9 posts • joined 14 Oct 2009
There's always two sides - the vendor's view and the full facts
As usual, a vendor with a product or service to sell will only tell you the supposed benefits. It's up to you to find out the downside. A bit unbalanced, really.
Sometimes companies buying things is like watching children at play - they've no idea, they're just attracted to the twinkling lights.
Re: The A word strikes again.
For a while I thought I was the only one with this view of climate modelling. Non-linearities in the real world makes predictive modelling impossible over anything other than trivial timescales. I suppose one reason I came to my conclusion is that I have a PhD in non-linear computer modelling, but what the heck, in this area, everyone's an expert.
And just to be clear, I do not deny that humans have had an impact on the global climate. I posit that the climate models are bad at predictions - things could be a lot worse than is being predicted.
We should be planning for survival on a "do it anyway, it makes sense" basis.
So where does the GCloud/Cloudstore fit in with this?
Or is it just me not understanding the complexities of public sector procurement?
Paris, 'cos my brain hurts...
It's not all Accenture's fault....
... NEHTA haven't decided what the system is supposed to do yet.
They haven't released the final Concept of Operations document. Maybe they are going to retrofit the ConOp with Accenture's Singapore solution. After all, eHealth is the same the world over and everyone has the same privacy laws and Australia is the same size and has the same legal systems as Singapore.
Oh I've just realised - they're not the same.
Oh well, it's the ignorant leading the blind again.
Can someone explain to me ....
... if an enterprise has a DR site, how can desktop virtualisation save money?
You go from one PC per user to two sets of desktop virtualisation infrastructure - one in each data centre.
There is a big difference between "can be" and "is" ...
.....and vendors love to exploit the difference.
So a sentence like "‘There’s a misconception that cloud is less secure than traditional IT environments,’ says Moss. ‘The cloud can actually be more secure.’”
... is a load of brown coloured spin.
I picked the picture of a vendor with his hand in your pocket.
Time, Cost and Quality
It's an oldie but a goodie but it still holds true. Pick any two out of three: Time, Cost and Quality
PMs understand Time and Cost but don't understand the details of what they are delivering. That should be the responsibility of the technical lead - who should be a peer of the PM at least. That avoids a conflict of interest.
The failed projects I have worked on all had a PM who thought he understood what was being delivered and made (or allowed) changes to the scope/requirements. These usually stuffed up the project because the consequences were not known and understood.
My advice is to always have a technical lead on the project, other than the PM, responsible for the product being delivered. The technical lead should report to the same person, people, committee as the PM.
Engineering projects usually have a chief engineer. ICT projects usually don’t have a technical lead.
MS hasn't twigged to cloud opportunities
A significant characteristic of cloud computing is a standardised operating environment. To a vendor, standardisation is an opportunity for lock-in.
If MS understood the opportunity for them to ensure that the "standards" were in fact just product choices, they could corner the market.
MS obviously doesn't - but, hey, what's new. They didn't understand the internet.
On the flip side, from a consumer's perspective, standardisation and lock-in can mean stagnation with respect to innovation. Changing from the standard gets more and more difficult over time. That's why there are so many legacy systems lurking in IT Departments.
A handgrenade because the world hasn't woken up to the downsides of cloud computing.
Isn't this a flaw in the security system?
So you sew the bomb into the child's jacket.
Risk management gone wrong. It's all about solutions to non-existent problems.