"We need to stop thinking about the data centre as a facility in which things are housed. It should be seen as a shared corporate resource and notional hub for coordinating the safe, effective use of internal and external services."
This is not an either/or thing. You don't do the latter by ceasing to do the former. The data centre (or, "machine room" as it's still called round here) will remain the place(s) where the disk trays live, where the physical servers/blades are, where much of the core routers and switches are, etc. Similarly, those routers will need people with certain skill sets and experience, while the servers will need people with different skill sets and experience, and different again for the storage systems. And different again for the people looking after the virtual servers and whatever else running on top of it. Yes, sometimes one person can wear multiple hats and do several of these, but expertise in all of them is just not feasible.
All of which makes this article seem very much like what already happens anyway, with a liberal scattering of buzzwords.
Seems to me, there's much more mileage in working out what you need, not what people are trying to sell you, than in tinkering with who's in what team. If the people in those teams work well together, then the team boundaries end up a bit hazy anyway. If they don't work well together, putting them in the same team won't help...
Another nitpick - to me, an "application" is something like Word, AutoCAD, SPSS, etc. Software at the client, in other words. This article (and others I've seen lately) seem to talk of things like exchange (or email infrastructure generally) as "applications". I think of these as services, or back-end components. Or is that just me?