Bimodal IT: Shortcut to Innovation or Path to Dysfunction?

Bimodal IT: Shortcut To Innovation Or Path To Dysfunction?

© DTO Solutions, Inc.

Damon Edwards Managing Partner DTO Solutions, Inc.

@damonedwards

Damon Edwards

DevOps Consulting

Operational Improvement

Tools

“Bimodal IT is the practice of managing two separate, coherent modes of IT delivery, one focused on stability and the other on agility. Mode 1 is traditional and sequential, emphasizing safety and accuracy. Mode 2 is exploratory and nonlinear, emphasizing agility and speed.”


Google provided definition

Bimodal is NOT just “two speeds”



http://www.slideshare.net/AmazonWebServices/ent312-should-you-build-or-buy-cloud-infrastructure-and-platforms-aws-reinvent-2014

“Is Bimodal IT going to help us or hurt us?” “How would you evaluate Bimodal IT?”

Keep in mind what are we trying to accomplish…

• Manage all of the parts and activities necessary to deliver and run the high-quality systems

• Give the business… • what they want • when they want it • at the lowest cost possible

The Criticisms of Bimodal IT…

1. Built on a major logical fallacy about the relationship between quality and speed

1. Built on a major logical fallacy

• If you go too fast, bad things will happen (namely poor quality) because you are out of control


• If you go too fast, bad things will happen (namely poor quality) because you are out of control: TRUE



• So therefore… the slower you go, the better your quality will be because you'll be in better control



• So therefore… the slower you go, the better your quality will be because you'll be in better control: FALSE



• So therefore… the slower you go, the better your quality will be because you'll be in better control: FALSE

• 30 years of proof in other domains and now 10-15 years of proof in our domain that this just isn't true.

1. Built on a major logical fallacy• Lean, Agile, and now DevOps have all been proving that

speed and quality are not mutually exclusive

• In fact, a focus on reducing lead times (i.e. going faster), being more nimble, and decentralizing both planning and controls brings

✓ Higher quality ✓ Lower costs

1. Built on a major logical fallacy• Decades of command and control waterfall methodologies

hasn't gotten us to the high-performance desired by the business wants (or the business wouldn't be asking now)

1. Built on a major logical fallacy• Appears to be built on fundamental misconception that we

are working in a simple, rather than complex, system

Complex System

Complex System

interacting with a



2. Institutionalizes dysfunction with different groups working under different beliefs by design

2. Institutionalizes dysfunction • One set of people should be thinking that traditional and

sequential • Implies some form of the way we’ve always done it with

waterfalls and release trains • Prime directive: safety, accuracy, and cost containment

• Other set of people should be thinking exploratory and nonlinear

• Implies Agile and DevOps • Prime directive: agility and speed

2. Institutionalizes dysfunction • By definition you are creating a rift in the culture and

beliefs of the human beings in your organization • Thought Exercise: Think about these two different orgs…

• One is fully traditional waterfall with processes and structure defined using a strict ITIL interpretation

• One is full Agile and DevOps from how they plan to how they run operations

• Difference isn’t just process or tools… they fundamentally see the world differently and work differently

2. Institutionalizes dysfunction Gartner automation example: “Mode 2 organizations should seek to implement automation to enhance speed, while Mode 1 organizations should leverage automation to improve consistency and reduce cost.” • Mode 1 history shows automation design tending towards

monolithic and rigid with an inward view of cost savings • Mode 2 recent history shows automation design tending

toward decentralized and more of a horizontal SDLC oriented approach

• How people interact with these types of automation is really different

2. Institutionalizes dysfunction • Reality is that automation rarely lives in isolation

• Different teams all need to use same automation • For deployment, could be different app ops and ops

teams • For test automation, could be centralized QA teams or

maybe other teams reusing the automation • People need to collaborate across teams, re-orgs

happen.

2. Institutionalizes dysfunction • Really there are all sorts of shared infrastructure and teams

• Operations, Data Centers, Networks, Security, Compliance, Finance.

• Are you asking for those shared groups to think and act differently based on who they are talking to at that moment?

• At the technical level, are you asking for those shared groups to think and act differently based where an artifact or system came from?

• No wonder people call it "Bipolar IT”

2. Institutionalizes dysfunction • There are all sorts of shared infrastructure and teams

• Operations, Data Centers, Networks, Security, Compliance, Finance.

• Are asking for those shared groups to think and act differently based on who they are talking to at that moment?

• At the technical level, are asking for those shared groups to think and act differently based where an artifact or system came from?

