Storagebod Rotating Header Image

Web/Tech

Agile IT leads to Agility?

Leadership, management and agility are becoming important watchwords in the role of IT delivery and it is these three concepts which need to drive any IT organisation forward over the next decade or so. It is the third of these that is probably the most important.

Leadership and management can almost be interchangeable when an organisation is in a steady-state and lets be honest, most IT organisations have been in some kind of semi-steady-state for the last decade. IT Delivery became very procedural in a glacial sort of way.

Radical change in many IT organisations is simply shuffling the cards around without adding anything else in; perhaps moving what already is being done to a third party. In fact, arguably the trend to outsource can be pretty much attributed to the steady-state of the organisation. IT became something to be managed as opposed to something to lead. IT leaders who want to change things rapidly and quickly often find themselves at conflict with their own internal organisations; it becomes easier to accept the status-quo as opposed to embracing the change. 

Arguably, IT's success in becoming ubiquitous in many organisations has become it's biggest blocker to change; IT has become so large and so important that it's ability to respond to the business has become seriously compromised by this importance. Look at the sheer amount of work it takes to roll out a new version of Microsoft Office to an organisation? Okay, it is a moot point whether upgrading Microsoft Office buys very much to an organisation but lets look at the number of corporates who are still running with huge amount of risk because changing from IE6 to a later version is allegedly so complex. 

This apparent complexity has lead to an inward focus on the delivery of IT and paradoxically this focus on the delivery of IT has significantly damaged it's delivery. It has become more important to the manage the delivery than to deliver. 

However, we have already seen changes in the way that applications are being delivered and developed; agile development techniques are probably used for more than 50% of our applications internally. I suspect that this is an industry trend and your mileage will certainly vary, yet I remember when I first ran an agile development team nearly ten years ago that this was considered to be extremely unusual and that the 'Agile Manifesto' was some kind of hippie movement. 

The move to agile development techniques has been remarkably quick compared to say that of take up of object orientated techniques which can only be attributed to that there is something right and easily implementable about the techniques.  You can find the Agile Manifesto here.

Agile development techniques have some key points that I believe point to the direction that all IT organisations need to take.

  • Customer involvement in writing the stories which are to be delivered are key; every successful agile development has customer involvement at it's heart. Don't hide your people away from the Business; introduce them slowly if needed but stop making every communication between the IT organisation and the Business a management function.
  • Leaders can develop without been forced into some management cookie-cutter mould. A great developer gets to work with many different developers and gets to disseminate their greatness but there is no pressure on them to become managers or team-leaders. 
  • Teams should be allowed to organise themselves and define their own structures. They will often surprise you and if you allow them to break down organisational silos, you will find that their effectiveness is significantly increased. 
  • The acceptance that no plan survives contact with the enemy. This does not mean that there should be no plan but there needs to be flexibility and options. 
  • Simplicity and the art of doing the minimum to deliver is essential. For a long time I have preached the concept of 'Constructive Laziness'; do nothing which does not need doing and do what needs doing in the easiest manner. 

 How many organisations are ready to embrace this? I think this where the real difference between Leadership and Management will show, to implement such principles means taking up the mantle of Leader and dropping some of the comforting tropes of the Manager.  

Gladiators – Are You Ready!

Last week at #storagebeers, myself and Chris Evans were chatting and I was saying that you couldn't run your business with HP but you could with IBM or Oracle; although that wasn't quite true as IBM and Oracle still needed a network division (but then IBM go and buy a network company). 

So HP announcing Leo Apotheker of SAP as their new CEO seems to indicate that HP realise this and are planning to start going after the application space. I guess this is all going to be about owning the whole stack! 

It's going to be an interesting ride folks. Snorage may be snoring but the stack-wars are going to get interesting. I hear IBM are going to bring back the old dress-code as we head back into this strange 60s timewarp! 

 

Special?

