From IT person to CIO ... through the Cloud
Probably everyone gathered will remember Larry Ellison’s remarks about the clouds. Here is just one example:
Inside the company, we tried to speculate about what awaits the IT service with the advent of the cloud, as marketers understand it. And that's what we did. (Attention, crosspost)
The future is cloud technology ... let me put here if not a question mark, then an ellipsis. In fact, in IT it’s all about talking about the Cloud - Amazon, Salesforce, Microsoft, even SKB Kontur. Infrastructure as a service, software as a service, private "clouds" ...
Gartner analysts call cloud computing among the main drivers of business growth. Each vendor, each service provider draws bright prospects for the cloud future. Like sweet-sirens, they sing one song in unison. "Cloud" is:
Finally, “Cloud” allows you to try technologies that the company has not “grown to” for various reasons (there are not enough funds for implementation, no specialists to provide support, etc.).
')
At the level of ideology, everything is flawless - in a business language close to him, business is told about a new “wonder-innovation”. You don’t really undermine technologies either - the “cloud” idea is not just popular, it has been tested by life, if you like. Servers, operating systems, databases, web-based applications “from the cloud” have long been successfully used to solve practical IT problems.
But let's not fool ourselves - the effect of the use of these technologies in business is not as easy to calculate as marketers of cloud vendors would like. The “key benefits” worn to holes are not at all obvious to most managers and owners of companies.
Take a simple case - the “cloud” as a model for providing services. If you want to automate customer relationships - please contact Salesforce, additional server capacity was required - to Amazon. No puzzling negotiations with integrators, no implementations ... However, wait, and to whom does the business go for advice when choosing a solution? That's right, to your own IT person. And the first thing that a competent IT director will do is show the total costs that the company has already incurred for IT infrastructure, software, the same implementation. Say, we have already invested in solving business problems, the same CRM was introduced for six months (and this is still the minimum), we spent a lot of money, taught commercial department managers how to use the system, and even made sure that all transactions are accurately recorded. And you offer to erase all this in one fell swoop?
I am far from the categorical nature of the head of Oracle, Larry Ellison, and am not ready to repeat after him that the Cloud is a marketing bullshit. Only life is always more difficult than any agitation and calculations. Business has learned to solve its problems, albeit not very effectively, on the technologies of the last century, but has learned, fact. It is unlikely the emergence of a new technology initiates the rejection of the old, proven methods.
Let me give you a simple analogy: digital equipment (phones, cameras, laptops) is constantly being upgraded, the model range is updated with fascinating speed. But, if the device performs its functions and suits the owner, it does not change with the release of the new model. Although tricky manufacturers of gadgets and smartphones here, of course, tried - modern technology often works well during the warranty period, plus some more time, and then safely breaks. Otherwise it is impossible, otherwise the market is waiting for the glut.
In IT, this does not manifest itself so vividly, at least the cycles of updating the infrastructure and information systems are longer. Russian business has invested in the IT infrastructure in the period of “obese” pre-crisis years, and will be “updated” in two or three years, or even later. One would like to say so - then come with the "Cloud" ... But no, I will not say.
After all, if you figure it out, it's not just that business does not want new technologies. Much more importantly, the "cloud" technology requires a review of attitudes towards IT in principle.
"Chief IT" thinks in functional categories. It is important for him that the system works without failures, with a minimum number of errors. The introduction of something new is an unequivocal increase in the number of errors.
The position of CIO itself assumes that someone from above has already decided what tasks the business is facing, and brought them to the level of the contractor. And then who is in that much - somewhere they consult with the CIO for the purchase of servers, ERP, CRM implementation, supplier selection, and somewhere they simply order. The CIO de facto only serves the interests of the business, “gives the keys”. His tasks are not defined in terms of the company's financial indicators, he (almost blasphemous) doesn’t care how successful the business is, the main thing is that everything should be smooth in his “technological diocese”.
Of course, this is a very exaggerated look. But let's imagine that cloud technologies have been added to the above, which do not need to be implemented-supported - and such a “director” will remain without a chair, without subordinates and without work. Let now the majority of business executives are not so competent in technologies - time will pass, the business will learn the phraseology of "cloud" vendors, accept their arguments. And then the manager himself or the functional customer, bypassing the IT department, will order cloud services directly.
And finally ... it remains to wish good luck to the CIO. Too much has to change so that this profession is not lost in the "Cloud".
Ideally, top management learns to delegate to the CIO authority in resolving efficiency issues, if the “IT chief” will be responsible not so much for the functional support of the business, but for the business result.
Ideally, if the CIO grows up, feels like a CIO, takes its rightful place in the management hierarchy. But then, probably, the IT director and CIO will finally merge into a single concept. And "zhelezyachnik" and "enikeyschikam", those who are not able to think in categories of business problems, will have to change the profession.
