IT Service Management Blog
Follow information regarding IT Service Management via this blog.

Displaying articles for: March 2010

How Long Should a CMDB / CMS Take to Build? Part 3: Process Engineering

This is the third post in the "How Long Should a CMDB/CMS Take to Build" series.


 


Today's tagline: YOU must make the final journey to the right process.  No one else, not even a cherished trusted vendor or analyst, can make it for you.  But they can act as a spiritual advisor.


 


ITIL Process engineering is the second most important part of the deployment, the most difficult to get right except for people and cultural change.  The only reason process engineering is slightly easier than these is because you at least have better measurement tools.


 


And I'm talking about ITIL processes here, for which additional complexities apply.


 


There aren't many vacant lots left in downtown ITIL.  I'm talking about process RE-engineering as well, because almost none of you are building a data center from scratch.  You already have some kind of processes, bethem manual or dysfunctional.  Part of the process-building involves assimilation and demolition of parts of the earlier generation processes.


 


So what do you start with:  Needs, goals, plans, budget, vendors, tools?  Turns out it's not so straightforward.


 


It's a paradox.  You can't easily build your processes without a tool in mind or you will not be able to find a tool that does everything you want.  Don't believe me?  Go ahead, try, you'll spend a ton of money on column fodder and end up picking the vendor that can just fill in the most columns - a disappointing and possibly unwise strategy.


 


However, you don't want your processes to be tool-driven because you will end up locking out the most important KPIs which are fulfilling your use cases exactly. 


 


So, do I pick a vendor first, or define my requirements first?  My answer:  it's an iterative process, there is no prescriptive approach that ensures success - you must have a good IDEA of your processes, then court a few vendors, then get some preliminary input to refine your idea of what config management should be, ask a few more questions, and repeat until you have a good foundation that will fulfill your use cases and is supportable by a solution you can buy and build.


 


The CMDB is a tool, maybe even a platform.  The CMS is a deployed operational solution.  You must still operate it with your own processes and people.  Good luck with ITIL.  You'll need more than that.  But I digress.


 


If you expect your vendor to supply all the processes because the tool won't work without them - you're in trouble.  You must still understand all your processes to the point where YOU are doing the service transitions and operations.  Most  vendors can't and won't care as much about how well your processes work, and at best will deliver incomplete, high-level, or overly-generic  processes, the same cartoon version of IT that ITIL already provides.


 


 As a vendor you have to work really hard to create and deliver a good process layer of best practices around your CMS and CMDB.  And while I've tried hard (that is one of my projects at HP), I cannot fool myself that we have gotten everything right, in fact or in principle.  Experience and the rigorous discipline of journal-keeping,  analysis, and continual improvement are our only lights into the future of process.  Don't let anyone else sell you otherwise.


 


Some final recommendations:



  • Get yourself some wild, angry beekeepers.  They'll keep your you, as well as your vendor, honest, and help you identify the needed, the unneeded, and the just plain stupid.

  • Come to recognize the smell of crap factoids.  Analysts and vendors, like Alpha Geeks, CIOs, bloggers, and help desk technicians, are not immune to hubris. 

  • Not all IT organizations need to "mature" all of their processes to the maximum "maturity".  Avoid unnecessary or self-fulfilling scaffolding, even if it's your vendor's favorite.  Even though ITIL says you should be doing something, you must decide for yourself whether you actually should be doing that thing.  And  it's not always easy to determine.  Read.  Study.  Know not just IT but YOUR IT.  In the vicious world of ITIL, knowledge isn't just power, it's survival.

  • Same thing I tell all the school kids I teach astronomy to: Keep asking questions.

  • Configuration management, like education, is not about filling a bucket, it's about lighting a fire.   Think, motivated, self-policing, continual service improvement.  Incent your people to seek out improvement and they will do so, to your benefit.  Too expensive?  Don't expect much help.

  • If you don't understand something but should, go ahead and ask the question.  But remember the risk.  And think about who you should ask first.


 


I hope this post touches a nerve, or gets through to someone, or even angers someone enough to post a reply.  I'd really like to hear what you think.  Thanks for your time.