One of the 'innovations' which EMC are to be congratulated on is not a product and no, it's not their Social Media policy; it's the concept of the vSpecialist or as I prefer to think of them, 'vGeneralists'. I think as a model for end-user departments, it is a concept that has merit and one which more companies should explore. But in many ways, it's not a new idea; there are many aging mainframe bods who in many ways fit the mould as well; many mainframe system-programmers could turn their hand easily to most of the disciplines within the infrastructure.

 
We did have our own specialisms; I certainly never worked in a mainframe storage team or network team but I am certainly of no doubt that when I was working in the world of mainframe, I probably could have done the day-to-day job of any of those. And even in my brief spell as an mainframe application programmer, I was certainly expected to write my own JCL*, plan job schedules, allocate the right sort of disk and create many of my tools. So arguably, in the era when mainframe was dominant, we had both 'vSpecialists' and 'DevOps'; so it is great to see it coming back round again.

I long for the day when we don't have Storage Managers, Network Managers, Server Managers and all the layers beneath them; I'm not sure what we should call this new breed; perhaps we'll end up with System Programmers, Systems Managers and the likes again working providing platforms and not infrastructure siloes. I long for the day when the silos which were never there in the past can be removed.  

But I bet those bloody DBAs stay a breed apart!!!

p.s Yeah, I never wrote my own JCL, I only edited someone else's…but hell, we all know that there has only been one original piece of JCL written ever!!

 

 

Storagebod likes this!

I really like this blog entry by Vince Westin; it absolutely confirms a belief that I have held for sometime! Application vendors have shares in storage companies! 

Poorly written SQL statements have probably driven more high-end array purchases than any salesman working for a vendor. Actually I suspect that poorly written SQL statements have driven more Enterprise IT purchases than anything. 

It is actually nice to see a vendor rather than recommending an expensive upgrade actually doing the sensible thing and looking for the underlying problems. 

Still perhaps Oracle purchased Sun because they absolutely realise that this is the case; they can now sell you both a nut but also a very expensive sledge-hammer to crack the nut. 

I suppose if I have one big concern about Cloud is that if we allow people to treat resource as abundant and cheap enough to waste; will code-bloat and poorly written code proliferate?

 I am convinced one of the major drivers of storage growth is that desktop storage is now so cheap; it can be wasted but the same is not yet really true of Enterprise Storage; a terabyte of 'Enterprise SATA' is very much more expensive than a terabyte of 'Desktop Storage' but try telling the average developer or user that? 

Bedside Manner?

At times listening to some of my fellow Corporate IT bods, you have to wonder why IT exists? I think it must be something to with the amount of money that gets spent on IT which seems to lead some people into believing that IT has some kind of special value and that businesses exist to fund the IT department. 

Seriously, talking to some people; I really think that people believe this and what's worse, is that our customers have picked up on this. So any spend that IT makes is almost immediately a red-flag issue; it's just the guys in IT wanting to spend money.

But how do we change things? And can we change things?

Firstly, it's about time that we started treated our users with modicum of respect; we're all guilty of the 'users==lusers' thinking at one time or another. We like to think that we are the technological elite but many of our customers have really rather sophisticated needs and often they are much further ahead on the uses of technology than we are. 

Nothing has demonstrated this more than the growth of the use of social media in the business; I know that within the organisation that I work for that IT is probably behind the curve on this, the real thrust to use social media has been from the business. In fact many people in IT still see it as just a toy without realising that is replacing email for many of our users. No-one has asked the IT organisation for permission for setting up Twitter accounts, Facebook pages etc; they just do it. 

Then look at the desktop; how many people work at companies who have massively locked down desktops? And when the locking down was done, who made the decision about what applications would be provided? Who is engaging the users to find out what they want? 

Our users grow ever more sophisticated in their demands and too often, the IT department is seen as the brake. And a very expensive brake. 

