IT's Evolutionary Transition

There is quite a bit of confusion between CoIT (Consumerization of IT) and BYOD (Bring Your Own Device). While these two subjects are related, they are not the same. To make things more confusing, the two terms are often interchanged. Yet, they have very different contexts and definitions. And the impact for IT organizations is significant. Read on…

Consumerization of IT (CoIT)

The consumerization of IT refers to a fundamental change in ‘how’ people use technology. It does not specifically refer to the devices they use, but rather how they work.

As people become more familiar with technology, they tend to use it in everyday life. The reciprocal is true too. Two common examples CoIT are Mobile and Social. In the mobile space, just about everyone has a mobile device. It could be a cell phone, tablet or laptop. Over the past 10 years alone, the number of mobile devices has increased astronomically. Today, there are over 5 billion mobile phones in the world and more than 80% of the world’s population has a mobile phone. Two factors contribute to this change: 1) The cost of the device has reached a point where many more people can afford to own them. 2) Devices are much easier to use. In the past, an IT person would need to configure the device and perform training for the user. No longer is that the case. Even a 4-year-old can operate a device today. In the social space, everyone is using Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn. Users do not need an instruction manual to reach the site or operate the service. In fact, Facebook has over 800 million users today. It would take a large army of IT professionals to train 800 million users using the traditional model.

Bring Your Own Device (BYOD)

On the other hand, BYOD is all about the device. Everyday users are more likely to use these devices (smartphone, tablet, laptop) today. The combination of price drops and ease of use contribute to the change. Due to the familiarity with these devices, users prefer to use them in their everyday work environment. The trend to use personal devices in a corporate environment started several years ago with the mobile phone. People preferred to use their own mobile phone rather than carry one for personal and one for work. With the advent of smartphones that evolved to checking email, surfing the web and the plethora of other applications available today. Tablets and laptops followed in the wake of smartphones.

Today, some corporate entities have fully embraced the concept by providing employees a stipend for their device(s) rather than issue a company-owned device. In other cases, companies pay the bill for the smartphone voice and data plans. The expectation is that the user is checking the device more frequently than they would a company issued device.

From the CIO perspective, I wrote about BYOD in: What the CIO Needs to Know About BYOD

http://timcrawford.org/2012/01/10/what-the-cio-needs-to-know-about-byod/

Changes in How We Work

There is another factor that directly affects this evolutionary change. The organizations and people that belong to them are changing. There are two fundamental drivers: 1) The new workforce and 2) Changes in the technology solutions. By new workforce, I mean the employees that are entering the workplace today. Employees entering the workplace in the past couple of years are the first ones that grew up with a computer from birth to adult. Prior generations picked up computing somewhere along their upbringing or career. That single change provides a workforce that is far more comfortable with computers and electronic devices. They are much more adept at technology change and evolutionary shifts than prior generations too. This milestone is not one to underestimate.

Changes to the IT Paradigm

The general user base is not the only group that is changing. With the changes to CoIT and BYOD, the IT Paradigm needs a significant overhaul. The days of ‘command and control’ are over. The technology paradigm has reached a point where it can no longer be ‘controlled’. But it can be managed! That is where the paradigm changes. Today’s technology world is about setting boundaries, guidelines and frameworks. It is less important to create walls and fortresses. This applies to both the culture we set within the organization and the technology solutions we put in place. One example might be how to protect data rather than the device itself. If you can’t control the device, what are you going to do? You can’t just throw your hands up and give up. There are solutions.

Interestingly, this fundamental change to the way IT operates has significant ramifications beyond just CoIT and BYOD. Yes, making the shift is hard. We have spent 30 years building the methodologies and paradigms we work within today. Change is hard and takes time. But the opportunities for those that make the change are significant.

Bottom Line: CoIT and BYOD are different, but related. Both require changes to the fundamental operations of the IT organization. Those changes, while challenging, can provide significant value moving forward.

