1.
DEVOTPSDAYS
are
09
Hlex Schvuarlz
E Galexrchwarfzbln $
E alexanc| enschwarf1@here. com
B e i n 2 0 1 4 E de. lin| :edin. comIinInlexanderxclnvuarfzberlin

2.
we are
hirin v
Pllex Schwarfz
u Céalexschwarfzbln $
g a| exancler. schvuar+z@here. com
m cle. |inkecIin. comIinlalexanderschvuarfzberlin

3.
i"; €’irL[AT”S‘ iii. ms mu_i; ...
= our = 5 ll? =
console oi-: l’pu: l’
code ldeeslrefiomtles
-VJIMI Devops is smurf!
-l; J!a' Clessicc-. I is clifiiculff
-! «now ‘to sell Devops befier?
an , .
i:1sL: ’-. ' : -. ;:“J 9293.3.. . .

4.
D . . F. ‘J ‘ ‘w ‘ VI‘ Up to three jears ago.
I Q, Q, I had no clue about the difference
between efficient and effective.
3 I basicall1 used them as ssinonxims.
Effectiveness is. ..
the degree to which
objectives are achieved.
in contrast to
efficiencj, effectiveness
is determined without?
reference to costs or
costs,
YQSOUYCES
YQSOUYCQS

5.
perfect spot
but risks]
Sweat spot
EX/ §ililA@lL. E
Photographer
produces @
cover picture
for a
magazine
‘cg. .. . .;:
~ Iy
- customer bus]: *5, A -number of pictures
cover picture K -total time
- readers like it -costs
- good sales numbers

6.
EX/ §llllM'9fl. E
fixing flat tire

7.
EX/ §llllAlPlLE
Customer
Support
%? f_‘
i Q
- customer '
satisfaction
eg. Zappos
- customer calls per hour
- number of CS employees
- waiting time

8.
©@EB‘R/ M’ll@llll§
. sLn C 92"
- Securitsg Cfllpg? Q
- cjcle time for DEM "“ ,
- new features
-fixing bugs
- scaling upldown
- new test env
- happsi customers
- success
. Hvailabiliidi sf
- number of people
- number of server
- costs

9.
*“I. ic: ssEcc. l
approach
"hlhefgj effects"
"eztperts should do
expert work"
"'me: ti'mize u'i‘i| i2ction"
"cost savings"

10.
Classical Clflfilcfll
Devops
approach
on
approach
und rsta ‘ed
Qocs _J% g H
-Flvailabi| it1,SLFl, Securitsg (L3 f
M 1
approach
mans; incider
at the same
time
-c1cle time for
-new features
-fixing bugs vi) CT)
-scaling upldown ( 3
- new test env
-arch change
" ou product
does not have
pYiDYH''
Scc ‘Eng
- itproducts _, _/)
- fitechnologies
- = |*peop| e
<3

11.
Flirplane on ground !
Letting Dev team
wait mean. ..
we earn less

12.
who should decide which is
the right notebook for you?
cer ' ied Devops laptop

13.
$Wlll0@fllR@llZ/ M’fl@Dxl]9 lMlJfi’©l&ll@llW Mll® £llLll@ll£lllilEl‘M
Classical Model DevOps done smart
-same bad tools for given clear requirements
every team . ~_. :.M_'___m__: _ UNEFET to do (and lJ)ii‘I)
- "it was always like * with flexibility HCLO to do it.
that"
Wenudlo
-hard to change s
- requirements E3
High .
unclear Alignment f, "'j‘, 'f. ',, ';‘, u,'“, ‘,' Imover~e_
9 organization @
-given new to do $, °.. '.', ‘,“. '""" gualflawlyrvm 623;,
o’
"p‘’5!iT; ‘;“5§? f.‘ ‘.
Mlovomanaglng E" ‘H . /
organ alion
organization @,
Low lndlifenm chm“ 9/
ca"
Alignment “mm Mm % {gl « '
‘ = Devops done stupid
Low Autonomy High Autonomy
Hmrlk Knihrrg

14.
*“I. ic: ssEcal
approach
"synergy effects"
I amazon
webservlces"
Spotifv
"eztperts should do
expert work"
"'ma: timize u'i‘i| i2c. tion"
'-4--v
"cost savings"

15.
Willi/ ,3-iii WE @© ’WlliTl‘rll SEEN/ lEl'rR§. ..
stone age state of the art
I‘
' a fleet of servers
"red shirts"
I big server
I -> Local impact
“age impad, E -> local reaction
-a very low impact

16.
8W7Ellll§lK. /A lH| Ml[I>El1.§. /rllllllilliill
usual model their model
main office main office
decides on
products
and
policies e local branches
— _
. ... .., .. ... . . ... ...
. 4.1. _. l.J. . . ,J.
V. '7' — V.
J , ... .. . ,.. ._. _. ... _.
_ _ . E . . ! ,.
l .4 . . .
fi E E fi fi have responsibility for local products
local branches

17.
Maybe there is an
opportunity that
you have to catch

18.
D. '-'EVOPSDl; ‘. 'S
z: u:r‘. “?‘°-' 3 *3
t‘. V‘ I § ; I
A . .i}o«'; .<>1:l t
‘L I #. ,,V_’-4”’ I. If ‘I X r. Fllex Schwartz
*' ‘I * @alexschwartzbln
l alexandeicschwart1@here. com
— ‘ de. Iinkedin. comIinIalexanderschwartzberlin