表紙
市場調査レポート

組込みシステム向けアジャイル・DevOps:エンジニアリング動向の分析調査

Agile and DevOps for Embedded Systems: Engineering Trends Analysis Report

発行 VDC Research Group, Inc. 商品コード 300753
出版日 ページ情報 英文 18 Pages; 146 Exhibits
納期: 即日から翌営業日
価格
本日の銀行送金レート: 1USD=101.39円で換算しております。
Back to Top
組込みシステム向けアジャイル・DevOps:エンジニアリング動向の分析調査 Agile and DevOps for Embedded Systems: Engineering Trends Analysis Report
出版日: 2014年04月30日 ページ情報: 英文 18 Pages; 146 Exhibits
担当者のコメント
PDF及びExcelのセットにてお届けします。Excelデータには詳細数値が記載されております。
概要

当レポートでは、アジャイルおよびDevOpsソフトウェア/システムの開発とそれらがソフトウェア・システムのライフサイクルマネジメントソリューション市場に及ぼす影響について調査しており、概略以下の構成でお届けします。

エグゼクティブサマリー

世界市場の概要・予測

  • 世界市場の概要
    • 図表1:エンド製品/プロジェクト額の分布-ドメイン別
    • 図表2:アジャイル手法の順守レベル-組み込まれたアジャイルディベロッパー別
  • 世界市場の見解・洞察
    • 組込みシステムにおけるアジャイル・DevOps
    • 近年の発展
      • 図表3:エンジニアリングドメインをアジャイル実行に合わせる重要性-組込みアジャイルユーザー別
    • 競合情勢

比較分析:産業別市場

  • 世界市場の概要
    • 図表4:アジャイル調査手法の順守レベル-産業市場別
    • 図表5:調査対象のクロスドメインエンジニアリング統合レベル-産業市場別
  • 世界市場の見解・洞察

追加の見解・洞察

  • 図表6:現在のプロジェクトに利用されたツールのタイプ
  • 図表7:現在のプロジェクトに利用された全ツールの予算

付属図表

  • 図表8:組織におけるアジャイルスケーリングの重要性-アジャイルの利用別
  • 図表9:クロスエンジニアリングドメイン統合の最大のメリット
  • 図表10:アジャイル/反復型開発手法の最大のメリット
  • 図表11:アジャイル/反復設計手法の最大のデメリット/課題

本調査について

List of Exhibits (Excel File)