Could they? Could it be out of Vogue to operate your own data center? Current developments in Corporate Social Responsibility and a maturing data center marketplace are starting to drive these changes.

For many, this could be a discussion about the pink elephant in the room. Data centers have been, and continue to be a requirement for businesses around the world. We rely more heavily every day on systems and the applications they run. Those applications run on servers and use storage subsystems; all of which are connected with networking devices. Collectively, we call this the “IT Load” for a data center.

The root question is not whether a data center is required. The obvious answer is: Yes! The real question is: Do I need to operate my own data center? But we will get to answer that question in a minute.

Data Center Energy Consumption

Data centers are consuming a larger percentage of the world’s energy every day. Our growing appetite will continue to take a toll on natural resources. In 2007, the EPA issued (for some) an eye-opening report on data center consumption and potential areas of efficiency.

http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod_development/downloads/EPA_Datacenter_Report_Congress_Final1.pdf

While the report is a bit dated (2007), the core data still holds true today. The majority of the report is focused on projections and potential areas of efficiency. In 2011, Jonathan Koomey issued an updated report on the findings.

http://www.analyticspress.com/datacenters.html/

In his report, he noted that data center power consumption did not grow as strongly as the EPA projected. By 2010, global data center energy consumption hit 1.3% while in the US that number rose to 2%. Those are still very significant numbers.

What is Missing?

To add more fuel to the figures, a significant number of “facilities” are missing. Most notably missing from these findings is the energy consumption by the myriad of smaller “data centers”. While many would not call them data centers, they still serve the same purpose of housing servers, storage and networking equipment. These are smaller closets, rooms and labs. It may be as small as a server and switch under a desk to a rack or two of gear in a closet to a 1,000 sqft room. It is much harder to pin down the power consumed by each of these smaller locations. If you consider that these are the common solution for Small and Medium Businesses (SMB), the aggregate consumption is significant.

Potential Impact

Increasing the efficiency of the physical data center is a great start. There are many opportunities to improve the efficiency of power and cooling systems. People have focused on increasing the efficiency of power and cooling systems for years. Many of the solutions are simple to implement and make a significant impact. While others take quite a bit of work, expertise and money. And there are many brilliant minds around the world that are currently working on this very challenge.

However, the largest potential impact may come from the IT load itself. For the majority of IT loads, the equipment is not used efficiently. Server, storage and network utilization figures are much lower than they could be. Servers are designed (from an energy perspective) for high utilization. One look at the power supply power curve for a server supports this. On the server, processor utilization rates commonly peak at 20-30% with average utilization in the 5-10% range. In addition, the current implementation rates for virtualization are still relatively low. The latest figures suggest that as many as 50% of servers are virtualized. Anecdotally, that figure still seems high. Regardless, pushing the implementation of virtualization to 80%+ would significantly reduce the overall power consumption…for the same IT workload.

Imagine reducing the US power consumption by a full 1%. The impact could be that significant.

Strategic and World-Class Expertise

Now back to the root question: Do you need to have your own data center? Before answering, two other questions will shed light on the answer. Is your organization in a position to operate your data center (100,000 sqft facility, 5,000 sqft room, closet, lab, etc) at a world-class level? Asked a different way: Is your organization willing to make the investment of installing a team of people to operate a world-class facility where it is their whole job, not just a line in the job description? Second, is operation of a data center strategic to your organization? We already covered that data centers are vitally important. So is electricity. Are you willing to make the investment in operating a data center that is unique and provides an advantage from your competition? Or are there alternatives that better fit the strategic direction of the organization?

The Solution

If you set personal beliefs, cultural norms and inertia aside, for most, the answer to these questions is no. There are viable alternatives today that offer the economics, flexibility and responsiveness. And the alternative data center providers do employ teams to ensure their facilities are world-class. Only those few with large-scale requirements or the uncommon corner case will still need to operate their own data center.

Cloud computing is just one of many ways to accomplish these objectives. Startups and others are already heading down this path unencumbered by cultural norms and inertia. The challenge for established organizations is how to effectively turn the corner.

