Why we willingly killed 10 percent of our network

To solve the problem of network inefficiency and reallocate resources towards more impactful initiatives, we willingly “killed” 10% of our network.

👉 Skip the hassle and get the ready to use 100% working script (Link in the comments section of the YouTube Video) (Latest test 31/05/2025)

This strategic trimming, far from being destructive, was a targeted effort to boost overall performance and align our operations with our core values, focusing on delivering genuine value rather than maintaining redundant or underperforming connections.

Here are the detailed steps we took:

1. Identify Underperforming Nodes:

   • Data Analysis: We initiated a rigorous data analysis phase, examining traffic patterns, engagement metrics, and resource consumption across our entire network for the past 12-18 months.
   • Key Performance Indicators KPIs: We established clear KPIs for network health, including latency, uptime, packet loss, and data throughput. Any segment consistently falling below the 95th percentile in these metrics was flagged.
   • User Feedback Integration: We collected qualitative feedback from our internal teams and select external partners regarding their experience with different network segments. Anecdotal evidence of slowness or unreliability was cross-referenced with technical data.
   • Cost-Benefit Assessment: For each flagged node, we calculated its operational cost maintenance, power, licensing versus the actual value it provided. Low-value, high-cost nodes were prioritized for decommissioning.

2. Define Decommissioning Criteria:

   • Redundancy Check: Are there other, more efficient pathways or nodes that can absorb the traffic and function of this segment? We identified redundant links or services that offered no unique benefit.
   • Strategic Alignment: Does this network segment support a core business objective or a high-growth area? If it served a legacy function or a declining service, it became a candidate.
   • Security Vulnerabilities: Any segment with persistent or unpatchable security vulnerabilities that posed a significant risk to the broader network was immediately put on the chopping block, as security is non-negotiable.
   • Scalability Limitations: Nodes that exhibited inherent scalability limitations, preventing future growth or increased demand, were identified for replacement or removal.

3. Pilot Program & Impact Assessment:

   • Small-Scale Trial: We didn’t just rip the band-aid off. A small, non-critical 1% of the network was chosen for a pilot decommissioning. This allowed us to refine our processes and anticipate potential issues.
   • Monitoring & Metrics: During the pilot, we meticulously monitored surrounding network performance, user impact, and system stability.
   • Contingency Planning: For the pilot, and subsequently for the larger 10%, detailed rollback plans were in place. We ensured data backups and alternative routes were available in case of unforeseen disruptions.

4. Phased Decommissioning:

   • Scheduled Downtime: All decommissioning was carefully scheduled during off-peak hours to minimize user disruption.
   • Communication Protocol: Clear and timely communication was sent to all affected stakeholders, outlining the reasons, expected benefits, and potential minimal impact.
   • Resource Reallocation: As network segments were “killed,” the freed-up resources staff time, budget, hardware were immediately reallocated to enhancing the remaining, high-value network infrastructure, including upgrades to fiber optics and edge computing capabilities.

5. Post-Decommissioning Analysis & Optimization:

   • Performance Review: We conducted a comprehensive post-mortem analysis of the entire process, comparing network performance metrics latency, throughput, uptime before and after the cuts. Initial data showed a 15% reduction in overall network latency and a 20% increase in critical path throughput within the first quarter.
   • Cost Savings Validation: Financial reports confirmed a 7% reduction in annual operational expenditures directly attributable to the decommissioned segments, allowing reinvestment into innovation.
   • Lessons Learned: Documented all challenges, successes, and improvements for future network optimization initiatives, creating a scalable blueprint for continuous refinement.

This calculated reduction wasn’t about cutting corners.

It was about sharpening our focus, removing dead weight, and ultimately building a more robust, efficient, and future-ready network that truly serves our strategic objectives and adheres to principles of efficiency and wise resource management.

The Strategic Imperative: Why Less Was More

However, true wisdom lies in understanding that growth isn’t always about brute force. sometimes, it’s about intelligent pruning.

Our decision to “kill” 10% of our network wasn’t a knee-jerk reaction to budget cuts or a sign of failure.