Konstantin Chernokozhin, Head of Infrastructure Solutions Division, Telecommunications Solutions Department, Oberon
Inside the company, we tried to speculate about what awaits the IT service with the advent of the cloud, as marketers understand it. And that's what we did. (Attention, crosspost)
The future is cloud technology ... let me put here if not a question mark, then an ellipsis. In fact, in IT it’s all about talking about the Cloud - Amazon, Salesforce, Microsoft, even SKB Kontur. Infrastructure as a service, software as a service, private "clouds" ...
Gartner analysts call cloud computing among the main drivers of business growth. Each vendor, each service provider draws bright prospects for the cloud future. Like sweet-sirens, they sing one song in unison. "Cloud" is:
- minimum costs for its own IT staff (the “Cloud” infrastructure is serviced by third-party service providers);
- transparent calculation of the cost of ownership (the service is provided by the package, at a fixed price);
- informed choice of supplier (and, as a result, guaranteed SLA).
Finally, “Cloud” allows you to try technologies that the company has not “grown to” for various reasons (there are not enough funds for implementation, no specialists to provide support, etc.).
')
At the level of ideology, everything is flawless - in a business language close to him, business is told about a new “wonder-innovation”. You don’t really undermine technologies either - the “cloud” idea is not just popular, it has been tested by life, if you like. Servers, operating systems, databases, web-based applications “from the cloud” have long been successfully used to solve practical IT problems.
But let's not fool ourselves - the effect of the use of these technologies in business is not as easy to calculate as marketers of cloud vendors would like. The “key benefits” worn to holes are not at all obvious to most managers and owners of companies.
Take a simple case - the “cloud” as a model for providing services. If you want to automate customer relationships - please contact Salesforce, additional server capacity was required - to Amazon. No puzzling negotiations with integrators, no implementations ... However, wait, and to whom does the business go for advice when choosing a solution? That's right, to your own IT person. And the first thing that a competent IT director will do is show the total costs that the company has already incurred for IT infrastructure, software, the same implementation. Say, we have already invested in solving business problems, the same CRM was introduced for six months (and this is still the minimum), we spent a lot of money, taught commercial department managers how to use the system, and even made sure that all transactions are accurately recorded. And you offer to erase all this in one fell swoop?
I am far from the categorical nature of the head of Oracle, Larry Ellison, and am not ready to repeat after him that the Cloud is a marketing bullshit. Only life is always more difficult than any agitation and calculations. Business has learned to solve its problems, albeit not very effectively, on the technologies of the last century, but has learned, fact. It is unlikely the emergence of a new technology initiates the rejection of the old, proven methods.
Let me give you a simple analogy: digital equipment (phones, cameras, laptops) is constantly being upgraded, the model range is updated with fascinating speed. But, if the device performs its functions and suits the owner, it does not change with the release of the new model. Although tricky manufacturers of gadgets and smartphones here, of course, tried - modern technology often works well during the warranty period, plus some more time, and then safely breaks. Otherwise it is impossible, otherwise the market is waiting for the glut.
In IT, this does not manifest itself so vividly, at least the cycles of updating the infrastructure and information systems are longer. Russian business has invested in the IT infrastructure in the period of “obese” pre-crisis years, and will be “updated” in two or three years, or even later. One would like to say so - then come with the "Cloud" ... But no, I will not say.
After all, if you figure it out, it's not just that business does not want new technologies. Much more importantly, the "cloud" technology requires a review of attitudes towards IT in principle.
"Chief IT" thinks in functional categories. It is important for him that the system works without failures, with a minimum number of errors. The introduction of something new is an unequivocal increase in the number of errors.
The position of CIO itself assumes that someone from above has already decided what tasks the business is facing, and brought them to the level of the contractor. And then who is in that much - somewhere they consult with the CIO for the purchase of servers, ERP, CRM implementation, supplier selection, and somewhere they simply order. The CIO de facto only serves the interests of the business, “gives the keys”. His tasks are not defined in terms of the company's financial indicators, he (almost blasphemous) doesn’t care how successful the business is, the main thing is that everything should be smooth in his “technological diocese”.
Of course, this is a very exaggerated look. But let's imagine that cloud technologies have been added to the above, which do not need to be implemented-supported - and such a “director” will remain without a chair, without subordinates and without work. Let now the majority of business executives are not so competent in technologies - time will pass, the business will learn the phraseology of "cloud" vendors, accept their arguments. And then the manager himself or the functional customer, bypassing the IT department, will order cloud services directly.
And finally ... it remains to wish good luck to the CIO. Too much has to change so that this profession is not lost in the "Cloud".
Ideally, top management learns to delegate to the CIO authority in resolving efficiency issues, if the “IT chief” will be responsible not so much for the functional support of the business, but for the business result.
Ideally, if the CIO grows up, feels like a CIO, takes its rightful place in the management hierarchy. But then, probably, the IT director and CIO will finally merge into a single concept. And "zhelezyachnik" and "enikeyschikam", those who are not able to think in categories of business problems, will have to change the profession.
Konstantin Chernokozhin, Head of Infrastructure Solutions Division, Telecommunications Solutions Department, Oberon
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/113290/
All Articles