Cloud Computing: Washington vs. Washington

9 thoughts on “Cloud Computing: Washington vs. Washington”

  1. I conducted a 3 day interview and panel with 5 senior underwriters from big insurance. One of them said, “why are managed services for typical Mainframe and hosted AS400 type systems in financial, banking, govt services etc. under-writable, and newer data centers touted as “cloud”, and used for Web Applications not?”

    Answer, agreed by consensus in the group, “Ability to audit, verifiable liquidity, and proven procedures for continuity audited by an industry standard group”.

    One guy said, and I never forgot this, “Some of the new PAAS and Web App providers don’t have operating funds for the second half of the year! And some of the more well known VC funded? They wont become insurable either the way they are run at max burn”.

  2. Om, I think this has a lot more with politics than technology. Large capital projects are something politicians can brag about come reelection time. They are “investments”. Going the cloud route is an “expense”. While the later may actually save the taxpayers’ money, financial analysis doesn’t play well with the electorate. It is much easier to point to a big facility and talk about all the jobs created (especially counting construction). Hard to do a public ribbon-cutting or ground-breaking ceremony with a contract for cloud services . . .

  3. The IT risk managers needs to advice the business of the risks (legal and IT related) of the cloud weighed against the financial benefits (capability and cost savings). Then let the business decide. If the business decides to proceed then the IT managers must be prepared to develop a system of controls and processes for surviving an unwanted event (data breach, service disruption etc).

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.