1.0 Executive Summary: The Strategic Value of Asynchronous Process Verification
The complexity inherent in modern enterprise IT infrastructure, particularly systems that are heterogeneous—formed by integrating software acquired from multiple vendors over significant time spans—presents substantial challenges to effective IT operations management (ITOM).1 These environments often rely on human system administrators for security, technical configuration, and, critically, process execution control across parallel, interlinked workloads.1 The complexity of heterogeneous system administration and control of their execution remains an area lacking acceptable automated solutions.1
1.1 Contextual Necessity: Addressing Heterogeneity and Manual Overhead
The core driver for developing the Automated Process Control (APC) concept is the need to govern business processes that span two or more independent, often proprietary, systems.1 Such dependency on manual control increases organizational risk because the consistency and reliability of process execution become highly dependent upon the "subjective factor and qualification of the supporting staff".1
The proposed APC mechanism addresses this gap by creating a framework that reduces manual administrative dependence.1 It consists of two essential parts: a description of the controlled processes, codified in a specialized domain-specific language (DSL) called ProCDeL, and a mechanism responsible for verifying process execution against that description.1
1.2 Core Mechanism and Objectives
APC's primary objective is not to execute the processes themselves, but rather to function as an observer, continuously checking if the system processes are running according to the ProCDeL descriptions.1 This mechanism specifically verifies the correct process sequence and operation timing.1 This verification is achieved through a distributed, event-driven architecture comprising a Central Hub and localized Agents.1 When a discrepancy is detected—an event fired out of sequence or a timing violation—the control mechanism issues timely warnings or error information to the support staff.1
1.3 Strategic Positioning: A Transitional Autonomy Tool
The APC mechanism and ProCDeL are explicitly positioned as part of a smart technology framework aiming toward the autonomous system concept developed by IBM.1 IBM's vision of Autonomic Computing (AC) centers on creating self-managing systems using closed control loops, embodied by the Monitor-Analyze-Plan-Execute (MAPE) model.2
The APC architecture, in its current form, implements a crucial, high-value subset of this autonomy vision. The distributed Agents fulfill the Monitor role, collecting event data, and the Central Hub’s Controller Instances perform the Analyze function, comparing data against policy.1 However, the control mechanism’s primary action—sending timely warnings or error information 1—means it delegates the subsequent Plan and Execute steps (i.e., remediation or self-healing) back to human staff. This positions APC as a highly specialized, passive governance and auditing tool, focused primarily on runtime verification rather than active control. This approach minimizes the deployment risk associated with fully autonomous remediation while providing robust compliance oversight for complex interlinked processes.
2.0 Theoretical Foundations: Linking APC to Autonomic Computing and Control Theory
The conceptual foundation of Automated Process Control is firmly rooted in established principles of distributed systems governance, specifically leveraging the architecture and goals set forth by the Autonomic Computing movement.
2.1 The Genesis of Autonomic Computing (AC)
Autonomic Computing was an initiative launched by IBM in 2001, aimed at developing computer systems capable of self-management.2 The fundamental problem AC sought to address was the rapidly escalating complexity of managing large-scale IT systems, a complexity barrier that hindered further growth and necessitated reducing the intrinsic complexity visible to operators and users.2
AC seeks to establish distributed computing resources with self-managing characteristics, allowing them to adapt to unpredictable changes dynamically.2 These systems operate on high-level policies and constantly check and optimize their status.2 The ultimate vision for AC includes developing core "self-x" properties, such as self-organization, self-optimization, self-protection, and self-healing.3
2.2 The Closed Control Loop Paradigm
A cornerstone concept applied in Autonomic Systems is the closed control loop, a construct directly derived from Process Control Theory.2 In the context of self-managing systems, a closed control loop monitors a specific resource, whether hardware or software, and continuously attempts to maintain its parameters within a predefined, desired operational range.2 For a large-scale self-managing computer system, IBM anticipated the necessity for potentially thousands of these control loops operating concurrently.2
Traditional systems often operate as open-loop designs; once deployed, if a fault occurs, human intervention is necessary, leading to high downtime and personnel costs.4 The closed-loop approach, exemplified by systems that Monitor, Analyze, and then Control the target system, allows for dynamic self-adaptation with significantly reduced human oversight.4
2.3 APC's Implementation of the MAPE Control Model
The architectural model driving autonomic components is the Monitor-Analyze-Plan-Execute (MAPE) loop.2 Autonomic components typically incorporate sensors for self-monitoring, effectors for self-adjustment, knowledge storage, and a planner/adapter component to exploit policies based on self- and environment awareness.2
APC’s architecture maps directly to the initial stages of this model, applying the rigor of closed-loop control to abstract business processes rather than infrastructure parameters:
Monitor: This stage is fulfilled by the distributed Agents. These software modules are deployed to trace specific system events (e.g., a new file arrival or database modification).1 They act as the distributed sensors of the control loop.
