New IT manager making changes... should I be concern?
-
said in New IT manager making changes... should I be concern?:
His changes may cost $100-200K in the span of 2-3 years.
To be clear, That's 30-60K a year. Less than a FTE for an IT position. Spending that on an infrastructure refresh in the grand scheme of things isn't that much money for an environment with more than 1 IT person...
-
@stess All the changes (VMWare, terminal, VDI, SAN/NAS, switch, etc) he is proposing I once think of doing the same thing. However, at the time (last year) I did not deem it necessary and overkilled. We grew from 45 people company to 80ish people company within one year. If I have to reconsider those option now... I still think it is overkilled.
VDI is more about what it offers you (Unique desktop experience, anywhere at any time). I've seen companies with 12 people VDI make sense for. I've also seen companies with 500 who it didn't. If you have aggressive security/compliance needs and a highly mobile workforce then some type of remote end user compute solution is a better deal. Don't focus on "We are a SMB" focus on the important IT can have in delivering solutions and value. If these solutions mean you can increase productivity for field or operations by 10% that's 10% less staff which may be a cheap ROI for instance... As Scott Mentioned, learn what the business need is. That said if your doing VDI on VMware at that scale I'd argue a SAN/NAS isn't necessary (horizon Suite Includes VSAN).
-
@stess said in New IT manager making changes... should I be concern?:
Quick question: When would you justify Datacenter license for Windows Server 2012R2? Seem to be about having each VM running individual Windows server role.
Simple rule is when you need 14 or more VMs per node of Windows servers, then DC makes more sense than the alternatives. This is purely a financial licensing factor, not a technical one.
DC gives you the ability to split more workloads, though, so you tend to do somewhat bad things like condensing VMs until you have a DC license. So DC tends to make you behave better. DC is also much, much more flexible for disaster recovery for semi-obvious reasons.
-
@scottalanmiller Going to disagree with you Scott. You need more than risk aversion (its only 1/3 of it).
Agility, Risk Mitigation, Cost Control are the 3 reasons you spend money on things in IT.
Take a bank. If all you cared about was risk aversion it would be a giant vault with snipers everywhere. Instead we recognize that having drive thru tellers is a better use of capital (Agility), and having managers and people who do audits to prevent fraud and loss (Cost control) is also worth funding.
-
@scottalanmiller said in New IT manager making changes... should I be concern?:
@stess said in New IT manager making changes... should I be concern?:
Quick question: When would you justify Datacenter license for Windows Server 2012R2? Seem to be about having each VM running individual Windows server role.
Simple rule is when you need 14 or more VMs per node of Windows servers, then DC makes more sense than the alternatives. This is purely a financial licensing factor, not a technical one.
DC gives you the ability to split more workloads, though, so you tend to do somewhat bad things like condensing VMs until you have a DC license. So DC tends to make you behave better. DC is also much, much more flexible for disaster recovery for semi-obvious reasons.
This is going to change shortly as 2016 will involve core's in that calculation. If your buying 2012R2 with SA and the possibility of executing upgrade rights, keep this in mind...
-
@John-Nicholson said in New IT manager making changes... should I be concern?:
said in New IT manager making changes... should I be concern?:
His changes may cost $100-200K in the span of 2-3 years.
To be clear, That's 30-60K a year. Less than a FTE for an IT position. Spending that on an infrastructure refresh in the grand scheme of things isn't that much money for an environment with more than 1 IT person...
It's not bad at all in that sense. The question really isn't "is this too much for a business to handle" but should be "what are we getting for that cost?" If there are good reasons for it, it's probably well justified.
Of course, probably the bigger question would be... "why so many IT people for a company of just 80 people?" Might be good reasons there too, but that is likely too many IT people per employee. At least for an average business.
-
@John-Nicholson said in New IT manager making changes... should I be concern?:
@scottalanmiller said in New IT manager making changes... should I be concern?:
@stess said in New IT manager making changes... should I be concern?:
Quick question: When would you justify Datacenter license for Windows Server 2012R2? Seem to be about having each VM running individual Windows server role.
Simple rule is when you need 14 or more VMs per node of Windows servers, then DC makes more sense than the alternatives. This is purely a financial licensing factor, not a technical one.
DC gives you the ability to split more workloads, though, so you tend to do somewhat bad things like condensing VMs until you have a DC license. So DC tends to make you behave better. DC is also much, much more flexible for disaster recovery for semi-obvious reasons.
This is going to change shortly as 2016 will involve core's in that calculation. If your buying 2012R2 with SA and the possibility of executing upgrade rights, keep this in mind...
