Tag: ibm

I had the pleasure of sitting down with IBM distinguished engineer Rosalind Radcliffe the other day to talk about bimodal IT, systems of engagement, variable speed DevOps and IBM’s upcoming InterConnect 2016 event.  I have interviewed Rosalind many times over the last few years and it is always informative and interesting. I hope you find it to be so as well.

Below is the SoundCloud streaming audio interview, followed by the transcript of our talk.  Enjoy!

Alan Shimel:                Hi, Alan Shimel here with another DevOps Chats, and my guest is – for this session is a friend of mine, Rosalind Radcliffe of IBM. Rosalind, welcome.

Rosalind Radcliffe:      Thank you. 

Alan Shimel:                Rosalind, I think you’ve appeared on DevOps Chats before, and of course we have done webinars and videos together, and so many other things. But for members of our audience who may not be familiar with who you are; do you want to give a brief background?

Rosalind Radcliffe:      Sure. So I’m Rosalind Radcliffe, I’m a Distinguished Engineer at IBM, and I’m responsible for our DevOps strategy for Enterprise Systems. So I am not only responsible for driving our product direction, but I really spend a lot of time with clients helping them with their DevOps transformations for their Enterprise Systems – mostly mainframe, and their systems of record.

Alan Shimel:                Excellent. Rosalind, of course, we’re going to talk a little bit about today about this term that’s been creeping up, Bimodal IT, and then I want to spend some time talking to you about the upcoming InterConnect Conference as well. Maybe we can combine Bimodal IT and InterConnect; I don’t what we would call that, but Trimodal. Anyway, so Rosalind in talking offline before we jumped on here I think we both agreed that we weren’t big fans of the term Bimodal IT, and all that seems to have entailed now. Do you want to share with our audience why you may not be a fan?

Rosalind Radcliffe:      Yeah. I think the term and the way it’s used isn’t implying that there is a defined slowness for the systems of record. I think it’s important instead of saying Bimodal to say more variable speed IT or something that implies that the systems may move at different speeds. I’m not going to disagree with that, but it’s not that one is inherently faster and one is inherently slower. It’s that hopefully for your system of record you’ve built that as a set of API’s or services, and so you don’t have to change the services as often as you need to change that system of engagement to entice the users to stay connected.

So it really should be about how the systems of record and the systems of engagement can work together through loose coupling, and through proper services. I do think that is going to happen; there are going to be different speeds at different times. Sometimes, honestly, the systems of record might be moving faster than the systems of engagement, because there are changes needed – regulation changes, etc. But it’s – we need to pay attention to it from that standpoint and that’s the reason why I don’t like Bimodal IT. It’s really variable speed.

Alan Shimel:                Yep. The other point that gets me with it is this whole idea of Bimodal IT, it almost takes that we have two tracks if you will, that move at different – or two trains on a track that move at very different speeds. But they never interact; it’s almost – it almost reminds me of civil rights, separate but equal. We have the water fountain for the mainframe guys, and a water fountain for the cloud dudes, and they both serve water so that’s okay. But the mainframe guys can’t drink from the cloud dude’s water fountain.

It didn’t work for civil rights, and – I don’t think it works for IT either. I think a better model when we talk about systems of record, systems of engagement, and this whole world, is more – I call it the Swiss watch model. Where you have gears that turn at different speeds, but they all mesh together in a fine tuned timepiece. To me, that’s a much better model than this idea of separate tracks, if you will. What do you think about that Rosalind?

Rosalind Radcliffe:      I actually think that’s a wonderful way of putting it. Because I think that – it would be a much better interpretation with the gears and the Swiss watch, and Swiss watch timing is always excellent with their gearing system; so that’s exactly what it is. The teams need to work together, and they need to be using the same tools, the same practices, the same processes, and each system needs to go at the speed that is required for the changes that they need to make. But they’re obviously interacting. Your systems of engagement is nothing without your systems of record. So they need to interface properly, they need to work together to provide this end-to-end solution for their end users.

So they have to be collaborating, and I – honestly I think the organizations that have brought the teams together, that do the systems of engagement and the systems of record into one team, actually do the best. They’re the most efficient; so they may have variable ability in the speed they’re delivering on different parts. But they’re all working together, they’re all collaborating, they’re all one team; not this separation idea. I think your example is very good, it’s not separate, but equal, it’s one team.

Alan Shimel:                I agree wholeheartedly. I’m not here blaming Gartner for pushing this whole Bimodal IT name and paradigm. But, Rosalind at last year’s InterConnect I remember having a bunch of conversations with you and Sanjeev Sharma and Carmen Diardo, and we were using the term variable speed IT. Right?

Rosalind Radcliffe:      Yes, absolutely.

Alan Shimel:                To talk about it – the similar thing, and, of course, I – we’ve heard other people use the term two speed IT. But I think in larger organizations, there’s actually more than two speeds; there’s a lot of different pieces that move at different speeds.

