From Outsourcing To Multi-Sourcing

From Outsourcing To Multi-Sourcing

Ed Sperling, 12.28.09, 06:00 AM EST

Much has changed since outsourcing was introduced.

IT outsourcing has been around for decades, but in the past it was a one-for-one handoff. Either a company ran the IT department or an outsourcing contractor did it for them.

Much has changed. Companies are choosing from a menu of options and a list of competitive offerings, with results that still aren't fully understood. To help shed light on what's changing, Forbes caught up with Jamie Erbes, chief technology officer for Hewlett-Packard ( HPQ - news - people ) Software and Solutions.
Forbes: Outsourcing IT is hardly a new concept. What's different this time?

Erbes: We've certainly seen this outsourcing trend in the past, but what we're seeing now is uptake of more selective sourcing. The CIO and IT organization are looking at sourcing some of their operation to cloud providers, but not all of it. They're also looking at ways to keep tabs on the integrity of IT as it all blends back together into the business services that they need to offer back to the business units.

What's driving that change?

A lot of conversations I've had recently with customers is how they can capitalize on the resources from various providers including the Amazons and Rackspaces of the world or enterprise services from companies like HP. How can they take advantage of that sourcing model and put an effective framework above it--one that comprehends IT financial management, for example, or service-level aggregation and management? Those are the questions we're starting to hear.

So there's more CIO involvement in the outsourcing?

Yes. If you go back 20 years, the message behind outsourcing was, "Come and take over my IT." The IT organization handed over responsibility for everything including interaction with the business units. It was not just a portion of IT or a piece of the data center. It was all of IT, and in some cases that included the CIO. The change that we've seen is there's a step toward multi-sourcing. There may be a line cut, for example, between infrastructure outsourcing and applications development. Some of these services are best-of-breed outsourcing selections and a lot of analysts are encouraging clients to do multi-sourcing. But when they outsourced to a sole provider, the management level on top and the reporting and transparency was intact. With multi-sourcing you have silos of management and reporting, limited visibility and service-level agreements in silos.

What's the best way to deal with that?

The next step will be to pull all of that together into business services. There's a layer of service management at the enterprise level that is necessary to do all of the translation from the intricate specific detail around service levels, availability and outages, for example.

What does the corporate IT department do in the future?

Before we used to counsel the client on how to be the best they could be at planning, designing, building and running IT. There's still some of that activity, but they need more of a skill set for sourcing, integrating and managing. That's an evolutionary need now within IT.

And it's no longer just about data, right?

That's correct. The whole concept of portfolio management is taking on a new life in these organizations. It's almost like a product manager role that's evolving within IT. One CIO told me he needs a sales and marketing team--and a product management team. They have to understand what they're crafting in terms of cost models and pricing models back to their business. If you look at the aptitude of the type of person that takes, it is like a product manager. You have to be able to talk about the IT capabilities you have and what you can offer to the business because now the business has choice. The last thing you want is for them to avoid IT. If IT is a hidden-cost overhead that's a pain to deal with, it's going to be avoided. The IT organization has to draw the client in with products and services their business wants to consume. That mitigates the desire for businesses to go out and directly obtain these cloud services or software-as-a-service--basically an end-run around IT.

It used to be a matter of assessing technological capabilities and applying them to a business. Now it appears to be less about the technology.

IT always will have to have a competency for understanding the technology, but it's unlikely they'll have to be the expert on server technology in the future. If they do a smart sourcing strategy, they don't need the server experts. But they will need the platform expert to blend the server and storage and the application types to make sure the outsourcing decision they make around the infrastructure-as-a-service fits well with their application strategy.

Who are you selling this stuff to? Is it the companies or the cloud providers?

Our strategy has three prongs. The first is we are a cloud service provider. The other two are in terms of aligning products and consulting and enablement services for the service provider. We helped Verizon ( VZ - news - people ) craft their compute-as-a-service strategy set, for example. We also help the enterprise business to be a better and wiser consumer of services, and to be a better provider of services internally.

Will the software in a cloud be customized, and if not, what is the penalty?

We think the question should be, "What is the cost of all that choice and heterogeneity in the data center?" The penalty you pay is one of the concerns. Customers need to understand application or workload characteristics and to be able to construct private clouds or pooled infrastructure within their own data centers. They need to manage workload against that target, as well as provision applications out to other cloud providers such as Amazon. If you have several choices, each with different compute styles, that should give you the right granularity so you can run them where they should be run. But too much choice and variety is a bad thing. There are some specialized applications such as airline systems where that's required, but for most it is not.

Aside from those specialized cases, is there a difference from one organization to the next?

Some of the mature organizations--those with a concept of ruthless standardization--have normalized their hardware platforms and their networks and their compute styles. They have a handful of compute styles. That's compared to the immature organizations, which may have grown by acquisition or decisions that were made without a clear sense of architecture. Those are very messy environments. Our challenge is to span both environments and hide some of the complexity.

Ed Sperling is the editor of several technology trade publications and has covered technology for more than 20 years. Contact him at esperlin@yahoo.com.