IT people seem to see every problem in the terms of technology and often they are framing answers in the terms of the technology that they are aware of. And how they make the best of use of technology to suit *their* processes. Too often they start with a technology answer.  Normal people don't especially care about technology; they care about outcomes and how they work better and improve the business and generally they want to be involved in the changes that impact them. 

I think that IT needs to develop a bedside manner; we do deal with a technical subject and at times it is highly specialised, just like medicine and we could learn a lot from some of the changes that the medical profession is undergoing. Arrogant, aloof and generally obnoxious doctors are rarely tolerated these days; yes, there are some old-school surgeons/consultants about but there are less. 

Doctors, like ourselves, are having to cope with the fact that our parish now has opinions and knowledge about our specialised areas. And yes, at times, this is incredibly frustrating; just talk to any GP and they will tell you about the times when their patient has googled their symptoms and come up with some weird and wonderful disease, convinced themselves that they have days to live and panicked themselves when all they have is a cold. But they will also tell you about the well-informed patient with a chronic condition who knows more about it than them, knows the treatment options and cuts out a huge amount of work. 

The trick is to treat both with the same amount of courtesy and also identifying which is which; working with and listening to the patient is the only way to do this. Just reaching for the treatment cabinet is easy but not always the right thing to do. 

And almost always outcomes are better if the patient is involved and sometimes the outcome the patient wants is not necessarily what the doctor wants. We could learn a lot from this attitude. 

Infrastructure is Software

Chuck has just written a blog which was very similar to a blog that I was working and I agree with a lot of what he says but I'd take it a lot further and there are some interesting conclusions and potentials along the way which could open the market for interesting innovation going forward.

Chuck talks about storage as being software, go read his blog; there's little I would disagree with there at all; well, until he starts talking about EMC products! However, I would go much further and suggest that we are getting to the stage where all infrastructure at a very real level is becoming software. Although I am not totally enamoured with the Intel-focussed monoculture, it has allowed a common hardware platform and it is flattening the playing field when it comes to hardware differentiation.

In fact, to differentiate your hardware is going to become increasingly expensive and hard, so why bother? Yes, there will be edge cases where hardware differentiation will be a key USP but in 90% of all use-cases; an Intel box assembled from bog-standard off-the-shelf parts will be good enough. 

If we then factor in pervasive virtualisation in the data-centre; we have a platform which has become pretty much standardised and commoditised. I would like to see more 'standardisation' in the virtualisation arena but it's not that bad at present and you really do not have that many choices.

So this has some interesting results; it lowers the cost of entry for new players in the market, if they no longer have to spend time developing a hardware platform and packaging their infrastructure product as a device but simply as a 'soft appliance'; they can get it out there a lot quicker. If they can now rely on the virtualisation layer providing them with a common way of accessing hardware services; they can develop a lot quicker and they can try things much faster. The cost of failure is a lot less; it also allows integration with other types of infrastructure to be tested without a lot of expense; this is a plus for both the developer but also for the interested Infrastructure specialist.

The speed to market is greatly enhanced and they can get it front of idiots like me who will download the appliance and have a play and it's not just storage appliances. There are products like Traffic Squeezer which do WAN Network Traffic Acceleration; there are more open-source router projects than you can shake a stick at. 

I am slowly building a virtual Data Centre out of open source or at least free products; I want to see how far it would be possible to get. But I'm not suggesting that anyone would do this for real today, although I can see some Cloud providers having a really good bash at it. This approach probably would not make sense for most companies as a complete strategy but as part of a strategy, it may well be worth considering. There are large companies out there who invest in start-ups simply to develop stuff for them to use internally; the advent as 'infrastructure as software' without a huge investment in tooling up to build hardware means this a very viable approach for the biggest companies. 

Google do it, Amazon do it but often you hear the comments, 'Well they employ very clever people, so it's easier for them!' Well, don't you employ clever people? Or are you saying that all your employees are second rate.