Rosalind Radcliffe:      That’s really the right answer. I really think it’s important have that ability to move at the speed required by businesses – the business demands, and that’s why it’s necessary. I think there’s a lot of thought process about Bimodal IT, because there are still or there seem to be people out there that still think the mainframe can’t move as fast, that it can’t use DevOps practices. I think that’s actually the core of the issue. We have to break down this thought process that the systems of record – the mainframe can’t move as fast, can’t be DevOps. It really can be, and it’s a reality – I guess it’s a hot button in a sense right now. I’ve just spent the last two weeks with two different clients, and this week with one of them – the first principle they put up was that there’s nothing about the mainframe that means it shouldn’t be DevOps. That the first principle is it needs to be DevOps, it needs to take advantage of the same pipeline, the same functions, the same capability to be able to move as fast as required in a reliable, consistent way with all the advantages of automated testing and automation.

Alan Shimel:                Absolutely. Rosalind, let’s turn a little bit to this year’s InterConnect where we will have – whether you want to call Bimodal IT, variable IT. There are out of the 200 or 300, I forget how many DevOps related tracks there, there will be some great ones, and I want to talk to you a little bit about that.

Rosalind Radcliffe:      Yeah, I’m looking forward to the event as well, though I’m not ready for it yet. There will be a lot of discussion and a number of sessions, both customers as well as IBMers talking about the variable speed IT or the different ways that different parts of the application development need to interact, and need to work together. One of the clients I was speaking with this week will be there talking about their DevOps development, particularly about how they’re literally building brand new applications on the in COBOL CICS applications using DevOps principles. So I look forward to all the different client discussions that are held there, bringing their teams together, and I think your Swiss gear interpretation is a good way of putting it. Because that’s what they’ll be talking about, how they’ve geared the teams together to be able to work together to provide the value the company needs.

Alan Shimel:                Absolutely. Rosalind, are you allowed – can we mention to our audience what company is that presenting? Are you allowed to say at this point or no?

Rosalind Radcliffe: So in that case, it’s Rabobank, because they’re published as a session speaker; so they’ll be speaking. There are actually quite a few. Rabobank’s one, UBS is another; there are numerous speakers scheduled – client speakers scheduled who are going to be speaking about their efforts and their transformations.

Alan Shimel:                Rosalind, what about you? I’m sure you’re speaking.

Rosalind Radcliffe:      Yeah, I have quite a few sessions that I’ll be discussing DevOps overall, working with clients and their transformations, the capabilities available, as well as having more discussions on the ops side of DevOps. I think one of the things that has been an interesting challenge is the how do we really bring ops into DevOps since we really do have ops organizations. That’s going to sound really strange, but when we think about DevOps a lot of the discussion has really focused on automation and delivery, not really focused necessarily on running the systems. So I’m trying to help some of the discussions bring more of the ops side in. How do we really get the ops collaboration coming in? How do we tie the teams together from a complete end-to-end standpoint?

Alan Shimel:                Excellent. Rosalind, it’s hard to pick among many, but what do you – besides the ones you just mentioned, give our audience – if they’re wondering should I go, should I not go, not sure; what are the two or three biggest either sessions or points of learning that you think people should know about to jump in here?

Rosalind Radcliffe:      Honestly, I think there are too many sessions to name, but the way to think about it is there are too many sessions to name. There are lots of client sessions, we’re going to be discussing their experiences. So the value out of a conference like this, one of the key values is the ability to hear from your peers, and to network with your peers to understand how they’ve done this, how they’re getting value. That’s the best way to learn from other people who are already experienced or who are experiencing. You’re going to learn from people who are headed for you, and you’re going to be helping people who are behind you. So it’s the networking, it’s the opportunity – hear those sessions, and the opportunity to meet all of the different people who are working in this space.

I think that’s the value of conferences like this; the chance to network and take advantage of that. Many people I’ve met in prior InterConnect’s have said it’s the collaboration, it’s the conversations, it’s the meeting of people that have given them the most value. Attending the sessions is also very important, but it’s the sessions that give them those contacts. So they learn in the session, and then they have this contact that allows them to continue to discuss. You always get fun – learn something new, you get some fun stories, you get something you’re really going to be able to take back and provide value to your organization.

Alan Shimel:                Absolutely. Rosalind, believe it or not we’re just about out of time; we probably have gone over. As usual it’s always — when this happens whenever we talk I apologize. But, I am looking forward to seeing several of your sessions at InterConnect, as well as I should mention – this is a quick plug, I am moderating a session myself on what DevOps will look like in the next three to five years, and I have none other than Gene Kim on the panel with me, which should be a lot of fun. So if anyone listening is attending Interconnect, please come on down for that one.

But, Rosalind, it should be quite a show, and I’m looking forward to how this whole Bimodal IT, variable speed IT, how it plays out. We’ve said it before, mainframes aren’t going anywhere, and the new way of doing things like DevOps and Agile and stuff it’s going to influence how we use our systems of engagement, but it’s not going to negate them. It’s always a pleasure to speak with you, and look forward to seeing you in Las Vegas February 21 to the 25^th correct?

Rosalind Radcliffe:      Correct. I’m looking forward to it as well, and as you mentioned the panel discussions, those are always wonderful. I’m hoping that I can make it to your session with Gene Kim if I’m not in another session myself. So I’m looking forward to it, and it’ll be a great week.

Alan Shimel:    Absolutely. Rosalind Radcliffe, Distinguished Engineer IBM, thanks for joining us today on this edition of DevOps Chats