  • Exhibit 1: Type of end device in which product/system will be used
  • Exhibit 2: Automotive application for which product is targeted
  • Exhibit 3: Consumer electronics application for which product targeted
  • Exhibit 4: Digital signage application for which product is targeted
  • Exhibit 5: Energy/power application for which product is targeted
  • Exhibit 6: Industrial automation application for which product is targeted
  • Exhibit 7: Medical application for which product is targeted
  • Exhibit 8: Military/aerospace application for which product is targeted
  • Exhibit 9: Type of mobile phone for which product is targeted
  • Exhibit 10: Office/business automation application for which product is targeted
  • Exhibit 11: Rail/transportation application for which product is targeted
  • Exhibit 12: Retail automation application for which product is targeted
  • Exhibit 13: Telecom/datacom application for which product is targeted
  • Exhibit 14: Estimated total project length of current project
  • Exhibit 15: Current project's schedule
  • Exhibit 16: Reasons for delays in project schedule
  • Exhibit 17: Estimated number of full-time engineers working on project
  • Exhibit 18: Number of engineers working on project that act as: Project manager
  • Exhibit 19: Number of engineers working on project that act as: System architect/engineer
  • Exhibit 20: Number of engineers working on project that act as: Algorithm development/functional expert
  • Exhibit 21: Number of engineers working on project that act as: Software engineer
  • Exhibit 22: Number of engineers working on project that act as: IC/SoC engineer
  • Exhibit 23: Number of engineers working on project that act as: Board engineer
  • Exhibit 24: Number of engineers working on project that act as: Mechanical engineer
  • Exhibit 25: Number of engineers working on project that act as: Test/verification/validation engineer
  • Exhibit 26: Estimated number of full-time engineers working for organization
  • Exhibit 27: Number of engineers working for organization that act as: Project manager
  • Exhibit 28: Number of engineers working for organization that act as: System architect/engineer
  • Exhibit 29: Number of engineers working for organization that act as: Algorithm development/functional expert
  • Exhibit 30: Number of engineers working for organization that act as: Software engineer
  • Exhibit 31: Number of engineers working for organization that act as: IC/SoC engineer
  • Exhibit 32: Number of engineers working for organization that act as: Board engineer
  • Exhibit 33: Number of engineers working for organization that act as: Mechanical engineer
  • Exhibit 34: Number of engineers working for organization that act as: Test/verification/validation engineer
  • Exhibit 35: Estimated distribution of development costs on project: Electrical
  • Exhibit 36: Estimated distribution of development costs on project: Mechanical
  • Exhibit 37: Estimated distribution of development costs on project: Software
  • Exhibit 38: Estimated distribution of development costs for similar project in 3 years: Electrical
  • Exhibit 39: Estimated distribution of development costs for similar project in 3 years: Mechanical
  • Exhibit 40: Estimated distribution of development costs for similar project in 3 years: Software
  • Exhibit 41: Estimated distribution of development costs for similar project in 3 years: Other
  • Exhibit 42: Estimated percentage of the end product/project value accounted for by: Software components
  • Exhibit 43: Estimated percentage of the end product/project value accounted for by: Silicon components
  • Exhibit 44: Estimated percentage of the end product/project value accounted for by: Mechanical components
  • Exhibit 45: Estimated percentage of the end product/project value accounted for by: Other
  • Exhibit 46: Estimated percentage of the end product/project value for similar project in 3 years accounted for by: Software components
  • Exhibit 47: Estimated percentage of the end product/project value for similar project in 3 years accounted for by: Silicon components
  • Exhibit 48: Estimated percentage of the end product/project value for similar project in 3 years accounted for by: Mechanical components
  • Exhibit 49: Estimated percentage of the end product/project value for similar project in 3 years accounted for by: Other
  • Exhibit 50: Estimated percent of development cycle spent on: Application development
  • Exhibit 51: Estimated percent of development cycle spent on: Requirements management/specification
  • Exhibit 52: Estimated percent of development cycle spent on: System architecture engineering
  • Exhibit 53: Estimated percent of development cycle spent on: Algorithm engineering
  • Exhibit 54: Estimated percent of development cycle spent on: Firmware/BSP development
  • Exhibit 55: Estimated percent of development cycle spent on: OS development
  • Exhibit 56: Estimated percent of development cycle spent on: IC/SoC design/verification
  • Exhibit 57: Estimated percent of development cycle spent on: Mechanical/hardware engineering
  • Exhibit 58: Estimated percent of development cycle spent on: Testing, debugging, and QA
  • Exhibit 59: Estimated percent of development cycle spent on: System integration/verification
  • Exhibit 60: Estimated percent of development cycle spent on: Prototype development
  • Exhibit 61: Estimated percent of development cycle spent on: Other
  • Exhibit 62: Types of tools used on current project
  • Exhibit 63: Types of tools expected to use on similar project in 3 years
  • Exhibit 64: Approximate cost budgeted for all of the tools used on project
  • Exhibit 65: Software tools budget expected change on next project
  • Exhibit 66: Percentage tools budget expected to increase on next project
  • Exhibit 67: Percentage tools budget expected to decrease on next project
  • Exhibit 68: Static analysis tools used on current project
  • Exhibit 69: Most important factors in the selection of the static analysis tool
  • Exhibit 70: Purchasing decision maker for static analysis tools
  • Exhibit 71: Dynamic testing tools used on current project
  • Exhibit 72: Most important factors in the selection of the dynamic testing tools
  • Exhibit 73: Purchasing decision maker for dynamic testing tools
  • Exhibit 74: Model-based testing tools used on current project
  • Exhibit 75: Most important factors in the selection of the model-based testing tools
  • Exhibit 76: Purchasing decision maker for model-based testing tools
  • Exhibit 77: Standard language-based modeling tools used on current project
