Tradeoffs in Cloud Computing are the New Normal

Tradeoffs in Cloud Computing are the New Normal

After many years of working with business professionals in "enabling" their organizations to make better use of technology, I must say that it is a bit frustrating trying to get folks to understand that this new and wonderful cloud computing model (or Internet-based computing, SAAS, or whatever-you-want-to-call-it computing) is still just technology. It uses computers and disk drives, it runs software, it takes electricity, and it was developed by human beings. It can break. It's not magical and perfect and you can't get the good stuff for free. Swim at your own risk. A sales team I used to work with even recognized this reality and developed a fondness for the phrase "technology happens". So, assess the risks and measure the benefits against them. For many, the benefits outweigh the risks, and cloud computing approaches deliver advanced capabilities at cost levels not previously available to most businesses.

No industry is immune to the considerations surrounding a cloud computing model. Even lawyers involved with ediscovery (!) recognize the potential benefits - and tradeoffs - of the model, as was clearly revealed a few years ago at the ILTA (International Legal Technology Association) 2010 event in Las Vegas. While the discussions at the conference were oriented specifically towards the legal profession, the IT-related discussions were and still are totally relevant to every business. Accounting and finance professionals should pay close attention to this type of conversation, as it relates very directly to accounting's approach to information technology and the application of IT in the business or professional practice.

In a recap of the event entitled ILTA 2010 in Las Vegas: Strategic Unity, Defensibility, and the Cloud, author Chris Dale discussed the reality that professionals in both public and corporate service must work with the IT departments towards a common goal. "IT is no longer just a service department providing an infrastructure, applications, training, and troubleshooting." While these elements still remain as critical aspects of IT, the role has grown to also incorporate considerations for collaboration (collaborative information management), mobility, and social media.

Recounting one session attended, called Defensible Ediscovery Processes, the author related the variety of definitions provided to the general term" defensible", which were pretty amusing.

Definitions ranged from "protected against attack", to "less lousy practices" or "practices which suck the least", and finally, "what you can get away with without being found guilty of spoliation". 

From these definitions then came qualifiers, such as "reasonableness" and "faith". Why would defensible processes be important, and how does this relate to IT or cloud computing? An example of the element of "faith" came up in this context: " how can [lawyers] have faith that the technology is delivering the right answers?" A panelist gave the sample of "an email retrieved from (or possibly not retrieved from [love those lawyers]) a system, with 26.5 pages missing. How can you be sure that the systems which you are using will not do that to you?" These are valid questions in any IT environment, and are no less important when considering a cloud-based technology model. The trade-offs are related to perfection in functionality and performance of the solution versus cost, and should be measured in proportion to one another.

The tradeoffs may come in a variety of areas, with collaboration and connectivity being the primary drivers (collaboration) and barriers (connectivity) to the model. Businesses are more than ready to adopt cloud computing strategies based on the belief in improved collaboration, access to information, and improved IT management, but tend to overlook the offsets in the areas of bandwidth availability (and consistency), application functionality (or lack thereof), and level of support available from the provider. 

In support of this argument, Jerry Justice (IT Director for SS&G - Certified Public Accountants and Advisers) posted in a LinkedIn discussion on the topic that "by design the Internet is 'reasonably' connected, but not the same as a well-connected [local] network. the upside is it gives you the ability to connect from great distances, the tradeoff is that you experience variable connectivity."

"The underlying issues are that there is a paradigm shift to working on the Internet (from working in the office) and then another shift when you add in cloud-based environments (versus local apps). It is possible to be very productive, but .. you have to adapt your approaches".

The idea "that perfect must be qualified by cost and proportionality" was also discussed in an ILTA session on cloud computing which included panelists from Autonomy iManage, Mayer Brown, and Ernst & Young. "Cloud computing remains a contentious area, with no obvious agreement even as to what the term means, let alone as to its implications" wrote Mr Dale in his recap of the event. While the panelists held differing views, the representative from Mayer Brown held a position similar to Mr Dale, in that it is important to "dissect the objections one at a time, accepting that there is room for more than one view, and testing arguments against the alternatives. Arguments based on pure cost are pretty compelling, and if one method of achieving an objective is very much cheaper than the others, then the burden shifts to those who argue for the more expensive route."

Discussions went on to describe differences between public cloud providers and others, who segregate customer data in "private and identifiable silos". "The key word here is identifiable", writes the author, "which connotes a geographical certainty as well as anything else. I sometimes wonder if the imagery associated with cloud computing (invariably a jagged line disappearing into some cumulus) does not leave some people with the idea that their precious data is indeed floating in some inchoate container up in the air."

"If you neglect to provide in your contract that your data remains in a specified jurisdiction, and if you fail to conduct proper due diligence checks on the provider, then you deserve all you get. Like any risk assessment, it involves weighing cost against other factors; most of these other factors are definable and quantifiable".

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Make Sense?

J

Software vs Service Provider - Barriers to Cloud Hosted Applications

When a user logs in to a virtual desktop, and all their valuable and beloved applications are available to them, fully functional and integrated as they are on the PC, with all their data available to them as well, the reaction is almost always one of excitement, empowerment, and - ultimately - bewilderment. "Why", they ask, "doesn't everyone do this?"

Good question.

