2023 State of Network Automation Survey

Wed Mar 1 01:34:05 UTC 2023

On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 1:09 PM Lou D <telescope40 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Chris ,
>
> Competed the survey , I think I understand why some might feel issues with
> the financial questions but it’s a fair point to understand on how there
> can be avenues to maximize savings for one services if you can get
> automation rolled in with it . All the best with the survey
>

Thanks, Lou!

Savings is one potential aspect, but truly the spend numbers are mostly
about helping to determine how "serious" companies are taking automation.
Along with the other questions, they are a clue to how much automation is
actually out there in the real world.

Cheers,
~Chris

> On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 2:37 AM Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 2:30 PM Tom Beecher <beecher at beecher.cc> wrote:
>>
>>> Having the opt out is nice, but if I am being completely honest, it
>>> gives me pause as to what the intent of this survey is in the first place.
>>>
>>> I perhaps may be hyper cynical, but those feel like a straight line
>>> towards the standard salesperson line of "look at what you are spending now
>>> on FOO , you could save X if you used BAR".
>>>
>>
>> Fair play, Tom. All I can say is that after 20 years of working on, in,
>> and around the Internet, I'm sure as hell not going to ruin my reputation
>> now.
>>
>> The intent of the survey is exactly as I stated: To report network
>> automation trends back to the community.
>>
>> And whether we engineers like it or not, one of the best ways to measure
>> trends is in the relative amount of money organizations spend on them...
>>
>> HTH,
>> ~Chris
>>
>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 4:12 PM Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 12:15 PM Tom Beecher <beecher at beecher.cc>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I was also off put by some of the financial questions in there.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The financial questions (2 of them) both allow opt-out if that is a
>>>> sticking point. They are also both as vague as possible (large ranges, not
>>>> exact figures) while still providing something to baseline against.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>

-- 
@ChrisGrundemann
http://chrisgrundemann.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20230228/b9e04e4a/attachment.html>