Analyze: This stage is the responsibility of the Controller Instances within the Central Hub. These instances analyze the stream of incoming events, comparing them against the codified Process Description (the desired state) to check compliance with the defined sequence and timing.1
Plan/Execute (Limited): The APC mechanism in its present description primarily executes a notification function.1 This mechanism represents a crucial constraint: while it verifies adherence to policy, it does not actively manipulate the execution flow of the underlying heterogeneous systems. This focus on verification (observing adherence) rather than comprehensive intervention (self-healing or self-optimization) confirms its role as a supervisory governance layer.
This conceptual link is highly significant. While traditional control theory often governs physical or resource parameters 2, APC translates the same robust closed-loop theory to enforce abstract business process sequencing and temporal constraints, providing a machine-verifiable mechanism for ensuring business policy compliance across disparate IT assets.
3.0 ProCDeL: Language Design and Process Hierarchy
The efficacy of the Automated Process Control mechanism is critically dependent upon its process description language, ProCDeL (Process Control Description Language). As a Domain-Specific Language (DSL), ProCDeL is engineered to solve the particular problem of automating process execution control, rather than general-purpose software development.1
3.1 ProCDeL: A Verification-Focused Domain-Specific Language
ProCDeL is formalized specifically to describe the control criteria necessary for runtime verification.1 DSLs are advantageous because they simplify configuration, integration, and management by allowing domain experts (like system administrators or business analysts) to articulate complex logic more intuitively without requiring deep low-level coding expertise.6
The development of ProCDeL was guided by two primary criteria, which inherently posed a design challenge: it must be easy for various users (system administrators and skilled end-users) to utilize, yet it must possess the capacity to describe rather complex synchronization and control logic.1
This balance is maintained through support for both graphical notation (allowing processes to be represented as graphs for human readability and high-level understanding) and textual notation (essential for capturing the precise technical details of flow control and timing required for verification).1 The textual notation is crucial for defining the precise semantics necessary for the Central Hub's Controller Instances.
3.2 ProCDeL's State-Chart Foundation
The core elements of ProCDeL are designed around state-based modeling, a powerful paradigm for managing control flow. The language incorporates three primary element types:
States: Representing the defined stages of the business process.
Events: Functioning as the connections in state charts, representing triggers (like system events detected by Agents) that cause a transition between states.1
Flow Control Elements: These elements, which include capabilities for describing parallel process execution, loops, and control over other processes, provide the necessary tools for defining complex synchronization logic.1
This state-chart foundation is ideally suited for the purpose of runtime verification. The Controller Instance's analysis logic becomes highly simplified: sequence violations—where events are observed out of order or "fired in an inappropriate order" 1—directly translate into invalid or disallowed state transitions within the formal model.
3.3 Differentiation of Process Types: Base vs. Supervisory
A key structural feature of ProCDeL is the formal separation of controlled processes into two hierarchical types: Base and Supervisory.1 This differentiation is critical because it allows the DSL to articulate process dependencies and synchronization requirements explicitly.
3.4 Challenges of Supervisory Process Definition
Supervisory processes are the operational heart of the APC system, defining the complex flow control, parallel execution, and synchronization logic.1 The successful implementation of APC depends on the ease and precision with which these definitions can be created.
The language must maintain a difficult equilibrium: the textual notation must be expressive enough to manage intricate time constraints and fault management states, yet simple enough to adhere to the design criterion of being "easy to use by various types of users".1 If the flow control elements required for defining synchronization become overly complex or abstract, the initial goal of democratizing process control logic will be undermined. This risk is common to external DSLs, where poor tooling or a steep learning curve can lead to low adoption rates and increased reliance on specialized IT personnel, defeating the purpose of reducing dependency on system support staff.7 Therefore, the usability of ProCDeL's textual and graphical tools is as vital as its technical expressiveness.