  • Exhibit 78: Most important factors in the selection of the standard language-based modeling tools
  • Exhibit 79: Purchasing decision maker for standard language-based modeling tools
  • Exhibit 80: Proprietary language-based modeling tools used on current project
  • Exhibit 81: Most important factors in the selection of the proprietary language-based modeling tools
  • Exhibit 82: Purchasing decision maker for proprietary language-based modeling tools
  • Exhibit 83: Requirements management/definition tools used on current project
  • Exhibit 84: Most important factors in the selection of the requirements management/definition tools
  • Exhibit 85: Purchasing decision maker for requirements management/definition tools
  • Exhibit 86: Source/change/configuration management tools used on current project
  • Exhibit 87: Most important factors in the selection of the source/change/configuration management tools
  • Exhibit 88: Purchasing decision maker for source/change/configuration management tools
  • Exhibit 89: Continuous integration/build/production tools used on current project
  • Exhibit 90: Most important factors in the selection of the continuous integration/build/production tools
  • Exhibit 91: Purchasing decision maker for continuous integration/build/production tools
  • Exhibit 92: Product lifecycle management (PLM) tools used on current project
  • Exhibit 93: Most important factors in the selection of the product lifecycle management (PLM) tools
  • Exhibit 94: Purchasing decision maker for product lifecycle management (PLM) tools
  • Exhibit 95: Hardware-in-the-loop (HIL) tools supplier(s) used on current project
  • Exhibit 96: Most important factors in the selection of hardware-in-the-loop (HIL) tool suppliers
  • Exhibit 97: Purchasing decision maker for hardware-in-the-loop (HIL) tools
  • Exhibit 98: System requirements linked on current project
  • Exhibit 99: Lifecycle/artifact traceability of requirements engineering
  • Exhibit 100: Development stages from/to which requirements are traced
  • Exhibit 101: Organization investigated methods to enhance cross-engineering domain integrations between software/system development, mechanical engineering/PLM, and/or electrical engineering/EDA
  • Exhibit 102: Domain/discipline organizations is investigating integration
  • Exhibit 103: Domain source of initial motivation to investigate cross-engineering domain integrations
  • Exhibit 104: Biggest advantages/benefits of cross-engineering domain integrations
  • Exhibit 105: Most successful coordinated cross-engineering domain integration
  • Exhibit 106: Organization investigated methods to enhance the delivery of continuous post-deployment content and services support
  • Exhibit 107: Percent of total software code in final design of current project that is: Commercial third-party software
  • Exhibit 108: Percent of total software code in final design of current project that is: Open source third-party software
  • Exhibit 109: Percent of total software code in final design of current project that is: In-house developed code
  • Exhibit 110: Software content/lines of code expected change on next project: Commercial third-party software
  • Exhibit 111: Software content/lines of code expected change on next project: Open source third-party software
  • Exhibit 112: Software content/lines of code expected change on next project: In-house developed code
  • Exhibit 113: Percent by which software content/lines of code is expected to increase on: Commercial third-party software
  • Exhibit 114: Percent by which software content/lines of code is expected to increase on: Open source third-party software
  • Exhibit 115: Percent by which software content/lines of code is expected to increase on: In-house developed code
  • Exhibit 116: Percent by which software content/lines of code is expected to decrease on: Commercial third-party software
  • Exhibit 117: Percent by which software content/lines of code is expected to decrease on: Open source third-party software
  • Exhibit 118: Percent by which software content/lines of code is expected to decrease on: In-house developed code
  • Exhibit 119: Percent of in-house developed software code for project that is: Hand coded for the current project
  • Exhibit 120: Percent of in-house developed software code for project that is: Generated using modeling tools
  • Exhibit 121: Percent of total software code in final design of current project that is: Leveraged from previous in-house projects/designs
  • Exhibit 122: Language(s) using to develop software on current project
  • Exhibit 123: Language(s) expected use to develop software in three years
  • Exhibit 124: Software design methodologies on current project
  • Exhibit 125: Software design methodologies expected to use on future embedded designs
  • Exhibit 126: Perceptions of largest advantages/benefits of Agile/iterative design methodologies
  • Exhibit 127: Perceptions of largest disadvantages/challenges of Agile/iterative design methodologies
  • Exhibit 128: Degree to which respondents adhere to the Agile methodology in software development
  • Exhibit 129: Importance of aligning the following engineering domain to Agile practices: Mechanical
  • Exhibit 130: Importance of aligning the following engineering domain to Agile practices: Electronic
  • Exhibit 131: Importance of aligning the following engineering domain to Agile practices: Systems
  • Exhibit 132: Importance of scaling Agile within your organization: Personal View
  • Exhibit 133: Importance of scaling Agile within your organization: Perception of organizational view
  • Exhibit 134: Largest disadvantages/challenges of scaling Agile/iterative design methodologies
  • Exhibit 135: Most important metrics in evaluating Agile/iterative methods
  • Exhibit 136: Process standard(s) being adhered to for current project
  • Exhibit 137: Standards expect to adhere to for a similar project in three years
  • Exhibit 138: Specific coding standards adhering to for current project: CERT C
  • Exhibit 139: Specific coding standards adhering to for current project: CERT C++
  • Exhibit 140: Specific coding standards adhering to for current project: HIC++
  • Exhibit 141: Specific coding standards adhering to for current project: MISRA C
  • Exhibit 142: Specific coding standards adhering to for current project: MISRA C++
  • Exhibit 143: Specific coding standards adhering to for current project: JSF AV++
  • Exhibit 144: Specific coding standards adhering to for current project: In house/Internal coding standard
  • Exhibit 145: Importance of security of current project
  • Exhibit 146: Number of employees at all offices, sites, and locations
目次

