Home > Intel Communities > Open Port IT Community > IT@Intel > Blog > Tags > business_value

IT@Intel Blog

4 Posts tagged with the business_value tag
2

As I started my transition into a new job within Intel IT a few months ago, I discovered that one our internal IT strategic imperatives was “Partnership”.  I have to admit that at first I dismissed this a simply one of many standard business leadership terms that any organization could choose to operate on (I hope Diane Bryant, Intel CIO, is not reading this ).  However, I’m learning how critical partnerships are for a high functioning and value driven IT organization, both within the IT organization and between IT and the business groups they support.

 

With much of the focus these days on the lack of capital budgets limiting IT investment and innovation, I’m learning that a larger underlying barrier for IT organizations to enhance and maximize value inside their businesses, centers around the themes of trust, alignment and ultimately, partnership.  Organizational Silos inside any business create natural barriers to innovation.  Some silos exist naturally and others are self imposed.

 

Let’s look inside a typical IT organization where you are likely to find three functional areas: Architecture, Engineering, Operations.  These functions exist naturally inside most IT organizations.  Recently, I had an opportunity to talk about the inner workings of these functions inside an IT organization with Gregg Wyant, Intel IT CTO and Chief Architect.  These groups are designed to fulfill very unique roles in the IT organization and designed to create an expertise in these functional areas to maximize effectiveness within their chartered goals (chart below). However, if partnership (or at least an understanding of these different roles and goals) doesn’t exist across these groups the credibility of the IT organization can be at risk and the value IT delivers to the business undermined.

IT2ITpartnership.jpg

Imagine if the architecture group creates a vision that can not be implemented by engineering or was is cost prohibitive in the manpower or solutions needed to implement it operationally.  IT’s costs would rise dramatically and/or the architecture design efforts would simply be wasted.  Or imagine if IT never challenged the status quo operational processes and just continued to operate “the way it has always been done”.  If this happens, we would never improve business processes.  Obviously there is a balance required here and partnership across these disciplines can help an organization operate at a higher level of delivered business value and IT efficiency.  After completing a recent job coverage rotation himself, Gregg articulated to me the importance of IT to IT partnership across these disciplines and cross functional job rotations within IT.  The benefits help an IT organization maximize operational cost savings and service levels, react quickly to changing business and technical conditions while balancing and prioritizing investments for the good of the overall business - versus optimizing any one individual discipline or organization.

 

If we look outside the walls of the IT organization, we can also see how silos can negatively affect the business – this brings me to the subject of Server Huggers. 

 

A Server Hugger is someone who currently has or is demanding to IT that they have a physical server (or many servers) dedicated to their business function or department --> they want to touch it, know it is theirs and know that they don’t have to share it with anyone else (either in IT or another business unit).  Server Huggers can be individuals or business groups.  And in a world where most servers still run an average of 5-10% utilization, it is easy to see how these silo-oriented “server huggers” can create inefficiency in the business. To deploy virtualization (or accelerate the rate of virtualization adoption) inside any business, the business teams and IT often need to breakdown this silo’d approach and find ways to delivered required or higher service levels while running on shared, virtualized hardware resources. 

 

This was at the heart of a discussion I recently had around Intel IT’s strategy to accelerate virtualization inside our Office and Enterprise computing environments.  The first step in executing this strategy is to identify the target servers, document who owns them (if IT doesn’t – in many cases we don’t), size the new environment and convince the business owners that virtualizing is OK.  With demonstrated proof of concept virtualization ratios at up to 20:1 using the latest Intel Xeon 5500 based servers, our opportunity for savings is dramatic if we can rid our organization of server hugger behavior.  With tops down support from IT management and an environment of partnership already established with our business customers, I believe we have a clear path to success.

 

Partnerships inside Intel IT can be seen in how we create and measure business value with our business partners, how our own IT organization encourages IT rotation and how we strategically align our IT planning efforts with our business plans. 

 

It is clear to me that our Intel IT Strategic Imperative of Partnership is much more than management lip-service … it is at the heart of our IT operational philosophy … and for good reason.

 

Good bye Silos!  Good bye Server Huggers!  … we have no use for you any more.

 

Chris Peters, Intel IT

Engage Intel experts in IT to IT discussions inside the IT@Intel community

Follow me on Twitter

2 Comments Permalink
0

I just read this paper authored by some of Intel's IT experts in the area of client management.  As an employee of Intel, I am now a huge fan of these rock stars.  Why? because they were able, through proactive IT management practices, reduce blue screens inside Intel's employee base by over 50% in the last year (Q2'08 to Q3'09).  There are now 3,000 fewer laptop blue screens than there were a year ago --> that is a huge productivity advantage for Intel workers.

 

blue scree reduction q2'08 - q3'09.JPG

Issue Tracking, Pareto Analysis and use of new management capabilities and technologies like Intel vPro Technology were at the center of these capabilities.

 

Read about how Refael Mizrahi, Shachaf Levi and Jeff Kilford made my life as an intel employee a whole lot easier by Improving Client Stability with Proactive Problem Management.  You Rock!

 

Chris

0 Comments Permalink
0

I hate fixing the roof.  In fact, I have been postponing a roof repair over my garage for about 2 years now.  I recently read an article by Peter Kretzmen titled “IT, The CIO, and the Business Need for Roof Projects” and realized that while I can put off my roof repair, IT may not be able to postpone routine upgrades. 

 

For businesses, technology refresh is a standard business process (ie a roof fix).  The question for IT often boils down to WHEN I should upgrade, not IF. Why? … because hardware technology ages, maintenance costs rise, and software solutions can become unresponsive or obsolete as business needs change, user needs evolve and new technology and software become available. In this economy, cost is king and reducing IT costs has clearly become a critical imperative.

