From thinking to concept to contract to centre: 1990-­‐‑2004

This  section  of  the  narrative  was  written  based  on  data  from  interviews  in  2008   and  2014,  from  participant  observation  incidents  between  2008  and  2013,  and   from  a  review  of  institutional  documents  (secondary  sources)  for  the  period  2010-­‐‑ 2013.    

The  origins  of  the  JCSE  date  back  to  1990  with  early  discussions  on  where  ICT   should  be  located  in  the  post-­‐‑modern  university.  In  the  1990-­‐‑91  Wits  model,  ICT   was  located  across  three  faculties  with  little  collaboration  and  with  different   cultures  and  ideas  of  computing:  telecommunications,  data  processing,  signal   processing  and  electronics  in  the  engineering  faculty,  computer  science  and   information  systems  in  the  science  faculty,  and  information  systems  management   in  the  commerce  faculty  (key  informant  JCSE-­‐‑S)  (coded  as  institutional  design).  A   single  engineering  academic  was  engaged  in  cross-­‐‑disciplinary  research  on   software  process  and  quality  in  an  era  where  cross-­‐‑disciplinary  work  and   industry  engagement  was  frowned  upon.  Despite  a  merger  proposal  for  

computer  science  and  information  engineering  presented  by  the  Dean  of  Science   in  1989,  no  coherent  entity  was  established  to  populate  this  emerging  field  of   knowledge,  even  as  technological  and  services  convergence  advanced.  This  split   approach  (coded  as  institutional  fracture)  created  some  degree  of  confusion  in  the   marketplace  about  how  industry  and  students  should  relate  to  Wits  offerings   (JCSE-­‐‑S,  2014):    

This  fracture  continues  to  this  day….  By  2002,  there  was  some  interest  in  starting     a  software  research  centre,  because  of  strong  and  continuing  linkages  with  and     research  sponsors  from  industry…The  idea  of  creating  a  “front  end”  to  ICT  led  to     proposal  to  establish  the  JCSE  as  a  strong  industry-­‐‑facing  centre  that  could     present  a  coherent  face  to  industry.    

The  initial  proposal  to  Senate  was  rejected,  as  were  several  further  proposals,   partly  because  of  the  desire  for  a  “no  change”  environment  (coded  as  actor   contestation).    

The  actors  from  engineering  were  regarded  as  too  close  to  industry  and  there   appears  to  have  been  a  lack  of  understanding  of  the  very  different  type  of   knowledge  being  pursued  in  software  engineering  as  compared  to  computer   science.  Indeed,  it  can  be  argued  that  the  discipline  of  software  engineering  is   entirely  connected  with  industry  and  has  limited  reason  to  exist  outside  of   industry  applications,  just  as  mining  research  has  limited  value  outside  a  mining   applications  context  and  health  sciences  research  has  limited  value  outside  a   health  applications  context.  These  knowledges  cannot  grow  in  any  significant   depth  outside  an  applications  context,  establishing  demand  for  a  different  form   or  medium  of  knowledge  than  research  publications  (coded  as  values:  contestation   of  knowledges).    

Despite  rejection  of  the  proposals  by  Senate,  a  business  plan  was  written  for   establishment  of  the  “gateway  centre”,  because  the  City  of  Joburg  metropolitan   municipality  sought  to  profile  Johannesburg  as  a  software  hub  as  part  of  its  city   development  programme.  However,  stakeholders  consulted  on  the  business  plan   did  not  want  such  a  centre  as  previous  initiatives  (iLab)  had  not  been  successful   and  had  created  no  value  in  the  market.  A  few  software  suppliers  and  users   argued  for  creation  of  a  centre  that  promoted  better  quality  software  

