Thursday, June 23, 2011

Private Clouds: Debunking the Myths That Can Slow Adoption

Transcript of a sponsored podcast on the misconceptions that slow some enterprises from embracing private cloud models.

Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes/iPod and Podcast.com. Download the transcript. Sponsor: Platform Computing.

Get a complimentary copy of the Forrester Private Cloud Market Overview from Platform Computing.

Dana Gardner: Hi, this is Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions, and you're listening to BriefingsDirect. Today, we present a sponsored podcast discussion on debunking myths on the road to cloud-computing adoption.

The popularity of cloud concepts and the expected benefits from cloud computing have raised expectations. Forrester now predicts that cloud spending will grow from $40 billion to $241 billion in the global IT market over the next 10 years, and yet, there's still a lot of confusion about the true payoffs and risks associated with cloud adoption. IDC has it's own numbers.

Some enterprises expect to use cloud and hybrid clouds to save on costs, improve productivity, refine their utilization rates, cut energy use and eliminate gross IT inefficiencies. At the same time, cloud use should improve their overall agility, ramp up their business-process innovation, and generate better overall business outcomes. [Disclosure: Platform Computing is a sponsor of BriefingsDirect podcasts.]

To others, this sounds a bit too good to be true, and a backlash against a silver bullet, cloud hype mentality is inevitable and is probably healthy. Yet, we find that there is also unfounded cynicism about cloud computing and underserved doubt.

So, where is the golden mean, a proper context for real-world and likely cloud value? And, what are the roadblocks that enterprises may encounter that would prevent them from appreciating the true potential for cloud, while also avoiding the risks?

We're here to identify and debunk some myths, for better or worse, that can cause confusion and hold IT back from embracing cloud model sooner rather than later. We’ll also define some clear ways to get the best out of cloud virtues without stumbling.

Here to join me on our discussion about the right balance of cloud risk and reward are Ajay Patel, a Technology Leader at Agilysys, and he's in Chicago. Welcome to the show, Ajay.

Ajay Patel: Thank you very much, Dana.

Gardner: We're also here with Rick Parker, IT Director for Fetch Technologies, and he's in El Segundo, Calif. Welcome, Rick.

Rick Parker: Good morning.

Gardner: We're also here with Jay Muelhoefer, Vice President of Enterprise Marketing at Platform Computing, and he joins us from Boston. Welcome, Jay.

Jay Muelhoefer: Glad to be here.

Looking at extremes?

Gardner: Jay, let me start with you. I want to try to understand a little bit from your perspective, being deeply involved with cloud, particularly private cloud. Are we looking at extremes?

On one hand, we have people that see this as a golden, wonderful opportunity to change IT fundamentally. On the other hand, we have folks that seem to be grounded in risk about security and data, and think that the cost will probably be even higher. So where's the right balance? Are they both right or they both wrong? How do you see it?

Muelhoefer: They're both right in some ways. Yes, there are risks that people are confronting today, but there’s also lots of opportunity. Right now, it's a golden time to be evaluating the concept of cloud and private cloud.

In 2009, I think a lot of people were looking at cloud and saying, "Okay, this is an interesting technology. Is this really something that’s going to go into fruition?" In 2010, there was a lot of research and a lot of the early adopters dipping their toes into cloud and what the benefits could be.

But, 2011 is really where that tension is moving from "Is this possible" to "How do I take advantage of it for my own organization?" Google and Amazon have really reset the bar for how IT services are delivered in the marketplace. If internal organizations don't start meeting the needs of their business constituencies, whether it’s a development, test or even production user, they're going to look elsewhere to consume those resources. So, we've hit an inflection point, and that’s going to make it an exciting time.

Gardner: Ajay Patel, how about from your perspective? Do you see this mostly through the lens of opportunity, or do the risks merit being bit conservative?

Patel: Looking at it from systems-integrator (SI) perspective, what we're seeing is the customer base, the end-users are ready to take the leap to cloud. The technologies are there. The capabilities of the cloud management software, the key part of deploying private clouds, are there -- but the fear of security concerns around it are keeping them from jumping to it. I am very confident that the technology and the industry is ready to take customers to the next phase of private clouds.

Gardner: We'll get to some of those fears in a little while, when we look at various myths and perhaps what is supporting them or what needs to be debunked.

Rick Parker, how about you? What are you seeing? What are you hearing in the field? Do most people seem to think that the good or the benefits outweigh the risks, or are many people still on the fence?

No standard definition

Parker: The biggest issue is the lack of knowledge, because there isn't a standard definition of what a private cloud network is comprised of. If you don't know what it is, then you can’t possibly build one yourself. Because there isn’t a standard definition that majority of people are aware of, that leads to an enormous amount of confusion.

Then, when marketing gets hold of it and applies the term to many different things that aren't even cloud related, that obscures the issue even further. So, I see a basic lack of knowledge as the issue for private cloud deployments more than anything.

Gardner: So, we're working toward refining that understanding and, that way, being able to have a better sense of where our risks and rewards are. Of course, we hear that IT is focusing on a sense of lost control, that a third-party public cloud gets between them and their users.

We also hear about a lack of trust, that these cloud providers are not proven. They say that they're going to do what they do, but if they don’t, the IT department is still going to be left holding the bag or being held responsible. There is, of course, as you mentioned security, vulnerability, confidentiality, and privacy issues, particularly around data.

Let's begin to tackle some of the underlying myths that substantiate these concerns, ameliorate them, or help folks get the good without suffering the ills. We have a series of myths, and I'll take the first one to you, Rick.

Private cloud, to put a usable definition to it, is a web-manageable virtualized data center. What that means is that through any browser you can manage any component of the private cloud.



There's an understanding that, as we are trying to define it, virtualization is private cloud and private cloud is virtualization. Clearly, that's not the case. Help me understand what you perceive in the market as a myth around virtualization and what should be the right path between virtualization and a private cloud?

Parker: Private cloud, to put a usable definition to it, is a web-manageable virtualized data center. What that means is that through any browser you can manage any component of the private cloud. That's opposed to virtualization, which could just be a single physical host with a couple of virtual machines (WMs) running on it and doesn't provide the redundancy and cost-effectiveness of an entire private cloud or the ease of management of a private cloud.

So there is a huge difference between virtualization and use of a hypervisor versus an entire private cloud. A private cloud is comprised of virtualized routers, firewalls, switches, in a true data center not a server room. There are redundant environmental systems, like air-conditioning and Internet connections. It’s comprised of an entire infrastructure, not just a single virtualized host.

