In repsonse to a Linked-in discussion, I again draw attention to the grey areas surrounding key concepts in our industory...
Cloud providers, SaaS providers and OnDemand providers are all very different entities and the terms should not be user interchangeably. It seams marketing folks have no scruples.
Web based single tenant applications have been around since the mid 90's.Think Oracle, SAP, etc. OnDemand is simply a spin on the single tenant web delivery idea which was leveraged by the ASP's of the late 90's. SaaS was a coin termed by SFDC at that time to differentiate themselves from the ASP's and refers to applications that are provided on a purely subscription basis.
Typically SaaS applications were always characterized by the subscription model instead of traditional license models. This represented s fundamental shift in the software business from building a business around a core competency of writing software to delivering and supporting a domain expertise as a service. To the end user, the business benefit may have been the same, but the economics barriers to leveraging enterprise software were suddenly greatly reduced. But as customers began to request special enhancements for their own virtual instance, many SaaS companies began employ the concept of multi tenancy to insure the best leverage of economies of scale and keep their service delivery costs very low. Now, multi tenancy is becoming an expectation to be considered as SaaS.
On Demand is a term which describes taking a single tenant, web based application and delivering it over the web. Under such a scenario, the user may believe it is "Cloud based" but that is immaterial. The fact is, whether it serves a single user or 1,000,000 users, it is the same application for everyone, one size fits all. Good examples are e-Bay, Amazon.com, airline reservation systems, online banking applications, or any which allow users to check their accounts. They are typically read only although some allow write backs, but have no capacity for special enhancements in the underlying logic. Again, the main characteristic is that such applications can NOT be customized for the specific needs of groups of users outside superficial changes (colors and logos) without creating a second instantiation.
Many now view the fundamental difference between OnDemand and SaaS as a function of whether or not the provider leverages a multi tenant architecture as this one characteristic mandates the ability to not amortize customer acquisition costs on a per deal basis. As a result of this, many companies claiming to be SaaS companies are really modern versions of the ASP providers of the 1990's and must recapture the cost of new client instances before enjoying margin on any deal. Such companies are doomed to fail as cloud computing continues to drive the cost of service delivery downward below prices where the ASP model can sustain profitability.
Cloud is a term which refers to an elastic set of computing resources, or, in other words, inherent on demand resource scalability without additional capital outlay. The term was coined by IBM in the 60's, and revitalized by Amazon as part of their Elastic Computing Cloud initiative in the mid to late part of the last decade. It is often used in conjunction with yet has nothing to do with the SaaS model. This again refers to the concept of delivering software applications as a subscription service which, more and more will leverage multi tenancy in insure the lowest cost of service delivery.
Lately there is much debate regarding public, private and hybrid clouds. Interestingly, SFDC initially claimed there was only ONE cloud, now they have reversed that concept and are claiming there are different clouds based on function; a chat cloud, CRM cloud, support cloud, etc. They discount the idea of a "private" or "hybrid" cloud since they are committed to ONLY SELLING their own version of cloud.
IBM claims to support private, hybrid and public clouds, but again, they push clouds built on IBM assets. Google says everything is a cloud. Amazon, OpSource and other IaaS (Infrastructure as a Service) providers are pitching their "Cloud" and their own spin. Again, the only consistent characteristic is elasticity.
From a user perspective, only one thing matters; total cost of ownership. Users will want to part with the least amount of money to gain the maximum business value. I would argue that this is a function of critical mass and one's time horizon. If a solutions costs $50,000 to build and deploy and is expected to be in service for 4 years serving 50 users, than the cost is $50k/50u/4y or $250per user year. If users are willing to pay $250/month, this is a great SaaS investment. But also represents a great single tenant web investment in a private cloud environment that if it yields $251 per year is user productivity gain. It would appear to be "on demand" to user 51, as he had no capital outlay. Had it been built on cloud resources, the cost to build may have been only $25. Finally, if multi tenancy were added and a second tenant of 50 users could leverage the solution, it would, in turn, double the initial ROI.
All of these approaches will be leveraged more and more as cloud computing becomes more and more prolific. Marketing types will continue to confuse would be buyers by interchanging words like Cloud, OnDemand, SaaS and web based. Guys like me will continue to make blog post like this one.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Southwest Airlines, a Great Cloud Provider...
Some of your organization may be very rich and able to afford dedicated executive transportation infrastructure. But I am willing to wager that it isn't as efficient, reliable or available as Southwest Airlines' highly scalable, multi-tenant environment; their fleet of 737's.
I'm not saying that I like flying around on an airline more than on a private jet, but they're expensive. I like Southwest Airlines because they are not. What is more fascinating is that ALL of the adjectives traditionally associated with Cloud Computing can be applied to this organization:
On demand, pay as you go, dynamically provisioned, granular, elastic, opaque, transparent, standardized, highly reliable, highly scalable, flexible, agile, risk mitigating, zero cap-ex, reduced barriers to entry, new business model enabling, metered payment, multi-tenant, dynamic, open, interoperable, without vendor lock-in, consumerized, automated, speedy, constant "state of state of the art", secure, utilizes economies of scale and skill, and above all, cost effective!
Let's just take a couple of my favorites, standardized, scalable, available, secure, multi-tenant and interoperable.
SWA, unlike most other airlines, is highly standardized. They have one reservation system and do their best to drive all traffic to the most cost effective user interface to that system; Southwest.com. The airline only operates one airframe, the 737, thus they leverage standard maintenance practices, piloting and servicing skill across their system. And they have standard pricing so that passengers can predict travel costs and budget accordingly.
As a function of standards, their organization scales easily, which leads to cost effectiveness, agility and elasticity. Again, unlike most other airlines, for SWA to introduce new destinations, their initial investment is limited, so they can expand and contract their portfolio of service quickly.
Their fleet of standardized 737's is highly redundant, highly available and secure. Not only does the airline take advantage of FAA's security infrastructure, it extends it with its own procedures. The 737 is also muti-tenant enabling it to maximize its load efficiency and because the airline maintains more than one if an individual plane goes offline, another is available almost immediately to insure minimal service interuption.
Lastly, SWA promotes interoperability both internally and externally. It goes without saying that all of their airplanes fly in the same sky as the rest, and passengers can fly on one jet just as easily as another, but you can get on a Southwest jet and connect with a completely different airline. They also guaranty service through interoperability by being able to re-route and reschedule service based on their needs or those of their passengers.
