1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:07,000
Hi everybody, here we are in Austin, Texas, which is always nice, and we're actually at

2
00:00:07,000 --> 00:00:14,320
the TeleLogic Users Group conference or meeting called Innovation 2008, and we've got a special

3
00:00:14,320 --> 00:00:15,320
guest with ourselves.

4
00:00:15,320 --> 00:00:16,760
Would you like to introduce yourself?

5
00:00:16,760 --> 00:00:17,760
Sure.

6
00:00:17,760 --> 00:00:25,560
My name is Danny Saba, and I am the general manager for IBM's Rational Business, which

7
00:00:25,560 --> 00:00:26,560
now includes TeleLogic.

8
00:00:26,560 --> 00:00:33,860
I think it was back at RSDC where you had the biggest sort of talking about TeleLogic

9
00:00:33,860 --> 00:00:37,700
and Rational and things like that, and obviously at the TeleLogic Users Group you would talk

10
00:00:37,700 --> 00:00:39,020
about that more.

11
00:00:39,020 --> 00:00:43,540
And I'm curious, this morning in your keynote you were talking about sort of the melding

12
00:00:43,540 --> 00:00:46,500
together of the TeleLogic portfolio and how it would fit into Rational.

13
00:00:46,500 --> 00:00:52,900
There's a couple of things to understand about the melding of the TeleLogic portfolio.

14
00:00:52,900 --> 00:00:57,900
Number one is, as I've said in the past, and will continue to say, the biggest reason

15
00:00:57,900 --> 00:01:07,780
for acquiring the assets and the people of TeleLogic is the fact that TeleLogic was really a world

16
00:01:07,780 --> 00:01:13,200
leader in understanding embedded and complex systems.

17
00:01:13,200 --> 00:01:14,200
Right.

18
00:01:14,200 --> 00:01:24,540
And I believe fundamentally that the challenges in front of us as a business both from a growth

19
00:01:24,540 --> 00:01:29,420
as well as just a customer challenge perspective are really going to come largely from embedded

20
00:01:29,420 --> 00:01:30,420
in a complex system.

21
00:01:30,420 --> 00:01:33,200
That's really part of the reason why we acquired TeleLogic.

22
00:01:33,200 --> 00:01:41,960
So when you look at the strategy of Rational going forward, there's now an enhanced, a significantly

23
00:01:41,960 --> 00:01:45,660
enhanced expertise in that particular domain.

24
00:01:45,660 --> 00:01:52,200
And what we're going to do in terms of integrating that particular expertise, the tools, the capabilities,

25
00:01:52,200 --> 00:01:59,200
the intellectual property, is really leverage it in the context of the underlying jazz platform

26
00:01:59,200 --> 00:02:00,200
that we're built.

27
00:02:00,200 --> 00:02:06,200
So we're providing a roadmap that not only enhances the existing products that TeleLogic

28
00:02:06,200 --> 00:02:12,200
has, but also starts to incorporate them and weave them into the broader jazz vision that

29
00:02:12,200 --> 00:02:13,200
we will have as a combined entity.

30
00:02:13,200 --> 00:02:17,200
And it seems like the combination, I mean, Rational's always been strong in software development,

31
00:02:17,200 --> 00:02:18,200
I guess.

32
00:02:18,200 --> 00:02:23,200
And then, like you're saying, adding in the systems development or software that runs on

33
00:02:23,200 --> 00:02:24,200
systems, if you will.

34
00:02:24,200 --> 00:02:30,200
I mean, it really sort of adds on a whole new sort of type of software community that Rational

35
00:02:30,200 --> 00:02:31,200
will be working with.

36
00:02:31,200 --> 00:02:36,200
Not only that, but basically, once again, software is becoming more and more relevant

37
00:02:36,200 --> 00:02:44,200
as an element, as a crucial element, as a differentiating element, as an innovative element in those types

38
00:02:44,200 --> 00:02:45,200
of complex systems.

39
00:02:45,200 --> 00:02:50,200
I'm curious, with the two groups coming together, as it were, I mean, what, and especially with

40
00:02:50,200 --> 00:02:55,200
jazz as sort of a substrate, if you will, of being of the Rational portfolio.