Gardner: And is there a certain level of virtualization required? We hear some common rates for server workloads of 20 to 30 percent. Is there a certain point in your adoption of server virtualization where you're almost inevitably heading toward a cloud? Are there people who have 80 percent virtualization and perhaps have no interest in, or will never get to, the cloud? How does the rate of adoption for virtualization perhaps impact the likelihood of adopting private cloud infrastructure?

Parker: Moving to a private cloud is inevitable, because the benefits so far outweigh the perceived risks, and the perceived risks are more toward public cloud services than private cloud services.

Gardner: We’ve talked a little bit about fear of loss of control. Perhaps bringing private cloud infrastructure and models to bear on a largely virtualized server infrastructure would provide even more control, better security, and a reduction in some of these risks. Is there a counter-intuitive effect here that cloud will give you better control and higher degrees of security and reliability?

Redundancy and monitoring

Parker: I know that to be a fact, because the private cloud management software and hypervisors provide redundancy and performance monitoring that a lot of companies don't have by default. You don’t only get performance monitoring across a wide range of systems just by installing a hypervisor, but by going with a private cloud management system and the use of VirtualCenter that supports live motion between physical hosts.

It also provides uptime/downtime type of monitoring and reporting capacity planning that most companies don't even attempt, because these systems are generally out of their budget.

Gardner: I wonder if you wouldn’t mind telling us, Rick a little bit about Fetch Technologies. You're the IT Director there. Tell us a little bit about your organization.

Parker: Fetch Technologies is a provider of data as a service, which is probably the best way to describe it. We have a software-as-a-service (SaaS) type of business that extracts formats and delivers Internet-scale data. For example, two of our clients are Dow Jones and Shopzilla.

Gardner: Let’s go next to Ajay. A myth that I encounter is that private clouds are just too hard. "This is such a departure from the siloed and monolithic approach to computing that we'd just as soon stick with one server, one app, and one database," we hear. "Moving toward a fabric or grid type of affair is just too hard to maintain, and I'm bound to stumble." Why would I be wrong in assuming that as my position, Ajay?

The fear of the operations being changed is one of the key issues that IT management sees. They also think of staff attrition as a key issue.



Patel: One of the main issues that the IT management of an organization encounters on a day-to-day basis is the ability for their current staff to change their principles of how they manage the day-to-day operations. So, the operational ability for an IT management staff to operate a private cloud is there.

The training and the discipline need to be changed. The fear of the operations being changed is one of the key issues that IT management sees. They also think of staff attrition as a key issue. By doing the actual cloud assessment, by understanding what the cloud means, it's closer to home to what the IT infrastructure team does today than one would imagine through the myth.

For example, virtualization is a key fundamental need of a private cloud -- virtualization at the servers, network and storage. All the enterprise providers at the servers, networks, and storage are creating a virtualized infrastructure for you to plug into your cloud-management software and deliver those services to a end-user without issues -- and in a single pane of glass.

Gardner: When you say a single pane of glass, I think you are talking about the manageability, the fact that these highly virtualized environments can be automated and that you can probably oversee many, many more instances of servers and runtime environments with fewer people. Is that what you mean?

Patel: Absolutely. If you look at the some of the metrics that are used by managed service companies, SIs, and outsourcing companies, they do what the end-user companies do, but they do it much cheaper, better and faster.

More efficient manner

How they do it better is by creating the ability to manage several different infrastructure portfolio components in a much more efficient manner. That means managing storage as a virtualized infrastructure; tier storage, network, the servers, not only the Windows environment, but the Unix environment, and the Linux environment, including all that in the hands of the business-owners.

Gardner: This is probably where we hear a lot about the cost containment issues. We're talking about higher utilization, lower energy, and better footprint, when it comes to facilities and so forth. Is this what you're seeing, that those who do cloud properly, that put in the proper management and administration, are actually getting some cost-benefits? There might be an upfront cost associated, but it’s the operational ongoing costs that are probably the most important, and that's where the real value is.

Patel: Absolutely. Another thing to look at is not even the upfront cost that you need to be concerned about. Today, with the money being so tight to come by for a corporation, people need to look at not just a return on investment (ROI), but the return on invested capital.

You can deploy private cloud technologies on top of your virtualized infrastructure at a much lower cost of entry, than if you were to just expand utilizing the islands of bills of test, dev environment, by application, by project.

Gardner: I'd like to hear more about Agilysys? What is your organization and what is your role there as a technology leader?

You can deploy private cloud technologies on top of your virtualized infrastructure at a much lower cost of entry.



Patel: I am the technology leader for cloud services across the US and UK. Agilysys is a value-added reseller, as well as a system integrator and professional services organization that services enterprises from Wall Street to manufacturing to retail to service providers, and telecom companies.

Gardner: And do you agree, Ajay, with Forrester Research and IDC, when they show such massive growth, do you really expect that cloud, private cloud, and hybrid cloud are all going to be in such rapid growth over the next several years?

Patel: Absolutely. The only difference between a private cloud and public cloud, based on what I'm seeing out there, is the fear of bridging that gap between what the end-user attains via private cloud being inside their four walled data center, to how the public cloud provides the ability for the end-user to have security and the comfort level that their data is secure. So, absolutely, private to hybrid to public is definitely the way the industry is going to go.

Gardner: Jay at Platform, you're thinking about myths that have to do with adoption, different business units getting involved, lack of control, and cohesive policy. This is probably what keeps a lot of CIOs up at night, thinking that it’s the Wild West and everyone is running off and doing their own thing with IT. How is that a myth and what does a private cloud infrastructure allow that would mitigate that sense of a lot of loose cannons?

Muelhoefer: That’s a key issue, when we start thinking about how our customers look to private cloud. It comes back a little bit to the definition that Rick mentioned. Does virtualization equal private cloud -- yes or no? Our customers are asking for the end-user organizations to be able to access their IT services through a self-service portal.

Key element

That’s a key element that we see being added on top of virtualization. But, a private cloud isn’t just virtualization, nor is it one virtualization vendor. It’s a diverse set of services that need to be delivered in a highly automated fashion. Because it's not just one virtualization, it's going to be VMware, KVM, Xen, etc.

A lot of our customers also have physical provisioning requirements, because not all applications are going to be virtualized. People do want to tap in to external cloud resources as they need to, when the costs and the security and compliance requirements are right. That's the concept of the hybrid cloud, as Ajay mentioned. We're definitely in agreement. You need to be able to support all of those, bring them together in a highly orchestrated fashion, and deliver them to the right people in a secure and compliant manner.

