Network Infrastructure Upgrade: Selection Process

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Overview of the Strength and Weaknesses of the Proposed Systems
GFI
HP Open View
EM7
SNMPC 7
IPSwitch
MAPIt
Manage Engine
Analysis
Reference List

Good networking infrastructure is very important for the smooth running of a company or any other organization for that matter. Networking management should therefore be considered as an effective tool for managing an organization. Networking management simply means all activities that are involved in ensuring an effective networking system within an organization run smoothly (Carey, Tanewski, and Simnett, 2000). It is important to note that the term organization is sometimes used instead of a company in this paper because the network infrastructure application is similar in both of them. In network management, maintenance means repairing damaged parts or upgrading the network to offer better services. The provision means configuring network resources to offer desired services (Carey, Tanewski, and Simnett, 2000). Network operation means ensuring that the network is performing its tasks smoothly as intended.

Midlands Environmental Business Company (MEBC) wants to upgrade its existing network infrastructure. As one of the top management team members, I was involved in advertising a job for a suitable company to write a proposal report and present to us so that we could evaluate them and choose the best one to do for us the job. We received seven reports from seven different companies and after evaluating them, we selected ManageEngine Company. We decided to pick on this company because it addressed most of our needs in its proposal report more than any other company. The capability of ManageEngine Company to do the work we expect to be done was also the highest amongst all the companies that sent their proposal reports. This report described some of the factors that made us choose ManageEngine as the best company to assist Midlands Environmental Business Company to improve its networking infrastructure.

Even though the selected company may not have met all the requirements that the Midlands Environmental Business Company wanted, it demonstrated that it was in a position of tackling most of the issues. According to the management team that was involved in the selection, no company wrote a good proposal report than the ManageEngine Company. When provided with several alternatives, the best thing to do is to choose the best alternative. The services that ManageEngine Company provides to its customers match our requirements and thus we believe they will be able to produce quality work for us.

We are living in a dynamic world and therefore companies should have new management systems that can enable them to compete favorably in the dynamic business world (Dunn, 2004). ManageEngine is a company that can do this through network visualization. This is done by first identifying all the networks available in a given organization and grouping them with inappropriate views as desired by the organization. This is exactly what is required to be done in MEBC. Now that all the regional and local offices in London, Leeds, and Aberdeen are known, ManageEngine will not need to identify them but group them appropriately using special software for easy management. For example, ManageEngine has software known as ‘custom maps’ that can provide a magnified view of a network in an organization. This can be used to view and link all the three regional offices and all other local offices for easy management. This means that all the offices can be well configured so that they can be viewed from one central point. This also means that all the offices will be remotely configured so that they can all be viewed from a computer. Remote configuration is one of the requirements that MEBC would like a new management system to fulfill and therefore I think ManageEngine is the right company to do this job. The company has described that it can make the new management system function through automated response, which implies that remote configuration is possible. Before I continue talking about ManageEngine, it is also important for me to talk a bit about the other six companies that presented to us their proposals.

Overview of the Strength and Weaknesses of the Proposed Systems

The following overview of the strengths and the weaknesses of the proposed systems will be based on the conformance of the main features of the system with the needs for the NMS in MEBC, and the absence of the features which are critical for the system in short and long terms.

GFI

Strengths

Advanced monitoring capabilities, covering databases, web servers, processes, services, and others.
Monitoring functions of vital computer indicators.
Easy to use and learn, with the possibility of the software to take corrective actions automatically.
Status Remote access.
Advanced Internet capabilities.
Affordable price.

Weaknesses

Incompatible with Linux for future implementation
Redundant functions, not critical to the company at the present point.
The absence of recovery functions.
The absence of remote assistance

Verdict

GFI can be seen as a good standalone network monitoring tool, rather than a network management system. The main strengths of the system are in features and functions which are not necessarily within the list of the essential functions MEBC seeks. At the same time, the absence of necessary functions can be seen as the main criterion for rejecting the GFI proposal.

HP Open View

Strengths

It an easy and convenient to graphically represent the network map and track and indicate the problem.
Proactive management through providing a dynamic view of the network.
The possibility for expanding the capabilities of the system through plug-ins.
Providing reports and statistics.

Weaknesses

High hardware requirements.
Incompatibility with Linux for future installations
Costs
Cannot be automatically configured.