Bottom Line: Most organizations are not in a position to efficiently operate a world-class data center and should look at alternative solutions. The data center provider market is mature and competitors are already heading down this path.

In my various conversations and presentations last year, I was starting to hear a concerning theme. I’ll get to why it is concerning in a bit. The theme was around what I called “cloud fatigue”. That is, people were starting to get tired of talking about cloud computing. The reason was that the term had been over-hyped with little substance to the true value cloud computing would bring. In addition, people were having a hard time figuring out how to setup clouds.

This hype happened over the prior couple of years. One way to track the cycle is through Gartner’s annual cloud computing Hype Cycle. Here is the updated version from 2011:

To provide some empirical data to support my theory, I took a look at the search stats around the term “cloud computing”. Last year, I penned a blog entry with details on my findings.

http://timcrawford.org/2011/04/17/cloud-computing-search-trends-show-growth-and-plateau/

2012 Update

Today, I re-ran the reports to determine if the theory played out over 2011. Indeed it did. The subject, while discussed widely, has plateaued in search results. The global results show a marked flattening of the results.

International cities continue drive the top results with the United States falling from #7 in April 2011 to #10 in January 2012.

Within the United States, the results are similar to last year.

If interest in cloud computing was acutally decreasing, that would be a concern. Cloud computing presents a significant opportunity for most organizations both technically and organizationally. The business value it brings is not to be missed. While I don’t have empirical data to support my new theory, I suspect the change has more to do with depth of understanding. Today, many folks have heard about cloud computing and understand what it is (generally speaking). Now the conversation has moved into specific details of how to use it within a specific use case.

I would expect to see the general term of cloud computing continue to plateau and possibly decrease. This is natural and signifies a maturity of the term. In addition, new subjects will continue to fill in the cloud’s wake.

As the economy starts to improve, the movement of executives from one organization to another starts. This movement is not relegated to the upper ranks either. The lieutenants of a CIO and their rank-and-file are just as, if not more, prone to movement. Over the past few years, the volume of movement has waned…for good reason. Folks were happy to have a job and did not want to risk moving to a new role. In addition, the number of openings shrunk in relation to the economy.

IT Executive Movement

Now that the economy is improving, IT executives are willing to take risks and make changes. In the past few days alone, two articles from the St. Louis Business Journal and CIO Magazine touched on this issue (links below).

This is good news for a couple of reasons. First, it signals a change in economic conditions. Organizations and individuals are feeling more secure in taking risks. Second, it provides an opportunity for change for the new company, old company and individual. With the change in technology and business direction, changes in IT leadership are a welcome sight. With some regularity and planning, it is a good thing to mix up the gene pool.

However, as an IT executive, moving to a new company is risky. How do you know it is a good move? There are a number of factors that the individual and executive recruiter can assist with in this process. Several executive recruiters I know have very good processes to ensuring a good fit. The process goes way beyond responsibilities, objectives and corporate culture. Just like a company looking to acquire another company, the IT executive must do their own research on the role, the company, the leadership team and their staff. Even so, there is only so much due diligence you can do.

All that being said, change is a good thing and something that should be embraced. The IT function is evolving and the IT leadership needs to evolve to lead that effort.

IT Rank and File Movement

Change is not restricted to only IT executives. Probably more so than IT executives, the rank and file individual contributors have been a restless bunch. We can expect to see more movement within the individual contributors in the coming year. This is a good thing and will cross-pollinate methodologies and technologies. With newer methodologies like cloud computing and big data, this becomes increasing imperative.

It is equally important that individuals keep up with the trends. In the coming years, the rate of change will only increase. Falling behind can have serious negative repercussions to a career.

Compensation and Engagement

It is important to compensate employees fairly. If you take the approach of compensating employees poorly because of the economy, you can expect increased movement. I have often said that under-compensating an employee encourages them to stay long enough to find a different job where they are fairly compensated.

