Home > Intel Communities > Open Port IT Community > IT@Intel > Blog > 2008 > March
3

Up to this point I have covered Application inventory as a cost savings initiative followed by a discussion of Application inventory starts with a definition, and finally Application inventory, what do you capture?

 

Following the natural progression of:

  • Why inventory

  • Boundaries of what to capture

  • What to capture

  • How to capture

 

The "How to capture" is not a simple task completed in a week or two. For a company our size this task is still ongoing after fourteen months. And our progress shows us that we will need at least till the end of year to approach some semblance of sustainability. By sustainability I mean that the information, process and people will be in place to keep the data in a fresh state so that true data-based decisions can be made at near real-time.

 

Every day the clarity of our inventory gets sharper and sharper as we identify and pull in the data owners. The quality of the information becomes more focused as more of the profile is filled out. There are internal systems that are starting to rely on the data we have captured. That data is being transformed into true business information which has value and can be used to make the right decisions at the right time. At times, it still feels like an uphill battle. Each day we stand side-by-side with those who see the value and push on the back of our partners as we slowly progress up the hill.

 

Now knowing the definition and what data we want to capture we could have progressed in a multitude of ways:

  • Distributed work-load, individual owners

  • Focused work-load, our team owning (interviewing)

  • Centralized gathering (combination of above, driving people to a single location)

 

We chose to adopt the creation of a simple to use, centrally located (Intranet Application), that stored the data we needed. As mentioned in the past, we did our analysis by looking at applications on our enterprise that already contained the types of data we were interested in. What we discovered was that none of them had the flexibility to store the additional information nor the development resources to alter their systems. This pushed us to obtain permission to build a new application.

 

At this point you may be saying, "You built an application to reduce the number of applications?" Sometimes it is necessary to do the wrong thing in order to do the right thing. It would have been too easy to drop a spreadsheet out there and start gathering information. Short-term this would have cost the least and potentially would have allowed us to get part of the way there. The issue is the long-term sustainability and trust that comes from a solution like that. We would have security concerns, updating collision as well as the reduced ability to share the data easily with other applications.

 

Yes, we built a new application, using two people, in four weeks. Since implementation started we have supported weekly releases while expanding the data being captured, the usability for customers (and consumers) as well as enabling the removal of the majority of those other systems with parallel capabilities. We have great internal hosting solutions and have been operating non-stop since December 2006.

 

Our goal is still to do the right thing and properly manage our inventory through reduction. We were instrumental in providing the information and process needed to remove over 500 applications (and associated hardware) from our environment since we started our process.

 

In my next entry I will talk about some future enhancements to get us through the next year and the further reduction in application inventory we are charged with. Perhaps its time to start looking at how our original analysis for "Low Hanging Fruit" was successful and now we find ourselves making hard decisions in order to continue refining our inventory.

 

Have you had similar issues at your company? Do you currently have this challenge before you? I'm curious to hear some of those challenges and potential solutions.

3 Comments Permalink
5

Some general thoughts and ramblings on application streaming - where it is better than web applications and where it might not be.

 

Application streaming is an interesting technology - you can create a client rich application with sophisticated graphics and processing and yet have a high degree of security and the benefits of server side manageability. In my mind this is the best of two worlds. On the one hand you can leverage the full strength of the latest processors and graphics cabilities and on the other you can manage security and upgrades quickly and efficiently.

 

The application doesn't go through an install process on the client so you eliminate some of the problems associated with different people installing the same application differently. The installation can be "isolated" to protect against conflicts (in some cases this provides backwards compatibility) which also raises some challanges, although this also provides some "challenges" for the integration of mulitple applications on the same device.

 

 

Upgrades are simple and guaranteed - since you only upgrade the server and anyone using that application gets the update at next use, true for security patches as well. For those that are using the applications offline (which you can do, try that with a web app) they will get the update the next time they connect to the network.

 

 

Streaming (some products anyway) provides a means for license management, so perhaps you don't need to own as many licenses as you thought by tracking concurrent usage and preventing over subscribing. This is can be important for some expensive purchased applications.

 

 

Streaming applications are also not subject to the multitude of exploits that are written to attach web browsers and web applications. I believe that for corporate applications they are safer and easier to protect. That alone may be reason enough to justify moving in this direction.

 

 

One area where web based applications COULD be better is if they are written to work on multiple platforms with multiple browsers (such as Windows and OS X). However in practice this seems to be seldom done, most apps are still written for one environment or the other and it's more of chance that the application works in the other environments. This could be a big plus if developers would truly develop for the heterogenous world we live in.