I could go on and on, but what is most impressive about SWA is that it can fully absorb the cost of its systems' maintenance and operating costs and still provide enough value to turn a profit. Let's face it, if IT organizations ran like Southwest Airlines, they wouldn't be considered cost centers.
But they don't. Most IT organization are still operating the equivalent of the company jet. They run dedicated datacenters with a hodge-podge of hardware, operating systems, databases and applications. All of this complexity is leading to higher and higher operating costs and less agility and flexibility for the overall organization. This is justified by the rational that THEIR data is so important that it warrants special treatment.
In the long term, it's obvious that those shops continuing to "fly their own jets" will ultimately drive their companies out of business as they loose competitiveness. But in the short run, there needs to be a hybrid approach. Yes, the savviest strategy mandates that organizations should maintain some of their dedicated resources for critical data and processes and slowly experiment with moving the not so crucial stuff to the Cloud. All the while realizing that this compromise has implications and opportunity costs of its own.
I'm not saying that I like flying around on an airline more than on a private jet, but they're expensive. I like Southwest Airlines because they are not. What is more fascinating is that ALL of the adjectives traditionally associated with Cloud Computing can be applied to this organization:
On demand, pay as you go, dynamically provisioned, granular, elastic, opaque, transparent, standardized, highly reliable, highly scalable, flexible, agile, risk mitigating, zero cap-ex, reduced barriers to entry, new business model enabling, metered payment, multi-tenant, dynamic, open, interoperable, without vendor lock-in, consumerized, automated, speedy, constant "state of state of the art", secure, utilizes economies of scale and skill, and above all, cost effective!
Let's just take a couple of my favorites, standardized, scalable, available, secure, multi-tenant and interoperable.
SWA, unlike most other airlines, is highly standardized. They have one reservation system and do their best to drive all traffic to the most cost effective user interface to that system; Southwest.com. The airline only operates one airframe, the 737, thus they leverage standard maintenance practices, piloting and servicing skill across their system. And they have standard pricing so that passengers can predict travel costs and budget accordingly.
As a function of standards, their organization scales easily, which leads to cost effectiveness, agility and elasticity. Again, unlike most other airlines, for SWA to introduce new destinations, their initial investment is limited, so they can expand and contract their portfolio of service quickly.
Their fleet of standardized 737's is highly redundant, highly available and secure. Not only does the airline take advantage of FAA's security infrastructure, it extends it with its own procedures. The 737 is also muti-tenant enabling it to maximize its load efficiency and because the airline maintains more than one if an individual plane goes offline, another is available almost immediately to insure minimal service interuption.
Lastly, SWA promotes interoperability both internally and externally. It goes without saying that all of their airplanes fly in the same sky as the rest, and passengers can fly on one jet just as easily as another, but you can get on a Southwest jet and connect with a completely different airline. They also guaranty service through interoperability by being able to re-route and reschedule service based on their needs or those of their passengers.
I could go on and on, but what is most impressive about SWA is that it can fully absorb the cost of its systems' maintenance and operating costs and still provide enough value to turn a profit. Let's face it, if IT organizations ran like Southwest Airlines, they wouldn't be considered cost centers.
But they don't. Most IT organization are still operating the equivalent of the company jet. They run dedicated datacenters with a hodge-podge of hardware, operating systems, databases and applications. All of this complexity is leading to higher and higher operating costs and less agility and flexibility for the overall organization. This is justified by the rational that THEIR data is so important that it warrants special treatment.
In the long term, it's obvious that those shops continuing to "fly their own jets" will ultimately drive their companies out of business as they loose competitiveness. But in the short run, there needs to be a hybrid approach. Yes, the savviest strategy mandates that organizations should maintain some of their dedicated resources for critical data and processes and slowly experiment with moving the not so crucial stuff to the Cloud. All the while realizing that this compromise has implications and opportunity costs of its own.
So what is this Cloud thing?
Wow, a couple of years ago, I thought I was really on to something with this whole Cloud thing, it was good stuff, on-demand, elastic pricing, virtualization, economies of scale, blah, blah, blah. But now, I have to say, I am not so excited. After spending the last two years talking to CIO's, CEO's, COO's and most importantly CFO's about all the Cloud has to offer, it seams the only ones who are really benefiting from the buzz are the CMO's (of old technology companies). That stands to reason, their job is to spin. What concerns me, is the nebulousness that the Cloud term has begun to evoke. So just for the record, let's define what a Cloud is, what Cloud provider is and what Cloud Computing is.
First, there is ONLY one Cloud and it encompasses the entire universe outside of our atmosphere. This analogy is very important. The Cloud is the Nebulous, all of it, including the Solar System, the Milky Way, and all of the galaxies and universes that lie beyond what is contained in our natural environment called Earth. For this discussion, it is important that the Cloud be nebulous and outside of our control because it hammers the point. It is also important that it be seen as a provider, after all, what is out there is ultimately source of all life and energy within our environment. In that light, the Sun is the simplest example of a Cloud provider.
When we apply the Cloud analogy to business services there are literally millions of Cloud providers...For the purposes of this discussion, I define a Cloud service provider as an entity which delivers its complete value without the need to modify the clients environment. Think eBay, Bank of America, Southwest Airlines, AT&T, PG&E, etc. These are all Cloud providers, and once connected to their clients, all share some simple characteristics:
1. They all provide access to utilities or services built on a system or network that doesn't require modification to the client's environment.
2. All services can be provisioned dynamically in a completely self service fashion.
3. All services are available on a metered and granular pay-for use basis.
4. All services can be highly tailored via self service or by evoking a client advocate.
What is Cloud Computing then? From the user's perspective, it is simply the extension of this metaphor to the availability of services traditionally associated with a computer, i.e., data management and processing. Just as I don't have to buy the airplane to fly to San Francisco, I shouldn't have to purchase a data center to automate processes or manage information. In other words, just as the network is the Dial Tone, the Cloud is the Computer. The user doesn't care where the resources are nor to whom they ultimately belong, only that they are reliable and available. End of discussion.
It is my belief that all of the noise around this revolution in computing comes to bare when the critical asset that is being managed is addressed; data. Data management is complicated stuff, and it has to be to insure that data management professionals are gainfully employed. But just like financial management, real estate management, and time management, it is an art that can be mastered. Like all of these assets where individuals seek the services of professionals, the key is to look at Information Management as an art and not a technology. It is the same way we think of travel as a destination rather than a trip. In other words, the physical movement of one's body is a service guarantied by the provider. The provider might employ different technologies to insure delivery, but that is not the user's concern. The provider benefits directly from centralization, virtualization, and standardization, but the user doesn't, and shouldn't care so long as service is available at his price point. In fact, if delivery is not guaranteed, no payment is expected. Can you imagine if your financial planner insisted that you purchase his calculator before he set down to planing your retirement?