Mass Customization in ITSM (and Movies) for predictable success

What a season for Oscar!  Golden statues are adorning fireplace mantles in houses owned by Sandra Bullock, Jeff Bridges and the screenwriter of the movie “Up” (well maybe he still rents).  Watching the Academy Awards Show just a few weeks ago got me all excited about seeing movies again.  Not just DVDs or downloads, but real honest-to-goodness fresh movies.  It’s a way of supporting the industry that produces big time entertainment.  I’m not discounting the independent films that are scraped together with a meager budget and limited distribution (some are indeed great).  Sometimes I’m willing to gamble $10 and a few hours of my life on the chance of having an artistic epiphany.  But most of the time I spend my money and time on a “sure thing” – Hollywood’s guarantee of a fantastic entertainment experience – provided by leveraging proven elements and then re-mixing with some new elements (and pixie dust) to generate a brand new hit.  At least something about either the actors or directors or approach or plotlines will already be familiar to me.  I figure that’s the way it is for most people.


Do you ever wonder how a movie can be so creative but still be a project that comes in on time and on budget?  Sure, there are always some crazy movie projects out there that get green-lighted (usually run by James Cameron or, in his day, Francis Ford Coppola) but, by in large, the movie industry has learned that mass customization works.  I just went to see the feature film “Alice in Wonderland” largely due to the fact that the combination of Tim Burton and Johnny Depp doesn’t usually disappoint me.  I will probably go to the next Disney Pixar animation movie and I don’t even know the name of it yet.  What does it take to create a production franchise (and not just a series of formulaic sequels, which I hate)?  It is a result of experience and trust in the results one will get with talent and a process that works.


So, following this analogy, how can an IT organization get projects done on time and on budget, yet with a predictable level of quality and a successful outcome?  Well, we know that the adoption of ITIL-based processes can help, because they are proven -- they have been collaborated on, used, tested, and refined over time by countless IT organizations.  The ability to codify experience can help.  And how does service management software codify experience? HP believes it is through not only the documentation of ITIL-based best practices, but through the actual out-of-the-box implementation of ITIL-based best practices.  Mass customization in the ITIL world is not achieved using a clean sheet of paper with infinite flexibility to invent all your own mistakes.  It is achieved by building from a foundation of best practices infused into the guts of the HP Service Manager product itself – in the workflow, forms, and pre-configured data such as pre-defined roles, sample service level agreements, service level objectives, and key performance indicators that work time and time again, just like a good production franchise in the movie industry.


 


Does the implementation of best practices limit creativity or force an IT organization to bend to its prescriptions? I don’t think so.  Using ITIL best practices, every instance of HP Service Manager can be tailored to a unique set of customer requirements while still avoiding the excessive re-work that results whenever a fully customized configuration needs to be migrated or upgraded.  This is an approach that makes sense in the real world and a lesson that less mature vendors haven’t yet learned.  Even some of the more established names in service management software take their “best practices” only so far (by providing best practices documentation without providing support for the best practices in the inner workings of the actual product itself).  HP Service Manager is the only offering out there that holds true to the concept of a production franchise by actually implementing ITIL best practices out-of-the-box. Not by prescribing, but by guiding.  Just like the best Hollywood producers.


So the next time you select a movie to see based on your expectations, recognize that it is the mass customization by Hollywood that allows a creative story to be told to an appreciative audience.  Mainstream movies may not be everyone’s cup of tea, but, as a business approach, this method can’t be beat.  Now you know the “magic” behind the success of HP Service Manager as well. 

Taming (if not slaying) one of IT’s many Medusas

My third grade son and I have been exploring Greek mythology lately.  We’ve been reading about the Gods of Olympus.  This new found interest was triggered by my son having recently listened to the “Lighting Thief” on audio book - the first of the "Percy Jackson and the Olympians” series.   If you aren’t familiar with Medusa, she is monster in female form who has hair that is made of dozens of horrifying snakes.   The hair filled with snakes idea reminded me of a very thorny problem that IT deals with -  that of addressing compliance related issues.  The more I thought about this the more I realized that almost any problem I have ever come across in IT reminds me of Medusa but this area in particular stands out in my mind.  