• No wonder people call it "Bipolar IT”




3. Cultural divides that lead to “haves” and “have nots”

3. Leads to Haves and Have Not• Empowers one part of the organization to go and innovate,

do the new things, get the new tools, learn the new skills, spend the money

• Tells the other part of the organization to stay working the same way they always worked, keep the lights on, and save the money.

• How does that not lead to a cultural rift ? • How are the people left behind in Mode 1 going to feel

about their worth, their career prospects?




3. Cultural divides that lead to “haves” and “have nots” 4. Creates an artificial divide where none actually exists and it

is not realistic to do so

4. Creates an artificial divide• A fundamental conceit of Bimodal IT is the notion that you

can carve your world into these two distinct parts • Reality is that nothing lives in isolation • Your systems of engagement are useless without your

systems of record. And vice versa. • From the only perspective that matters, that of the

customer and therefore the business, it is all one system! • Divide a single system of people and technology into two

parts that think about and execute their work in opposite ways?

Corporate Plan

Budget

Requirements / User Journeys




3. Cultural divides that lead to “haves” and “have nots” 4. Creates an artificial divide where none actually exists and it

is not realistic to do so

Rebuttals to the Criticisms of Bimodal IT…

1. “Its being pragmatic about how the world works today”

“Its being pragmatic about how the world works today”• We already discussed that Bimodal IT view of world isn’t

based on reality • But this rebuttal does bring up a good point… we do live in

a multi-speed reality. • All of the parts can and should move at different speeds • The problem is when all of these parts are working

differently with different beliefs • Multiple MODES (not speeds) is the true problem

• Bimodal IT describes the PROBLEM, not the SOLUTION

Bimodal IT describes the PROBLEM, not the SOLUTION

Let me repeat that:


1. “Its being pragmatic about how the world works today” 2. “It’s a transition strategy”

“It’s a transition strategy”• Revisionist? Nowhere in the definition does it describe it as

a transition tactic (“practice of managing two separate, coherent modes if IT delivery”) • How is this is supposed to work as a transition strategy?

• Brownfield / Greenfield? Mode 1 is the classic brownfield. Mode 2 is this new shiny greenfield

• Natural tendency is for green to trend brown, not the other way around

• Add in extra difficulty of sanctioning that these two orgs to have different ways of working, aims, and beliefs

• Huge forces working against “brown” turning “green”


1. “Its being pragmatic about how the world works today” 2. “It’s a transition strategy” 3. “These problems are the fault of weak managers, not the

concept”

“These problems are the fault of weak managers, not the concept”• Blaming the user is never a path to success • Why put people in a system where it is difficult to succeed? • Why not pick an approach where it makes management

simpler and not more complex/difficult?



concept” 4. “So and so is getting better because of this”

“So and so is getting better because of this”• Please produce the evidence of companies reaching relative

high-performance this way • Please show how they are actually adopting the official

Bimodal IT advice (not their own or a hybrid) • Initial improvement can come from just by putting attention

on something. Still needs to prove it is sustainable • Doing something is usually better than nothing • Understand observer effect / attribution bias / causation

• Please prove me wrong!



concept” 4. “So and so is getting better because of this” 5. “People need to do something, do you have a better idea?

“People need to do something, do you have a better idea?• Plenty of examples out there, from classic Lean transformations in

other fields to reports from recent DevOps Enterprise Conferences • Hard work the industry needs to hear about, not the “easy button”

they want to hear about • And since you asked (out of scope for this talk):

1.Work to define and unify beliefs across the org (and accept that each team might work at it’s own pace with own process and tooling variations)

2.Apply visual management techniques to see reality, identify horizontal value streams, and align people’s work

3.Empower teams to find and fix what is getting in the way 4.PDSA (continuous improvement loops) and go back to #1



concept” 4. “So and so is getting better because of this” 5. “People need to do something, do you have a better idea?

Summary

1. “Its being pragmatic about how the world works today”

2. “It’s a transition strategy” 3. “These problems are the fault of

weak managers, not the concept” 4. “So and so is getting better

because of this” 5. “People need to do something, do

you have a better idea?



3. Cultural divides that lead to “haves” and “have nots”

4. Creates an artificial divide where none actually exists and it is not realistic to do so

Bimodal IT describes the PROBLEM, not the SOLUTION

Criticisms Rebuttals

Let’s talk…

@damonedwards

Damon Edwards

[email protected]

Date post:	17-Feb-2017
Category:	Technology
Upload:	dev2ops
View:	1,016 times
Download:	0 times

Bimodal IT: Shortcut to Innovation or Path to Dysfunction?

Technology