41
00:02:55,200 --> 00:02:59,200
There's obviously a lot of overlap in the software world between whenever you're writing software,

42
00:02:59,200 --> 00:03:03,200
but what are sort of the things that are unique for the telelogic world and more unique

43
00:03:03,200 --> 00:03:05,200
towards the more application space?

44
00:03:05,200 --> 00:03:09,200
One of the characteristics that we were talking about and what highlights and differentiates,

45
00:03:09,200 --> 00:03:14,200
frankly, some of the telelogic tools is the focus on two different aspects of things.

46
00:03:14,200 --> 00:03:22,200
One is on understanding and managing complex systems, okay, where software is only a part

47
00:03:22,200 --> 00:03:23,200
of the broader solution.

48
00:03:23,200 --> 00:03:24,200
Right.

49
00:03:24,200 --> 00:03:25,200
Okay.

50
00:03:25,200 --> 00:03:28,200
So when you think about things like, as a matter of fact, I was talking to a customer earlier

51
00:03:28,200 --> 00:03:31,200
this morning about enterprise architecture, right?

52
00:03:31,200 --> 00:03:35,200
So you look at, you know, a product like System Architect.

53
00:03:35,200 --> 00:03:40,200
System Architect goes well beyond and is applicable well beyond, you know, a pure software domain.

54
00:03:40,200 --> 00:03:41,200
So is Doors.

55
00:03:41,200 --> 00:03:42,200
Right.

56
00:03:42,200 --> 00:03:43,200
Okay.

57
00:03:43,200 --> 00:03:51,200
Doors gets used in many instances, basically, where, frankly, only part of the output is managing

58
00:03:51,200 --> 00:03:53,200
requirements around software.

59
00:03:53,200 --> 00:03:57,200
So, on the other hand, basically, you have another dimension, which is essentially embedded software.

60
00:03:57,200 --> 00:04:05,200
So you have tools like Rhapsody that, you know, are first and foremost in that particular realm.

61
00:04:05,200 --> 00:04:12,200
Managing complex systems, managing complex systems that have only software as a portion of their, you know,

62
00:04:12,200 --> 00:04:15,200
of the asset that they're trying to manage or create.

63
00:04:15,200 --> 00:04:17,200
And managing embedded software.

64
00:04:17,200 --> 00:04:18,200
Right, right.

65
00:04:18,200 --> 00:04:19,200
For all the things that come in.

66
00:04:19,200 --> 00:04:23,200
Though there are differences, it seems like, and I, of course, come from more of the, I guess,

67
00:04:23,200 --> 00:04:24,200
the application side of things.

68
00:04:24,200 --> 00:04:25,200
Yeah, IT side.

69
00:04:25,200 --> 00:04:26,200
Yeah, exactly.

70
00:04:26,200 --> 00:04:27,200
Or the system side, right?

71
00:04:27,200 --> 00:04:28,200
Right.

72
00:04:28,200 --> 00:04:29,200
Or the software side.

73
00:04:29,200 --> 00:04:34,200
And I imagine that the requirements process is somewhat similar when you're gathering.

74
00:04:34,200 --> 00:04:38,200
I mean, you still have a desire to do something, and then you have to have software that satisfies

75
00:04:38,200 --> 00:04:40,200
that desire at a very high level, right?

76
00:04:40,200 --> 00:04:41,200
Yeah.

77
00:04:41,200 --> 00:04:46,200
But there probably is, you know, I would assume, coming from the IT side, that in systems,

78
00:04:46,200 --> 00:04:49,200
you have to sort of get it right a lot earlier than you can in software.

79
00:04:49,200 --> 00:04:50,200
Right.

80
00:04:50,200 --> 00:04:53,200
You don't want to ship a bunch of units of something that have a bug in them.

81
00:04:53,200 --> 00:04:54,200
It's not quite as easy to fix.

82
00:04:54,200 --> 00:04:55,200
No, it's not.

83
00:04:55,200 --> 00:04:59,200
And frankly, it shouldn't be quite as easy to fix on the software side either.

84
00:04:59,200 --> 00:05:00,200
Right.

85
00:05:00,200 --> 00:05:05,200
Because I think, frankly, we put out a lot of, shall we say, questionable quality on the

86
00:05:05,200 --> 00:05:09,200
software side that could, frankly, benefit from the discipline and from the rigor that

87
00:05:09,200 --> 00:05:12,200
gets introduced into the product engineering side of this.

