IntelliMirror Savings: Need Philosophy, Not Just Technology - Product Information

For several years, GartnerGroup research has indicated that enterprises can reduce desktop and server total cost of ownership (TCO) by 18 to 26 percent if they implement well-managed environments. The IntelliMirror features of Windows 2000 -- formerly known as Zero Administration Windows, or ZAW -- fit within GartnerGroup's definition of tools needed for a well-managed environment. But many managers seem to assume that by implementing this software-distribution, data-replication, and policy-management solution, attaining manageability is a foregone conclusion. This raises a question: If an enterprise has an unmanaged environment today, will the bundling of desktop management tools with the operating system make the enterprise any more successful in deploying them? In most cases it will not.

Many enterprises have purchased desktop management solutions that address areas such as software distribution. Features like policy management are already a part of the Windows NT and Windows 9x operating systems, and Microsoft Corp. also developed a free, downloudable program to make policies more usable. The problem is that many enterprises have purchased these solutions, but do not use them, have not fully deployed them, or have not deployed them at all. In some cases, the issues impeding deployment are technical. In most cases the issues are cultural or political.

Corporate culture and politics are the primary inhibitors to the use of desktop management software. Many users think of their PCs as personal devices, rather than enterprise clients. Many corporations have decentralized IT management, and departments are left to fend for themselves or purchase from a loosely enforced list of supported hardware and software. Other enterprises are more centralized, but IT management has not had the clout to apply policies or to lock down desktops. Satisfaction issues compound the problem as users often do their own technical support, precluding lock-down. In some cases, where desktops are locked, enterprises must justify extra IT costs with savings in soft costs, such as end-user operations and increased user efficiency. While these important metrics should be included in any cost-benefit analysis, many IS managers, business managers, and CIOs will not consider savings in soft costs to justify projects. Desktop management software bundled into the operating system will not resolve any of these issues.

Although having management tools included in the operating system is a good start, the tools included will not be sufficient for most large enterprises. Many of the tools, such as software distribution, are site-centric, requiring manual methods or other tools to manage a large, distributed enterprise. Most large facilities will have to augment the built-in tools with other products from Microsoft or third parties. Therefore, although desktop management is included in the operating system, enterprises will still have to evaluate, plan, and deploy management products to provide a complete solution. The technical issues and integration problems that inhibited deployment of these products in the past are likely to inhibit their deployment under Windows 2000, as well.

For enterprises to get the most out of desktop management products, they need a cohesive set of policies and processes governing how the products are used, distributed, and applied (see below). GartnerGroup research shows that, without these processes in place, only a small portion of the TCO benefit is actually achieved. Furthermore, an enterprise must understand its current environment to establish a baseline. Thus, the management features in Windows 2000 will not guarantee success unless proper measurements are taken and processes are developed for their use.

Enterprises that have been unsuccessful in deploying desktop management solutions will not be successful in using the management tools in Windows 2000. They will not realize their goals for Windows 2000 return on investment unless they analyze their previous failures and take corrective action. In 2002, GartnerGroup predicts 80 percent of enterprises that did not have a manageable Windows desktop environment in 1999 will not have a manageable Windows 2000 environment and will have failed to recoup their migration costs. While Windows 2000 will supply desktop management functionality, it will not help users address process, political, or cultural issues, and will require additional technology if it is to be a complete solution for large enterprises.

Policies and Processes for Effective Desktop Management

* Service-level agreements

* Processes surrounding desktop management

* Policy for remote control

* Policies for standard hardware configurations

* Process for requesting, evaluating, and certifying compatible new applications

* Policy and process on standards variance approval

* Policy for support of nonstandard products

* Policy and process for classifying levels of desktop management and lack-down

* Processes for technical support, dispatch, and escalation

* Policy for repair and reimaging of desktops

* Policy on end-user training

* Processes for the rollout and support of systems management

* Processes for software/configuration rollback

* Processes for scheduling and change management activities

* Policies and processes for service to remote locations/users

* Processes for gathering feedback for improvements

* Processes for educating all on the value of systems management

* Process for quantifying the value of well-managed desktops

COPYRIGHT 2000 Boucher Communications, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2000 Gale Group