How would implementing hyperconvergence affect my IT staff?
[dropcaps type=’square’ color=’#ffffff’ background_color=’#e04646′ border_color=”]M[/dropcaps]any IT administrators, especially at larger organizations, focus very specifically in one area. They know what they know, and anything outside of that is someone else’s problem. (I’m looking at you, Guy or Gal who’s been managing the company’s monolithic storage arrays for the last 10 years!) Their usual response upon considering hyperconvergence is, “If this platform really took off in my organization, what would happen to my job?”
Because of the way HCI brings many disparate systems under one umbrella, it’s hard to create clear boundaries where multiple teams would be responsible for only certain parts of the system. What this likely leads to is organizational shake-up, where traditional silos of expertise are torn down and administrators with varying skillsets collaborate on managing an HCI platform.
It is correct to assume that hyperconvergence puts the status quo at risk. Whether or not that puts one’s job at risk is only dependent on how adaptable and resilient to change they are. As I suggested in a lengthier article on this question, HCI should be viewed as a catalyst for change and an opportunity to learn new skills and grow as an administrator and as an IT organization as a whole.
There’s no avoiding the fact that due to its simplicity, hyperconvergence likely will not need the same number of dedicated staff to maintain it that the legacy system before it did. In a healthy organization, this just means resources are freed up to focus on proactive improvements to the environment and plow through the backlog of other infrastructure projects. Wouldn’t it be nice to finally get that Active Directory functional level up to 2012 or 2012 R2?