In many ways technologists are fighting for the same ideals – just on different levels. The single source of truth is one of those ideals and I find it fascinating to know that other members of the IT community are tacking a similar problem in parallel. Consider the following:
ERP: CEOs look to enterprise resource planning software to provide a single version of the truth with regard to a company’s finances. According to CIO.com, “Finance has its own set of revenue numbers, sales has another version, and the different business units may each have their own version of how much they contributed to revenues. ERP creates a single version of the truth that cannot be questioned because everyone is using the same system.”
MDM: A March 2008 report from Gartner describes how master data management “can help enterprises achieve a single view of the product.” For example, a consumer goods manufacturer that produces wigits in different countries tends to maintain different versions of the same product specification data for governmental or regulatory reporting requirements. Over time the quality of these different versions changes or erodes leaving the business with multiple versions of the truth.
CMDB: Many IT departments have embarked on configuration management system (CMS) projects to synchronize and reconcile multiple federated data sources from performance, asset and system management tools. To provide a single source of truth about the health, availability and quality of the service provided to the business.
As a BSM vendor, my experience with CMDB customers tells me that the most suitable approach for this type of project it to leverage data directly from the trusted sources through integration, rather than attempting to copy, duplicate or otherwise centralize the data with methods such as ETL. In other words, build a centralized view, not a centralize repository, which of course is a key reason why calling it a configuration management system is more appropriate than calling it a configuration management database.
Still the fact that other areas of IT are seeking to find solutions to the similar challenges is interesting – and we’ll be on the look out for best practices. It’s also reminiscent of the idea that those who don’t read history are bound to repeat it.
- Jim
Concerning CMDB, I guess it's the point of CMDBf (implemented in the Eclipse's COSMOS project) : standard queries to get a centralized view from heterogeneous data repositories.
Alex
Posted by: Alexandre Freret | May 16, 2008 11:12 AM
it's great to find someone in the enterprise systems management tool community that's getting a handle on a/ the complexities of the integration problem and an awareness that most of the enterprise architecture has been working on for fifteen years or so.
There is no silver bullet here - and many trade offs, which need to be understood for each user organisation.
It's not normally practical to tie together systems as you describe as you'll impose some new non-functional requirements on availability, performance and data quality that are beyond their original design scope.
Posted by: Tim Coote | May 19, 2008 1:51 PM
I agree Tim, there is no silver bullet, but contrary to conventional wisdom, such systems can -- and in many cases should -- be tied together for practical reasons. In fact, Managed Objects can integrate --at an API level -- virtually any existing IT management tools on the market today. In addition we can integrate these with business metrics data such as KPIs. Most vendors -- particularly the larger companies -- would rather not see their customers integrate existing tools, but rather migrate all of their tools onto their own platform under the auspices of vendor consolidation. While the idea of dealing with one single "strategic" vendor can be alluring but it comes at a high and perhaps permanent price: vendor lock-in. By contrast we feel that integration not only enables enterprises to leverage their existing investments in IT management tools, but also allows them the flexibility to choose the best tools for a given environment while keeping a single consistent enterprise-standard interface. No other vendor can match our ability in this regard; we’ve been doing it for more than a decade. As my colleague Michele recently wrote on ITSMwatch.com, "Most large organizations have enough raw materials—some combination of a service desk, enterprise monitoring, asset management, or discovery—to begin building a CMDB today. With these tools installed, there are enough data elements to begin relating the data into the constructs of service. By virtue of having these tools in place, IT also has some degree of process. Through the course of integrating these pieces, IT organizations will continue to enhance the discipline and rigor to their change and configuration process."
- Jim
Posted by: Jim White | May 20, 2008 4:41 PM