In this previous blogpost we describe the effort which is currently ongoing towards standardising Service Catalogs through the SPACL Consortium (Service Portfolio and Catalog Language). One of the leaders in implementing SPACL is HP Software and Solutions, and their just released version 9.21 of the Service Request Catalog module to HP Service Manager is designed to support SPACL. For this reason, they describe this module as desgined to support "other" backends as well as HP Service Manager.
This is an important step towards standardising how IT services are defined, managed and measured. It will over time enable better provisioning of services through Cloud Computing, and make it easier for custoemrs to "shop around" for services with a given set of descriptive criteria and service levels.
We look forward to seeing where HP will take this over the coming years.
Friday, 17 December 2010
Monday, 11 October 2010
How to Pick an End-User Experience Tool
Aberdeen Group has stated that they have found "solid evidence" that monitoring the end-user experience leads to a better overall application experience. This not only applies to the experience of users but also gives support staff a better experience. In this article in Network World, Beth Schulz summarizes ten recommendations for choosing an end-user experience tool.
The article cited above lacks a few aspects of such tools that are also important, and that should be included in any evaluation or selection of tools. One important question you should ask yourself is: What is my definition of end-user experience, and how do I quantify it? Because end-user experience may be seen from different perspectives, that may reflect different aspects of the truth.
Wikipedia defines user experience as "User eXperience is about how a person feels about using a system"; a definition that is based on ISO standard 9241-210. This is a much wider and more generic definition than that generally assumed when IT people talk about measuring the end-user experience. But it is still much closer to the reality of users' experiences, than the simple measures of response times and availability that IT operations assumes.
In other words, a concept of user experience should include not just those performance and availability aspects that normally are measured, but also more subjective factors. The look and feel of an application may influence how the user feels about it, simplicity may also impact the experience. A slow but easy to use application may be a lot better - particularly for casual users - than a fast but complex one.
Coming back to the question of criteria for selecting an "end-user experience tool", we need to define whose experience we want to catch. Is it the infrequent user who spends a long time in the application when he first gets here, the frequent but fast user who knows exactly what she wants and need to go straight to the core? And to what extent do we include "related services" (such as responsiveness of a help desk, or users' response to surveys on satisfaction) into the total experience that we (want to) measure?
The article cited above lacks a few aspects of such tools that are also important, and that should be included in any evaluation or selection of tools. One important question you should ask yourself is: What is my definition of end-user experience, and how do I quantify it? Because end-user experience may be seen from different perspectives, that may reflect different aspects of the truth.
Wikipedia defines user experience as "User eXperience is about how a person feels about using a system"; a definition that is based on ISO standard 9241-210. This is a much wider and more generic definition than that generally assumed when IT people talk about measuring the end-user experience. But it is still much closer to the reality of users' experiences, than the simple measures of response times and availability that IT operations assumes.
In other words, a concept of user experience should include not just those performance and availability aspects that normally are measured, but also more subjective factors. The look and feel of an application may influence how the user feels about it, simplicity may also impact the experience. A slow but easy to use application may be a lot better - particularly for casual users - than a fast but complex one.
Coming back to the question of criteria for selecting an "end-user experience tool", we need to define whose experience we want to catch. Is it the infrequent user who spends a long time in the application when he first gets here, the frequent but fast user who knows exactly what she wants and need to go straight to the core? And to what extent do we include "related services" (such as responsiveness of a help desk, or users' response to surveys on satisfaction) into the total experience that we (want to) measure?
Thursday, 7 October 2010
Should you Customize your IT Service Management tool?
For years, IT Service Management customers have been heavily into customizing the software they use for Incident Management, Problem Management and the whole ITIL process portfolio. The reason? Because these implementations have to a large extent been driven by a set of "ideal" process definitions, developed by external or in-house consultants, and the desire to 100% match the tool to the process. And also because these tools have traditionally been very "customization friendly", some of them almost being generic workflow development toolsets rather than solutions.
This heavy use of customization has had several consequences that over time have become burdens rather than advantages for the customers:
This heavy use of customization has had several consequences that over time have become burdens rather than advantages for the customers:
- The ongoing maintenance costs have been high, since many customizations need to be redone or modified after version upgrades and other changes to the ITSM tool.
- The tool as a whole becomes more error-prone, as the new/changed features that are customer-specific may add their own set of bugs.
- Many integrations (e.g. with network or application monitoring) will also need to be customized, making these more expensive.
