Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Discover Case Study: Genworth Financial Looks to HP Executive Scorecard to Improve Applications Management, Reliability, Costs

Transcript of a BriefingsDirect case study podcast on how Genworth Financial uses ALM and Performance Management tools from HP to improve IT's track record.

Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes/iPod and Podcast.com. Download the transcript. Sponsor: HP.

Dana Gardner: Hello, and welcome to a special BriefingsDirect podcast series coming to you from the HP Discover 2011 conference in Las Vegas. We're here on the Discover show floor the week of June 6 to explore some major enterprise IT solutions, trends, and innovations making news across HP’s ecosystem of customers, partners, and developers.

I'm Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions, and I'll be your host throughout this series of HP-sponsored Discover live discussions.

We're now going to focus on Genworth Financial, and talk about a number of different products used to improve application delivery, performance testing, and also operational integrity. Then, we'll look at the transition to a more comprehensive role for those tools, working in concert, and eventually with the opportunity to have an Executive Scorecard view into operations vis-à-vis these products and solutions.

We're here to talk about Genworth Financial’s experience with Tim Perry, Chief Technology Officer for the Retirement and Protection Division at Genworth Financial in Richmond, Virginia. Welcome to the show, Tim. [Disclosure: HP is a sponsor of BriefingsDirect podcasts.]

Tim Perry: Thanks. Good to be here.

Gardner: Tell me about your stock in trade? What is Genworth Financial and why is technology so important to you?

Perry: Genworth Financial is an insurance company that covers many different areas like life insurance, long-term care insurance, mortgage insurance, wealth management, and things like that, and we're here for a number of reasons. We use HP for helping us just maintain and keep a lot of our applications alive.

Gardner: Could you give us a sense of your operations, the scope of your IT organization?

Perry: Our IT organization is, depending on the division, hundreds of employees, but then we also have contractors that work internationally on our behalf. So, throughout the world, we’ve got developers in different places.

Gardner: How about some metrics around the number or types of applications that you're using?

Perry: We have a gazillion applications, like every big company has, but for our division alone, we have around 50 applications that are financially important, and we track them more than any of the others. So that gives you a feel for the number of applications. There are a lot of small ones, but 50 big ones.

Gardner: Let’s take a tour through the way in which you are using HP products, you have ALM, PPM, Performance Monitoring, and BSM. Give me some perspective on what you are doing with these HP products?

Requirements management

Perry: Let me start with a little bit of a roadmap. We brought in Quality Center, way back before ALM. We brought that in mainly for requirements management and for testing. That one has evolved over the years to the point where we really wanted to get traceability for developers, testers, business analysts, everything. That’s what we're hoping for in the ALM stack of things on its own.

PPM came in for a lot of different reasons. Project Portfolio Management was a piece of it. We had a very raw portfolio of what we are working on. Since then it’s become a service request management within our division, much like what you do with the helpdesk, but for our division in applications, everything from account request to marketing, workflow approvals, things like that. So PPM has taken on life of its own.

The newest one is performance engineering, and performance engineering to us means performance monitoring and performance testing. We’ve had performance testing for a while but we’ve not been great at monitoring and keeping track of our applications as they are living and breathing.

Those are the three big silos for us, and I just want to mention that’s the reason this HP Performance Suite that we are about to talk about is intriguing to us because it starts to glue all of this together.

Gardner: On June 1, HP announced its IT Performance Suite, and a number of people are taking a really deep look at it here at Discover. Tell me what your initial perceptions are and what your potential plans are?

The Executive Scorecard is probably the epitome of it, the top of it, that talks to these executives about where things are, the health of the applications, how we're doing on projects.



Perry: Just like our own internal applications, it felt as if up until now a lot of these suites that HP provides stood on their own and didn't have a lot of integration with each other. What I am starting to see is a lot of synergy around good integrations. The Executive Scorecard is probably the epitome of it, the top of it, that talks to these executives about where things are, the health of the applications, how we're doing on projects, all those things that are the key performance indicators that we live and breathe.

That’s cool, but in order to get the scorecard, that implies data is available to the scorecard and integrations are there in place. That combination is the magic we're looking for.

Gardner: And how about the KPIs? That would bring some standardization and allow you to be able to start doing apples-to-apples comparisons and getting a stronger bead on what is the reality of your IT and therefore, how you can improve on it.

Important indicators

Perry: It appears that HP has looked at 170 or so KPIs that the industry, not just HP, but everybody, has said are important indicators. We can pick and choose which ones are important to us to put them on the scorecard. Those are the ones that we can focus on from an integration standpoint. It’s not like we have to conquer world hunger all at once.

Gardner: I’ve heard folks say that the scorecard is of interest, not just for IT, but to bring a view of what’s going on in IT to the business leadership and the financial leadership in the organization, and therefore, make IT more integral rather than mysterious.

Perry: I have to say this. Our IT organization is part of operations. Last year, at this same event, we had more operations folks here than IT. I think HP should take the IT moniker off and start talking more about "business operations." That’s just my personal view of this, and I agree, this helps us not just roll up information to IT executives, but to our actual operations folks.

Gardner: Do you have any sense of what the integration and the continued evolution of a lifecycle approach to IT and quality has done for you? Do you have any metrics of success, either from a business value perspective or just good old speeds-and-feeds and cost perspective?

The piece that's missing right now is the developer integration, and we just saw a lot of that this week. I'm looking forward to evolving that even more. That’s been a big deal.



Perry: Without having actual numbers in front of me, it’s hard to quantify. But let’s just say this, with Quality Center in particular, it’s helped us a lot with traceability between the business requirements and the actual testing that we are doing. I don’t know how to measure it here, but it’s been a big thing for us. The piece that's missing right now is the developer integration, and we just saw a lot of that this week. I'm looking forward to evolving that even more. That’s been a big deal.

Gardner: Perhaps if I ask you that same question a year from now, at Discover 2012, you’ll have some hard numbers in metrics, right?

