Whether it is the all-too-familiar “fail whale”, or the depressing “API Limit Exceeded” message in TweetDeck, users are finding it difficult to deal with deteriorating service levels that are rendering the service unusable for any serious social networking.

Of course, Twitter is “free”. As such, we are told that it is offered to us “as-is” and, since you get what you pay for, expectations that it will be there when you need/want it; fully-functional and void of yo-yoing, syncopating starts and stops; is simply asking too much.

In today’s post by Thomas Wailgum, “Twitter Rage: Can you Really Complain About Outages?”, he makes the point:

Think about it: The fact that I’m not paying a cent for the Twitter service means that I don’t have much ground to place “buyer-seller” type expectations upon the immature service. (This isn’t Salesforce.com downtime or disruptions with internal enterprise systems.) My outrage is tempered by my acceptance of the “free deal” I have with Twitter: You get what you pay for.

While a conventional “buyer-seller” arrangement is not evident, a binding contract is a bargain where the parties each get something for good and valuable consideration. Indeed, as the Twitter Terms state “… You may use the Services only if you can form a binding contract with Twitter…”.

Twitter’s Terms go on:

In consideration for Twitter granting you access to and use of the Services, you agree that Twitter and its third party providers and partners may place such advertising on the Services or in connection with the display of Content or information from the Services whether submitted by you or others.

So, the bargain is that you get access to and use of the Services and Twitter gets all of the ad revenue, content, demographic information, and the ultimate financial value of their property that appreciates on the backs of the millions of users that expect to be able to have access to and use of the Service. Seems to me to be reasonable “payment” for “services” rendered.

And, of course, there is that “AS-IS” escape hatch. Thus, there is no warranty and I (or anybody else) cannot make a claim for damages. Fine.

But, as far as expectations go, I am not as willing, anymore, to give Twitter an easy “Pass” because they are growing so fast and are not yet mature. The Twitter value proposition is diminishing as my time is being squandered on a service that is not getting better because too many interfaces are sucking the life out of it and too many users are being added to the pile.

I hope it gets better.

Luckily, we, as users, have no obligation to stay with the “service”. If it gets bad enough, we’ll be gone and “AS-IS” will become “AS-WAS”.

Tell me what you think.

©2010 George M. Tomko All Rights Reserved

CIOs Must Have the Ear of the CEO

The Chief Information Officer is not a second-rate executive position as some would claim. Also, CIO, does not, as the saying goes, stand for “Career Is Over”. And the CIO position is certainly not “dead”, contrary to rumors to the contrary. As Mark Twain once said, “rumors of my death are premature”.

There is this notion that CIOs deserve a “seat at the table”. The “table” in this sense is the CEO staff, as a peer exectuive with the CFO, COO, and assorted VPs of Operations, Sales, etc. Much is written in blogs (included my own), magazine articles and discussed in forums about the justification for this belief.  The main idea is that CIOs have to be more ‘strategic’. Supposedly, the mechanism for becoming more strategic is most often termed “alignment”.

Let me so bold as to suggest that things like ‘contribution’ and ‘value’ go right along with ‘strategic’. There are plenty of tactical issues with managing a business. Things are dynamic, a flow, requiring a dexterity of seamlessly migrating through issues of business performance: sales, product quality, customer satisfaction, supply chain, etc.  Information Technology is clearly threaded through these and other areas of the business. However, the trick is to demystify and ‘dis-abstract’ this stuff so that you are not spending half of the monthly strategy meeting talking about who should be allowed to get a Blackberry or an iPhone.

So, the big picture has something to do with not being the “moron in the room”.  True executive ”peers” suffer fools badly. The thought that there is somehow a special microscope for CIOs is nonsense — unless it takes one to see the value that the CIO is delivering. It is more about culture and being in the “club”. The one thing about clubs full of highly-ambitous people is that they are territorial and very picky about letting others inside.

Prior to being hired for a CIO position a few years ago, the HR executive told me that the company was thinking about slimming down the number of direct reports to the CEO. Thus, they were considering having me report to the CFO. My response: a non-starter. If they were trying to reduce the number of CEO reports, I had just the solution: have the CFO report to me.

After an awkward chuckle or two, the HR executive was back to his senses. I wasn’t asking for a seat at the table. I expected one. It is all about grabbing a chair and acting like you belong there.

Bottom line

quit whining. If you do not have the business-savvy to earn the respect of fellow business executives, then you deserve to be seated in the gallery.