- And frequently, we've seen that customers get stuck with a certain version level of the tool, because some customizations are not compatible with a new version.
Thursday, 23 September 2010
IT Security Acquisition Spree
Over the last year, HP and IBM have both done several acquisitions in the realm of software for IT security, and it looks like this trend will continue. Some of HP's latest acquisitions are:
Fortify Software: Tools for security testing of source code, to ensure that applications are inherently secure.
ArcSight: Security Incident and Event Management, to discovery security related incidents and automatically handle most, passing the remainder on to humans.
These solutions fit well into HP's overall Business Technology Optimzation portfolio: Fortify will enhance Application Security Center, while ArcSight will add security related event management into the BSM (Business Service Management) stack, and optionally add some other (non-security) features such as log file analysis, something that HP does not have today.
Why are the big IT Management players doing this? We think that one of the main reasons is that the rise of Cloud Computing, and the entire realm of "outsourcing" is provoking a review of data security. Large players such as HP and IBM want to position themselves better for expected growth in this area. And it is always faster to acquire an existing solution than developing a new one. The challenge, though, will be to integrate the aquired software with the company's legacy solutions, some of which may have been acquired previously.
An interesting set of viewpoints on HP's ArcSight acquisition may be found here: http://www.pcw.co.uk/computing/analysis/2269984/arcsight-acquisition-give
Fortify Software: Tools for security testing of source code, to ensure that applications are inherently secure.
ArcSight: Security Incident and Event Management, to discovery security related incidents and automatically handle most, passing the remainder on to humans.
These solutions fit well into HP's overall Business Technology Optimzation portfolio: Fortify will enhance Application Security Center, while ArcSight will add security related event management into the BSM (Business Service Management) stack, and optionally add some other (non-security) features such as log file analysis, something that HP does not have today.
Why are the big IT Management players doing this? We think that one of the main reasons is that the rise of Cloud Computing, and the entire realm of "outsourcing" is provoking a review of data security. Large players such as HP and IBM want to position themselves better for expected growth in this area. And it is always faster to acquire an existing solution than developing a new one. The challenge, though, will be to integrate the aquired software with the company's legacy solutions, some of which may have been acquired previously.
An interesting set of viewpoints on HP's ArcSight acquisition may be found here: http://www.pcw.co.uk/computing/analysis/2269984/arcsight-acquisition-give
Tuesday, 24 August 2010
Does Cloud Computing Change Service Monitoring?
In these days when everybody is talking about Cloud Computing - and many vendors are changing their data sheets to say that the outsourcing services they provide are "cloud based" - many companies are asking themselves what the advent of Cloud Computing will mean for their investment in monitoring of the IT services that (somehow, sometime) will move to the Cloud.
The answer - as is often the case with any shifting paradigm - is: That depends. It depends on what type of monitoring you are doing today (and want to do tomorrow), and what type of Cloud Computing you will want to utilize.
Generally speaking, monitoring that is agent-less, and based on open/standard protocols will quite probably still work with few or no changes. E. g. monitoring web applications through "virtual users" is the same whichever technology or vendor actually hosts the application server.
Agent-based monitoring is subject to possible change to a greater degree, depending on the type of Cloud Computing being used:
For Infrastructure as a Service (i.e. the customer has access to the server, and provides the OS and application) or Platform as a Service (the customer has access to the OS and provides the application) agent deployment is more or less the same as with servers that are based in your own data center: It is up to the customer whether he wants to use an agent or not, but there may be restrictions on protocols and connections betweenm the agentinstrumented server and the management server run by the customer.
For Software as a Service (where the customer uses software provided by the vendor) agent-based monitoring is generally not possible, except in situations where the vendor will allow the customer some level of access to agents installed, maintained som operated by the vendor. But this is more likely in "traditional outsourcing", rather than in Cloud Computing.
The answer - as is often the case with any shifting paradigm - is: That depends. It depends on what type of monitoring you are doing today (and want to do tomorrow), and what type of Cloud Computing you will want to utilize.
Generally speaking, monitoring that is agent-less, and based on open/standard protocols will quite probably still work with few or no changes. E. g. monitoring web applications through "virtual users" is the same whichever technology or vendor actually hosts the application server.