4.0 The Central Hub and Agent Architecture: Asynchronous Verification Mechanics
The physical implementation of the Automated Process Control concept relies on a highly distributed, event-driven architecture designed to monitor system events without intervening in the execution path of the base processes.8 This architecture consists of two fundamental components: the Central Hub and the Agents.1
4.1 Distributed Monitoring: The Agent Layer
Agents are software modules distributed across the servers and systems that implement the process under control.1 Their sole responsibility is tracing specific events relevant to the process flow, acting as external system probes.1 Examples of detected events include file system events (e.g., detection of a new file or file modification) or application-level events (e.g., a new record inserted into a database).1
Crucially, the communication between Agents and the Central Hub is asynchronous. When an Agent detects an event, it sends a notification to the Central Hub.1 This asynchronous communication pattern is key to achieving the non-intervening nature of the system, ensuring the monitoring mechanism runs in parallel with the base processes and affects them insignificantly.8
A specialized component, the Timer Agent, resides within the Central Hub itself. This agent is essential for providing timer events to the Controller Instances, allowing the Central Hub to verify the accuracy of the process operation timing against the ProCDeL description.1
4.2 Central Hub Components and Roles
The Central Hub is the central brain of the control mechanism, hosted on a single server, where all process knowledge and verification logic are contained and managed.1 It orchestrates the entire verification cycle through five interconnected modules:
Process Library: This is the repository containing all the formal Process Descriptions written in ProCDeL that the Central Hub is tasked with monitoring.1 It acts as the definitive source of truth regarding the desired process state.
Controller Instances: When a supervisory or base process is initiated, the Central Hub retrieves the description from the Process Library and creates a dedicated, ephemeral Controller Instance.1 This instance is the core runtime verification engine, analyzing events received from the Dispatcher and checking the process state against the expected sequence and timing defined in the ProCDeL description.1
Event Dispatcher: The Dispatcher is responsible for managing event flow. It subscribes to the appropriate external Agents based on the requirements of the active Controller Instances. Upon receiving an event notification from an Agent, the Dispatcher identifies and routes the event to the correct Controller Instance that requested it.1
Agent Directory: This component maintains metadata about Agent locations and the types of events they can provide. The Dispatcher uses the Agent Directory to manage its subscriptions and target the correct monitoring points within the heterogeneous environment.1
Timer Agent: As noted above, this acts as the internal clock, providing timer events necessary for verifying temporal constraints defined in the process descriptions.1
4.3 The Mechanism of Asynchronous Runtime Verification (ARV)
The operational flow constitutes a closed-loop observer pattern:
Process Initiation: A business process begins executing in the underlying heterogeneous systems. Simultaneously, a corresponding Controller Instance is activated within the Central Hub.
Subscription: The Controller Instance informs the Dispatcher which events it needs to observe (e.g., "File arrived in System A" or "Database Transaction Complete in System B"). The Dispatcher uses the Agent Directory to subscribe to the relevant Agents and the Timer Agent.
Event Generation: The distributed Agents trace their respective systems. For example, Agent 1 might detect a file system event, while Agent 2 detects a database event.1
Notification and Routing: The Agents asynchronously send event notifications to the Dispatcher. The Dispatcher processes the notification and routes it to the specific Controller Instance waiting for that event.
Verification: The Controller Instance compares the incoming event against its current process state defined by ProCDeL. If the event corresponds to the expected state transition and is received within defined timing limits, the instance moves to the next expected state.
Alerting: If the event is received out of order, too late, or otherwise violates the process description, the Controller Instance generates an error message or warning according to the notification rules defined in ProCDeL.1
This asynchronous execution alongside the base processes ensures that the verification mechanism does not interfere with the core business functionality.8
5.0 Critical Evaluation: Centralization, Latency, and Operational Resilience
While the Central Hub and Agent architecture provides an effective pattern for asynchronous runtime verification, its viability in high-scale, mission-critical distributed environments must be assessed against established architectural limitations inherent to centralized systems.
