Case study #2
Telecom Company asked the system Integrator to sell 600TB of space to store backup copies of data. Unfortunately, the budget for that is very limited. Integrator hopes for a long-term relationship with the customer and therefore decided to use Human Defined Services approach to solving the situation the most efficient way.
This is User-centric
After some discussion, the key question was defined as: “How to provide enough space to store backup data”. Job statement is very concrete: “Provide sufficient space to store backup data during next 2 years”. Check the Outcome-driven services post
Information about the current environment was collected.
|Consumer||IT department in Telecom company|
|Stakeholders||Mark Bloggs – IT infrastructure manager
Eric Doe – Storage / Backup Administrator
|Job statement||Provide enough space to store backup data during next 2 years|
|Service objective||Develop and deliver solution for backup|
|Significant factors||Budget, scalability for 2 years|
|Deliverables||Detailed description of HW and SW solution, list of recommendations|
|Scope||All backup data in the Data Center in Brussels|
Service was classified as Autonomous.
Disk arrays already purchased and dedicated for backup so this kind of resources defined as Push.
Administrators are employees of the company and share activities related to backup with other tasks. They are a Push-Pool resource.
Requests for backup configuration are sent via email. That is Asynchronous communication.
Users usually ask for data recovery by phone. That is Synchronous.
The project started with communication with system integrators’ experts. On initial stage, everything looks clear enough. The task is just to find a good technical solution. That is Complicated Cynefin domain.
|Type of service||Autonomous|
|Resource delivery||Storage – Push
People – Push-Pool
|Communication||Backup – Asynchronous
Recovery – Synchronous
Expert started to analyze alternatives how to increase the storage capacity. There are two choices either upgrade and optimize already existing storage or purchase a new one.
Alternatives are visualized on the issue tree diagram.
Unfortunately, most of the alternatives do not solve the problem. The reasons are low budget and technological limitations of existing storage. The only choice that remains for the next consideration is the new storage that partially covers required capacity. A budget allows purchasing storage with 400TB of capacity taking into account conservative deduplication and compression ratio.
Additional 200TB are needed. That problem can’t be resolved in the Complicated domain. So the Complex approach of ideas generating and checking is appropriate. Instead of increasing storage capacity let’s decrease an amount of data to backup.
SLAs don’t allow reducing frequency of backups or using incremental instead of full. However, more precise re-estimation of capacity, needed for the next 2 years, with cleaning out of the list of data sets to backup, decrease requirements from 600TB to 450TB.
That is Co-creative
Discussion with the customer gave another possibility – to free up some space on existing storage. Changes in retention policy, movement of archives to a tape library and deleting of obsolete and unimportant backups can release 100-150TB of space.
This is Evidencing
On implementation phase project plan and specification of required equipment were created. They were sent via email and given in printed form.
Service was successfully delivered.
Other use cases