Use Case: High level strategy of transforming Organizations into a broker of Cloud Services

An organization has invested in a particular cloud provider for its applications by learning its service offerings and building internal skills and expertise. However, cloud providers continue to innovate in their platform offerings, and the provider market is becoming more competitive on both technology and business fronts. The expanding market is causing organizations to consider use cases where one provider may be better-suited for one application, while a second provider may be better-suited for a different application. Organizations are looking at the cloud for particular applications, rather than considering whole-scale migration of cloud applications to single provider. In addition, organizations recognize that a single strategic cloud provider introduces potential risks, such as unavailability, lock-in or less-than-ideal placement of applications. Organizations will be evaluating additional providers to: Leverage discounts or realize other cost-saving opportunities Align to existing investments Enable portability and an exit strategy Provide tighter integration with their preferred ecosystem of vendors To realize above strategy, organizations can be transformed into a broker of cloud services by considering a colocation hub or solution that offers proximity to major cloud providers, resulting in lower latency. Many of the major cloud providers are in the same data center as the colocation facility, or within close-enough proximity to allow for a Layer 2 cross-connect. Proximity is important because many enterprise applications are latency-sensitive and have specific requirements for optimal workload performance. Colocation hub providers offer organizations several ways to use their services including leasing a cross-connect to a cloud provider that connect their facilities using high-speed links,  which organizations can then leverage to service its user base. Colocation-based hybrid cloud architecture offers several key benefits. For example, this architecture: Supports dedicated private connectivity to a marketplace of cloud [...]

By | 2017-04-24T21:02:03+00:00 April 24th, 2017|Enterprise Architecture|0 Comments

I’m not sure about this Date?

What does the title actually mean? I’m not sure about this Date? Am I busy on a particular date and can’t have a meeting in which case “I’m not sure about this Date?” would make sense. Or is there a date that I cannot eat because it has fallen on the floor in which case “I’m not sure about this Date?” would make sense. Or is the title saying something else completely? When words don’t carry proper meaning or are used in a way that makes the meaning confusing, having a conversation becomes very difficult. It’s not necessary that the context that is being discussed is difficult to understand, but the words that are used make a simple conversation difficult to have. In Technology Portfolio Management (TPM) there are many terms used by various stakeholders involved with the TPM process that are often confusing and makes the whole process of managing a portfolio of technologies difficult, when it does not need to be. In this blog, we will look at some of the terminology and how they are commonly used and how they differ. The goal is to provide an understanding of relevant terms so that we can all manage our technology landscape in the best way possible and communicate efficiently. Let us start first by simply explaining what is Technology Portfolio Management. Today’s organizations, whether a government agency or commercial organization, have amassed a large number of applications overtime, servers and tools which may or may not be providing business value. This overwhelming number of applications and products within an organization’s environment may leave the organization more exposed to security vulnerabilities. Before going any further, let us stop here as we have already [...]

By | 2017-04-24T20:43:57+00:00 February 20th, 2017|Technology Portfolio|0 Comments

What is Legacy IT?

Many organizations, when faced with budgetary challenges, put off investing in technologies and seek alternatives to acquiring new hardware and software. In , this lengthens server lifecycles and extends software life. While this approach has a few near-term cost benefits, it can lead to technologies falling far behind performance and cost inefficiencies.  As a result, organizations become more vulnerable to security threats, incur higher costs for extending vendor support, and development and maintenance becomes more challenging because of the shrinking knowledgeable talent pool able to support older technologies. In addition, IT systems are less compatible, and employee productivity is decreased as employees work to resolve IT issues instead of focusing on business tasks. Maintaining legacy technologies has a much higher cost to organizations. For example, continuing to support Microsoft Windows XP costs up to $780/year per installation compared to the Microsoft Windows 10 cost of $168 /year. The International Data Corporation (IDC) estimates an additional cost to the taxpayers of $701/year for every incident of unsupported technology for IT and end-user labor support. In the past 10 years, Cybersecurity incidents in the U.S. federal government have increased substantially resulting in millions of stolen records as the illustration below shows. There is a trend across the federal government to work to improve the cybersecurity posture of IT systems.  In an effort to prevent future security incidents and modernize the Federal IT environment, GAO and OMB raised concerns about legacy IT systems across the Federal Government. As stated in the GAO report “Federal legacy IT investments are becoming increasingly obsolete: many use outdated software languages and hardware components that are unsupported. Agencies reported using several systems that have components that are, in some cases, at least 50 [...]