Agile is finally accelerating within embedded system engineering departments, with adoption reaching deeper on existing projects and scaling to more of the organization. This research analyzes emerging trends for Agile and DevOps software/system development and their impact on the software and system lifecycle management solutions market.

What questions are addressed?

  • How are perceptions and initial concerns about Agile evolving?
  • What new types of tools are embedded engineers adopting in support of their Agile initiatives?
  • What vendors (and tool classes) are best positioned to capitalize on interest in Agile and DevOps?
  • How are OEMs integrating new collaborative methods into their existing processes?
  • In what ways are tooling preferences shifting to facilitate Agile (or prepare for DevOps)?
  • Which industries are most rapidly adopting Agile and cross-engineering domain integration?

Who should read this report?

This report is for those making critical decisions regarding product, market, channel, and competitive strategy and tactics. Roles that could benefit from reading this report include product management, marketing and strategy executives at OEMs, tools suppliers, investment firms, and associated roles and organizations.

Executive Summary

Agile and DevOps are at tipping points as OEMs seek new ways to improve the overall efficiency of system development. Initial perceptions and fears of Agile methods are fading and a hybrid approach, combining iterative software development with the rigor necessary for designing embedded systems, is emerging. While Agile becomes a standard element of embedded systems design, the embrace of DevOps as a framework, and a term, is uncertain. The embedded industry continues to move toward greater collaboration, but the initial promise of DevOps could fail without the needed technology and culture changes.

[Data available in full report]

Key Findings

  • XX.X% of embedded engineers are now using some Agile development on their current project, and XX.X% indicate their organization has started to investigate or implement integrations across their engineering domains.
  • Engineers at companies using Agile are designing systems that are more reliant on software value (XX.X%) than counterparts at organizations not using iterative methods (XX.X%). Furthermore, engineers using Agile were less likely to cite “lack of manpower” as a reason for project delay, despite employing fewer software engineers (XX.X) than organizations not using iterative methods (XX.X).
  • Iterative development is more typically used as a strategic addition, augmenting (rather than replacing) older practices. Only X.X% of embedded engineers using Agile are fully adhering to the methodology.
  • XX.X% of embedded engineers use Java as one of the software development languages on their current project.
  • Engineers and management are both involved in tool purchase decisions. A two-pronged marketing approach stressing ease of use and impact on quality to engineers, while focusing on support of Agile/iterative processes and lowering overall costs to management, is recommended.
  • Agile for the systems market is a hybrid approach, combining iterative development and increased rigor with which requirements and change are managed. Among Agile developers, XX.X% are using a requirements management tool on their current project and XX.X% are using a change management tool.

Global Market Overview and Forecast

Global Market at a Glance

Exhibit 1: Distribution of end product/project value by domain

Global Market Ideas & Insights

Agile and DevOps in Embedded Systems

What once was old is new

Strategies that first emerged in manufacturing to increase productivity helped to inspire methods widely used in the IT space to accelerate the development and improve the quality of software. Practitioners have continued to advance and refine these concepts, and today methods highlighting some of the same principles are gaining traction in systems development.