On the contrary, it was a deeply strategic move, an act of intentional simplification aimed at enhancing overall vitality, much like a gardener prunes a tree to encourage healthier, more abundant fruit.

We had identified that approximately 10% of our infrastructure was acting as a drain on resources—financial, human, and technological—without delivering commensurate value.

Data showed that these segments contributed to higher latency, increased maintenance overhead, and even introduced potential security vulnerabilities due to their complexity and lack of active utilization.

It was a conscious choice to prioritize quality over sheer quantity, efficacy over excess.

We understood that maintaining underperforming assets tied up valuable capital that could be better invested in core competencies, innovation, and enhancing the remaining, high-value network segments.

The strategic imperative was clear: optimize for performance, reduce unnecessary complexity, and reallocate resources where they could generate maximum impact.

This decision was rooted in a commitment to responsible resource management and a forward-thinking approach to technological infrastructure, ensuring that every part of our network was serving a clear, beneficial purpose.

Identifying the “Dead Wood”: A Data-Driven Approach

The first step in any surgical operation is precise diagnosis. How to scrape websites with phantomjs

For us, this meant moving beyond assumptions and deep into the empirical data.

We implemented a comprehensive network audit, leveraging advanced analytics tools to map out every single node, link, and service. This wasn’t a superficial glance.

It was an exhaustive forensic analysis of our digital ecosystem.

• Traffic Flow Analysis: We meticulously tracked data packets, identifying routes with consistently low traffic volume or those serving deprecated applications. For instance, data revealed that certain legacy VPN tunnels, originally set up for specific, now-defunct projects, were still consuming bandwidth and administrative overhead, despite near-zero legitimate traffic.
• Performance Metrics: We monitored uptime, latency, packet loss rates, and bandwidth utilization across all segments. Nodes exhibiting consistently high latency e.g., averaging 200ms when the network standard was 50ms or frequent packet loss e.g., above 2% on a continuous basis were flagged.
• Cost-Benefit Analysis: Every piece of hardware, every software license, and every connection point was subjected to a rigorous cost-benefit assessment. We calculated the total cost of ownership TCO, including power consumption, cooling, maintenance contracts, and human capital required for administration. If a segment’s TCO significantly outweighed the tangible value it provided, it became a prime candidate for decommissioning. For example, we found several aging servers consuming significant power e.g., 500W each 24/7 but only utilized at 5-10% capacity, costing thousands annually for minimal output.
• Security Audit Findings: Regular security audits highlighted areas of concern. Older, less patchable hardware or software versions within certain network segments presented elevated risk profiles. Maintaining these “zombie” segments meant continuously expending resources on patching vulnerabilities that could be eliminated entirely by decommissioning. A report from Q3 showed that 8% of all detected network intrusion attempts were targeting these older, less maintained segments.
• User Feedback & Strategic Alignment: Beyond raw data, we gathered qualitative feedback. Users often reported difficulties with specific applications or services, which upon investigation, often correlated with underperforming network segments. Furthermore, we cross-referenced network segments with our strategic roadmap. If a segment didn’t support a current or future business objective, its existence was questioned. This meticulous, data-driven approach ensured that our decisions were objective, justifiable, and ultimately, beneficial.

Cost Savings and Resource Reallocation: Beyond the Obvious

The immediate and most tangible benefit of culling inefficient network segments was the direct cost savings.

This wasn’t just about reducing operational expenditure.

It was about freeing up capital and human resources that could then be strategically reallocated to areas of higher impact and innovation.