For more on this topic: Business Solutions: Death of the CIO?, by Nadia Cameron; The Death of the CIO–Again, by Brian Watson; Is the CIO a “pinnacle” position?, by George Tomko; and
What Do CEOs Want from CIOs?, by Maryfran Johnson.

Image: Arvind Balaraman / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

©2010 George M. Tomko All Rights Reserved

Apparently, there is no shortage of ways to generate revenue for cash-strapped government programs. Now we hear of New York Senator Charles Schumer’s idea for a 25 cent tax on calls to offshore call centers.

From CIO.com:

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) introduced legislation that calls for taxing companies that transfer domestic customer service calls to foreign call centers. In a prepared statement, Schumer said the $0.25 excise tax is designed to provide incentive for companies to keep call center jobs on American soil.

Of course, this “incentive”  is highly unlikely to have its desired effects for the following reasons (and probably many more):

1. This will cost everybody 25 cents more for each customer service, help desk or other such call. Either the government will get the 25 cents, or a US-based service provider will be able to charge its US business customer higher rates (up to 25 cents per call) than the offshore provider.
2. The cost of doing business will increase as companies will have quarterly disclosure filing requirements, related audits and other bureaucracy-related fees.
3. The cost and size of government will increase to administer the program.
4. The switching costs to move already-implemented business process solutions from offshore centers to onshore centers would likely exceed the “benefits” of bringing the solution back to the States.

Other than this government’s insatiable appetite for taxing its citizens, what other reason could there be for imposing such a tariff?

With midterm elections less than 5 months away, populist programs that tout job creation/protection will be the rage.

In a blog post at OutsourcingPortfolio.com, it was noted that:

the National Association of Call Centers (NACC)  reported that US call center employment has generally grown – even through the current great recession…

So, are we trying to fix something that is not broken? No. We are breaking things further by creating an even uglier climate for businesses trying to succeed in America.

Further, from CIO.com:

According to Schumer’s plan, companies would have to certify annually with the Federal Trade Commission that they are in compliance with the offshore call center rules, or be subject to civil penalties. But the logistics involved in actively policing offshore call center traffic could prove much more costly to the federal government than to companies that outsource overseas.

Bottom line: another government money grab that increases the cost of doing business (thus killing job growth) and adds to the cost and size of government.

©2010 George M. Tomko All Rights Reserved

Night Blue Sky and Tree of Light

We may be skiing, on vacation, digging into another batch of cookies, reading, making resolutions or putting the stacks of papers into some kind of order. But, In general, we aren’t working; or, in wall-to-wall meetings; or planning a weekend cut-over to a new system.

The brief respite that we have been given will end with a vengeance on Monday, January 4, 2010. So we better be ready.

Clear memory, reboot, recharge – whatever you do, take this gift of time and backflush all of the crud and waxy buildup that has accumulated on your brain in what was a brutal 2009.

Quite a number of challenges await your return. 2010 will be a pivotal year. The rate of disruptive technology changes, and the new social contract that will emerge from economic recovery, will drastically test the “elasticity” of the organization to deal with things.

Whatever happens in 2010, it is going to take more guile and determination, intensity, creativity, resourcefulness and tenacity from leaders.

So, enjoy the time off. IT Leaders will be called upon to actually lead in 2010. Figuring things out will take a clear head and the ability to find some think time and plan the moves. We used to call it “blue sky” or thinking outside the box but, first and foremost it requires thinking.

Simple, maybe. But such a simple thing is often sabotaged by knee-jerks and bad reactions.

Bottom-line: Come out of this holiday season thinking right.

Image: Francesco Marino / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

©2009 George M. Tomko All Rights Reserved

Readers of my recent post “Does Business Intelligence require Intelligent Business?” can find a great post to continue the thought at CIOZone: “Ask the CIO–Do you want more BI & a smarter company?”.

In her post, Lauren E. Bielski writes:

“Nobody wants a less capable organization if there’s a way around the usual trade-offs posed by budgets, time constraints, and the competition.  Hence, more talk than ever these days about fact-based decision making— which is pretty revered in management—and more efforts around data mining in an effort to learn more about operations, customers, and winning tactics.”

Good observations. But, are companies getting anywhere with their efforts? Quoting from a recent Aberdeen research report:

“the creation, management, and continual review of key performance indicators can prove to be a difficult process, particularly when large, complex data volumes are combined with rapidly changing business dynamics.”