Perry: Oh, I’d love to be able to go and have a presentation at one of the sessions that we’ve had such great experience with Performance Suite. I’ll be here talking a lot about it. I’d love to do that.

Gardner: Okay, great. We’ve been talking about how IT performance measurement and application lifecycle management improvements are coming together for a "whole greater than the sum of the parts" and looking forward to more of a scorecard and performance metrics viewpoint and comparison capability in the near future.

We’ve been talking with Tim Perry, Chief Technology Officer for the Retirement and Protection Division at Genworth Financial. Thank you, Tim.

Perry: It’s good to be here, and thank you.

Gardner: And I’d like to thank our audience for joining this special BriefingsDirect podcast coming to you from the HP Discover 2011 Conference in Las Vegas. I'm Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions, your host for this series of user experience discussions. Thanks again for listening and come back next time.

Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes/iPod and Podcast.com. Download the transcript. Sponsor: HP.

Transcript of a BriefingsDirect case study podcast on how Genworth Financial uses ALM and Performance Management tools from HP to improve IT's track record. Copyright Interarbor Solutions, LLC, 2005-2011. All rights reserved.

You may also be interested in:

Friday, June 17, 2011

Discover Case Study: Holistic ALM Helps Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida Break Down Application Inefficiencies, Redundancy

Transcript of a BriefingsDirect podcast from HP Discover 2011 on how Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida gains better visibility into application lifecycles for improved operational efficiency and reliability.

Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes/iPod and Podcast.com. Download the transcript. Sponsor: HP.

Dana Gardner: Hello, and welcome to a special BriefingsDirect podcast series coming to you from the HP Discover 2011 conference in Las Vegas. We're here on the Discover show floor the week of June 6 to explore some major enterprise IT solutions, trends, and innovations making news across HP’s ecosystem of customers, partners, and developers.

I'm Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions, and I'll be your host throughout this series of HP-sponsored Discover live discussions.

We're now going to focus on Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida and a case study about how they’ve been able to improve their applications' performance -- and even change the culture of how they test, provide, and operate their applications.

We're here today with Victor Miller, Senior Manager of Systems Management at Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida in Jacksonville. Welcome. [Disclosure: HP is a sponsor of BriefingsDirect podcasts.]

Victor Miller: Thank you.

Gardner: Tell me a little bit about this cultural dynamic? When you shift from one way of doing applications, you do employ technology, you do employ products. There are methodologies and process, but I am interested about how you changed your vision of how applications should be done.

Miller: The way we looked at applications was by their silos. It was a bunch of technology silos monitoring and managing their individual ecosystems. There was no real way of pulling information together. We didn’t represent what the customer is actually feeling inside the applications.

One of the things we started looking at was that we have to focus on the customers, seeing exactly what they were doing in the application to bring the information back. We were looking at the performance of the end-user transactions or what the end-users were doing inside the app, versus what Oracle database is doing, for example.

When you start pulling that information together, it allows you to get full traceability of the performance of the entire application from a development, test, staging, performance testing, and then also production side. You can actually compare that information to understand exactly where you're at. Also, you're breaking down those technology silos, when you're doing that. You move more toward a proactive transactional monitoring perspective.

Gardner: It sounds as if you started looking at the experience of the application, rather than the metrics or the parts. Is that fair?

Miller: That’s correct. We're looking at how the users are using it and what they're doing inside the applications, like you said, instead of the technology around it. The technology can change. You can add more resources or remove resources, but really it's all up to the end-user, what they are doing in their performance of the apps.

Overcome hurdles

Gardner: In order to make this shift and to enjoy better performance and experience with your applications, you had to overcome some hurdles. Maybe you could explain what Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida is. I think I have a pretty good idea, but you can probably do a better job than I. After we learn a bit about your organization, what were some of the hurdles you had to overcome to get toward this improved culture?

Miller: Blue Cross and Blue Shield is one of the 39 independent Blue Crosses throughout the United States. We're based out of Florida. We've been around since about 1944. We're independent licensee of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. One of our main focuses is healthcare.

We do sell insurance, but we also have our retail environment, where we're bringing in more healthcare services. It’s really about the well-being of our Florida population. We do things to help Florida as a whole, to make everyone more healthy where possible.

Gardner: Let’s look at that problem set. In order to have a better experience for the health and welfare of your clients and constituents, what was the problem? What did you need to change?

Miller: Well, when we started looking at things we thought we were doing fine until we actually started bringing the data together to understand exactly what was really going on, and our customers weren’t happy with IT performance of their application, the availability of their applications.

From an availability perspective, we weren’t looking very good. So, we had to figure out what we could do to resolve that.



We started looking at the technology silos and bringing them together in one holistic perspective. We started seeing that, from an availability perspective, we weren’t looking very good. So, we had to figure out what we could do to resolve that. In doing that, we had to break down the technology silos, and really focus on the whole picture of the application, and not just the individual components of the applications.

Gardner: So this sounds like you had to go deeper into the network, looking at the ecosystem of the applications. What did you have to do to start to get that full picture?

Miller: Our previous directors reordered our environment and brought in a systems management team. It’s responsibility is to monitor and help manage the infrastructure from that perspective, centralize the tool suites, and understand exactly what we're going to use for the capabilities. We created a vision of what we wanted to do and we've been driving that vision for several years to try to make sure that it stays on target and focused to solve this problem.

Gardner: And how did you go about choosing the products and the management capabilities you're going to employ?

Miller: We were such early adopters that we actually chose best-in-breed. We were agent-based monitoring environment, and we moved to agent-less. At the time, we adopted Mercury SiteScope. Then, we also brought in Mercury’s BAC and a lot of Topaz technologies with diagnostics and things like that. We had other capabilities like Bristol Technology’s TransactionVision.

Umbrella of products

H
P purchased all the companies and brought them into one umbrella of product suites. It allowed us to bind the best-of-breed. We bought technologies that didn’t overlap, could solve a problem, and integrated well with each other. It allowed us to be able to get more traceability inside of these spaces, so we can get really good information about what the performance availability is of those applications that we're focusing on.