However, compensation is not everything. Sure, money is a strong factor for many people. But the nature of the work is just as important. It is important to ensure that employees are challenged and growing. Otherwise, it may cause further movement within the organization. Working with older technologies and systems is less interesting than the new and upcoming methodologies. That needs to be factored in when making strategic IT decisions.

Recent Articles:

CEO Turnover Is Good News For Economy

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/blog/2012/01/ceo-turnover-is-good-news-for-economy.html

Fortune 500 CIO Activity

http://blogs.cio.com/careers/16733/fortune-500-cio-activity

Bottom Line: Expect for more movement of employees as economic conditions improve. There is a direct relationship between the two.

BYOD is a relatively new acronym. No, it does not mean Bring Your Own Drink. It stands for Bring Your Own Device. By device, it means smartphone, tablet or laptop. Conceptually, it means that the user is using their own personal device rather than one issued by the company they work for.

History

Historically, computing resources were expensive and not widely used by consumers outside of the companies they worked for. Over the past decade, the cost for these devices has dropped. In addition, the devices have become more functional. As such, employees are upgrading from traditional cell phones to smartphones. They are also starting to use tablet devices and laptops more than desktop systems. And workers entering the workforce today started life in the computing age. Therefore, gaining a greater comfort with computing devices in everyday life compared with those of us…ah-hem…that are older.

Consumerization

As “smart” devices becoming more prevalent, their use for everyday things from communication with friends to buying a latte increases accordingly. Users get accustomed to using certain devices. Those devices also gained the ability to interface with corporate environments. While a company could still issue a smartphone to an employee, it would duplicate the capabilities of their existing device. And the employee is more likely to have their personal smartphone with them wherever they go than a company-issued smartphone. Similarly, the cost of tablets and laptop computers is decreasing to a point where many consumers prefer the flexibility it provides rather than a bulky desktop computer. It is another device with duplicate capabilities of that company-issued model.

Company Issued Device vs. Stipend: Where Does Responsibility Go?

Companies are increasingly looking at novel ways to embrace this change. It does take much of the responsibility off the company and moves it to the employee. One option is to replace the company-issued device with a stipend to offset the cost to the employee. This then puts the responsibility for the device in the hands of the employee. Are employees ready for this responsibility? In many cases the answer is yes. They are already managing their personal device and ensuring that they have a computer, phone or other communication device anyway. The risk is relatively low to shift this responsibility to the employee. And the benefit to shed capital costs from the company is positive too.

Prevention, Control and Support

While this seems like a significant trend, can it be stopped or prevented? The short answer is: No. At the CES 2012 conference in Las Vegas this week, manufacturers announced several new laptops, tablets and phones. Even more phone announcements are expected at Mobile World Congress in February. And each new model of device adds to the functionality and usability. The best advice for corporations is to embrace the trend and support BYOD. That does not mean venturing into BYOD with your eyes closed. There are several decisions to make around the support and management of data related to the devices. Clear lines of responsible are needed. Organizations should expect that some level of support is still required on behalf of the company. However, it pales in comparison with complete support of company-issued devices.

Security and Data Management

There is one area that is more important than device support. It has to do with security and data management. In the case of company-issued devices, the company directly controls the data contained within the device. When the employee separates from the company, the device is returned…along with the data. In the case of BYOD, the data is stored on an employee-owned device. Companies need to take precautions to segregate corporate data from personal data. And in the case of separation, provide a means to adequately destroy corporate data located on the personal system or device. Today, there are tools that assist companies in managing these devices and the data contained within.

Policy Framework

In order to support BYOD, the company needs a clear policy around BYOD and a framework to adequately support the various platforms. Without a framework, the risks are great for the company. The framework needs to cover both device support and data management. There are responsibilities for both the company and the employee.

Cultural Shift

BYOD presents a significant cultural shift for the CIO and their organization. On one hand, it presents increased complexity to management of data. On the other hand, it improves flexibility, capital exposure and employee moral. Even with the challenges, there are tools available today to manage BYOD effectively. In addition, organizational culture changes are needed to understand and engage a BYOD model within the company. BYOD is just one of many significant shifts in the IT world today…with many more to come.