 


In my last post I talked about the importance of use cases.  In this post I want to focus on a trend I’ve seen that often is the genesis of a Configuration Management System (CMS) initiative – that of addressing compliance related reporting.  Over the years I have dealt off and on with the compliance problem and it stands out in my mind because of the duality that permeates the issue.  Compliance has this quality of being everywhere and being nowhere at the same time.  Let me explain.  When you think about the roles in IT almost every group has some level of responsibility for supporting compliance and yet responsibility for what must be done is highly diffused across the organization.  This is true even if the organization has (and most now do have) a Chief Compliance Officer.  From a product standpoint every product seems to be able to highlight itself as a solution but no one offering by itself really gets you very far.


 


So having acknowledged upfront that no single product can be all things to all issues compliance;  I have been working in the CMS area long enough to see a recurring trend.  That of using Discovery and Dependency Mapping (DDM) as a way of helping to lighten the burden around compliance reporting in highly regulated industries like Financial Services, Health Care and Utilities.  In each of these cases, I know of at least one (sometimes more)  large and complex organizations,  with massive reporting requirements,  that are using DDM to meet requirements around the need to attest and verify that they have strong controls in place to prevent unauthorized changes to their mission critical infrastructures. For many organizations addressing these kinds of compliance requirements is a hugely time consuming and costly endeavor from the standpoint of IT hours invested.


 


I will start with a publicly available story, that of FICO.  Known to most in the US for their credit scoring service, FICO used DDM as key element in a solution which also included HP Service Manager.  FICO talks about their solution from the standpoint of incident, change and problem management but addressing compliance was certainly a big motivator for them as well.  Operating in the highly regulated financial services industry, audits are a way of life for FICO.  Matt Dixon, Director of IT Service Management at FICO, has said that with their solution they were able to go from taking in the neighborhood of a day to address audit requests to being able to do so in a matter of minutes.  Given that something like an audit a day is what FICO deals with, this is no small deal.


 


A health care company that I know provides another good example.  This company had built a compliance reporting database where they had integrated close to 100 data sources.  They had further built on their own reconciliation logic to support data normalization.   The development effort and the ongoing care and feeding associated this system was enormous.  The company launched an initiative to rationalize data sources, implement automated discovery and dependency mapping and replace this home grown reconciliation database and logic with a vendor supported solution (they chose HP). 


 


Turns out that in their data rationalization effort this company found that something like 80% of the data held in their source systems was redundant at some level across the organization.  This understanding helped them move forward and develop a program around retiring systems and moving to a data leverage model using a CMS style approach.  By the way I do not  feel that what this company found in terms of redundant data would be that much different if we ran the same exercise at most large companies I deal with.


 


Another large company I know involved in the highly regulated utility sector went through a very similar process.  Like FICO this company is pursuing a fairly broad agenda around Incident, Change, Configuration and Release management but addressing compliance related reporting requirements was their initial priority.  Like FICO this company has been able to substantially reduce the amount of time invested in compliance while radically shortening the time it takes to produce compliance related reporting.


 


So while discovery and dependency mapping is by no means a panacea when it comes to compliance issues, it can help an organization meet its commitments relative to compliance reporting.  At the heart of many compliance related requirements is the need to attest and prove that you have tight controls in place around how your infrastructure is managed.  Transparency and a continuous visibility to the configurations in your organization is fundamental to addressing this requirement and a CMS can be a key element that helps address this requirement. 


 


 

How Long Should a CMDB/CMS Take to Build? Part 2: Culture and Understanding

 


This is part two in a series of understanding  CMDB and CMS deployment times.  Last post, we talked about people.  Here, we'll discuss people in an interactive collective workplace context:  in other words, corporate culture, and why corporate culture can be easy, or very very difficult, to understand and change.


 


And before we get too far, you must realize I did not graduate from any School of Business Science.  So there's probably some theorum or corollary  that describes what I'm getting at here.  Something like the Blake-Mouton  grid but with cookies.


 


So I won't be solving all your cultural change problems in a blog.  I'm here about why understanding corporate and human culture, or not, matters so much for TCD (total cost of deployment).