Gardner: In addition to adopting these products, I imagine you also had to change some of your processes and methodologies like ITIL. Tell me about the combination of the products and the processes that led you to some pretty impressive results?

Miller: One of the major things was that it was people, process, and technology that we were focused on in making this happen. On the people side, we moved our command center from our downtown office to our corporate headquarters where all the admins are, so they can be closer to the command center. If there were a problem that command center can directly contact them and they go down in there.

We instituted what I guess I’d like to refer to as "butts in the seat." I can't come with a better name for it, but it's when the person is on call, they were in the command center working down there. They were doing the regular operational work, but they were in the command center. So if there was an incident they would be there to resolve it.

In the agent-based technologies we were monitoring thousands of measurement points. But, you have to be very reactive, because you have to come after the fact trying to figure out which one triggered. Moving to the agent-less technology is a different perspective on getting the data, but you’re focusing on the key areas inside those systems that you want to pay attention to versus the everything model.

In doing that, our admins were challenged to be a little bit more specific as to what they wanted us to pay attention to from a monitoring perspective.



In doing that, our admins were challenged to be a little bit more specific as to what they wanted us to pay attention to from a monitoring perspective to give them visibility into the health of their systems and applications.

Gardner: I imagine that this is translated back into your development earlier into the requirements. Is there a feedback loop of sorts now that you can look to that perhaps you didn’t have in the past?

Miller: Yeah, there is a feedback loop and the big thing around that is actually moving monitoring further back into the process.

We’ve found out is if we fix something in development, it may cost a dollar. If we fix it in testing, it might cost $10. In production staging it may cost $1,000 It could be $10,000 or $100,000, when it’s in production, because that goes back to the entire lifecycle again, and more people are involved. So the idea is moving things further back in the lifecycle has been a very big benefit.

Also, it involved working with the development and testing staffs to understand that you can’t throw application over the wall and say, "Monitor my app, because it’s production." We have no idea which is your application, or we might say that it’s monitored, because we're monitoring infrastructure around your application, but we may not be monitoring a specific component of the application.

Educating people

The challenge there is reeducating people and making sure that they understand that they have to develop their app with monitoring in mind. Then, we can make sure that we can actually give them visibility back into the application if there is a problem, so they can get to the root cause faster, if there's an incident.

Gardner: This is all well and good, and it sounds fabulous for a handful of apps. But I imagine you have to scale this. How do you take what you’ve been describing in terms of this journey, but make it for dozens or hundreds of applications? What is it that you rely on to automate this?

Miller: We’ve created several different processes around this and we focused on monitoring every single technology. We still monitor those from a siloed perspective, but then we also added a few transactional monitors on top of that inside those silos, for example, transaction scripts that run at the same database query over-and-over again to get information out of there.

At the same time, we had to make some changes, where we started leveraging the Universal Configuration Management Database (UCMDB) or Run-time Service Model to bring it up and build business services out of this data to show how all these things relate to each other. The UCMDB behind the scenes is one of the cornerstones of the technology. It brings all that silo-based information together to create a much better picture of the apps.

Gardner: Some people call that a system of record.

Miller: That’s correct. We don’t necessarily call it the system of record. We have multiple systems of record. It’s more like the federation adapter for all these records to pull the information together. It guides us into those systems of record to pull that information out.

We’ve created several different processes around this and we focused on monitoring every single technology.



Gardner: What does this get for you? Are there any metrics or examples you can point to that validate that how effective this can be?

Miller: About eight years ago when we first started this, we had incident meetings where we had between 15 and 20 people going over 20-30 incidents per week. We had those every day of the week On Friday, we would review all the ones for the first four days of the week. So, we were spending a lot of time doing that.

Out of those meetings, we came up with what I call "the monitor of the day." If we found something that was an incident that occurred in the infrastructure that was not caught by some type of monitoring technology, we would then have it monitored. We’d bring that back, and close that loop to make sure that it would never happen again.

Another thing we did was improve our availability. We were taking something like five and six hours to resolve some of these major incidents. We looked at the 80:20 rule. We solved 80 percent of the problems in a very short amount of time. Now, we have six or seven people resolving incidents. Our command center staff is in the command center 24 hours a day to do this type of work.

Additional resources

W
hen they needed additional resources, they just pick up the phone and call the resources down. So, it’s a level 1 or level 2 type person working with one admin to solve a problem, versus having all hands on deck, where you have 50 admins in a room resolving incidents.

I'm not saying that we don’t have those now. We do, but when we do, it’s a major problem. It’s not something very small. It could be a firmware on a blade enclosure going down, which takes an entire group of applications down. It's not something you can plan for, because you're not making changes to your systems. It's just old hardware or stuff like that that can cause an outage.

Another thing that is done for us is those 20 or 30 incidents we had per week are down to one or two. Knock on wood on that one, but it is really a testament to a lot of the things that our IT department has done as a whole. They're putting a lot of effort into into reducing the number of incidents that are occurring in the infrastructure. And, we're partnering with them to get the monitoring in place to allow for them to get the visibility in the applications to actually throw alerts on trends or symptoms, versus throwing the alert on the actual error that occurs in the infrastructure.

Gardner: Now, we started talking earlier about your philosophy and the experience of the user. Are there any metrics or anecdotes from the welfare and benefit of your end-customers that have developed from the way that you’ve been able to improve your applications?

Miller: Customer satisfaction for IT is a lot higher now than it used to be. IT is being called in to support and partner with the business, versus business saying, "I want this," and then IT does it in a vacuum. It’s more of a partnership between the two entities to be able to bring stuff together. Operations is creating dashboards and visibility into business applications for the business, so they can see exactly what they're doing in the performance of their one department, versus just from an IT perspective. We can get the data down to specific people now.

Customer satisfaction for IT is a lot higher now than it used to be. IT is being called in to support and partner with the business.