development,  cementing  the  formative  idea  of  the  JCSE.  Further  university-­‐‑ industry  discussions  and  pre-­‐‑funding  from  the  municipality  led  to  Senate   approval  of  the  Centre  in  2004  and  a  formal  contract  with  the  City  of  Joburg   (coded  as  coincidence  of  interests  of  actors).  A  review  of  best  practice  in  software   engineering  led  the  main  actors  to  a  key  report  produced  for  the  Department  of   Trade  and  Industry  (the  dti),  namely  the  SAITIS14  _{report  (the  dti,  2000),  which}   exposed  the  weaknesses  in  the  local  software  sector  as  related  to  skills  and   performance.  The  report  provided  the  foundational  thinking  for  what  came  later   at  the  JCSE,  setting  out  a  detailed  ICT  sector  development  framework  (coded  as   coincidence  of  interests  of  institutions).    

While  the  conversation  with  Wits  and  the  City  of  Joburg  was  maturing,  the   Gartner  group  advised  Wits  that  it  was  important  to  work  with  a  CMMI  level  4   or  5  rated  company  to  develop  the  Oracle  student  software  information  system.   Tata  Consulting  Services  (TCS),  rated  at  level  5,  became  engaged  in  this  work,   resulting  in  a  visit  to  TCS  India  operations  in  2004,  the  flow  of  events  influencing   the  early  agenda  of  the  JCSE  towards  building  a  South  African  CMMI  training   programme,  still  offered  in  2014  (coded  as  coincidence  of  the  interests  of  institutions).    

6.1  2  Early  years  of  the  JCSE:  Laying  foundations  and  developing  internal     capacity  2005–2011    

This  section  of  the  narrative  was  pieced  together  from  foundation  interviews  in   2008,  a  review  of  documents  published  between  2010  and  2013,  as  well  as  a   review  of  the  JCSE  website.  Publications  where  this  researcher  is  the  first  co-­‐‑ author  are  cited.    

The  JCSE  was  launched  in  May  2005.  A  relationship  was  established  with  TCS   India  and  separately  with  Carnegie  Mellon  University  for  the  purposes  of  CMMI   (Capability  Maturity  Model  Integration)  training  to  advance  software  innovation   in  South  Africa  (coded  as  global  institutional  linkages).  The  Advisory  Board  was   constituted  in  2005  and  early  relationships  were  established  with  the  first   funding  partners,  including  the  City  of  Joburg,  Vodacom,  Microsoft  and  other   software  firms  (coded  as  local  institutional  linkages).  It  was  essential  to  unlock   industry  funding  since  no  university  funding  was  available,  only  space  and  use   of  Wits  facilities.  Funding  was  very  limited  at  the  inception  of  the  JCSE  –   Microsoft  and  IBM  each  funded  a  software  lab,  offering  only  equipment,  not   money.  Under  these  relatively  open  conditions,  both  proprietary  and  open   source  software  interests  were  established  at  the  JCSE  and  opened  the  door  to   other  partners  coming  on  board.  The  only  partner  who  put  in  significant  funding   in  the  early  days  was  First  National  Bank  (FNB),  because  of  their  need  for  skills  

(coded  as  resource  availability).  Initial  financial  inputs  were  relatively  small,  thus   development  of  the  centre  was  relatively  slow.  

A  Director  was  appointed  in  2006  and  international  relationships  with  Carnegie   Mellon  and  TCS  began  to  mature  with  the  establishment  of  local  CMMI  training   capacity.  However,  money  was  needed  to  train  trainers  and  JCSE  attracted   funding  of  ZAR1.6million  from  the  dti  enabling  it  to  create  the  CMMI  

programme,  teaching  and  certifying  local  trainers,  consultants  and  appraisers,   which  increased  income  flows.  The  focus  advanced  to  growing  income  through   Master  classes,  a  CMMI  conference,  forums  and  industry  events  (coded  as  resource   generation).  