The challenge is that each business unit inside of the company typically doesn’t want to give up control. They each have their own IT silos today that meet their needs, and they are highly over provisioned.

Some of those can be at 5 to 10 percent utilization, when you measure it over time, because they have to provision everything for peak demands. And, because you have such a low utilization, people are looking at how to increase that utilization metric and also increase the number of servers that are managed by each administrator.

You need to find a way to get all the business units to consolidate all these underutilized resources. By pooling, you could actually get effects just like when you have a portfolio of stocks. You're going to have a different demand curve by each of the different business units and how they can all benefit. When one business unit needs a lot, they can access the pool when another business unit might be low.

You need to find a way to get all the business units to consolidate all these underutilized resources.



But, the big issue is how you can do that without businesses feeling like they're giving up that control to some other external unit, whether it's a centralized IT within a company, or an external service provider? In our case, a lot of our customers, because of the compliance and security issues, very much want to keep it within their four walls at this stage in the evolution of the cloud marketplace.

So, it’s all about providing that flexibility and openness to allow business units to consolidate, but not giving up that control and providing a very flexible administrative capability. That’s something that we've spent the last several years building for our customers.

Gardner: So, the old way of allowing for physical IT to be distributed offers them control, but at a high price. Perhaps with increasing security vulnerability issues, it’s hard to have a comprehensive security and network performance benefit, when there's so much scattered infrastructure, but the balance then has to be that we want to let them feel they are enabled. Perhaps private cloud can do that.

Muelhoefer: It’s all about being able to support that heterogeneous environment, because every business unit is going to be a little different and is going to have different needs. Allowing them to have control, but within a defined boundaries, you could have centralized cloud control, where you give them their resources and quotas for what they're initially provisioned for, and you could support costing and charge back, and provide a lot more visibility in to what’s happening.

You get all of that centralized efficiency that Ajay mentioned, but also having a centralized organization that knows how to run a larger scale environment. But then, each of the business units can go in and do their own customized self-service portal and get access to IT services, whether it's a simple OS or a VM or a way to provision a complex multi-tier application in minutes, and have that be an automated process. That’s how you get a lot of the cost efficiencies and the scale that you want out of a cloud environment.

Gardner: And, for those business units, they'd also have to watch the cost and maybe have their own P&L. They might start seeing their IT costs as a shared services or charge-backs, get out of the capital expense business, and so it could actually help them in their business when it comes to cost.

Get a complimentary copy of the Forrester Private Cloud Market Overview from Platform Computing

Still in evolution

Muelhoefer: Correct. Most of our customers today are very much still in evolution. The whole trend towards more visibility is there, because you're going to need it for compliance, whether it’s Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) or ITIL reporting.

Ultimately, the business units of IT are going to get sophisticated enough that they can move from being a cost center to a value-added service center. Then, they can start doing that granular charge-back reporting and actually show at a much more fine level the value that they are adding to the organization.

Parker: Different departments, by combining their IT budgets and going with a single private cloud infrastructure, can get a much more reliable infrastructure. By combining budgets, they can afford SAN storage and a virtual infrastructure that supports live VMotion.

They get a fast response, because by putting a cloud management application like Platform on top it, they have much more control, because we are providing the interface to the different departments. They can set up servers themselves and manage their own servers. They have a much faster "IT response time,” so they don’t really have to wait for IT’s response through a help desk system that might take days to add memory to a server.

IT gives end-users more control by providing a cloud management application and also gives them a much more reliable, manageable system. We've been running a private cloud here at Fetch for three years now, and we've seen this. This isn’t some pie-in-the-sky kind of thing. This is, in fact, what we have seen and proven over and over.

They have a much faster "IT response time,” so they don’t really have to wait for IT’s response through a help desk system that might take days to add memory to a server.



Gardner: I asked both Ajay and Rick to tell us about their companies. Jay, why don’t you give us the overview of Platform Computing? It’s based in Toronto and it’s been in the IT business for quite some time.

Muelhoefer: Platform Computing is headquartered in Toronto, Canada and it's about an 18-year-old company. We have over 2,000 customers, and they're spread out on a global basis.

We have a couple of different business units. One is enterprise analytics. Second, is cloud, and the third is HPC grids and clusters. Within the cloud space, we offer a cloud management solution for medium and large enterprises to build and manage private and hybrid cloud environments.

The Platform cloud software is called Platform ISF. It's all about providing the self-service capability to end-users to access this diverse set of infrastructure as a service (IaaS), and providing the automation, so that you can get the efficiencies and the benefits out of a cloud environment.

Gardner: Rick, let’s go back to you. I've heard this myth that private clouds are just for development, test, and quality assurance (QA). Developers really like cloud. They have unique characteristics as users, lots of uneven demands when they test or they need to distribute applications for development and bring it back from those teams. So is that right? Is cloud really formed by developers and it’s being getting too much notoriety, or is there something else going that it’s for test, dev, and a whole lot more?

Beginning of the myth

Parker: I believe that myth just came from the initial availability of VMware and that’s what it was primarily used for. That’s the beginning of that myth.

My experience is that our private cloud isn't a specific use-case. A well designed private cloud should and can support any use case. We have a private cloud infrastructure and on top of this infrastructure, we can deliver development resources and test resources and QA resources, but they're all sitting on top of a base infrastructure of a private cloud.

But, there isn't just a single use case. It’s detrimental to define use cases for private cloud. I don't recommend setting up a private cloud for dev only, another separate private cloud for test, another separate private cloud for QA. That’s where a use case mentality gets into it. You start developing multiple private clouds.

If you combine those resources and develop a single private cloud, that lets you divide up the resources within the infrastructure to support the different requirements. So, it’s really backward thinking, counter-intuitive, to try to define use cases for private cloud.

Gardner: How about learning from that heritage, though? It’s almost like New York. If you can do it there, you can do it anywhere. Is there something to be said for private cloud supporting the whole test, dev, and deploy or dev/ops type of lifecycle means that it’s probably going to be quite capable at supporting any number of workloads?

Our goal is 100 percent virtualization of all servers, of running everything on our private cloud.



Parker: Correct. We run everything on our private cloud. Our goal is 100 percent virtualization of all servers, of running everything on our private cloud. That includes back-office corporate IT, Microsoft Exchange services like domain controllers, SharePoint, and all of these systems run on top of our private cloud out of our data centers.

