Slashdot Mirror
System Admin's Unit of Production?
RailGunSally writes "I am a (strictly technical) member of a large *nix systems admin team at a Fortune 150. Our new IT Management Overlord is a hardcore bean-counter from hell. We in the trenches have been tasked with providing 'metrics' on absolutely everything from system utilization to paper clip recycling. Of course, measuring productivity is right up there at the top of the list. We're stumped as to a definition of the basic unit of productivity for a *nix admin. There is a school of thought in our group that holds that if the PHBs are simple enough to want to operate purely from pie charts and spreadsheets, then we should just graph some output from /dev/random and have done with it. I personally love the idea, but I feel the need for due diligence, so I put the question to the Slashdot community: How does one reasonably quantify admin productivity?"
of Jolt Cola consumed.
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
How many tickets answered per day? Completed per day? /dev/random is probably the most elegant though
The best sys admins are the ones you never notice. If the productive workers in a company never see or need to talk to a sys admin it's been a productive day for the admins.
Unit of Productivity = 1 / (hours of down time)
They are paying you to keep bad things from happening.
You aren't building automobiles or painting teapots. You are a support function and not a line function.
You should have business plan objectives. These things are usually annual; there can be longer strategic objectives. If the person who set these things did it right, they should be measurable.
What I'm trying to say is, if you're banging your head against the wall trying to figure out how your performance should be measured, your higher up didn't set your objectives correctly.
This doesn't apply anywhere and everywhere. When the organization is in the business of IT itself, you might be measured differently since you'd then be contributing directly to the organization's core business. But from the description provided, it sounds like you're not.
The Banjo Players Must Die!
What you need to do is contact some other F150 companies and ask their senior IT admins/CTOs how they measure productivity. I work for a major investment firm and we have metrics for everything we do (even though we're private) because of two primary reasons:
1. its how you improve, and
2. its what our competitors do too.
Its that simple.
pi=sigma{n:0-infinity}[(1/16)^n][(4/(8n+1))-(2/(8n +4))-(1/ (8n+5))-(1/(8n+6))]
Assume for a second you had a perfect server farm. Its always up, backups are made, users are added and removed, etc. While we are at it, assume you have a staff of say two admins per shift, 24x7. That's at least 8 admins, probably more to cover holidays, vacation, etc. In this case, their productivity is zero, they have nothing to do. In reality, they are working their tails off, and deserve a nice bonus. So tell the PHB that productivity is not important, its problems. Its uptime, transactions delivered, average delay on transactions, etc. Get the Users to define what the 'requirements' are, and have the sysadmins deliver it. That is the measure of what is important.
RailGunSally wrote:
>We in the trenches have been tasked with providing 'metrics' on absolutely everything from system utilization to paper clip recycling.
This pretty much says it all; your manager wants you to do HIS job. Shouldn't he develop his own metrics? He can ask you for ideas but he should do the work himself. As for metrics, I'd suggest downtime percentages for each machine. If the services are up and running and the machines are online providing service then that should be metrics enough.
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
The problem is the numbers don't look good. To quantify what you're looking for you'd want "number of hours spent idle" i.e if a sysadmin did his job well and has everything running smoothly, how many hours does he have with nothing needing to be done?
Once any manager or other authority type sees that number though rather than seeing you did a good job at keeping things reliable, they'll see you as lazy and assign work you shouldn't be doing (other peoples jobs).
Really just about anything other than data entry is hard to quantify in the computer field. Someone suggested troubletickets.. but theres a huge difference between a ticket that requires you to restart apache, and one that requires you to strace half your system to debug, and raw ticket numbers don't tell you that.
On the same note, lines of code mean nothing to actual programming, nor do "functions per day" or anything similar as again, you can't quantify the effort required in an easy line vs hard line. Is it a simple debug print or core logic you had to scratch out on a whiteboard to keep sane?
Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
You can evaluate how many users the SA's systems serve, how many systems the SA maintains, and how much data throughput all these users/systems generate.
A confused Microsoft-SA running in circles around an Exchange server all day in order to serve 200 users is not "efficient" compared to a Linux-SA running an MTA which services 25.000 users (with better response times).
On the other hand, a non-skilled Linux-SA who is fiddling with a SAMBA server in order to maintain 200 users with Windows clients is not very "efficient" compared to a skilled Microsoft-SA with a well configured AD.
Off course you can measure SA efficiency. And there is nothing bad about it. In most cases it is even a benefit for the *nix admins.
- Jesper
My security clearance is so high I have to kill myself if I remember I have it...
Of course, it's not productivity, but it's a measurement of the quality of service. Combine that with other indicators like users served, requests serviced, emails delivered, etc. and you can actually chart improvements in "productivity".
Even something like average time to solve a ticket or bring up a server is a useful indicator. Granted, it'll vary depending on what the failure is, but over time it should average out to a useful picture.
Hours Worked Fixing Problems divided by Hours Worked Doing Routine Work
The lower the number, the more efficient the sys admin is. A good sys admin doesn't have to do anything, because everything is already set up and working. If the admin is constantly fixing servers, bringing them up, restoring data from backups, etc., etc., etc., then he isn't doing his job. If the majority of his day is spent sleeping in his chair and responding to the occasional email and things are running smoothly, then you can't ask for anything more.
Love sees no species.
