Re: DoD and NIST undermining commercial CASE industry

[saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!wupost !csus.edu!netcom.com!mcgregor@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Scott Mcgregor)]

In article <1992Dec2.075323.3315@sei.cmu.edu> firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) 
writes:
>In article <ByM75t.2s6@world.std.com> srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian
) writes:
>
>>    A major CASE standards effort became rancorous in recent weeks as vendors
,
>>government officials and commercial users leveled charges of favoritism and
>>commercial bias at one another.  At stake, both size said, is the long term
>>viability of the US computer aided software engineering (CASE) industry.
>
>No, the US CASE industry is showing the same insularity and xenophobia
>that destroyed the US automobile industry.

Unfortunately, I think this is really self-aggrandizement on both
sides. The CASE market is far larger than IPSE/Frameworks business,
which is really what the debate between PCTE and ATIS is limited to.
In fact, there are profitable CASE markets and companies, in
structured analysis and design, in compilers, and in documentation
tools. But there is, as of yet, no profitable IPSE/Framework provider,
and the submarket is probably the smallest of the CASE submarkets. The
other markets will probably prosper independently of whether ATIS or
PCTE is selected, or even if neither becomes important.

It is also oversimplifying to look at this issue as having only two possible
results: ATIS or PCTE.  There is a substantial likelihood that neither
will be important and solutions like HP Broadcast Message Service, or
Sun Tool talk, or Apple's messages, or OMG's message systems could
turn out to be more important. In the end, the NAME might be PCTE or
ATIS, but it may bear as much relationship to those today as the
current Ford Mustang does to the original one.  (Granfather's Ax
syndrome: changed the handle 3 times, and blade twice, but it is still
Grandfather's ax!)  

Also keep in mind that being a standard doesn't make something
important. HP-IB, aka. IEEE 433 is a standard for connecting
peripherals to computers. But even HP no longer pushes it as an important
interfaces for connecting disks, etc. Manufacturers support interfaces
like SCSI which comes in multiple variants!  The marketplace decides
what is important, not standards organizations.  (The great thing
about software standards is that there are so many to chose from!)

>PCTE will be the CASE standard everywhere in the world except the US,
>and none of US industry's paid lobbyists and trained seals can change
>that.  The effect of the US adopting an incompatible standard will be
>to shut US companies off from a large, fast-growing global market,
>and give them a small, slower-growing local market as their private
>oligopoly.  It will be the equivalent of a tariff wall blocking the
>import of software.

A possible future, but still too cloudy to predict.  As I stated
above, equating PCTE to CASE is overblowing PCTE's importance in the
CASE market. Equating ATIS to CASE would also be overblown.  At
present PCTE and ATIS are not end user solutions, but only technologies.  The
market is neither large nor fast growing by looking at the financial
results of the competitors so far.   Only the promise (when they are
tamed for end users) is big.  But I think it may be illusory. I'll
explain why by analogy: 

If CASE were the automobile business, Operating Systems like  Unix and
DOS would be the internal combustion engine that most of us use to
drive around today. ATIS might be like the U.S.'s lead in battery  car
engines, PCTE like Europe/Japan's lead in flexible solar cell technology
for cars. Lower polution cars are probably in our (distant) future--but
will they be battery driven, or solar augmented? Maybe they won't even
be electric--maybe they'll be alternative fuels driven (BMS,
Tooltalk...). In any case consumers aren't likely to scrap the
existing engine in their Chevy, Toyota, or Peugot to put in a new
electric engine.  They'll wait until the auto manufacturers change
engines  in new cars(continuing the analogy: HW vendors like Sun, HP, IBM,
Bull, Fujitsu).  But those manufacturers have investments in plants
that already make combustion engines, they won't be eager to switch
until consumers really prefer one solution over the other--and that's
not likely to happen until they are tamed for the end user. Typical
chicken and the egg situation which will probably take years for the
auto industry to resolve (and also for the software industry to
resolve for the same reasons).

I respect both Greg and Robert's opinions but I think that they may
be overly concerned by the hype. I've been involved in this particular
part of the industry for six years, both at HP and Atherton, before
starting Prescient Software, Inc.  I suppose I stand to gain as an Atherton
shareholder if the hype works and Atherton becomes profitable as a
result, but in the past it has seemed like the hype hurt more than it
helped (my personal opinion).

Ironic little known fact about this controversy: Thomson CSF, a French
firm owns SYSECA. (Thomson gained notoriety when American DOD contractors
like Lochkheed opposed, successfully it turns out, Thomson's attempt
to recently acquire control of LTV). SYSECA is a major owner of
Emeraude, currently the only shipping producer of PCTE.  SYSECA also
sells Enterprise II, one of the few shipping PCTE based IPSE Framework
alternatives to Atherton's ATIS based Software BackPlane IPSE
Framework.  A few years ago Thomson CSF acquired an interest in
Atherton Technology. About two years ago Thomson acquired majority
ownership in Atherton Technology. Several press statements have told of
a "harmonization" effort between PCTE and ATIS. But neither Atherton
nor SYSECA currently offer any shipping products that are compliant to
both standards.  What tangled webs we weave...

If French  owned Thomson fully acquired Atherton and ATIS was to
become the US standard, would this be a victory for the American CASE
industry? What is the impact of "brand competition" between various
Proctor & Gamble soaps or toothpastes?  What could we expect in a
brand war between two Thomson owned entities?  (Note: I'm not claiming
Thomson will or won't fully acquire Atherton--I know of no public
statements either way, I'm just asking the what if question).  With
multinational investments common in software, I'm not sure if this
polarization into xenophobia makes any sense.  It is as confusing as
asking which car is more American, the Honda Civic manufactured in Ohio, or
the Dodge Colt imported from Japan!

Atherton Technology is not connected with Jayson Addam's company which
was formerly known as Atherton Software Works.

I don't speak for Atherton Technology. I'm merely a shareholder. I
think that Ed White is taking needed steps to improve the prospects
for the company. If Atherton and Thomson take steps that benefit the
shareholders, I'm all for that.  I'm not sure whether that benefits
the industry as whole, or the American and European sub-industries,
but neither organization is a charity with that as a major goal. Both
organizations are just trying to satisfy customers and make a profit
and probably should be judged on there performance to that goal alone.

Scott
--