It took me a long time to come round to the idea that commoditisation and standardisation could drive innovation at all levels; I now believe that it could. It's not just about more and more Web applications; it could drive a new wave of infrastructure innovation as well. 

This leaves some interesting conflicts on the horizon for companies like VMware; perhaps VMware might want to get into infrastructure appliances but that would lead them into direct competition with the Mothership. Infrastructure as software; interesting times.

Here's some links of things worth looking at or playing with, it possibly includes things which are not strictly infrastructure but are interesting anyway. Some are great, some not so great; some show great potential. 

Traffic Squeezer

Openfiler

Samba Ctdb

Vyatta

Amanda

OpenDedup

And of course, there is Ubuntu Server; which will let you build your own cloud for free; there are various ZFS-based storage appliances. You can build your own appliances as well, packaging up and integrating components in the way you want. 

One area where EMC have shown great foresight and that is investing in the vSpecialist team and building a team out of diverse specialities because as infrastructure becomes software; the cross-over between the infrastructure disciplines will become even more mandated. Now the vSpecialist team may be very focused on the 'EMC product set' but if I was an SI or another vendor playing in this space; I would be looking at doing something very similar in the near future. 

Atmos Offline?

So Atmos Online has become Atmos Offline; well, okay, not quite yet but it's on the way to becoming so. There does appear to be alot of spinning going on from EMC about precisely what Atmos Online was and that is to be expected but it's really okay to try something and fail, it really is. I don't think EMC need to lick their wounds too much on this and I suspect they have learnt quite a lot from the experience i.e being a Service Provider is actually quite hard.

But it beggars another question, I wonder how well the other EMC Atmos based services are doing and how much traction they are getting against S3? It's funny, many of EMC's competitors in the storage world talk about EMC as some kind of marketing behemoth but in the competition for mindshare and getting traction in this space, they appear to be really struggling to get any kind of message out there. I suspect many EMC's competitors will also struggle to get traction against S3; so it is far too early for them to be crowing about EMC's failure as they haven't delivered anything in this space either. 

Although it is still early days, it does appear at present that Amazon's S3 is really ruling the roost in this space but EMC's Atmos in a Box might help them in this space; if they bother to tell anyone about it. 

AIAB may allow developers to play with Atmos and develop cool services on top of it. They could also do with getting some books written on working and developing Atmos, building a development community around Atmos might also be a good thing. EMC are not a company which immediately comes to a developer's mind when they are developing cloud-services; they need to work to change this; this is a new market for EMC to learn how to compete in.  

But let's not forget that in the pile it high and sell it cheap world of consumer cloud storage, EMC have Mozy and Iomega. This combination is a service that people do want and with people like Asus offering cloud storage with their NetBooks, this is a growth market. 

I wouldn't count EMC out of the public Cloud market just yet; an early knock-down doesn't necessarily mean an early knock-out. If anything, they got into the ring and tripped over their shoelaces whilst swinging for someone who was either in a different ring or not actually turned up yet. 

Taking the Proverbial

What is the point of an 'IT Project'? 

Is it to deliver infrastructure?

Is it to deliver applications?

Or is it to deliver a service to the business? 

Actually, most 'IT projects' shouldn't be called 'IT projects'; perhaps they should simply be called 'Service Delivery Projects'. Let's forget about the delivery of applications and infrastructure; we should simply focus on the delivery of service to the Business in a sustainable, cost-effective model as quickly as possible. Then let's look at how we deliver such services. 

This requires IT to work as single department not as warring factions under the titular head of the CIO; without applications to run, infrastructure has no value and without infrastructure to run on, applications are useless.

Some services should be simply be categorised as 'Oxygen'; these are the services that almost every Business needs to survive; email, desktop services, collaboration tools, backup, archiving; all of these can be delivered in an off-the-shelf manner. These are the services which may most easily lend themselves to an outsourced or cloud delivery model. 

