CIOZone.com - Professional Network for CIOs and IT Professionals

Corrective Action

Alastair Croll in "Private Clouds Are A Fix, Not The Future" on informationweek.com on January 13, 2010, while offering a different slant than Gartner, also argues that "internal enterprise clouds are a temporary phenomenon, to be followed by a big migration to public cloud infrastructure."

Because the IT organization has had a monopoly on computing, says Croll, it was "inefficient" and could afford to be "lazy," with a tendency to scale by simply adding more servers. However, says Croll, "We've known how to make IT more efficient for a long time."

While virtualization, SOA, and automation were good ideas, he says, "IT had no real pressure to embrace them." So in many companies, he argues, "these things got lip service, but didn't get deployed."

The advent of cloud computing, says Croll, has exposed these inefficiencies and offered an alternative, and "now enterprise IT is doing what it should have been for a long time: deploying those disruptive technologies." In many ways, he says, "cloud computing is the child in the Emperor's New Clothes, pointing out that the monarch is naked."

While deploying private these technologies will save money and help companies focus on their core business, says Croll, "it doesn't make internal IT a cloud." Because of this, he says, "enterprise cloud computing is a temporary, transient thing that's just a stepping stone to clouds-as-a-business-model."

No Advantages

Other critics, however, see no advantages in implementing private clouds as a stepping stone to public clouds.

Among them is David Linthicum, who in "Are 'Private Clouds' Evil? Or Just Vendor Hype?" on infoworld.com on August 24, 2009, wrote that "So-called private clouds are overhyped, overused, and perhaps misunderstood."

While conceding that in some instances private clouds might be a better fit for some companies, says Linthicum, "In many instances, public clouds are the most cost-effective solutions, and you don't need to stand up private clouds first -- no matter what your hardware and software vendor says."

"Private clouds are not evil," said Linthicum, "but they could be overhyped and, at the end of the day, not all that important for many companies."

Also taking issue with Bittman's view that private clouds were stepping stones were some of his Gartner colleagues. Gartner analyst Tom Austin, commenting on Bittman's blog on February 5, 2009, said Bittman's argument was a "paper tiger," arguing further that:

"Intellectually, I know enterprise IT orgs will be looking to see what cloud-related technologies they can exploit and I think this is a valuable market for technology providers to pursue but let's not deceive ourselves, either. Most 'inhouse-clouds' will only be nominal competitors to the (real) Internet-based cloud."

Also challenging Bittman's view was Gartner analyst Nick Gall, who in a post entitled "Private Cloud Computing: The Only Thing Real so Far Is the Desire" on gartner.com on February 9, 2009, wrote: "Just because internal IT providers want to build private clouds that offer the benefits of public clouds, doesn't mean they can. And just because vendors desire to sell internal IT providers something labeled 'private cloud,' doesn't mean it is one."

Arthur Cole in "Is the Private Cloud Really Worth It?" on itbusinessedge.com on July 29, 2009, also finds that "there are some legitimate concerns that internal clouds may not be as useful as some proponents argue." The primary criticism, said Cole, is the "cost factor," explaining that "the main appeal of the public cloud is that it provides a full set of IT resources without the expense, mostly on the hardware side, of building it from scratch. If you already have that infrastructure in place, or are planning to build it anyway, what exactly are you saving by turning it into a cloud?"

After mulling over the arguments made by private cloud vendors to justify the value of private clouds, Cole concludes that, "There simply is not enough real-world experience yet to determine whether any of these approaches is truly cost-effective or provide the functionality needed by today's enterprise."

InfoWorld's Eric Knorr, in summing up his take on private clouds, concludes, "So where does that leave us? I think we'll stick with our definition of cloud computing -- that is, the use of commercial computing services, including software-as-a-service applications, delivered over the Internet."

"But," says Knorr, "if anyone claims you can boil your IT ocean into a cloud if you just buy the right 'solution,' tell them to stop fogging up the joint."

Comments (2)

	1. 03-22-2010 16:38
	I think I love the quote 'Cloud computing' is: 'What we offered before as Internet technologies but now with a funkier name.' is a beautiful comment and for me says it all.     -sean Registered

This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

	2. 03-23-2010 09:37
	I expect the anti-Private-Cloud types are trying to maintain the idea that the concept of a Cloud means something. That's a good thing else people will soon be claiming cloud computing on their iPhone. That said, Some of the commentary on whether or not there is such a thing as a Private Cloud reads like kids arguing whether or not to let someone into their club and whether or not that someone has a secret decoder ring. If an internal IT organization builds an operating environment that is agile, on demand, low cost, let them call it an Private Cloud. It won't hurt you.    Its a good question whether or not many can at this time. As was noted in some of the content its not just the cloud technologies, its the IT delivery and IT user management processes, the service management approaches, the finances and administration that make a Cloud service what Geoffrey Moore (Crossing the Chasm) would call a "whole product."    A cautious, perhaps cynical manager may see crass self-preservation in Private Cloud efforts. By claiming the Cloud mantle the internal IT management may be holding off significant reductions in their budget, management responsibility, career. This kind of "Emperor's New Clothes" rationalization is not new. Declaring IT to be a Utility was often a way to avoid IT outsourcing.    In the near term only the largest of operations have the time and financial incentives to build "true clouds." These are the super-large consumers, some of whom are in the Cloud provisioning market today.    There will be many firms (large but not super large) on the edge who can build the operating cloud technology but don't have the time, expertise, interest in layering on the GS&A of a cloud business. These "no-man's land" companies have some hard thinking to do.    Most companies are smaller than this. Until the ability to build, operate, and manage cloud computing is widely and casually available they shouldn't distract themselves with trying. They should take advantage of the cloud offerings available and be happy they're not in no-man's land. Registered

This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register.