We don't have any of these systems running out of an office, because we want the reliability that the cost savings that our private cloud gives us to deploy these applications on servers in the data center where these systems belong.

Muelhoefer: Some of that myth is maybe because the original evolution of clouds started out in the area of very transient workloads. By transient, I mean like a demonstration environments. or somebody that just needs to do a development environment for a day or two. But we've seen a transition across our customers, where they also have these longer-running applications that they're putting in the production type of environments, and they don't want to have to over-provision them.

At the end of the quarter, you need to have a certain capacity of 10 units, you don’t want to have that 10 units throughout the entire quarter as resource-hogs. You want to be able to flex up and flex down according to the requirements and the demand on it. Flexing requires a different set of technology capabilities, having the right sets of business policies and defining your applications so they can dynamically scale. I think that’s one of the next frontiers in the world of cloud.

Gardner: Jay, I suppose that's particularly important for organizations that are in the business-to-consumer (B2C) business, that have Web apps and others, they are facing their retail or other consumer bases. These could be flexing based on certain demand or even seasonal fluctuations, and certainly a much more cost-efficient way to attack that problem would be through cloud infrastructures.

Flexing capability

Muelhoefer: We've seen with our customers that there is a move toward different application architectures that can take advantage of that flexing capability in Web applications and Java applications. They're very much in that domain, and we see that the next round of benefits is going to come from the production environments. But it does require you to have a solid infrastructure that knows how to dynamically manage flexing over time.

It’s going to be a great opportunity for additional benefits, but as Rick said, you don't want to build cloud silos. You don't want to have one for dev, one for QA, one for help desk. You really need a platform that can support all of those, so you get the benefits of the pooling. It's more than just virtualization. We have customers that are heavily VMware-centric. They can be highly virtualized, 60 percent-plus virtualized, but the utilization isn’t where they need it to be. And it's all about how can you bring that automation and control into that environment.

Gardner: Next myth, it goes to Ajay. This is what I hear more than almost any other: "There is no cost justification. The cloud is going to cost the same or even more. Folks that seem to think that this is really going to have a long-term benefit are kidding themselves. We've seen this in the past with other shifts in computing. They always claim it's going to cost less, but it never does." So, there is some cynicism out there, Ajay. Why is that cynicism unjustified?

Patel: One of the main things that proves to be untrue is that when you build a private cloud, you're pulling in the capabilities of the IT technology that is building the individual islands of environments. On top of it, you're increasing utilization. Today, in the industry, I believe the overall virtualization is less than 40 percent. If you think about it, taking the less-than-40 percent virtualized environment, the remaining is 60 percent.

Even if you take 30 percent, which is average utilization -- 15-20 percent in the Windows environment. By putting it on a private cloud, you're increasing the utilization to 60 percent, 70 percent, 80 percent. If you can hit at 85 percent utilization of the resources, now you are buying that much less of every piece of hardware, software, storage, and network.

You put the right infrastructure in place with the ability to service your business, what you do successfully



When you pool all the different projects together, you build an environment. You put the right infrastructure in place with the ability to service your business, what you do successfully. You end up saving minimally 20 percent, if you just keep the current service level agreements (SLAs) and current deliverables, the way you do today.

But, if you retrain your staff to become cloud administrators -- to essentially become more agile in the ability to create the workloads that are virtual-capable versus standalone-capable -- you get much more benefit, and your cost of entry is minimally 20-30 percent lower on day one. Going forward, you can get more than 50 percent lower cost.

Gardner: I would imagine that for large organizations, in some cases, their constraints, their physical plants, their large brick-and-mortar data centers are at capacity. So this isn't simply saving costs operationally, but frees up capacity that they can use for other activities, and therefore not have to build additional data centers. That could be a huge savings.

Patel: It's killing two birds with one stone, because not only can you re-utilize your elasticity of a 100,000 square-foot facility of data center, but you can now put in 2-3 times more compute capacity without breaking the barriers of the power, cooling, heating, and all the other components. And by having cloud within your data center, now the disaster-recovery capabilities of cloud failover is inherent in the framework of cloud.

You no longer have to worry about individual application-based failover. Now, you're looking at failing over an infrastructure instead of applications. And, of course, the framework of cloud itself gives you a much higher availability from the perspective of hardware up-time and the SLAs than you can obtain by individually building sets of servers with test, dev, QA, or production.

Gardner: Ajay, when we talk about cost, I suppose another important criteria here is comparing old processes and methods to the new. Are there any metrics that you've been able to gather about how private cloud in a sense compresses and/or improves on how IT has done?

Days to hours

Patel: Operationally beyond the initial set up of the private cloud environment, the cost to IT, in an environment and the IT budget goes down drastically on the scale based on our interaction to end-users and our cloud providers is anywhere from 11 days to 15 days down to 3-4 hours.

This means that the hardware is sitting on the dock in the old infrastructure deployment model, versus the cloud model. And when you take three to four hours down into individual components it takes one to two to three days to build the server, rack it, power it, connect it.

It takes 10 minutes today within the private cloud environment to install the operating system. It used to take one to two days, maybe two-and-a-half days, depending on the patches and the add-ons. It takes 30 to 60 minutes starting with a template that is available within private cloud and then setting up the dev environments at the application layer, goes down from days down to 30 minutes.

When you combine all that, the operational efficiency you gain definitely puts your IT staff at a much greater advantage than your competitor.

Gardner: Ajay just pointed out that there is perhaps a business continuity benefit here. If your cloud is supporting infrastructure, rather than individual apps, you can have failover, reliability, redundancy, and disaster recovery at that infrastructure level. Therefore, having it across the board.

In most cases, a number of the components of a private cloud is just redeployed existing hardware, because the cloud network is more of a configuration than the specific cloud hardware.



Is that something that you're seeing your customers use, or is there a hybrid benefit as well? That's a roundabout way of asking what's the business continuity story and does that perhaps provide a stepping stone to hybrid types of computing models?

Parker: To backtrack just a little bit, at Fetch Technologies, we've cut our data-center cost in half by switching to a private cloud. That's just one of the cost benefits that we've experienced.

Going back to the private cloud cost, one of the myths is that you have to buy a whole new set of cloud technology, cloud hardware, to create a private cloud. That's not true. In most cases, a number of the components of a private cloud is just redeployed existing hardware, because the cloud network is more of a configuration than the specific cloud hardware.