Several of the values outlined in the Agile Manifesto -- such as teamwork, communication, and continuous improvement -- were also shared with lean manufacturing. Both of these methods have been an effective means of increasing organizational efficiency for their practitioners. In VDC's 2014 Software and System Development Survey, a similar percentage of developers using Agile (XX.X%) and those not using Agile methods (XX.X%) were behind schedule in their current project. However, engineers at Agile organizations are designing systems more reliant on software for value (XX.X%) than counterparts at organizations not using iterative methods (XX.X%) and were less likely to cite “lack of manpower” as a reason for project delay despite employing fewer software engineers (XX.X) than organizations not using iterative methods (XX.X).

Realms are converging, but differences

Embedded and enterprise/IT software developers are facing many of the same challenges and, as a result, are increasingly pursuing similar strategies. Heightened security concerns and new process standard requirements are encouraging IT organizations to bring more rigor to their software development tooling and processes. In the embedded markets, engineers face a growing software creation burden and tighter time-to-market windows. Both realms are providing more differentiation through software and have a growing realization of the impact of software vulnerabilities.

OEMs' perception of Agile methods is evolving from that of a new and perhaps risky practice to a more standard part of the overall development process. Embedded tool suppliers will be challenged by disruptive shifts in the needs and profiles of their customers as market pressures encourage these organizations to import best practices, tooling, and expertise from the enterprise domain. Vendors should expect to face new competitors, functional encroachment from new tool categories, and changing preferences in their customer base.

As embedded engineering firms implement Agile, the necessary improvements in their internal lines of communication will encourage the investigation of additional process improvements through enhanced collaboration. Tool suppliers can look to the enterprise software development market for an example of how the evolution of Agile for software development into broader collaborative approaches will likely unfold. However, the lengthy, complex development projects and numerous process-standard demands will continue to necessitate a higher level of rigor and initial project-planning than is typically required in the enterprise market. The introduction of iterative methods into systems development will more typically be used as a strategic addition; it will augment rather than replace older practices. Among embedded engineers using Agile, only X.X% report fully adhering to the methodology and, on average, 2.5 different methodologies are used in their current projects.

The shift to iterative software development processes, a growing number of projects requiring more sophisticated connectivity middleware stacks, and the influx of expertise from the enterprise domain will also help further accelerate the shift to the Java programming language. Currently, XX.X% of embedded engineers indicate Java is among the languages used on their project. This figure will continue to rise in the coming years, as nearly half (XX.X%) of embedded engineers using Agile methods are using the Java programming language.

XXXX Commercial in Confidence.

About this Report

VDC Research's i2: ideas & insights reports provide clients with deep insights into product, market, channel, and competitive strategies and tactics. Using deep and rich datasets based on extensive primary research, the i2 reports provide clients with the insights they need to make strategic decisions for their business about the markets they are in and the markets they want to be in. Coverage includes a combination of market sizing, segmentation, forecasting, end-user requirements analysis, competitive analysis, and more.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

  • Key Findings

Global Market Overview and Forecast

  • Global Market at a Glance
    • Exhibit 1: Distribution of end product/project value by domain
    • Exhibit 2: Degree of adherence to Agile methodology, by Agile developers in embedded
  • Global Market Ideas & Insights
    • Agile and DevOps in Embedded Systems
    • Recent Developments
      • Exhibit 3: Importance of aligning engineering domains to Agile practices, by embedded Agile users
    • Competitive Landscape

Comparative Analysis by Vertical Markets

  • Analysis at a Glance
  • Exhibit 4: Degree of adherence to Agile methodology, by vertical market
  • Exhibit 5: Level of cross-domain engineering integration investigated, by vertical market
  • Ideas & Insights

Additional Ideas & Insights

  • Exhibit 6: Types of tools used on current project
  • Exhibit 7: Budget for all tools used on current project

Additional Exhibits

  • Exhibit 8: Importance of scaling Agile within organization, by use of Agile
  • Exhibit 9: Largest benefits of cross-engineering domain integrations
  • Exhibit 10: Largest benefits of Agile/iterative development methodologies
  • Exhibit 11: Largest disadvantages/challenges of Agile/iterative design methodologies
Back to Top