Product quality Dilemma

All too often, we have products that we have bought, put in production, and attempted to work through the shortcomings and obfuscated abnormalities prevalent in so many products.  (I call this product "ISMs" and I use the term to describe specific product behaviors or personalities.) As part of this long living life cycle, changes, additions, deprecations, and behaviors change over time.  Whether its fixing bugs or rewriting functions as upgrades or enhancements, things happen.

All too often, developers tend to think of their creation in a way that may be significantly different than the deployed environments they go into. Its easy to get stuck in microcosms and walled off development environments.  Sometimes you miss the urgency of need, the importance of the functionality, or the sense of mandate around the business.

With performance management products, its all too easy just to gather everything and produce reports ad nauseum.  With an overwhelming level of output, its easy to get caught up in the flash, glitz, and glamour of fancy graphs, pie charts, bar charts... Even  Ishigawa diagrams!

All this is a distraction of what the end user really really NEEDS. I'll give a shot at outlining some basic requirements pertinent to all performance management products.

1. Don't keep trying to collect on broken access mechanisms.

Many performance applications continue to collector attempt to collect, even when they haven't had any valid data in several hours or days.  Its crazy as all of the errors just get in the way of valid data.  And some applications will continue to generate reports even though no data has been collected! Why?

SNMP Authentication failures are a HUGE clue your app is wasting resources or something simple. Listening for ICMP Source Quenches will tell you if you're hammering end devices.

2. Migrate away from mass produced reports in favor of providing information.

If no one is looking at the reports, you are wasting cycles, hardware,and personnel time on results that are meaningless.

3. If you can't create new reports without code, its too complicated.

All too often, products want to put glue code or even programming environments / IDEs in front of your reporting.  Isn't it a stretch to assume that  a developer will be the reporting person?  Most of the time its someone more business process oriented.

4. Data and indexes should be documented and manageable.  If you have to BYODBA (Bring Your Own DBA), the wares vendor hasn't done their home work.

How many times have we loaded up a big performance management application only to find out you have to do a significant amount of work tuning the data and the database parameters just to get the app to generate reports on time?

And you end up having to dig through the logs to figure out what works and what doesn't.

If you know what goes into the database, why do you not put in indexes,checks and balances, and even recommended functions when expansion occurs.

In some instances, databases used by performance management applications are geared toward the polling and collection versus the reporting of information.  In many cases, one needs to build data derivatives of multiple elements in order to facilitate information presentation.  For example, a simple dynamic thresholding mechanism is to take a sample of a series of values and perform an average, root mean, and standard deviation derivative.

If a reporting person has to do more than one join to get to their data elements,  your data needs to be better organized, normalized, and accessible via either derivative tables or a view. Complex data access mechanisms tend to alienate BI and performance / Capacity Engineers. They would rather work the data than work your system.

5. If the algorithm is too complex to explain without a PhD, it is not usable nor trustable.

There are a couple of applications that use patented algorithms to extrapolate bandwidth, capacity, or effective usage. If you haven't simplified the explanation of how it works, you're going to alienate a large portion of your operations base.

6. If an algorithm or method is held as SECRET, it works just until something breaks or is suspect. Then your problem is a SECRET too!

Secrets are BAD. Cisco publishes all of its bugs online specifically because it eliminates the perception that they are keeping something from the customer.

If one remembers Concord's eHealth Health Index...  In the earlier days, it was SECRET SQUIRREL SAUCE. Many an Engineer got a bad review or lost their job because of the arrogance of not publishing the elements that made up the Health Index.

7. Be prepared to handle BI types of access.  Bulk transfers, ODBC and Excel/Access replication, ETL tools access, etc.

If Engineers are REALLY using your data, they want to use it in their own applications, their own analysis work, and their own business activities. The more useful your data is, the more embedded and valuable your application is.  Provide ways of providing shared tables,timed transfers, transformations, and data dumps.

8. Reports are not just a graph on a splash page or a table of data.  Reports to Operations personnel means they put text and formatting around the graphs, charts, tables, and data to relate the operational aspects of the environment in with the illustrations.

9. In many cases, you need to transfer data in a transformed state from one system that reports to another. Without ETL tools, your reporting solution kind of misses the mark.

Think about this...  You have configuration data and you need this data in a multitude of applications.  Netcool. Your CMDB.  Your Operational Data Store. Your discovery tools.  Your ticketing system.  Your performance management system.  And it seems that every one of this data elements may be text, XML, databases of various forms and flavors, even HTML. How do you get transformed from one place to another?

10. If you cannot store, archive, and activate polling, collection, threshold, and reporting configurations accurately, you will drive away customization.

As soon as a data source becomes difficult to work with, it gets in the way of progress.  In essence, what happens in that when a data source becomes difficult to access, it quits being used beyond its own internal function. When this occurs, you start seeing separation and duplication of data.

The definitions of the data can also morph over time.  When this occurs and the data is shared, you can correct it pretty quickly.  When data is isolated, many times the problem just continues until its a major ordeal to correct. Reconciliation when there are a significant number of discrepancies can be rough.