5.1 Centralization Risks in High-Scale Distributed Environments
The decision to host the Central Hub—containing the Dispatcher, Controller Instances, and the Process Library—on a single server simplifies management but introduces classic weaknesses of centralized architectures when managing widely distributed systems.1
The most significant vulnerability is the Single Point of Failure (SPOF).10 An outage or failure of the Central Hub server instantly disables all monitoring, auditing, and governance functions across the entire enterprise.10 This reliance on a single core component undermines the resilience of the overall IT operations and reintroduces risk, contradicting the goal of robust, autonomous control.
Furthermore, the architecture is susceptible to Performance Bottlenecks. In environments characterized by high-volume, parallel processes 1, the Event Dispatcher must efficiently handle immense network traffic and rapid event streams. If the Dispatcher or the pool of Controller Instances becomes saturated, event processing latency increases significantly.10 Given that the verification mechanism explicitly checks operation timing accuracy 1, high latency within the control mechanism itself renders the timing verification unreliable, potentially leading to inaccurate warnings or missed compliance violations.
5.2 Runtime Verification Challenges in Distributed Systems
The reliance on an event-driven, asynchronous model in a distributed environment introduces complexities regarding data integrity and causality:
Event Ordering and Consistency: Distributed systems inherently struggle to synchronize the order of changes to data and states, especially when network and communication failures occur.11 The asynchronous nature of the Agent-to-Hub communication means events may arrive out of order due to network delays.12 Since the Controller Instance's core function is verifying sequence 1, out-of-order events can trigger erroneous error messages or warnings, confusing the state machine model and generating false positives. Effective implementation must account for network failure modes where messages might be delivered incorrectly or out of sequence.11
Management Overhead: While APC aims to simplify system administration, the management of the underlying distributed monitoring infrastructure itself generates overhead. Ensuring visibility into the operations and failures of the Agents, managing the Dispatcher’s load balancing, and maintaining consistent logging requires sophisticated management tools and expertise.11
Mitigating these risks requires structural changes that move beyond a simple centralized deployment:
5.3 Runtime Verification Overhead and Observability Trade-offs
A fundamental engineering challenge in runtime verification (RV) is the trade-off between maximizing observability and minimizing the performance impact on the monitored system. While Asynchronous Runtime Verification (ARV) monitors from the aside to minimize intervention 8, maximizing the detail of state observation may still increase overhead.13 In real-time or regulated systems, this additional overhead may affect the worst-case execution times (WCET) and potentially necessitate re-certification.13
The original research recognized this critical operational challenge: the prototype of the verification mechanism was developed and tested on real business processes specifically to evaluate the verification performance, the produced overhead, and the limitations.8 These empirical results are crucial for determining the real-world viability and scalability of the APC concept; however, the specific findings regarding overhead and performance limitations require access to the full text of the referenced research.8
5.4 DSL Adoption Challenges
The technical implementation of ProCDeL, no matter how elegant, faces operational hurdles common to the introduction of any new Domain-Specific Language (DSL) or digital adoption initiative. To achieve the goal of being easy to use for system administrators and end-users, organizations must overcome employee resistance to change and address the difficulty of training for enterprise systems at scale.7 If the DSL proves complex or unintuitive, or if training is insufficient, IT support requests will increase, and users will struggle to define the complex synchronization logic required by Supervisory Processes.7 The successful deployment of ProCDeL requires robust graphical tools and substantial organizational investment in contextual onboarding and continuous performance support.
6.0 Comparative Analysis: APC in the Modern ITOM Landscape
The positioning of Automated Process Control must be evaluated against existing industry standards and technologies within IT Operations Management (ITOM), a discipline that oversees technology infrastructure and services to ensure efficiency and reliability.15
6.1 APC vs. Workflow Engines (BPMN, XPDL)
Workflow engines, often standardized using notations like Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN 2.0) 17, are designed for active execution and orchestration. They drive processes forward, managing tasks, routing, and decision-making, frequently acting as the control mechanism itself.
APC, in contrast, is designed for passive verification.9 Its runtime verification mechanism observes the process from the side.8 This is the fundamental divergence: a workflow engine makes the process happen, whereas APC checks that the process did happen according to specification.
