Cloud or fog?1

Reading the article entitled “Lifting the fog on cloud adoption” in the The Age recently certainly reminded us of a lot of conversations we have with clients and potential clients, who have heard a lot about ‘this cloud thing’ and wonder if it’s for them. For the reasons in the SMH article and some other reasons we’ve blogged about before, businesses need to consider this on a case by case basis.

To recapitulate the big thinking points:

  • Speed of access.
    If your full data set is in the cloud, hope that your data aren’t large, or that you’re on the NBN. Clients like architects or photographers, with huge data files, will still struggle.
  • Transitioning issues and costs.
    As the Age article points out, the initial implementation of cloud can be very expensive. Of course, new on-site server implementations aren’t free either, but the level of complexity is often less.
  • Organisation-wide view.
    The cloud might look advantageous for some parts of your business, but are there other parts of your business that require maintaining a local server? If there are, will you be duplicating infrastructure, or disrupting cross-functional workflows?
  • Security and compliance.
    You may have obligations in regard to the private data of individuals you store in the cloud. For readers in Victoria, the Privacy Commissioner offers a good summary of your business’s privacy obligations when outsourcing.

If you’re at all confused by this cloud thing, don’t hesitate to drop us a line and we’ll try to set you straight without sounding too nebulous…

Be Sociable, Share!

3D Printing is ready for you0

We’ve had our eye on 3D printing technology for a while. Apart from being blow-you-away cool, it’s the kind of tech that is a game-changer for any company working in the design space. It’s another way for architects to communicate with clients; a fly-through you can hold. It’s real-time prototyping without the pain and drudgery of hand-assembled models. It speeds up iterations on practically any design process. And all this utility adds up to dollars. Forbes thinks the industry will be worth over $3b in 4 years time. Of course, bigger firms are already making use of 3D printing, and there are plenty of industrial-strength options for them.

But it’s the consumer space that’s getting increasingly exciting, and not least because it’s getting increasingly cheap. The recent announcement of the Replicator 2, a ~$2,000 consumer 3D printer made in Brooklyn tells the story. It prints with a resolution of 100 microns, and has a printable volume up to 410 cubic inches. Here’s it producing a replica of a building in Paris:

It’s not the only one, either, a number of companies have brought similar products with similar features to market. Marketplaces and communities are springing up to create ecosystems around these great devices, like those at Thingiverse and Cubify.

All this movement at the low end of the market is great for businesses. We think the potential for crossover into small and medium architects, designers and engineering firms here is enormous. While lacking high-end features, these print boxes provide an entry point to the technology that’s cheaper than a high-end SLR. Features will filter down from the high-end to the low-end, too. And in case you’re wondering, they’ll be available in Australia soon, and the price looks like it’ll be a very reasonable premium on top of the US list.

Be Sociable, Share!

Modem routers–unsexy but important0

Here at CoreMind, we’re into hardware testing in a big way. Not all hardware is created equal, and paying more for hardware is not an assurance of better quality. Doing our own stress testing on the network, storage and desktop hardware we deploy gives us confidence that we give our clients fantastic reliability and value for money.

Our clients don’t really mind what kind of modem they have–but they would definitely mind if their connectivity went down! For that reason, we’ve been deploying Billion‘s rock-solid router products for years. A by-word for reliability, the Billion 7800N and 7800NL work tirelessly in nearly all our smaller (sub 5-seat) clients. For our managed IT deployments, CoreServer does the heavy lifting, pushing the features up into enterprise class networking.

So we weren’t surprised when supplier Warcom recently ranked these modems at #1 and #5 on their top 5 ADSL modem routers. Judged on consumer satisfaction and low problem rates, it’s also better value for money than some of its rivals.The 7800N was also awarded ‘Best of 2010′ by CNet Australia.

Be Sociable, Share!

Understandable contracts0

Just a quick heads up and congratulations to the team behind ToS;DR – “Terms of Service; Didn’t Read”. We salute your efforts to bring more transparency to the world. [When we wrote our Managed IT contract, we made the lawyer use our plain English phrases. It was very uncomfortable for them, but we won over in the end. It can be done! We can certainly take inspiration from the clarity of this mob’s visualisation though.

Be Sociable, Share!