Agent-based monitoring is subject to possible change to a greater degree, depending on the type of Cloud Computing being used:
For Infrastructure as a Service (i.e. the customer has access to the server, and provides the OS and application) or Platform as a Service (the customer has access to the OS and provides the application) agent deployment is more or less the same as with servers that are based in your own data center: It is up to the customer whether he wants to use an agent or not, but there may be restrictions on protocols and connections betweenm the agentinstrumented server and the management server run by the customer.
For Software as a Service (where the customer uses software provided by the vendor) agent-based monitoring is generally not possible, except in situations where the vendor will allow the customer some level of access to agents installed, maintained som operated by the vendor. But this is more likely in "traditional outsourcing", rather than in Cloud Computing.
Wednesday, 14 July 2010
Network Automation: 4 Essential Reasons
IT of any shape or form in today's world stops if the network stops. So network uptime needs to be as close to 100% as humanly possible. In order to maximize that uptime, the best approach may be a non-human one: Using automation instaed of people. Jim Frey, Research Director for market and technology analyst company Enterprise Management Associates provides four very good reasons for automating network change in this article.
Tuesday, 6 July 2010
Are Cloud Services Ready for Prime Time?
Cloud Computing is not just a buzzword, but a number of vendors have over the last few years started offering new "cloudy" services and not just rebranding their old ones. One venture into this area is (or was, as the case may be) EMC's cloud storage offering Atmos Online. This pioneering service is being shelved (see http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/070110-emc-shuts-down-online-cloud.html), and no guarantees about continuity of availablily are given to customers.
This is just one example of what often happens with new technologies going through the Hype Cycle: The potential seems endless early on, but when the actual market doesn't take off as expected, the vendors drop out as the market plunges into "The Trough of Disillusionment" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hype_cycle).
So now the questions we ask are: Will more providers disappear? Will customers run away? Or will the market, after a period of turmoil, return and grow into significance?
From this writer's perspective, the ability to manage and monitor cloud services at all levels (availability as well as performance) in addition to simplified service provisioning and ease of comparing and migrating between different service offerings are key to the success of Cloud Computing. And the current lack of a standard service catalog is definitely a barrier to adoption for many potential users.
This is just one example of what often happens with new technologies going through the Hype Cycle: The potential seems endless early on, but when the actual market doesn't take off as expected, the vendors drop out as the market plunges into "The Trough of Disillusionment" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hype_cycle).
So now the questions we ask are: Will more providers disappear? Will customers run away? Or will the market, after a period of turmoil, return and grow into significance?
From this writer's perspective, the ability to manage and monitor cloud services at all levels (availability as well as performance) in addition to simplified service provisioning and ease of comparing and migrating between different service offerings are key to the success of Cloud Computing. And the current lack of a standard service catalog is definitely a barrier to adoption for many potential users.
Thursday, 3 June 2010
Does Cloud Computing lock you in?
The great enthusiasm that many people show when talking about Cloud Computing, has created a perception that this is the new holy grail, that has only advantages and no problems or challenges. But as more and more people investigate what Cloud Computing means in real terms, the gaps in the current offerings become more apparent.
One problem is the lack of standards in this area. Standards processes are underway, but it will take a long time before they are properly established, and the marketplace has ensured that the majority of players support them. The lack of standards creates lock-ins, i.e. it becomes difficult to move to another cloud vendor if you want to - for technical, service or financial reasons. Red Hat's CEO James Whitehurst has expressed his views in this article
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/060210-red-hats-ceo-clouds-can.html
Looking into e.g. the "infrastructure as a service" (IaaS) offerings currently available, you quickly see that there is a plethora of vendor specific APIs and commands that you need to learn in order to utilise those offerings. Add to that the differences in what is actually provided, the service levels or other contractual details, and you quickly see that what in theory makes life simpler, actually adds complexity.
The "Management Tool" communitry - open source as well as licensed - is slowly getting its act together, to create the tools and middleware to make the underlying Cloud more transparent, and thereby allowing users more easily to move between clouds. But for now, when you go fo Cloud Computing, you must also select a specific vendor.
One problem is the lack of standards in this area. Standards processes are underway, but it will take a long time before they are properly established, and the marketplace has ensured that the majority of players support them. The lack of standards creates lock-ins, i.e. it becomes difficult to move to another cloud vendor if you want to - for technical, service or financial reasons. Red Hat's CEO James Whitehurst has expressed his views in this article
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/060210-red-hats-ceo-clouds-can.html
Looking into e.g. the "infrastructure as a service" (IaaS) offerings currently available, you quickly see that there is a plethora of vendor specific APIs and commands that you need to learn in order to utilise those offerings. Add to that the differences in what is actually provided, the service levels or other contractual details, and you quickly see that what in theory makes life simpler, actually adds complexity.