• Direct Financial Savings:
  • Hardware Depreciation & Maintenance: By removing aging servers, routers, and switches, we immediately eliminated associated maintenance contracts, licensing fees, and the cost of eventual hardware replacement. For instance, decommissioning 25 obsolete server racks saved an estimated $150,000 annually in power, cooling, and maintenance agreements.
  • Power Consumption: Underutilized network infrastructure consumes significant electricity. A typical enterprise-grade server can consume anywhere from 100W to 1000W or more. Eliminating 10% of our network translated into a substantial reduction in our energy footprint, resulting in a 12% decrease in our overall data center electricity bill, saving approximately $75,000 per year. This aligns with our values of responsible resource management and reducing waste.
  • Software Licensing: Many network services and devices require recurring software licenses. Decommissioning meant we could terminate these licenses, preventing unnecessary recurring expenses. We saw a $30,000 annual reduction in specific network management software licenses.
• Human Resource Optimization:
  • Reduced Administrative Overhead: Our network engineers and IT staff were spending valuable time monitoring, troubleshooting, and patching these underperforming or deprecated segments. By eliminating them, we freed up an estimated 15% of our network operations team’s bandwidth. This time was immediately reallocated.
  • Focus on Innovation: Instead of reactive maintenance, our engineers could now proactively work on strategic projects: implementing advanced security protocols, optimizing routing algorithms for the remaining network, exploring new cloud-native solutions, and researching cutting-edge technologies like SDN Software-Defined Networking that truly add value. This shift led to a 25% increase in feature development and network enhancement projects completed within the first six months.
  • Enhanced Skill Development: The freed-up time also allowed for targeted training and skill development for our team, ensuring they remain at the forefront of network technology.
• Tangible Reallocation: The saved funds were not simply absorbed back into the general budget. They were explicitly earmarked and reinvested into upgrading core network infrastructure e.g., replacing copper with fiber optics in key segments, upgrading to higher-capacity switches and enhancing cybersecurity defenses. This led to a significant improvement in network resilience and a reduction in potential attack surface, ultimately bolstering our overall digital security posture. The process underscored a crucial principle: intelligent divestment fuels intelligent reinvestment.

Enhanced Security Posture: Closing the Digital Backdoors

One of the most compelling, and often underestimated, benefits of trimming our network fat was the immediate and profound enhancement of our overall security posture.

Every active network connection, every device, every software instance represents a potential attack vector.

By eliminating unnecessary or underperforming segments, we effectively closed numerous potential digital backdoors that could have been exploited.

• Reduced Attack Surface:
  • Fewer Endpoints to Protect: It’s simple mathematics: fewer active devices and services mean a smaller surface area for malicious actors to probe and exploit. With 10% of our network removed, we saw a direct 10% reduction in the number of endpoints requiring active monitoring, patching, and vulnerability scanning. This translates directly to less exposure.
  • Elimination of Legacy Vulnerabilities: Older hardware and software often contain unpatched vulnerabilities, or are simply no longer supported by vendors, making them highly susceptible to modern exploits. By decommissioning these elements, we instantly removed these ticking time bombs from our infrastructure. For example, specific legacy systems identified for removal had known CVEs Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures dating back years, which, if exploited, could have led to significant data breaches, costing potentially millions in remediation and reputational damage.
• Improved Patch Management and Compliance:
  • Streamlined Operations: With a smaller, more centralized network, our security team could implement patch management more efficiently and effectively. There were fewer disparate systems to track, fewer compatibility issues to navigate, and less risk of missing critical updates. This led to a 20% improvement in our average patch deployment time across the remaining network.
  • Easier Compliance Audits: Regulatory compliance e.g., GDPR, HIPAA, industry-specific standards often requires stringent control over all network components. A leaner network simplifies the process of demonstrating compliance, as there are fewer systems to audit and less complexity to explain.
• Enhanced Monitoring and Incident Response:
  • Clearer Visibility: By reducing network complexity, our security monitoring tools SIEMs, IDS/IPS gained clearer visibility into legitimate traffic patterns. Anomalies became easier to detect, reducing false positives and allowing our security analysts to focus on real threats. This resulted in a 15% reduction in time to detect critical security incidents.
  • Faster Response Times: When an incident did occur, a more streamlined network meant that the blast radius was often smaller, and containment and remediation efforts could be executed much more swiftly. Our average incident response time decreased by 10% in the post-decommissioning period for critical alerts.
• Proactive Threat Mitigation: The reallocation of human resources meant our cybersecurity team could shift from reactive firefighting to proactive threat hunting and security architecture improvements. They could dedicate more time to advanced penetration testing, developing robust security policies, and implementing next-generation security solutions that truly fortify our digital defenses. This strategic move wasn’t just about patching holes. it was about building a stronger, more resilient digital fortress.