In other words, you can reconfigure existing hardware into a private cloud. You don't necessarily need to buy, and there is really no such thing as specific cloud hardware. There are some hardware systems and models that are more optimal in a private cloud environment, but that doesn't necessarily mean you need to buy them to start. You get some initial cost savings, do virtualization to pay for maybe more optimal hardware, but you don't have to start with the most optimal hardware to build a private cloud.

As far as the business continuity, what we've found is that the benefit is more for up-time maintenance than it is for reliability, because most systems are fairly reliable. You don't have servers failing on a day-to-day basis.

Zero downtime

We have systems, at least one server, that's been up for two years with zero downtime. For updating firmware, we can VMotion servers and virtual machines off to other hosts, upgrade the host, and then VMotion those virtual servers back on to the upgraded host so we have a zero downtime maintenance. That's almost more important than reliability, because reliability is generally fairly good.

Gardner: Rick, at Fetch Technologies, we've been talking about cloud computing at almost an abstract level, but for end users, the folks who are actually using these applications, there might be some important benefits for them that we haven't looked at yet?

Parker: Yes. The response that we got from the QA engineers that we rolled out Platform to was that it was the greatest thing since sliced bread, because they're able to deploy new virtual machines when they wanted to, when they needed them. They could change the configuration of the virtual machines.

They weren't waiting for IT to respond different things. So just the almost ecstatic feedback from the end-users was different from a very few other applications that we've deployed. That was extremely important.

Gardner: Jay Muelhoefer at Platform, is there another underlying value here that by moving to private cloud, it puts you in a better position to start leveraging hybrid cloud, that is to say more SaaS or using third-party clouds for specific IaaS and/or maybe perhaps over time moving part of your cloud into their cloud.

Is there a benefit in terms of getting expertise around private cloud that sets you up to be in a better position to enjoy some of the benefits of the more expensive cloud models?

We offer a way to provide a unified view of all your IT service usage, whether it's inside your company being serviced through your internal organization or potentially sourced through an external cloud.



Muelhoefer: That's a really interesting question, because one of the main reasons that a lot of our early customers came to us was because there was uncontrolled use of external cloud resources. If you're a financial services company or somebody else who has compliance and security issues and you have people going out and using external clouds and you have no visibility into that, it's pretty scary.

We offer a way to provide a unified view of all your IT service usage, whether it's inside your company being serviced through your internal organization or potentially sourced through an external cloud that people may be using as part of their overall IT footprint. It's really the ability to synthesize and figure out -- if an end user is making a request, what's the most efficient way to service that request?

Is it to serve up something internally or externally, based upon the business policies? Is it using very specific customer data that can't go outside the organization? Does it have to use a certain type of application that goes with it where there's a latency issue about how it's served, and being able to provide a lot of business policy context about how to best serve that whether it's a cost, compliance, or security type of objective that you’re going against?

That’s one key thing. Another important aspect we do see in our customers is the disaster recovery and reliability issue is very important. We've been working with a lot of our larger customers to develop a unique ability to do Active/Active failover. We actually have customers that have applications that are running real-time across multiple data centers.

So, in the case of not just the application going down, but an entire data center going down, they would have no loss of continuity of those resources. That’s a pretty extreme example, but it goes to the point of how important meeting some of those metrics are for businesses and making that cost justification.

Stepping stone

Gardner: We started out with some cynicism, risk, and myths, but it sounds like private clouds are a stepping stone, but at the same time, they are attainable. The cost structure sounds very attractive, certainly based on Rick and Ajay’s experiences.

Jay, where do you start with your customers for Platform ISF, when it comes to ease of deployment? Where do you start that conversation? I imagine that they are concerned about where to start. There is a big set of things to do when it comes to moving towards virtualization and then into private cloud. How do you get them on a path where it seems manageable?

Muelhoefer: We like to engage with the customer and understand what their objectives are and what's bringing them to look at private cloud. Is it the ability to be a lot more agile to deliver applications in minutes to end users or is it more on the cost side or is it a mix between the two? It's engaging with them on a one-on-one basis and/or working with partners like Agilysys where we can build out that roadmap for success and that typically involves understanding their requirements and doing a proof of concept.

Something that’s very important to building the business case for private cloud is to actually get it installed and working within your own environment. Look at what types of processes you're going to be modifying in addition to the technologies that you’re going to be implementing, so that you can achieve the right set of pooling.

Something that’s very important to building the business case for private cloud is to actually get it installed and working within your own environment.



You’re a very VMware-centric shop, but you don’t want to be locked into VMware. You want to look at KVM or Xen for non-production-type use cases and what you’re doing there. Are you looking at how can you make yourself more flexible and leverage those external cloud resources? How can you bring physical into the cloud and do it at the right price point?

A lot of people are looking at the licensing issue of cloud, and there are a lot of different alternatives, whether it's per VM, which is quite expensive, or other alternatives like per socket and helping build out that value roadmap over time.

For us, we have a free trial on our website that people can use. They can also go to our website to learn more which is http://www.platform.com/privatecloud. We definitely encourage people to take a look at us. We were recently named the number one private cloud management vendor by Forrester Research. We are always happy to engage with companies that want to learn more about private cloud.

Gardner: Very good. We’ve covered quite a bit of a ground, but we're out of time. You've been listening to a sponsored BriefingsDirect podcast discussion on debunking myths on the road to cloud computing adoption. I want to thank our guests. We've been joined by Ajay Patel, the Technology Leader at Agilysys. Thanks so much, Ajay.

Patel: Thank you very much for your time, Dana.

Gardner: And, Rick Parker, IT Director at Fetch Technologies. Thank you, sir.

Parker: You’re welcome.

Gardner: And last, Jay Muelhoefer, Vice President of Enterprise Marketing at Platform Computing. Thank you, Jay.

Muelhoefer: Thanks Dana. I appreciate it.

Gardner: This is Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions. Thanks for listening and come back next time.

Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes/iPod and Podcast.com. Download the transcript. Sponsor: Platform Computing.

Get a complimentary copy of the Forrester Private Cloud Market Overview from Platform Computing

Transcript of a sponsored podcast on the misconceptions that slow some enterprises from embracing private cloud models. Copyright Interarbor Solutions, LLC, 2005-2011. All rights reserved.

You may also be interested in:

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Discover Case Study: Genworth Financial Looks to HP Executive Scorecard to Improve Applications Management, Reliability, Costs

Transcript of a BriefingsDirect case study podcast on how Genworth Financial uses ALM and Performance Management tools from HP to improve IT's track record.

Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes/iPod and Podcast.com. Download the transcript. Sponsor: HP.

Dana Gardner: Hello, and welcome to a special BriefingsDirect podcast series coming to you from the HP Discover 2011 conference in Las Vegas. We're here on the Discover show floor the week of June 6 to explore some major enterprise IT solutions, trends, and innovations making news across HP’s ecosystem of customers, partners, and developers.

I'm Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions, and I'll be your host throughout this series of HP-sponsored Discover live discussions.

We're now going to focus on Genworth Financial, and talk about a number of different products used to improve application delivery, performance testing, and also operational integrity. Then, we'll look at the transition to a more comprehensive role for those tools, working in concert, and eventually with the opportunity to have an Executive Scorecard view into operations vis-à-vis these products and solutions.

We're here to talk about Genworth Financial’s experience with Tim Perry, Chief Technology Officer for the Retirement and Protection Division at Genworth Financial in Richmond, Virginia. Welcome to the show, Tim. [Disclosure: HP is a sponsor of BriefingsDirect podcasts.]

Tim Perry: Thanks. Good to be here.

Gardner: Tell me about your stock in trade? What is Genworth Financial and why is technology so important to you?

Perry: Genworth Financial is an insurance company that covers many different areas like life insurance, long-term care insurance, mortgage insurance, wealth management, and things like that, and we're here for a number of reasons. We use HP for helping us just maintain and keep a lot of our applications alive.

Gardner: Could you give us a sense of your operations, the scope of your IT organization?

Perry: Our IT organization is, depending on the division, hundreds of employees, but then we also have contractors that work internationally on our behalf. So, throughout the world, we’ve got developers in different places.

Gardner: How about some metrics around the number or types of applications that you're using?

Perry: We have a gazillion applications, like every big company has, but for our division alone, we have around 50 applications that are financially important, and we track them more than any of the others. So that gives you a feel for the number of applications. There are a lot of small ones, but 50 big ones.

Gardner: Let’s take a tour through the way in which you are using HP products, you have ALM, PPM, Performance Monitoring, and BSM. Give me some perspective on what you are doing with these HP products?

Requirements management

Perry: Let me start with a little bit of a roadmap. We brought in Quality Center, way back before ALM. We brought that in mainly for requirements management and for testing. That one has evolved over the years to the point where we really wanted to get traceability for developers, testers, business analysts, everything. That’s what we're hoping for in the ALM stack of things on its own.

PPM came in for a lot of different reasons. Project Portfolio Management was a piece of it. We had a very raw portfolio of what we are working on. Since then it’s become a service request management within our division, much like what you do with the helpdesk, but for our division in applications, everything from account request to marketing, workflow approvals, things like that. So PPM has taken on life of its own.

The newest one is performance engineering, and performance engineering to us means performance monitoring and performance testing. We’ve had performance testing for a while but we’ve not been great at monitoring and keeping track of our applications as they are living and breathing.

Those are the three big silos for us, and I just want to mention that’s the reason this HP Performance Suite that we are about to talk about is intriguing to us because it starts to glue all of this together.

Gardner: On June 1, HP announced its IT Performance Suite, and a number of people are taking a really deep look at it here at Discover. Tell me what your initial perceptions are and what your potential plans are?

The Executive Scorecard is probably the epitome of it, the top of it, that talks to these executives about where things are, the health of the applications, how we're doing on projects.



Perry: Just like our own internal applications, it felt as if up until now a lot of these suites that HP provides stood on their own and didn't have a lot of integration with each other. What I am starting to see is a lot of synergy around good integrations. The Executive Scorecard is probably the epitome of it, the top of it, that talks to these executives about where things are, the health of the applications, how we're doing on projects, all those things that are the key performance indicators that we live and breathe.

That’s cool, but in order to get the scorecard, that implies data is available to the scorecard and integrations are there in place. That combination is the magic we're looking for.

Gardner: And how about the KPIs? That would bring some standardization and allow you to be able to start doing apples-to-apples comparisons and getting a stronger bead on what is the reality of your IT and therefore, how you can improve on it.

Important indicators

Perry: It appears that HP has looked at 170 or so KPIs that the industry, not just HP, but everybody, has said are important indicators. We can pick and choose which ones are important to us to put them on the scorecard. Those are the ones that we can focus on from an integration standpoint. It’s not like we have to conquer world hunger all at once.

Gardner: I’ve heard folks say that the scorecard is of interest, not just for IT, but to bring a view of what’s going on in IT to the business leadership and the financial leadership in the organization, and therefore, make IT more integral rather than mysterious.

Perry: I have to say this. Our IT organization is part of operations. Last year, at this same event, we had more operations folks here than IT. I think HP should take the IT moniker off and start talking more about "business operations." That’s just my personal view of this, and I agree, this helps us not just roll up information to IT executives, but to our actual operations folks.

Gardner: Do you have any sense of what the integration and the continued evolution of a lifecycle approach to IT and quality has done for you? Do you have any metrics of success, either from a business value perspective or just good old speeds-and-feeds and cost perspective?

The piece that's missing right now is the developer integration, and we just saw a lot of that this week. I'm looking forward to evolving that even more. That’s been a big deal.



Perry: Without having actual numbers in front of me, it’s hard to quantify. But let’s just say this, with Quality Center in particular, it’s helped us a lot with traceability between the business requirements and the actual testing that we are doing. I don’t know how to measure it here, but it’s been a big thing for us. The piece that's missing right now is the developer integration, and we just saw a lot of that this week. I'm looking forward to evolving that even more. That’s been a big deal.

Gardner: Perhaps if I ask you that same question a year from now, at Discover 2012, you’ll have some hard numbers in metrics, right?

Perry: Oh, I’d love to be able to go and have a presentation at one of the sessions that we’ve had such great experience with Performance Suite. I’ll be here talking a lot about it. I’d love to do that.

Gardner: Okay, great. We’ve been talking about how IT performance measurement and application lifecycle management improvements are coming together for a "whole greater than the sum of the parts" and looking forward to more of a scorecard and performance metrics viewpoint and comparison capability in the near future.

We’ve been talking with Tim Perry, Chief Technology Officer for the Retirement and Protection Division at Genworth Financial. Thank you, Tim.

Perry: It’s good to be here, and thank you.

Gardner: And I’d like to thank our audience for joining this special BriefingsDirect podcast coming to you from the HP Discover 2011 Conference in Las Vegas. I'm Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions, your host for this series of user experience discussions. Thanks again for listening and come back next time.

Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes/iPod and Podcast.com. Download the transcript. Sponsor: HP.

Transcript of a BriefingsDirect case study podcast on how Genworth Financial uses ALM and Performance Management tools from HP to improve IT's track record. Copyright Interarbor Solutions, LLC, 2005-2011. All rights reserved.

You may also be interested in:

Friday, June 17, 2011

Discover Case Study: Holistic ALM Helps Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida Break Down Application Inefficiencies, Redundancy

Transcript of a BriefingsDirect podcast from HP Discover 2011 on how Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida gains better visibility into application lifecycles for improved operational efficiency and reliability.

Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes/iPod and Podcast.com. Download the transcript. Sponsor: HP.

Dana Gardner: Hello, and welcome to a special BriefingsDirect podcast series coming to you from the HP Discover 2011 conference in Las Vegas. We're here on the Discover show floor the week of June 6 to explore some major enterprise IT solutions, trends, and innovations making news across HP’s ecosystem of customers, partners, and developers.

I'm Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions, and I'll be your host throughout this series of HP-sponsored Discover live discussions.

We're now going to focus on Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida and a case study about how they’ve been able to improve their applications' performance -- and even change the culture of how they test, provide, and operate their applications.

We're here today with Victor Miller, Senior Manager of Systems Management at Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida in Jacksonville. Welcome. [Disclosure: HP is a sponsor of BriefingsDirect podcasts.]

Victor Miller: Thank you.

Gardner: Tell me a little bit about this cultural dynamic? When you shift from one way of doing applications, you do employ technology, you do employ products. There are methodologies and process, but I am interested about how you changed your vision of how applications should be done.

Miller: The way we looked at applications was by their silos. It was a bunch of technology silos monitoring and managing their individual ecosystems. There was no real way of pulling information together. We didn’t represent what the customer is actually feeling inside the applications.

One of the things we started looking at was that we have to focus on the customers, seeing exactly what they were doing in the application to bring the information back. We were looking at the performance of the end-user transactions or what the end-users were doing inside the app, versus what Oracle database is doing, for example.

When you start pulling that information together, it allows you to get full traceability of the performance of the entire application from a development, test, staging, performance testing, and then also production side. You can actually compare that information to understand exactly where you're at. Also, you're breaking down those technology silos, when you're doing that. You move more toward a proactive transactional monitoring perspective.

Gardner: It sounds as if you started looking at the experience of the application, rather than the metrics or the parts. Is that fair?

Miller: That’s correct. We're looking at how the users are using it and what they're doing inside the applications, like you said, instead of the technology around it. The technology can change. You can add more resources or remove resources, but really it's all up to the end-user, what they are doing in their performance of the apps.

Overcome hurdles

Gardner: In order to make this shift and to enjoy better performance and experience with your applications, you had to overcome some hurdles. Maybe you could explain what Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida is. I think I have a pretty good idea, but you can probably do a better job than I. After we learn a bit about your organization, what were some of the hurdles you had to overcome to get toward this improved culture?

Miller: Blue Cross and Blue Shield is one of the 39 independent Blue Crosses throughout the United States. We're based out of Florida. We've been around since about 1944. We're independent licensee of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. One of our main focuses is healthcare.

We do sell insurance, but we also have our retail environment, where we're bringing in more healthcare services. It’s really about the well-being of our Florida population. We do things to help Florida as a whole, to make everyone more healthy where possible.

Gardner: Let’s look at that problem set. In order to have a better experience for the health and welfare of your clients and constituents, what was the problem? What did you need to change?

Miller: Well, when we started looking at things we thought we were doing fine until we actually started bringing the data together to understand exactly what was really going on, and our customers weren’t happy with IT performance of their application, the availability of their applications.

From an availability perspective, we weren’t looking very good. So, we had to figure out what we could do to resolve that.



We started looking at the technology silos and bringing them together in one holistic perspective. We started seeing that, from an availability perspective, we weren’t looking very good. So, we had to figure out what we could do to resolve that. In doing that, we had to break down the technology silos, and really focus on the whole picture of the application, and not just the individual components of the applications.

Gardner: So this sounds like you had to go deeper into the network, looking at the ecosystem of the applications. What did you have to do to start to get that full picture?

Miller: Our previous directors reordered our environment and brought in a systems management team. It’s responsibility is to monitor and help manage the infrastructure from that perspective, centralize the tool suites, and understand exactly what we're going to use for the capabilities. We created a vision of what we wanted to do and we've been driving that vision for several years to try to make sure that it stays on target and focused to solve this problem.

Gardner: And how did you go about choosing the products and the management capabilities you're going to employ?

Miller: We were such early adopters that we actually chose best-in-breed. We were agent-based monitoring environment, and we moved to agent-less. At the time, we adopted Mercury SiteScope. Then, we also brought in Mercury’s BAC and a lot of Topaz technologies with diagnostics and things like that. We had other capabilities like Bristol Technology’s TransactionVision.

Umbrella of products

H
P purchased all the companies and brought them into one umbrella of product suites. It allowed us to bind the best-of-breed. We bought technologies that didn’t overlap, could solve a problem, and integrated well with each other. It allowed us to be able to get more traceability inside of these spaces, so we can get really good information about what the performance availability is of those applications that we're focusing on.

Gardner: In addition to adopting these products, I imagine you also had to change some of your processes and methodologies like ITIL. Tell me about the combination of the products and the processes that led you to some pretty impressive results?

Miller: One of the major things was that it was people, process, and technology that we were focused on in making this happen. On the people side, we moved our command center from our downtown office to our corporate headquarters where all the admins are, so they can be closer to the command center. If there were a problem that command center can directly contact them and they go down in there.

We instituted what I guess I’d like to refer to as "butts in the seat." I can't come with a better name for it, but it's when the person is on call, they were in the command center working down there. They were doing the regular operational work, but they were in the command center. So if there was an incident they would be there to resolve it.

In the agent-based technologies we were monitoring thousands of measurement points. But, you have to be very reactive, because you have to come after the fact trying to figure out which one triggered. Moving to the agent-less technology is a different perspective on getting the data, but you’re focusing on the key areas inside those systems that you want to pay attention to versus the everything model.

In doing that, our admins were challenged to be a little bit more specific as to what they wanted us to pay attention to from a monitoring perspective.



