On a recent client engagement we were trying to find out what was blocking the more widespread use of one of our System Center products, Operations Manager (SCOM). Driving product adoption throughout our customer base and responding to customer feedback are some of the indirect goals, beyond executing successfully on projects, here at Microsoft Consulting. During one of our discovery sessions, one of the systems administrators proposed that SCOM should seamlessly identify issues in the environment, verify their root cause and then promptly fix them. Part of me thought this is what dynamic IT is all about – the golden standard where systems are self-diagnosing and self-healing. Another part of me thought that is what IT folks do– they bridge that gap that exists between the constant chatter in the datacenter and proactive, actionable, intelligence that enables dynamic IT. Reality lies somewhere in the middle.
Data only becomes information when it is relevant. And it only becomes relevant when someone, in this case knowledge workers, process and eventually consume the data for a particular end. This brings us to a fundamental problem that needs to be solved by information technology and a key activity of all consultants: the creation of relevance.
Let’s look at an example with our SCOM product. A system, such as an email server, can generate quite a bit of of performance data: IOPS per seconds, growth of the datastore, number emails coming in/going out, email time to delivery to client, mailbox and email sizes etc… Even though some of this data may not be completely raw it still needs to be put in context. Whether that context is capacity management for infrastructure planning, a more proactive activity, to problem resolution, a more reactive activity, data has to be contextualized and presented in the appropriate way. Front line technicians require immediate alerts once thresholds are met, on disks that are filling up for example, while planners may require appropriate long term data points to forecast storage purchases.
Through a proper mix of process and use of technology an IT information worker should be able to deliver relevant and actionable information to the business. SCOM is a tool that can add those extra arrows in your quiver, helping you establish baselines, metrics and heuristic markers. This massaged data then can be wrapped up in a range of processes: problem triage, change management,remediation, reporting and so on. Although these processes can be semi-automated, they can only be formalized and executed on by people who understand the business as well as the technology. Only when both people and processes are working in simpatico can SCOM, or any tool for that matter, provide for a dynamic IT state that every organization should strive for.
It must be made clear from the onset of any project that operational centric products, such as SCOM, need to be wrapped up in well defined processes with trained technologist in order to be successful. There’s just no easy way around it.
Could one imagine a world where Macs comprised 90, 50 or even 30% of all computers? Not really, and here are three reasons.
The first reason is structural: Apple has pursued a closed system strategy where software and hardware are tightly coupled and controlled. Whilst such a strategy brings tangible benefits it does have at least one massive disadvantage: it doesn’t scale. Alternatively, the Windows ecosystem is based around numerous partners, ISVs, VARs and resellers/suppliers all throughout the PC value chain. What’s more important is that Microsoft’s relationship with partners is fairly loose and brings with it the implicit freedom to innovate within and beyond the Windows software stack. Apple seems to be especially not interested in more hardware partners (a strategy that was tried and failed miserably under Spindler and Amelio), all the while it would like to buy out strategic partners (as rumoured of Adobe) or shut them down like with the case of Psystar (the now bankrupt OS X clone reseller).
The second reason is an offshoot of the first and it centers around Apple’s intentional disinterest in the enterprise (where partners do the heavy lifting in terms of value add in the PC ecosystem). This disinterest in the corporate customer is so acute that Apple eliminated its VP for enterprise sales and consortiums have sprung up to deal with the grassroots desire for Macs to find their place in the workplace. I had a customer recount a story where he phoned Apple so he could purchase 100 or so Macs for his company – not only did he not get special pricing or premier support, the operator told him to got to the Apple store just like everyone else. Apple just doesn’t care about suits, and there’s a good reason and that brings us to our last point.
Apple products have an aura of exclusivity and coolness about them- dare I say a touch of arrogance. If, for heaven’s sake the dorky PC guy in the Apple commercials actually started using a Mac what would happen then? Who would Mac users have to look down on? I once asked, shall I say a more fervent Mac devotee what I thought was a very simple albeit rhetorical question: “The Mac does some things better than a PC but is there maybe one thing, however insignificant, that a Windows machine does better than a Mac?” He couldn’t think of one.
And this is the crux of the dilemma. As the Mac reaches that previous 10% market peak it achieved two decades ago, Apple has to fundamentally adjust both its marketing message and its business approach in order to break through to the masses. There’s no evidence that Apple wants to do either.
All benchmarking results should have one of two results:
- Confirm a hypothesis
- Bring doubt on a hypothesis
When we do Hyper-V proof of concepts (POCs) comparisons at a customer site we try to work with the client to setup system configurations where both parties get a fair shake. The client typically sets up their test environment as it’s currently configured in production (and we set up ours), and, just as important, the client runs through a series of tests with relevant workloads on both virtualization platforms.
An important goal of these POCs is to dislodge the perceived status quo, namely that the incumbent leader VMware has a significant performance and feature advantage. Customers who are solid VMware shops are a bit surprised to see there is no performance gap, indeed most of the time Hyper-V performs good as or better than than ESX.
Of course when such results are publicly demonstrated, like in the Virtualization Review Hypervisor comparison published last week, the reaction is a bit more controversial. Let’s say the folks at VMware were not amused that ESX performed so mundanely, and the PR team even had to send out an emergency bulletin to help their field “parse'” the results. VMware has much more to lose if the status quo gets a bit more blurry so their immediate reaction has been to challenge the methodology of the benchmark tests.
I think the authors of the report were very even handed and didn’t just jump to categorical conclusions. The report almost felt like a mea culpa from a ESX fan who painfully realizes that perceived notions of superiority didn’t materialize. I have seen very similar reactions when we perform our POCs and line up our product against the competition.
VMware is the incumbent in server virtualization market and they have managed to cultivate a reputation performance and stability. However, the magic sauce guarded by VMware’s EULA (section 3.3 which prohibits publishing of benchmarks) has shown to be nothing more then some ketchup and mayonnaise. In fact, VMware came last in many of the recently published benchmarks, after Hyper-V and Xenserver, suggesting they are falling behind in the technology game (VMware, for example, does not leverage hardware assisted virtualization and still relies on hardware emulation).
Most of the virtualization blogosphere is now starting to realize that VMware isn’t the only virtualization game in town and more importantly, no longer the safe choice. Due diligence now requires more than just a cursory look at competitor datasheets – and benchmarking is that next step. And the more test drives customers do with Hyper-V the more they are driving away with our technology.
From the Microsoft Consulting Services website:
Microsoft consultants enable business customers around the world to solve complex technical challenges with the aid of Microsoft technology.
Microsoft consultants are technical strategists who work closely with the CEOs, CIOs, and engineers who come to us for specific technical solutions. These professionals evaluate, design, and implement enterprise infrastructures and IT-based business solutions, often working on-site to help customers deploy their solutions.
The department offers top-notch IT experts the chance to gain serious ground on their professional goals. Opportunities in Microsoft Consulting span the segments listed below. Operating out of more than 100 field offices in the United States and worldwide, these positions can be an opportunity to work for Microsoft without relocating. Consulting personnel enjoy the freedom to move around, build skills on Enterprise-level system configurations, and expand their career-critical experience.