Performance Uplift: A Leaner, Faster Network

The benefits of shedding dead weight extended directly to the core performance of our network. How data is being used to win customers in the travel sector

Imagine a high-performance athlete training for a marathon: they don’t carry extra weight. they optimize their body for speed and endurance.

Similarly, by removing inefficient and underutilized segments, our network became leaner, faster, and far more responsive.

• Reduced Latency:
  • Shorter Data Paths: Many decommissioned segments represented indirect or convoluted data pathways. By removing them, we forced traffic onto more direct, optimized routes. This immediate streamlining resulted in a measurable reduction in latency. For critical business applications, we observed an average latency reduction of 15-20%, meaning data packets traveled faster from source to destination. This translates to quicker application response times, smoother video conferences, and more efficient data transfers.
  • Less Network Congestion: Underperforming nodes could act as bottlenecks, even if their own traffic was low, by consuming routing table entries or processing cycles. Eliminating these nodes alleviated subtle forms of network congestion, allowing data to flow more freely.
• Increased Bandwidth Efficiency:
  • Optimized Resource Allocation: The bandwidth and processing power previously consumed by maintaining, monitoring, and routing traffic through the “dead wood” were now available for high-priority services. This wasn’t about increasing raw bandwidth capacity. it was about making existing capacity work harder and smarter. Our effective bandwidth utilization increased by 8-10% on core links, meaning we were getting more out of our existing infrastructure.
  • Improved Quality of Service QoS: With less noise and fewer inefficiencies, our Quality of Service QoS policies could be more effectively applied and enforced. Critical business applications and services e.g., VoIP, video conferencing, real-time data feeds received preferential treatment with less interference, leading to a noticeable improvement in user experience. For example, reported issues with voice call quality dropped by 25%.
• Enhanced Reliability and Uptime:
  • Fewer Points of Failure: Each network component is a potential point of failure. By reducing the total number of components, we inherently reduced the probability of an outage originating from a faulty device or misconfiguration in the decommissioned segments. Our network uptime, already robust, saw a marginal but significant increase of 0.05% in our critical service level agreements SLAs, translating to several hours less downtime annually.
  • Simplified Troubleshooting: When issues do arise, a less complex network is significantly easier to diagnose and troubleshoot. Our Mean Time To Resolution MTTR for network-related incidents improved by 18%, meaning our teams could identify and fix problems much faster, minimizing disruption to operations. This performance uplift wasn’t just theoretical. it was felt by our users and reflected in our operational metrics, validating the strategic decision to prioritize efficiency over sheer scale.

Future-Proofing and Scalability: Building for Tomorrow

The act of pruning our network wasn’t just about solving immediate problems.

It was a proactive step towards building a more resilient, adaptable, and scalable infrastructure capable of meeting future demands.

• Reduced Technical Debt:
  • Shedding Legacy Systems: Maintaining outdated hardware and software accumulates “technical debt” – the implied cost of future rework necessary to replace or integrate current imperfect solutions. By consciously removing these legacy systems, we significantly reduced our technical debt. This means less time spent on costly and often fruitless attempts to integrate old with new, and more resources available for forward-looking initiatives. Our internal assessment estimated a reduction of approximately 20% in potential future technical debt burden related to network infrastructure.
  • Cleaner Foundation for Innovation: A clean, optimized network provides a much more stable and predictable foundation for implementing new technologies like Artificial Intelligence AI integration, Internet of Things IoT deployments, or adopting advanced cloud architectures. There are fewer roadblocks and compatibility issues.
• Enhanced Scalability and Agility:
  • Easier Expansion: When expansion is needed, it’s far easier to scale up a well-structured, efficient network than to expand a convoluted, inefficient one. Our trimmed network is now more modular, allowing for easier addition of new segments or services without causing cascading performance issues. This new modularity decreased the average time for deploying new network services by 30%.
• Optimized for Emerging Technologies:
  • Edge Computing Readiness: With more efficient core and streamlined data paths, our network is better prepared to support distributed computing models like edge computing, where processing power is moved closer to the data source.
  • Cloud-Native Integration: The removal of tightly coupled, on-premise legacy systems paved the way for smoother, more cost-effective integration with public and private cloud services, aligning with modern hybrid cloud strategies. Our cloud migration initiatives saw a 10% acceleration after the network optimization.
• Strategic Capacity Planning:
  • Accurate Forecasting: With the “noise” of underperforming segments removed, our capacity planning became significantly more accurate. We could better predict future bandwidth and resource needs based on actual growth patterns, rather than compensating for hidden inefficiencies. This leads to more precise investments, avoiding over-provisioning or under-provisioning.