Verdict

HP Open View is an excellent solution for a branded name. The high costs of the solution, characteristic of first-tier vendors, are combined with the need for a trained IT staff to install and configure the system. One of the main requirements of MEBC is the automated setup and configuration. Accordingly, the system requires hardware from the same vendor.

EM7

Strengths

Compatibility with different hardware and operating systems.
Dynamic environment and customization capability.
Cost-efficient solution.
Remote configuration and control.

Weaknesses

Little or no information on configuration capabilities.
The integrated tools are concerned with applications that are not within the current scope of MEBC.
The emphasis on monitoring, with little control capabilities.

Verdict

The solution provided by Science Logic is a good option for companies that want to ingrate a single all-in-one solution covering various IT information aspects. In that regard, such aspects that can be considered within the main features of the system such as VoIP Cisco management and dynamic applications for satellite network systems are not within the current future needs of MEBC, and thus, cannot be taken as advantages. For the core needs of MEBC, EM7 fails to provide a solution.

SNMPC 7

Strengths

Remote access and management.
Pro-active management.
Different upgradable modifications of the system, facilitate flexible customization of the system.

Weaknesses

The absence of compatibility options for the future switch of OS.
A small number of configuration options.
Complex interface.
Omitting essential options from the enterprise editions, to be purchased separately – remote console user access.

Verdict

The solution proposed by Castle Rock computing lacks the majority of the needs identified by MEBC. The main features of the system are present in other products. Accordingly, including only a single remote access license in the enterprise edition can be seen as a serious drawback of the system. The system can be recommended for small and small to medium enterprises, in which the planned upgrade for the infrastructure in the future will not require serious modifications.

IPSwitch

Strengths

Automatic discovery and configuration out of the box.
Unlimited remote networks.
Dynamic.
Pro-active.
Free-trial
Economic bandwidth utilization for reporting.
Visual mapping.

Weaknesses

Vague recovery options.
High system requirements.
No indication of support and/or training options for personnel.
Attachment to Microsoft products.

Verdict

The main attribute of the proposed system is the availability of a free test of the system and its compatibilti9y for 30 days. However, it can be stated that such a solution is not feasible, considering the need for the system cannot be proven in a test environment. However, the solution will not be capable to provide the options for future Linux switches. In general, the main aspects that can be outlined in such a system fits the main requirements of MEBC, and thus, despite the lack of thorough description of the system can be considered as one of two alternatives in the company.

MAPIt

Strengths

Centralized, decentralized, and remote management options.
Graphical representation of the networks along with a robust search engine.
Hardware is more reliable than a software solution

Weaknesses

The requirement to purchase hardware.
A hardware solution, rather than a management option.

Verdict

The option proposed by Siemon focuses on providing the physical layout of the network. The costs of such a system are substantially higher, and accordingly, it is more difficult to switch to other options or other providers, due to the necessity to change the infrastructure. The reliability advantage might be a serious aspect, although the requirement to purchase the software and the hardware from a single vendor can be too costly to consider such an advantage.

Manage Engine

Strengths

Automation options.
Network visualization
Dynamic network discovery.
Reporting options.
Low Cost

Weaknesses

Compatibility question in the future.
Scalability options.

Verdict

The solution proposed by Networks Unlimited can be seen as the most appropriate in the context of the needs of MEBC. There are a few weaknesses in the solution which can be compensated by the fact that the strengths of the system address the majority of the problem in the company, while at the same time, the weaknesses are not concerned with any pressing issue. Combined with low costs, it can be stated that Manage Engine is the most appropriate solution offered to MEBC.

Analysis

GFI is one of the companies that sent a good proposal to MEBC. However, GFI Company did not mention anything about the cost in their report proposal. The services the GFI Company proposed to offer are good but they seem to be very expensive. The main aim of doing business is to make maximum profit with minimum cost (Dunn, 2004). It is because of this that we decided to choose to work with ManageEngine Company because it can offer the same services as those offered by GFI Company but at reduced prices. It was indicated on the heading of the proposal report submitted by ManageEngine Company that it had cost-effective ways of network management. However, it should be understood that one should not compromise quality and opt for cheapness. If the services offered by two companies are the same in terms of quality, the next aspect to be considered should be their cost and the cheaper alternative should be chosen. This is the criterion we used in picking ManageEngine Company and leaving GFI Company. These were the most competitive companies that we got proposal reports from.

