| |
|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
  |
|
| IT Organizational Placement for MQ Administrators |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| scott9 |
 Posted: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:33 am Post subject: IT Organizational Placement for MQ Administrators |
 |
|
Acolyte
Joined: 11 Jul 2002
Posts: 62
Location: Sacramento,CA
|
My group supports MQ & Message Broker in addition to several other data transport applications from misc vendors. We have been re-org'd multiple times, outsourced and then insourced and now going through another potential re-org. We've been aligned with various infrastructure and application entities and each have their advantages.
I've been given an opportunity to provide input into the next placement of my group. I'm curious if anybody has feedback on areas that have been beneficial in your organization. I realize this differs from each company, but I would like to know what works for you.
Some questions to prompt thought:
1. Where do you reside in your organization? Architecture? Projects only? Application? Infrastructure?
2. Do you manage level1,2,& 3 responsibility all within the same group?
Thanks for any feedback you can offer... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Vitor |
| Posted: Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:59 am Post subject: Re: IT Organizational Placement for MQ Administrators |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| scott9 wrote: |
| 1. Where do you reside in your organization? Architecture? Projects only? Application? Infrastructure? |
Infrastructure and/or Architecture, depending on how much of a split there is between these 2 functions (and what that site exactly means by both terms)
| scott9 wrote: |
| 2. Do you manage level1,2,& 3 responsibility all within the same group? |
Yes. Level one is sometimes farmed out to projects, but I prefer to assign a level 1 team member to the project rather than give the project level 1.
Other structures are equally valid.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| SAFraser |
| Posted: Mon Nov 01, 2010 2:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Shaman
Joined: 22 Oct 2003
Posts: 742
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
|
I like best being in infrastructure, as close to the OS and network guys as I can get.
I definitely do not like being squished into a general middleware team that includes WAS and WPS and Portal so forth.
I've never seen a successful implementation of splitting L1 from L2-3, but maybe I've never worked in a big enough shop. I've always been on teams with L1-2-3 as well as MQ monitoring, all on the same team.
I would run screaming from any attempt to stick us into architecture. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| exerk |
| Posted: Tue Nov 02, 2010 5:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
Architecture
Ensure early engagement - you will know more about your infrastructure than some 'architect' who has a high-level diagram, e.g. a QSG will probably appear as a one queue manager to them, and with out them realising any benefits/restrictions that may apply. Architecture can be your enemy, so keep them close so you do not get painted into the usual corner of trying to fettle your infrastructure to fit.
Level 1, 2 & 3
I'm with Vitor on this one in regard to L1 support. I've also found it beneficial where a shop assigns someone to L1 project support, and that person 'migrates' the project through all the way to L3. It gives them a personal investment in producing a quality product, ensures continuity, and means a proper hand-over is done.
As regards SAFraser's remark about homogeneous teams, I fully agree. That tends to lead management into thinking that everyone can be cross-skilled to the same level as their 'primary' discipline, but everybody gets skills dilution because they rarely have time to keep current with that discipline. I'd temper that with the observation that it is a good idea to stay loose-coupled so that each discipline is aware of what the others are doing - in my current shop the WAS team, in isolation, decided on a course that was totally at odds with what we, the WMQ team, were doing.
_________________
It's puzzling, I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like this before...and it's hard to soar like an eagle when you're surrounded by turkeys. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| scott9 |
| Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 11 Jul 2002
Posts: 62
Location: Sacramento,CA
|
Thanks all for the replies. I wanted to share the results of our research and discussions on this topic...
We will move under the Infrastructure team, which I agree is the best place for us.
Regarding L1/2 & L3 combo, we have not come to conclusion yet. I am pushing to separate L3 from L1/2. We successfully implemented that model as an outsourced entity. Due to our small staff and large implementation, it is hard to be a thought leader, yet respond to myriad L1 requests each day. We should have double the staff for our size, but that isn't feasible in this economy. A low-cost L1 team will give us just enough relief to invest the necessary time to properly expand our MQ/Broker infrastructure. Again, thanks for the feedback and good luck to you all.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