This proactive approach ensures that our network isn’t just serving today’s needs, but is a robust, adaptable platform ready to embrace the challenges and opportunities of tomorrow, reflecting a forward-thinking and responsible approach to infrastructure development.

The Human Element: Team Morale and Focus

While the technical and financial benefits are quantifiable, the positive impact on our human capital, particularly our IT and network teams, was equally significant.

When you’re constantly battling legacy systems, troubleshooting obscure issues in rarely used segments, or dealing with the inefficiencies of technical debt, it takes a toll on morale and productivity.

• Reduced Frustration and Burnout:
  • Fewer “Zombie” Projects: Our engineers were no longer forced to spend time and energy on maintaining “zombie” network segments – those that consumed resources but yielded little to no strategic value. This liberation from tedious, low-impact tasks significantly reduced professional frustration.
  • Streamlined Troubleshooting: As noted, a simpler network is easier to diagnose. This means less time spent on complex, drawn-out troubleshooting sessions, leading to less stress and more successful resolutions. Anecdotal feedback from our network team showed a marked decrease in reported “on-call fatigue”, improving their overall work-life balance.
• Increased Job Satisfaction and Empowerment:
  • Focus on Meaningful Work: By shifting resources from reactive maintenance to proactive development and strategic initiatives, our team felt a greater sense of purpose and impact. They were empowered to work on projects that truly moved the needle for the organization, such as implementing advanced security features or optimizing core network performance, rather than simply “keeping the lights on” for underperforming assets. A recent internal survey indicated a 15% increase in job satisfaction metrics among our network engineering staff.
  • Skill Development and Growth: With freed-up time and resources, we were able to invest more heavily in professional development, training, and certifications for our team. This not only enhanced their capabilities but also boosted their confidence and career trajectories. Many team members actively pursued certifications in areas like cloud networking and advanced cybersecurity, directly funded by the efficiencies gained.
• Improved Collaboration and Communication:
  • Clearer Ownership: A more streamlined network meant clearer ownership of different segments and responsibilities, reducing ambiguity and fostering better internal collaboration.
  • Enhanced Team Cohesion: When a team is focused on shared, high-impact goals, collaboration naturally improves. The process of strategically decommissioning parts of the network became a unifying project, where different teams worked together towards a common, tangible outcome. Our cross-functional project success rates, involving network teams, saw a 10% improvement.
• Positive Cultural Shift: This strategic move fostered a culture of continuous improvement, efficiency, and smart resource allocation. It demonstrated to our employees that we are willing to make bold, data-driven decisions for the long-term health and prosperity of the organization, and that their time and expertise are valued assets that should be directed towards maximum impact. This change was reflected in higher employee engagement scores in our Q4 review, showing a 7% increase in perceived organizational effectiveness. Ultimately, a healthy, focused team is the backbone of a healthy, high-performing network, and this strategic pruning directly contributed to both.

Lessons Learned and a Blueprint for Continuous Optimization

The process of “killing” 10% of our network was not merely a one-time event.

It was a profound learning experience that has reshaped our approach to network management and resource allocation.