Gardner: Because these activities are a journey, you never perhaps get to an end destination. What are you looking forward to next? What’s the roadmap for improving even beyond where you are now?

Miller: Some of the big things I am looking at are closed-loop processes, where I have actually started to work with making some changes, working with our change management team to make changes to the way that we do changes in our environment where everything is configuration item (CI) based, and doing that allows for that complete traceability of an asset or a CI through its entire lifecycle.

You understand every incident, request, problem request that ever occurred on that asset, but also you can actually see financial information. You can also see inventory information and location information and start bringing the information together to make smart decisions based on the data that you have in your environment.

Gardner: That sounds like it could lead to some significant cost savings in the long run?

Miller: That’s my hope. The really big thing is really to help reduce the cost of IT in our business and be able to do whatever we can to help cut our cost and keep a lean ship going.

Gardner: Well, great. We’ve been hearing about a user case study, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, and how they’ve been improving their application performance and the user experience, and then ultimately providing a better visibility for IT and the perception of IT along with overall reduction in total cost. We’ve been hearing this story from Victor Miller, Senior Manager of Systems Management at Blue and Cross Blue Shield of Florida in Jacksonville. Thank you.

Miller: Thank you.

Gardner: And thanks to our audience for joining this special BriefingsDirect podcast coming to you from the HP Discover 2011 Conference in Las Vegas. I'm Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions, your host for this series of user experience discussions. Thanks again for listening, and come back next time.

Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes/iPod and Podcast.com. Download the transcript. Sponsor: HP.

Transcript of a BriefingsDirect podcast from HP Discover 2011 on how Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida gains better visibility into application lifecycles for improved operational efficiency and reliability. Copyright Interarbor Solutions, LLC, 2005-2011. All rights reserved.

You may also be interested in:

Thursday, June 16, 2011

Discover Case Study: Sprint Gains Better Control and Efficiency in IT Operations with Business Service Management Approach

Transcript of a Briefings Direct podcast from HP Discover 2011 on how Sprint reduced application sprawl and resources redundancy using Business Service Management from HP.

Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes/iPod and Podcast.com. Download the transcript. Sponsor: HP.

Dana Gardner: Hello, and welcome to a special BriefingsDirect podcast series coming to you from the HP Discover 2011 conference in Las Vegas. We're here on the Discover show floor the week of June 6 to explore some major enterprise IT solutions, trends and innovations making news across HP’s ecosystem of customers, partners, and developers.

I'm Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions, and I'll be your host throughout this series of HP-sponsored Discover live discussions. [Disclosure: HP is a sponsor of BriefingsDirect podcasts.]

Our latest case study focuses on Sprint. We'll learn how Sprint is doing applications and IT in a better way. It's going on a journey to simply and automate, reduce redundancy, and develop more agility as a business solutions provider for their customers, and also their own employees.

So we have two executives from the IT organization at Sprint, Joyce Rainey, Program Manager of Enterprise Services at Sprint. Welcome.

Joyce Rainey: Hello.

Gardner: We're also here with John Felton, Director of Applications Development and Operations at Sprint.

John Felton: How are you?

Gardner: I'm great. Tell me little bit about the beginning of your journey. It seems that you've come a long way, and we'll get into that, but what was the state of affairs that led you to recognize that things needed to change?

Felton: The problem that we had originally had, as any large organization has, were many applications, many of them custom built, many of them purchased applications that now are so customized that the vendor doesn’t even know what to do with it anymore.

We grew those over a long period of time. We were trying, as a way to stabilize, to get it into a centralized, single point of truth and quit the duplication or the redundancy that we built into all these applications.

The goal, as we set forth about a year-and-a-half ago, was to implement the ecosystem that HP provided, the five toolsets that followed our ITIL processes that we wanted to do. The key was that they were integrated to share information, and we'd be able to take down these customized applications and then have one ecosystem to manage our environment with. That's what we've done over the last 14 months.

Gardner: Joyce, what was the goal you had in mind when you started this process?

Making it easier

Rainey: Simplification. We had too many of the same. We had to make it easier for our internal support teams. We had to made it easier for our customers. We had to lessen the impacts on maintenance and cost. Simplification was the key of the entire journey.

Gardner: When you looked at the issue of redundancy, was this about data, applications, network nodes, all the above, or were there certain aspects that you went to first, the low-lying fruit, to reduce that redundancy?

Felton: I'd say it would be all. We had to concentrate on not only making sure that the applications base wasn't duplicated, but also the data. The data is where we ended up having issues. One person's copy may not be as accurate as another person's copy, and then what we ended up spending an enormous amount of time saying whose was right.

What we did was provide one single point of truth, one copy of the truth. Instead of everybody being hidden from the data, we allowed everybody to see it all. They may not be able to manipulate it and they may not be able to change it, but everybody could have visibility to the same amount of information. We were hoping they would stop trying to have their own version of it.

Our biggest culture problem was that everybody wanted to put their arms around their little piece, their little view. At the end of the day, having one view that is customized, where you can see what you want to see, but still keeping the content within a single system, really helped us.

Having one view that is customized, where you can see what you want to see, but still keeping the content within a single system, really helped us.



Gardner: Just to be clear for our listeners, when you say, data, are you talking about the data about the IT systems themselves or the data that is within and it's being supportive of the applications, or perhaps both?

Felton: It's all that. It's the data that supports the application. It's the servers that host the applications. It's the third-party applications that deliver the web experience, the database experience, the back-end experience. It's the ability for us to associate fixed agents to that particular information, so that when I am calling out the fixed agent for an alarm, I'm getting the right person online first, versus having a variety of individuals coming on over time.

Gardner: So, you have some goals about eliminating redundancy in your tools and in your data. You needed to create the single source of truth and you needed to integrate other IT support capabilities in order to get to this automated ability.

What were some of the cultural or organizational issues that you hit? We can talk about technology, but you also have to look at people. They are part of this process. Joyce, how did you look at that and how did you solve that?

