wind river webinar deck v1 as of april 23 2014 dw2

The Future of Embedded SystemsAre you ready to transform your embedded development?

Thursday, May 1st

2

Moderator and Panelists

Moderator: Jim McLeod-Warrick, Managing Partner, Beacon Technology Partners LLC

Jay Andersen,VP of Professional Services, Wind River

Rommel,VP, VDC Research

Ken Caviasca,GM, Intel IoT Solutions Group, Platform Enabling and Development (PED)

3

Methodology

Web survey

• 674 usable responses (representing a confidence interval of +/- 3.7%)• North America = 392 completed responses• EMEA = 135 completed responses• Japan = 30 completed responses• Rest of Asia = 117 completed responses

• Fieldwork dates: October 10th through November 27th, 2013 • Sample provided by: UBM Tech• Respondents screened for:

– Involvement in developing embedded applications and primary focused on software/firmware

• Research team: Beacon Technology Partners (www.beacontech.com) – Methodology, fielding, data reporting

4

Respondent Characteristics

Job Function % Staff 75 Software design engineer 42 Systems engineer / Systems architect 16 Hardware design engineer 8 Hardware / Software engineer 3 Test, quality, manufacturing or operations engineering

3 Other 3

Management 2513

Engineering manager/director 111

Region %5820175

Embedded Applications Focus %5941

Years of Experience14.9

Size of Team31

Sales Volume $714.80Average Sales Volume (in millions)

Average Years of Experience

Balance between hardware and software

Japan

North America

EuropeRest of Asia

Primarily software-oriented

Project leader

Corporate management

Average Number of Engineers

5

Embedded design teams are more apt to be working on “new to the world” projects as opposed to incremental improvements to existing designs

1. What proportion of the projects you personally work on are:

Base = Total

New design = 58%Existing design = 42% New design = 57%

Existing design = 43%

New design = 51%Existing design = 49%

New design = 57%Existing design = 43%

WorldwideNew design = 57%Existing design = 43%

6

2. Approximately how many weeks did your [new design/upgrade of an existing design] project require, from initial documentation and exploration until the project was deployed and maintained for end users? 3a. What proportion of time was required for each of the following stages in your [new design/upgrade of an existing design] project: 3b. Approximately how many software or firmware engineers were directly involved at this stage of the design of your [new design/upgrade of an existing design] project?

The “develop” stage – whether for new or existing design projects – usurps the largest proportion of a project’s timeline

Average Weeks

Base = Total Stage of Design

Indicates significant difference at 95% confidence interval between regions

Total WeeksNew design = 51.7 weeksExisting design = 29.6 weeks

7

Question

Typical embedded software design requires nearly a year to complete (for new projects) and 30 weeks for revisions (to existing designs). How does that compare to the past?

8

Most embedded projects are delivered 3 to 5 months late

3c. Was your [new design/upgrade of an existing design] project delivered…?

Project Timeline

Base = Total

Indicates significant difference at 95% confidence interval between groups

New design

Existing design

% %

less than 2 months 26 262 to less than 6 months 15 126 to less than 12 months 8 312 to less than 18 months 3 118 months of more 2 1Cancelled 1 2

Avg months late 5.1 3.5

Late by…

Amplitude of Delay

North American engineers more apt to be “on schedule”

9

Question

Roughly half of all embedded software projects are delivered three to six months late. Why don’t we do a better job anticipating these delays?

10

Internal challenges (e.g. murky requirements and overly tight timelines) and external forces (e.g. hardware availability, system interconnections) combine to hinder time-to-completion goals

4. We’d like to know more about the various factors you confronted during your [new design/upgrade of an existing design] project.

Mean share of project problems

Base = Total

Mean Scores

Share of problems arising from:

Internal issues = 63.5External Issues = 36.5

Asian engineers under more pressure than other embedded developers to reduce costs

11

Question

The chief reasons for delay, according to our survey, are “internal” – primarily due to changing or murky specs/requirements or unrealistic schedules.

1.What internal or cultural changes might be implemented that can shorten subsequent development time and reduce the possibilities of project delay?

2.How can we do a better job of anticipating the unknown or “external” hurdles such as technology changes, emerging industry standards or new governmental regulations?

Q4: Assigned to Jay, Chris

Q6: Assigned to Jay

12

Most agree that further investments in tools, training and support would improve the ability to hasten time-to-completion

9b. Please tell us whether you agree or disagree with each of the following statement about your embedded software or firmware design activities.

“I feel that with right combination of tools, operating systems and consulting, training and support, we could improve our development efficiency significantly”

78% Agree

Base = Total

13

Although proof of ROI is still necessary, most are open to increased spending to achieve a better embedded development environment

11. Please tell us whether you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about your embedded software or firmware design activities.

Agree Neutral Disagree

Management more likely to feel ROI is necessary before investing in tools – and are also more likely to consider using 3rd parties to help improve development time-to-market

14

Base = Total

%

Right combination of tools 76Willing to invest in 3rd party 49Demonstrate clear ROI 60

Asian respondents are particularly open to this level of investment in tools, training and support

% Agree Summary


%


%


%


Right combination of tools: “I feel that with right combination of tools, operating systems and consulting, training and support, we could improve our development efficiency significantly” Willing to invest in 3rd party: “Our software group would be willing to invest if a 3rd party could prove how their solutions, tools, and services could significantly increase developer efficiency and improve time-to-market our software development”Demonstrate clear ROI: “Our company has to demonstrate clear ROI in order to invest in better development solution, tools and services”

15

Questions

Economic realities makes cycle time reductions difficult.