It provided invaluable insights and a clear blueprint for future continuous optimization, ensuring we maintain a lean, efficient, and robust infrastructure. Web scraping with llama 3

• Data-Driven Decision Making is Paramount: The most significant lesson was the absolute necessity of rigorous, comprehensive data analysis. Without objective metrics on traffic, performance, cost, and security vulnerabilities, our decisions would have been based on intuition or anecdotal evidence, leading to suboptimal or even damaging outcomes. We now embed proactive data analytics as a fundamental first step in all major infrastructure decisions. We’ve invested in advanced network observability platforms that provide real-time insights, allowing us to identify underperforming assets before they become significant drains. This has led to a 25% reduction in reactive maintenance tasks stemming from unforeseen issues.
• Phased Implementation Mitigates Risk: The pilot program proved invaluable. It allowed us to test our processes, identify unforeseen dependencies, and refine our communication strategies on a small, controlled scale. This iterative approach minimized disruption during the larger rollout and built confidence within the organization. Any future large-scale changes will now automatically incorporate a phased, pilot-first methodology. Our risk assessment scores for infrastructure projects have decreased by an average of 15% due to this refined approach.
• Communication is Key to Buy-in: Transparent and proactive communication with all stakeholders – from end-users to executive leadership – was critical. Explaining why these changes were necessary, outlining the expected benefits, and setting realistic expectations helped manage perceptions and secure buy-in. We learned that clear communication about the strategic value of the cuts was more important than technical details for non-technical audiences. We now have a standardized communication protocol for all significant IT changes, ensuring everyone is informed and understands the “why.”
• The “Cost of Doing Nothing” is Real: We quantitatively demonstrated that maintaining underperforming assets incurs a significant “cost of doing nothing” – not just in direct expenditure, but in lost productivity, increased security risks, and diverted human resources. This exercise provided compelling evidence that sometimes, the most beneficial action is to divest. This principle now guides our strategic planning, encouraging regular audits and proactive trimming of any non-performing or low-value assets across all departments, not just IT.
• Embrace Continuous Optimization: This wasn’t a one-and-done solution. Our network is a living entity, and its needs will evolve. We have established a new internal framework for continuous network optimization, including:
  • Quarterly Performance Reviews: Dedicated sessions to review network KPIs, identify emerging inefficiencies, and flag potential “dead wood.”
  • Regular Technology Refresh Cycles: Proactive planning for hardware and software upgrades, ensuring we leverage the latest efficiencies and security enhancements.

This approach has cemented a culture of efficiency and smart resource management, proving that strategic pruning is not just a reactive measure, but a powerful tool for long-term growth and resilience.

The lessons learned have become embedded in our operational DNA, guiding us towards a future of sustained efficiency and innovation.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does “killing 10 percent of our network” actually mean?

It means strategically decommissioning or shutting down 10% of our existing network infrastructure, which could include servers, routers, switches, specific data links, or even entire legacy segments that were identified as underperforming, redundant, or no longer aligned with our core objectives. It’s a targeted removal, not a random cut.

Was this a cost-cutting measure due to financial difficulties?

No, absolutely not.

While significant cost savings were a beneficial outcome, the primary driver was strategic optimization.

We aimed to reallocate resources from inefficient areas to high-impact initiatives, enhancing overall network performance, security, and scalability, similar to pruning a tree to encourage healthier growth.

How did you decide which 10 percent to eliminate?

Our decision was entirely data-driven.

We used comprehensive analytics to identify underperforming nodes based on metrics like low traffic volume, high latency, excessive power consumption, high maintenance costs, persistent security vulnerabilities, and lack of strategic alignment with current business goals.

User feedback and strategic reviews also played a key role.

What were the immediate benefits of this drastic action?

The immediate benefits included a measurable reduction in operational costs power, maintenance, licensing, improved network performance lower latency, higher throughput on critical paths, a significantly reduced attack surface, and increased bandwidth efficiency. Proxy with c sharp

Our initial data showed a 15% reduction in overall network latency and a 7% reduction in annual operational expenditures.

Did this cause any downtime or disruption for users?

We meticulously planned the decommissioning in phases, often during off-peak hours, and implemented robust contingency plans, including temporary rerouting and data backups. Our pilot program helped us refine these processes.

As a result, any disruption was minimal, scheduled, and widely communicated in advance.

How did this impact your IT and network teams?

Initially, there was a significant effort involved in the decommissioning process.

However, the long-term impact was overwhelmingly positive.

It reduced frustration from managing outdated systems, allowed teams to focus on high-value, innovative projects, and facilitated professional skill development.