 


Solution Architecture and Service Delivery often take the fall for being late or underdelivering.  Why?  Much of the actual TCD goes unaccounted for.  A scenario: consultant shows up, clock starts ticking.  Shortly a missing or broken process is revealed to impede the project.  Tech consultant is then pressed into the role of business process engineering consultant, then burns the rest of the time on one or two of these process problems.  Maybe,  obtaining approval to touch some piece of the infrastructure, or trying to fast track a three-week change request into three hours.   Project gets behind.  Customer gets unhappy, Vendor gets blamed.  Free stuff is demanded.  What happened?  The consultant told the customer to "prepare" so this wouldn't happen.  Wasn't the problem understood or properly prioritized?   Delivery is relied on when they arrive. They have "done this before" or "should" know how to fix these kinds of problems.   Big mistake.  Organizational issues in the mirror look smaller than they actually are.


 


Why do people and cultural change remain the biggest variables of the deployment, the most difficult to get right, and the hardest to estimate?  Pragmatically, it's difficult to measure.  Scientifically, it's poorly understood.  Rhetorically I suppose one could answer "lack of mutual understanding".  Especially that "mutual" part - you understanding them is not enough.  You must strive to not be merely heard but understood as well.   Understanding is not just the first step to effect cultural change - it's the thing.  Going from an informal to a formal process for say, change management, can be really earth-shaking culturally, especially if a profound understanding of the people and culture are ignored, misunderstood, or  underbudgeted - and if they don't understand where you are coming from.


 


This is serious stuff - we're messing with  people's ideologies here.  And not just who-moved-my-cheese ideologies.  Ideologies like associating personal self-worth with job performance,a very strong ideology among many - in part because people tend to become attached to eclectic parts of their job, ironically,  those parts that have no safety net, that depend on human talent, to get done properly.


 


I have seen trouble even in well-planned and executed projects, because the project carried before it an apparent air of distrust or an implication that humans were no longer doing a good enough job so "control" was needed.   And the project had none of those things, the people just weren't  in on what was happening.   Even good people who do a good job can take it personally or feel misjudged or that they've failed in some way if they go unassured for too long.  Ignored long enough, these good people's fears will develop into a fight and you won't understand why.  This is the kind of stuff that can tsunami project schedules.   People who feel in on things  tend to produce a lot more.


 


Address common, as well as valid, concerns:  "Alice, you do a great job, but even with 99.98% accuracy, that .0200 is worth about a million dollars a year.  That not only justifies the cost but demands that we implement this automation to stay competetive.  You didn't do anything wrong to 'cause' this project. "  If you can say this sincerely and without  patronization, you'll get very far.


 


Still, cultural change is an enigma in some organizations.  Culture?  What do you mean "culture"?  It is what it is.  (an actual response to me from a manager of long ago).  How does one change what one can't understand, let alone measure?  I'm sure most of you understand your organization well.  What you may want to get a fresh look at is, is corporate culture grown or constructed?  That mattters in your approach.  What parts of your organization and culture can and cannot change? 


 


It's how you think about it.  And this doesn't merely depend on the nature of the force applied and the malleability of the material being worked.   Complex dances like the Change Management Tango or the Incident Cha-cha cannot be beaten into being; they are not rough structures forged in a foundry and bolted together!  They must be grown, nurtured, filed at at odd angles, sanded a lot, to produce the right result.  Think of your project as constructing a precision instrument, not raising a barn .  These are the nuances of cultural change, not the blunt strokes of an .mpp file.  Approached improperly, the vicious old theory X minimal effort/maximal clarity cycle rears its ugly head.  Zombified IT, there's a good ITIL replacement:  Obey…obey…


 


And you can't buy this cultural change off with a few all-hands meetings or a prop- uh, I mean an advertising campaign .  Pep rallies thinly disguised as running interference for a no-choice change might just deserve the derision and sabotage that come their way.  Which could be a lot. 


 


To effect real cultural change, your people must not just hear but believe.  You can make people do the former but not the latter.  DO bother to show them the numbers,  your assumptions, your heart - why you believe this is good for IT and the business because your people are a part of both.  Even if they look bored.  Don't assume they read all your memos or that memos will change corporate culture.  If you can't do these things, your project probably has a higher risk of failure.  And, while a business is not a democracy (unless you're an elected  government),  there are some things it behooves one to be democratic about.  And I'm not talking about voting.  I'm talking about involvement and communication!


