The 10 Faces of DCIM

The 10 faces of DCIM

The 10 faces of DCIM

Lately, I have participated in a number of online group discussions which focus on trying to define what DCIM is. There is clearly more than one definition circulating from various sources. Each of the major analysts have their own (similar but not identical) definition for DCIM as well. What this does is to create a level of confusion that end-users are forced to wrestle with in their search for answers.

To create a generally agreed definition about what DCIM is, I think it is worth starting a discussion about WHO could use the features found in the industry’s current DCIM offerings, along with a special notation on where DCIM will be going over time (likely to include orchestration & automation). I think in general we vendors have done a poor job articulating the problems we are solving, rather than just the features that we deliver. Simple mistake right? Well, no. DCIM is not a one-size-fits-all type of technology. My contention is that to put together the list of problems that we are solving, we need to step back a bit (just a small step) and look at the roles of the people that we are solving these problems for…. THEN we can look at the problems each of these people have, and ultimately each vendor can then map their features to one of more of those problems. The end-user community will welcome this clarity!

For the List, read my post:

About admin

Mark Harris Fremont, CA
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to The 10 Faces of DCIM

  1. Mark – really appreciate the way you break down the issues around DCIM – first the instrumentation taxonomy, then the sub-segmentation idea and now by user. All very useful. Thanks

Leave a Reply