Archive for March, 2011

28MarWhat does “Cloud” mean? Some characteristics.

As I wrote some lines about cloud and outsourcing lately and had some interesting discussions “about the cloud”, I will deepen this interesting topic.

The cloud is coming (it’s not as dark as it sounds – we expect a rather sunny future…) – The cloud is on everybody’s mouth by now and there are really some promising scenarios. Also the ‘big fish’ (like SAP, HP, IBM, Google and Microsoft) are rising campaigns about this issue. But most of the people I’ve talked to have some very different views about what “cloud computing” is.

It is very important to have a common sense about what a cloud is to talk about cloud aspects – if you want to work on this topic. A really good basis can be the definition of the NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology, an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce), by Mell and Grace (see [MeGr09]).

However, NIST points out following aspects:

  • 5 Characteristics: On-demand self-service, Broad network access, Resource pooling, Rapid elasticity, Measured Service.
  • 3 Delivery methods: Cloud Software as a Service (SaaS), Cloud Platform as a Service (PaaS), Cloud Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS).
  • 4 Deployment models: Private cloud, Community cloud, Public cloud, Hybrid cloud.

Details can be read in the document of the authors. Mell and Grace point out, that their definition might change over time and make two notes:

  • “Note 1: Cloud computing is still an evolving paradigm. Its definitions, use cases, underlying technologies, issues, risks, and benefits will be refined in a spirited debate by the public and private sectors. These definitions, attributes, and characteristics will evolve and change over time.
  • Note 2: The cloud computing industry represents a large ecosystem of many models, vendors, and market niches. This definition attempts to encompass all of the various cloud approaches.” [MeGr09]

Therefore it is no surprise that the NIST characteristics are adapted and modified (by affected) in some blog posts, e.g. by Chou (see [Chou11]). But Chou thinks in another way about the delivery methods: He differs only private and public cloud. In addition, he sets here and there a different focus of the cloud characteristics.

After all, Chou builds a “5-3-2 principle” on the solid definition of NIST from Mell and Grace (5-3-4 with them) including 5 characteristics, 3 delivery methods and 2 deployment models (see [Chou11]).

“The 5-3-2 principle is a simple, structured, and disciplined way of conversing cloud computing. 5 characteristics, 3 delivery methods, and 2 deployment models explain the key aspects of cloud computing.” [Chou11]

Consequently, you can hear anywhere other “key characteristics” of clouds – another example: An expert I’ve talked to last Friday told me, form his point of view, cloud is only cloud if there are “near real-time updates” by the provider “without warning”, the software could not be installed on local or corporate machines respectively and access to the cloud applications is exclusively possible with a web browser. Following this definition, the term “cloud computing” is more restricted, not all “so called” clouds are clouds from this point of view…

Interested? So follow me on twitter (@BorisDombrowski) or facebook (www.facebook.com/BorisDombrowski) or visit this blog again. I will seize this topic again…

Reference list:

in Cloud + Outsourcing. Closed

20MarFear of outsourcing your IT? Some thoughts about the cloud.

Last friday I had an interesting discussion about “outsourcing” and I therefore decided to pick up this business-relevant topic in my blogsphere…

Fear of outsourcing your IT? Fear of terms like “Cloud Computing”, “SaaS” or “ASP”… Behind these buzzwords is nothing special, but proven and mature technology. The truth is in any case the fact that outsourcing is not just about IT, but also about the organization (personnel included) and its processes. If you have problems with your IT and your Business/IT-Alignment, don’t hope to fix them with outsourcing – it’s no charm.

But what are the advantages? Below I will mention only some:

  • No need to buy and install physical servers and hardware
  • No maintenance required, your provider is the “IT professional”
  • Ready for use in short order, enable Enterprise 2.0 applications within minutes or hours
  • Highly scalable, set up new resources immediately “on demand”
  • You pay only what you actually consume
  • etc.

And, the most important fact: In many cases, highly specialized providers understand more about safety, security and risks than yourselves. Beyond, they’re ISO-certified, have principles like “Safe Harbor” adopted and so on. If needed, your data will be encrypted – the employees defined by you are the only ones who have access to the information. The greater threat comes from the core of the company itself – of employees, media, lack of maintaining infrastructure, software, security flaws, etc. If Google’s, (sales)force.com’s, Amazon’s or Microsoft’s Cloud Services had safety or security deficiencies, these companies would surely have to give up their business soon…

But what need do you have? IaaS, PaaS, SaaS – ASP – Private, Hybrid or Public Cloud? Know your requirements: First of all, have a look at your processes. If you have determined which technologies support your core competencies, you can outsource those processes (services respectively) that are commodity. Define outsourcing-potentials by measuring attributes like strategic relevance, value, risk and criticality. There are a lot methods and best practices to find out about the technologies and processes that allow competitive differentiation of your company.

