Standardization, good or evil?

Willem Kossen
M&I/Partners

Abstract

To make systems administration easier, most sysads opt for strong levels of standardization as they call it. What they mean is to limit the variation and to decrease the number of different components like software applications and hardware configurations. Also they usually look at limiting the possibilities for users to increase security. From a governance point of view, this can be a good thing. However, when limiting the options, the chance for using the best of breed systems and applications decreases as well. The possibility for users to work comfortably can also be negatively impacted. This is generally not in the interest of the organisation the sysad is supporting in the first place.

How should standardization be used to support the organisation better without causing all sorts of headaches for the systems administrators? What are the do's and don'ts? How to deal with conflicting interest within organizations? This is what I will talk about. Making choices that are aimed at win-win, decreasing risk without decreasing workability. Subjects that will be covered are a.o.

• dealing with (conflicting) (non- functional) requirements
• how about architecture and frameworks
• choose better. How can we actually decide which choice is best?
• how to deal with Open Source
• how to deal with Open Standards
• external factors that influence our decisions

Biography

Speaker is ir. Willem J. Kossen, Consultant and Architect at M&I/Partners. Member of the NLUUG. Weblog at http://willemkossen.nl/b.