Future of remote automated support

Over the past 10 years or so, the global market has seen an explosion of hardware and software support providers offering proactive and preventive automated support solutions.

These remote tools and utilities are designed to help IT departments detect potential problems before they affect system performance, providing quick and efficient resolutions for a whole range of common hardware and software issues.

Such solutions are becoming increasingly popular here in the Middle East, with CIOs identifying them as a way of streamlining their IT operations and improving application and workload delivery. But are they actually any good? And, if so, what is the most prudent approach to ensuring their success?

While automated support offerings may still be a relatively fledgling part of the Middle East’s overall ICT landscape, there is a huge amount of interest in these solutions. Indeed, the overwhelming attitude is that with IT departments coming under increasing pressure to optimise operations and improve service delivery, the availability of tools that can automate problem identification and resolution can’t come soon enough.

I have interviewed numerous CIOs and IT managers who are already using automated remote support within their organisations, and they are generally very pleased with the results. The most oft-cited benefit is that they now experience fewer problems in their day-to-day operations as issues can be detected, diagnosed, and resolved across the hardware and software stack with little participation from IT personnel. And, crucially, potential disruptions are often identified and fixed before they affect critical systems.

Another commonly cited benefit is the reduction in resolution times. That’s because when problems do occur, automated support providers can quickly access system data, error logs, and related information. And with fewer problems and faster resolution times, many CIOs are reporting reduced downtime.

Perhaps most significantly, however, organisations that embrace automated remote support typically experience considerable improvements in IT resource management. As mentioned earlier, these solutions can detect and resolve issues with minimal human oversight, making them a key element of the IT transformation process aimed at driving closer alignment with line-of-business needs. With less time devoted to finding problems, IT personnel are freed up to focus on more innovative, strategic projects that directly impact the bottom line.

All of this is not to say that automated remote support solutions are indefectible. Indeed, despite the clear benefits that these tools and utilities offer, many IT departments remain wary about automating key aspects of their datacenter and workload delivery processes.

In a global IDC survey conducted last year, security was selected by almost 50 per cent of the respondents as the primary reason for disabling an automated remote support solution. This may not come as much of a surprise given the current climate of hacking and malware, but it does highlight a commonly perceived pitfall with third-party monitoring services.

Any form of automation can lead to a variety of unintended consequences. It is for this reason that I advise CIOs to give careful consideration to a number of key factors when implementing automated remote support. First among those is the need to search for providers that can help with training and implementation. Most providers include these services as part of broader support packages, which is particularly important within hybrid IT environments.

CIOs should also pay close attention to the security protocols and policies of any prospective support partner, not only in relation to connectivity and access but also with an eye on the particular datasets that will be captured and stored as part of the automated remote support delivery process. And it is important that potential providers are clear about their cross-vendor partnerships, because features and functionalities can sometimes be lost when implementing solutions from providers other than the original vendor.

Another factor is the need to reinforce change management policies and processes, with an emphasis on the human interaction required during the patch and upgrade process. While the majority of automated remote support tools are “set it and forget it” solutions, they will inevitably require modifications as the IT environment changes. For that reason, I urge CIOs to scan their existing IT resources and identify the team members that have the necessary skills to manage the growth and change of automated remote support across the entire IT environment.

I asked at the start whether these solutions are actually any good. Well, they certainly have their merits and I would recommend that any IT department with the ability to implement automated remote support does so. Yes, there is a need to remain vigilant, retaining those all-important elements of human intervention where necessary, but when deployed prudently with the assistance of reputable providers, these solutions have a proven knack of reducing costs, increasing revenue, and facilitating innovation. That sounds like the kind of future we can all get on board with!