First, there is ONLY one Cloud and it encompasses the entire universe outside of our atmosphere. This analogy is very important. The Cloud is the Nebulous, all of it, including the Solar System, the Milky Way, and all of the galaxies and universes that lie beyond what is contained in our natural environment called Earth. For this discussion, it is important that the Cloud be nebulous and outside of our control because it hammers the point. It is also important that it be seen as a provider, after all, what is out there is ultimately source of all life and energy within our environment. In that light, the Sun is the simplest example of a Cloud provider.
When we apply the Cloud analogy to business services there are literally millions of Cloud providers...For the purposes of this discussion, I define a Cloud service provider as an entity which delivers its complete value without the need to modify the clients environment. Think eBay, Bank of America, Southwest Airlines, AT&T, PG&E, etc. These are all Cloud providers, and once connected to their clients, all share some simple characteristics:
1. They all provide access to utilities or services built on a system or network that doesn't require modification to the client's environment.
2. All services can be provisioned dynamically in a completely self service fashion.
3. All services are available on a metered and granular pay-for use basis.
4. All services can be highly tailored via self service or by evoking a client advocate.
What is Cloud Computing then? From the user's perspective, it is simply the extension of this metaphor to the availability of services traditionally associated with a computer, i.e., data management and processing. Just as I don't have to buy the airplane to fly to San Francisco, I shouldn't have to purchase a data center to automate processes or manage information. In other words, just as the network is the Dial Tone, the Cloud is the Computer. The user doesn't care where the resources are nor to whom they ultimately belong, only that they are reliable and available. End of discussion.
It is my belief that all of the noise around this revolution in computing comes to bare when the critical asset that is being managed is addressed; data. Data management is complicated stuff, and it has to be to insure that data management professionals are gainfully employed. But just like financial management, real estate management, and time management, it is an art that can be mastered. Like all of these assets where individuals seek the services of professionals, the key is to look at Information Management as an art and not a technology. It is the same way we think of travel as a destination rather than a trip. In other words, the physical movement of one's body is a service guarantied by the provider. The provider might employ different technologies to insure delivery, but that is not the user's concern. The provider benefits directly from centralization, virtualization, and standardization, but the user doesn't, and shouldn't care so long as service is available at his price point. In fact, if delivery is not guaranteed, no payment is expected. Can you imagine if your financial planner insisted that you purchase his calculator before he set down to planing your retirement?
Monday, October 12, 2009
Thinking Outside the Firewall
There is so much buzz and hype around Cloud Computing that I thought I might need to jump on the bandwagon, so I am announcing that I am now a "Cloud Advocate" what ever that means...
Well first, one must understand what the Cloud is. From my perspective, it is an electrically charged and over-hyped buzz word that can be applied to any technology that is being produced, marketed and sold by any IT vendor in today's marketplace. It is an adjective, an adverb and a noun all wrapped up in one nebulous (and Cloudy) word that immediately demonstrates that the technology to which it is associated is in vogue.
However, I don't see the Cloud as a technology. It really depends on your perspective, but to me, Cloud is either an architectural strategy or a business strategy. Architecturally, to refer to Cloud Computing simply means that computing resources are being utilized from outside of one's firewall. From a business perspective, Cloud Computing simply means that computing resources are being provisioned from outside of one's firewall. In either case, the cost and complexity are drastically reduced as a function of technical innovations such as multi-tenancy or business innovations like metered usage.
So if Cloud Computing is an architectural and/or business strategy, then, obviously the reason why it is being pushed by so many technology vendors is too cash-in on the hype. But why aren't the traditional sources for strategy and architecture consulting jumping on this bandwagon in droves?
They are starting to. But there are some fundamental business implications of adopting a Cloud strategy that may or may not bring serious consequences to bare for their business models. As a result, in the past 6 months, I have been retained to provide strategic overviews to the "Cloud" strategists at some pretty large traditional IT vendors, solutions providers and even the some within the venture capital community. I guess that gives me the right to coin myself a "Cloud Advocate" and to start charging good money for my perspective (even though I am giving it here for free).
The question that I keep getting is "What is the Killer App for Cloud?"
It depends, but usually, my answer to that question is this, "The Cloud means the eventual demise of vendors selling DATABASE DRIVEN APPLICATIONS" and therefore the killer application for Cloud is no applications at all. Instead, the Cloud needs to be viewed for what it truly is; a business abstraction layer on top of a universal network of computing resources which presents a ubiquitous platform for infinitely mashing up data to address user and organizational needs with regard to specific and situational instances. So the entire internet is the Cloud and therefore any platform built on it simply cannot exist behind a firewall because the majority data is resident outside the firewall.
Am I saying that applications won't be written anymore? No, I am simply saying that the commercial incentive to develop, market and sell applications will diminish to a point at which the return will no longer justify the effort. This is a function of two things; the abundance of existing applications and the immediacy of updates to them. When an application is written once and deployed universally to its users it enforces processes and data standards, but without either, the application itself is not tremendously valuable to the economy at large, it only has value to its specific users in their specific situation. However, the data it contains does have value outside of the immediate user community and, with proper structural and security questions addressed, has infinite value to a plethora stakeholders outside the firewall.
We are seeing this trend already in the Biotechnology and Pharmaceutical space as well as health care and several other industries. Data from outside the firewall, from sources like Google or national and commercial databases is being mash-up with information from traditional on-premise systems to provide new insight. Research, marketing and sales people all know that to limit your data set is to limit your horizon. In fact every day, I mash data from sources such as Hoovers, LinkedIn, Twitter and endless RSS feeds with my own CRM database to provide more complete profiles of my prospects and clients. But that is a discussion for another blog...
This brings me to my own question, if there is value in bringing data from outside the firewall and mashing it with data from inside, then what's the use of firewalls at all? Shouldn't the emphasis be on the data not the network? Obviously, its time to start thinking outside the firewall...
Well first, one must understand what the Cloud is. From my perspective, it is an electrically charged and over-hyped buzz word that can be applied to any technology that is being produced, marketed and sold by any IT vendor in today's marketplace. It is an adjective, an adverb and a noun all wrapped up in one nebulous (and Cloudy) word that immediately demonstrates that the technology to which it is associated is in vogue.
