Download - Fixes that fail: Decommissioning
Fixes that fail:Decommissioning
James Wood FBCS CITP
The system archetype: Fixes That Fail
2
Need to reduce costs in IT
IT organizations like other internal service units are frequently asked to reduce costs due to market conditions or perceived necessity
“Wow, IT is expensive, please do something about that…”
Sounds familiar, right?
Context
3
Need to reduce costs in IT
“Can we decommission underutilized
servers to decrease operating system
instances and costs?”
4
Need to reduce costs in IT
“Good news: Yes, we can….and what’s more they’re quick-
wins…”
5
Need to reduce costs in IT
DecommissionServers +
-
Targeted servers were decommissioned, an estimated 10% was saved – the exercise
was heralded as a great success
6
Not enoughServers
Need to reduce costs in IT
DecommissionServers
-
However, after some time there was a perceived
increase in requirements for new servers…
Elapsed time A
+
7
Not enoughServers
Need to reduce costs in IT
DecommissionServers
-
In fact the requirements didn’t increase they remained constant…
Num
ber
of
applic
ati
ons
Time
The number of applications had been
growing steadilyfor several years…
+
8
Not enoughServersCommission
Servers
Need to reduce costs in IT
DecommissionServers
-
The lack of serversled to
commissioningnew servers…
Elapsed time B
+
9
Not enoughServers
Need to reduce costs in IT
DecommissionServers+ -
-
Commissioning new servers actually increased commissioning
coststwice as much…
Cost
of
OSI
Time
CommissionServers
1st commissioning costs
2nd commissioning costs
Decommissioning servers
Not taking into consideration
decommissioning costs…
10
Not enoughServersCommission
Servers+
+
Need to reduce costs in IT
DecommissionServers
-
After some time the increase in costs
affected the perceived needto reduce costs in IT…
Elapsed time C
+
11
Not enoughServersCommission
Servers+
+
Need to reduce costs in IT
DecommissionServers
-
The unintended consequences of decommissioning servers had different effects over time…
Elapsed time C Elapsed time
B
Elapsed time A
Elapsed time A – it took some time before the demand for servers picked up once again
Elapsed time B – there was a delay between the demand registration and commissioning new servers = lead time
Elapsed time C – slowly the perceived need to reduce costs began to build
+
12
Not enoughServersCommission
Servers+
+
Need to reduce costs in IT
DecommissionServers
-
How lead times for commissioning
new servers compounded theoriginal problem…
+
Lead times ofnew Servers
triggered poor perception of IT
+
Not only is IT expensive, it’s slow…
13
Need to understand
demandover time
Decommissioning servers led to increasing costs and
negatively impacting the business perception of IT
over the mid to longer-term. What started out being a great
quick-win, ended up as a low-leverage intervention
A high-leverage intervention would have been to thoroughly understand demand for servers before making a
decision to decommission, especially over time
In this case it would mean the difference between increasing costs
and managing costs
Conclusions
14
Need to understand the
holistic view
Never underestimate the systemic influences that impact our
systems, especially over time
Don’t rush into decisions without a thorough understanding of
all systemic influences
Slowdown and take stockbefore taking action
Never act in isolation, always consider the holistic view and model scenarios using systems
dynamics to provide a good indication of how things will
pan-out
Conclusions
15
The systems paradigm and systems thinking provide a new way of describing and communicating in the intrinsic interconnectedness of the sea of systems. The more we begin to explore our world through systems the more we come recognize the cultures and rules of those systems. Just like different cultures around the world there are groups of systems archetypes that are prevalent throughout our organizations.
How many times have you heard people say “we make the same mistakes over”? Why is that and why do we allow it happen? More often than not an examination of the underlying behavior will reveal patterns that recur throughout the organization. It is because the organization is governed by the systems archetypes that are at play.
The first step in shedding any light on the situation must come from understanding the intrinsic interconnectedness by mapping out the relevant systemic influences that impact our systems. To further complicate matters the systemic influences tend to have different effects over time.
Recommended reading:
Download Sea of Systems (SOS)
at: vanwood.net/blog
Some thoughts on systems thinking from Sea of Systems (SOS)
Click for tips!