Yes, it is not easy to do. I would also suggest that asking the CIO to make the company ‘smarter’ may not be the best approach.

Net-net, companies have to do a number of things with their culture, vision, approach and, above all, not leave the job to the IT department.

Business leaders will not be able to get away with the abdication of attention and support that has doomed many an ERP implementation. No, they “own” this one. IT will lend its helping hand, but CIOs should push back and push back hard.

The CIO will have enough challenges executing the enabling initiatives.

What do you think? Please offer your comments.

©2009 George M. Tomko All Rights Reserved

Image: FreeDigitalPhotos.net

As I started to develop this blog post, it occurred to me that my working title, “Does Business Intelligence require Intelligent Business?” might have been previously used in some other publication. So, I Googled it.

I did find some very close variations, but not exactly in the form of the question that the title poses.

I was led to a white paper, “business intelligence is intelligent business”, by Gerry Davis, Regional Managing Partner, Asia-Pacific for Heidrick & Struggles. In the opening paragraph, the problem is summarized thusly:

“Collecting information about customers is relatively easy. Analyzing customer information for potential cross-sells, increased revenue streams, and improved service is more challenging. But getting the information to the front line in a timely manner and thus providing further competitive edge is proving increasingly difficult for many corporations.”

As we look at this statement, there are three main points: 1) collecting is “easy”; 2) analyzing is hard; and 3) disseminating it is very hard. Perhaps a bit oversimplified. But, in reality, most users will need this to be oversimplified to be able to overcome all their biases about IT, systems in general, any extra “work” that will automatically be assumed and fears about job security. This is said this way, not to be unkind, or even to be negative, but to make sure that the focus is on the right “problem”.

Like the human brain, which, in a lifetime, is barely tapped for 10% of its ultimate potential, the organization “brain” is woefully underutilized. A number of studies and surveys have consistently shown that enterprise resource planning (“ERP”) software, such as SAP, Oracle, etc. are underutilized.

As Albert Einstein was once quoted, “Computers are incredibly fast, accurate and stupid. Humans are incredibly slow, inaccurate and brilliant. Together, they are powerful beyond imagination.” Such a proclamation will only be true if there is a significant change in the approach that knowledge workers take to their jobs.

Mr. Davis suggests that organizational change may be the answer:

“As business intelligence divisions spring up in organizations across the globe, the same question is being asked: “How can we unlock the value of our data?” At Heidrick & Struggles, we believe that the answer lies in implementing an appropriate organization structure and in identifying and appointing the right executive — someone with superb business acumen combined with a sound technical understanding — and tasking them with delivering real business intelligence.”

In a very weird way, I actually agree and disagree, simultaneously, with this statement. For a company like H&S, an organizational solution is going to feel like the absolutely right thing to do. After all, that is one of the main things that they do. For organizations that commit to this approach and throw the full weight of their senior management commitment (and funding) at sustainable levels, it may work out very well.

But, there are quite a few brilliant people who are many times smarter on the subject of business analytics and business intelligence that will tell you that knowledge is a process that begins with data (“D”) and moves along a progressive transformation process into information (“I”) then knowledge (“K”) and ultimately, wisdom (“W”).

If the CIO owns the “D” and the “I”, and the CKO owns the “K”, who “owns” the “W”? Is there a collective ownership of the wisdom of the organization? Will we be seeing “CWO”s in our future?

It was back in 2000 that, with great assistance from Bill Odom, I drew the following picture. At the time, I was a first year CIO trying to stand up a new joint venture. With as close to a clean sheet of paper as one could get, we were architecting the mission of IT from end-to-end. And we got the chance to build it.

Since then, a lot has changed in this world. But, some things stay the same. No matter what the advances are that enable us to do things better, faster, cheaper, it still comes down to people and how people do things. Remember Einstein’s quote above.

Another brilliant thinker that captures the essence so well is Peter J. Thomas who writes in his recent blog post:

Business Intelligence is not just about technology and cannot be effective in isolation. To live and breath it needs to be part of a broader framework covering the questions that its users need to answer, the actions that they take based on these answers and the iterative learning that occurs in the process.”

At the end of the day, there is nothing I would like to see more than knowledge-based business processes executed by knowledge-savvy workers (and anyone else in the value chain) benefitting knowledge-enabled customers.