In doing that, our admins were challenged to be a little bit more specific as to what they wanted us to pay attention to from a monitoring perspective to give them visibility into the health of their systems and applications.

Gardner: I imagine that this is translated back into your development earlier into the requirements. Is there a feedback loop of sorts now that you can look to that perhaps you didn’t have in the past?

Miller: Yeah, there is a feedback loop and the big thing around that is actually moving monitoring further back into the process.

We’ve found out is if we fix something in development, it may cost a dollar. If we fix it in testing, it might cost $10. In production staging it may cost $1,000 It could be $10,000 or $100,000, when it’s in production, because that goes back to the entire lifecycle again, and more people are involved. So the idea is moving things further back in the lifecycle has been a very big benefit.

Also, it involved working with the development and testing staffs to understand that you can’t throw application over the wall and say, "Monitor my app, because it’s production." We have no idea which is your application, or we might say that it’s monitored, because we're monitoring infrastructure around your application, but we may not be monitoring a specific component of the application.

Educating people

The challenge there is reeducating people and making sure that they understand that they have to develop their app with monitoring in mind. Then, we can make sure that we can actually give them visibility back into the application if there is a problem, so they can get to the root cause faster, if there's an incident.

Gardner: This is all well and good, and it sounds fabulous for a handful of apps. But I imagine you have to scale this. How do you take what you’ve been describing in terms of this journey, but make it for dozens or hundreds of applications? What is it that you rely on to automate this?

Miller: We’ve created several different processes around this and we focused on monitoring every single technology. We still monitor those from a siloed perspective, but then we also added a few transactional monitors on top of that inside those silos, for example, transaction scripts that run at the same database query over-and-over again to get information out of there.

At the same time, we had to make some changes, where we started leveraging the Universal Configuration Management Database (UCMDB) or Run-time Service Model to bring it up and build business services out of this data to show how all these things relate to each other. The UCMDB behind the scenes is one of the cornerstones of the technology. It brings all that silo-based information together to create a much better picture of the apps.

Gardner: Some people call that a system of record.

Miller: That’s correct. We don’t necessarily call it the system of record. We have multiple systems of record. It’s more like the federation adapter for all these records to pull the information together. It guides us into those systems of record to pull that information out.

We’ve created several different processes around this and we focused on monitoring every single technology.



Gardner: What does this get for you? Are there any metrics or examples you can point to that validate that how effective this can be?

Miller: About eight years ago when we first started this, we had incident meetings where we had between 15 and 20 people going over 20-30 incidents per week. We had those every day of the week On Friday, we would review all the ones for the first four days of the week. So, we were spending a lot of time doing that.

Out of those meetings, we came up with what I call "the monitor of the day." If we found something that was an incident that occurred in the infrastructure that was not caught by some type of monitoring technology, we would then have it monitored. We’d bring that back, and close that loop to make sure that it would never happen again.

Another thing we did was improve our availability. We were taking something like five and six hours to resolve some of these major incidents. We looked at the 80:20 rule. We solved 80 percent of the problems in a very short amount of time. Now, we have six or seven people resolving incidents. Our command center staff is in the command center 24 hours a day to do this type of work.

Additional resources

W
hen they needed additional resources, they just pick up the phone and call the resources down. So, it’s a level 1 or level 2 type person working with one admin to solve a problem, versus having all hands on deck, where you have 50 admins in a room resolving incidents.

I'm not saying that we don’t have those now. We do, but when we do, it’s a major problem. It’s not something very small. It could be a firmware on a blade enclosure going down, which takes an entire group of applications down. It's not something you can plan for, because you're not making changes to your systems. It's just old hardware or stuff like that that can cause an outage.

Another thing that is done for us is those 20 or 30 incidents we had per week are down to one or two. Knock on wood on that one, but it is really a testament to a lot of the things that our IT department has done as a whole. They're putting a lot of effort into into reducing the number of incidents that are occurring in the infrastructure. And, we're partnering with them to get the monitoring in place to allow for them to get the visibility in the applications to actually throw alerts on trends or symptoms, versus throwing the alert on the actual error that occurs in the infrastructure.

Gardner: Now, we started talking earlier about your philosophy and the experience of the user. Are there any metrics or anecdotes from the welfare and benefit of your end-customers that have developed from the way that you’ve been able to improve your applications?

Miller: Customer satisfaction for IT is a lot higher now than it used to be. IT is being called in to support and partner with the business, versus business saying, "I want this," and then IT does it in a vacuum. It’s more of a partnership between the two entities to be able to bring stuff together. Operations is creating dashboards and visibility into business applications for the business, so they can see exactly what they're doing in the performance of their one department, versus just from an IT perspective. We can get the data down to specific people now.

Customer satisfaction for IT is a lot higher now than it used to be. IT is being called in to support and partner with the business.



Gardner: Because these activities are a journey, you never perhaps get to an end destination. What are you looking forward to next? What’s the roadmap for improving even beyond where you are now?

Miller: Some of the big things I am looking at are closed-loop processes, where I have actually started to work with making some changes, working with our change management team to make changes to the way that we do changes in our environment where everything is configuration item (CI) based, and doing that allows for that complete traceability of an asset or a CI through its entire lifecycle.

You understand every incident, request, problem request that ever occurred on that asset, but also you can actually see financial information. You can also see inventory information and location information and start bringing the information together to make smart decisions based on the data that you have in your environment.

Gardner: That sounds like it could lead to some significant cost savings in the long run?

Miller: That’s my hope. The really big thing is really to help reduce the cost of IT in our business and be able to do whatever we can to help cut our cost and keep a lean ship going.

Gardner: Well, great. We’ve been hearing about a user case study, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, and how they’ve been improving their application performance and the user experience, and then ultimately providing a better visibility for IT and the perception of IT along with overall reduction in total cost. We’ve been hearing this story from Victor Miller, Senior Manager of Systems Management at Blue and Cross Blue Shield of Florida in Jacksonville. Thank you.

Miller: Thank you.

Gardner: And thanks to our audience for joining this special BriefingsDirect podcast coming to you from the HP Discover 2011 Conference in Las Vegas. I'm Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions, your host for this series of user experience discussions. Thanks again for listening, and come back next time.

Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes/iPod and Podcast.com. Download the transcript. Sponsor: HP.

Transcript of a BriefingsDirect podcast from HP Discover 2011 on how Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida gains better visibility into application lifecycles for improved operational efficiency and reliability. Copyright Interarbor Solutions, LLC, 2005-2011. All rights reserved.

You may also be interested in: