* Contrasting approaches to dealing with the unexpected
From a psychological as well as a technological perspective, there are two types of approaches for managing networked infrastructure for service delivery.
One approach is directed at “pre-conditioned control,” in which policies are carefully set and defined, and often rigidly adhered to. What’s managed, how it’s managed, when and by whom are all preset, and the objectives are standardized and clear. To change policies, there are clear review processes that may require considerable numbers of layers.
The other approach is directed at “discovery,” in which it’s assumed that any knowledge a priori is incomplete and therefore at least partially flawed – so what’s needed is effective visualization to see what’s actually occurring across the infrastructure in a dynamic fashion. In this approach, policies may also be (and should be) in place, but the assumption is that change, rather than constancy, is the norm, and that a pre-conditioned environment may last about as long as a fly alighting on a lily pad in a pond.
As is often the case, both approaches reflect temperamental as well as technological predilections. (I am, I admit, temperamentally in the second category.) And, as is often the case, successfully managing in the face of often unobvious conditions requires a balance between the two approaches – in which technologies, backgrounds, temperaments and organizations cooperate to support the best of both worlds in this clash of rationale and, well, of sensibility.
Either one in the extreme is bound to either fail, or at minimum bring second-rate results. In its extreme, “pre-conditioned control” creates a rigid environment without the ability to adapt to changing conditions. Arduous reviews, complex procedures, and statically defined objectives can lead to a number of problems as service requirements change, infrastructure conditions change (and here change is, like it or not, a constant), and business priorities shift.
Moreover, preset metrics that don’t also include an eye to observed reality may result in a number of false assumptions about the health and performance of the infrastructure. Threshold settings may look good. Synthetic response times may look good. Standard ping sweeps for availability may seem fine. But somehow the service is still hemorrhaging and the business it supports is still faltering. In a situation like this, clipboards, white coats and certified processes can’t do it all.
What’s needed are advanced technologies that can help to clarify the unobvious, as well as an organizational spirit of creativity, collaboration and flexibility to support and enable those quests. The same can be true about optimization issues, or even service requirements determination. After all, IT services are directed ultimately at human consumers who are, by definition, subjective and complex in how they perceive value. To ignore this potential for the unexpected – in both the infrastructure over which services flow, and in the human beings who consume the end services and vote with their minds, hearts and dollars on your success – is to live in a simulated universe in which what’s formally defined is fully equated to what actually exists. Philosophers have recognized the fallacy of this for many centuries. And it’s time for some IT professionals to have the same awakening.
Now I have to admit that those “discovery” folks – myself included – if left to our native excess can be as much if not even more in error than the pre-defined control group. No individual talent, no matter how strong, can be fully the equal of a well-orchestrated team – not, at least, in IT operations. And no technology, no matter how dynamic and accurate, can be in itself a substitute for processes, defined roles, and defined, well-thought-out objectives. Being freewheeling in the face of chaos can be just as damaging as rigid and non-adaptive procedures. Moreover, in the age of audits, compliance litigation and security threats, undirected creativity leaves doors open to a whole host of potential disasters.
Probably the best methodology to managing the unobvious is to accept both the need for structure and the inevitability of change, and to balance individual creativity with the need for well-defined and consistent collaboration. Process, organization, and technology choices should all be made with both structure and adaptability in mind. Anyone who thinks they can predefine service interdependencies across a global interlacing of networks and data centers in anything other than a partial and transient manner is, at minimum, overconfident. And anyone who thinks they can continue to “wing it” – since it’s all chaos anyway – is really headed for disaster. Both discipline and imagination are required.
As with many things in high technology, managing the unobvious is a matter of “both/ and,” not “either/or.”