Rainey: We continued to work on it. Adoption is a big key in any transformation project. One of the things that we had to definitely look at was making sure that facts can prove to people that their business requirements were either valid or invalid. That way we stop the argument of what do I want, versus what do I need?

A lot of education

We really had a lot of communication, a lot of education along the way. We continue to educate people about why we do this and why we're doing it this way. We engage them in the process by making them part of the decision-making, versus just allowing the tools to dictate whether you can do it.

With the tools, you can do whatever you want. However, you want to customize the product, but should we and for what purpose? So, we had to introduce a lot of education along the way to make sure folks understood why we were going down this path.

Gardner: You've done this fairly quickly, a year and a half. It could be long for some people's horizon, but to me that's a very fast transition of this nature. What is it that was the tipping point that got people to say, "Okay, I'll give up a little bit of my turf, because I'm going to get something else in return?" What was it that they got in return that made this work?

Felton: First of all, we implemented in 12 months. It was 14 months to get the future enhancements of the data quality and all the things we're working on right now. But as to the tipping point, I think the economy had a lot to do with it, the environment that was going on at the time.

You had a reduction in staff. You had downsizing of companies. It made it harder for individuals, to Joyce's point, to protect an application that really had no business value. It might have a lot of value to them, and in their little piece of the world it probably was very valuable, but how did it drive the overall organization?

The economy in any kind of transformational program is a key factor for investing in these kind of products. You're going to make sure that if you're introducing something it's because you're going to add value.



Dan Hesse did a great job in coming in and putting us on a path of making sure that we're fiscally responsible. How are we improving our customer expectations and how are we moving in this direction continuously, so that our customers come to us because we're best provider there could be? And our systems on the back end needed to go that way.

So, to Joyce's point, when you brought them in, you asked "Does this help that goal?" A lot of times, no. And, they were willing to give a little bit up. We said, "You're going to have to give a little bit up because this is not a copy/paste exercise. This is an out-of-the-box solution. We want to keep it that way as much as possible, and we'll make modifications, when we need to to support the business." And, we've done that.

Gardner: So this wasn't nice to have. This really had to happen.

Rainey: Absolutely. The economy in any kind of transformational program is a key factor for investing in these kind of products. You're going to make sure that if you're introducing something it's because you're going to add value. You're going to grow. You're going to mature. For us at Sprint, we want to make sure that we can stop some of the maintenance, the redundant maintenance, when we need to concentrate our resources in the right area.

Having new integrated solutions, bringing our development teams together, we can work under one umbrella. We can deliver more collateral investments across the organization. We can train everyone on many different things, so they are not just siloed like we had before. We were able to retire many products with the introduction of these systems.

Gardner: People are quite familiar with Sprint, but I saw some of the numbers are very impressive. Help us understand the size and scope of applications, customers, and retail outlets.

12,000 servers

Felton: There are thousands of outlets, retail stores. We have our third-party customers as well, like Best Buy and RadioShack. We have about 12,000 servers, about five petabytes of storage. We serve about 39,000 customers internally at Sprint.

We host all that information to make sure that we process about a million change records a month. That information that we're capturing are configuration items (CIs). The actual content that goes in the system was, at one point, in the 24 million range. We dialed that back a little bit, because we were collecting a little too much information.

We have about 1,300 applications that were internally built. Many of those are hosted on other external vendor products that we've customized and put into Sprint. And, we have about 64,000 desktops. So, there is a lot going on in this environment. It's moving constantly and that goes back to a lot of the reasons why, if we didn’t put this in quickly, they'd pass us by.

Gardner: So, for that single version of truth for what's going on in your IT organization with this very significant massive scale, how did you start that journey? What came in handy to start that and where have you taken it?

Rainey: It's important to recognize that data is data, but you really derive information to drive decision making. For us, the ability for executives to know how many assets they really have out there, for them to concentrate their initiatives for the future based on that information, became the reason we needed our data quality to really be good.

It's important to recognize that data is data, but you really derive information to drive decision making.



So, every time that somebody asked John why he went after this product suite, it was because of the integration. We wanted to make sure that the products can share the same information across them all. That way, we can hold truth through that single source of information.

Gardner: What were the products you used and how did that "whole greater than the sum of the parts" come about?

Felton: We started with [IT] asset management. Asset management was really the key for us to understand assets and software, and how much cost was involved. Then we associated that to Universal Configuration Management Database (UCMDB). How do we discover things in our environment? How many servers are there, how many desktops are there, where they at, how do I associate them?

Then we looked at Business Service Management (BSM), which was the monitoring side. How do I monitor these critical apps and alarm them correctly? How do I look up the information and get the right fix agents out there and target it, versus calling out the soccer team, as I always say? Then, we followed that up with Release Control, which is a way for our change team to manage and see that information, as it goes through.

The final component, which was the most important, the last one we rolled out, was Service Manager (SM), which is the front door for everybody. We focus everybody on that front door, and then they can spin off of that front door by going into the other individual or underlying processes to actually do the work that they focus on.

Early adopter

Gardner: And the latest version of BSM from HP came out right about the time you were starting this. So, you were, in a sense, an early adopter, aggressive. You weren't tentative in using this suite of products from HP?

Felton: We'll even go so far as to say that we were the only one. For just BSM in itself, I'm very proud of our team. We had [another product] in 2009. We went to Business Availability Center (BAC) January 2010. HP said they had this new thing called BSM 9. Would we take it? We said sure, and we implemented it in March of that year. We took three upgrades in less than five months.

I give a lot of credit to that team. They did it on their own. There were three of them. No professional services help and no support whatsoever. They did it on their own, and I think that’s pretty interesting how they did that. We also did the same thing with UCMDB. We are on the 8x platform, about halfway deployed, and HP said they'd like us to go to 9x, and so we turned the corner and we said sure.