Midlands Environmental Business Company (MEBC) received a proposal from HP Company. Remote configuration of all our regional and local offices must be taken into account by any company interested in providing services to us. In short, the report by HP OpenView Company did not address most of the needs of Midlands Environmental Business Company (MEBC) and therefore we decided not to choose it to do for us the job we required.

The company also received a report from EM7 Company but according to us, the report was not detailed. The report was full of graphics and required experts to interpret them. We expected the company to explain in detail the services it can offer and how they can be offered.

MapIT G2 is known to many people as the Siemon Company. It also presented to us its proposal report but the report had the same problems that the report submitted by EM7 Company had. It used many graphics to explain what it can offer rather than using normal descriptive language that could be understood even by laymen. The graphics can be misinterpreted and thus our selecting team decided to pick on ManageEngine Company that described most of the things in the language all of us could understand. Clarity is important in passing across a given message and this is why we decided to choose ManageEngine Company to do for us the job.

Ipswitch Company presented to us a very shallow proposal report. In other words, the report was just a summary from the Ipswitch Company and it was therefore difficult for us to establish whether the company had that required capacity to produce a high-quality networking management system or not. The report submitted by ManageEngine Company appeared to be more elaborate and detailed as compared to the one submitted by Ipswitch Company. Even though Ipswitch Company seemed to be possible to meet some of our MEBC requirements, it did not seem to be able to meet as many requirements as ManageEngine could meet.

The last proposal report that Midlands Environmental Business Company received was from SNMPc7 Company. I have to admit that if we were to choose six companies out of the seven that presented their proposal, we would have left SNMPc7 Company because it was way below our expectations. I am saying “we” because as I stated earlier, I am one of the management team members of MEBC and I was involved in the selection process. The reason why we could not choose SNMPc7 Company to do the work is that the report sent to us by the company was too shallow to provide any tangible evidence that the company could do any meaningful work for us. This again gave ManageEngine Company an upper hand over the other companies and thus it became the best choice for doing the network upgrading work for MEBC.

I have just provided the reasons why all the reports from all the companies were rejected and only the report from ManageEngine Company was accepted. This was done after considering FCAPS, which is an ideal way in which network monitoring solutions can be characterized. ‘F’ stands for faults, ‘C’ stands for configuration, ‘A’ stands for accounting, ‘P’ stands for performance, and ‘S’ stands for security. ManageEngine Company indicted through the report sent to us that it is in a position to fulfill all these requirements and therefore we had no option but to award ManageEngine Company the contract to upgrade our networking infrastructure. I hope that ManageEngine Company will be able to produce quality work for MEBC after being chosen to do the work.

By first considering faults in the networking infrastructure, ManageEngine proposes proactive monitoring of the networking infrastructure. It proposes to do this by continuous surveillance on the networking infrastructure to detect faults in the system. In fact, in its report, ManageEngine Company indicated that it offers surveillance within 24 hours for seven days a week which implies that any error that occurs in the system can be detected as soon as possible before causing any further damage. Detection of faults in a system becomes easier when the system is automated. Automation is another feature that ManageEngine Company is proposing to include in our new networking infrastructure. This is one of the requirements that MEBC would like to be fulfilled as one of its network monitoring solutions.

By considering networking configuration, ManageEngine is the company that will fulfill it as one of our requirements. Remote configuration is a requirement for a network monitoring solution that MEBC specified that should be fulfilled. ManageEngine stated that it can provide this by configuring the network monitoring system to automatically produce tickets to relevant resources. After making the system operate automatically, it is possible to remotely configure it so that it can be operated without coming into actual contact with it. This is a way of ensuring that time wastage is reduced as much as possible because a remote can be used to operate multiple systems at ago. This is the way every company wants to go and MEBC is not an exception. I hope ManageEngine Company will be able to fulfill this requirement for MEBC.