 


These are the types of obstacles you face.  Any history you care to read teaches us that the best intentions of human engineering have often run aground on the unpredictable shoals of human behavior.  Don't skimp on the research or buy someone else's.  Configuration Management Systems are in today's time still hand-made.  But the parts are getting much better.


 


Next time we'll look at process engineering, an almost-as-mysterious and as difficult-to-estimate as cultural change.  Whether you're planning, implementing, or operational, I hope I've given you some small insight as to how important and unwrangly TCD really is and what success really means organizationally.  Can you relate?  Do you agree?  Maybe what your TCD numbers were?  Please reply and let us know how you feel.  Thanks.

Meet The Experts: A series of webinars on managing a virtualized IT environment

HP recently sponsored a series of virtualization roundtables, run by CIO magazine, titled "What your team's not telling you about virtualization". Over the course of these virtualization roundtables, we heard from more than 100 IT executives (C-Level, VP…) about what’s on their minds regarding the management challenges around virtualization. They were very interactive discussions between the HP speakers and the customers, and regardless of the industry or city they were in, a set of common needs were expressed by these IT executives, including the need to:


• Automate change across physical and virtual environments that make up the business service


 • Become more cost efficient


• Increase IT operations efficiency and delivering high-quality services


• Better enable business continuity and compliance


• Manage asset and software entitlements, contracts and deployments


• Learn from their peers and from HP about the best practices around virtualization


 As a result of this feedback, we scheduled an April web event series (six one-hour virtual discussions) that drills down to answer these common needs. They are called the ‘Meet the Experts’ presentations where virtualization experts discuss best practices. Some of the speakers are from HP, some are customers. The dates and topics are:


 • April 13 - Optimizing service modeling, discovery, and monitoring for VMware environments


 • April 14 - Protecting Virtualized Environments from Disaster with HP Data Protector •


 April 21 - Testing Smarter and Faster with Virtualization


• April 22 - Improve customer satisfaction and maintain service levels in virtualized environments


• April 27- BCBS of Florida builds a foundation for virtualization with HP Asset Manager


• April 29 - Virtualization: Compliance enforcement in a virtualized world


If you are interested in listening to any of these presentations you can attend by registering at: https://h30406.www3.hp.com/campaigns/2010/events/1-8K6H1/index.php?rtc=3-3ERQKL8&jumpid=ex_r11374_us/en/large/eb/adv3_virtualization_wave_sdr_ptr/rtc_3-3ERQKL8/20100310.  I think they will be interesting and insightful if you want to learn more about how to manage a virtualized environment!


 

How Long Should a CMDB / CMS Take To Build? Part 1: People

For some time I've been exploring the value of a CMDB and CMS.  A big part of the TCO value equation is the  TCD, Total Cost of Deployment.  TCD is often underestimated - note how little Google has on the subject.  Why?


 



  • Not everything that matters gets estimated

  • TCD tends to be estimated optimistically or "carved" to fit  budgets

  • The number and complexity of problems are often underestimated

  • The straightforwardness of fulfilling the first few use cases are often overestimated


 


And isn't all this "estimating" really a euphemism for "we don't know"?  If we knew we wouldn't have to estimate.  Estimation has an inherent connotation of uncertainty that we don't like.  We all want complex things to be simpler, more transactional, more commodotized, than they really are:


 


C: "Nice CMDB.  I'll take it."


V: "That'll be one million dollars.  Where do you want it delivered?"


C: "Dock 2."


V: "Ok.  What color?"


V: "Fast."


 


No really, what should you expect your CMDB deployment to be like?   What should we be focusing on estimating?


 


What we like to use to estimate CMDB deployment aren't  the biggest or most important variables.  We like to focus on things like, how long do other deployments take.  How long will it take to install the software.  How long until the hardware arrives.  When can we get everyone "trained".  All good and proper project management, can't do without it.  A deployment project is focused on consulting time and cost, hardware schedules, definable things.  


 


But the two most important factors are also the two most difficult to measure and change are people and processes.  And these are also the biggest variables in estimating time to full implementation of a CMDB or CMS.  In this series, this post will start with the most biggest variable, people.


 


Implementing a CMS is much more than getting the solution deployed, or getting some discovery done, or even getting some providers and consumers onboarded.  It's about changing the way IT works. To that end you absolutely must start with what IT is - not a data center or even a collection of infrastructure and apps - IT's an organization, and organizations are built around people, process and culture.


