Network Operations Luminaries?

Though I can name off several 'credentialed' network
engineering gurus and the 'bibles' of network engineering, a
recent discussion about the source of network operations
'best practices' left me speechless, and curious.

Who is/are the network operations equivalents of people like
Peter Drucker and Jack Welch--people who are looked at not
only has role models for operations success, but as
luminaries in the industry for having established and
educated the masses about best practices?

What would be the network operations equivalents to revered
business tomes like "The Practice of Management", "Seven
Habits of Highly Successful People", "The G.E. Way" (and a
variety of others that populate the shelves of your friendly
local executive)?

Most network-oriented training seems to focus on the
technology, not on operations (and those subtle but ever so
critical differences between knowing how something is
/supposed/ to work and how it /really/ works, and all of the
effort it takes to create a smooth-running operations
engine).

What are the network operations equivalents to business
programs such as Six Sigma? What about something similar to
the various leading institutions of business management,
institutions that study of how networks are operated (and
used), and develop training and methodologies for better
operations practices?

Pete.

inter-domain routing is a little short in the tooth to have
luminaries the way that "20th century capitalism" has luminaries. only
time will tell if our luminaries are are better than theirs.

joelja

We still don't know enough about how to actually run a network
to have luminaries. The occasional bright candle, maybe. Right
now, most of the suits are still trying to figure out why the
non-suits think the suits "Just Dont Get It" (the PHB syndrome).

Unfortunately, the Adams brothers (Scott and Douglas) seem to
have quite a bit of relevance (or more importantly - a large
percentage of the people working in *your* trenches *think* they
have relevance).

And both authors share the trait that they tend to be much more
an entertaining read than anything labeled a 'tome' :wink:

/Valdis

P.S. Yes, I know about the incorrect genealogical term 2 paragraphs
back. :wink:

Well, I'd say the network should be able to run itself. Like, just plug
the wire in, and it works. I do not see any _technical_ reason why it
shouldn't be like that.

Now, back to the regular Yet Another Useless Feature Sold To Us By OFRV
discussions :slight_smile:

--vadim

business management is in more need of luminaries as the business failure
rate is orders of magnitude higher than the internet packet drop rate.

randy

Though I can name off several 'credentialed' network
engineering gurus and the 'bibles' of network engineering, a
recent discussion about the source of network operations
'best practices' left me speechless, and curious.

Who is/are the network operations equivalents of people like
Peter Drucker and Jack Welch--people who are looked at not
only has role models for operations success, but as
luminaries in the industry for having established and
educated the masses about best practices?

A very intersting question. I too can think of people, books, and
practices that lay out best practices for network design, but not
operations. [One can argue that if those practices are followed,
operations becomes simple - but, as we all know, that 's not the case].

I can also think of a few people who can be considered luminaries as
regards network security - Cliff Stoll, Mark Eichin and Jon Rochlis, and
more recently, the CERT organization.

But for general operations, your statement seems to hold true:

Most network-oriented training seems to focus on the
technology, not on operations (and those subtle but ever so
critical differences between knowing how something is
/supposed/ to work and how it /really/ works, and all of the
effort it takes to create a smooth-running operations
engine).

What are the network operations equivalents to business
programs such as Six Sigma? What about something similar to

I recall a lot of very good people from my days at BBN, and we certainly
developed a lot of internal policies and procedures - particularly for our
government customers, who tend to insist on such things. I expect there ar
also a lot of people, policies, and procedures hidden within various
carriers, ISPs, and corporate IT/networking departments - but a lot of
that doesn't get visibility, at least in part because carriers tend to
consider such things to be proprietary information.

We really do need such information.

Miles Fidelman

:
: Though I can name off several 'credentialed' network
: engineering gurus and the 'bibles' of network engineering, a
: recent discussion about the source of network operations
: 'best practices' left me speechless, and curious.
:
: Who is/are the network operations equivalents of people like
: Peter Drucker and Jack Welch--people who are looked at not
: only has role models for operations success, but as
: luminaries in the industry for having established and
: educated the masses about best practices?