This distinction gives APC a unique strategic advantage in heterogeneous environments. For legacy, proprietary systems that cannot be easily integrated into a single Active Workflow Engine, APC provides a non-intrusive governance overlay. It verifies flows that are too complex or distributed to be managed by traditional, single-stack execution engines. While BPMN focuses on an executable standard for process definition, ProCDeL focuses on a DSL specifically tailored for describing verification constraints (sequence and timing checks).1
6.2 APC vs. Infrastructure Automation and Orchestration
APC's domain of application is distinct from that of modern infrastructure automation and orchestration platforms:
Ansible (Configuration Management): Ansible is an open-source automation engine focused on configuration management, system provisioning, and application deployment, typically using YAML playbooks to ensure systems maintain a desired state.18 While crucial for ITOM, Ansible operates at the infrastructure and system configuration layer. It is designed to execute procedural tasks idempotently.18 APC operates at a higher semantic level, focusing on the continuous, event-driven verification of business transaction coherence across those configured systems, including temporal constraints that are beyond the scope of configuration management.
Kubernetes (Container Orchestration): Kubernetes automates the deployment, scaling, and management of containerized applications, utilizing internal control loops to maintain resource availability and deployment state.18 Like Autonomic Computing, Kubernetes relies on self-regulating closed-loop principles, but its focus remains on the state and deployment of the application components.18 APC monitors the high-level business interactions between applications, regardless of whether they are containerized or legacy.
6.3 APC's Unique Niche
The strength of APC lies in its non-intervening nature. In complex environments where processes span systems that lack common interfaces or are too rigid to allow for active control mechanisms (e.g., legacy systems from different vendors) 1, APC offers a crucial, low-impact governance solution. It acts as an auditing and compliance layer for highly coupled, parallel transactions, providing essential oversight that traditional workflow engines or infrastructure orchestrators cannot achieve without deep system refactoring.
The mechanism serves as a crucial safety net, ensuring compliance in cross-platform flows that rely on parallel execution across systems that may lack native communication standards.
| Feature/System | Automated Process Control (APC) | BPMN/Workflow Engine | Configuration Management (Ansible) |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Goal | Runtime verification of defined flow sequence and timing 1 | Active execution and orchestration of human/system tasks 17 | State enforcement and system provisioning (Infrastructure) 18 |
| Control Approach | Asynchronous Monitoring (Passive, Observer pattern) 8 | Active Execution/Coordination (Intervening Control) | Idempotent Task Execution (Agentless/Push) 19 |
| Focus Layer | Cross-System Business Process Flow and Timing Coherence | Business Logic Execution and Task Routing | Infrastructure State and Configuration |
| IBM Autonomy Stage | Monitor and Analyze | Plan, Execute, and Analyze | Execute and Monitor |
7.0 Conclusion and Strategic Recommendations
The Concept of Automated Process Control, utilizing the ProCDeL domain-specific language and the Central Hub/Agent architecture, represents a methodologically rigorous approach to process governance for complex, heterogeneous environments. By applying the principles of closed-loop control theory to the verification of abstract business logic, APC effectively translates enterprise policy into a measurable, machine-verifiable process description. Its commitment to Asynchronous Runtime Verification (ARV) allows it to monitor critical, interlinked processes without imposing overhead or necessitating intrusive integration into legacy systems.
7.1 Synthesis
The core contribution of APC is the establishment of a specialized, formal DSL (ProCDeL) that distinguishes between atomic Base Processes and orchestrating Supervisory Processes. Coupled with the Central Hub/Agent mechanism, APC fulfills the "Monitor" and "Analyze" stages of the IBM Autonomic Computing model. While currently limited to generating warnings and errors, this specialized focus on passive verification provides essential governance for processes traditionally managed manually, thereby achieving the critical goal of reducing dependency on human administrative skill and subjective interpretation.1
7.2 Strategic Recommendations for Architectural Evolution
For APC to mature into a robust, enterprise-grade solution capable of managing highly parallel and mission-critical workloads, architectural evolution must address the inherent weaknesses of the centralized model:
Adopt Decentralized Event Processing: The risks associated with the Central Hub acting as a Single Point of Failure and performance bottleneck 10 are unacceptable for scalable ITOM. Future architecture iterations must decentralize the Event Dispatcher and Controller Instances. By leveraging distributed message queues and processing frameworks, the system can achieve robustness, provide redundancy, and allow for massive horizontal scaling necessary to maintain accurate timing verification in high-volume environments.