But, to see that idea realized, we have to understand and deal with the three main challenges that we previously identified.

1) Collecting information about customers is relatively easy. CIOs have been pretty effective at collecting data through transactional and automated data collection. So good, in fact, that most organizations are “drowning“ in data. In most cases, it is in multiple formats, fragments, repositories etc. Master data must also be dealt with, but, given the unbelievable chore of maintaining it, master data is often an “attic” filled with junk mixed in with the useful stuff.

2) Analyzing is hard. The issues cited in item 1 give the first clue why this is so. First, as previously noted, we are drowning in data. Second, the data that describes the data, i.e. “Master Data” and gives it purpose and context, is often an overburdened mess. Efforts at standardization of form and meaning collapse under their own “weight”. It certainly does not help that many companies are actually companies of companies. There are so many pieces that are pulled together via acquisitions, “carve-outs”, reorganizations, etc. that base lining and normalizing company data so that historical analysis can be done is like boiling the ocean. At a minimum, this becomes an activity that I call “data mashing”.

3) Disseminating it is very hard. While products are evolving to provide robust tools that will essentially offer “composite” applications that sit on layer(s) above the legacy applications and data stores, few organizations and their business processes are set-up to meaningfully “plug-in”. What will happen to all of the spreadsheets!?

Having said that, I am not sure that the answer lies with a new executive in the organization, driving the organization to come up with its business intelligence. Indeed, it is the remnants of the middle manager and senior analyst layers that are closest to the actual in-place and functioning business processes and work-flows. They know the business rules. They know how things “really” work. They know how to handle situations that come up that require judgment and understanding of the facts of each case.

Too many businesses play with fire by running in the margins with their knowledge workers. Thus, a problem exists where these folks are highly marginalized and “one-deep” on the resource chart. They are essential members of the business teams for everything that the business wants to do. What happens if they get hit by the proverbial bus, retire or quit?

Looking through this lens, creating a new silo, or a new organization matrix that adds a new “boss” for these individuals does not, in my opinion, get the organization the knowledge and wisdom that it needs to sustain and grow.

Ironically, this is one of the major business problems that service-oriented architecture (“SOA”) and business process management (“BPM”) is/was supposed to cure. The problem with SOA and BPM is that they are BIG ideas. BIG ideas usually require BIG money, time and resources. Of course, the expectation is also for “BIG” results, which would make it all worthwhile.

Going beyond this point would far eclipse the scope and intent of this particular “Rant”. Getting back to the question that was posed in the title of this post: “Does Business Intelligence require Intelligent Business?”.

Organizations are structured, for the most part, in verticals a.k.a. “silos”. Having efficient, well-designed, ubiquitous cross-functional processes that work is still a rare find. In that regard, a new executive and organization that creates the silo-to-silo (i.e. “horizontal”) channels and portals may have promise. But, hierarchy still rules the day and there is personal “safety” in these turbulent and vulnerable times for incremental approaches.

This sort of “incrementalism” does not create a noticeable increase on overall organizational business intelligence. To the extent that transformational change brings the IQ of the organization to new heights, then there is hope for creating an intelligent business.

Is there a chicken or the egg story here? What comes first – the chicken or the egg?

In organizations, what comes first – business intelligence or intelligent business?

There is, of course, no absolute answer. It could be said that if not an intelligent business then what worth business intelligence?

What do you think? Please offer your comments.

©2009 George M. Tomko All Rights Reserved

I decided to let the PC run for a while to see if it could work out its problems on its own. My iPod was close by and I selected some music to help me kill the time.

I wound up selecting one of the greatest music albums ever released: Hotel California, by the Eagles, in 1977. Its greatness is backed-up by all conceivable measures: total album sales, #1 singles, critical and popular acclaim, and, most of all, the test of time. New bands “cover” the songs in their live shows and recordings. Radio airplay of the original recording is still significant and the members of the Eagles reprise these and other songs for enthusiastic audiences in live shows throughout each year.

Listening to the title track, “Hotel California”, one of the great lines is

We haven’t had that spirit here since 1969.

It struck a chord (no pun intended) and I started thinking that this is an appropriate sentiment for the (current) year 2009.

A lot was happening back in 1969. We put a man on the moon. We were in the most violent period of the Vietnam War. We were closing out a decade that brought about dramatic social change.