However, I don't see the Cloud as a technology. It really depends on your perspective, but to me, Cloud is either an architectural strategy or a business strategy. Architecturally, to refer to Cloud Computing simply means that computing resources are being utilized from outside of one's firewall. From a business perspective, Cloud Computing simply means that computing resources are being provisioned from outside of one's firewall. In either case, the cost and complexity are drastically reduced as a function of technical innovations such as multi-tenancy or business innovations like metered usage.
So if Cloud Computing is an architectural and/or business strategy, then, obviously the reason why it is being pushed by so many technology vendors is too cash-in on the hype. But why aren't the traditional sources for strategy and architecture consulting jumping on this bandwagon in droves?
They are starting to. But there are some fundamental business implications of adopting a Cloud strategy that may or may not bring serious consequences to bare for their business models. As a result, in the past 6 months, I have been retained to provide strategic overviews to the "Cloud" strategists at some pretty large traditional IT vendors, solutions providers and even the some within the venture capital community. I guess that gives me the right to coin myself a "Cloud Advocate" and to start charging good money for my perspective (even though I am giving it here for free).
The question that I keep getting is "What is the Killer App for Cloud?"
It depends, but usually, my answer to that question is this, "The Cloud means the eventual demise of vendors selling DATABASE DRIVEN APPLICATIONS" and therefore the killer application for Cloud is no applications at all. Instead, the Cloud needs to be viewed for what it truly is; a business abstraction layer on top of a universal network of computing resources which presents a ubiquitous platform for infinitely mashing up data to address user and organizational needs with regard to specific and situational instances. So the entire internet is the Cloud and therefore any platform built on it simply cannot exist behind a firewall because the majority data is resident outside the firewall.
Am I saying that applications won't be written anymore? No, I am simply saying that the commercial incentive to develop, market and sell applications will diminish to a point at which the return will no longer justify the effort. This is a function of two things; the abundance of existing applications and the immediacy of updates to them. When an application is written once and deployed universally to its users it enforces processes and data standards, but without either, the application itself is not tremendously valuable to the economy at large, it only has value to its specific users in their specific situation. However, the data it contains does have value outside of the immediate user community and, with proper structural and security questions addressed, has infinite value to a plethora stakeholders outside the firewall.
We are seeing this trend already in the Biotechnology and Pharmaceutical space as well as health care and several other industries. Data from outside the firewall, from sources like Google or national and commercial databases is being mash-up with information from traditional on-premise systems to provide new insight. Research, marketing and sales people all know that to limit your data set is to limit your horizon. In fact every day, I mash data from sources such as Hoovers, LinkedIn, Twitter and endless RSS feeds with my own CRM database to provide more complete profiles of my prospects and clients. But that is a discussion for another blog...
This brings me to my own question, if there is value in bringing data from outside the firewall and mashing it with data from inside, then what's the use of firewalls at all? Shouldn't the emphasis be on the data not the network? Obviously, its time to start thinking outside the firewall...
Monday, October 5, 2009
Adoption for Orphaned Applications
Every organization has them, every IT director hates them, every manager needs them. What are they? They are the unique, specific and situational applications that make each organization different. They represent the competitive advantage potential that could distinguish a good company from a great one, a successful division from a looser, profitability versus bankruptcy. They are the enterprise applications that everyone agrees are needed but never got built.
From Sand Hill Road to Wall Street to Bangalore, the waste baskets of venture capital firms large and small are filled to the rim with crumpled up plans for yet another "killer" application. Sneak into the budgeting meetings of any CIO in corporate America and you will witness of an ever increasing list of applications that users need but can't be built or bought. Talk to any executive or line of business manager and you will hear frustration over a belief that if there were better automation, a more streamlined process or the availability quicker and better data, their organization would be that much more effective.
Yet the unique applications to address these issues are rarely built. Why...?
Inevitably, the answer always boils down to risk. VC's won't fund an idea that doesn't promise a huge return. You will never see a commercially available application for managing witch craft potions backed by VC. It's the same reason that most savvy IT personals will always exhaust their efforts researching branded solutions before they attempt to build something on their own, since a build ultimately robs them of their most expensive resource...time.
It seems custom development is just too risky. So how does one estimate the risk? Obviously it is a function of cost. The money at risk in custom application development falls into three categories; hard funds, soft funds and opportunity. For the hardware, software and infrastructure on which the solution will be built, it is relatively simple come to a number. In terms of time and effort of internal, professional or contract resources, the number gets more nebulous. But the real risk lies in the opportunity costs of doing nothing, doing something and doing it wrong or just buying and delaying the eventual integration and user adoption problems. This long range cost is like deferred interest, sooner or later it must get paid.
As the cost of technology continues to fall (Moore's Law) the availability of basic technology components increases, the risk of failure in terms of hard costs is becoming more tolerable. In fact, the new motto is fail and fail quickly since the real barrier is time. We all know time is money, but simply accounting for developers' time isn't sufficient as that cost can be "off-shored" for close to nothing. Even if the hardware, software and development effort were all free, 75% of all custom development projects would still fail.
The real reason, and thus the high costs associated with the risk, is the difficulty in translating domain expertise into technological solutions. Every executive knows the frustration of taking the time to sit with technical resources, map out a solution, invest in the hardware/software infrastructure and dedicate their own time to describe a solution that they eagerly anticipate just to have it be something completely different than they expected. At some point in this nose dive process, the app will become "orphaned" and the later it happens, the more costly it is.
So what is the vehicle for most executives to put some structure around their processes and evolve them into productivity? Well, nine times out of ten, the idea is abandoned all together. In the unusual case that it isn't, typically the answer starts with a spreadsheet. Spreadsheets are ubiquitous, every manager learned Lotus or Excel in college, and these days are the default development and BI tool for most business executives. Just about anyone can figure out how to use them, even CEO's.
But spreadsheets have limits. As personal productivity tools they allow individuals to organize and structure data for better analysis, but when one actually wants to work with large volumes of data, automate its capture and collaborate with others, the shortcomings quickly become obvious.
Where spreadsheets fall short, databases shine; they easily handle massive amounts of data, will accept one at a time inputs or bulk uploads and enforce structure and conformity for collaboration and standardization. They are also excellent for acting as the "single source of truth" for a group or an organization and single database can host hundreds of applications, although few organizations adopt this concept.
Their downfall is complexity, expense and maintenance. Further, they take time to implement, a process which more complicated if the database is accessible to the internet. Given the cost and complexity, time and effort needed to implement database driven solutions, most executives retreat shyly from them unless the expertise and resources are already a sunk cost.