 


Deploying a CMS will touch almost everyone in the IT organization, because the CMDB almost always follows the implementation of some other initiative such as change or release management or other IT-wide scope.  As ITSM initiatives go,  so goes the CMDB.


 


The Kicker:  The ITSM ecosystem of applications, plus the CMDB to facilitate exchange of configuration data and the common view of IT services, forms the CMS.  Now this should sound like a much harder project than implementing a CMDB.  It is, that's my point.   Without thinking of your CMDB this way, you are likely to do some of that dangerous underestimating of the effort of getting ROI out of your CMS after your consultants have left the building.


 


In my next post I'll explore and  ask you why cultural change is the most important part of the deployment and the most difficult to get right and the hardest to estimate. 


 


Questions, comments, complaints, please reply and let us know how you feel.  Thanks.


 

How important is Services Asset and Configuration Management (SACM)?


One of HP's enterprise customers thinks it’s important!  This large insurance company has consolidated their asset management, human resource, and configuration management system data to calculate inventory data reports for several departments. They are looking at SACM from different perspectives and ensuring that the data accuracy and calculations are consistent between the different views. I don’t think this company is alone.  Companies seem to be increasingly challenged by the complexity of their IT environment and are looking for better ways to manage control of their infrastructure.


 


The ITILv3 definition of Service Access and Configuration Management is:


- The SACM process manages the service assets in order to support the other Service Management processes.


- SACM objective is to define and control the components of services and infrastructure and maintain accurate configuration information on the historical, planned and current state of the services and infrastructure.


 


It’s vital to provide integrated, accurate and current data across IT and it requires rigorous processes to achieve this federation of data. A goal of SACM is to establish Asset Manager as the reference source of assets from the point assets are procured to the time they are retired. But what’s best method of federating data?  


 


HP’s Asset Manager integrates with the UCMDB to automate the ITSM process without requiring a monolithic repository and it ensures all hardware and software assets supporting business services are effectively managed.  It also provides a clear illustration of dynamic enrichment of CI by federating attributes from an external authoritative source of data.


 


Is your company tangled up in confusing asset reports and CMDB's?  Is your data federated across your IT environment?  I want to know your thoughts...

Important week for Software Asset Management

You may have read my recent posts about Software Asset Management, where I have been promoting the ISO19770-2 software ID tags.


This is an important week for the future of Software Asset Management.  This week, US General Services Administration (GSA) is meeting with some of the people involved in passing the ISO 19770-2 standard and TagVault.org.  They will be discussing whether US Government will adopt ISO 19770-2 software tags as a requirement for all future software purchases.


I for one, hope the GSA adopts this requirement and forces software companies to include these tags with all software  I also hope the GSA will adopt an aggressive and realistic date for the requirement to be mandatory.  I also hope this is a “hard” requirement, because otherwise adoption rates may be low, or may take a long time for these tags to become common.  The tags are relatively easy to create and TagVault.org can provide assistance and, perhaps more importantly, is becoming a central tag certification and signing authority.


In other words, I hope the outcome of the meeting will be a statement like this “in order to sell software to US Government, your software must include ISO 19770-2 tag.  The requirement is effective January 1, 2011”, as opposed to “US Government will prefer to use software which includes ISO 19770-2 tags from today on”.


I will be waiting for the results of the meeting.  I hope the GSA decides to require these tags and soon.


If you are involved in Software Asset Management this could be like Christmas in March.  And if all goes really well, then maybe the requirement will come into effect in time for Christmas this year.