Bottom Line: Support BYOD, but create a framework to protect corporate data and provide adequate support for employees.

Many have looked into their respective crystal balls at what the coming year brings. Personally, my horizon looks not just at the coming year, but the years to come too. As I gaze into my crystal ball for 2012 and beyond, I see a changing tide in the world of technology.

The changing of the tide is nothing new. We saw these evolutionary changes with the advent of distributed computing, the Internet and most recently cloud computing. Each wave brings both uncertainty and opportunity. There are naysayers and optimists. In hindsight, each wave brought enhanced capabilities and ultimately increased value.

The current wave of cloud computing started a few years back. We are still feeling the effects and trying to understand the ultimate value.

2012 will bring further clarification to how technology brings business value. In addition, IT organizations will start the evolutionary process of IT Transformation. And the businesses we serve will start to see the opportunities that IT can bring.

Now, this is not easy to do and will take time. It will take an open mind, persistence and passion to make the change. But the opportunities are too great to pass by. While 2009-2011 were great starts to the transition, 2012 will see a significant increase in change.

And 2012 is only the start. This truly is an exciting time to be in IT.

The role of the CIO has often been a coveted one. Those rising in the ranks of IT actively seek the title. But what does the CIO actually do? Many have speculated on what the term CIO really means…or should mean. Yesterday’s CIO Summit in Dallas brought clarity to an otherwise confusing set of objectives. The event was one in a series of events hosted by HMG Strategy (http://www.hmgstrategy.com/).

As the CIO or Chief Information Officer, one often considers the senior most technical leader. That would be somewhat correct in the most basic definition. However the depths of the role go much further. Just as we bring clarity, we also bring an evolution. One might suggest that the evolution is long overdue. Others may suggest that the advent of cloud computing may be the strong influence. Regardless of the catalyst, the change is upon us.

The days of the CIO focusing solely on bottom line efficiencies is over. Today’s CIO is a much more dynamic and complex individual. At yesterday’s CIO Summit, three tenants rose as the pillars of clarity: Leadership, Innovation and Transformation. More than just buzzwords, these three resonated with the audience of approximately 200 CIOs from the Dallas region. Speaker after speaker. Panel after panel. The theme came into clear focus. The role of the CIO today is nothing like that of the past.

It serves best to discuss the evolution of the IT organization itself. Historically, IT is often a technology-driven organization of highly skilled individuals. At times, focused more on the technology than the business that it serves. The organization too must change. The IT organization must clearly understand the business it serves and the real value potential. More on that in a bit.

Leadership has always been a hallmark of a good c-suite individual. However, leadership of the CIO goes well beyond just technology leadership. It is true that CIO’s must still remain the most senior-level technology thought leader. But more importantly, they must be a business leader. The CIO and the organization they lead, must evolve to become a business organization.

At the CIO Summit, discussions centered on the evolution of the CIO role and the attributes that make today’s CIO successful. It is not enough just to manage bottom-line expenses. Yes, that is important. But today they are table stakes. Today’s CIO must also seek out opportunities for top-line revenue growth. The fundamental question being: “How does the CIO, and IT as an extension, drive revenue?”

Today’s CIO must be dynamic, versatile and perceived as a business leader more than an technology leader. The CIO leads the charge of their team while grooming their lieutenants in preparation for their turn in the chair. Succession planning is a key attribute that executive recruiters look for in selecting candidates. How well has the CIO prepared their team for leading the organization? When the CIO ultimately leaves their post for a new one, how well have they prepared their organization for his/her replacement? For example, will the company then have to go out and recruit a new CIO? Or is there a second in line that is ready to be promoted?