Last but not least - If you develop an application and you move the configuration from test/QA to production and it does not stay EXACTLY the same, YOUR APPLICATION is JUNK.  Its dangerous, haphazard, incredibly short sided, and should be avoided at all costs.  Recently, I had a dear friend develop, test, and validate a performance management application upgrade.  After a month in test and QA running many different use case validations, it was put into production. The application overloaded the paired down configurations to defaults upon placement into production, polled EVERYTHING and it caused major outages and major consternation for the business. In fact, heads rolled.  The business lost customers. There were people that were terminated. And a lot of man power was expended trying to fix the issues.

In no uncertain terms, I will never let my friends and customers be caught by this product.

Dante's Inferno in IT...

We’ve all been through Dante’s Inferno. I know I have.

I was at one place where they developed an in house SNMP agent to be deployed on all managed systems. Because of the variety of operating systems supported and the amount of bugs in the software, many customers hated the agent and would request that the agent be taken off of their systems. But because the agent was “free”, it kept living in a miserable existence. Turns out there were many different versions supported and deployed. Additionally, the design of the agents’ sub-agents capabilities deviated significantly from industry standards such that it hamstrung the open source openness of the base agent.

Dante’s Inferno came in when you had to deal with the agent capabilities as an Architect. Saying anything negative related to the agent was Heresy. The Manager that owned the Agent would resort to Anger, Fraud, and Treachery in order to divert any negative attention to their baby. Part of the reason for hanging on to this Agent was that the ownership of more developed products promoted the Manager’s gluttony and greed. It was his silo of management technology.

While I was busy circumnavigating the Machiavellian Urinary Olympics, that Manager was working hard to put me in Limbo. Any requirements that I put forth were immediately in negotiation such that I could not finish requirements. Finally, in total frustration, I sent out a Final version of the requirements. Doing this sent the Manager into a frenzy of new Machiavellian Urinary Olympics such that my actions were elevated all the way up to a Sr. VP. Alas, I could not overcome the Marijuana Principle of Management (Harder you suck ,the higher you get!)

I left shortly afterward. So did several of my coworkers. Some are still there. All with the common experience that we’ve all been through Dante’s Inferno.

Lessons for the Architect :

• Be careful in calling someone’s baby ugly. Given the “embeddedness” of a given politician, there may be some things you cannot change. 

• Some Silos can only break down through years of pain and years of continued failure.

• In moving toward Cloud computing models, some folks may have an inclination to bring with them all of the bad habits they have currently.

• If a person has only ever seen one place, they may not understand that success looks totally different in other places.

• There is a direct cost and an indirect cost to supporting internally developed products. If your internally developed product is holding back progress and new business, it is a danger sign…

As an Architect, be wary of consensus. “Where there is no vision, the people perish. (Proverbs 29:18)”

Architecture and Vision

One of the key aspects of OSS/ENMS Architecture is that you need to build a model that is realizable in 2 major product release cycles, of where you'd like to be, systems, applications, and process wise. This equates usually to an 18-24 month "what it needs to look like" sort of vision.

Why?

- It provides a reference model to set goals and objectives.
- It aligns development and integration teams toward a common roadmap
- It empowers risk assessment and mitigation in context.
- It empowers planning as well as execution.

What happens if you don't?

- You have a lot of "cowboy" and rogue development efforts.
- Capabilities are built in one organization that kill capabilities and performance in other products.
- Movement forward is next to impossible in that when something doesn't directly agree with the stakeholder's localized vision, process pops up to block progress.
- You create an environment where you HAVE to manage to the Green.
- Any flaws or shortcomings in localized capabilities results in fierce political maneuvering.

What are the warning signs?

- Self directed design and development
- Products that are deployed in multiple versions.
- You have COTS products in production that are EOLed or are no longer supported.
- Seemingly simple changes turn out to require significant development efforts.
- You are developing commodity product using in house staff.
- You have teams with an Us vs. Them mentality.

Benefits?

- Products start to become "Blockified". Things become easier to change, adapt, and modify.
- Development to Product to Support to Sales becomes aligned. Same goals.
- Elimination of a lot of the weird permutations. No more weird products that are marsupials and have duck bills.
- The collective organizational intelligence goes up. Better teamwork.
- Migration away from "Manage to the Green" towards a Teamwork driven model.
- Better communication throughout. No more "Secret Squirrel" groups.

OSS ought to own a Product Catalog, data warehouse, and CMS. Not a hundred different applications. OSS Support should own the apps the the users should own the configurations and the data as these users need to be empowered to use the tools and systems as they see fit.

Every release of capability should present changes to the product catalog. New capabilities, new functions, and even the loss of functionality, needs to be kept in synch with the product teams. If I ran product development, I'd want to be a lurker on the Change Advisory Board and I'd want my list published and kept up to date at all times. Add a new capability. OSS had BETTER inform product teams.