It looks like nothing was found at this location. Maybe try a search or browse one of our posts below.

The Cloud is, too often, a solution in search of a problem. For many IT shops it is no longer a tool to be used in achieving a goal – it has become the goal.

Exacerbating the problem are the IT strategists who talk about the cloud without explaining which of cloud’s many definitions they’re talking about.

As always, KJR is here to help. And so, the next time the subject of “moving to the cloud” comes up, make yourself annoying by asking which cloud definition the speaker wants to move to. Among the possibilities:

Public cloud: A wholesale hosting solution, where IT can provision and de-provision (if that’s a word) virtual computing resources quickly and easily by just filling out a form.

Private cloud: A retail hosting solution, where IT can provision and de-provision virtual computing resources quickly and easily by just filling out a form, so long as IT has enough spare capacity on-line in its data centers to provision them.

Hybrid cloud: Public plus private cloud computing resources, seamlessly combined to use private cloud resources until they’re exhausted, then supplementing them with public cloud resources.

Software as a Service (SaaS): Commercial Off The Shelf Software (COTS, and no, I don’t know why the acronym only has one “S” in it) hosted in a public cloud.

Cloud as panacea: A version of public cloud that’s the driving force behind conversations that begin, “We don’t want to be in the data center business.” Sadly, like all acts of delegation, when IT outsources its infrastructure to a public cloud provider, the vendor is merely responsible for hosting IT’s applications. IT remains accountable however it hosts them.

Cloud as architecture: Establishing and enforcing the use of a standardized set of virtualized computing resources, so that all applications have identical hosting configurations.

Cloud discussions that don’t include cloud-as-architecture are likely to be pointless; also needlessly long.

Cloud-as-panacea discussions while even more likely to be pointless, will, in contrast, be mercifully brief.

Which brings us back to the SolarWinds fiasco.

An old but reasonably accurate critique of management consulting has it that management consultants will, if your organization is decentralized, recommend you centralize it to achieve efficiencies from economies of scale. If, on the other hand, your organization is centralized, we’ll recommend that you decentralize to encourage innovation by shortening decision chains and cutting down on bureaucracy.

The arguments in favor of IT’s collective move to public cloud computing is, for the most part, little more than an assertion that centralization is all upside with no downside – a panacea.

My concern: Not only isn’t it a panacea, but it creates enormous risks for the world economy. Why?

First: Public or not, without cloud-as-architecture it isn’t cloud. With cloud as architecture all computing resources a cloud provider delivers are, through the miracle of standardization, identical. While this certainly makes scaling much easier, it also means everything they host shares the same vulnerabilities.

Which in turn means public cloud providers will be more and more attractive targets because the very factors that make them appealing to IT make it easier for malicious actors to scale their attacks.

Bob’s last word: As SolarWinds-type breaches become more common, IT organizations will have to become increasingly sophisticated in performing cloud due diligence – not only on the cloud provider itself, but on its entire supply chain as well.

Bob’s sales pitch: What I’m selling is fame and fortune. Well, not exactly fame, but sort of; not fortune at all because I’m not going to pay you anything.

What’s the subject? ManagementSpeak is the subject. My supply is running low, and the demand is the same as always (one per KJR if I have any in stock that fit the subject).

So how about it? Keep your ears open and your translator engaged, and send in your juicy management euphemism … translation optional but appreciated. And make sure to let me know if I can give you credit as the source or you need to remain anonymous.

As regular IS Survivalists may recall, in graduate school I researched communication between electric fish.

This involved me in many stimulating discussions of how to define communication … because after all, how can you research something when you don’t know what it is?

Back then, the standard sociobiological definition of communication was behavior on the part of one entity … the sender … that changes the behavior of another entity (the receiver).

It isn’t communication unless it changes the behavior of the recipient. Electric fish understand this. Do you?

Companies squander a lot of effort because somewhere between figuring things out and explaining the answer, many employees mistake their responsibilities. They think their job is done when they provide the information.

It isn’t, of course. There’s little more pathetic than a thick report in a three-ring binder, ignored and gathering dust on a shelf.

Your job isn’t done until your target has both understood your message and taken action on it. That action is the change in behavior on their part that proves communication has happened, validating your efforts.

What are the steps to effective communication?

1. Understand your audience. If it’s one executive, do everything you can to determine his or her “hot buttons”: Key motivators, personal and organizational goals, likes and dislikes. If it’s a small group, analyze each member this way. If it’s a large group, divide it into categories and profile each category.

2. Determine your key messages. You know way too much about this subject, and you’re going to be tempted to explain everything you know. Resist the temptation. What you have to say is the center of your cosmos, but it’s just one asteroid in your audience’s solar system. Choose no more than five key messages (three is better). If you can’t winnow your list down that far, you need to pull back to a higher-level perspective.

3. Choose your medium. Your key messages and knowledge about your audience’s preferred communication styles should determine the medium. “They should read their e-mail,” is about as useful as any other choice that substitutes how things should be for how they actually are. If your audience is an executive who wants to look you in the eye, make sure you meet face-to-face. And even though you “… like to scribble on the whiteboard while I’m talking,” … that’s your preference. If your audience will reject your message because whiteboard-scrawling connotes lack of preparation, stuff your preference in the closet and prepare a formal PowerPoint presentation. Or vice versa.

4. Use formatting to reinforce your message. When you communicate face-to-face, your vocal intonation and body language deliver as much information as your words. In memos and reports, intonation and body language aren’t available to you. That’s what formatting is for — to substitute for them. You know what your key messages are. How are you going to make sure the reader remembers them?

The act of formatting helps you think things through. Deciding what to bold or italicize, what to put in a bulleted or numbered list, what to separate into a sidebar, what to illustrate through a chart or graphic … or in PowerPoint, whether and how to animate a graphic or bulleted list, and what to put into a “kicker box” at the bottom … these decisions help you think through your message.

Carefully chosen formatting can have another benefit: It constitutes “meta-communication” — communication about the communication. It says you’ve thought through your communication instead of just blurting everything out. That’s a good message to send.

Ever receive an e-mail whose author couldn’t be bothered to capitalize the first letter of a sentence, or to break the message into multiple paragraphs?

Me too. This kind of if-you-can’t-say-it-in-pure-ASCII “anti-formatting” sends a message of its own: That the author’s attitude was, “Here’s everything I want to say,” and not, “Here’s what I think you’ll find interesting enough to remember.”

Complaining about feature-bloat is a popular pastime in some circles. Go ahead if you enjoy it. Me … I’ll use every technique I can to communicate. There’s too much information floating around as it is.