Some services are those which require a certain amount of development, probably customisation of off-the-shelf applications; in many cases these are such things as CRM, Workflow management tools, web services etc. Every company probably needs them but every company will use them in different ways and have different requirements. The delivery model of such services is often the most contentious; in-house, out-sourced, cloud? All of these have potential.

And then there are those services which make your Business special; you might have a lot of these, you potentially have none. You might not actually need IT to produce your core product, an Artisan Baker probably doesn't need a lot of specialised IT to bake bread; whereas a Satellite broadcaster needs a lot of specialised IT kit to put television programmes out. These could be bespoke applications required to deliver your service which for whatever reason need a non-standard stack. These are the services which you will most likely decide to keep in house; these are your core.

Then you need to review these services and what has the most impact of the speed of delivery? Is it the provision of IT infrastructure? Is it the development of applications to deliver the service? Is it the process of building business models to support the decision to progress with a project? Does it take longer to develop the ROI model for a service than to deliver the service? Is it the procurement process? What is actually the biggest cost in delivering the new service? 

I'm not actually convinced that the delivery of IT Infrastructure is either the biggest implementation cost for many services or has the most impact on delivery timescales. I think often it can be perceived as the largest cost and the biggest impact on delivery timescales. The former is often because we tend to buy IT infrastructure in large chunks, storage has been especially vulnerable to this process.

(I suspect the costs of storage get focussed on so much simply because the CIO and the CEO often have to sign off on these large purchases; buying a server here and server there hides the costs. Utilisation of most storage arrays is certainly better than the utilisation of most non-virtualised servers and often better than that of virtualised servers. This might be key to the reason that many storage vendors are trying to push a 'pay as you use' model. It might well help to hide storage costs) 

And delivery of Infrastructure is often the last thing to be done on a project, often any delay further up the chain means that delivery of Infrastructure is often rushed and gets blamed for all of the other woes of a project. Often in a well-run and defined delivery, the development of application and the delivery of Infrastructure are carried out in parallel and almost without exception, the Infrastructure sits idle waiting for the deployment of the new application.  

But still we focus on speeding up the delivery of infrastructure because actually it is one of easiest things to speed-up. It should be a 'crank the handle' process and we do need to get better at this but I am not sure at the end of the day that speeding up the delivery of infrastructure is going to speed up service delivery dramatically. 

Of course as an Infrastructure guy, I would say that but I have run a development team in the past and very rarely was I held up by the delivery of Infrastructure. And if I was, it was often due to us being unclear as to what we required from the Infrastructure. 

Now what might dramatically change the cost-base of ongoing service is a more dynamic infrastructure which is easier to manage which can scale up and down easily. And building applications which can dynamically request and release resource as required. But will it change the speed of delivery of service? 

The most significant change to the speed of delivery of most services would actually be the five P's! 

Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance. 

Nothing I have written above actually says that the various block delivery models are without merit but don't expect miracles from them either. Examine the whole service delivery model, not just that of Infrastructure; Infrastructure is a tiny piece of the delivery model, let's not forget this.

Diaspora

James Gosling's departure from Oracle was I suspect entirely predictable; he was never going to sit easy in Oracle after the freedom that Sun gave him. That it happened so quickly after the event is slightly surprising but probably shows what a cultural mismatch Sun and Oracle are deep down and perhaps this is a sign of things to come. 

Obviously one man's departure does not seal the fate of a company but Gosling was one of the talisman techies of Sun; will his departure herald a diaspora of the technical brains from the old Sun? Actually, I really hope so; I really hope that we will see a raft of new companies spring up from such a diaspora and that we see some new ideas and technologies come about. 

Some might find homes in the other technology giants but here's hoping that just a few strike out by themselves and make new successes. We could do with new cool companies and perhaps VMware won't buy them all!

Actually I was thinking a few days ago, what next? Cloud computing is going to happen in some shape or form; we can argue terminologies, we can argue private vs public but it's going to happen now. So what comes next? Is commoditisation the end of journey? Or perhaps just the start of something different. 