How does the Cloud impact this?
Outside of very large companies where such costs are sunk, now databases are virtually available "in the sky" for next to nothing. As a result the power of enterprise class databases applications is now available to leadership in small and mid-sized companies. In fact, with their cost and complexity no longer an issue, the problem now is TOO many databases. Where most companies used to be faced with the acquisition of one or two large applications to act as a "systems of record" now companies have 100's of SaaS vendors banging down their doors, each running on different databases with different structures, entities and nomenclatures. Navigating this paradigm is becoming a real challenge for the modern CIO.
Witness the rise of literally thousands of situational applications available now as a service for just a few dollars per month. Recently, a Google query of CRM vendors produced over 5,000,000 hits. Spend the hours necessary to whittle that down to real vendors and one still must contend with 10's of thousands. Even if the CRM functionality is only a couple of dollars per month, when added to the HR, expense management, reporting and so on, those tiny numbers quickly become huge. Add to that the cost integration, training and simple configuration and the platform approach quickly becomes the beacon of sanity.
What then is the platform for the orphaned applications? Or any enterprise or organizational database driven application for that matter? What is needed is a set of tools that is as easy to use as a spreadsheet that sits on top of one these databases in the sky. And that instance better be trusted. Give a CEO simple tools and access to such a cloud based environment and theoretically the days of the orphan applications could be over. In fact, the days of vertically dedicated database driven applications probably are too.
So please, help us find homes for these orphaned applications, a place where they can be loved and used and be of service to the organization that need them. A warm and happy platform on which to live, somewhere in the Cloud...
From Sand Hill Road to Wall Street to Bangalore, the waste baskets of venture capital firms large and small are filled to the rim with crumpled up plans for yet another "killer" application. Sneak into the budgeting meetings of any CIO in corporate America and you will witness of an ever increasing list of applications that users need but can't be built or bought. Talk to any executive or line of business manager and you will hear frustration over a belief that if there were better automation, a more streamlined process or the availability quicker and better data, their organization would be that much more effective.
Yet the unique applications to address these issues are rarely built. Why...?
Inevitably, the answer always boils down to risk. VC's won't fund an idea that doesn't promise a huge return. You will never see a commercially available application for managing witch craft potions backed by VC. It's the same reason that most savvy IT personals will always exhaust their efforts researching branded solutions before they attempt to build something on their own, since a build ultimately robs them of their most expensive resource...time.
It seems custom development is just too risky. So how does one estimate the risk? Obviously it is a function of cost. The money at risk in custom application development falls into three categories; hard funds, soft funds and opportunity. For the hardware, software and infrastructure on which the solution will be built, it is relatively simple come to a number. In terms of time and effort of internal, professional or contract resources, the number gets more nebulous. But the real risk lies in the opportunity costs of doing nothing, doing something and doing it wrong or just buying and delaying the eventual integration and user adoption problems. This long range cost is like deferred interest, sooner or later it must get paid.
As the cost of technology continues to fall (Moore's Law) the availability of basic technology components increases, the risk of failure in terms of hard costs is becoming more tolerable. In fact, the new motto is fail and fail quickly since the real barrier is time. We all know time is money, but simply accounting for developers' time isn't sufficient as that cost can be "off-shored" for close to nothing. Even if the hardware, software and development effort were all free, 75% of all custom development projects would still fail.
The real reason, and thus the high costs associated with the risk, is the difficulty in translating domain expertise into technological solutions. Every executive knows the frustration of taking the time to sit with technical resources, map out a solution, invest in the hardware/software infrastructure and dedicate their own time to describe a solution that they eagerly anticipate just to have it be something completely different than they expected. At some point in this nose dive process, the app will become "orphaned" and the later it happens, the more costly it is.
So what is the vehicle for most executives to put some structure around their processes and evolve them into productivity? Well, nine times out of ten, the idea is abandoned all together. In the unusual case that it isn't, typically the answer starts with a spreadsheet. Spreadsheets are ubiquitous, every manager learned Lotus or Excel in college, and these days are the default development and BI tool for most business executives. Just about anyone can figure out how to use them, even CEO's.
But spreadsheets have limits. As personal productivity tools they allow individuals to organize and structure data for better analysis, but when one actually wants to work with large volumes of data, automate its capture and collaborate with others, the shortcomings quickly become obvious.
Where spreadsheets fall short, databases shine; they easily handle massive amounts of data, will accept one at a time inputs or bulk uploads and enforce structure and conformity for collaboration and standardization. They are also excellent for acting as the "single source of truth" for a group or an organization and single database can host hundreds of applications, although few organizations adopt this concept.
Their downfall is complexity, expense and maintenance. Further, they take time to implement, a process which more complicated if the database is accessible to the internet. Given the cost and complexity, time and effort needed to implement database driven solutions, most executives retreat shyly from them unless the expertise and resources are already a sunk cost.
How does the Cloud impact this?
Outside of very large companies where such costs are sunk, now databases are virtually available "in the sky" for next to nothing. As a result the power of enterprise class databases applications is now available to leadership in small and mid-sized companies. In fact, with their cost and complexity no longer an issue, the problem now is TOO many databases. Where most companies used to be faced with the acquisition of one or two large applications to act as a "systems of record" now companies have 100's of SaaS vendors banging down their doors, each running on different databases with different structures, entities and nomenclatures. Navigating this paradigm is becoming a real challenge for the modern CIO.
Witness the rise of literally thousands of situational applications available now as a service for just a few dollars per month. Recently, a Google query of CRM vendors produced over 5,000,000 hits. Spend the hours necessary to whittle that down to real vendors and one still must contend with 10's of thousands. Even if the CRM functionality is only a couple of dollars per month, when added to the HR, expense management, reporting and so on, those tiny numbers quickly become huge. Add to that the cost integration, training and simple configuration and the platform approach quickly becomes the beacon of sanity.
What then is the platform for the orphaned applications? Or any enterprise or organizational database driven application for that matter? What is needed is a set of tools that is as easy to use as a spreadsheet that sits on top of one these databases in the sky. And that instance better be trusted. Give a CEO simple tools and access to such a cloud based environment and theoretically the days of the orphan applications could be over. In fact, the days of vertically dedicated database driven applications probably are too.
So please, help us find homes for these orphaned applications, a place where they can be loved and used and be of service to the organization that need them. A warm and happy platform on which to live, somewhere in the Cloud...
