In Part 1 of this series we discuss Failed CMDB Initiatives, the reasons they fail and how to avoid them.
Executive Summary
Every type of initiative has its challenges and can fail for a variety of reasons. Configuration Management Database (CMDB) initiatives are no different. The compelling reason why organizations continue to allocate resources and funds to this type of effort is the value that can be gained from an operational CMDB by an organization.
As challenging as CMDB initiatives have proven to be, organizations must continue to invest in this venture because the need for them is there. If you understand why they fail and make the right decisions to avoid the pitfalls, these initiatives can enable business growth and create a competitive advantage.
Introduction
IT organizations are operating with fewer resources, tighter timelines and are being asked to not only support the business operation but, more and more, enable it. This is a daunting challenge to place on IT departments that, in some cases, can barely keep the lights on.
The CMDB is an instrument that when implemented properly greatly enhances IT capabilities in terms of efficiencies and effectiveness. It positively effects operations, supports financial related decisions and empowers infrastructure to deliver more value that improves the bottom line.
CMDB initiative leaders need to understand why so many of them are perceived to fail and what they should do to avoid the pitfalls that are most likely to be encountered.
Why They Fail
The core reasons for failure of CMDB initiatives can be grouped into four main categories:
1. Solution Definition & Organizational Scope
2. Data Quality & Accessibility
3. Lack Of Governance
4. Expected Business Value of Return
1. Solution Definition and Organizational Scope
Clearly articulating what the solution looks like is important for all initiatives and is part of setting the proper expectations and scope. Failed initiatives are generally led by individuals who don’t fully comprehend or have the ability to communicate the level of effort that the initiative requires in order to achieve its goals.
Not determining the levels of maintenance, technology and procedure required to sustain a CMDB long term is a commonly seen component in most failed efforts. It’s not only high paced and high volume environments that fail, in part due to a poor balance of technology and process. Organizations don’t identify or include areas to automate manual activities. It directly impacts the ability to scale and wastes resource time, ultimately leading to a failed and canceled effort.
When initiatives are poorly defined and communicated, unrealistic expectations of CMDB initiatives are set. The CMDB will not contain every bit of data ever generated throughout the organization. It cannot instantaneously be aggregated, normalized and then presented in an understandable manner without the necessary investment into resources and tools.
Communicating the solution and expectations will ensure the initiative takes on the proper scope and is scheduled with a realistic phased approach. Taking on the whole enterprise immediately or starting small but immediately expanding the scope beyond what the resources and technology can handle guarantees failure.
2. Data Quality & Availability
Poor quality of data in disparate sources limits insight into what exists. This impedes growth and the ability to enable the business. Informed business decisions cannot be made based upon the massive volumes of raw data being generated within an organization. These volumes prohibit individuals from manually processing and understanding what is occurring without some form of a contextual component that can help convey a meaningful message.
Although the volume of data being generated is massive, it does not mean that everyone is aware that it exists. The lack of knowledge regarding what exists in conjunction with a lack of understanding as to its quality or its importance to business operations is a major contributor to failed initiatives.
3. Lack of Governance
A comprehensive governance model involves procedural and technical competencies in both a proactive and reactive setting. Moving forward with just a technical inbound solution to load data followed by an after the
fact manual audit is neither sufficient nor sustainable. A balance of technology and process, both at the inbound
“Massive volumes of raw data”
point and periodically afterwards, is fundamental to success. Venturing into the initiative with only a technology component or counting on individuals to follow process is a recipe for failure.
Leveraging technology to import high volumes of data is necessary, but it cannot be at the expense of ensuring that what is being imported is accurate, complete and relevant. There must be a procedural component incorporated to ensure the effort being expended to import, aggregate and maintain the data will contribute to positive outcomes.
Assuming that the data is accurate and complete without formal audit and verification permits the quality to very quickly slip and become useless. Without a balanced governance and audit model, information won’t be available and/or won’t be accurate and will negatively impact business decisions.
4. Expected Business Value of Return
The expected business value of a CMDB is rarely ever analyzed or documented sufficiently enough to establish a believable Value of Return, once deployed. Most initiatives do not adequately speak to the business value that is expected of the CMDB implementation. Descriptions of the anticipated value of a CMDB that exclusively use technical and IT process terminology are not what business partners understand nor want to hear.
The expected value of return has to be clear to the business partners who are funding the effort, otherwise it will fail. It has no chance to succeed in their eyes because they don’t understand what you’re saying and formulate a different concept of the outcome.
In these cases, the value of return will be non-existent to the business even if it was beneficial to the IT organization. This occurs repeatedly within organizations simply because the value was never expressed in business terms.
Next week, we continue our discussion with “Avoiding the Pitfalls” and offer solutions.
As a leader in data quality management, Blazent helps organizations leverage large amounts of data more effectively and efficiently by solving the ‘garbage in – garbage out’ problem with which all organizations struggle. We do this by providing an accurate and complete view of aggregated, reconciled and remediated data from across the broadest range of data sources in the industry. Thus, enabling operations, finance and technology infrastructure teams to validate and transform data into actionable intelligence to make better business decisions to significantly improve business outcomes.
The Blazent data quality management platform can significantly reduce time and effort on challenging infrastructure initiatives such as ITSM tool migrations, Initial CMDB stand ups and the automation and maintaining of the CMDB with validated and accurate data.
For more information, visit www.Blazent.com or email us at sales@Blazent.com.