I'm actually surprised that I haven't heard this question yet. The last few months it seems everyone has been budget conscious to the point of the ridiculous. It's been difficult to convince customers that somewhere out there, real hardware still exists. BAC is supported on VMWare but due to our field experiences we cannot recommend anything less than separate dedicated DPS and Gateway hardware. Even getting virtual servers allocated has been a struggle. It seems like many organizations, in their zeal to reap the benefits of virtualization, have forgotten that under the hood there has to be sufficient hardware to actually support the number of virtual machines, especially if all the vm's are going to operate at fully capacity.
What's perhaps really surprising to me is that companies continue to put full PCs on the desks of all of their employees rather than equipping them with ($400) netbooks or even just Blackberries or iPhones. So a $5,000 server for a core business process is out, but a $1,000 PC belongs on everyone's desk, even those employees who work remotely or who only need a machine for basic word processing and email tasks.
I have to admit, I don't understand the penny-wise pound-foolish thinking about physical hardware. Four weeks ago my laptop, a two-year old Mac Book Pro, suffered a hardware failure at 5:00pm on a Friday night. I knew that it would likely be at least a week before I could get it back from Apple - and a week's worth of lost productivity would easily be more than the cost of a new machine. I barely hesitated to drop the three grand for a new laptop (out of my own pocket) yet companies with a national footprint, who need that hardware to run mission critical systems, aren't able or willing to do the same. Certainly there is a difference between the hard drive in my laptop and RAID 5 network attached storage, but nonetheless disk is cheap by all accounts. Utility computing via "cloud" providers are driving costs down as well, and really creates a situation where the argument that "we can't get hardware for this project because we don't have budget" into a non-starter. There's really no good excuse for the view that "hardware" has to be treated as a precious resource.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Who Owns Monitoring?
Large companies are often able to support a 24x7 operations center, which make a natural place for monitoring to occur though perhaps not for the administration of those tools. Many of our smaller customers have struggled with the question of where their monitoring and its administration belongs organizationally. By default monitoring tasks generally end up the responsibility of either a few developers or with the administrators responsible for the systems in the production environment. Naturally just because something is the default doesn't make it right.
Monitoring tools generally come into the organization via three sources: operations, support, or development. How tools come into an organization can say a lot about organizational culture. For example, operations and support will generally bring in a tool because they feel constrained by the visibility they have into the production applications and environments -- they have angry customers, but no way to appease them. Developers tend to focus on monitoring tools that enable them to build better applications, but often overlook the importance of tools in the production environment. The team that brings in the tools often ends up as the administrators of the tools, regardless of whether they have the appropriate skills or resources to provide adequate support.
For our customers who are trying to make the most of restricted budgets and headcount, we've found some common trends that lead to success.
- Appoint a champion: Find someone within the organization who has adequate time, skills, and organizational knowledge to become the dedicated subject matter expert for service management.
- Define a process for monitoring and triage: Make it clear who is responsible for operational monitoring and the process for escalation.
- Administration of monitoring tools and actual the monitoring may be separate teams or personnel.
- Don't overlook support: Adding a centralized support engineering team within a support organization can streamline problem resolution.
- Defining a virtual triage team made from experts from database, networking, systems, and application teams that can be immediately activated in crisis situations is a better approach than waiting for the crisis and then taking action.
Ultimately who owns monitoring in an organization is driven by organizational needs and culture, but should be driven by a concerted decision rather than indecision.
Monitoring tools generally come into the organization via three sources: operations, support, or development. How tools come into an organization can say a lot about organizational culture. For example, operations and support will generally bring in a tool because they feel constrained by the visibility they have into the production applications and environments -- they have angry customers, but no way to appease them. Developers tend to focus on monitoring tools that enable them to build better applications, but often overlook the importance of tools in the production environment. The team that brings in the tools often ends up as the administrators of the tools, regardless of whether they have the appropriate skills or resources to provide adequate support.
For our customers who are trying to make the most of restricted budgets and headcount, we've found some common trends that lead to success.
- Appoint a champion: Find someone within the organization who has adequate time, skills, and organizational knowledge to become the dedicated subject matter expert for service management.
- Define a process for monitoring and triage: Make it clear who is responsible for operational monitoring and the process for escalation.
- Administration of monitoring tools and actual the monitoring may be separate teams or personnel.
- Don't overlook support: Adding a centralized support engineering team within a support organization can streamline problem resolution.