1.What resources do embedded project leaders have at their disposal to surmount the challenge of fewer engineers available to work on more projects?

2.What ROI metrics are used – or should be used – to help development teams make better business cases for investing in improved embedded development tools and processes?

16

There is a fairly even split in preferred OS platform between commercial and open source/“roll your own” solutions

5. Which of the following best describes your company’s embedded OS platform or scheduler use for most of its embedded applications?

Preferred embedded OS platform or scheduler

Base = Total

Using Commercial OS

NA = 44%EMEA = 30%Japan = 63%ROA = 35%


17

Question

What accounts for the persistence of “roll your own” or “do it yourself” open source OS platforms – and do you see this changing in the near future?

18

Pros and cons of using commercial vs. open source OS platforms

6a. Which of the following best describes why your company does not generally use a commercial embedded OS for your applications?6b. Which of the following best describes why your company generally uses a commercially supported embedded OS for your applications?

Reasons for using commercial OS

Other = 8%

Base = Those who use commercial embedded OS platform

Reasons for NOT using commercial OS

Other = 8%

Base = Those who use in-house embedded OS platform

19

Support and long-term relationships undergird commercial OS platform preference, while short-term cost considerations drive open source OSs


% Agree

Indicates significant difference at 95% confidence interval

between groups

20

QuestionThe survey shows us that those who shy away from using commercially available 3rd party OS platforms do so due to concerns about complexity and upfront cost.

1.What are some of the implicit or hidden costs – in both time and money - that embedded developers should also be aware of when deciding whether to rely on open source or internally developed OS platforms?

2.What might be the impact of the coming “Internet of Things” and the billions of interconnected devices IoT entails on the use of various OS platforms?

21

“Iterative” or “agile” development methods are used with greater frequency than are traditional “waterfall” approaches

7. What development process methodology do you or does your software development team generally follow for most of its embedded development?

Development process methodology

Base = Total

Adopted Agile

NA = 33%EMEA = 39%Japan = 23%ROA = 32%


22

Question

A good deal of common wisdom suggests that “agile” or “iterative” development is displacing “waterfall” software development methods. Do you agree – and if so, why this change in development methods?

23

Demand for training and consulting services will help spur the “shift left” movement in development cycles


Agree Neutral Disagree

24

Question

What specific training and educational investments can you suggest to software development teams to improve their design cycle times?

25

Average Utility

*Attribute utilities scores are relative rather than absolute; even the lowest-rated attribute has a positive impact (albeit less important) on overall interest in embedded development solutions

Represents over 60% of overall utility

Most persuasive solutions to reduce embedded development time-to-completion

26

Question

Simulation has been suggested in the past as enabling work-arounds to hardware-related issues, yet early attempts at simulation proved unfruitful. What recent advances can you cite in system simulation that would give engineering leaders more confidence?

27

Substantial opportunities for future adoption of embedded development solutions, particularly design services, system simulations and pre-integrated software

Just starting

Along the path Mature

8/8a. How interested are you in using each of these programming tools or practices as part of your embedded software development?9/9a. How interested are you in each of the following embedded development tools or technologies?

Base = Total

Ranked by total utility

28

How to Read this Chart: The chart indexes the average reduction in development time due to adoption of various solutions.

Average

Ranked by potential impact

New design

Existing design

10a. Consider the following embedded development tools or technologies you previously evaluated. Which ONE do you feel would have the greatest impact on your software development cycle time? 10b. Approximately what proportion of the total man-hours from during your [new to the world design/upgrade of an existing design] project might be reduced if you or your development team were to adopt [INSERT ITEM FROM PREVIOUS QUESTION]?

Investment in these solutions (particularly for pre-integrated software solutions and high-level design services) are expected to contribute to a 20-25% reduction in development cycles

Average potential reduction in development time

New design = 11.9 weeksExisting design = 7.2 weeks

29

Question

While all of the listed solutions garner at least some interest, several appear to be particularly suited to shortening development cycles. In what specific and tangible ways might each of these

(1)shorten development cycles and

(2)meet and handle the external and internal issues which cause schedule delays?

30

Observations Although embedded development teams deploy considerable resources toward their designs, roughly

half of all projects are still delivered three to five months late Development teams devote 51.7 weeks to “new to the world” projects and 29.6 weeks for incremental improvements to existing

designs North Americans devote more time to their projects than do other development teams elsewhere

Chief challenges which hinder faster time-to-completion – changing or murky requirements; overly stringent timelines; hardware unavailability; interconnectivity; and deluges of design defects

Widespread interest in and demand for proven solutions to improve design cycle times, such as Utilization of fully supported commercial OS platforms Adoption of “agile” or “iterative” development methods, along with proactive debugging/testing Improved development tools and more fully functional IDEs Full system simulation and runtime solution stacks Better training

Adoption of many of these solutions (particularly high-level design services, or pre-integrated software specific to the application) promises to reduce overall embedded development time by 20 to 25% on average

31

Audience Q & A

32

For more information:Download Whitepaper:

http://www.windriver.com/whitepapers/transformation-time-for-embedded-development/

Sponsored By:

Visit www.windriver.com/embedded_transformation/

wind river webinar deck v1 as of april 23 2014 dw2

Technology

existing design projects

weeks existing design

total new design

totalstage of design

software design engineer

embedded design teams

hardware design engineer

new projects