88
00:05:12,200 --> 00:05:13,200
Sure.

89
00:05:13,200 --> 00:05:17,200
So that is one of the key differentiators is the fact that, you know, when you're managing

90
00:05:17,200 --> 00:05:22,200
that kind of complex system, you know, mistakes hurt, and they hurt a lot.

91
00:05:22,200 --> 00:05:23,200
Right.

92
00:05:23,200 --> 00:05:28,200
And basically having a certain degree of rigor and discipline about how you manage and gather

93
00:05:28,200 --> 00:05:33,200
requirements and the specificity and the formalism, so to speak, behind those requirements

94
00:05:33,200 --> 00:05:34,200
is a lot more important.

95
00:05:34,200 --> 00:05:37,200
Same thing with model-driven development, basically.

96
00:05:37,200 --> 00:05:42,200
You know, the good news is it's not quite as chaotic as the deployment environments that

97
00:05:42,200 --> 00:05:43,200
you see in IT.

98
00:05:43,200 --> 00:05:44,200
Right.

99
00:05:44,200 --> 00:05:45,200
Right.

100
00:05:45,200 --> 00:05:50,200
Because basically what you're doing is you're targeting a fairly well-prescribed, product-oriented...

101
00:05:50,200 --> 00:05:51,200
Yeah.

102
00:05:51,200 --> 00:05:52,200
More of a very known system.

103
00:05:52,200 --> 00:05:53,200
A known system.

104
00:05:53,200 --> 00:05:54,200
Right.

105
00:05:54,200 --> 00:05:55,200
Right.

106
00:05:55,200 --> 00:06:01,200
But what that does is that both strengthens and enhances and requires, you know, more of

107
00:06:01,200 --> 00:06:04,200
a model-driven and model-driven development.

108
00:06:04,200 --> 00:06:05,200
Right.

109
00:06:05,200 --> 00:06:09,200
Or the reason why it doesn't work on the software side or the IT side is because people can't

110
00:06:09,200 --> 00:06:11,200
actually control the deployment environment.

111
00:06:11,200 --> 00:06:12,200
Right.

112
00:06:12,200 --> 00:06:16,200
And when you have a mismatch between the deployment environment and the assumptions that you make

113
00:06:16,200 --> 00:06:20,200
and the underlying modeling environment, you've generally got some degree of chaos.

114
00:06:20,200 --> 00:06:21,200
Right.

115
00:06:21,200 --> 00:06:22,200
Right.

116
00:06:22,200 --> 00:06:23,200
Right.

117
00:06:23,200 --> 00:06:24,200
It's time for a patch or a new version.

118
00:06:24,200 --> 00:06:27,200
Time for a patch or a new version or the performance is terrible or...

119
00:06:27,200 --> 00:06:28,200
Right.

120
00:06:28,200 --> 00:06:29,200
Right.

121
00:06:29,200 --> 00:06:34,200
Or you can't align what you did in actual coding with what the model is supposed to represent.

122
00:06:34,200 --> 00:06:41,200
So there's all kinds of breakage points in that kind of scenario which aren't as pronounced,

123
00:06:41,200 --> 00:06:44,200
if you will, in the product and product engineering.

124
00:06:44,200 --> 00:06:49,200
One of the things you were talking about earlier was one of the more flagship-ish, flagship-y

125
00:06:49,200 --> 00:06:53,200
sort of telelogic project doors, which I always love products that are in all caps.

126
00:06:53,200 --> 00:06:55,200
That's an exciting ending scheme.

127
00:06:56,200 --> 00:07:02,200
And, you know, I think on Redmonk TV here, we've talked about jazz quite a lot with Aragama

128
00:07:02,200 --> 00:07:03,200
and other people.

129
00:07:03,200 --> 00:07:09,200
And I wonder, when it comes to agile software development, I think the requirements process

130
00:07:09,200 --> 00:07:12,200
is pretty integral to doing agile development.

131
00:07:12,200 --> 00:07:17,200
How do you see Doors itself sort of moving into, you know, mixing together with sort of Requisite Pro

132
00:07:17,200 --> 00:07:19,200
or the other things offered by jazz?