We did those things because of the web experience. Very few people on my team would tell you that they were satisfied with the old web experience. I know some people were, and that’s great. But, in our environment, as big as it is and as many access points as we had, we had to make sure that was rock-solid.

And, 9x for all those versions, seemed to be the best web experience we could have, and it was very similar, if I'm looking at BSM. Drop-downs and the menus, of course, are all different, but the flow and the layout is exactly the same as SM, and SM is exactly the same as CMS.

We got a nice transition between the applications that made everything smooth for the customer, and the ability for them to consume it better.



We got a nice transition between the applications that made everything smooth for the customer, and the ability for them to consume it better. I'll go so far as to say that a lot of my executive team actually log into BSM now. That would have never happened in the past. They actually go look up events that happen to our applications and see what's going on, and that’s all because we felt like that platform had the best GUI experience.

Gardner: So, it's a system of record for other systems of record that presents a singular view that a business executive can get to, and enjoy and not be faced with too much technology, but get the right information at the right time.

Rainey: Absolutely. And, if you get your CEOs and your VPs and your directors consuming and leveraging the products, you get the doers, you get the application managers, you get the fix agents, you get the helpdesk team, because they start believing that the data is good enough for decision making at that level of executive support.

Gardner: When you have good data, when you know what it is that your IT organization is comprised of, consists of, and when you can start to eliminate redundancy, be more agile, what do you get? What are some of the metrics of success that you’ve seen?

Felton: We wanted reduction in our [problem resolution time] by 20 percent. Does that really mean you get a reduction? No, it means you get out there, you fix it faster, and the end-user doesn’t see it. By me focusing on that and getting individuals to go out there, and maybe more proactively understanding what's going on, we can get changes and fixes in before there was a real issue. We’re driving towards that. Do we have that exact number? Maybe not, but that’s the goal and that’s what we continue to drive for.

Removing cost

Additionally the costs are huge, having 35 redundant systems. We removed a lot of maintenance dollars from Sprint, a lot of overhead. A lot of project costs sometimes are not necessarily tangible, because everybody is working on multiple projects all at one time.

But, if I've got to update five systems, it's a lot different if I update one, and make it simpler on my team. My team comprised about 11 folks, and they were managing all those apps before. Now, they're managing five. It’s a lot simpler for them. It's a lot easier for them. We’re making better decisions, and we make better changes.

We’re hoping that by having it that way, all of the infrastructure stability goes up, because we’re focused. To Joyce’s point, the executive team pays attention, managers pay attention, everybody sees the value that if I just watch what this thing is doing, it might tell me before there is a customer call. That is always our goal. I don’t want a customer calling my CIO. I want the customer to call my CIO and for him to reply, "Yes, we know, and we’re going to fix that as fast as we can."

Gardner: Maybe it's a bit too soon, but do you have any figures as to what your operational budget has done? What the impact has been?

Rainey: We implemented six months ago, so we’re still going through some of our maturity process. We do know for a fact that the operational cost of those 35 applications removed from the environment was able to be diverted to some other areas of investments, so we can go ahead and repurpose that money into other spaces that we need to start investing in.

We’re hoping that by having it that way, all of the infrastructure stability goes up, because we’re focused.



Gardner: How about the whole help desk function? How has that been impacted?

Felton: Six years ago that help desk had 400 people. As of today it has 44. The reason it does is that we bypass making calls. I don’t want you to call a fix agent to type a ticket to get you engaged. We came up with a process called "Click It." Click It is a way for you to do online self-service.

If I'm having an Exchange problem, an Outlook problem, or an issue with some application, I can go in and open a ticket, instead of it being transferred to the help desk, who then transfers it to the fix agent. We go directly to the fix agent.

We’re getting you closely engaged, hoping that we can get your fix time faster. We can actually get them talking to you quicker. By having this new GUI interface it streamlined it through a lot of wizards that we can implement. Instead of me having seven forms that are all about access, maybe now I have one. Now, there is a drop-down menu that tells me what application I want it for. That continuous improvement is what we’re after, and I think we’ve now got the tools in place to go make that easy for us.

Gardner: And here at Discover, there have been some awards HP has delivered, and you got one. Tell me a little bit about that, Joyce?

Rainey: I am very proud, very proud of Sprint. I'm very proud of the team. I'm very proud of the executive support that we received throughout this journey. The HP Excellence Award was a very big milestone for everyone to remind us that it was well worth it, the time that was spent, the energy that was spent. I'm very glad that HP and our customers have been able to recognize that.

Felton: I'm also very proud of the team, as well, and we also won the CIO 100 Award. So, we’ve been able to take the same platform and the same kind of journey and show a much larger audience that it really was worth it. I think that’s pretty cool.

Gardner: So, you have a little bit of 20/20 hindsight. If I were another organization, a CIO, and I was listening to this podcast, what would you tell me in terms of learning or doing something differently? What's the view from where you are upfront?

Importance of speed

Felton: I think speed. I wouldn’t do it slower. I think 12 months, even though it was very ambitious, helped us, because you didn’t take the focus off of it. You got it in and nobody tried to replace it.

What I might do differently is spread it out a little more, do smaller increments of implementation, versus all at one time. Don’t do the Big Bang Theory. Put in BSM, but always know that it's going to integrate with SM, and SM is going to integrate with CMS, and CMS is going to integrate with AM.

Then, build that plan, so that you integrate them. You get your customers involved in that particular application, and then when you go at the very end and put SM in, this the front door. They’re already familiar with what you’ve already done. That is something we probably didn’t do as well as we could have. It was more of a Big Bang approach. You put it in and you go.

But, at the end of the day, don’t be afraid to re-look at the processes. Don’t necessarily assume that you’re going to copy what you did today. Don’t assume that that is the best way to do it. Always ask the question, what business value does it address for your corporation? If you do that over, and over, and over, individuals will quit asking, because if you ask, these platforms are very flexible.