In the end, by outsourcing and cloud computing “only” competitive advantages can be achieved. According to the mentioned potential, it’s worth  thinking about the topic. Do you need help to find the right provider, to set up the right contract or to evaluate your processes? Do not hesitate to contact me. Do not take the risk to “backsource” after months…

Current related articles are in following professional journals (extract):

  • Fröschle, Hans-Peter (Ed.); Reinheimer, Stefan (Ed.): “Cloud Computing & SaaS.” HMD -  Praxis der Wirtschaftsinformatik, Issue 275, October 2010.
    Heidelberg: dpunkt.verlag, 2010
  • Pagel, Peter (Ed.); et al.: “Software as as Service.” Wirtschaftsinformatik und Management, Issue 3 / 2010.
    Wiesbaden: Gabler, 2011
  • Buhl, Hans-Ulrich (Ed.); Bichler, Martin (Ed.); et al.: “IT-Service-Management und IT-Automation.” Wirtschaftsinformatik, Volume 53, Issue 1 / 2011.
    Wiesbaden: Gabler, 2011
in Cloud + Outsourcing. Closed

02MarBusiness Processes, Enterprise 2.0 and the Strength of Weak Ties (SWT)

As I am about to finish my book, I would like to point out a specific aspect of it, „The Strength of Weak Ties“ from Granovetter…

On the basis of a non-representative social networks-study (N=296) of Milgram in 1967 (“The small world problem”, see [Milg67, pp. 61 et seq.]), Milgram and Travers claimed that any two persons are linked to one another through a chain with “somewhat greater than five” (see [TrMi69, pp. 441 et seq.]). The results of this study, often cited and known as “6 degrees of separation”, have been confirmed several times. For example, in 2007 it was figured out in another study, that the average path length in messenger networks is 6.6 (see [LeHo07, p. 23]).

But how can we use our ties in volatile environment with increasingly less structured “problem solving processes” in an effective way? Granovetter points out that in addition to close ties, loose connections are of relevance. Granovetter has analyzed this in “The Strength of Weak Ties (SWT)” in 1973 (see [Gran73, pp. 1360 et seq.]). Loose connections are important: they serve as “good bridges” (see above) between established networks to establish contact. Such “good bridges” are of particular value for the management of internal or cross-company processes in case specific expertise or the inclusion of different actors is required to solve problems. In other words, “network-short cuts” are needed to detect and aggregate the required process knowledge.

In this context, we come to Enterprise 2.0 and in particular to the importance of social networks in enterprises. Through the usage of loose ties, problem-relevant expertise can be more easily and quickly detected and relevant knowledge is more transparent. As a result, problem solving can be facilitated and knowledge-intensive, dynamic processes can be speeded up. Thus, the effective usage of loose ties and “good bridges” respectively can also be key to set a company apart from its competitors.

Andrew McAfee, the “father” of the term “Enterprise 2.0”, also often refers to Granovetter, for example in his book “Enterprise 2.0 – New collaborative tools for your organization’s toughest challenges”.

“A tidy summary of SWT’s conclusion is that strong ties are unlikely to bridges between networks, while weak ties are good bridges. Bridges help solve problems, gather information, and import unfamiliar ideas. They enable work to be accomplished more quickly and more effectively. The ideal network for a knowledge worker probably consists of a core of strong ties and a large periphery of weak ones.” [McAf09, pp. 83 et seq.]

For additional information, see the forthcoming book “Potenziale und Herausforderungen des Geschäftsprozessmanagements im Enterprise 2.0 unter Berücksichtigung der Dynamik unternehmerischer Systeme” (see [Domb11]) and the research sources in the reference list – or just come up to me.

Reference list:

  • [Domb11] Dombrowski, Boris – Forthcoming Book: “Potenziale und Herausforderungen des Geschäftsprozessmanagements im Enterprise 2.0 unter der Berücksichtigung der Dynamik unternehmerischer Systeme.”
    Berlin: Logos Verlag, 2011
  • [Gran73] Granovetter, Mark: „The strength of Weak Ties.” In: American Journal of Sociology, Volume 78, Issue 6.
    Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press, 1973, pp. 1360-1380
  • [LeHo07] Leskovec, Jure; Horvitz, Eric: „Planetary-Scale Views on an Instant-Messaging Network.” – Microsoft Research Technical Report, MSR-TR-2006-186, URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.0939, last verified on February 28, 2011.
    Redmond WA: Microsoft Corp., 2007
  • [McAf09] McAfee, Andrew P.: „Enterprise 2.0 – New Collaborative Tools for Your Organization’s Toughest Challenges.“
    Boston MA: Harvard Business School Publishing, 2009
  • [Milg67] Milgram, Stanley: „The small world problem.” In: Psychology Today 1 (May) / 1967.
    New York, NY: Psychology Today, 1967, pp. 61-67
  • [TrMi69] Travers, Jeffrey; Milgram, Stanley: „An experimental study of the small world problem.” In: Sociometry, Issue 32(4), URL: www.stanford.edu/class/cs224w/readings/travers69smallworld.pdf, last verified on March 1, 2011.
    Washington DC: American Sociological Association, 1969, pp. 425-443
in BPM, BPM + E2.0 and E2.0. Closed