Accounting is also a very important aspect of network monitoring and it is abbreviated by ‘A’ in the FCAPS. There can be no proper management without proper record keeping (Dunn, 2004). In the conclusion of the report presented to us by ManageEngine, it is indicated that there is a software tool known as ManageEngine OpManager that can be used to save IT budget. OpManager is also used to generate many reports that existed for different periods. This will be very beneficial to Midlands Environmental Business Company because it will help in saving time and energy. In the absence of software such as ManageEngine OpManager, getting particular files that were used three or four months ago may consume a lot of time especially if the office was misarranged for one reason or the other and the files were in hard copies. The company proposed in its report that the OpManager software can track and save the utilization pattern for the last six months in the MEBC office in London. This is just one of the examples that ManageEngine Company gave to us in its proposal report. The mentioning of the London office and the Birmingham office indicated to us that ManageEngine Company understands Midlands Environmental Business Company and therefore it has a clear understanding of the scope of the work to be done.

The performance of any system should be given keen attention. This is because if a system is not able to effectively perform the intended tasks, the objectives of an organization cannot be achieved (Dunn, 2004). The performance of the networking infrastructure that ManageEngine is proposing to provide is going to be effective because as stated earlier continuous monitoring to detect and correct faults are going to be ensured. ManageEngine Company proposed to include proactive health monitoring performance by using thresholds. It is indicated in the report that once the software is installed in the networking system to monitor the health of the most critical devices in the system, appropriate signals will always be sent to alert the operator in case there is deterioration in the performance of the devices. This can help in ensuring that corrective measures are taken by the operator by responding to the part sending the signal. The performance of the networking infrastructure is expected to be high because ManageEngine Company proposed to use the automated response to failures. This is intended to be achieved by sending notifications by email or SMS to the right people whenever there are errors. Continuous monitoring of the networking infrastructure as proposed by ManageEngine will ensure the effective performance of the whole network.

Under the five stages of FCAPS, ‘S’ stands for security. Security of networking infrastructure should always be ensured so that operation of an organization is not interfered with. Security is not a problem because security issues had already been resolved by the management of MEBC. Security means ensuring that both internal damage and external damages are prevented.

The components of the network that ManageEngine Company proposed to install are routers, switches, servers, DNS, and wireless components. These components can be able to be used now and in the future because their installation is intended to be long-term. Some of the OS that ManageEngine proposed to include in the networking infrastructure are Windows and Linux. These are some of the features that are required to be used now and in the future. In other words, the work that ManageEngine proposed to come up with will be beneficial to MEBC even in the future. In addition, DB servers such as SQL, MySQL, and Oracle are intended to be included in the networking infrastructure. These will improve the monitoring of the networking infrastructure and thus security of the system will be guaranteed.

Even though we decided to choose ManageEngine Company to do the work for us, I think there were weaknesses in its report. The company should have used more graphic representations to show what it can do. The only graphic representation used in the report was the custom map which represented Cisco networking. I think this is a weakness that ManageEngine Company showed in its proposal report but it should make necessary corrections in the future. Another weakness is that there was no estimation of the total cost required to complete the work. No company indicated in its report the estimated costs of different equipment and thus comparison in terms of cheapness became a bit challenging but we later picked on ManageEngine because it addressed cost-effectiveness in its report.

In conclusion, the network monitoring solution will ensure effective communication within MEBC because all the offices will be viewed in computers stationed in each office. This means that coordination between different offices will be made easier. Cisco networking ensures easy sharing of data among different users and thus access to information will be improved in the company once the work is completed. This will also improve the rate at which business is done at Midlands Environmental Business Company because time wastage will be a thing of the past just as it has already been explained.

Reference List

Carey, P., Tanewski, G., and Simnett, R. (2000). Demand for network literature and directions for future research. Journal of Information Technology 19 (supplement): 37-51.

Dunn, P. (2004). The Impact of Proper Networking Infrastructure in Organizations. Journal of Management 30 (3): 397-412.

Click Here To Order Now!

Overview of the Strength and Weaknesses of the Proposed Systems

GFI

Strengths

Weaknesses

Verdict

HP Open View

Strengths

Weaknesses

Verdict

EM7

Strengths

Weaknesses

Verdict

SNMPC 7

Strengths

Weaknesses

Verdict

IPSwitch

Strengths

Weaknesses

Verdict

MAPIt

Strengths

Weaknesses

Verdict

Manage Engine

Strengths

Weaknesses

Verdict

Analysis

Reference List

Related