You can do anything. But when you get them so customized that the vendor can't even help you, then every upgrade is painful, every movement that you make is painful. What we’ve done has given us the flexibility to clean up a lot of stuff that was left over from years ago, an approach that may have not been the best solution, and given us an avenue to now extend and subtract without putting a huge investment in place.

What we’ve done has given us the flexibility to clean up a lot of stuff that was left over from years ago.



Gardner: I have to imagine, too, that this has given you a little bit better perception in terms of IT’s role and value. Have you gone from zero to hero, or is that overstating it?

Rainey: I think it's a little overstating. We need to realize that it's all about incremental improvements. I know that on day one, not everybody was as excited as we were by implementing the product, but along the way we’ve proven that the data quality is better, decision making is better supported. Hopefully we’re starting to create a bigger and more attractive user community that trust that this system is going to do the right things for us.

Felton: One other thing is that we had a really good idea of, "This is our business. Run it that way. You are a part of Sprint." We try to say, "We’re going to make investments that also benefit us, but don’t do them just to do them, because in this space as you look out on that floor and see all the techno wizards that are out there, shiny objects are pretty cool, but there are a lot of shiny objects."

We wanted to make sure that the shiny object we produced is something that was long lasting and gave value back to the company for a long period of time, not just a quick introduction.

Gardner: Well, great. We’ve been hearing about how Sprint has undergone a significant journey in improving their IT operations, their efficiency, getting a grip on their assets, even shifting the culture to improve not only the business’ bottom line, but really the value of IT generally throughout the organization.

I’d like to thank our guests. We’ve been joined by Joyce Rainey, Program Manager of Enterprise Services at Sprint. Thank you.

Rainey: Thank you very much for having us.

Gardner: And also John Felton, Director of Applications Development and Operations at Sprint.

Felton: Thank you again. I really appreciate the time.

Gardner: And thanks to our audience for joining this special BriefingsDirect podcast coming to you from the HP Discover 2011 Conference in Las Vegas. I'm Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions, your host for this series of User Experience Discussions. Thanks again for listening and come back next time.

Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes/iPod and Podcast.com. Download the transcript. Sponsor: HP.

Transcript of a Briefings Direct podcast from HP Discover 2011 on how Sprint reduced application sprawl and resources redundancy using Business Service Management from HP. Copyright Interarbor Solutions, LLC, 2005-2011. All rights reserved.

You may also be interested in:

Tuesday, June 14, 2011

Discover Case Study: Seagate Ramps Up Dev-Ops Benefits With HP Application Lifecycle Management Tools

Transcript of a BriefingsDirect podcast from HP Discover 2011 on how Seagate Technology is leveraging HP's ALM tools to conduct development and dev-ops faster, better and cheaper.

Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes/iPod and Podcast.com. Download the transcript. Sponsor: HP.

Dana Gardner: Hello, and welcome to a special BriefingsDirect podcast series coming to you from the HP Discover 2011 conference in Las Vegas. We're here on the Discover show floor the week of June 6 to explore some major enterprise IT solutions, trends and innovations making news across HP’s ecosystem of customers, partners, and developers.

I'm Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions, and I'll be your host throughout this series of HP-sponsored Discover live discussions. [Disclosure: HP is a sponsor of BriefingsDirect podcasts.]

We’re here now with an HP customer and an aggressive adopter of modern application development techniques, someone who is beginning to span the dev-ops divide and gaining some value from agile development methodologies. Please join me in welcoming Steve Katz, Manager of Software Performance and Quality at Seagate Technology. Welcome.

Steve Katz: Thank you very much, Dana.

Gardner: You know, we’ve heard a lot here about integration and converged infrastructure and we’ve certainly heard in the past from HP about the need for a solid integrated system of record when it comes to application lifecycle management (ALM). At Seagate, what you do and who are you? Then, what’s the problem? What are you trying to solve by adopting some of these newer development methodologies and products?

Katz: First of all, Seagate is one of the largest manufacturers of rotating media hard disks and we also are into the solid state and hybrids. Last quarter, we shipped about 50 million drives. That continues to grow every quarter.

As you can imagine, with that many products -- and we have a large product line and a large supply chain -- the complexities of making that happen, both from a supply chain perspective and also from a business perspective, are very complicated and get more complicated every day.

The Holy Grail for us would definitely be an integrated approach to doing software development that incorporates the development activities, but also all of the test, monitoring, provisioning, and all of the quality checks and balances that we want to have to make sure that our applications meet the needs of our customers.

In the last couple of years, with the explosion with cloud, with the jump to virtual machines (VMs), virtualization of your data center, and also global operations, global development teams, new protocols, and new applications, most of what we do, rather than developing from scratch, is integrate other people’s third-party applications to meet our needs. That brings to the table a whole new litany of challenges, because one vendor’s Web 2.0 protocol standard is completely different than another vendor’s Web 2.0 protocol standard. Those are all the challenges.

Also, we're adopting, and have been adopting, more of the agile techniques, because we can deliver quanta of capability and performance at different intervals, so we can start small, get bigger, and keep adding more functionality. Basically, it lets us deliver more, more quickly, but also gives us the room to grow and be able to adapt to the changing customer needs, because in the market, things change every day.

So for us, our goal has been the ability to get all those things together early in the program and have a way to collaborate and ultimately have the collaboration platform to be able to get all the different stakeholders’ views and needs at the very beginning of the program, when it’s the cheapest and most effective to do it. We’re not there. I don’t know if anybody will ever be there, but we’ve made a lot of efforts and feel like we’ve made a lot of ground.

Early adoption

The dev-ops perspective has really interested us, and we have been doing some of the early adoption, the early engagement with our customers, in our business projects very early in the game for performance testing.

We get into the project early and we start understanding what the requirements are for performance and don’t just cross our fingers and hope for the best down the road, but really put some hard metrics around what it is the expectations are for performance. What’s the transfer function? What’s the correlation between performance and the infrastructure that need to deliver that performance? Finally, what are the customer needs and how do you measure it?