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
My Mom, Larry Ellison and the Average CEO
My mother is not an IT professional but she is a huge consumer of information and understands its importance to organizations. She was probably the first person in my life that forced me to understand the difference between data and information and we continue to engage in long and sophisticated discussions about information management and the latest trends. So I wasn't surprised when, about 6 months ago, she asked me to address some of her organization's key executives regarding "This thing called the Cloud." What did surprise me, however, was the other day when she wanted to know why Larry Ellison hates Cloud Computing so much...
I think my perspective on this question is very telling about a generation gap, the current state of IT and the cogs of the capitalist machine with its unruly PR devices. To understand why I was so shocked but amused by the question, let give you some background. First, my mom has worked in the health care industry since the mid 60's and has held a management role at one of the largest health care organizations in Southern California since 1974. That is 35 years in an industry not known to be at the cutting edge of IT. During that same time, I went from training wheels to an Apple IIe, to Oracle to IT consulting, to the Cloud. So when she asked me to come and speak to executives in the health care industry about Cloud Computing, I wasn't particularly excited. But they did entice me with a fantastic venue and great bottle of red, so I showed up. When I arrived and was greeted with enthusiasm and attentive faces, but I didn't exactly know how to answer their pressing question, "What is the Cloud and why is it such a big deal?" in their terms...
The second thing that one needs to understand is that Oracle, to this day, is the only global organization for which I have ever worked. Further, even while I was there, I only worked with mega enterprises; the telecommunications industry, the federal government, etc. As a result, I have always been largely disconnected from the trials and tribulations of the average IT department and have a hard time understanding their adherence to a policy of "server hugging." Moreover, I missed the days of main frame and client server computing, by the time I got to Oracle, Larry had ripped it all out and was in the midst of deploying ONE global, enterprise IT infrastructure with centralized data, tools and applications. Today, we would call such an architecture a "Private Cloud", but in those days it was just status-quo. Although our clients may have assumed that we did, in the sales organization, it was rare that we would provision a physical server for any reason, ever, and with very few exceptions, the only software on the desktop was MS Office and a browser. We had a Global IT organization somewhere, but no-one was really sure where...we occasionally saw guys from IT, but never saw a production server, a storage array, or anything but a network connection to provide the physical proof that a data center actually existed some place. To us, one could say, the whole thing was in the Cloud.
That is why when I left Oracle in 2002 to start consulting, it was only natural to use SFDC and other web based software services. I certainly wasn't going to invest in hardware and incur the associated expense. So when I started visiting customers to do installs, I was deplored to find that companies didn't have enterprise internet (not intrAnet) architectures. I couldn't believe that security was implemented at the network level and that most users had expensive desktop applications. More unbelievable was that company data could physically reside on an employee's laptop and walk out the door with them at the end of the day. For me, enterprise information management has ALWAYS been about the data...To me collecting, structuring, securing, leveraging and using the information to the advantage of the overall organization is what it's all about, not servers, operating systems, disc arrays or data centers.
Understanding this, I hope it is obvious why I find the whole situation around Cloud Computing so amusing. When I was asked by a group of really smart, non-IT, health care executives "What is the Cloud and why is it such a big deal?" I almost had to bite my tongue. Here was a group of people for whom IT had always been a little "cloudy", it was something that existed, somewhere, and you called them when you needed the newest version of Excel to do some analysis on your PC. Yes outside of the government, here was, to my view, the poster child industry for bureaucracy in IT, old world computing and the antithesis of innovation. Health care represented a generation gap that due to their lack of resources, extreme subservience to regulation and overall conservative culture regarding the flow of information had no place at the table discussing the latest trend in IT. But the wine was good...
I began my explanation of "the Cloud" without purposely being condescending with, "From your executive perspective, it's business as usual, the only difference is the burden of cost. Yes, there are data centers out there to manage physician, hospital and patient data. Yes, all of that cost money. The difference between Cloud and status-quo is just where that data resides, who owns it and who pays for it...why should your organization bare the entire cost?" Then I went in to my usual spiel about how much safer I feel regarding security and governance when data is at a neutral location and managed by an organization whose business it is to secure and provide authenticated and highly available access...I, for one, don't like knowing that my medical records are in paper files in a doctors office where the physician has almost instant access and I don't. A situation where I am forced to rely on a doctor's administrative staff, not a highly professional IT organization, to secure and insure the data. Not surprisingly, they all got it! The two big questions that spurred from the discussion were:
1. How much can we save moving to the Cloud?
2. How can we leverage the Cloud as a strategic advantage?
Seems that health care organizations, just like everyone else, are dealing the reality that the rising costs of running data centers will most certainly detract from their ability to deliver their core competency, in their case of making sick people better. It also seems that the industry is getting more competitive and may even start thinking outside the firewall. Certainly overseas competition, increased regulation and an aging population are spurring some new thinking. My compliments to the new innovators in health care...
Back to my response on why Larry Ellison hates the Cloud...I don't think he does; I think he just hates the word...after all he didn't coin it. That said, as a business strategy, he has been a true believer for over 10 years. Let's not forget, he implemented what to my view is certainly one of the earliest enterprise Cloud architectures, and by fear of the "ax" enforced its adoption and utilization (one could argue that it was Oracle's cloud, but there are plenty of idiots out there arguing for "private clouds" its just semantics). In the years immediately after Oracle saw a 33% increase in operating profit as a function of both top line growth and the incredible cost reductions associated with the elimination of IT infrastructure redundancy. By 1999, the Harvard Business School had concluded after its own independent audit, that Oracle had SAVED over $1Billion in operating expenses by adopting this strategy. This is probably the earliest endorsement for Cloud computing of which I am aware, and certainly it can provide valuable lessons for the average CEO to this day.
Finally, I think Larry may be upset that Oracle's achievements aren't the focus of all the PR and hype around Cloud Computing. More to the point, he think he's a bit displeased that, for the overall strategy to become mainstream, it took IBM endorsing and coining a new phrase describing it, just like they did for the PC...
I think my perspective on this question is very telling about a generation gap, the current state of IT and the cogs of the capitalist machine with its unruly PR devices. To understand why I was so shocked but amused by the question, let give you some background. First, my mom has worked in the health care industry since the mid 60's and has held a management role at one of the largest health care organizations in Southern California since 1974. That is 35 years in an industry not known to be at the cutting edge of IT. During that same time, I went from training wheels to an Apple IIe, to Oracle to IT consulting, to the Cloud. So when she asked me to come and speak to executives in the health care industry about Cloud Computing, I wasn't particularly excited. But they did entice me with a fantastic venue and great bottle of red, so I showed up. When I arrived and was greeted with enthusiasm and attentive faces, but I didn't exactly know how to answer their pressing question, "What is the Cloud and why is it such a big deal?" in their terms...
