Cloud Computing – a Capital Idea?


By George M. Tomko

cash 20s Cloud computing boosters use the selling point that establishing large amounts of storage or computing requires no “up-front capital investment”. Pleading before the gods of capital within corporations has been a bane for IT and business operations functions forever. All those appropriation request forms and cash flow analyses – not much fun when you want the servers installed and the software loaded.

What has always been interesting to me is that more thought, analysis, decision-making and accountability goes in to managing the capital investment portfolio than you often see in managing operating expenses. The irony here is that “op-ex” is very often many multiples larger than the “cap-ex” spend in any given fiscal period. If a $400 million company (in terms of revenue) has an operating profit of 20%, then the company managers spent $320 million with likely much less oversight than the $15 million that they might have spent on projects.

At the end of the day, there is no free lunch. Just like leasing became the way to ensure “technology refresh” every 3 years, let’s make sure that cloud computing and all something-as-a-service offerings don’t wind up costing your company more or that the standards of decision-making are usurped by being able to fly more stuff under the financial controls radar.

The saying “you can pay me now or you can pay me later” became a “tag” line in old oil filter commercials where the idea was that you might pay more now for a premium filter but you would be avoiding the cost of replacing the entire engine later. Of course, the assumption is that you would own the car long enough for this to pay off. This was in the era when the majority of people traded-in and bought new cars in 3 or 4 year cycles. Not long after, 3 year leases perpetuated the cycle.

The reality, then, was that most people wound up paying now and they got to do it over and over because later never came!

Another myth that is related is the 3,000 mile oil change. Again, another marketing bonanza because it got people to pay to replace their oil and filters twice as often as the auto manufacturers recommend in the owner manuals.

So back to op-ex and cap-ex and buying infrastructure/software/platforms as-a-service. If I take the op-ex view, it is almost always an incremental view as in year-over-year budgets and the dearth of zero-base reviews. If I take the cap-ex view, everything is an investment and is evaluated as cash-flows over a defined “economic life”. This takes rigor and commitment and the potential for more eyes to see and more ears to hear.

It is not a bad thing to have the option of paying for something as a service. However, it is a bad thing if the selling point is that you get to relieve yourself of the burden of evaluating and justifying the all-in costs of doing it one way or another.

Remember, you can pay now or pay later. Some times, it is nice to get to pay later.

What do you think. Please leave a comment.

©2009 George M. Tomko All Rights Reserved

, , , , , , ,

  • Interesting read and I agree whole heartedly with the sentiment and also the fact that this is now a common practice.

    The issue often lies with the CFO rather than the CIO, with the financial management team taking a particular opinion of different types of investment and budgetary requirements.

    Leasing costs can often be "absorbed" into the general day to day expenditure of running an infrastructure framework, were as capital costs require business justification, budget planning and approval processes.

    Ironically as expenditure increases on op-ex costs to offset the requirement for further cap-ex requests, we also a diminishing number of capital assets to list on company papers, effectively further increasing the total realised costs of infrastructure.

    The occurrence usually happens when an CIO's opinion/requirement for technology funding for the year exceeds that of his/hers financial counterparts. Instead of pushing back on cap-ex requests a CIO can seek other methods of acquiring the seemingly much need technology.

    What would be better for all would be an appreciation of the real need for business investment in technology costs at a cap-ex level, in addition the understanding of CIO of the real costs to the business of almost stealth expenditure on op-ex investment.

    It might find its way all the back to the old argument about business justification for a none fee earning department (technology often still regarded as such) demanding such a percentage of total business expenditure.

    Heaven bid for company to reel in, what are for all intents and purposes, op-ex costs of other fee earning departments, such as expenses.

    Thanks for the post, it's good to put my old infrastructure management hat on every once in a while.
  • Ed: thanks for taking the time and expanding the discussion. I especially liked your concept of "near-stealth expenditure". In my consulting practice and CIO days I saw too much attention and effort paid to being stealth-y rather than learning how to position technology investments properly and effectively. Regarding the CFO's hand in all of this -- I found it dangerous in those cases where the CIO reported to the CFO in the organization because the pendulum swung too far into the financial aspects of the transaction rather than advancing the 'science' of how to identify economic benefits precisely of IT investments.
blog comments powered by Disqus