Perhaps something you seem to less of in IT nowadays: Procedural checklists? Supervisory/coworker sign-offs/verifications?
-- Espi On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 10:49 PM, Ken Schaefer <k...@kj.net.au> wrote: > I would say that most of us are guilty of not following or reading docs > after we feel comfortable doing something, had success with it or have > plenty of experience in other areas and with other tools. > > > How do you intend to inform people of these verification steps? More doco > I'm guessing > > And how are you going to implement the verification step? Someone checking > a checkbox or clicking a button? > > And how are you going to record the verification step was done? More post > implementation doco? > > > > Regards > > Ken > > > > > > *From:* listsad...@lists.myitforum.com [mailto: > listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] *On Behalf Of *CESAR.ABREG0 > *Sent:* Monday, 19 May 2014 2:27 PM > > *To:* ntsysadm@lists.myitforum.com > *Subject:* Re: [NTSysADM] A Windows 7 image was deployed to EVERYTHING. > > > > Would I agree that most or any of this things may not work but when some > one tends to ignore documentation or processes nothing would work. I would > say that most of us are guilty of not following or reading docs after we > feel comfortable doing something,had success with it or have plenty of > experience in other areas and with other tools. (specially when those docs > are written by a person that does not understand product. ) reason that > when we buy a new TV we don bother to read the provided paperwork and don't > use it to the fullest potential. > > > > An example. We would hand out a page of step/guide to our docs department, > they would turn it into 10 pages that hid the relevant items/steps. > > > > I'm not a good writer or deep reader and would say over 50% of IT > personnel are not either, based on my experience. I truly believe that most > writer write to impress people and not to teach or guide and most companies > have documentation to fill a requirement and not for the value that could > provide. Just based on my personal access and experience. > > > > I've worked with SCCM for a while and many people do not understand how > powerful the tool is, therefore not putting enough thought on > implementation. If you think about it, this tool can bypass or circumvent > almost any security tools you have in place. > > > > Based on this example and past experiences that have been seen, putting > extra validation/steps that execute at runtime are the most ideal to me. > Docs may work up to an extend when followed. > > > Cesar A. > > Meaning is NOT in words, but inside people! Dr. Myles Munroe > > My iPad takes half the blame for misspells. > > > On May 18, 2014, at 7:17 PM, Ken Schaefer <k...@kj.net.au> wrote: > > Personally, I don't think any of these things will help. > > > > When creating a change record, the exact steps to be followed are > documented. If someone either: > > a) Creates the wrong documentation, and it's approved by CAB > > b) Creates the right documentation, but someone either fat fingers or > doesn't read the doco > > Then creating these extra steps is just process inflation. > > > > I don't think adding more steps or manual checks to process is the right > answer. Especially in a world where business is clamouring for more agility > and speed, rather than more bureaucracy in the name of risk management. > > > > If you look at the stuff coming out of CEB or Gartner, we need things like > leaner processes, cross-skilled teams better able to understand > implications across multiple towers, orchestration/automation tied to > process and bunch of other things I don't remember off the top-of-my-head. > > > > Cheers > > Ken > > > > *From:* listsad...@lists.myitforum.com [ > mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com <listsad...@lists.myitforum.com>] *On > Behalf Of *CESAR.ABREG0 > *Sent:* Monday, 19 May 2014 12:07 PM > *To:* ntsysadm@lists.myitforum.com > *Subject:* Re: [NTSysADM] A Windows 7 image was deployed to EVERYTHING. > > > > Verify the number of clients in collection before using to deploy a TS to > it? Verify that the dynamic collection being use contains the intended > clients? Verify that the 'all system' collection is not a target? > > There could be more but a couple of that I can think of. > > > > Most this situations happen by human errors and inexperienced as well. I > think HP consulting did it at a bank a couple of years ago and some that > colleagues have shared with me that happened in a USA government branch. > I've been doing imaging over 10 years and I never do mandatory deployments > to populated collections, only to empty ones and I add clients manually or > have a process to do so. > > > > This got me thinking of steps that can be taken or be part of a TS to > prevent this type of situation up to an extend, can't never be prevented > completely. > > > > 1. Put a step that verify DCs and other critical infrastructure systems > and have human click yes before moving forward or fail if no response. > > 2. Creat web service/orchestrator to send email or a type of notification > to a group before continuing. Automated. > > 3. What I've used in the past. Create an empty collection, deploy TS to it > as mandatory, add required systems manually or by script from a list. Limit > who can add systems and the type of client, like no DCs or SCCM systems. > > > Cesar A. > > Meaning is NOT in words, but inside people! Dr. Myles Munroe > > My iPad takes half the blame for misspells. > > > On May 18, 2014, at 5:31 PM, Ken Schaefer <k...@kj.net.au> wrote: > > I'm assuming someone clicked the wrong button (i.e. "Finished", when > they should've clicked "Cancel"). How does "process verification" (how do > you define this?) help? > > > > Cheers > > Ken > > > > *From:* listsad...@lists.myitforum.com [ > mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com <listsad...@lists.myitforum.com>] *On > Behalf Of *Rankin, James R > *Sent:* Monday, 19 May 2014 2:59 AM > *To:* ntsysadm@lists.myitforum.com > *Subject:* Re: [NTSysADM] A Windows 7 image was deployed to EVERYTHING. > > > > I think I may use this as an example in an article about the importance of > process verification. > > Sent from my (new!) BlackBerry, which may make me an antiques dealer, but > it's reliable as hell for email delivery :-) > ------------------------------ > > *From: *"Andrew S. Baker" <asbz...@gmail.com> > > *Sender: *listsad...@lists.myitforum.com > > *Date: *Sun, 18 May 2014 12:55:37 -0400 > > *To: *ntsysadm<ntsysadm@lists.myitforum.com> > > *ReplyTo: *ntsysadm@lists.myitforum.com > > *Subject: *Re: [NTSysADM] A Windows 7 image was deployed to EVERYTHING. > > > > Automation leads to relaxation... > > ...unless something goes horribly wrong. > > > > > > > > *ASB **http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker* <http://xeeme.com/AndrewBaker> > *Providing Virtual CIO Services (IT Operations & Information Security) for > the SMB market...* > > > > > > On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Richard Stovall <rich...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Wowzers. That's just incredible. > > On May 16, 2014 8:14 PM, "Kennedy, Jim" <kennedy...@elyriaschools.org> > wrote: > > So SCCM sent win 7 to everything, including servers. > > > > http://it.emory.edu/windows7-incident/ > > > > > >