The "Management Tool" communitry - open source as well as licensed - is slowly getting its act together, to create the tools and middleware to make the underlying Cloud more transparent, and thereby allowing users more easily to move between clouds. But for now, when you go fo Cloud Computing, you must also select a specific vendor.
Sunday, 30 May 2010
CloudSleuth - Performance Comparison of Clouds
Compuware, with their subsidiary Gomez, has created a new service for anybody interested in Cloud Computing: A generic measurement network to track the performance and availability of applications running on a number of different Cloud Service Providers' infrastructure. Initially, they are using a small two-page "web catalog" type of application, with 40 small product info. pages on the first page and one large image on the second, but this is still a lot better than just relying on statements from the vendors themselves.
CloudSleuth, as the service is called, is in beta currently, and is not being tested from "everywhere" in the world, though from enough places that it gives you a reasonable "feel" for the performance of the different clouds. As Cloud Computing matures, so will most probably CloudSleuth, and future versions may support more complex applications than this simple website. What about a comparison of ITIL Service Management sites, pitching e.g. service-now.com against HP's Service Manager provided as SaaS?
CloudSleuth, as the service is called, is in beta currently, and is not being tested from "everywhere" in the world, though from enough places that it gives you a reasonable "feel" for the performance of the different clouds. As Cloud Computing matures, so will most probably CloudSleuth, and future versions may support more complex applications than this simple website. What about a comparison of ITIL Service Management sites, pitching e.g. service-now.com against HP's Service Manager provided as SaaS?
Thursday, 20 May 2010
Management of Virtualization is Coming of Age
In many IT shops, application, technology or system specific tools are used extensively. This tends to work quite well as long as a technology is in its infancy - or even adolescence - but becomes a burden on the IT Operations staff when its usage becomes widespread. By that time, you will need to consolidate management of "silo'ed" systems, for better event correlation and root cause analysis, as well as to reduce the need for many separate specialized groups.
According to Network World's Denise Dubie, the time for integrating virtual system management into the rest of IT Management is now:
http://www.networkworld.com/newsletters/nsm/2010/051710nsm2.html
From a European perspective, this is long overdue. In the Nordic countries, where Manag-E is located, Virtualization moved into the Data Centers several years ago, and is today deeply entrenched there. Consolidating Virtualization Management into overall system management is something we've been eagerly awaiting for quite some time!
According to Network World's Denise Dubie, the time for integrating virtual system management into the rest of IT Management is now:
http://www.networkworld.com/newsletters/nsm/2010/051710nsm2.html
From a European perspective, this is long overdue. In the Nordic countries, where Manag-E is located, Virtualization moved into the Data Centers several years ago, and is today deeply entrenched there. Consolidating Virtualization Management into overall system management is something we've been eagerly awaiting for quite some time!
Friday, 7 May 2010
Cloud Computing and standards
Everybody is talking about Cloud Computing these days, and a body such as the Cloud Security Alliance (www.cloudsecurityalliance.org) is actively building national organisations to spread its message ever more widely. Even in tiny Norway there is an effort under way to create a local chapter of CSA (www.joymount.no/csa/csa_norge.doc - in Norwegian!).
One of the proponents of standards for cloud computing in the US is the Nationalal Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST - see www.nist.gov). Peter Mell from NIST is the chair of a federal council which is tasked to - among other things - aggregate cloud computing standards. Many people are hoping their results will apply generally, and not just to US government agencys. See more on Jon Oltsik's blog www.networkworld.com/community/node/60847.
One of the proponents of standards for cloud computing in the US is the Nationalal Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST - see www.nist.gov). Peter Mell from NIST is the chair of a federal council which is tasked to - among other things - aggregate cloud computing standards. Many people are hoping their results will apply generally, and not just to US government agencys. See more on Jon Oltsik's blog www.networkworld.com/community/node/60847.
Monday, 3 May 2010
More on Social Collaboration in IT
HP's new apporach to IT Management through socially collaborative media (see our blogpost http://manag-e.blogspot.com/2010/04/social-collaborative-it-management.html) is being commented on in many blogs. Dana Gardner har a nice screenshot in his blogpost on the topic (see http://www.it-director.com/enterprise/content.php?cid=12057). We will clearly see a lot more on this in the coming months.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