Monitoring your IT Contract0

Some businesses apply a ‘set and forget’ attitude to IT, as outlined in this recent report on “IT outsourcing mega-deals” from The Age. We don’t operate in the IBM etc space, but that doesn’t make the lessons any less valuable. We generally recommend our clients review their IT Strategy approximately every 3 months. Our agreements are only ever for an initial 12 month term – and that’s just to ensure we can get from where they are to stably operating on our managed IT platform without bailing half way through and causing a whole bunch of complications, not least for them. However, we’ve heard of plenty of providers that lock clients in for 3 or more years on the back of a slick PowerPoint presentation, only to basically go to ground and do the minimal amount of work required not to get sacked. Of course, their contract isn’t renewed, but by then they’ve already laughed all the way to the bank with your money. “Churn and burn” they say. It’s not just unethical, it’s incredibly short-sighted business practice that will ultimately lead to these companies’ demise and some very unhappy customers.

Most of our work comes from clients who have been ‘burned’ by their previous IT provider, sometimes in the manner described above. Some of it comes from a natural growth and evolution in our clients’ businesses that demands a more sophisticated solution than the lone IT guy (or single employee), but most of the time, we have our incompetent competitors to thank for the referral!

In the interests of preventing this from happening to you, here are some tips for managing your IT contract, both up-front and ongoing:

  • Define roles, responsibilities and align these with risks. The company most able to reduce the risk should bear the responsibility for it.
  • Ensure the proposed service scope matches your expectations. Don’t assume anything. e.g. Some “proactive managed IT” providers don’t actually include any desktop support, others (like us) do. There’s a big cost of provision difference between the two.
  • Long contracts can work, but generally things change too much such that they’re worth renegotiating at least yearly. Either stick to yearly contracts with extensions, or insert explicit renegotiations at that point. It sets the expectations that your provider needs to work for their money for a start!
  • Be clear about hardware – who buys it and under what approvals and markups. Many IT providers make more money from selling you over-inflated hardware than they do from providing you service. I think this element of the Financial Services industry is immoral (incidentally, there are new disclosure rules about that now – I wonder why!)
  • Be clear about supplier choices / “partners” the provider works with – sometimes there’s a good reason (special support relationships, technical excellence), sometimes the reason is just old-fashioned payola (freebees, cashbacks, commissions etc). True supplier independence isn’t necessarily in your interest either – search and transaction costs can be high in this case, but make sure whatever the situation is, it is well explained and in your interests
  • Be clear about process expectations – if you expect your outside provider to follow the same purchase approval procedures as an internal employee, you should be prepared to pay (a lot!) for their time in so doing. This can get prohibitively expensive fast, which is why many providers instead opt for the direct supply price-gouging. We operate a different model whereby we have an equipment fund that we are responsible for and report back to you on, like a mini bank account. That way, you still get financial controls, but the transaction costs (in economic terms, not bank fees!) are minimal. For instance, that lets us give our managed IT clients direct access to our supplier discounts (which can be substantial due to our purchasing power), whereas we’d otherwise have to charge a markup to cover all sorts of risks.
  • Keep things flexible – if your business circumstances change, for better or worse, you want to be able to adjust your contract – both price and service – to suit. This should be a normal everyday thing, not an argument.
  • Be clear about who is responsible for what amongst your managed IT provider and your other IT vendors – hardware, software, support. You may not want your Managed IT people in the loop if, for instance, you have a complex ERP system with dedicated vendor support. However, there will come a time where they almost certainly need to know about it, or even step in and start doing the job of support or integration that someone else is paid to do, even though they shouldn’t have to. Ideally your provider should be capable of all this, even if your day-to-day scope excludes it. Day-to-day issues are more likely to lie around hardware fault diagnosis and repair. We often see companies spend significantly more time than it’s worth chasing down warranties for cheap replaceable parts. In one case, an employee was without a computer for two weeks whilst the company, service provider & hardware vendor played blame games about who was responsible for fixing a blown power supply. This ended up costing over $500 in direct costs, plus two weeks of unproductivity, for a $70 part. Warranties have their place, but they have search, transaction & competence costs too. i.e. You can’t just out-source a hardware failure on your server to Dell – the most critical part is your data and business continuity, not the few hundred dollars of parts they’ll get back up and running for you in 4-24 hours (and even that’s a maybe!)

