Recently in CMS Category

IT governance is a main motivator for corporate entities in their decisions to create compliant IT systems that include CMDBs. The CMDB is supposed to model (as closely as possible) a "vision of the truth" about those corporate entities’ IT systems. To that end I would like to discuss the governance of how a CMDB is constructed. By CMDB governance I mean: the performance, risk assessment and compliance of a CMDB to the actual true state of the IT system being modeled; I might also add to this the confidence in that CMDB as it relates to its accuracy in modeling the IT system.

How then are CMDBs constructed? The best way is to tie together existing data and complement that data with discovery tools and old fashioned data-entry. The latter may be done through the use of various scripts or the mining of databases that hold certain aspects of the system, but in large part these would be grouped under ‘formal methodologies.’

At this point the CMDB construction is already fraught with danger, for example holes in the data, or data that is inaccurate or stale. The confidence factor of such a CMDB may be quite low, which makes it rather useless. This problem is exacerbated by that fact that building it can be a very time-consuming and difficult procedure. There is a very well known decision matrix called the ‘Impact/Effort’ matrix. The idea is that if an activity has a high effort, but a low impact, then that activity is not worth doing.

This is a major problem in creating a useful CMBD. What to do?

Well, before I attempt to answer that question, let me introduce a different way that CMDB’s can be created: social networking tools.

The idea is that the IT systems knowledge (at least on a high level) is contained in the heads of many human beings. The raw data can be managed by the discovery tools and formal tools, but the structural knowledge and ability to correct or fill in knowledge requires constant, dynamic human intervention.

That’s why tools like Managed Objects myCMDB that allow ‘Wiki’ like intervention into the construction of a CMDB are so useful. This works by taking the view that the CMDB is a dynamic living entity that never really attains a static ‘state of truth,’ but instead has major portions that are basically static, and ‘outliers’ that are being dynamically changed as network needs change, as virtual machines are created and destroyed, and as complex applications go into and out of existence. The truth in a complex IT system is a living, breathing, and most importantly, changing beast. This is why the traditional methods of creating a CMDB always seem to end up with something that is out of date with the real thing.

To make sure that the data is maintained in the CMDB correctly, a ‘governance’ policy needs to be instituted between the ‘gathering’ of the data, and the ‘structuring’ of the data within the CMDB itself. Obviously there will be many things that can be instituted as boiler-plate within this policy, but there will be many aspects of this policy that will be unique to the corporate entity that is instituting them. The policy is itself stored within the CMDB which introduces an aspect of feed-back that will help to tailor this policy to better capture and structure the dynamically collected data that ultimately forms the CMDB model.

The feedback loop is essentially a human interaction activity and could be compared to idea of domain experts who edit an encyclopedia (or a Wiki).

These experts examine the current structures of the collected knowledge within the CMDB to the real world, and modify the policy so that the collection and structuring of data more closely fits with, and changes with, the real world. The ultimate hope is to get to a policy that produces the closest possible CMDB model to the real world.

As the policy improves within the enterprise, the confidence factor rises and, of course, the usefulness of the CMDB within the enterprise also rises.

- David

Daily updates keep rolling in and all indicate that our Early Evaluation Program (EEP) for myCMDB continues to progress nicely. We have been contacted numerous times by both customers and internal employees with feature suggestions, questions and bug reports. A handful of folks with whom we have never spoken with previously have even sent inbound requests to give the software a try.

In many ways, the EEP has also become an extension to our QA department. Many people find that it is fun to find a bug and to report these to us. While we don’t necessarily “like” having to fix these bugs since we would rather be working on features -- we know this is a vital part of the process and are very happy to find them early in the development process where the overall cost to fix is dramatically lower.

We have been following standard practice by categorizing the enhancement requests and bugs and placing them into our ticketing system so that they can be reviewed and addressed by the proper personnel during the proper time in the schedule. We are working to manage these fixes in between preparation for our next “formal” code drop for the EEP. We have been updating the code periodically during our maintenance periods for a few fixes we deem necessary, however, we are not delivering additional major features to the product until our next code drop in August.