Yes, when 2016 comes out we all have to learn how the licensing works out all over again.
-
@John-Nicholson said in New IT manager making changes... should I be concern?:
VDI is more about what it offers you (Unique desktop experience, anywhere at any time). I've seen companies with 12 people VDI make sense for.
I said literally the same thing to Citrix like fifteen minutes ago
-
@scottalanmiller said in New IT manager making changes... should I be concern?:
@John-Nicholson said in New IT manager making changes... should I be concern?:
said in New IT manager making changes... should I be concern?:
His changes may cost $100-200K in the span of 2-3 years.
To be clear, That's 30-60K a year. Less than a FTE for an IT position. Spending that on an infrastructure refresh in the grand scheme of things isn't that much money for an environment with more than 1 IT person...
It's not bad at all in that sense. The question really isn't "is this too much for a business to handle" but should be "what are we getting for that cost?" If there are good reasons for it, it's probably well justified.
Of course, probably the bigger question would be... "why so many IT people for a company of just 80 people?" Might be good reasons there too, but that is likely too many IT people per employee. At least for an average business.
I used to think this, then I met a demolition and recycling firm that the CEO told me IT was the most important part of their business. While I hate Gartner/IDC's terminology the "Digital transformation" where every business must ingrain IT functions in their company is having interesting impacts on IT staffing. Now You are right that a lot are over-hiring (or building massive development teams in house, rather than getting someone to build this stuff cheaper) but its crazy seeing guys who sell "rocks" for a living having a SaaS and micro bidding site that allows them to "Crush" their competition. I"ve seen a boring fleet management consulting company turn into an IT company when they realized they could take their process's they consulted on, turn them into apps, and host them and make that be the end game for their consulting engagements (develop hosted customers).
-
@John-Nicholson said in New IT manager making changes... should I be concern?:
@scottalanmiller Going to disagree with you Scott. You need more than risk aversion (its only 1/3 of it).
Agility, Risk Mitigation, Cost Control are the 3 reasons you spend money on things in IT.
Take a bank. If all you cared about was risk aversion it would be a giant vault with snipers everywhere. Instead we recognize that having drive thru tellers is a better use of capital (Agility), and having managers and people who do audits to prevent fraud and loss (Cost control) is also worth funding.
I totally agree. The conversation that I'm trying to get him to kick off is the one about what is driving certain aspects of the spending. There are lots of great reasons to buy technology, but only certain ones can be driven by the financial department. The CFO's office drives technology investment around risk aversion. This is an investment mostly around cost avoidance or loss avoidance.
Agility, in your terminology, would be primarily driven not by the CFO's office but by the COO's office and the production / operations departments (the core business.) Unlike risk aversion, this is the value of opportunity and agility is a big part and so are other aspects. This is where we look to use technology to create more wealth, rather than hedging against losses.
-
@John-Nicholson said in New IT manager making changes... should I be concern?:
@scottalanmiller said in New IT manager making changes... should I be concern?:
@John-Nicholson said in New IT manager making changes... should I be concern?:
said in New IT manager making changes... should I be concern?:
His changes may cost $100-200K in the span of 2-3 years.
To be clear, That's 30-60K a year. Less than a FTE for an IT position. Spending that on an infrastructure refresh in the grand scheme of things isn't that much money for an environment with more than 1 IT person...
It's not bad at all in that sense. The question really isn't "is this too much for a business to handle" but should be "what are we getting for that cost?" If there are good reasons for it, it's probably well justified.
Of course, probably the bigger question would be... "why so many IT people for a company of just 80 people?" Might be good reasons there too, but that is likely too many IT people per employee. At least for an average business.
I used to think this, then I met a demolition and recycling firm that the CEO told me IT was the most important part of their business. While I hate Gartner/IDC's terminology the "Digital transformation" where every business must ingrain IT functions in their company is having interesting impacts on IT staffing. Now You are right that a lot are over-hiring (or building massive development teams in house, rather than getting someone to build this stuff cheaper) but its crazy seeing guys who sell "rocks" for a living having a SaaS and micro bidding site that allows them to "Crush" their competition. I"ve seen a boring fleet management consulting company turn into an IT company when they realized they could take their process's they consulted on, turn them into apps, and host them and make that be the end game for their consulting engagements (develop hosted customers).
Even then, at 80 people, how many are getting the best value from internal staff rather than outsourced specialists? At 80 people you are getting extremely niche to have the skills that you need sometimes available all of the time not be a huge loss. Considering that a single high performance admin can run hundreds of servers. It's a rare company that has two or three servers per staffer. They exist, but they are mosting trading firms.