Search
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Do you mean 
About the Author(s)
  • HP IT Service Management Product Marketing team manager. I am also responsible for our end-to-end Change, Configuration, and Release Management (CCRM) solution. My background is engineering and computer science in the networking and telecom worlds. As they used to say in Telcom, "the network is the business" (hence huge focus on service management). I always enjoyed working with customers and on the business side of things, so here I am in ITSM marketing.
  • David has led a career in Enterprise Software for over 20 years and has brought to market numerous successful IT management products and innovations.
  • I am the PM of UCMDB and CM. I have a lot of background in configuration management, discovery, integrations, and delivery. I have been involved with the products for 12 years in R&D and product management.
  • Gil Tzadikevitch HP Software R&D Service Anywhere
  • This account is for guest bloggers. The blog post will identify the blogger.
  • Jacques Conand is the Director of ITSM Product Line, having responsibility for the product roadmap of several products such as HP Service Manager, HP Asset Manager, HP Universal CMDB, HP Universal Discovery and the new HP Service Anywhere product. Jacques is also chairman of the ITSM Customer Advisory Board, ensuring the close linkage with HP's largest customers.
  • Jody Roberts is a researcher, author, and customer advocate in the Product Foundation Services (PFS) group in HP Software. Jody has worked with the UCMDB product line since 2004, and currently takes care of the top 100 HP Software customers, the CMS Best Practices library, and has hosted a weekly CMDB Practitioner's Forum since 2006.
  • Mary is a member of HP’s ITSM product marketing team and is responsible for HP Service Anywhere. She has 20+ years of product marketing, product management, and channel/alliances experience. Mary joined HP in 2010 from an early-stage SaaS company providing hosted messaging and mobility services. She also has product management experience in the ITSM industry. Mary has a BS in Computer Science and a MBA in Marketing. Follow: @MaryRasmussen_
  • Michael Pott is a Product Marketing Manager for HP ITSM Solutions. Responsibilities include out-bound marketing and sales enablement. Michael joined HP in 1989 and has held various positions in HP Software since 1996. In product marketing and product management Michael worked on different areas of the IT management software market, such as market analysis, sales content development and business planning for a broad range of products such as HP Operations Manager and HP Universal CMDB.
  • Ming is Product Manager for HP ITSM Solutions
  • Nimish Shelat is currently focused on Datacenter Automation and IT Process Automation solutions. Shelat strives to help customers, traditional IT and Cloud based IT, transform to Service Centric model. The scope of these solutions spans across server, database and middleware infrastructure. The solutions are optimized for tasks like provisioning, patching, compliance, remediation and processes like Self-healing Incidence Remediation and Rapid Service Fulfilment, Change Management and Disaster Recovery. Shelat has 21 years of experience in IT, 18 of these have been at HP spanning across networking, printing , storage and enterprise software businesses. Prior to his current role as a World-Wide Product Marketing Manager, Shelat has held positions as Software Sales Specialist, Product Manager, Business Strategist, Project Manager and Programmer Analyst. Shelat has a B.S in Computer Science. He has earned his MBA from University of California, Davis with a focus on Marketing and Finance.
  • Oded is the Chief Functional Architect for the HP Service and Portfolio Management products, which include Service Manager, Service Anywhere, Universal CMDB & Discovery, Asset Manager, Project and Portfolio Manager.
  • Olivier is Product Line Manager for the HP Configuration Management System (CMS) which is comprised of UCMDB, UCMDB Configuration Manager, the UCMDB Browser, and Universal Discovery.
  • I am Senior Product Manager for Service Manager. I have been manning the post for 10 years and working in various technical roles with the product since 1996. I love SM, our ecosystem, and our customers and I am committed to do my best to keep you appraised of what is going on. I will even try to keep you entertained as I do so. Oh and BTW... I not only express my creativity in writing but I am a fairly accomplished oil painter.
  • WW Sr Product Marketing Manager for HP ITPS VP of Apps & HP Load Runner
  • Vesna is the senior product marketing manager at HP Software. She has been with HP for 13 years in R&D, product management and product marketing. At HP she is responsible for go to market and enablement of the HP IT Performance Suite products.
  • A 25+ year veteran of HP, Yvonne is currently a Senior Product Manager of HP ITSM software including HP Service Anywhere and HP Service Manager. Over the years, Yvonne has had factory and field roles in several different HP businesses, including HP Software, HP Enterprise Services, HP Support, and HP Imaging and Printing Group. Yvonne has been masters certified in ITIL for over 10 years and was co-author of the original HP IT Service Management (ITSM) Reference Model and Primers.
HP Blog

HP Software Solutions Blog

Featured


Follow Us
Labels
The opinions expressed above are the personal opinions of the authors, not of HP. By using this site, you accept the Terms of Use and Rules of Participation.