<p>A technique we've used in the past in similar situations is to get "management commitment" that imposes these rules to every team member:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Access to perform updates to the target deployment areas (i.e. production) is limited to selected automated systems, which have appropriate audit trails (= logging) of any kind of updates to the areas they manage.</p></li>
<li><p>Manual updates to the target deployment areas, for whatever reason, are no longer allowed by the typical team members (user ids) that used to be able (authorized) to perform these updates. Instead NEW (additional) user IDs will be created which will have all required permissions to (still) perform such manual updates, whenever needed. But to actually be able to use those new user IDs (= perform a logon with them), the team member who wants to perform a logon with such new user ID will have to perform "some" extra step to get access to the password for such new user Id. Ideally this extra step is automated also (use your own imagination how it should look like), but if anything else fails: just contact (= eMail, call, etc) the gate-keeper of the required password, including  "which issue they have to get fixed" (similar to your question).</p></li>
<li>Getting such gate-keeper in place is not an easy job. And the most resistance will come from ... the team members (for all sorts of reasons). Therefor a variation of those new user IDs (as in the previous step) is that each team member gets an extra user ID (with the password they decide themselves), but with an extra string attached to it: they are only allowed to perform a logon with that (extra) user ID if they actualy have a good reason to do so. And each time they perform such logon, they are required to file some type of report about "which issue they fixed" (similar to your question).</li>
</ol>

<p>With these procedures in place, all that's left to do is to periodically review each of those reports / reasons why it was required to use such special user ID, and ask the question "<em>Is there anything that can be done to further automate this, to further reduce the need for such special login?</em>".</p>

<p><strong>Update</strong>:</p>

<p>Quote from your extra comment below this answer:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>I think adding artificial barriers to fixing a deployment issue is counter-productive.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>True it adds an extra barrier, but I'm not conviced it is "artificial". Because this is, to my knowledge, the only way to become aware of things those team members otherwise won't ever tell you, for reasons such as:</p>

<ul>
<li>job security.</li>
<li>bad things/practises they prefer to keep hidden.</li>
<li>power they do not want to loose.</li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-12-18T19:07:18.560Z
Thanks for that feedback. While that might work, I think adding artificial barriers to fixing a deployment issue is counter-productive. It's a heavy stick to use but might be necessary in some cases. I prefer a mandatory post-deployment review once the smoke clears. It's less destructive but requires the same level of management commitment. I'm just curious if others have done this.
John O'Keefe
CC BY-SA 4.0
2017-12-18T19:01:46.167Z
2018-10-13T08:04:18.180Z
2018-10-13T08:04:18.180Z
Pierre.Vriens
<blockquote>
  <p>The 2017 state of devops report says there's about a 31-45% "change failure rate." While that intuitively sounds about right, are they tracked as incidents? Nah. Because they get fixed pretty quickly, usually during validation.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>An issue that gets fixed quickly is still an issue.  If you're not reporting these as such, that's a problem.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>So, it takes discipline to report failure rates accurately. We're disincentivized to report like that because we want things to work and we do what it takes to make it happen.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>If your goal is actually to have things work, then you need to be honest about failures so you can prevent them in the future.  It sounds like the team here is lying (perhaps to themselves, certainly to management) about failures because their goal is to have things <em>appear</em> to be working.</p>

<p>These are different things.  For instance, take the old joke that QA produces bugs - "my code was fine until QA got ahold of it, and then they made all these bugs!".  The bugs were there all along, but the developer was ignorant of them.  An operations team's goal should be <em>actual reliability</em>, and they need to be incentivized as such by their management.  That means that if they put more monitoring in place that leads to discovering new issues, they should be rewarded, not penalized for the subsequent drop in reliability metrics.</p>