The  JCSE  had  five  founding  principles,  some  traditional  university  values  and   some  not  (coded  as  values:  non-­‐‑traditional),  namely  to  support  the  software   industry  through  promoting  best  practice  in  the  African  context;  to  grow  skills   and  capacity;  to  support  transformation  of  the  sector  race  and  gender  profiles;  to   participate  in  trade  missions  with  the  Export  Council;  to  make  available  applied   research  including  the  annual  skills  survey;  and  to  promote  innovation  and   incubation.  Industry  promotion  and  applied  research  are  not  highly  regarded  at   Wits,  though  the  reasons  are  vague.  At  the  early  stage  of  grounded  theory  data   collection,  the  following  insights  emerged  (JCSE-­‐‑S;  Abrahams  &  FitzGerald,  2012,   p.7):  

If  we  bought  all  our  software  from  (Sakai),  ...  we  become  a  client  to  someone   else'ʹs  way  of  doing  things.  If  your  cell  phone  talks  to  you  in  Sotho,  you  are  more   engaged  in  that  technology’…However,  there  is  resistance  to  the  existence  of   such  a  centre  at  a  university,  ‘...if  you  look  at  the  (institution'ʹs)  values  you  find   things  about  engaging  in  the  broader  society...  if  I  talk  to  Microsoft  that'ʹs   perceived  as  something  you  shouldn'ʹt  do  because  they'ʹre  the  commercial  demon.   That  stuff  devalues  what  I'ʹm  doing  against  a  perceived  purity  that  it'ʹs  too  

commercial,  too  engaged.    

Despite  university  resistance  to  the  values  of  heightened  industry  engagement,   by  2013,  the  JCSE  had  programmes  against  each  of  its  five  espoused  principles   (coded  as  values:  explicating  new  values).  

From  2007,  the  emphasis  was  on  getting  the  JCSE  footprint  into  industry.  Public   relations  activities,  press  releases,  dissemination  of  an  annual  report  and  

marketing  messages,  and  attending  trade  shows  started  to  push  the  identity  of   the  centre,  which  started  to  have  some  visibility,  but  was  still  operating  on  a   shoestring  budget.  The  research  focus  developed  from  2008,  initially  through  the   production  of  the  annual  skills  survey,  which  was  influential  in  industry  because   it  identified  the  top  skills  priorities  on  an  annual  basis,  and  was  the  only  

available  research  to  identify  the  size  of  the  sector,  the  skills  profile  and  the  skills   gap  (JCSE,  2010).  The  centre  developed  high  visibility  in  the  banking  sector,  the   software  sector  and  the  government  IT  sector,  leading  to  increased  income   earnings  (coded  as  academic  value).  The  JCSE  had  to  match  expenditure  with   income,  as  the  two  main  founding  partners,  the  City  of  Joburg  and  Wits  were   insistent  that  the  centre  operated  on  a  zero  deficit  business  model.  The  upside  of   this  agreement  was  that  if  the  centre  earned  its  own  income,  in  theory  it  would   not  be  at  risk  of  withdrawals  of  grants.  The  downside  was  that  (JCSE-­‐‑RS,  2014):  

…if  we  were  a  business,  we  would  have  access  to  other  means  such  as  selling   equity  or  getting  loans,  but  we  don’t  have  access  to  mechanisms  that  businesses   use,  so  we  can  only  operate  through  once-­‐‑off  grants  from  business  and  

government  (and  income  from  training),  so  a  lot  of  time  is  spent  on  looking  at   ways  to  get  injections  of  money.  Writing  proposals  is  very  time  consuming,   managing  agreements,  and  managing  non-­‐‑payment…no  deficit  but  hardly  any   profit.    

But  finances  did  come,  including  ZAR5.4  million  from  the  dti  to  do  Team   Software  methodologies,  the  next  step  in  the  CMMI  framework.  The  JCSE  grew   its  annual  income  from  under  a  million  rand  in  2004  to  ZAR24.3  million  in  2012   (JCSE,  2013a).  

6.2  Advancing  through  software  engineering  and  prospects  for  data  science