Currently we are aggregating overall usage data and it will be interesting to see if there are significant trends: What type of user logs in most frequently? Who uses it less frequently? Who is leveraging the community aspects? Are the CIM standard for CI’s useful or have they constructed their own classes? Stay tuned. 

- Adam

Yesterday was a big day for the myCMDB team. We launched our initial code drop for the myCMDB Early Evaluation Program. The team is eager to get some feedback from our participants.

Overall the launch has gone very well. We had very few problems with user account setup, DNS problems, or any other technical issues. In fact, we have been surprised (and pleased) by the number of people that are already using the application.

We are eating our own dog food for this program so we can easily monitor statistics and auditing of the system: we can watch as people login, logout, and perform other activities. This was vital to our program so that we can monitor usage accordingly as part of our feedback.

We also setup myMO -- our  Web-based portal framework -- as the front end web site for all communication to the participants of the myCMDB EEP program. The site contains an overview of the program, instructional movies, beta documentation, a Blog site, calendar of events and other cool stuff to provide an easy means of communication between the participants and the myCMDB team. Personally, as the project manager, I am interested in hearing feedback on both the product as well as the Early Evaluation Program in general.

So far, my favorite thing about this program has been watching the community feeds as people register CI’s, update attributes, join communities, etc. In fact, it looks like a bit of competition may be brewing between the participants to see who can register CI’s the fastest. Interesting thought for those wanting to foster usage and coverage with a CMDB.

- Adam

We’re thrilled to see the buzz gathering around our newest announcement - analysts and media alike seem to agree that we’ve added something new and noteworthy to the market. We think this kind of innovation is especially welcome in a market that has little confidence in those larger competitors.

With myCMDB, we’ve really unleashed the power of the CMDB by adding the community features that should logically be part of any project that requires the input from so many different people within an organization. Heck, using email and voicemail for CMDB communication is like using a rotary dial for a smartphone.

Instead, we’ve brought CMDB communications and process into the 21st century, by adding a combination of Facebook interactivity, Wikipedia information quality management, and Google’s searching model. Basically, these features make it easier to get more users involved in its creation and maintenance, which means the CMDB quickly becomes a more accurate representation of the infrastructure, relationships, and services. This allows organizations to use the CMDB to better control the impact of change and move it into a decision support role.

Stay tuned as the buzz continues to build!

For contemporary computer usage, the SaaS model has many attractive advantages that account for its growing popularity. For instance SaaS avoids the initial up front cost of purchasing software and the associated hardware; the ongoing maintenance, and salary costs for employees to maintain a new systems are all avoided.

At the expense of IT as competitive differentiation, these cost advantages are coupled with the fact that many types of software applications have been commoditized: networking speed and availability are trusted, centralised resources are shared across many users and afford higher levels of security, fault tolerance, disaster recovery and access greater expertise. Plus, SaaS examples like Salesforce.com demonstrate the credibility of the concept. So potentially you end up with less cost, less worries and higher quality of service – sounds good eh?

As the business model has matured the SaaS vendors are using increasingly sophisticated techniques to optimise their business, optimise client usage of resources, and deploy up selling techniques. All of this demonstrates the early maturity of a successful business concept.

Users have the right to expect SaaS providers will deploy best practices and the best technology in order to ensure security, high availability, good performance and continual improvement to ensure the quality of service (QoS) they require. Business Service Management (BSM) has an important role to play because of its unprecedented ability to provide service management the proven best practice way of managing IT systems.

SaaS systems, like all IT systems, will be subject to change, for example, upgrades, system expansion and maintenance – and incidents will also occur causing user-impacting problems. To ensure the viability of SaaS is maintained as these systems grow in size and complexity with their increasing popularity then SaaS providers need automated management solutions that can scale to cope with demand, size and complexity.

BSM components like Service Level Management (SLM) and Service Contract Management provide automated and proactive ability to ensure the QoS consumers expect. Since they provide automated root cause analysis of QoS threatening issues. Whereas, BSM’s Configuration Management System (CMS) ensures the risk of change is minimised by making change management aware of the potential impact of a proposed change.

We anticipate as SaaS becomes more popular, more complex and more competitive between SaaS providers. As such we predict that we will see the same rapid adoption of BSM as we have seen by service provision vendors.