Arguably we've come full circle; the mainframe gave way to the PC which has become the mainframe. The personal computer is no longer personal; we talk about VDI which brings conformity and commonality to the desktop. People will strain against that and the truly personal computer will be that which sits in our pockets and not on our desktop. 

But will these devices develop into something akin to the application platforms that the PC has become? Well I'm not sure anyone would have predicted that the PC would eventually evolve into a close relative of the mainframe; so who knows? And perhaps the diaspora from Sun will herald something new? 

Let's hope so….

The Doctor and The Director

Imagine if you will, a whooshing, swooshing noise like an unearthly wind and as it fades away, a blue box fades in; the words 'Police Box' can be seen written upon it and there is silence.

The door opens and a young man pops his head out, looks around with the eyes of the trickster.

'We're here; this is the place, follow me.'

And following the young man out of the boxes comes a conservatively suited man; greying, looking slightly confused, like a banker out of time.

'This is it, this is your future; the future of IT in 2010, twenty years on!'

You know who the young man is but who is the other man? He's an IT Director of a major bank from twenty years ago; they were called IT Directors generally back then, not CIOs or CTOs.   

So what does he see, what changes does he see? And why does he look so horrified at what he sees? Let's ask him!

'Where's all the space gone? In my day, this room was nearly empty; there were a few big boxes with IBM written on them, a few boxes with Tandem written on them and lots of space! We built this data-centre in the seventies to cater for the huge systems but by the late eighties, the systems had shrunk so much that you could have a game of soccer in them or at least a five-side game!'

'What are these racks full of kit, just look at all the cables? Where's the mainframe, are all these racks mainframes? Why do we need so much?'

He wanders around staring at all of the unfamiliar names and the young man explains what he's seeing.

'That's the Intel systems..'

'You mean Intel, like in my PC?'

'Oh yes, just like in your PC but now they run business critical systems too and over here, here's your Open Systems'

'Open what?'

'Open Systems, it's another word for Unix'

'Unix? You mean that academic operating system written by those hippies in America?'

'And over here, well you know what this is'

'Well it's big and it's got IBM written on it, so I guess it's a mainframe?'

'Indeed, it's a mainframe but it doesn't run MVS any more, it runs zOS!'

'zOS?'

'It's just MVS; marketing, don't let it worry you!'

'And what the hell are all these boxes with hundreds of cables in? It looks a mess'

'Well, those are your Cisco routers and switches; they run your network!'

'SNA?'

'Oh no, TCP-IP'

'What the hell is that? Oh don't tell me! This all looks like a total mess!'

'Well if you think this is bad; just let me introduce you to the teams who run this lot'

So the Doctor and the IT Director exit the data-centre and take a tour; the IT Director shaking his head as he goes.

'So where we had a Mainframe storage team, a Mainframe network team, Mainframe System Programmers and operators; you now have all of those teams but with a Unix team, a Linux team (which is like Unix but not), a Windows team, a LAN team, a WAN team, a Storage Team, a BackUp team, a Security Team, a multitude of architects, a multitude of procurement people and you are also telling me that we've got a new team called the 'Virtualisation Team' which is a bit like VM but on PCs'

'We've also got DBAs supporting several flavors of databases; all built on a standard which no-one follows? More application developers than you can shake a stick at? A team to support the PCs which everyone appears to have now and lord knows what else?'

'And this is progress'

'Don't you worry!', the young man says with a grin and a twinkle, 'Because there is a plan, a new technology called Cloud, it's going to change everything! Some people like to call it 'the Software Mainframe'! It'll change everything, I promise…'

The IT Director sighs and shakes his head; 

'So in twenty years, we'll have all the previous teams? And a whole bunch of new ones to run this 'Software Mainframe'?'

'We could take a look if you want..'

'No, let's go back…!'

'Well if you insist but I'll warn you; there'll be no more of me on TV for a while; that Michael Grade hates me!'