-
If your business turns into a hosting business, then you have the challenge of deciding when IT stops and operations begins. That gets complicated quickly.
-
@scottalanmiller said in New IT manager making changes... should I be concern?:
@John-Nicholson said in New IT manager making changes... should I be concern?:
@scottalanmiller Going to disagree with you Scott. You need more than risk aversion (its only 1/3 of it).
Agility, Risk Mitigation, Cost Control are the 3 reasons you spend money on things in IT.
Take a bank. If all you cared about was risk aversion it would be a giant vault with snipers everywhere. Instead we recognize that having drive thru tellers is a better use of capital (Agility), and having managers and people who do audits to prevent fraud and loss (Cost control) is also worth funding.
I totally agree. The conversation that I'm trying to get him to kick off is the one about what is driving certain aspects of the spending. There are lots of great reasons to buy technology, but only certain ones can be driven by the financial department. The CFO's office drives technology investment around risk aversion. This is an investment mostly around cost avoidance or loss avoidance.
Agility, in your terminology, would be primarily driven not by the CFO's office but by the COO's office and the production / operations departments (the core business.) Unlike risk aversion, this is the value of opportunity and agility is a big part and so are other aspects. This is where we look to use technology to create more wealth, rather than hedging against losses.
The last year I did consulting I saw a huge acceleration in conversations with operations. Smart IT people learn ever nook and cranny of ops if they want to understand what should drive projects.
-
@stess said in New IT manager making changes... should I be concern?:
@scottalanmiller said in New IT manager making changes... should I be concern?:
My biggest concern would be process. What process was followed that is leading to these changes? Was VMware, for example since you mentioned it, evaluated as having a specific value that will overcome its price point? Did he look into how to get those features potentially with Hyper-V? Or is his goal only to shift money to VMware and hope that no one asks questions.
This is all still brainstorming. He has to report and try to justify with another department manager before actually getting a green light. This department manager has experience in IT, but very vague and broadly. One could say his knowledge come from passion not directly from experience. Hopefully he will ask a lot of questions before giving it a green light, or even better I am hoping he would bring it up to our CEO directly before making decisions.
Hopefully you will have some insight into what benefits he is looking to bring to the table. Ripping and replacing comes with cost, as does moving to the unknown. He might have some really great specific use cases that you haven't been told about. Or he might have nothing. Until you have more info there, all you can do is prepare by either not caring (often a better option than you imagine) or by gathering a strong portfolio of operational data and architecture recommendations to be as ready as possible.
-
@John-Nicholson said in New IT manager making changes... should I be concern?:
The last year I did consulting I saw a huge acceleration in conversations with operations. Smart IT people learn ever nook and cranny of ops if they want to understand what should drive projects.
Absolutely, which is why the big banks are basically just IT and support staff (like HR, secretaries, janitors, etc.) Everything becomes IT in many cases. Over 100,000 IT people in one place that I worked. Over 600 out of 1,400 total in another. IT is a business function and cannot exist outside of it. That's why when I ran college programs I kept telling them that tech knowledge was useless, we needed business trained people first and foremost.
-
@scottalanmiller said in New IT manager making changes... should I be concern?:
If your business turns into a hosting business, then you have the challenge of deciding when IT stops and operations begins. That gets complicated quickly.
The opposite I see more often, and frankly more dangerous to your employment. IT focus's so much on what's in their immediate view (Risk Management and Cost Control) and don't focus on delivering things Ops needs (Agility). This is where Shadow IT comes from. If I have a terminal server that's slow to the point of being unusable, but its backed up and cheap because its still running windows 2003, IS it really available?
What happens when ops got a credit card and contracted a 3rd party citrix farm? I'd be more worried in a rapidly growing company with delivering the tools they need than trying to keep costs down (unless truly the capital expense doesn't deliver any value). -
@stess said in New IT manager making changes... should I be concern?:
@scottalanmiller said in New IT manager making changes... should I be concern?:
Your big challenge here, if you decide to pursue a counter to these recommendations, will be in properly assessing business need (if you feel that his designs are not in the best interest of the company then you should, in theory, be able to not just put that into words but be able to put it into numbers) and then communicating that effectively to the powers that be. This is where the average IT person fails hard - IT tends to attract people who struggle to be able to quantify, qualify and communicate IT in business terms. Maybe you are not one of these people, but if you work in IT the chances are extremely high that this is an area where you feel a particular challenge.
Thanks for the insight. I'll gather more information before making any decisions. These changes are estimated to take 6-8 months at least. I got time.