133
00:07:19,200 --> 00:07:24,200
Because a lot of the nice features in jazz are around the sort of project and requirements

134
00:07:24,200 --> 00:07:25,200
management areas of things.

135
00:07:25,200 --> 00:07:26,200
Right.

136
00:07:26,200 --> 00:07:29,200
And it seems like there's a lot of nice things that jazz can sort of bleed back into Doors.

137
00:07:29,200 --> 00:07:34,200
As a matter of fact, that's one of the reasons why we're taking Composer, Rec Pro Composer.

138
00:07:34,200 --> 00:07:35,200
Right.

139
00:07:35,200 --> 00:07:40,200
Or, you know, Rational Requirements Composer, I guess is probably a more technical name for it.

140
00:07:40,200 --> 00:07:49,200
But basically, Requirements Composer is really a front end to requirements, you know, elicitation.

141
00:07:49,200 --> 00:07:50,200
Right, right.

142
00:07:50,200 --> 00:07:59,200
Which is really more of a collaborative process that involves multiple communities and tries to harden requirements over time.

143
00:07:59,200 --> 00:08:00,200
Right.

144
00:08:00,200 --> 00:08:03,200
And tries to keep track of those particular hardened requirements.

145
00:08:03,200 --> 00:08:12,200
Which is really, you know, starting to introduce the whole notion of agile evolution into a more formal rigorous requirements process.

146
00:08:12,200 --> 00:08:18,200
But you can't substitute or make the mistake of thinking that one replaces the other.

147
00:08:18,200 --> 00:08:26,200
Because in the more formal process, everything has to be documented or you're out of compliance in one form or another.

148
00:08:26,200 --> 00:08:27,200
Yeah.

149
00:08:27,200 --> 00:08:38,200
So, on the one hand, we want the flexibility of the more agile development model, especially on the innovative edges.

150
00:08:38,200 --> 00:08:53,200
But basically, where compliance and regulatory issues are involved, you really want a more formal model that can then be carried through the entire lifecycle to make sure that all aspects of product delivery and product development basically are adhered to.

151
00:08:53,200 --> 00:09:02,200
It seems like all throughout Rational's lifespan, if you will, there has been that, I mean, the word you keep using over and over again, there has been that idea of the model you develop for something.

152
00:09:02,200 --> 00:09:06,200
Whether it's an architectural model or a process model.

153
00:09:06,200 --> 00:09:15,200
And each sort of user comes up with the methodology that's somewhat tailor-fitted towards what their current needs and process and things like that are.

154
00:09:15,200 --> 00:09:23,200
And it is, I mean, Jazz does have that nice aspect that it is generalized enough that it doesn't have the one methodology or model that you have to use if you're using Jazz.

155
00:09:23,200 --> 00:09:28,200
That's one of the reasons why when you start to dig into the Jazz architecture, there's really three key elements.

156
00:09:28,200 --> 00:09:29,200
One is collaboration.

157
00:09:29,200 --> 00:09:30,200
Right.

158
00:09:30,200 --> 00:09:43,200
So you want kind of a social networking infrastructure that focuses on the domain of, you know, product delivery systems development and software development and delivery.

159
00:09:43,200 --> 00:09:53,200
You want a layer that then leverages the collaboration but coordinates the collaboration, if you will, around methodology.

160
00:09:53,200 --> 00:09:54,200
Yeah.

161
00:09:54,200 --> 00:09:55,200
Right.

162
00:09:55,200 --> 00:09:57,200
And the implementation of methodology and process.

163
00:09:57,200 --> 00:09:58,200
Okay.

164
00:09:58,200 --> 00:10:07,200
So there's kind of a flexible, if you will, workflow automation layer that sits there as well as being based on integration principles.

165
00:10:07,200 --> 00:10:08,200
Right.

166
00:10:08,200 --> 00:10:12,200
So that you can weave in anything into that collaborative process.

167
00:10:12,200 --> 00:10:24,200
And then, of course, there's the reporting layer that then takes the information that comes out of that automation, comes out of the social networking infrastructure, and then reports it out.

168
00:10:24,200 --> 00:10:25,200
Okay.

169
00:10:25,200 --> 00:10:29,200
Without necessarily being disruptive to the process.

170
00:10:29,200 --> 00:10:30,200
Right.