<hr>

<blockquote>
  <p>TL;DR, how do you prove devops, specifically deployment automation, improves change failure rates?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>If you're trying to motivate change in your organization, then you shouldn't be trying to prove anything, but provide evidence of what other organizations say about their own transitions.  If you're trying to measure the processes that you already have in place and justify their continued existence, then you should be tracking the standard reliability metrics, like mean time to repair (MTTR).</p>

<p>But devops principles are not merely about increasing reliability.  Even site reliability engineering is not merely about increasing reliability.  Rather, you want to get to an <em>appropriate</em> level of reliability - something that benefits the business but doesn't hinder development.  And that brings up the real motivator in devops, which is to <strong>empower change</strong>.  You want to allow the business to respond quicker to market stimuli, which happens by decreasing developer friction, increasing the rate of deploys, automating manual processes, etc. while staying within an acceptable bound of reliability.  This means you need to measure reliability, but you also need to measure velocity, because your goal is to increase the latter while keeping the former relatively static.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-12-18T19:50:28.007Z
2017-12-18T19:50:28.007Z
Xiong Chiamiov
<p>TL;DR, how do you <em>prove</em> devops, specifically deployment automation, improves change failure rates?</p>

<p>We're all trying to capture metrics on 'deployment failures' using <em>current</em> (mostly manual) means. Unfortunately, a 'failure' rarely happens, right? Because when something goes wrong, the team comes together (typically with heroics) to fix the issue (typically permissions, missed configs, you know the drill). So... when we ask how the deployment went, the answer is "it worked."</p>

<p>But, intuitively we all know that's not good. The 2017 state of devops report says there's about a 31-45% "<em>change failure rate.</em>" While that intuitively sounds about right, are they tracked as incidents? Nah. Because they get fixed pretty quickly, usually during validation. It's much more rare to actually roll back a deployment.</p>

<p>So, it takes discipline to report failure rates accurately. We're disincentivized to report like that because we want things to work and we do what it takes to make it happen.</p>

<p><strong>So, how do you prove devops, specifically deployment automation, improves change failure rates?</strong></p>

<p>(PS tried to tag this with "#devops-capability-model")</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-12-19T17:00:08.617Z
One thing that may be helpful is to look at [case studies](https://www.amazon.com/DevOps-Handbook-World-Class-Reliability-Organizations/dp/1942788002/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8) as examples (in addition to the surveys you reference).
James Shewey
<metrics>
pre-DevOps deployment metrics challenge
John O'Keefe
# pre-DevOps deployment metrics challenge

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-12-18)

TL;DR, how do you *prove* devops, specifically deployment automation, improves change failure rates?

We're all trying to capture metrics on 'deployment failures' using *current* (mostly manual) means. Unfortunately, a 'failure' rarely happens, right? Because when something goes wrong, the team comes together (typically with heroics) to fix the issue (typically permissions, missed configs, you know the drill). So... when we ask how the deployment went, the answer is "it worked."

But, intuitively we all know that's not good. The 2017 state of devops report says there's about a 31-45% "*change failure rate.*" While that intuitively sounds about right, are they tracked as incidents? Nah. Because they get fixed pretty quickly, usually during validation. It's much more rare to actually roll back a deployment.

So, it takes discipline to report failure rates accurately. We're disincentivized to report like that because we want things to work and we do what it takes to make it happen.

**So, how do you prove devops, specifically deployment automation, improves change failure rates?**

(PS tried to tag this with "#devops-capability-model")

**Tags:** metrics

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: One thing that may be helpful is to look at [case studies](https://www.amazon.com/DevOps-Handbook-World-Class-Reliability-Organizations/dp/1942788002/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8) as examples (in addition to the surveys you reference).  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2017-12-18. Score: 7

A technique we've used in the past in similar situations is to get "management commitment" that imposes these rules to every team member:

