software development work occurred both stateside and offshore. Both solutions are ideal in enterprise settings as well as within distributed multisite development projects. IBM edged out MKS ever so slightly due only to its tight and intuitive IDE integration and ease of setup. You may yield different results depending on your needs.

While setting up my testbed, I found that the MKS solution took slightly longer to implement initially than did the IBM product, although I didn’t run into any major hurdles.

Both MKS and IBM offer out-of-the box software change processes that will work for many companies. Furthermore, each solution offers point-and-click tools to allow administrators or project leads to tweak the supplied process workflows or to generate entirely new workflows to mirror the specific needs of the organization.

The Integrity Solution workflow tools made it very easy to change the provided workflows for the medical team and to create new workflows for the insurance development teams. I enjoyed equal success when working with the ClearCase workflow tools.

Both IBM and MKS offer a role-based approach to process management so that interfaces, tasks, and actions are specific to a given user role on the project team. For example, defect-related tasks were routed to developers whereas build tasks within the workflow were routed to the release management engineers. The role-based approach keeps teams focused on the tasks they must execute to rapidly complete a development cycle.

ClearCase and Integrity Solution also both excel at alerting team members to critical issues that can affect the development cycle as well as providing useful reporting data. For example, I was able to configure ClearCase to send e-mail alerts to managers should a defect not be addressed within the time estimated for the fix. Furthermore, I used ClearCase’s query as well as charting facilities and Integrity Solution’s Report Wizard to generate a variety of reports — some detailed to reflect outstanding actions for engineers and others to gain insight into the overall status of the project.

At the center of software development process management is the ability to apply version-control mechanisms across a variety of resource types. Here too, ClearCase and Integrity Solution are well-matched. I was able to implement version control over many types of project resources, including documentation files, source code, and graphics. With the IBM solution, I implemented version control at the directory and file levels; I used the MKS solution to implement package-level version control.

Developers can easily view the various versions of project resources available using either included tools, such as IBM’s ClearCase Explorer, or from within leading IDEs. I had no trouble using either the MKS or IBM SCM solution within Microsoft Visual Studio .Net or WebSphere Studio.

Developer interaction with SCM solutions is a critical element to consider when performing an SCM proof-of-concept. For example, during my tests, I found IBM’s integration with leading IDEs to be more intuitive and its interactions to be faster compared with those using the MKS Integrity Solution. The right-click interaction between the IDE and IBM’s ClearCase was quick, painless to use, and did not get in the way of the coding effort. Integrity Solution was also easy to interact with but did not feel as comfortable to me. However, your development teams may find the reverse is true during your tests. The important thing is to include some developers in your proof-of-concept to obtain their opinions about how the tools and integration will work for them.

Managing the release process is an equally important part of software change management. Integrity Solution proved a strong  performer as I created builds for both of my proof-of-concept projects. After creating a project baseline, I was able to execute user acceptance and scalability testing, make changes, and generate a new build. When satisfied with the results, I implemented the final version of the projects in production.

IBM’s ClearCase SCM solution offers a solid set of build features, too, including build dependency automation, distributed builds, parallel builds, and mainframe connectors to enable remote build capabilities. For my insurance project, I executed a distributed build and was pleased with the results.

Both MKS and IBM have factored in the need to support SCM for globally dispersed teams of software developers.

In particular, IBM’s ClearCase MultiSite product — a superset of the Rational ClearCase Change Management Solution — goes a step further, by including support for server replication between distributed locations. Developers in one location can work on the project during normal business hours and then hand off a version to another team in a different time zone. Servers can be flexibly set to replicate at intervals that meet with site requirements.

Likewise, MKS provides full support for multisite development teams. Projects from one location can be selectively replicated from one site to another, whereas other projects can be made visible only to teams at a specific site.

In the face of a mostly flat IT budgetary cycle, now is a good time to examine SCM. The solutions from IBM and MKS represent some of your best options.