I tend to see the issue in terms of two distinct groups. In the case of
cloud applications it is not public and private but rather the motivating
factors and the ability to pay for solutions. For those that chose to
exploit the cloud technology because they saw it as the future and wanted
to get ahead, not because of economic necesity, but desire the solutions
might be attainable. Those in this this group might have the means to bring
the volume into compliace with future demands. The risk lies in that large
group that pursues cloud solutions because it was a solution that was
within their means.

The volume of information stored within the cloud has grown exponentially.
If well managed solutions we transferred into the integration an
organization might be able to affordably reach future compliance. If a
faulty integration was created then a financiallly strapped organization
will be in a substantially weaker position. If the money is not there then
there is little hope that these organizations will be able to create a
cloud environment that meets their needs.
As far as market demands go we have seen this phenomenea before. IT is
legendary for creating solution because they can and executives bought in
to it in those heady days. We all deal with email problems that grew out of
this culture. The cloud environmnet is another more pervasive reflection of
this model. We have not even begun to see the issues that will impact us in
the future. In part because we are not p[art of creating the solution or
lack the ability to provide input at the right time, at he right level,
decisions are made that can create huge financial and legal problems for an
organiztion. We fall short in this regard, relying on the courts to bring
the culture into line. The main problem with us letting the courts support
our position is time. By the time the courts have caught up and the
legislation is put in place to deal with it, the cost is usually
prohibitive, the time committed to create and implement solutions
unreasonable. The only group I have been a part of that addressed this
practively is BFMA. They brought the vendors in and bullied them into
creating solutions that met their needs.

We must take a much more agressive role in mitigating risks associated with
implimenting new technologies. Some in our profession have the knowledge,
experience and as a result the means, within their organization to do this.
The professional reponsibility of the rest of us is to achieve that status
and aggressively pursue it.

Currently if there was a cloud parade we would be the folks that come along
after with shovels. Having had that role as a kid on a hot August day, I
don't recomment it. We might never lead the parade but I tell you it is
better to be on a horse than follow along after it.

Chris Flynn



 On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Dwight WALLIS
<[log in to unmask]>wrote:

> Note that cloud storage services have been the one area of overall cloud
> services that is not doing as well in the public cloud - when you are
> talking about cloud data storage, currently in most organizations that
> means private clouds and virtualized servers. This is the case with
> Multnomah County, which has adopted some "public" cloud services (Gmail,
> Drupal - the quotes relate to certain exceptions related to government),
> while continuing to maintain others in private clouds.
>
> Cloud services are a developing market, and are by no means perfect. I read
> this article as an attempt to address shortcomings in public cloud storage
> services, as a response to market demand. The principle selling point I
> have seen promoted is cost, not permanence. If some cloud vendors have been
> saying otherwise, I'm sure that is a highly unusual case of hype on an
> emerging technology, which I expect by now leaves most people
>  justifiably skeptical.
>
> I think the main challenge with cloud services is not whether they will
> evolve the level of sophistication to meet market demands - I think they
> will, and this article is more evidence of that. Its whether they will be
> able to do so and maintain their cost advantage. I have my doubts about
> that, but I don't think we will see that play out for at least another 5 -
> 10 years.
>
> The challenge right now is whether the significant cost advantages lead us
> down a path that threatens insurmountable long term damage. My suggestion
> to the county is that we do no harm. IN the case of Google, we have an
> email system that is cheaper to maintain and is no worse than what we
> previous had, or has some limited additional capability that our previous
> system did not have. The principal advantage is cost. In the case of Google
> Apps, we're sticking with the Microsoft Office suite for now, but
> encouraging use of some of the collaboration tools. In the case of Drupal,
> the change is a no brainer - our previous CMS system was a complete dud.
>
> I don't think it does any of us any good to demonize what is a relatively
> normal case of technological evolution. We should be cautious of the risks,
> but also supportive of the possibilities. In the cost driven economy we are
> in right now,  change is inevitable. We can have a place at the table by
> helping to make sure its prudent.
>
> --
> Dwight Wallis, CRM
> Multnomah County Records Management Program
> 1620 SE 190th Avenue
> Portland, OR 97233
> ph: (503)988-3741
> fax: (503)988-3754
> [log in to unmask]
>
> List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
> Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
> To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already
> present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the
> message.
> mailto:[log in to unmask]
>

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]