 

My colleagues in Intel IT recently conducted two separate and independent studies on how frequent we should refresh our PC fleet and data center servers.

 

PC Fleet Management:  John Mahvi and Avi Zarfaty from Intel IT recently wrote a paper titled “Using TCO to Determine PC Upgrade Cycles”.  The conclusion of this analysis showed that a 3.5 year refresh rate was optimal for total cost management in our IT environment.  Despite the fact that delaying PC refresh this year was initially seen as a cash conservation approach, the analysis showed that not refreshing older PCs increased the business’s overall costs.  As a beneficiary of PC refresh (I got a new laptop a month ago ), I can also personally attest that my productivity has gone up.

 

Data Center Efficiency:  Matt Beckert and Diane Boyington of Intel IT recently published a paper titled “Realizing Data Center Savings with an Accelerated Server Refresh Strategy”.  This paper discusses Intel IT’s movement to a proactive 4-year server refresh cadence in 2007 and illustrates both the long term savings (up to $250M over eight years) and immediate benefit to the corporate bottom line ($45M saved in 2008). After plans to refresh our servers was slowed earlier this year to preserve capital funds, a re-assessment was done that showed that Intel IT could save $19M by refreshing now vrs waiting until 2010.

 

Just like you shouldn’t sleep in a house with a leaking roof … it is prudent to not let old hardware create a hole in your IT budget. In today’s economic environment, Intel IT can’t afford a leaky roof and so we are moving forward with proactive business client PC and Server refresh, proven approaches to reduce TCO and boost business value.

 

Chris Peters, Intel IT

twitter @chris_p_intel

0 Comments Permalink
2

As I sit here fresh from a leadership conference for IT employees, I find myself thinking about that. Does IT need radical change? After hearing several examples of how people engineered solutions to solve specific problems or reviewed projects they had developed over the past year, I can answer with a definite yes. While it wasn't simply this experience that pushed me to realization, it definitely helped complete the pattern I had noticed in today's IT.

 

I spend most of my normal role investigating and researching emerging and next generation technologies. With this role came many headaches from pounding my head against the wall of established processes, procedures and preconceived notions. But to borrow an idea from Gene Meieran, that is simply the toll I am paying on this road to my success. But I look at this and ask a simple question, why?

 

When pushing to adopt a new technology, why do we have to wait until it meets all of our established requirements? Why do we try to make vendor's products adapt to us, versus us considering the possibility to adapt to them? Why does it take us 2 years to adopt a new operating system or major product? Why do we run projects for 18-24 months to implement a product that exists out on the shelf today? In looking at several examples of what people consider successful products today, I look to see what makes them different, attractive, and a must have. I then ask what would it take to make IT different, attractive and a must have for any corporation.

 

Five or six years ago, people came to work and looked to IT to get the latest hardware, OS and innovations, because we had it here. We spent the dollars and time to solve problems and innovate. But in the last few years, people have adopted technology must faster at home than we do at work. They use the iPhone, a Wii, social networking tools, cloud based services, etc. They are enabled at home with more options than we provide as an IT shop. We use instant messaging in IT, not because we developed it as a way to eliminate small emails, but because instant messaging was a consumer product that grew so fast, that IT had to adopt it. Social networking is doing the same thing. So I wonder, what would it take to get IT back ahead of the curve and become an enabler of new ideas and solutions, rather than an implementer & reinventer of existing technology?

 

We need to get back to freethinking and innovation that is core to our roots. Companies like Intel were founded on thoughts like the famous quote from Robert Noyce - "Don't be encumbered by the past, go out and do something wonderful" yet in our day to day life I see many encumbered by the past and am waiting for the wonderful. We choose solutions that have more of the one size fits all. Instead of picking the best solutions for the roles that exist; we try to find the one item that can solve all of our problems. Rather than choosing the optimal product for the "one size", we should look at the product that enables the end user to perform optimally. Imagined if corporations took this approach with their products. Image a shoe manufacture that developed the one size fits all. It would be an opened toe, ¾ shank athletic tread, men's size 10, 3-inch heel, sneaker pump. It would meet most of the needs of the shoe-wearing world, but wouldn't be the right shoe for many, if anyone. So why do we settle for the same model in IT? We need to be innovative. We need to look at Apple, Google, Nintendo and others. They didn't just develop products that do what everyone else's products do today, but they did them differently & in many cases better. What does it take to make your part of IT the next iPod, iPhone or Wii? How can we enable our partners to perform optimally? What does it take to just go out and do something without worrying about how many existing committees; review boards, processes and groups have to be engaged to just get it going? The answer is radical change. We need to change how we work. We need to change the level of control we have today. We need to shrink what we try to manage. We need to strive to enable the partners versus totally control their work life. We need to ask so what every once in a while. When someone says if we do A then B might happen. Ask the question, so what? We spend all this time doing the day-to-day moving from spot to spot, never worrying about the resources, costs and effort put into the status quo. When we try to implement something new, it goes under the microscope and quite often is held to a different standard than existing solutions. Requirements seem to be a never-ending monster of growth, instead of the simple point-by-point items they should be for solutions. Many times the solutions themselves are actually listed as the requirements. So I challenge us all to start a process of Radical Change. Start asking the question So What? Start pushing back on the status quo, quit being encumbered and start a process of innovation. Help your partners perform optimally and be a key part of their success rather than just one of their suppliers. It won't be easy, it won't always be fun, but it will be rewarding.

2 Comments Permalink