...build the next new whizbang technology. We're taking a fresher approach of marrying improvements in the software development process with technology — leveraging that and really looking at the system much more holistically, as you would with any other part of your business.
Borland has the pieces as well as anyone else and the capabilities at least as well as anyone else. And what we have to do is execute against that — and that's where we've had problems...in the transition.
You already have the suite of ALM tools that addresses everything from getting requirements, modelling, coding and testing. But what you seem to be talking about is more high-touch consulting. Is that where you want to go?
The ALM tools are absolutely the core of it. What we're adding to that — which was born of the acquisition of TeraQuest Metrics earlier this year — is a way to engage with customers in a much more holistic fashion. In the past, we were coming across as pushing technology on them.
We now have a whole different level of discussion with these folks. It's still about selling the software from a financial perspective but approaching the problem more from a holistic and business-oriented way than we have in the past.
Do you have the consulting skills to advise customers on good development processes?
Some of it is more consulting. A lot of it is just a different way of engaging customers at the front end of the sales cycle. We have a larger number of SEI [Software Engineering Institute] assessors — software process doctors, if you will — than any organisation.
Two people in particular who came from TeraQuest — Bill Curtis and Charlie Weber — they are the guys that wrote the book on CMMI [Capability Maturity Model Integration] process. So we can give a diagnostic on a company's software development processes. The dirty little secret here is that everyone knows that [the average company is] pretty bad at software [development].
Sounds like what IBM might say they could deliver with their consultants.
We've resigned ourselves to the fact that we're competing with IBM directly. Whenever we go into a situation that's an IBM Global Services account with a ton of WebSphere and other IBM infrastructure and they're a Rational tools shop, we shake the dust off our shoes and move on to the next customer. While they are big, they don't have everyone. The second thing is, everyone who doesn't like IBM is our friend. Think about all the global systems integrators — they have a vested interest in seeing us be successful because they don't want IBM to rule the world.
What about Microsoft? Are they an ally or competitor in this strategy?
They are primarily an ally but also a competitor in one sense. Part of...
