- utility - why bother
- economic - it'd be too expensive to measure
- ethical - it would be immoral to measure
Friday, 30 July 2010
Monday, 26 July 2010
Hence, it was with interest that I read a blog post Jonathan Eunice titled “The ‘false cloud’ is false”. In his blog post, Jonathan talks about the fact that Cloud should be identified by the benefits that it offers. Clearly if you go by the NIST national definition of Cloud computing there is no mention of where the services actually are provided out of. Instead the definition focuses on the characteristics of cloud services. Jonathan makes a valid point in saying “if cloud computing is going to mean something practical, important, and central to enterprise IT over the next few years, cloud must be broad enough to include privately-owned and operated infrastructure”. In his summary, he says “in the end, if cloud purists want to insist that only external clouds qualify, that's their right. But as cloud rapidly mainstreams, enterprises will demand that their concerns and approaches be taken seriously. For enterprises, cloud defined by its benefits is the true cloud.”
Which is really the point: Cloud should be measured by the benefits that it aims to, and ends up, delivering and not how these benefits are delivered. The “how “ is of interest to the providers who provide the services – whether internal or external.
Probably of most consideration is this: that internal IT now has a competitor and must show its value to business. As one of my colleague says “ Cloud is to internal IT what E-commerce was to bricks and mortar retailers” – ie. a wake up call.
Thursday, 22 July 2010
Thursday, 8 July 2010
Omar Khayyam, writing 1,000 years ago, seemed well aware of the perils of the ill-considered e-mail:
The moving finger writes; and, having writ
Moves on: nor all thy piety nor wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a line,
Nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.
Most conversations are better off conducted over the phone or in person.
It seems we are not the first to discover this....
Wednesday, 7 July 2010
While on the topic - another interesting observation. The blades on the Fusion razor feature a lubricant strip that changes color from green to white. This marks the point at which the blade needs to be changed - according to the manufacturer. The interesting thing is that this strip must have been designed by engineers in the earlier Mach 3 version and by sales in the Fusion version. Why I hear you ask? The strip on the Mach 3 version took much longer to change color compared to the newer Fusion one.
There are a few lesson in this.
#1 - Interoperability designed in - the ability to use one version of a blade with the razor from another - is something that customers expects. Designing this out of products is ultimately harmful to consumers and harmful to adoption of the product. I for one will be a lot more diligent when buying these products in future.
#2 - Features designed to benefit sales without having a direct correlation to an end customer value proposition are a mockery. In this case ensuring that the color of the strip on the blade changes to white from green more quickly simply means that customers will ignore the strip.
As it relates to high technology, the moral of this story is twofold:
- make sure your product are inter-operable with one another - and better still, based on industry standards such as JEE, so that they inter- operate with other people's products too
- build features that ultimately benefit your customer and make life easier for them rather than drive sales of your own product