That’s been a huge boon for us, because it’s helped us script that early in the project and actually look at the unit-level pieces, especially in each different iteration of the agile process. We can break down the performance and do testing to make sure that we’ve optimized that piece of it to be as good as possible.

Now when you add in the needs for VM provisioning, storage, networking, and databasing, the problem starts to mushroom and get more complex. So, for a long time, we've been big users of HP Quality Center (QC), which is what we use to gather requirements, build test plans, and link those requirements to the test plans ultimately to successful tests and defects. We have traceability from what the need of the customer is to our ability to validate that we deliver that need. And, it worked well.

Then, we have the performance testing which was an add-on to that. And now, with the new ALM 11, which by the way, marries the QC functionality and Performance Center functionality. They're not two different things any more. It’s the same thing, and that’s the beauty for us.

Having the QC and performance testing closer together has made a lot of sense for us and allowed us to go faster and cheaper, and end up with something that, in fact, is better.



That’s what we’ve been preaching and trying to work with our project teams on, to say that it’s just a requirement. Any requirement is just a requirement and how we decide to implement, fulfill, and test that is our choice. But, having the QC and performance testing closer together has made a lot of sense for us and allowed us to go faster and cheaper, and end up with something that, in fact, is better.

Gardner: Let’s get a sense of the scale here. How many applications do you have in production and how many at any given time are in your development phases, going from the requirements to development and test?

Katz: The major number of applications we have in production is in the 300-500 range, but as far as mission critical, probably 30. As far as some things that are on everybody’s radar, probably 50 or 60. In Business Servive Management (BSM), we monitor about 50 or 60 applications, we also have the lower-level monitors in place that are looking at infrastructure. Then, our data all goes up to the single pane, so we can get visibility into what the problems are.

The number of things we monitor is less important to us than the actual impact that these particular applications have, not only on the customers experience, but also on our ability to support it. We need to make sure that whatever it is that we do is, first of all, faster. I can’t afford to get a report every morning to see what broke in the last 24 hours. I need to know where the fires are today and what’s happening now, and then we need to have direct traceability out to the operator.

As soon as something goes wrong, the operator gets the information right away and either we’re doing auto-ticketing, or that operator is doing the triage to understand where the root cause is. A lot of that information comes from our dashboards, BSM, and Operations Manager. Then, they know what to do with that issue and who to send it to.

SaaS processes

We’ve subscribed to a number of internal cloud services that are software-as-a-service (SaaS) processes and services. For those kind of things, we need to first make sure it’s not us before we go looking to find out what our software service providers are going to do about the problems. And both of our applications, all the BSM and all the dev-ops has helped us get to that point a little better.

The final piece of the puzzle that we’re trying to implement is the newer BSM and how we get that built into the process as well, because that’s just another piece of the puzzle.

Gardner: As you’re moving towards this adoption of the newer products and binding together dev and ops, what sort of paybacks are you expecting? Is this just allowing the green light to stay on more, where your performance and reliability are strong? Or are there some other benefits in terms of reducing the cycle time for development, agility, and being able to cut costs in some ways?

Katz: It’s two things for us. One is the better job you do up front, the better job you’re going to do in the back end. Things are a lot cheaper and faster, and you can be a whole lot more agile to react a problem. So the better job we do up front, understand what the requirements are and not just what this application is or what it’s supposed to do, but how is it supposed to affect the rest of our infrastructure, how is it supposed to perform under stress, and what are the critical quality, the quality of service, the quality of experience aspects that we need to look at.

Defining that up front helps us to be better and helps us to develop and launch better products. In in doing that, we find issues earlier in the process, when it’s a lot cheaper to fix them and a lot more effective.

The better job you do up front, the better job you’re going to do in the back end. Things are a lot cheaper and faster, and you can be a whole lot more agile.



On the back end, we need to be more agile. We need to get information faster and we need to be able to react to that information. So, when there’s a problem, we know about it as soon as possible, and we’re able to reduce our root-cause analysis and time to resolution.

Gardner: You’ve mentioned that you’re being aggressive with SaaS. I imagine you’re increasingly looking at cloud, and then, of course, everyone is thinking about mobile these days as well. Is there something about tying together dev-ops, creating a better ALM capability, that allows you to adopt technologies more rapidly?

Is there a sense of complexity and inertia in adopting some of these things, that you could move to them more rapidly and enjoy some productivities resolved because of what you’ve been doing with ALM?

Katz: I look at that like a baseball team. My kids are in Little League right now. We’re in the playoffs. When a team does well, you get this momentum. Success really feeds momentum, and we’ve had a lot of success with the dev-ops, with pulling in ALM performance management and BSM into our application development lifecycle. Just because of the momentum we've got from that, we’ve got a lot more openness to explore new items, to pull more information into the system, and to get more information into the single pane.

Before we had the success, the philosophy was. "I don’t have time to fix this. I don’t have time to add new great things." Or, "I've got to go fix what I got." But when you get a little bit of that momentum and you get the successes, there is a lot more openness to it and willingness to see what happens. We’ve had HP helping us with. They’re helping us to describe what the next phase of the world looks like.

Gardner: Well, great. We’ve been hearing about adopting more modern and agile development methodologies and adopting some integrated systems of record to do that. We’ve been joined by Steve Katz. He is the Manager of Software Performance and Quality at Seagate Technology. Thanks so much.

Katz: Thanks, Dana. I always appreciate it.

Gardner: And thanks to our audience for joining this special BriefingsDirect podcast coming to you from the HP Discover 2011 Conference in Las Vegas.

I'm Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions, your host for this series of user experience discussions. Thanks again for listening, and come back next time.

Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes/iPod and Podcast.com. Download the transcript. Sponsor: HP.

Transcript of a BriefingsDirect podcast from HP Discover 2011 on how Seagate Technology is leveraging HP's ALM tools to conduct development and dev-ops faster, better and cheaper. Copyright Interarbor Solutions, LLC, 2005-2011. All rights reserved.

You may also be interested in: