Private Cloud Adoption -- The TOS Model

"Nothing good is easy ; nothing easy is good".

I don't remember who said that originally, but that thought has always stuck in my head.

And as I work with more organizations who have started down a private cloud road (or something very similar), I'm beginning to see repeatable patterns emerge.

In a previous post, I presented my observations on different adoption models I've been seeing in my travels and conversations.

Today's post has to do with entirely separate discussions in different parts of the organization -- regardless of adoption model.

See if this makes sense to you?

Rewinding ...

A private cloud is a next-generation IT infrastructure environment that IT controls.  It may use internal resources, external resources, or any combination. 

What makes it a "cloud" is three aspects: (1) it's built differently -- dynamic pools of virtualized resources, (2) it's operated differently -- highly automated low-touch and zero-touch models, and (3) it's consumed differently -- convenient consumption, sometimes pay-as-you-go.

What makes it "private" is that the IT organization is under complete control -- how it's used, how it's protected, how it's managed, how it's secured, etc. 

It does not presume that IT resources will be inside a data center, or outside for that matter.  It does presume that people will want choices about different IT consumption models, while retaining control.

Of all the various enterprise IT cloud models being proposed, I would argue that the industry is quickly gravitating to the one I just described.  Virtualization is the specific enabling technology that's making all of this possible.

A Three-Discussion Model For Private Cloud Adoption

I'm dramatically over simplifying here, but there seems to be three broad flavors of discussion when considering a private cloud strategy at an enterprise level.

One is clearly technical: what are the new technologies, how do they work, how are they integrated, and so on.  The people responsible for the technology within IT have a lot to go learn: not only virtualization itself, but how virtualization changes how things interact -- and, ultimately, how IT work is done.

One is clearly operational: how are IT services delivered using the technology?  If you're involved in IT operations, there are two clear agendas here: (1) how can I use these technologies to better meet the KPIs (key performance indicators) that are used to measure IT effectiveness, and (2) what sort of organizational and process changes will be needed to fully leverage what the technology is now capable of.

And, finally, there's usually a very separate and distinct strategic discussion between IT and the business.  Here's what is now possible ; how does this impact our overall business strategy?

Three very different discussions, one central concept.

Key Issues With The Technology Audience

I have great empathy for all technology practitioners in enterprise IT environments.  It's usually a very difficult job with uncertain rewards. 

To make matters more -- ahem -- challenging -- there are many pieces in play here, and all of them are moving very quickly indeed. 

Not only is the lead vendor (VMware) continually enhancing and extending their products, the rest of the IT industry is investing like crazy to either integrate -- or compete -- or sometimes a combination of both.

It'd be a luxury for any IT technologist to be able to sit things out for a while, and see what emerges, but server virtualization projects are near the top of the agenda for many IT organizations these days, simply because the benefits are so compelling.  Decisions have to be made now, not later.

When EMC engages with this audience, it's important to not only share what's there today, but what we think is coming soon.  There are no universal "right answers", just different scenarios and alternatives to consider in this incredibly vibrant segment of the IT landscape.

More importantly, the discussion quickly shifts away from the individual piece parts, and quickly towards how they work together in an integrated fashion.  In larger IT shops, this means a lot of domain-crossing between the server people, the network people, the storage people, the security people, the backup people, etc.  Case in point: the Vblock announced last year.

In addition to publishing enormous amount of materials on products, solutions and reference architecture, you've probably noticed we're investing heavily in specialists who can help you sort through all the different options that are out there, and try and figure out what works for you.

Key Issues With The Operational Audience

Now the discussion changes in a subtle and important way -- this audience cares about delivering results above all else.  New technology that isn't robust, or manageable, or that can't be easily integrated with other pieces -- well, all of that can get in the way of getting the job done.

In larger IT settings, I see that these people are starting to confront a serious challenge -- they're reaching the limit of what they can achieve by simply upgrading technology. 

At some point, processes have to be re-examined.  Process change leads to new roles and responsibilities, and now we're into organizational change.

In private cloud models, much of the benefit comes from process change -- how routine IT tasks are performed, changing default assumptions around how service levels are defined and provisioned -- even how certain aspects of IT are paid for!

This had resulted in strong demand for consulting services from EMC and others -- people who understand issues around the interplay between operations, process and organizational change.

Key Issues With The Strategy Audience

At some point, IT is another enterprise function -- like sales, or HR, or something similar.  The relative importance of the IT function varies considerably, but there's always interest from the non-IT business leaders in "what's in it for me?".

Sure, it's nice to save money on IT infrastructure -- capex and opex.  That much is expected.  But it's a very different discussion to say "here's all this money we're saving, and now look at all the new things that we can invest in to create new value for the business".  That gets some attention.

Or, perhaps dramatically reducing cycle time for new IT projects.  Most business people value speed above all else, and if IT can respond faster (and more predictably) to new proposals and projects, the potential for great value is there.

In many cases, IT infrastructure is directly seen by customers and clients.  Investing in better user experiences is a key part of the business strategy, and private clouds can directly support better user experiences -- both internal and external.

Clearly, there's a separate discussion here -- educating the business on what's now possible, and how the game has been changed by adoption of a private cloud approach to enterprise IT infrastructure.

This is the sort of discussion I live and die for.  It requires a more-than-casual understanding of the customer's industry and unique situation.  No generic powerpoints work here!

Putting It All Together

Any cloud discussion is a significant departure from traditional IT thinking, and private clouds are no exception.  We as technologists continually struggle to make these concepts compelling and actionable for others.

I think part of the approach is knowing your audience(s) -- and what they care about.

Comments

[Derek Gascon]

Chuck,

Your definition of the private cloud as “…next generation IT infrastructure…” is one of the more reasonable ones I’ve seen. It appropriately characterizes it as IT implementing a set of technologies to deliver “cloud” capabilities. The design and delivery of that infrastructure is of little concern to the ultimate end user (or shouldn’t be) except that they are able to be more effective while IT is being more efficient.

The one thing in this post I don’t necessarily agree with is the order of each phase in the journey. This model starts at technology and ends with strategy, which is not uncommon for a technology vendor. However, building the foundation before knowing what the business needs means you might build the wrong foundation. You might build a great foundation for a single-family home, but that might not work if what the business needs to build is a barn. Understanding the business and designing the right foundation for success is what allows a vendor to become more of a partner with their customer. And, this is of real importance where we’re seeing a significant technology shift and even paradigm shift toward a “cloud” model.

The ability to take business strategy and demonstrate the value of cloud technologies to support corporate objectives will help in educating IT and ease adoption. It is especially important in today’s economic climate where organizations are looking for new ways to compete and succeed. Perhaps this stuck out to me because I led multiple teams in “Information Services” at Qwest Communications (several lives ago; yes I’m like a cat) and we worked very much like a services group. In order to deliver services it was imperative to first understand the business and success criteria before making technical decisions. The vendors that worked with me as a partner in these endeavors to demonstrate how new technology products would add value tended to stick around longer than the “parts supplier”.

This is just my opinion and I’m sure the model must be flexible enough in customer engagements to start wherever they want to start. I’m more process and solutions oriented so would suggest the model be more closed loop in so much as it is an ongoing process, i.e. strategy -> technology -> operations -> strategy…

[Chuck Hollis]

Agreed -- having a strategy to start with is an ideal starting point.

But, given that strategic end state (let's assume it's a private cloud for the moment), how many execs would press ahead if (a) the technologists are reluctant, and (b) the operational management is reluctant.

There's a path between the steps there, but they are not always sequential!

-- Chuck

[Bill]

"Nothing good is easy ; nothing easy is good".

That's all "good and well", but it's often a fallacy. "Good" is too broad, covers too many variables.

A better aphorism or maxim includes 3 axes:

"You can have it done well, done cheaply, done quickly. Pick any two."

Still applies to anything from hot-rod machine shops to deploying IT cloud services.

There is a place, however, for individually chosen "piece parts" solutions. These include those that fall outside the normal performance or availability SLAs that can be promised by the services of the particular cloud offering (private or hired). Sometimes the benefits of these particular solutions are compelling enough to drive organizations to make exceptions to their normal processes.