Simple answer is that you don't. Productivity in terms of IT and related fields has become a dirty little word but more than that it is a business term, not technical. If you aren't a director or higher in title, and your duties don't include justifying expenses and planning resources for solutions, then it isn't really your realm to measure something like productivity. If this guy has an MBA or similar qualifications, it is he who should know how to measure productivity. But alas the word productivity has become corrupted by half-assed business journalists trying to write articles about over all productivity and how your employees waste too much time on facebook. If this guy just wants a number and gives you no guidelines as to how to come up with the number, then my guess is that he just wants to kiss up to the CEO that "productivity" is up 40% or he wants a number to justify laying off people. Either way, if he cant tell you how he reached his number, I would suggest getting your resume ready.
Also ideally, a CTO wouldn't be asking those in the trenches how to measure productivity, but rather how to improve it. As someone in the trenches, you probably know where the snags are in efficiency, or what software you would need to purchase to help smooth things along or even where people are over worked or over looked. This is the positive way to improve productivity. Basically he should be asking you what you need in order to get your job done, and he should get it for you (within reason of course)
meep
1) Ask him what he wants to hear
2) Tell him what he wants to hear.
If you can't reasonably tell him what he wants to hear, tell him how much it will cost to produce what he wants to hear.
This is not a technical consideration. This is a political consideration. He already has an idea of how to cover his ass. Give him the asbestos he wants.
...no matter what your boss says. Just don't do it. It is management's responsibility to come up with metrics. If they can't do that, they're not qualified to hold their position, and frankly, I would tell them to their face. It might get you fired. But I've taken the "this is not my responsibility" tack before with some success. The reason this stuff happens is because workers allow it to happen, and if you don't stand your ground once in a while they will just keep shoving this type of crap at you.
I remember an old joke about a furnace repairman coming to a home and after looking at the furnace for about a minute and a half, listening to the rumbles and gurgles. He takes his hammer out and at once precise place he hits the furnace. The furnace starts up and runs fine as if it was brand new.
The bill was $200.
The homeowner asks why so much when all he did was hit it once with a hammer?
The repairman takes back the bill, and itemizes the bill still totaling $200.
Cost of hammering, $1
Knowing where to Hammer $199
Any idiot can muck about on a UNIX box, I worked at one Fortune 500 company where everybody in the dept had Double E's. Still their main Solaris server crashed ever 3-5 hours daily and had been for months.
Took me a week to unscrew it and put everything back in order.
Me, I am high school dropout with no GED and some non-technical college courses. Still most of what I was doing was letting them do their work and not have to bother about broken systems. My value was on par with theirs as it was time they didn't lose on their work.
Nevertheless beancounters are stupid (also Beancounters are not accountants), they know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. If you really want to send their head swirling take the entire labor budget for each dept expressed as an hourly unit. Every time you work for a dept internally charge the company that much for each hour you work on a project or ticket for them or better still your company and tell them thats how much it costs. Without Sysadmins nobody does anything but fight technical fires and gets no work done.
Likely this joker found out that Auto Mechanics have a book to calculate how much to charge for each service and repair with details on how long each job should take. This doesn't work because Sysadmins are closer to being chefs or doctors then low end auto mechanics.
Even so, people who own Jaguars, Ferrari, and Maserati don't take them to Jiffy Lube.
If they complain tell them the story about about that hammer. (or better yet use on on them)
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
>you just saved two full weeks of your live by passing 'that guy.'
What? Since when is going fast a time machine?* It just means you got some where quicker, and could start being an asshole to someone at your destination earlier.
* Ignoring special relativity.
Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
This pretty much says it all; your manager wants you to do HIS job. Shouldn't he develop his own metrics? He can ask you for ideas but he should do the work himself.
You are right, but you are also skating on thin ice here. Asking someone who has no clue what is happening to set metrics is just asking for trouble....
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
... in my opinion, is to be as bored as possible. Everything which is done on a regular basis should be as automated as possible, and as much effort and resources thrown at avoiding potential problems as the finances and customers will allow (data backups, spare or redundant equipment, etc.).
Much of a "good" sysadmin's time should be spent doing regular, but occasional spot checks on the automation (which can also be greatly automated) to ensure everything is running as smoothly as possible.
Obviously, not all problems can be avoided, especially hardware failures, but if everything else is in place, even recovering a dead, but critical server can be fairly painless.
I am an SA who became a bean counter. One of my primary motivations was that I saw f*ck-ups getting rewarded with less work and raises while hard-working SAs suffered with more work and dead end jobs.
I think management deserves to know what is good work and what isn't. If you leave it up to them, they are going to pick something like tickets resolved or customer satisfaction and you are going to see the a**-kissers move up while the hard-working straight-shooters get the shaft.
I think the metrics described here are good ones, but I'd change #4 to the ratio of load to capacity -- which is a measure of efficiency and good planning. Overall, a good SA should be able to maximize delivery of services. I'd also change #5 to security risk measured as ELV (expected loss value). I know a lot of security professionals who hate this and think it is meaningless, but so far none has given me any better metric to show management that security risks are actually getting better managed over time.
In short, think of what a good SA does for a company and propose metrics that reflect that. Do NOT leave it up to management like some have suggested. THey are asking for your opinion as an expert. Step up and show that you are the expert by giving them an expert answer. Show them that you know the difference between a good job and a bad job.