Close the Control Loop to Achieve Full Autonomy: To fulfill the long-term vision of autonomous systems 1, the APC mechanism must transition from a passive verification tool to an active self-management system. This requires integrating "effector" capabilities into the Controller Instances to handle the "Plan" and "Execute" stages of the MAPE loop.2 Instead of merely issuing alerts, the system should execute defined, automated remediation actions based on the detected compliance violation (e.g., executing a rollback procedure or initiating an emergency synchronization task). This would align APC with modern autonomous IT operations capabilities, improving business continuity and operational efficiency.20
7.3 Future Research Pathways
Further strategic research should expand the scope of the ProCDeL definition and the ARV mechanism. The extension of the verification scope to include Data Quality Runtime Verification is a logical and necessary progression.8 This would allow the APC system to verify not only whether the process sequence and timing were correct, but also whether the execution results negatively impacted stored data quality.8 Achieving this will require further development of DSL elements to describe and check data quality constraints at every stage of business process execution.8
Works cited
The Concept of Automated Process Control, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.lu.lv/materiali/apgads/raksti/756_pp_193-203.pdf
Autonomic computing - Wikipedia, accessed November 16, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomic_computing
Autonomic Computing Control Loop | Download Scientific Diagram - ResearchGate, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Autonomic-Computing-Control-Loop_fig2_220575825
1 The IBM Autonomic MAPE Reference Model - ResearchGate, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-IBM-Autonomic-MAPE-Reference-Model_fig1_227108020
DSL Guide - Martin Fowler, accessed November 16, 2025, https://martinfowler.com/dsl.html
Standardize Pipelines with Domain-Specific Languages | by Dagster Blog - Medium, accessed November 16, 2025, https://medium.com/@dagster-io/standardize-pipelines-with-domain-specific-languages-1f5729fc0f65
Top 7 Digital Adoption Challenges & How to Solve Them (2025) - Apty, accessed November 16, 2025, https://apty.ai/digital-adoption/digital-adoption-challenges/
Asynchronous Runtime Verification of Business Processes: Proof of ..., accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301360845_Asynchronous_Runtime_Verification_of_Business_Processes_Proof_of_Concept
Asynchronous Runtime Verification of Business Processes - FitForThem, accessed November 16, 2025, https://fitforthem.unipa.it/rep:6533b833fe1ef96bd129bfdb
Centralized vs. Distributed IT Infrastructure: Which Is Right for You? - Scale Computing, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.scalecomputing.com/resources/centralized-vs-distributed-it-infrastructure
Distributed Systems: An Introduction - Confluent, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.confluent.io/learn/distributed-systems/
What are the main disadvantages of the event-driven architecture pattern? - Tencent Cloud, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.tencentcloud.com/techpedia/107662
Challenges in High-Assurance Runtime Verification - NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS), accessed November 16, 2025, https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20160012454/downloads/20160012454.pdf
Top Digital Adoption Challenges in 2025 | VisualSP, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.visualsp.com/blog/5-biggest-digital-adoption-problems-in-2021/
What is IT Operations Management? Simplify IT & Reduce Costs | OpenText, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.opentext.com/what-is/it-operations-management
What Is IT Operations Management (ITOM)? - IBM, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/itom
Which of these technology to use for BPM / Workflow engine? Any comparison of features?, accessed November 16, 2025, https://stackoverflow.com/questions/21029608/which-of-these-technology-to-use-for-bpm-workflow-engine-any-comparison-of-fe
Ansible vs. Kubernetes: how they work together - Red Hat, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.redhat.com/en/topics/automation/Ansible-vs-Kubernetes
Ansible vs. Kubernetes [Key Differences Explained] - Spacelift, accessed November 16, 2025, https://spacelift.io/blog/ansible-vs-kubernetes
Autonomous IT operations with IBM Power11 - IBM TechXchange Community, accessed November 16, 2025, https://community.ibm.com/community/user/blogs/hariganesh-muralidharan1/2025/10/09/autonomous-it-operations-with-ibm-power11
No comments:
Post a Comment