Technology Migration and Production Systems
Models for Technological Change
Individwls adgoups, mdevenco~orations embrace techology differently. Some
rush forward to take on the latest and greatest eagerly, while others have to be dragged
into contact with anything new. Anticipating the acceptance of a new technology or
system can be more dii%cult than predicting the weather. But within the spectrum of
responses to change, it is helpfd to classify the acceptance of or aversion to technological
change for the purposes of discussing the best approach to implement it. The following
models are useful for describing the environments and characteristics of AM/FM/GIS
users (either individuals or groups) and their reactions to new technology. We may think
of them as the Indi#erent, Intrepid and Incremental models.
Indifferent
The Indifferent user or group behaves as though they care nothing for new technology,
and have no interest in its benefits. Users that fall into this model essentially ignore
change, and may have the most to risk in adopting a new AM/FM/GIS. Users with low
interest in new systems typically have these common characteristics: they have existing
production AM/FM/GIS, and are not reliant on outside sources for support. They also
tend to have a stable pool of end-user and technical support staffing.
Of course, in this age of technological change, no AM/FM/GIS user or manager is
completely ignorant of the trends and improvements in technology. But while many
users of mature systems have the feeling that there might be benefits “out there” in new
technology, they may lack the motivation to pursue those benefits. And even if they are
persuaded that some new form of tool can better meet their needs, they may feel locked in
to existing technology.
There are, however, risks associated with ignoring new AM/FM/GIS technology, most of
which are associated with failures in the system. These come in roughly three categories:
- Catastrophic external failure. The past few years have seen the demise of once-powerfid
vendors. If the platform (hardware, software, database) vendor should
cease to exist, maintenance and support can become scarce, and expensive. A
complete failure could lead to major production stoppage.
- Cataclysmic internalfailure. With no plan to move from existing technology, and
a system entirely dependent on internal support resources, an internal component
failure can be painful and even fatal. For example, dependence on a stable
support team can be a weakness when an outsourcing program eliminates
knowledgeable staff. If the base technology is non standard, external
programming and support staff could be very difficult to find.
- Climactic change in business requirements. Over time, business priorities and
processes change. Today in the utility industry, the pace of that change is
increasing rapidly. It may be that the existing AM/FM system that met the basic
mapping needs of the past no longer addresses all current business needs.
Intrepid
The Intrepid user or group is at the opposite pole from indifference in terms of interest in
new technology. This ‘whole hog’ user resolutely pursues new technology, and races to
employ (and deploy) all of the latest tools and databases. The environment of this user
may be characterized by a partially-implemented system which is not quite meeting
expectations, and by one or more users with intense personal interest in aspects of
computer technology. The management of the Intrepid utility may have had a negative
experience with an expensive automated system that quickly became obsolete.
The risks in this model maybe obvious, but they are worth stating.
- Expectations maybe set but not met. The expectations for new technology are
always high, and may be greater than the ability of that technology to deliver.
New systems are commonly oversold, and the pain and strain of change maybe
perceived as out of proportion to the benefit, if expectations cannot be managed
properly.
- The existing infrastructure may not support the new system. Sometimes known as
the ripple effect, it is often the case that the network, or operating systems, or even
the hardware platforms themselves cannot support the latest tools. As a result, a
relatively small change in base technology may cause a wider change in
environment to support it.
- Migration delivery schedules based on new technology are very rarely met. In
truth, basing a production software delivery on brand new base tools will almost
never result in an on-time delivery; the very nature of the technology means that
the developers will have to experiment and tune to produce the optimum solution.
Production-quality systems are hard to build even when all hardware and software
factors are known; throwing in a few base technology variables is unlikely to
improve the mix.
Incremental
The Incremental model or approach is the moderate response to ignoring or over-comrnitting
to new technology. Within this model, the user or manager approaches new
automation tools and techniques with cautious optimism, picking areas where new
technology is appropriate. Typically, this user works with mature AM/FM/GIS. Often,
dissatisfaction with some aspect of the current system causes the user to evaluate new
technology. The incremental user usually has a specific target in mind for replacing or
upgrading a system, with measurable goals and known benefits to be achieved from the
effort. This model, as the name suggests, will typically replace part of an existing
AM/FM/GIS, and even if a complete replacement is desired, will plan and execute the
change over in stages.
Obviously, the incremental approach is designed to mitigate risk. But not all risks can be
eliminated from any system implementation, and it is worth describing two of those that
can befidl this model.
- Perception of redundant effort.
During the cut over of a production system, it is
usually the case that the new system must be operated in parallel with the old.
One of the difficulties in implementation is the testing of the new technology
under production conditions; problems discovered at this stage may prolong the
parallel operation, leading to the perception that the investment in new
capabilities is actually forcing the company to multiply its computing
expenditures for no real productivity increase. Even if the business case for
migration is clear, there can be a perception in the user community or within
management that a redundant effort is being made to reproduce the same benefit.
- Maintenance of redundant systems.
Replacing an AM/FM/GIS a piece at a time
will leave some of the old system intact, possibly for some time. While the new
system is only partially implemented, some of the factors that make the existing
technology undesirable will still be in place. For example, if the hardware
platform carries expensive maintenance charges, until it is no longer needed,
maintenance will continue, even though many fhnctions in the old system have
been replaced with newer, less expensive technology.
In the author’s opinion, these risks can be managed, and more successfidly so than with
the other models described. Most of the following section is geared towards suggestions
that can help to get a production environment user and management ready to embrace, or
at least think about and plan for new technology.