It led to a 15% increase in job satisfaction metrics among our network engineering staff.

Is this a one-time event, or will you continue to cut parts of your network?

This was a strategic, one-time overhaul of a significant portion of our legacy infrastructure.

However, the process has ingrained a culture of continuous optimization.

We’ve established frameworks for regular network performance reviews, strategic alignment audits, and technology refresh cycles to ensure we maintain a lean, efficient, and future-proof network. Open proxies

How does this improve network security?

By eliminating unnecessary or outdated network segments, we effectively reduced our attack surface.

Fewer active components mean fewer potential vulnerabilities for malicious actors to exploit.

It also streamlines patch management and improves the visibility for our security monitoring tools, leading to faster incident detection and response times.

What kind of cost savings did you achieve specifically?

We achieved multi-faceted cost savings.

For example, decommissioning 25 obsolete server racks saved an estimated $150,000 annually in power, cooling, and maintenance agreements.

Our overall data center electricity bill decreased by 12%, saving approximately $75,000 per year, and specific software licensing reductions amounted to $30,000 annually.

Where did the freed-up resources money, staff time go?

The saved funds and human capital were explicitly reallocated.

Money was reinvested into upgrading core network infrastructure e.g., fiber optics, higher-capacity switches and enhancing cybersecurity defenses.

Staff time was redirected to strategic projects, innovation, advanced security architecture, and professional development.

Did you replace the decommissioned parts with new equipment?

In some cases, specific functions of the decommissioned parts were absorbed by existing, more efficient infrastructure, or by new, more advanced, and consolidated technologies that provided the same or better service with a smaller footprint and lower overhead. How to find proxy server address

This was about optimizing, not simply replacing one-for-one.

How did this affect overall network reliability and uptime?

By reducing the number of active components and points of failure, we inherently improved overall network reliability.

A simpler network is also easier to troubleshoot, leading to faster Mean Time To Resolution MTTR for any issues that do arise.

Our network uptime for critical SLAs saw a marginal but significant increase of 0.05%.

Was there any external pressure or regulatory requirement for this action?

No, this was an entirely internal, proactive strategic decision.

It stemmed from a commitment to operational excellence, responsible resource management, and a forward-thinking approach to technological infrastructure, rather than external mandates.

How did this make your network “future-proof”?

By shedding technical debt legacy systems and simplifying the architecture, our network became more agile and scalable.

What was the biggest challenge you faced during this process?

One of the biggest challenges was accurately mapping all dependencies and understanding the intricate relationships between different network segments to ensure that decommissioning one part wouldn’t inadvertently disrupt critical services elsewhere.

This required extensive upfront analysis and careful planning.

How long did the entire decommissioning process take?

The entire process, from initial data analysis and pilot program to full phased decommissioning and post-analysis, took approximately 9-12 months. Embeddings in machine learning

This allowed for meticulous planning, execution, and verification at each stage.

Did you consider any alternatives to outright removal?

Yes, we explored various alternatives, including optimization, virtualization, or consolidation.

However, for the identified 10%, outright removal was determined to be the most efficient and beneficial solution due to the inherent inefficiencies, high costs, or security risks associated with keeping them active.

How did this impact your organization’s environmental footprint?

By significantly reducing power consumption from decommissioning servers and other network hardware, we made a tangible positive impact on our environmental footprint, aligning with our commitment to sustainability and responsible resource utilization.

This resulted in a 12% decrease in our overall data center electricity bill.

What advice would you give to other companies considering a similar strategy?

Start with meticulous, objective data analysis to truly understand your network’s performance, costs, and vulnerabilities. Implement a phased approach with a pilot program.

Prioritize clear and consistent communication with all stakeholders.

And remember, sometimes less is truly more when it comes to optimized infrastructure.

Does “killing” parts of a network mean sacrificing redundancy?

No, not necessarily. In our case, many of the decommissioned segments were either genuinely redundant offering no unique backup path or were inefficient single points of failure. The goal was to eliminate unnecessary complexity and inefficient redundancy, while strengthening and optimizing core redundant pathways in the remaining, high-value network.

How to scrape zillow