1. Access to perform updates to the target deployment areas (i.e. production) is limited to selected automated systems, which have appropriate audit trails (= logging) of any kind of updates to the areas they manage.
2. Manual updates to the target deployment areas, for whatever reason, are no longer allowed by the typical team members (user ids) that used to be able (authorized) to perform these updates. Instead NEW (additional) user IDs will be created which will have all required permissions to (still) perform such manual updates, whenever needed. But to actually be able to use those new user IDs (= perform a logon with them), the team member who wants to perform a logon with such new user ID will have to perform "some" extra step to get access to the password for such new user Id. Ideally this extra step is automated also (use your own imagination how it should look like), but if anything else fails: just contact (= eMail, call, etc) the gate-keeper of the required password, including "which issue they have to get fixed" (similar to your question).
3. Getting such gate-keeper in place is not an easy job. And the most resistance will come from ... the team members (for all sorts of reasons). Therefor a variation of those new user IDs (as in the previous step) is that each team member gets an extra user ID (with the password they decide themselves), but with an extra string attached to it: they are only allowed to perform a logon with that (extra) user ID if they actualy have a good reason to do so. And each time they perform such logon, they are required to file some type of report about "which issue they fixed" (similar to your question).

With these procedures in place, all that's left to do is to periodically review each of those reports / reasons why it was required to use such special user ID, and ask the question "*Is there anything that can be done to further automate this, to further reduce the need for such special login?*".

**Update**:

Quote from your extra comment below this answer:

> I think adding artificial barriers to fixing a deployment issue is counter-productive.

True it adds an extra barrier, but I'm not conviced it is "artificial". Because this is, to my knowledge, the only way to become aware of things those team members otherwise won't ever tell you, for reasons such as:

* job security.
* bad things/practises they prefer to keep hidden.
* power they do not want to loose.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Thanks for that feedback. While that might work, I think adding artificial barriers to fixing a deployment issue is counter-productive. It's a heavy stick to use but might be necessary in some cases. I prefer a mandatory post-deployment review once the smoke clears. It's less destructive but requires the same level of management commitment. I'm just curious if others have done this.  

---

### Answer by username_3 on 2017-12-18. Score: 6

> The 2017 state of devops report says there's about a 31-45% "change failure rate." While that intuitively sounds about right, are they tracked as incidents? Nah. Because they get fixed pretty quickly, usually during validation.

An issue that gets fixed quickly is still an issue. If you're not reporting these as such, that's a problem.

> So, it takes discipline to report failure rates accurately. We're disincentivized to report like that because we want things to work and we do what it takes to make it happen.

If your goal is actually to have things work, then you need to be honest about failures so you can prevent them in the future. It sounds like the team here is lying (perhaps to themselves, certainly to management) about failures because their goal is to have things *appear* to be working.

These are different things. For instance, take the old joke that QA produces bugs - "my code was fine until QA got ahold of it, and then they made all these bugs!". The bugs were there all along, but the developer was ignorant of them. An operations team's goal should be *actual reliability*, and they need to be incentivized as such by their management. That means that if they put more monitoring in place that leads to discovering new issues, they should be rewarded, not penalized for the subsequent drop in reliability metrics.

---

> TL;DR, how do you prove devops, specifically deployment automation, improves change failure rates?

If you're trying to motivate change in your organization, then you shouldn't be trying to prove anything, but provide evidence of what other organizations say about their own transitions. If you're trying to measure the processes that you already have in place and justify their continued existence, then you should be tracking the standard reliability metrics, like mean time to repair (MTTR).

But devops principles are not merely about increasing reliability. Even site reliability engineering is not merely about increasing reliability. Rather, you want to get to an *appropriate* level of reliability - something that benefits the business but doesn't hinder development. And that brings up the real motivator in devops, which is to **empower change**. You want to allow the business to respond quicker to market stimuli, which happens by decreasing developer friction, increasing the rate of deploys, automating manual processes, etc. while staying within an acceptable bound of reliability. This means you need to measure reliability, but you also need to measure velocity, because your goal is to increase the latter while keeping the former relatively static.


---

