IBM says that its new SystemView systems management schema is neither a product nor an architecture, but a strategy for managing systems through a process of integration and automation. According to Gavin Roach, IBM UK’s mid-range enterprise systems product marketing manager, it is a structure to exploit and develop architectures, and it is needed because of the number of processes and sub-divisions that require management. Roach says that current systems management involves too much manual intervention and too many staff. At a time when companies want to reduce overheads and staff numbers, the complexity of systems management demands that staff numbers actually increase. Consequently, users are demanding a set of functional applications with a common user interface and single data image or model that will enable the sharing of data between applications. The applications will address the business itself, change, configuration, operations, performance and problems, and Roach says that such a data model will be open and published so that non-IBM vendors may participate. So, the Systemview structure will have three dimensions – end use, application, and data. The end use dimension will have Common User Access, it will be task related and object oriented, and says Roach, captilize on existing skills. As regards the data dimension, IBM is working on a data model that will conform with Open Systems Interconnection standards, and it intends to publish a data model in the third quarter of 1991. The theory is that data will be more accessible, maintenance will be easier, and integrity will be improved since it will exist at a single point in the model rather than scattered in multiple copies. The application dimension will provide products for program to program interfaces and increase automation through integration. It will define new processes and interfaces, some of which will agree with OSI-set standards, and Roach says that if IBM doesn’t have an existing architecture, it will adopt and promote the OSI offering. It sounds wonderful, but if it’s open, then how do other vendors fit in? Roach says that IBM will operate a vendor programme and work is ongoing in the US to educate third parties in SystemView and how they can adapt their products. He also acknowledges that there are difficulties since the definitions are yet to be published, and it would be foolish to diverge from OSI standards. Roach says that the data model will allow the extension of data fields, but it’s complete in terms of the technology that is available today, and it will be consistent with the OSI. Is it relational? Sort of. Some relational element may be necessary. If it is open, which environments will fit into SystemView? Roach says that the 9000 family could be a managing system, the AS/400 will cater for data and end user applications, and OS/2 could be a managed system. He also says that the RS/6000 could be a managing system, or at least he doesn’t rule it out of court (that means keep your chin up Austin), but everything depends on demand. If third parties push hard enough, then IBM may accede, but IBM will respond to user demand, so it could be a long and tedious process. SystemView holds out the promise of IBM being able to manage other vendor’s products, but will the opposite apply? Not, says Roach, at the level of functional deliverables. Which is really where the user thinks it matters. Janice McGinn