I will look at the link you posted and make a better judgmental decision. I am 110% against SAN and know there are alternatives that could deliver results with fraction of the cost. *cough starwind virtual SAN *coughI'll see if I can have a quick talk with the management to give my input about all these changes. Obviously I am not going in empty hands.
Some strategies to have at the ready for your personal growth and/or leveraging of opportunity:
- Get VMware running at home and learn it inside and out. Make the new guy implementing your wheel house if he gets what he wants. That's only an example technology, apply this to all stated technologies. Your position gets stronger the better you are with his position.
- Be the guy asking the questions and gathering operational and financial information. The more you know the business, the more you understand what makes sense.
- Don't assume his approach is wrong. Gather more data than he has and see if you come to the same, similar or wildly different results.
- Leverage the fact that you have more experience that matters than he does. You already know the business better and know the state of things better.
-
@John-Nicholson said in New IT manager making changes... should I be concern?:
@scottalanmiller said in New IT manager making changes... should I be concern?:
If your business turns into a hosting business, then you have the challenge of deciding when IT stops and operations begins. That gets complicated quickly.
The opposite I see more often, and frankly more dangerous to your employment. IT focus's so much on what's in their immediate view (Risk Management and Cost Control) and don't focus on delivering things Ops needs (Agility). This is where Shadow IT comes from. If I have a terminal server that's slow to the point of being unusable, but its backed up and cheap because its still running windows 2003, IS it really available?
What happens when ops got a credit card and contracted a 3rd party citrix farm? I'd be more worried in a rapidly growing company with delivering the tools they need than trying to keep costs down (unless truly the capital expense doesn't deliver any value).I've seen that a bit, as I was the head of shadow IT for a Fortune 10 once upon a time
-
@scottalanmiller said in New IT manager making changes... should I be concern?:
@stess said in New IT manager making changes... should I be concern?:
@scottalanmiller said in New IT manager making changes... should I be concern?:
Your big challenge here, if you decide to pursue a counter to these recommendations, will be in properly assessing business need (if you feel that his designs are not in the best interest of the company then you should, in theory, be able to not just put that into words but be able to put it into numbers) and then communicating that effectively to the powers that be. This is where the average IT person fails hard - IT tends to attract people who struggle to be able to quantify, qualify and communicate IT in business terms. Maybe you are not one of these people, but if you work in IT the chances are extremely high that this is an area where you feel a particular challenge.
Thanks for the insight. I'll gather more information before making any decisions. These changes are estimated to take 6-8 months at least. I got time.
I will look at the link you posted and make a better judgmental decision. I am 110% against SAN and know there are alternatives that could deliver results with fraction of the cost. *cough starwind virtual SAN *coughI'll see if I can have a quick talk with the management to give my input about all these changes. Obviously I am not going in empty hands.
Some strategies to have at the ready for your personal growth and/or leveraging of opportunity:
- Get VMware running at home and learn it inside and out. Make the new guy implementing your wheel house if he gets what he wants. That's only an example technology, apply this to all stated technologies. Your position gets stronger the better you are with his position.
http://labs.hol.vmware.com/HOL/catalogs/
https://vmware.stanly.edu (Add yourself to the waitlist, you can get your VCP for $250 with the book, and under 200 w/o, normally a 3-5K priced class. -
@scottalanmiller said in New IT manager making changes... should I be concern?:
@John-Nicholson said in New IT manager making changes... should I be concern?:
@scottalanmiller said in New IT manager making changes... should I be concern?:
If your business turns into a hosting business, then you have the challenge of deciding when IT stops and operations begins. That gets complicated quickly.
The opposite I see more often, and frankly more dangerous to your employment. IT focus's so much on what's in their immediate view (Risk Management and Cost Control) and don't focus on delivering things Ops needs (Agility). This is where Shadow IT comes from. If I have a terminal server that's slow to the point of being unusable, but its backed up and cheap because its still running windows 2003, IS it really available?
What happens when ops got a credit card and contracted a 3rd party citrix farm? I'd be more worried in a rapidly growing company with delivering the tools they need than trying to keep costs down (unless truly the capital expense doesn't deliver any value).I've seen that a bit, as I was the head of shadow IT for a Fortune 10 once upon a time
I feel bad for our internal IT people......
The coolest blocker of shadow IT i've seen is having a SSO portal that you can register with major SaaS vendors (SAML etc). If someone tries to go buy something with a credit card and an email from our company it will redirect the request back to our internal. It lets you lock down services, but also lets users self provision and request them internally. It strangely makes me feel empowered, while at the same time stopping me from using Box or Slack without someone signing off that I need it and the charges getting routed properly.