With regards to Peter Drucker... his sagacity lies in a deep
understanding of the history of his field and long observance
of such (some sixty years!). Jack Welch is hype. I don't
think we're in an equivalent place in the history of our field
where any-one can, definitively, say, either from long study
(Drucker) or manufactured hype (Welch), what works best, or
-perhaps more importantly- what underlying misconceptions
and mistakes fuel operations on a daily basis

: What would be the network operations equivalents to revered
: business tomes like "The Practice of Management", "Seven
: Habits of Highly Successful People", "The G.E. Way" (and a
: variety of others that populate the shelves of your friendly
: local executive)?
:
: Most network-oriented training seems to focus on the
: technology, not on operations (and those subtle but ever so
: critical differences between knowing how something is
: /supposed/ to work and how it /really/ works, and all of the
: effort it takes to create a smooth-running operations
: engine).

There are three distinct possibilities that I sense:

  It is thought that the basic, already known, principles
  of engineering and management are a good fit, thus
  the training assumes this;

  No one sets out to be 'in operations', but rather drift
  or fall into the part-- or perhaps have the part fallen
  unto them... =-), and the training reflects this;
  
  The whole is never perceived as greater than the sum
  of the parts. That is to say, attention is paid to
  the individual components of a network and the bigger
  operational picture isn't tended except as a means of
  managing individual components...

: What are the network operations equivalents to business
: programs such as Six Sigma? What about something similar to
: the various leading institutions of business management,
: institutions that study of how networks are operated (and
: used), and develop training and methodologies for better
: operations practices?

Don't know if you're aware: the IETF has two working groups in
the Operations and Management Area, that might be tangent to
what you're looking for: Benchmarking Methodology and Policy
Framework. Might be worth a look, even if not exactly what
you're thinking of... Though I've only glanced at them meself.

: Pete.
:
:

Randy Bush wrote:
    > business management is in more need of luminaries as the business failure
    > rate is orders of magnitude higher than the internet packet drop rate.

Yes, that's interesting. I hadn't looked at it that way. I guess you
could say that Internet routing is basically successful, since something
like 99.X% of packets are delivered to their destination, whereas business
is basically a bust, since 90% of business fail in the first 18 months (or
something like that). That's obviously an apples-to-oranges comparison,
since the packets have a short natural lifespan within which to succeed,
whereas the "natural lifespan" of a business is open-ended.

But back to the point, why we don't need luminaries in this business:
We're an engineering culture, and we celibrate the oral tradition of
didactic tales of failure, rather than the cult of personality. The
handing down of tales of failure, which is what we do for entertainment
and social reinforcement, is what allows us as engineers to build upon the
successes of previous generations and avoid replicating their failures.
Celebrating personality is irrelevant to our social construct; it serves
no function.

The luminaries of our culture, if they exist, are the engineers who made
the famous mistakes which are indelibly commited to our collective memory,
from which the greatest number of other engineers have learned a lesson
without replicating the learning experience first-hand.

                                -Bill

With regards to Peter Drucker... his sagacity lies in a deep
understanding of the history of his field and long observance
of such (some sixty years!). Jack Welch is hype. I don't

True, re. Drucker. Jack Welch is a bit more than hype - General Electric
is a heck of a business success story (even if some of its environmental
practices have been questionable). Not too many companies have quite the
track record of GE - and Welch was clearly behind a lot of that success.
He's also trained a lot of people.

think we're in an equivalent place in the history of our field
where any-one can, definitively, say, either from long study
(Drucker) or manufactured hype (Welch), what works best, or
-perhaps more importantly- what underlying misconceptions
and mistakes fuel operations on a daily basis

there are probably a lot of lessons that can be extracted from other
operational contexts - electric operations, air traffic control, emergency
response, military command and control

Miles

:
:
: business management is in more need of luminaries as the business failure
: rate is orders of magnitude higher than the internet packet drop rate.