The second thing that one needs to understand is that Oracle, to this day, is the only global organization for which I have ever worked. Further, even while I was there, I only worked with mega enterprises; the telecommunications industry, the federal government, etc. As a result, I have always been largely disconnected from the trials and tribulations of the average IT department and have a hard time understanding their adherence to a policy of "server hugging." Moreover, I missed the days of main frame and client server computing, by the time I got to Oracle, Larry had ripped it all out and was in the midst of deploying ONE global, enterprise IT infrastructure with centralized data, tools and applications. Today, we would call such an architecture a "Private Cloud", but in those days it was just status-quo. Although our clients may have assumed that we did, in the sales organization, it was rare that we would provision a physical server for any reason, ever, and with very few exceptions, the only software on the desktop was MS Office and a browser. We had a Global IT organization somewhere, but no-one was really sure where...we occasionally saw guys from IT, but never saw a production server, a storage array, or anything but a network connection to provide the physical proof that a data center actually existed some place. To us, one could say, the whole thing was in the Cloud.
That is why when I left Oracle in 2002 to start consulting, it was only natural to use SFDC and other web based software services. I certainly wasn't going to invest in hardware and incur the associated expense. So when I started visiting customers to do installs, I was deplored to find that companies didn't have enterprise internet (not intrAnet) architectures. I couldn't believe that security was implemented at the network level and that most users had expensive desktop applications. More unbelievable was that company data could physically reside on an employee's laptop and walk out the door with them at the end of the day. For me, enterprise information management has ALWAYS been about the data...To me collecting, structuring, securing, leveraging and using the information to the advantage of the overall organization is what it's all about, not servers, operating systems, disc arrays or data centers.
Understanding this, I hope it is obvious why I find the whole situation around Cloud Computing so amusing. When I was asked by a group of really smart, non-IT, health care executives "What is the Cloud and why is it such a big deal?" I almost had to bite my tongue. Here was a group of people for whom IT had always been a little "cloudy", it was something that existed, somewhere, and you called them when you needed the newest version of Excel to do some analysis on your PC. Yes outside of the government, here was, to my view, the poster child industry for bureaucracy in IT, old world computing and the antithesis of innovation. Health care represented a generation gap that due to their lack of resources, extreme subservience to regulation and overall conservative culture regarding the flow of information had no place at the table discussing the latest trend in IT. But the wine was good...
I began my explanation of "the Cloud" without purposely being condescending with, "From your executive perspective, it's business as usual, the only difference is the burden of cost. Yes, there are data centers out there to manage physician, hospital and patient data. Yes, all of that cost money. The difference between Cloud and status-quo is just where that data resides, who owns it and who pays for it...why should your organization bare the entire cost?" Then I went in to my usual spiel about how much safer I feel regarding security and governance when data is at a neutral location and managed by an organization whose business it is to secure and provide authenticated and highly available access...I, for one, don't like knowing that my medical records are in paper files in a doctors office where the physician has almost instant access and I don't. A situation where I am forced to rely on a doctor's administrative staff, not a highly professional IT organization, to secure and insure the data. Not surprisingly, they all got it! The two big questions that spurred from the discussion were:
1. How much can we save moving to the Cloud?
2. How can we leverage the Cloud as a strategic advantage?
Seems that health care organizations, just like everyone else, are dealing the reality that the rising costs of running data centers will most certainly detract from their ability to deliver their core competency, in their case of making sick people better. It also seems that the industry is getting more competitive and may even start thinking outside the firewall. Certainly overseas competition, increased regulation and an aging population are spurring some new thinking. My compliments to the new innovators in health care...
Back to my response on why Larry Ellison hates the Cloud...I don't think he does; I think he just hates the word...after all he didn't coin it. That said, as a business strategy, he has been a true believer for over 10 years. Let's not forget, he implemented what to my view is certainly one of the earliest enterprise Cloud architectures, and by fear of the "ax" enforced its adoption and utilization (one could argue that it was Oracle's cloud, but there are plenty of idiots out there arguing for "private clouds" its just semantics). In the years immediately after Oracle saw a 33% increase in operating profit as a function of both top line growth and the incredible cost reductions associated with the elimination of IT infrastructure redundancy. By 1999, the Harvard Business School had concluded after its own independent audit, that Oracle had SAVED over $1Billion in operating expenses by adopting this strategy. This is probably the earliest endorsement for Cloud computing of which I am aware, and certainly it can provide valuable lessons for the average CEO to this day.
Finally, I think Larry may be upset that Oracle's achievements aren't the focus of all the PR and hype around Cloud Computing. More to the point, he think he's a bit displeased that, for the overall strategy to become mainstream, it took IBM endorsing and coining a new phrase describing it, just like they did for the PC...
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
IT Resources seaking shelter from the "Stormy" Cloud
In my last post I was captivated by my trip to the San Diego Cloud Conference and eluded to the fact that many of the IT professionals in attendance were very concerned about their perception of their own obsolescence in this era of the Cloud. In the past couple of weeks there were some major announcements including Apps.gov and I have had conversations with more and more technical folks who are voicing these concerns.
I would like to put this paranoia to rest, or at least start the process. From where I sit, the Cloud represents more opportunity for IT professionals than any computing advance in history and there are some fundamental reasons why:
1. Access to unprecedented amounts of data
2. Speed to market
3. The number of vendors playing in the Cloud space
First, lets address the major concern that IT folks have about their jobs. The concern goes like this, "My job is to maintain the servers and technical infrastructure of my company, if that is outsourced, I no longer have value..."
With that argument, I am in complete agreement. If, as an IT professional, you perceive your value as simply maintaining the place that data lives, then sign your severance papers right away and take up Bocci ball in the retirement home. But the last time I checked, IT wasn't about managing servers, it was about managing INFORMATION, thus the acronym. It's time that IT professionals rethought their roles. My friend Steve Gerken, former CIO at Chugai Pharma sees it this way, "Nobody in the company understands the importance of the information better than the IT folks, and of them, the DBA usually knows it best."
So assume the difference between successful and non-successful organizations is tied to the way that they manage their resources, than it stands to reason that those who do a better job managing their data (a very critical resource) would be more successful than those that don't. So take a look at the Cloud...
My friend Paul Laskin describes the end point of the Cloud as "One big data mash-up in which information sources will be ubiquitous." It is a great point, in fact we are seeing that illustrated very well in the consumer space right now. I think he is spot-on, and IT folks should embrace this idea. This leads to the first important concept, the amount of data to which we have access..