While all of this was going on, information technology was also undergoing tremendous change. Intel was formed in 1968. The internet was being born as ARPANET. And, 2 developers from Bell Labs took their dream of a new operating system to reality as UNIX. So, essentially, we had the birth of Moore’s Law, the creation of the Internet and the beginning of the era of open source. Quite a burst of creations that underpin almost everything we use today.

So, here I was, listening to Hotel California for maybe the 10 thousandth time in my life. It hit me that, what the band members were lamenting, in their context, was what I was starting to lament in my context.

Have we taken the “gifts” of 1969 — processing power, boundless storage, ubiquitous communications and collaboration — and managed them well? Are we doing all that we can to hand an even greater set of treasures to generations that will follow?

I think that the answer is “No”. The space is dominated by large multinational enterprises. Who would have thought that Oracle would ever own Java? Desktops and web browsing are still dominated by Microsoft.

The Internet is something short of a “bad neighborhood”. We still use keyboards rather than our voices.

In short, we are squandering our capabilities on marginal and incremental things. We call certain technologies “disruptive”, because they require the installed base to change. We have releases and patches and hot packs. We talk about things like clouds as if we invented the sky.

Wikipedia says that the song tells the tale of a weary traveler who becomes trapped in a nightmarish luxury hotel that at first appeared inviting and tempting. Hmmm.

The Eagles finish the song. My iPod dutifully selects the next track from the playlist. I am now, appropriately, tapping my pencil to Devil’s Haircut by Beck.

Something’s wrong ’cause my mind is fading

And everywhere I look

There’s a dead end waiting

Suddenly, for a moment, there is an incredible thought that maybe the best approach is to START OVER!

But, as another lyric from Hotel California goes:

you can check out anytime you like,

but you can never leave

Pondering this thought for a moment, I simply rebooted.

12 minutes later, after all the programs, drivers, virus definitions, firewall rules, boot record scans, diagnostics, and network log-ins were complete, I was back to writing.

Image: FreeDigitalPhotos.net

As an advisor to CIOs and a well-traveled CIO myself, I have come to appreciate the disruptive nature of technology innovation and the valid (and sometimes painful) introspection that it engenders.

Most of the time it comes down to being the bridge between “geek-ness” and sound business management practice. God bless our technical architects but, if it was up to them, we would be running things with a goal of technology exploration first.

Of course, we have a business to run and customers to serve. The CIO has to provide the ‘glue’ to such fiduciary necessities like internal controls, SOX, regulatory compliance, process management, security, business continuity, privacy, cost management and operational integrity.

Such things are not popular topics when talking about exciting new developments in cloud computing, social media, etc. Eyes roll when process frameworks like ITIL, CoBIT, CMMI, etc are brought into the conversation. So, among the plethora of content posted daily about cloud computing technology and enticing offers to get into new service offerings, it was encouraging to see some content about some basic management facts and considerations about the cloud.

In his recent blog post, “Operating the Cloud: the people and process questions”, The IT Skeptic wrote these refreshing words:

“Cloud computing is a popular topic right now. Some see it as a saviour technology for cost cutting but there is too much thought given to how you will connect at a technical level with a Cloud service provider. Just as important is how you will connect at a process level and at a business level. IT development and solutions staff are prone to waving these considerations away as an issue for the operations people and the “suits”, but the process and business considerations are more important than the technical ones.”

I couldn’t agree more. This is not to say that I am against new technology. On the contrary, over 33 years I have been an aggressive implementer of technology. I am also not saying that there are not well-crafted and carefully considered deployments out ‘there’. What I am saying is that, like all developments that have come before, sanity and sound management needs to be applied stringently and early. This is the fundamental purpose of the CIO: to match the mission of his/her enterprise to the capabilities necessary to carry out that mission. This has to be done within all sorts of constraints that come with people, processes, technology, cost, benefits, business imperatives, management values and beliefs.

Exploration and experimentation need not be dampened. CIOs, more than ever, must apply their guiding hands over the healthy exuberance of innovation to extract the sustainable and repeatable opportunities that the market has to offer.

George M. Tomko is CEO and Executive Consultant for Tomko Tek LLC, bringing game-changing knowledge and experience for transformational analysis and decision-making; planning and execution of enterprise-wide initiatives; outsourcing; strategic cost management; service-oriented business process management; and technology investment assessment. He can be reached at gtomko@tomkotek.com or on Twitter @gmtomko. Profile: www.LinkedIn.com/gtomko

Without a doubt, conference agendas are brimming with cloud computing boot camps, breakout sessions, keynote addresses, expo booths. On top of this are the podcasts, webinars, whitepapers, e-mails, tweets, mailers, brochures and tee shirts touting the ‘new’ technologies collectively known as the cloud.

