Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Reluctance for Configuration Management

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    88

    Reluctance for Configuration Management

    I have worked at a few companies, and have heard from a few people working at others that suggest (at least anecdotally) there is a reluctance to put time or effort into Configuration Management. I have seen projects go through considerable rework (over budget and late) because of changes in one portion that are not articulated to other engineers performing work on adjacent systems that could be and ultimately were impacted by the change. Personally, I have told the story many times where I learned the value of configuration and change management.

    Are your experiences the similar? Is there organizational reluctance to undertake a reasonable approach to configuration management? Is there a way to build an adaptive system that can shrink or grow depending upon the size and scope of the project ensuring a cost effective approach is employed? If there is reluctance, why?

  2. #2
    Any Change is open to resistance, Configuration Management is no exception. Much of what I see is people wed to Microsoft applications like Excel and Access and they think it is easier to update a spreadsheet or their own DB than to use other technology that has more visibility, transparency (read may show they are not updating CIs on a timely basis) and capability for automation.

    The other issue that arises is IT's general lack of communication to those who actually do daily tasking and work on the technology and their changes. Much of this "I'll update my own CMDB" is found in low maturity organizations, the old Mom and Pop shop thinking. My experience shows that most Organizational Change Management (OCM) initiatives to deal with Change are too cumbersome and the approaches that, to me, seem to have the most buy in are those that show people how the Change, Configuration Management, affects their work day in a positive manner, making their day go smoothly, prevents getting pulled into RCAs and allows them to work more effectively.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    88

    When it comes to change

    I entirely agree with your comments below. In my experience, even the demonstration of the reasons for and benefits of, are often not sufficient to alter the course. I have been part of top down change, and that in my experience has had limited if any success. Bottom up engages the team, and can be workable in pockets, but pockets of change does not bring a sustaining change across the board. Both top down and bottom up are required. When it comes to specific CM failures, it is also exactly as you say. Don't look behind my curtain, trust that this is being taken care of appropriately. Tools can help, and tools that support the product lifecycle are better so we need not worry about who has access to what tool. I have seen much waste when we use one tool for some part of the work, another tool for another, and nobody can really get a snap shot of the true state of the product and the work. I hate excel sheets for - test reporting, CM work, project time plan - yes even the Gantt Chart. Excel sheet on one person's desktop / laptop, who knows the true state, or which document is the latest version, or which was the iteration before and what changed.

    It sure seems easier at times than it actually is.

  4. #4
    Thank you for sharing the valuable information

  5. #5
    This is a good post. This post give truly quality information. I’m definitely going to look into it. Really very useful tips are provided here. thank you so much. Keep up the good works.
    Last edited by JonMQuigley; 04-24-2019 at 11:50 AM.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •