The Community for Technology Leaders
Green Image
Issue No. 06 - November/December (2004 vol. 21)
ISSN: 0740-7459
pp: 16-18
This issue's theme is a bit novel; it's about climate change. Climates are sets of assumptions so deeply ingrained that even when they're no longer true we might fail to take notice. If you grew up in an arid climate, it could take years of gradually increasing rainfall before you finally wake up on some dreary, damp morning and say to yourself, "I don't think we're in New Mexico anymore, Toto."
Software changes are a lot like rain. While a few drops here and there usually aren't that much of a problem, a steady downpour can be damaging—and a deluge can wipe out everything you've carefully built. Such damage isn't limited just to software. More than one IT-dependent business has folded after years of changes eroded its critical software infrastructure to the point where it could no longer support the company's full weight.
Consider a few examples. Twenty years ago, most software engineers would have burst out laughing if someone had asked them to accept daily binary patches to critical pieces of their basic software infrastructure. Nowadays, those same engineers worry when they don't see such patches for a week or two—perhaps an ominous sign that application providers have thrown in the towel in dealing with the exponential growth of spyware, viruses, worms, and Trojans. Similarly, software and hardware installations have undergone an astonishing transformation. Installations and upgrades that once took hours, days, or even weeks have been automated by installation processes that let even casual users add, change, or remove software, and even hardware, in minutes.
At a finer level of detail, one that's often below users' perception, changes are occurring even more rapidly. Mobile code's rapid growth has blurred the once-solid boundary between data and software, letting distressingly powerful programs wink in and out of existence on PCs like fireflies on a summer night. If we're prudent and a bit lucky, these ephemeral fireflies of functional change will remain as transient and harmless as their real-life counterparts. But even the most harmless of these mobile code fireflies represents a level of automated change to system configurations that two decades ago (and still today) would've had configuration managers waking up in a cold sweat.
We'd like to suggest, however, that accelerating change's most dangerous impact isn't configuration control per se, but something more subtle and ultimately far more dangerous: The rapid erosion of hard-won software properties—the "-ilities" of traditional software engineering—just when they're needed most. To put it another way: While we're moving from building isolated homes to creating globe-spanning edifices, the rains of rapid change are revealing our building materials to be no more enduring than sun-dried mud.
Take maintainability. In industry, maintainability has never really been a permanent software feature as much as a limited, nonrenewable resource that application originators have provided in varying degrees. Changes gradually use up this resource by muddling the intent and violating subtle but vital guarantees. As this supply of maintainability dries up, the cost of changing a module rises until it becomes cheaper to replace than fix. Rapid changes accelerate this process, leading to swift extinction of maintainability—and, too often, a wide range of other software properties that similarly depend on the original software design's clarity and implied guarantees.
Take scalability. As a property that's well suited to tasks that change rapidly in scale and scope, scalability's importance has grown with the Internet. Unfortunately, effective scalability in a network of shared resources requires delicate balancing of control, functionality, protocols, and willing participation. This kind of precision and cooperation is easily damaged or derailed by random changes to a network's underlying configurations, modules, and user agreements.
Take security and privacy. Many examples show how minor changes to the wrong system settings can devastate properties, but the problem doesn't end there. The role of properties in keeping mischief out of a system also makes them prime targets for that mischief. So, minor change erosion that for scalability might only reduce the maximum peak capacity could for security and privacy lead to potentially devastating break-ins.
Take adaptability. Having "almost" the right software functionality does little good if the fit isn't close enough to work—and too often the only alternative is costly redevelopment. Making software truly adaptable is one of software design's trickiest challenges, requiring both an uncanny knack for estimating how software will change over time and an artistic ability to express change needs in terms that later users can easily understand. Good adaptability can capture changes before they undermine deeper infrastructure, but too many changes can overwhelm such features and lead to "quick fixes" that solve immediate issues at the expense of a system's long-term ability to adapt.
The real message, then, is this: We need new software engineering building materials, ones whose properties won't crumble like mud under the rains of constant change. We need updated methods for achieving maintainability, scalability, security, privacy, adaptability, and a long list of other -ilities—methods that embrace change instead of flinching from it. We'll end up with the same -ilities, but this time wrought in steel and stone instead of sand and clay. The authors of the articles in this focus section describe how they've embraced this difficult challenge of building such persistent software attributes. Their lessons show that constructing PSAs will necessarily be more automated, complex, dynamic, and geographically distributed than constructing simple -ilities.
The biggest challenge, however, lies ahead. In a world in which it seems that everyone is writing software, it's time for software engineering to take up the challenge of architectural leadership. We need to not just understand and demonstrate how to design software that stands the tests of time but also show how such ility-first designs will increase range, scale, and even beauty of future globe-spanning software creations.
We can't afford to live in a world of clay.

Terry Bollinger is an IT analyst at MITRE. His research interests focus on applying technology to large, complex software systems and networks. He received his MS in computer science from the University of Missouri at Rolla. He is the primary author of the Software Construction section of Version 1.0 of the international IEEE Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK) standard. He was an IEEE Software editorial board member and associate editor in chief (software construction). He received the IEEE Millennium Medal for his many years of service to the software community. Contact him at 7515 Colshire Dr., McLean, VA 22102-7508;

Jeffrey Voas is the chief scientist of Cigital. His research interests include software reliability, safety, fault tolerance, metrics and measurement, standards, software certification, and product liability. He received his PhD in computer science from the College of William & Mary. He is an advisory board member and past associate editor in chief (quality) of IEEE Software as well as an associate editor in chief of IT Professional. He is the 2003–2004 president of the IEEE Reliability Society and was named the 2000 IEEE Reliability Engineer of the Year. He is a Senior Member of the IEEE. Contact him at Cigital, 21351 Ridgetop Cir., Ste. 400, Dulles, VA 20166-6503;

Maarten Boasson is a member of the Department of Computer Science at the University of Amsterdam. His research focuses on preventing unnecessary complexity in system design. He received his MS in mathematics from Groningen University. He is a member of the IEEE Computer Society, ACM, and American Association of Artificial Intelligence, and cofounder of the IEEE task force on computer-based systems engineering. Contact him at the Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Amsterdam, Kruislaan 403, 1098 SJ Amsterdam, Netherlands;
88 ms
(Ver 3.3 (11022016))