171
00:10:30,200 --> 00:10:31,200
Okay.

172
00:10:31,200 --> 00:10:32,200
Which I think is really important.

173
00:10:32,200 --> 00:10:41,200
Because what you want to do is make sure that people see reporting in an honest way as a side effect of the tools that they're actually using.

174
00:10:41,200 --> 00:10:44,200
And so it allows you to really understand what's going on.

175
00:10:44,200 --> 00:10:45,200
Right.

176
00:10:45,200 --> 00:10:46,200
In a more honest way.

177
00:10:46,200 --> 00:10:53,200
And it gets it out of that classic notion of, wait a second, I worked for eight hours and then I got to write it down for four hours.

178
00:10:53,200 --> 00:10:54,200
Which is really a pain.

179
00:10:54,200 --> 00:10:55,200
Yeah.

180
00:10:55,200 --> 00:10:56,200
Yeah.

181
00:10:56,200 --> 00:10:57,200
Well, I mean.

182
00:10:57,200 --> 00:10:59,200
And leads to, you know, inaccurate and incomplete information.

183
00:10:59,200 --> 00:11:00,200
Sure.

184
00:11:00,200 --> 00:11:02,200
To sort of optimizing those four hours, so to speak.

185
00:11:02,200 --> 00:11:03,200
Exactly.

186
00:11:03,200 --> 00:11:16,200
So being at the telelogic group here and over the sort of course of since they've become part of the rational family, as it were, I mean, how have you seen the telelogic community mixing together with the rational people?

187
00:11:16,200 --> 00:11:17,200
Right.

188
00:11:17,200 --> 00:11:23,200
I hate to be cliche-ish here, because I wouldn't say this unless it were true.

189
00:11:23,200 --> 00:11:26,200
I think it's been a lot smoother than I expected.

190
00:11:26,200 --> 00:11:27,200
Right.

191
00:11:27,200 --> 00:11:31,200
I think that they came in with a positive attitude.

192
00:11:31,200 --> 00:11:47,200
And they viewed this as, you know, basically a natural evolution of what their business had to go through to become part of a larger, you know, more capable, so to speak, globally reaching organization.

193
00:11:47,200 --> 00:11:59,200
And in the process, they've looked at it, you know, as an opportunity to really lend their skills and capabilities in that broader context.

194
00:11:59,200 --> 00:12:13,200
Because they've embraced it, I think you'll see that in both the broader rational, basically, and in IBM, you'll see a lot of the telelogic people start to manifest themselves, frankly, in broader roles.

195
00:12:13,200 --> 00:12:14,200
Right, right.

196
00:12:14,200 --> 00:12:15,200
Okay.

197
00:12:15,200 --> 00:12:24,200
We've already got the guy who's the executive VP of business strategy for telelogic, who's now the VP of business strategy for all of rational.

198
00:12:24,200 --> 00:12:25,200
Oh, really?

199
00:12:25,200 --> 00:12:26,200
I have titles like executive VP.

200
00:12:26,200 --> 00:12:27,200
Sure, sure.

201
00:12:27,200 --> 00:12:29,200
But, yeah, absolutely.

202
00:12:29,200 --> 00:12:35,200
Nirash Chandra is my guy who's in charge of business strategy.

203
00:12:35,200 --> 00:12:36,200
Right, right.

204
00:12:36,200 --> 00:12:37,200
That makes sense.

205
00:12:37,200 --> 00:12:38,200
So there's a nice integration going on.

206
00:12:38,200 --> 00:12:43,200
There's a nice integration there, and there will be more people that will weave into the broader organization.

207
00:12:43,200 --> 00:12:44,200
Right.

208
00:12:44,200 --> 00:12:50,200
Plus, they're the ones who have, you know, in large part, the domain expertise necessary to be able to kick off that systems business we were talking about.

209
00:12:50,200 --> 00:12:57,200
Just so you can give us, I guess, to kind of close out, to give us IT guys a sense of what's in the domain of systems things, right?

210
00:12:57,200 --> 00:13:05,200
So if I'm an existing rational person, I'm thinking about, you know, with telelogic, there's sort of like new sorts of software that I can get into through the tool.

211
00:13:05,200 --> 00:13:08,200
I mean, it takes a lot more than just having a tool to get into software.

