Driving Down Operational Costs
Document Actions
I've been intrigued through the years at the manner in which IT looks at software costs. There seems to be a trend at reducing software costs no matter what the results / cost. In many cases software is considered to be an evil neccessity and rarely looked at as a facet of the total cost of operations. Years ago Gartner focused on a holistic approach to operations which it called Total Cost of Ownership. It originally looked at the dynamics between hardware, software and services (labor) to get a better picture of the fabric of IT. Currently their methodology includes Service Levels, which makes a lot of sense since focusing on the economics of IT without consideration for the reason IT exists is moot.
I recently had the opportunity to host Bill Kerwin at a webinar which outlined a holistic approach which reduces the overall costs of IT while delivering higher levels of service to the business ... and isn't that what IT is all about.
I believe the key to these reduced costs is automation, and with automation errors and problems introduced by change are reduced leading to better service levels and that can't be done without software.
Forgot your password?
New user?
I don't know anything about mainframes and their TCO, but I'll accept all your arguments without hesitation. And I understand your frustration: when it's just a question of logics, why won't the corporations accept the logic then?
I've been the CTO of a minor organisation for a decade. Too small for ever considering a mainframe, but even so, I've been through a scenario that may touch on the subject.
Some years ago, I had the financial opportunity of doing a major makeover of our entire system, and - beacsue I'm a nerd - I considered all possibilities. This also brought the option of mini's into consideration ... very appealing to me (nerd-factor 9), and my research showed a 3-year financial break-even horisont!
So, why did the choice fall on i386 again?
Well, to be honest, there was several points of objections from various dept's, but what made me drop the path was one single obstacle: the transition project.
I'm no coward, so I wasn't afraid to engage in a steep learning curve. Neither did the immediate difference in HW/SW cost scare me off, - the organisation was booming, so I had a lot of head-room.
But: the transition!?
1. if I was to guarantee virtually uninterrupted service delivery during the transition period, I would have to run two complete operations side by side (I'm sure it's just paranoia, but if it is, then why wouldn't any of the supplier put a big money-guarantee behind their promises of a system that would work from day one?).
2. Two complete systems running live in parallel, also means two sets of staff, again requiring the double double resources in space (offices and tech rooms), and so on.
The costs of this, plus the migration costs, would take quite a while to even out, and telling the BOD that I had a breask-even horisont of even 5 years, seemed be equal to saying that I had no grip on the finance (or perhaps they were just not typical, - perhaps BOD's in general find it ok with long term perspectives for IT investments?).
Anyhow, I decided against the mini, and got some new i386 servers with new SW. That too resulted in some migration costs, but the transition could be broken down in steps, the staff was the same and the premises could host everything during the period.
That would probably also end up as my main obstacle, if I was a CTO of a major corp., who should consider the step from i386's to mainframe.
Consequently, the proposal from a small-time CTO is, that you put a little focus on this subject when you think about how to sell mainframes to i386-CTO's ... because I'm sure there's quite a number of them who are as neardy about big boxes as I, but just aren't prepared to risk their career on a "personal whim" ;-)
Kind regards,
Sven
Replies to this comment