I look at non-Cloud IT shops similarly a small boat captain, out on the sea. Because he is resource constrained (being he a small boat) he does everything he can to insure that his boat floats. He secures it from leaks...he insures it is seaworthy, he makes certain that the infrastructure, the motor and transmission are well oiled and in proper working condition. When put to sea, he encounters storm clouds. He is overcome by huge waves and large amounts of rain, and his boat starts to flood and sink. Immediately he deploys all available resources to bail the water out and protect his boat. Eventually, he send and SOS to the business. He is overwhelmed by huge amounts of water (data) and can't cope. He sinks and curses the Cloud for his demise.
On the other hand, the Cloud savvy IT organization recognizes the oncoming downpour and invests in a water jet for their boat. Initially, it adds some overhead to their boat, but when the downpour comes, they blast the water aft and propel the boat forward. They have fine grained control over the direction of the blast and can throttle the flow. They have taken advantage of the situation and leapfrogged their competition.
We all agree that there will be a virtual onslaught of new data as a function of the Cloud. IT people are the best suited to transform it into a business benefit. But like the water jet, they need to invest in a proper Cloud foundation which will require extra effort initially. The second question will be how fast can they do it?
IT will certainly not be able to respond if they have to spool up new physical resources every time they get hit with new requests. They need to be positioned to take advantage of existing infrastructure available in the Cloud. I have spoken to many people who are using Amazon to prototype and even host production systems, not because its cheap, but because its THERE and minimizes the usual bureaucracy associated with resource allocation. It allows real time response.
Finally, the main reason that I believe IT professionals are more essential than ever in the Cloud era is their understanding of the actual work that will always be necessary to turn data into information. What I mean by this is that under all the new technologies, there is still work. The Cloud has reduced the barriers to entry for technology providers and opened the flood gates for vendors of all shapes and sizes with slick demos and compelling 'Try before you buy" offers. To the neophyte information managers of the business, all of this can be overwhelming. As a function of this, more than ever the business is going to need its trusted advisers in IT to sort through the glitter and get to what works.
Last week, at the end of his keynote Woody Pewitt from Microsoft predicted more need for IT professionals as a function of the Cloud. I agree, in an era in which technology is becoming more and more abundant, what becomes scarce (and therefore high value) is the expertise to apply it. I predict that expertise in good solid information management skills will command respect and attention from the business. I suggest a return to the MIS acronym which doesn't emphasize the "T" for technology that the IT acronym does. Indeed, Management Information Services sums it up pretty well I think...
I would like to put this paranoia to rest, or at least start the process. From where I sit, the Cloud represents more opportunity for IT professionals than any computing advance in history and there are some fundamental reasons why:
1. Access to unprecedented amounts of data
2. Speed to market
3. The number of vendors playing in the Cloud space
First, lets address the major concern that IT folks have about their jobs. The concern goes like this, "My job is to maintain the servers and technical infrastructure of my company, if that is outsourced, I no longer have value..."
With that argument, I am in complete agreement. If, as an IT professional, you perceive your value as simply maintaining the place that data lives, then sign your severance papers right away and take up Bocci ball in the retirement home. But the last time I checked, IT wasn't about managing servers, it was about managing INFORMATION, thus the acronym. It's time that IT professionals rethought their roles. My friend Steve Gerken, former CIO at Chugai Pharma sees it this way, "Nobody in the company understands the importance of the information better than the IT folks, and of them, the DBA usually knows it best."
So assume the difference between successful and non-successful organizations is tied to the way that they manage their resources, than it stands to reason that those who do a better job managing their data (a very critical resource) would be more successful than those that don't. So take a look at the Cloud...
My friend Paul Laskin describes the end point of the Cloud as "One big data mash-up in which information sources will be ubiquitous." It is a great point, in fact we are seeing that illustrated very well in the consumer space right now. I think he is spot-on, and IT folks should embrace this idea. This leads to the first important concept, the amount of data to which we have access..
I look at non-Cloud IT shops similarly a small boat captain, out on the sea. Because he is resource constrained (being he a small boat) he does everything he can to insure that his boat floats. He secures it from leaks...he insures it is seaworthy, he makes certain that the infrastructure, the motor and transmission are well oiled and in proper working condition. When put to sea, he encounters storm clouds. He is overcome by huge waves and large amounts of rain, and his boat starts to flood and sink. Immediately he deploys all available resources to bail the water out and protect his boat. Eventually, he send and SOS to the business. He is overwhelmed by huge amounts of water (data) and can't cope. He sinks and curses the Cloud for his demise.
On the other hand, the Cloud savvy IT organization recognizes the oncoming downpour and invests in a water jet for their boat. Initially, it adds some overhead to their boat, but when the downpour comes, they blast the water aft and propel the boat forward. They have fine grained control over the direction of the blast and can throttle the flow. They have taken advantage of the situation and leapfrogged their competition.
We all agree that there will be a virtual onslaught of new data as a function of the Cloud. IT people are the best suited to transform it into a business benefit. But like the water jet, they need to invest in a proper Cloud foundation which will require extra effort initially. The second question will be how fast can they do it?
IT will certainly not be able to respond if they have to spool up new physical resources every time they get hit with new requests. They need to be positioned to take advantage of existing infrastructure available in the Cloud. I have spoken to many people who are using Amazon to prototype and even host production systems, not because its cheap, but because its THERE and minimizes the usual bureaucracy associated with resource allocation. It allows real time response.
Finally, the main reason that I believe IT professionals are more essential than ever in the Cloud era is their understanding of the actual work that will always be necessary to turn data into information. What I mean by this is that under all the new technologies, there is still work. The Cloud has reduced the barriers to entry for technology providers and opened the flood gates for vendors of all shapes and sizes with slick demos and compelling 'Try before you buy" offers. To the neophyte information managers of the business, all of this can be overwhelming. As a function of this, more than ever the business is going to need its trusted advisers in IT to sort through the glitter and get to what works.
Last week, at the end of his keynote Woody Pewitt from Microsoft predicted more need for IT professionals as a function of the Cloud. I agree, in an era in which technology is becoming more and more abundant, what becomes scarce (and therefore high value) is the expertise to apply it. I predict that expertise in good solid information management skills will command respect and attention from the business. I suggest a return to the MIS acronym which doesn't emphasize the "T" for technology that the IT acronym does. Indeed, Management Information Services sums it up pretty well I think...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