212
00:13:08,200 --> 00:13:09,200
Sure.

213
00:13:09,200 --> 00:13:13,200
But, I mean, like, what are some of the things that, the sort of applications, if you will?

214
00:13:13,200 --> 00:13:20,200
Again, it's a loaded term coming from application development, but the in systems that you can see, like, sort of rational be involved in more and more.

215
00:13:20,200 --> 00:13:39,200
Well, I mean, I think that what's really interesting to me is, as I tried to illustrate in my keynote, is that, frankly, everything that we use is becoming more and more, quote unquote, embedded with software.

216
00:13:39,200 --> 00:13:40,200
Right.

217
00:13:40,200 --> 00:13:41,200
Okay.

218
00:13:41,200 --> 00:13:46,200
Hopefully, intelligent software, but not necessarily always intelligent software.

219
00:13:46,200 --> 00:13:50,200
And those things are becoming interconnected.

220
00:13:50,200 --> 00:13:51,200
Okay.

221
00:13:51,200 --> 00:13:54,200
You know, I mean, classic examples are automobiles, right?

222
00:13:54,200 --> 00:14:01,200
I mean, there's all kinds of information that is now being stored in one form or another in automobiles.

223
00:14:01,200 --> 00:14:12,200
In addition to the fact that a lot of that embedded software is now managing more intelligently all the different aspects of actually running an automobile.

224
00:14:12,200 --> 00:14:20,200
Everything from fuel-air mixtures to try and generate a lot more, you know, fuel-efficient carburation, if you will.

225
00:14:20,200 --> 00:14:37,200
All the way to new electric cars that are now heavily dependent on a tremendous amount of software to actually manage the fact that you've got four wheels, a chassis, a bunch of batteries, and, you know, something that's supposed to actually act like an automobile.

226
00:14:37,200 --> 00:15:06,200
You know, and then when you start hooking that into the fact that these things will be, if they're not already, are going to be more and more through the higher, you know, through a higher bandwidth wireless systems interconnected into the back ends of IT systems and the more conventional, more conventional applications, if you will, of the systems in IT world, what happens is that basically the two are very quickly going to have to relate to each other.

227
00:15:06,200 --> 00:15:21,200
And that's where you'll see Rational get involved very heavily, both on the product side and product development side, as well as on the IT and, you know, the more classic IT software side.

228
00:15:21,200 --> 00:15:28,200
Bringing the two together, along with all of the other sister brands in the software business in IBM.

229
00:15:28,200 --> 00:15:29,200
Yeah.

230
00:15:29,200 --> 00:15:34,200
Because we're building out the Jazz platform on top of some of the capabilities of all of the other sister brands.

231
00:15:34,200 --> 00:15:35,200
Right.

232
00:15:35,200 --> 00:15:43,200
And we're working with people like Tivoli as well as Lotus to bring social networking and operations and systems management into that broader.

233
00:15:43,200 --> 00:15:57,200
It seems like there's a, if you use the classic metaphor of a network of all the computers that we have and, you know, little smartphones and devices that, at a pretty quick rate, that network is expanding to a lot more different devices that normally wouldn't be networked at all.

234
00:15:57,200 --> 00:16:04,200
I mean, they wouldn't have any contact with outside of themselves, which brings a whole host of new exciting things to worry about.

235
00:16:04,200 --> 00:16:05,200
That's right.

236
00:16:05,200 --> 00:16:07,200
You can tell I'm a little excited about this.

237
00:16:07,200 --> 00:16:08,200
Sure.

238
00:16:08,200 --> 00:16:10,200
And, you know, and I really am.

239
00:16:10,200 --> 00:16:11,200
Yeah.

240
00:16:11,200 --> 00:16:15,200
I really believe that this was a very good move for us.

241
00:16:15,200 --> 00:16:24,200
I'm really happy with the people that have come on board from TeleLogic and the assets that they bring to the table.

242
00:16:24,200 --> 00:16:28,200
And, you know, I think we'll be able to deliver something quite special.

243
00:16:28,200 --> 00:16:29,200
Well, that sounds great.

244
00:16:29,200 --> 00:16:30,200
Well, thanks for taking the time to talk with us today.

245
00:16:30,200 --> 00:16:31,960
to talk with us today. - Thank you.