AIM Systems explained - Nexans Cabling Solutions October 2014
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
AIM Systems are not new; they have been around in one shape or form since the Early-90s. They also polarise opinion in the Structured Cabling world like possibly nothing else. The range of opinions is extreme; at one end are those who will pay almost any premium to have what they see as “must have” technology and at the other End-Users and IT Consultants who wouldn’t have an AIM System if it was free. This article sets out to explain what AIM systems are, updates the reader on AIM Standardisation and tries to explain why AIM engenders such extreme reactions. What is AIM? Automated Infrastructure Management Systems (previously known as Intelligent Infrastructure Management Systems or IIM) are a combination of hardware and software used to manage Structured Cabling Systems and all are based upon the ability to detect the insertion or removal of a patch (or equipment) cord. There are multiple methods employed for this detection by the various manufacturers of AIM systems and few, if any, are interoperable at the hardware level. Some require special cords, others special patch panels, some employ RFID technology. The ability to detect the removal or insertion of a patch (or equipment) cord may not seem that exciting, and on its own doesn’t add much value for an organisation. The key thing is that it’s an “event”, and there are multiple other types of “event” which occur in any given Network Infrastructure; the arrival of a new MAC address, a cabinet door being opened, a power threshold being exceeded etc. In fact most of us could populate a very long list of examples in a very short period of time. Simple AIM systems don’t really do much more than manage the detection of patching – the more developed examples are able to relate all of the “events” described above to the cabling infrastructure – and it is these that become invaluable management tools for an organisation. Problems with Widespread Adoption For many years a key barrier to the widespread adoption of AIM has been the difficulty in specifying or scoping an AIM System and this situation has multiple facets. The scope of any AIM deployment needs careful thought and clear documentation, there is a requirement for the End-User or Consultant to clearly set out what is wanted and for the Integrator to understand these requirements and quote accurately for their delivery. There are plenty of examples of scope creep and “expectation gap” in the time between award of a project and delivery where this has not been done or not understood. Couple this with a tendency in some quarters to oversell the capabilities of AIM ... I’m sure I’m not the only one who has sat through a sales presentation where the AIM System could make tea and turn on the aquarium lights .... and there is a clear recipe for a dissatisfied End-User.
To “get it right” takes time and commitment; it is easy to get stuck in a vicious circle of “What can it do?” “What do you want it to do?” conversations and it is here that we hit the other barrier. Normally a Consultant is (not unreasonably) going to want paying for this work and it introduces a dilemma for the Consulting firms, if they quote including the AIM scoping work they are going to look significantly more expensive than their competing peers. This situation leads to the Cabling Tender document that I’m sure we have all seen where the final line says something like “oh and could you quote for an AIM system whilst you’re at it”. No two people involved in the process have the same understanding of what that means – the End-User has visions of something all-encompassing whilst the Integrator will (understandably) only be looking to deliver what they’ve been paid to deliver and we are back to our “expectation gap”. The lack of physical interoperability also goes some way to account for the reluctance of IT Consultants to specify AIM – as they have an innate dislike of locking an End-User into a “single vendor solution”. Finding a solution Something clearly needed to be done to break down these barriers and at the Madrid meeting of ISO/IEC JTC1 SC25 in 2011 it was decided to write some standards addressing AIM. Initially the work centred around improving the Explanatory Annexe in the ISO/IEC 14763-2 “Cabling System Administration” standard and this work is being included in an amendment of the standard with the Annexe now containing a specification of the minimum requirements of an AIM system. This work has also been completed in EN 50174-1. This is a huge step forward as it at least allows an End-User/Consultant to request a quote for an AIM system in accordance with these Annexes which levels the playing field. Whilst this represents a significant improvement in the situation it doesn’t really go far enough and ISO/IEC quickly realised that a new standard was required. During the Geneva and Ixtapa ISO/IEC meetings work commenced on ISO/IEC 18598 “Automated infrastructure management (AIM)-requirements, data exchange and applications”. This new AIM standard contains (in addition to the usual Scope, Definitions and Abbreviations) three important sections; Clause 5 details the requirements and recommendations for a “standard” AIM system, Clause 6 details the applications and benefits of stand-alone AIM systems and goes on to describe some potential benefits of AIM systems when connected to other Management Systems and finally Clause 7 addresses the interface necessary to allow information exchange with other systems. Clause 5 defines an AIM system as comprising two functional elements, hardware to detect patch cords and software that “collects and stores the resulting connection information”. The
ability to relate information to information from other sources and to cabling connectivity information is also a requirement as is the ability to make this information available to authorised users or to other systems. The contents of Clause 5 are therefore much as to be expected and include: patch cord detection, tracking end device location, work flow management, text and label generation, monitoring and management and CAD integration of, for example, floor plans, racks and layouts. Clause 6 is unusual for an ISO/IEC standard in that it deliberately contains no requirements and is entirely “tutorial” which is usually to be avoided. It is however the clause that provides the “Why” for AIM and links the requirements of Clause 5 to applications and benefits and discusses such aspects as: managing and utilising assets, automatic infrastructure documentation and monitoring, event management and alerting and the deployment of new services. It also discusses process management, infrastructure security management and discovery and configuration of attached equipment. Clause 7 is currently the subject of most of the development discussion with the previous two Clauses being regarded as “mature”. Conclusions ISO/IEC 18598 is seen as a vital document to break down the barriers to AIM adoption particularly as AIM systems will have an increasingly important role in Infrastructure Management. Some forward-thinking experts view the evolution of cabling for Building Services (see EN50173-6 or the draft ISO/IEC 11801-6) and the Internet of Things as the critical trigger for AIM to move into other business sectors.
© Nexans Cabling Solutions. All rights reserved. LANmark, LANsense and GG45 are registered trademarks of Nexans. Release date: October 2014. Nexans Cabling Solutions Alsembergsesteenweg 2, b3 - B-1501 Buizingen Tel: +32 (0)2 363 38 00 - Fax: +32 (0)2 365 09 99 Nexans Cabling Solutions UK and Intelligent Enterprise Solutions Competence Centre 2 Faraday Office Park - Faraday Road - Basingstoke - Hampshire RG24 8QQ Tel: +44 (0)1256 486640 - Fax: +44 (0)1256 486650 www.nexans.com/LANsystems - info.ncs@nexans.com
You can also read