- Defining a virtual triage team made from experts from database, networking, systems, and application teams that can be immediately activated in crisis situations is a better approach than waiting for the crisis and then taking action.
Ultimately who owns monitoring in an organization is driven by organizational needs and culture, but should be driven by a concerted decision rather than indecision.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Duct Tape Programming
Joel Spolsky has hit the mark again with his recent blog posting "The Duct Tape Programmer" - http://joelonsoftware.com/items/2009/09/23.html. There are two key quotes "you’re not here to write code; you’re here to ship products" and “Overengineering seems to be a pet peeve of yours.” That's the premise in a nutshell -- quit over-engineering, start shipping. The only thing I fear, and some of the commentary across the net expresses this, that too many will miss his message and instead read Spolsky as justifying sloppy decisions. That's not it at all. Instead, he's taking the experienced, pragmatic approach in which could be best summarized as "just simple enough." A good read, as are his other postings.
Management by Flying Around
Being up at 4:30 am and a long drive to Portland gave me a chance to reflect on a problem I've been mulling for a while now.
For decades, thinking about business and management has been driven by sports and military analogies and experiences. The post-war generation that built the United States into the world's largest economy brought practices and organizational structures from their military experiences. Even within technology we are not immune to this. When I first saw Scrum, an "agile" method for developing software, my immediate reaction was "This is exactly like the Romans structured their military command, 2000 years ago!" We intuitively understand command-control management, work in "teams," "quarterback" meetings, and of course what executive doesn't play golf?
J9's consultants are located all across the United States - I've never met in person some of the people I work closely with, and others I see in person only rarely. The tactics commonly deployed and many of the management techniques of the past quickly fall apart when you don't have the proverbial water-cooler. The inter-personal issues -- health, relationships, personal interests -- become difficult to track and yet plenty of research has shown management empathy to personal needs as a significant factor in employee retention and job satisfaction. Career planning and reviews, especially when criticism needs to be levied, are lost when timezones and thousands of miles separate your staff.
It isn't simply a problem in personnel management either. I recall vividly the first time I saw a Gantt chart, at age 13. Those colorful bars and perfectly placed diamond milestones sparkled with their organizational efficiency. Perfection, yet completely useless if your project consists of loosely related tasks without strict dependencies, especially one where the personnel ebb and flow in and out of the project. Installing a piece of software -- there's something you can put on a gantt chart. Whether the customer has successfully developed the skills to support the software? A less well-defined task.
So here comes the summary: Companies are ever more virtualized, global, and 24x7, and it isn't just the largest companies and in the executive office that these demands appear. The management practices of the past, with their roots in industrialism, simply aren't working. I don't yet know what the answer is, but change is imminent.
For decades, thinking about business and management has been driven by sports and military analogies and experiences. The post-war generation that built the United States into the world's largest economy brought practices and organizational structures from their military experiences. Even within technology we are not immune to this. When I first saw Scrum, an "agile" method for developing software, my immediate reaction was "This is exactly like the Romans structured their military command, 2000 years ago!" We intuitively understand command-control management, work in "teams," "quarterback" meetings, and of course what executive doesn't play golf?
J9's consultants are located all across the United States - I've never met in person some of the people I work closely with, and others I see in person only rarely. The tactics commonly deployed and many of the management techniques of the past quickly fall apart when you don't have the proverbial water-cooler. The inter-personal issues -- health, relationships, personal interests -- become difficult to track and yet plenty of research has shown management empathy to personal needs as a significant factor in employee retention and job satisfaction. Career planning and reviews, especially when criticism needs to be levied, are lost when timezones and thousands of miles separate your staff.
It isn't simply a problem in personnel management either. I recall vividly the first time I saw a Gantt chart, at age 13. Those colorful bars and perfectly placed diamond milestones sparkled with their organizational efficiency. Perfection, yet completely useless if your project consists of loosely related tasks without strict dependencies, especially one where the personnel ebb and flow in and out of the project. Installing a piece of software -- there's something you can put on a gantt chart. Whether the customer has successfully developed the skills to support the software? A less well-defined task.
So here comes the summary: Companies are ever more virtualized, global, and 24x7, and it isn't just the largest companies and in the executive office that these demands appear. The management practices of the past, with their roots in industrialism, simply aren't working. I don't yet know what the answer is, but change is imminent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