 

 

Another is that with client rich applications there is often more database traffic being routed over the network between the client and the server infrastructure whereas in a web application the database traffic can be kept between the application server and the database server. This puts the onus on the application developer to take this into account when architecting their application. It can be done efficiently but it does raise that "old" argument and problem.

 

 

So perhaps it is time to look at how we develop applications and rather than swinging the pendelum back to all client rich applications, maybe we should be looking at a better balance of applications leveraging the best technology for the requirements.

 

 

Just a thought

 

 

5 Comments Permalink
2

So we are on the home run of deploying the new pilot cube

environment, in fact I’m on site helping supporting day one move in at our

third US site installation which has certainly been interesting. Flight over

went quickly, though at some points it was rather roller coaster (to the point

coffee was spilt on laps)

 

But I digress…

 

 

 

I wanted to discuss an item I have brought up before;

benchmarking. The project has moved on and worth asking some questions around.

Intel IT has used classic benchmarking applications to compare platforms when

going to RFP (using standard off the shelf applications) but we discovered this

testing wasn’t helping us improve the performance of our software on the client

it was simply giving us faster clients (not a bad thing) We were missing some

critical decision making criteria for evaluating newer versions of

applications, client builds or software tweaks (identifying performance improvement

or impact) As we drive towards more out of the box applications we will also be

using the tool to evaluate impact on the environment.

 

 

 

So we kicked off a project to begin recording certain

productivity metrics to evaluate user perception performance; not necessarily

aimed at just understanding how fast each client is; but more what impact it

has to users

 

 

 

Some of these timing metrics include

 

 

 

  • Time into operating system

  • Time into email application (first email)

  • Time into first instant message conversation

  • Time to first spreadsheet/document application

 

Once changes are made to the client build or application

stack an impact is recorded through the metrics. This means we can start to set

goals and performance targets (10% faster build in 3 months…etc)

 

We hope to publish this data with some fellow travellers to get

some indicators on quantify the overhead an ‘IT’ build compared to an off the

shelf build (we classify it as vanilla OS)

 

 

 

Are you recording productivity metrics to compare

applications and build generations? Any thoughts on if this data would be

useful to you?

 

 

2 Comments 0 References Permalink
3

I've got profiles everywhere these days, and not just on the internet, but on the intranet as well. I'm sure we've all got a variety of external faces, whether on Yahoo, MSN Spaces, Facebook, myspace.com, LinkedIn*, or the myriad of other social networking sites out there.

 

But what about on the corporate intranet? It can get just as complicated there, especially if you are trying to find someone who knows something about something that no one in your organization knows anything about!

 

We're starting to see social networking tools for the enterprise show up in evaluations, and I really do hope we implement something within the company - there's incredible value in knowing that I could search for organization development and find a person who is in another division that did an OD project last year that's exactly what I'm trying to do now. But we're not quite there.

 

Right now I've got a pseudo-profile on my internal blog, another on our internal wiki, another on our document collaboration environment, another that's part of my email signature line, and I'm sure there's yet another floating around somewhere. If someone wanted to know what I've been up to for the last 12 years at Intel, they would have to look around in three or four different places to get the full story, or just ask me for a copy of my resume.

 

Part of that is my fault - I just need to pick one place to keep updated and point everything else to it, but the problem there is that now I'm sending people to sites that might not be their PREFERRED location for social networking. As an external example, let's say you've got a personal blog on wordpress.org, but you've also got a myspace account and another on MSN Spaces. All three have blog functionality, which do you pick? Do you post to all three at the same time, or do you point people to one or the other? What if one of your friends prefers MSN Spaces, but you keep sending them to wordpress.org to read your blog?

 

It's profile overload! Not only do you have profile/personal info in 10 different places, but you're trying to communicate redundantly based on other people's preferences. Stop the madness!

 

I'm now to the point where I'm shutting down my profiles on sites that are just secondary or tertiary, and if people want to know who I am and what I'm wearing, they will go to the one site that has it all, because realistically, whichever site you choose will have another competitor in 6 months that everyone will flock to and add 500 friends they've never actually met before. In my mind, I'm seeing a group huddled together moving in unison from one corner of the room to the next as the latest social media site pops up.

 

Will it settle any time soon? I doubt it. There are many competitors that are getting into niche areas and offering more for your money (which in most cases is free). It's a challenge outside and a challenge inside. At least within the company you can create a "mandate" that says here is the site to create your profile and it's what the company is going to use.

 

Maybe some day everyone on the planet will have an ID number and their own website. I want to be 0100100001000101010000010101010001001000.com.

 

  • Websites and locations mentioned in this blog are trademarks and properties of their respective companies.

 

3 Comments 0 References Permalink