I realize that I’ve spent a lot of whitespace recently on the concept of transitions. The reason is that I’ve talked to a number of vendors over the past 10-12 months. All of them have a transitional framework that maps IT, business and mission requirements to cloud solutions. They have wonderful paths that take you from where you are to the nirvana of cloud computing.
The go, from your beginning whatever your process is, to the cloud. I am always curious why a specific CSP would have a transition framework. The risk of course is that like today everyone has one and they are all different. Wouldn’t it behoove companies to push the new groups like IASA and Open Group (in particular Togaf as their framework) to build to build the transition frameworks? Then they simply consume the framework once rather than with each CSP they connect with. Or perhaps a group of SI’s that are completely neutral could contribute to a unified LLC that produces a framework for government and a framework for commercial transitions.
You will be connecting to a lot of CSP’s. No matter what the specialization and capabilities of each CSP makes the reality of the transition different and frankly causes the risk. A unified framework published by an organization that doesn’t have skin in the CSP game would be of value.
The old saw here is the plane in flight that you are building. That works only if you know you have everything you need to finish and the time required to finish when you take off. The plane being built in flight is really a methodology. You have everything needed to deliver results. Frameworks are broader and encompass many more variables. The company that takes off in an airplane (unfinished) armed only with a framework is going to be in trouble. With any luck you took off with the landing gear already attached.
Cloud is coming. There is something beyond cloud computing as well that will require a cloud presence to take advantage of. But the limits require a framework that understands what can and will fail. A team of both the company and its partners working with CSP’s to establish a common and unified transition plan.
I believe the answer lies in the Cloud Broker model. I’ve published this thinking in a number of different places including this blog several times. Transition in the end is not about understanding the organizations mission, goals and processes. It is about supporting a framework of capabilities that reduce the risk of transition.
More risk than the organization can handle costs the transition teams their jobs. More risks than the organization can handle kills the project before it starts. It is a balancing act, the right level of risk with the right level of benefit. I wrote an equation yesterday that attempts to balance the need for transition against the reality of transition.
Does the risk of the transition equal the gain provided by the new solution?
- The math for this is fairly complex. The first consideration is of course do you have to transition (if you are not competitive in your market because you don’t have a capability you have to add that capability.} That’s a forced transition and in that case speed is the most critical aspect. You find forced capabilities most often in the red ocean of competition. (interestingly by the way why do all the CSP’s have transitional frameworks – the red ocean that is IaaS.).
- A second consideration is time.
- A third consideration is the overall cost.
- A fourth Consideration is the Return on that initial cost or ROI.
Risk is harder to quantify in dollar amounts, normally we are only able to tell what the impact in dollars is if the risk happens or we have to kick in mitigation or contingency plans.
Overall cost + cost of risks + time required + any pressure (good or bad around the solution)- (time to return and total value returned). If that is near zero than the transition is a good one. If it isn’t near 0 but the pressure (red ocean) is there you can still move forward just be careful.
It is after all a transition.