Could the Cloud Derail a $300 Million Data Center?

1sockchuck writes "The cloud computing debate has come into focus for taxpayers in Washington state, where a proposed $300 million project to build a data center in Olympia for the state's IT operations is coming under scrutiny. Two legislators are urging the state to shift applications to the cloud instead, noting that two of the largest cloud computing providers (Microsoft and Amazon) are based in the state. The critics say the data center project is driven by an interest in local construction and 'fails to seriously explore the larger strategic question facing government technology today.'"

Comments

could it? Sure. Should it? No

[Em Emalb]

Good God, I can't be the only one so sick of this cloud computing bullshit. Seriously, just because it works for some types of data and/or applications, doesn't mean it'll work for everything.

Put down the fucking hammer, not every IT task is a frigging nail.

Idiots.

And here I was ...

[lbalbalba]

... stupid me, thinking that 'The Cloud', actually *was* a $300 Million Data Center...

Re:And here I was ...

[dave562]

This presents an interesting situation without an easy, clear cut answer. As a tax payer, I'm not sure what makes more sense. Do I want the government spending my money with a private company like Microsoft or Google, or do I want them spending my money developing their own infrastructure. On one hand, it could be argued that a large corporation that faces competitive pressures in the marketplace would be forced to keep costs down. On the other hand, by having a government run datacenter, costs can be controlled through the bugetary process. If the state runs their own datacenter, they don't have to worry about their "cloud" provider raising the rates every time the contract comes due.

The politican who came out against the datacenter says that he favors transparency. It seems to me that if he wants transparency, the state should run their own datacenter because then they will be able to completely audit all of the costs associated with it. If the IT services are outsourced into the cloud, it becomes more difficult to account for exactly how the dollars are spent. As you mentioned, a private entity needs to make a profit. A public entity simply needs to cover their costs, and in fact it is quite common for legislation to contain verbage that makes it illegal for a public entity to attempt to turn a profit by charging more for services than required to cover the costs involved.

From what I know of public sector workers (my girl friend works for the state of California), they are proud of their jobs and what they do. Of course there are always antecdotes about lazy DMV workers, or life time employees who get by doing the least possible as they look forward to their pension. However by and large, most public sector work environments have a strong sense of community pride that comes from knowing that they have a job for life (budget crisises aside). They know what their jobs are and they get them done. The large majority of the delay comes from the legislatively mandated proceedures that they have to follow... the reams of paperwork that they have to fill out to do the simplest thing. The jobs aren't the best paying jobs, but they are stable.

I can almost guarantee that sense of pride would shine through with the state of Washington IT services department. That would be "their" datacenter, and they would be providing services directly to the people of the state. There will be people working in that datacenter for 20 plus years. How long do you think people stick around a typical datacenter?

Re:could it? Sure. Should it? No

[vertinox]

Seriously, just because it works for some types of data and/or applications, doesn't mean it'll work for everything.

What is the difference between an in-house datacenter and an outsourced one?

The person you write the checks to.

That's about it these days.

Chances are if they did do in house, the techs were still be outsourced contracts instead of state employees. If they outsource it to Amazon or Microsoft in the state they'll still be employing locals and hopefully save tax dollars in the process.

But I do agree about the whole "cloud computing" being BS as a hypeword. Its really a euphemism for "outsourced".

"Cloud" Privacy?

[mosodede]

I really do not feel comfortable with the idea of the government "outsourcing" my data to a third party. I think that cloud-computing is such a young concept that it should not be used for government purposes until any privacy concerns are addressed.

Re:Want real government savings?

[mosodede]

Windows is not quite as crappy in large enterprises as you might like to believe.

sometimes public policy matters....

[Rep. Reuven Carlyle]

Do you really think I'd take a stand like this for Microsoft or Google or any other company? I'm trying to have a more serious discussion before we spend $300M on a state owned and operated data center with a weak business case behind it on the Capitol Campus when we're so broke we're closing group foster homes. And I'm not suggesting we send all the data to the cloud, just look at a more strategic technology plan that uses it when/if appropriate. Doesn't take away or discount the legitimate privacy/security issues to raise other options. Reuven Carlyle