Is there a bottom-line here, anywhere? Not yet, maybe never. And, besides, if everyone is looking ‘up’ at the clouds, so to speak, there is no ‘bottom-line’ to look at.

There once was a day when almost all computing solutions were proprietary. If you were running applications and storing data on vendor A’s mainframe, you were also using vendor A’s specific network protocols and devices, software, etc. Occasionally, vendor B would have a compatible terminal or tape drive that you could connect. What an era that was for suppliers. Customer lock-in was a great thing.

Of course, computers and related hardware, software and services cost a mint. You might spend $5 million for the latest model of mainframe back in 1980. Then there were datacenters and round-the clock support staff. Massive.

It didn’t take long for people to see that having 3 terminals on your desk, one for each different suppliers system, was not only costly, but annoying.

Are we headed for the 2010 edition of 1980? Could this be, as Yogi Berra has so aptly put it, “déjà vu all over again”?

Well, possibly. Take a look at all of the theater around the open cloud manifesto. By the time this once ‘secret’ document hit the streets, there was all manner of turmoil about how it was put together and what it said. Mary Jo Foley blogged Microsoft fights the ‘open’ fight amid the clouds:

“Could Microsoft really be objecting to increasing the well-being of mankind? I am sure many Apple and Linux users would say it’s possible, but that’s not where I’m betting the problems lie. If this is the same Cloud Manifesto Microsoft is criticizing, my guess is it’s bullet point three that is sticking in Microsoft’s craw: “Openness of standards, systems and software empowers and protects users.””

“Microsoft may be advocating for interoperability and an open process, but the company is definitely not in favor of a document that could be read as backing open-source software.”

Amazon also had their issues as Larry Dignan pointed out in his post:Amazon Web Services: No Open Cloud Manifesto for us

Google did not sign on either. Then the IBM acquisition of Sun was derailed by differences in the board room. Next, we’ll be hearing about the government getting involved.

Indeed, Bernard Golden wrote in CIO.com “Cloud Computing Meets Washington: Lots of Data Security and Privacy Questions” that:

“… it is difficult for individual companies to determine exactly what their responsibilities are with respect to data being placed in cloud environments. This has the inevitable effect of restricting cloud adoption, as many companies will choose to take a wait-and-see attitude, preferring to avoid taking stepsthat they may later find out are in appropriate, or worse, put them into non-compliance with penalty-laden laws and regulations.”

Scary. We now have a world where very few agree on things that are vital to CIOs and other decision makers that don’t get to do this stuff in a lab or on an expo center floor.

At the end of the day, here is my take at bottom-line questions, considerations and insights:

1) You are betting on ‘promises’ and potential;
2) Unless you are a start-up, or in another situation where you get something close to a ‘clean sheet of paper’, do your business requirements require large and unpredictable bursts of storage and compute power? Are you building your capacity for the peaks but otherwise running low valleys?
3) Early-adopters will bleed out the kinks and determine viability – wait for them.
4) Lower-level infrastructure (read ‘datacenter’) services are your most likely first “buy”;
5) Software-as-a-service is great as long as you are not massively integrated with other things throughout your enterprise or have a significant portfolio of legacy and home-grown apps. ‘Point” solutions or other single-duty deployments are likely;
6) Did you just renew your traditional outsourcing contract? If so, were you offered a cloud solution or is there language in your contract about migrating without penalty at annual milestones through the life of the agreement?
7) Will your staff have to be retrained and are they up to it?
8) Can your budget withstand the uncertainty of demand-based services and the related pressures of accurately forecasting, setting expectations and governance?
9) Is your company likely to be acquired or likely to target other companies for merger or acquisition?
10) If you look at how you have managed your entire data estate, up to this point, will you be comfortable putting that data into ‘space’? This cuts both ways: if your data management leaves something to be desired, this may be an upgrade. If, however, you constantly worry about matters of data security, access, privacy, recoverability, archiving, accuracy and compliance, you might be up late most nights.

Could we be headed back to a future that seems so rooted in the past? I hope not. Someone will have to rise up above the clouds and demand order and accountability. That won’t happen until CIOs, and other important players and stakeholders, look down at the bottom-line.

George M. Tomko is CEO and Executive Consultant for Tomko Tek LLC, bringing game-changing knowledge and experience for transformational analysis and decision-making; planning and execution of enterprise-wide initiatives; outsourcing; strategic cost management; service-oriented business process management; and technology investment assessment. He can be reached at gtomko@tomkotek.com or on Twitter @gmtomko. Profile: www.LinkedIn.com/gtomko

Cloud computing. What a concept. Most people can remember days as a child, laying in the grass, looking up at the sky and imagining the shapes formed by clouds as they moved slowly by. There was something very majestic and beautiful, yet powerful. Some clouds were very thin and high in the sky and others were puffy and so low that you felt like you could touch them if you reached high enough.

Clouds usually signaled change. Black clouds brought storms. Overcast and cloudy days brought dreariness and sadness. Overall, a bright, clear day was almost always held in higher regard than cloudy days.

S0, as I ponder this notion of “cloud” computing, I have to say that it brings mixed feelings. Like my childhood days, I can imagine the cloud shapes and what they might represent. But, at the end, they morph into something else and disperse. But most of all, they take a clear sunny day and mess it all up.

I have been in this business long enough to know that clouds, as metaphors, have been plenty useful in talking about IT concepts — but mostly networks. It was the closest thing to a “black box” as there ever has been to enable someone to quickly get to the point that when you connect up to the cloud, your data comes out as it passes through some route to get to its destination. It did not mattter what the route was — the cloud served as the curtain, behind which everything got figured out just fine — not to worry.

Now, CIOs are being asked to consider a concept where the network, the servers, the SAN and the applications are going to move into the cloud, out-of-site, under the control of invisible minions and untold consoles. And – guess what – at significantly reduced cost. Some claim of cost reductions that are orders of magnitude lower like here. ["With the advent of Cloud Computing, the cost of computation, application hosting and content storage and delivery is plunging fast by several orders of magnitude." ]

That’s a stretch. Hyperbole. Total, unadulterated marketing hype.

Can I buy into a computing grid? – Yes. Can I buy networked storage? – Yes. Can I buy software hosted and set-up elsewhere and accessible via the network? – Yes. Can I run applications on virtual servers? – Yes?

Can I buy a cloud? – No. Not really. Pieces, maybe. Who should I buy from? Depends. Depends on what? Depends on who signed the “manifesto”. Might also depend on which company buys who. Oh yeah, and we are still working on the security architecture. But don’t worry, we will take good care of all of your data that is housed in our cloud but, we cannot guarantee that if you have a cloud from another supplier, that you can access that data from the non-”standard” cloud. Also, you may not be on the proper release of the cloud.

Marketing and sales often oversell and underdeliver. They are often farther ahead in ideas than the production folks are in reality. This can be a good and healthy tension when the gap is not so wide, otherwise, the pressure to deliver is intense and failure is a possibility. The major gap that I see here is the difference between offering the “plumbing” and having the applications follow along.

Utility computing is a term I hear and it is good to think of the commoditized portions of the IT space in that manner. However, CIOs have to worry about data and applications.

Actually, CIOs have to worry about a lot of things. And, given the high stakes gambit of major change — especially technology change — there is as much to do with crafting the message — the essence of the true value proposition that is understood and mutually agreed.

On this score, I would think that black boxes would do the trick. A black box is a symbol that connotes containment, structure, and a solid. It’s a “brick” which is part of a bigger “wall”. Clouds, however, are amorphous, structure-less, sprawling uncontained wisps of vapor. Very hard to build a mental foundation upon.

Years and years ago, I worked in the IT department that provided voice and data communications to a large multinational enterprise. We had a campus of 26 buildings and nearly 6,000 employees. One day, a water pipe broke and flooded the telephone switch room, knocking out all phones for more than half of the buildings. Unfortunately, one of those phones was carrying a call between our CEO and the CEO of our largest customer and the call was dropped at a crucial point in the conversation.

The next day, the CEO called us in and gave us a lecture on his expectations for telephone service. He went to his window and looked out at the sun and the blue sky and said, “Gentlemen, just as God has given us the blue sky and the sun, so too has he given us dial tone. Just as I expect to see the sun every day at dawn, I expect that every day, when I pick up the phone, there will be dial tone!”

I am just glad that I did not have to explain anything about a cloud getting in the way of the blue sky and the sun.