The answer, at least in part, is the way software companies license and sell their applications. Now, if you can continue to produce your product in the same way you always have, distribute it using your known distribution channels (which deliver predictable performance), and realize revenue in the manner to which you have become accustomed, why would you actively seek to create disruption in the "normal" flow of things? Especially when status quo seems to be working pretty well.

Another good question.

The adoption of cloud-hosted applications (in this case, hosted desktops and the applications associated with them) is pretty much in the hands of the application software companies. It's certainly not the platform that we are waiting for. The base technology is already proven on the hardware side, with awesome virtualization and high-density machine configurations available. And the software has been proven in a variety of deployments, as demonstrated by Microsoft Terminal Services, Remote Desktops and Remote Apps.

The software companies represent a barrier.

And so it comes down to the application software manufacturers. These guys seem to fall into two main camps when it comes to hosting their applications: redevelop the app with a web framework and deliver a browser-based solution, or pick a single delivery model from the above list, and limit true integration capability. In short - webify or segregate. Either way, it creates severe limitations in the way the software can take advantage of integrations and connections with other applications. And, for most desktop software vendors, integration with other desktop applications is frequently one of the key benefits of the product.

The web-based applications have already come to grips with this reality. Where a download of a document to your favorite word processor was once just fine, the market now demands data re-use and expanded business process integration, forcing the web applications to open themselves to outside connections and 3rd party developments. Just look at the developer network Salesforce.com has created. If that doesn't prove that no app is an island, I don't know what does.

On the other hand, many app developers who have chosen to "webify" using application publishing and delivery tools have evidently forgotten that one reality: integration is part of what makes their app popular. No business process is an island, and the data rarely stands alone. Would ACT! be so popular if it couldn't integrate with your Outlook email client, or with your MS Word word processor? Would MS Excel be so popular if you couldn't push almost anything to it as a spreadsheet file? The answer is no. This is why the integrations were developed in the first place - greater functionality and an improved value proposition, resulting in increased use and user productivity.

visit CooperMann.com

Too many options?

To complicate the problem, there is not just one delivery method that works for every application, business model, or user. With the variety of technologies available, independent software companies have hard choices to make in determining how their cloud hosted products might be offered, and additionally by whom they might be sold. As of today, though, most of the software companies have approached the problem alone, where opting to use their "hosted" editions frequently eliminates the option of integrating on the desktop with other locally-run applications (like what happened with QuickBooks Online Edition).

Not only does the software maker have to find the best technology/platform fit for the delivery and for their market, but they must also then consider their distribution channel - the "food chain"of promotion and delivery of the product or solution. Often this "who" that can offer the product is just as much of a barrier as the "how".

The maker of a given software package is in the business of selling their software, not other peoples' software. While integration with other products is exceptionally important to the product's value in the market, the software maker is fundamentally concerned with only the sales of their own solution. They tend to promote sales through resellers and consultants who can not only provide the software but offer install, training, and ongoing support as well. Designating sales organizations which are "authorized" to represent a product is a typical software company approach.

Many of these authorized resellers are focused exclusively on selling the software solution, not the ongoing support of the platform. These resellers are often highly skilled at working the specific software application, but may lack in-depth understanding of the platform upon which it runs.

Some authorized resellers are actually integrators - companies who sell products from a variety of sources and combine them into "solutions". Historically, integrators have been key players in creating successful markets for certain products, providing the support and other services necessary to keep the products entrenched in the user community.

In many cases, the integrator makes their money on the support element on the arrangement, not necessarily on the product. In these situations, the platform and ongoing maintenance and support are the key revenue drivers, and the integrator may be loathe to recommend a solution to the client that cuts into their involvement and revenue stream. And hosted, managed application services can certainly do that.

So - what is the answer? Well, there isn't just one that jumps out.

One element in the solution is recognition by desktop software companies that their desktop products need to be available in a hosted delivery model. Consumers require choice in terms of their involvement with the business IT infrastructure. Some folks want to control it, others simply need access. The business of hosting applications is growing, but many of the software makers in the market aren't behind the movement.. they are unwilling participants who leave it up to the service providers (the integrators in the datacenter) to make things work. In some cases, end-user licenses are even written to make hosting the software an illegal event.

Another element, equally if not more important, is the service provider community and their approach. With the wide variety of technical standards out there - the different technologies, different approaches, different levels of consideration, and different market sensitivities - it is no wonder that fear and doubt are prevalent in the market.  It would be nice if software developers assisted the hosting service providers with establishing best-practices and standards for implementing the various solutions so that customers didn't have to ultimately bear that burden, too.

And then there is the distribution channel and method of selling licensing. Many software companies work exclusively through their authorized reseller channels. While this may benefit the user from a product knowledge standpoint, it creates difficulties with the new delivery model and frequently puts the software sales channel in direct competition with the hosting providers.

The tweener gets you from here to there.

While the concept of hosting desktop and network applications may seem to be "fraught with peril", it can be done well and deliver significant benefits to the company. By simply changing the way employees access and interact with their applications rather than changing the apps themselves, businesses can introduce an entirely new range of business benefit and capability. Outsourcing the business IT can also represent cost savings and, more importantly, allow businesses to focus personnel and financial resources on the core business. 

For those who see true cloud services as the future, this "tweener" step gets you divested from localized technology and helps to embrace the flexibility and freedom that virtual and mobile computing can deliver without forcing radical change right now.

Make Sense?
J