How to choose the right branch-office IT architecture
By Rich Freeman
Centralization versus localization? What about a hybrid of the two? There is really no one correct way to supply branch offices with IT services. You have to determine which way is best for your company. But consider factors such as branch-office size and workload, as discussed below, to improve your odds of making a smart choice.
In Summary:
| • | Companies with branch offices can centralize IT services at headquarters, provide them locally at remote sites, or adopt a hybrid model. |
| • | IT managers should factor branch size, workload, and tolerance for downtime into their decision making. |
| • | Use multiple-branch management models in combination where appropriate. |
Every organization with branch offices ultimately adopts a strategy for providing remote IT services. But few businesses put their strategy to the test quite the way Fulcrum Pharma PLC did in December 2005.
The 120-employee provider of outsourced drug development services was just days away from occupying its new headquarters in Hemel Hempstead, England, when a shattering series of explosions at the nearby Buncefield oil depot destroyed the building. "We had quite a few servers there already, and we lost the lot," recalls IT manager Jason Hamlett.
Remarkably, however, the destruction of Fulcrum's new data center had little impact on the company's seven global branches. "We were lucky," Hamlett says. His team had just finished implementing a new branch management architecture that reduced remote sites' dependence on the head office. As a result, branch employees experienced just minutes of downtime.
Fulcrum's experiences highlight the importance of choosing wisely when deciding whether to centralize branch IT services at headquarters, distribute them across your remote offices, or opt for a hybrid solution.
Centralization versus localization
 | We have seen people mixing and matching as they need to, and that allows these companies to keep at least some workers productive if the network goes away. |  | | Noah Breslow
Packeteer | |
|
The centralized and distributed branch-management models each have their strengths and weaknesses. Doing everything from headquarters simplifies administration by enabling a single team of technicians to address all maintenance and repair tasks from one place. Yet centralized services can also result in sluggish network performance for branches, says Joe Skorupa, research vice president for enterprise network services and infrastructure at Gartner in Stamford, Conn.
Most of today's wide-area network (WAN) protocols were originally designed for use on speedier local-area networks (LANs), which results in slower network performance over a WAN versus a LAN. As well, WAN links are less reliable than LAN connections. "Virtually every company is going to have an outage once a year in the neighborhood of half a day," Skorupa notes.
Organizations that provide IT services locally have fewer performance issues, but are vulnerable to high support costs. Spiritus, a nonprofit provider of home health care, initially adopted a distributed branch management approach. Yet with 65 offices, clinics, and aged-care facilities across Queensland, Australia, the organization found dispatching technicians to remote sites both costly and time-consuming.
"We were unable to focus on strategy and planning," says group IT manager Ben Ward. Meanwhile, backups, version control, change management, license tracking, and security updates were all problematic from a distance. Ultimately, Spiritus decided to abandon its distributed architecture in favor of a centralized strategy in which headquarters provides most services over broadband connections and local vendors handle specialized functions such as cabling.
Businesses can use a variety of tools to mitigate some of the problems associated with the centralized and localized branch-management models. For example, WAN optimization solutions can improve performance by reducing the amount of traffic flowing across long-distance connections. "They cannot change the latency, but they can minimize its effects," Skorupa says.
Many companies today are also employing Wide Area File Services (WAFS) technologies as a hybrid approach. WAFS solutions provide accelerated access to centrally stored files with the help of locally deployed network appliances or server software. "All of the management, the backup, and the archiving is centralized, but you still leverage the benefits of distributed processing, which means a really good user experience," says Noah Breslow, senior director of corporate development at Cupertino, Calif.-based WAFS provider Packeteer. Moreover, WAFS solutions with data mirroring and failover capabilities also protect branch sites from downtime.
What to assess when choosing your strategy
Still, there is no simple formula for determining whether centralization, distribution, or WAFS is best for your needs. Before deciding on a branch-office management strategy, businesses should assess several factors:
| • | First, consider the workload. Companies with branches that process large volumes of relatively simple transactions — banks and retailers, for instance — often choose a centralized approach, Skorupa says. Breslow agrees, adding that the same is true for organizations with branch sites that rely chiefly on mainframe-style legacy applications, because such systems tend to strain slow WAN connections less. However, says Breslow, if your branches need reliable access to large, graphically rich files such as 3D models, WAFS is often a better option. |
| • | Next, decide how much downtime branches can tolerate. Remote sites that perform critical or time-sensitive functions, such as call centers and factories, should usually have local infrastructure, notes Craig Randall, vice president of operations at Availl, an Andover, Mass.-based WAFS vendor. "You're never going to pull file servers out of significant remote operations," he says. |
| • | The final variable to consider is size. Centralization can be a cost-effective option for small branch offices, Randall says. "If you have a remote office that is five people, then the whole idea is to put as little out there as possible," he says. |
Of course, many companies have branches with distinct characteristics and needs. For those organizations, Skorupa recommends a multiple-branch architecture. A manufacturer, for example, might want to provide WAFS-based support to its design centers but position local servers and IT staff at large factories. Businesses can even combine branch management models within a single office, offering centralized access to business applications while using local servers for basic file and print needs.
"We have seen people mixing and matching as they need to, and that allows these companies to keep at least some workers productive if the network goes away," Breslow notes.
Advance planning is ultimately the key to making the right branch management choice, says Fulcrum Pharma's Hamlett. He recommends speaking with as many people at as many sites as possible to fully understand everyone's needs, and don't forget to set aside plenty of time for quality assurance.
"Whatever you are going to do, make sure you test it thoroughly," Hamlett says. "Of course, we did the biggest test of all!"
Rich Freeman is a Seattle-based freelance writer specializing in business and technology. He has more than 14 years of strategic marketing and communications experience in the IT industry.