But that's sooo not what we're talking about here... Two points:

  Business failure rates are not a function of the number
  of "luminaries" (I'm not even sure I like that word...)
  but of how well those sages are received and heeded. How
  many businesses fail because they didn't read Drucker?
  
  The failure rate, based on poor operational management,
  of networking and network based companies, is unknown
  but certainly many orders of magnitude higher than the
  internet packet drop rate...
  
Peace,

Petr

Well... Drucker's classic text book defines the first job of top
management to be "asking the question: What is our business and what
should it be." I've seen an awful lot of businesses fail because they
don't have an answer to that question.

Miles

You make it sound like the music industry. :slight_smile: Most labels are similar to business incubators in that they sign 10 new artists a month and end up dropping 9 of them because they didn't manufacture the "hit" they were looking for. Business failures are common. In the last few years, when the number of ".COM" start-ups drastically increased, there'll be at least a proportional increase in failures. This is normal. More people try, more people fail/succeed.

I think the point I'm trying to get to here is that if you want industry "rock stars", you're asking for self-serving self-publicists who don't have the industry's best interests at heart (cough... ICANN). If you want that from the "geek" community, you should just put Kashpureff and Vixie in the ring on WWF and publish the results as a BCP. :wink:

Best Regards,

Simon

Although Internet CEOs and CFOs have been running around screaming
"The Internet is different, the old rules don't apply" most of the
business of network operations is "Those who cannot remember the past
are doomed to repeat it." Dilbert and Drucker are applicable as
always. But I suspect that's not the answer you want.

Here are a few suggestions for books which should be on every Internet
manager's bookshelf. It wouldn't hurt to read a few of them too :slight_smile:

Bell Labs ; Engineering and Operations in the Bell System

Brooks, Frederick ; The Mythical Man-Month

Economides, Nicholas ; The Economics of Networks (a paper which should be
a book)

Humphrey, Watts ; Managing Technical People

Huston, Geoff ; ISP Survival Guide

Kahin, Brian, editor ; Coordinating the Internet

Knight, Christopher ; ISP Marketing Survival Guide

Neumann, Peter ; Computer-Related Risks

Schneider, Fred, editor ; Trust in Cyberspace

Shapiro & Varian ; Information Rules

I'm putting together a list of resources at
http://inet-ops.stealthgeeks.net. If people would be interested in
contributing their suggestions/links/etc., it would be most appreciated.

Hi Pete

Would "old timers" that ran older networks (such as ARPANET or BITNET)
count too ? from the answers it seems that no network operations existed
before "the Internet" - of course the networks were _much_ smaller but
IMHO 9.6Kbit/sec backbones must have had other challenges - right ?

There were operations centers just not *Internet* operations centers.
Bellcore and IBM spring to mind.

Nomination:

Jeff "Ampersand" Rizzo. For teaching us all just *why* it is that you don't
want to redistribute BGP into your IGP. Or so goes the tale relayed to me.
While I worked at the relevant company at the relevant time, I didn't work
with the network there until a year or two later.

Gaak. Unpleasant memories are resurfacing. :wink:

Jeff "Ampersand" Rizzo. For teaching us all just *why* it is that you don't
want to redistribute BGP into your IGP. Or so goes the tale relayed to me.
While I worked at the relevant company at the relevant time, I didn't work
with the network there until a year or two later.

I thought it was the op of 7007 that did that?

Alex

I don't have a timeline to know which happened first; 2551 was down, or at
least the majority of it was, for something on the order of 48-72 hours.
The rendition I heard assigned the moniker because one of the major news
outlets said that the mistake which triggered it was "like a misplaced
ampersand". It was certainly the one on the wall beside his legacy Chevy's
sombrero.