Above all, have a conversation. This is your business. These are not technical questions so much as ones of business structure, responsibilities and incentives. If you stop thinking of it as a technical problem you don’t want to know about, chances are you’ll ask all the right questions!

Be Sociable, Share!

Upcoming live streaming – customer service and marketing | Internode0

Last week I attended a great seminar courtesy of Internode, which featured Martin Grunstein, the self-titled “customer service expert”. He certainly knows his stuff, even if his website is a little staid and ‘consultanty’! I don’t normally spruik this kind of stuff, particularly not about “Sales! Sales! Sales!”, but I find Martin’s stuff refreshingly frank without heading too far down the neuromarketing/Big Data style of marketing ‘trickery’.

Anyway, there’s a live stream happening at 9:30am AEST tomorrow (15th August). I recommend you watch it.

If you don’t make it or want some extra viewing material, last year’s presentation is also still available. The content is somewhat similar.

N.B. All of the above links require you to be on the Internode network. If you’re not yet using Australia’s best ISP, we can help you make the transition ;-)

Be Sociable, Share!

The need to back up The Cloud0

The mainstream press is full of articles about Cloud failures at the moment. Continuing on from my recent thoughts on the Cloud, it is clear that people are now starting to realise this ‘cloud’ thing needs to be backed up. OK, great. But how exactly do you do that? In short, with extreme difficulty.

Backup is not (just) a product you purchase or something you set up – it is a factor in a multi-faceted disaster recovery plan that spans the entire infrastructure (and, if done well, business processes as well). This is fundamentally at odds with most cloud implementations, which are designed to abstract away having to care about “low level details” like backup. After all, isn’t that what you pay the cloud provider for, to look after these things? Whilst that’s true and even largely true, it doesn’t necessarily satisfy your Risk Management Plan. Such a plan needs to be created (and not just by IT – the business’ directors need to understand and sign off on it) independently of how it is implemented. Cloud makes much of it easier, compared with your typical incompetent IT guy anyway. However, it makes some components of it exponentially harder. Whether this trade-off is worth it is up to you and your company (or individual)’s risk profile. But there’s no panacea; no shortcut to understanding this stuff.

Whilst it adds a little more to the conversation upfront, information reliability and disaster recovery is one of the first conversations we have with our clients and certainly one we have before implementing any systems improvements. There are so many targets you could be aiming at. How can you measure success if you don’t define it beforehand?

I am prepared to be proven wrong, but as of the time of writing, I have never seen a company (that isn’t one of our clients of course!) without extremely obvious, high risk, critical backup-related issues. i.e. The kind of issues that should be flagged as unacceptable risks to the business regardless of any risk management objectives. Backups are often missing, incomplete, untested, run using buggy error-prone software, dumped to dodgy media, stored right next to the main data source and are almost never monitored. Even if all these things are done, a Disaster Recovery Plan (even an informal one) is almost never in sight.

Be Sociable, Share!

Microsoft Office 2013 has arrived0

Well it looks like just as everyone was finishing their upgrades to Office 2010, a new one is just around the corner. You can check it out now from Microsoft.

I think the most interesting thing about this release is the changes in collaboration. It’s much more real-time and online (thanks to SkyDrive or SharePoint integration by default). By default is what’s interesting here. It’s certainly part of a bigger trend towards cloud-backed consumer-oriented services. What’s more interesting about Microsoft is they’re able to get close to pulling this off for the Enterprise too. There are lots of caveats around that, but that’s a topic for another day.

Where I think Office 2013 really has some potential is for Microsoft, not so much users. Coupled with Windows 8, which will support desktops, laptops, tablets and smartphones with the same kernel (in layman’s terms: central part of the operating system), means the workflow possibilities across all your devices start to approach what Apple can do. But Microsoft has two things Apple don’t: Office and Exchange. Put simply, the integration should be (assuming internal politics at Microsoft doesn’t screw things up like they have in the past) more useful and almost as slick as Apple’s. The net result of all this will be:

  • Apple – iOS & Mac OS (both based on Darwin), all their own hardware. If Cringely is to be believed, along with removing hardware customisation. As everyone knows, this end-to-end control coupled with an unparalleled design flair currently gives Apple the edge on usability and simplicity. Apple own “consumer”.
  • Microsoft – Windows 8 everywhere; their own tablet. Microsoft need to leverage Office and Exchange across all their devices. If they do this well, Microsoft own “traditional enterprise”
  • Google – the dark horse. Android everywhere; cloud everywhere else. Maybe some merging of Android and ChromeOS, or just slicking up the whole thing. Whether they can pull off the integration (they have the pieces, but not the glue) in time is a question. They’ve got Google Apps, but that’s not a realistic Office-replacement for most enterprises. That doesn’t stop some from trying (FairFax has announced a switch to Google Apps). It will also hook the startup/smaller business crowd due to its much lower costs (particularly in non-core areas. i.e. Microsoft can suck you in with consumer-grade stuff, but their enterprise stuff adds up pretty quickly. Google’s doesn’t)
Be Sociable, Share!

Thoughts on ‘the cloud’1

So what is the cloud? Well, that’s a discussion for another time. Short version: it’s lots of things. But for the purposes of this discussion, let’s assume it means shoving as much of your IT infrastructure, especially servers, onto some 3rd party who manages it for you and lots of other people in a standardised way

Over here on this LinkedIn group, I commented the below in response to SmartCompany’s recent Death of an IT guy article:

Yeah, I saw this too. Whilst I agree in general, I think this is yet another example of the cyclical nature of IT architectural solutions. Think thick-thin-thick-thin client transitions over the last 40+ years. “The cloud” can be the same. Where it gets tricky is that “the cloud” represents multiple different layers and slices across layers. i.e. virtualised infrastructure is quite a different beast from a software-as-a-service app (e.g. 37signals.com stuff). Personally, I think

Business-wise, Australia is at too much of a bandwidth disadvantage to really make much use cloud ‘infrastructure’, at least for SME’s. i.e. Most of my clients are still on prosumer ADSL2+ connections, not corporate bandwidth, even though they may have scores of users. On-premises solutions have natural advantages. I think the main thing is actually the degree of incompetence in IT. It’s very difficult to be an incompetent cloud provider. It’s extremely simple to be an incompetent local “IT guy” or MSP. We compete against them all the time (you know the type – the guys who’ve never heard of S.M.A.R.T, think RAID is backup, have no idea how to do risk analysis let alone a technical-only DRP, rely on vendors to swap PC components, can’t do deep troubleshooting etc).

With ‘the cloud’, on average, you do buy a higher level of quality. However, in the analyses I’ve done, your peak quality & fitness for purpose are better with local infrastructure for most use cases.

Continuing this further for a more targeted SME audience, the primary technical problem is latency. Stuff just ain’t fast enough to do things like file access over an internet connection. And that’s assuming you have sufficient bandwidth (i.e. corporate-grade internet at a minimum of 10Mbits – i.e. you’re spending > $1,000/month on your link/s). The primary business problem, however, is a lack of flexibility and a level of marketing sophistication that makes it very difficult for you to compare like with like. So you virtualise your infrastructure? How do you access that virtual infrastructure? You still need PCs (even thin clients cost the same, hardware-wise). The consequences might be less, but you still need to stop them getting virused. If you’re using netboot, you need on-premises infrastructure to do this. You need switches and routers. You need serious internet bandwidth and reliability. You still need an IT guy. You still need to do a migration. And you’re paying an external company for their up to 90% gross profit margins. Are you actually better off? What happens if/when they go bust? What if you want to switch to a competitor – how easy is it to transition out of? As we’ve seen lately, the cloud isn’t without its risks either. Sure, it may be cheaper in some instances, or it may be more expensive but you don’t care because the hassles go away. But do they really?

Be Sociable, Share!

What is an Entrepreneur?0

I was recently asked by CEO Blog Nation what it means to be an Entrepreneur. It’s a question I’ve often asked myself and one I find there are multiple answers to. The answer I gave was:

The derivation of the word ‘Entrepreneur’ is ‘one who undertakes’. To me, this means not just one who begins something, but one who does so in the face of adversity and ridicule; against “accepted” wisdom and with only secondary regard to economics. It is a highly intuitive thing. Logic has its place, but in “filling the gaps” not driving the strategy. It means being extremely comfortable with risk, yet viewing the undertaking of such risk, in aggregate, as less risky than not doing so. I started my business to perpetually fund innovative ideas so I would be free of the shackles of traditional investors’ anti-entrepreneurial demands.

Here’s another 21 to ponder.

Be Sociable, Share!