Often I hear CIO’s ask “how to get a seat at the table”. That is completely the wrong question to ask. If you have to ask the question, you’re not ready for the seat. As discussed at the Summit, the seat is earned, not entitled. Today’s CIO must seek out proactive opportunities to engage with other c-suite leaders and be clear in their communications. Communication at the executive level was another hot topic. It was mentioned how CIO’s attempt to engage in conversation at the executive level only to miss the mark. Like something out of Dilbert, others hear “blah, blah, blah, business, blah, blah, blah”. The context of the language needs to change too. Fellow business leaders are looking for a business conversation, not a technology conversation. When talking with the CIO, are we talking with a technology guy or a business guy?

The topic of customers came up throughout the day. I have heard CIOs state that their customer is the internal organization. In the discussions yesterday, it was clear that the overwhelming view is that the real customer for IT is the company’s customer. Sure, the IT organization does need to serve the internal organization. But again, those are table stakes. Doing a good job for the internal organization is not what gets commended. It is required. Finding ways to drive the business is what sets today’s CIO and IT organization apart from organizations of the past.

On the topic of innovation, the concept of correlation came up. Business leaders (and IT organizations) do not realize the wealth of data they have amassed. The challenge is converting it into information. How can the IT organization leverage their strength to bring innovation to the business through the use of information? One speaker mentioned the spectrum of IT from ‘ticket taker’ to ‘business driver’. Is IT an organization that only responds to business requirements? Or does it bring the innovation and value to the lead the business to new heights? It is quite a paradigm shift.

The combination of several factors around Leadership and Innovation then start the ultimate Transformation process. The transformation process occurs not just within the IT organization. It takes place with the CIO and ultimately the business itself. Transformational CIO’s are a rare breed today. It takes a different way of thinking and a true visionary to see the path. The execution must follow, as does the evolution.

This is not a simple tale of how to change a CIO, an IT organization or a business. Many hurdles stand in the way. Culture, inertia, and an overall lack of connecting the dots are formidable challenges. The CIO of today must evolve from a conservative position to a risk taker. It was commented that CEO’s did not achieve their role through a conservative approach. They are risk takers. So must today’s CIO.

In summary, we have entered an exciting time for the CIO. The old joke of CIO standing for “career is over” is no longer relevant. This is the time for the CIO to come into their own. The potential for the CIO, the IT organization and business they serve is huge. This is a call to action. It is time for the CIO to shed the moniker of the past and craft a new legacy for IT. The value we bring to our business and customers is only limited by our imagination and ability to execute. This is the time to dream big!

A couple of days ago, I posted some thoughts about the recent Amazon AWS outage. In the passing days, many others have written their own missives collecting their thoughts on what may have happened and the ensuing consequences. The opinions range widely from a typical outage to outrage to a potential cover-up of a larger issue.

The ramifications of the outage are certain to impact the stratospheric velocity of the cloud computing trajectory. Many will consider the impact in a very negative way. They may go so far as to say that an outage at the poster child for cloud (Amazon) demonstrates that the cloud market is still immature for the demand it seeks.

While some place the blame squarely on the provider (Amazon in this case), others point to the short-sided expectations of the clients. Personally, I believe both carry some responsibility in the matter. This is true of all cloud providers and those that leverage the cloud. Further, it is not specific to cloud, but any provider that one uses.

I’ve been on both sides of the coin over the course of my career; both provider and consumer. The objective should be to create a true partnership. But what is a true partnership? And what are the characteristics that differentiate a partnership from a traditional vendor/ customer relationship? We each may have a different set of objectives and characteristics that define a partnership.

A partnership is much like a personal relationship; friends, family, etc. And both parties are responsible for maintaining the partnership over time. Partnerships take work. As such, there are several attributes that characterize a true partnership. Honesty, trust, communication and shared responsibility are just a couple of the core attributes. Without a solid foundation, it is difficult to pinpoint expectations. I could delve into the realm of SLAs and SLOs, but will save that for a future entry.

While it is well and good to talk about what makes a partnership, is it (or should it be) necessary for the cloud market? That depends on the expectations. If the expectations are for basic services with few requirements around confidence, then probably not. If, however, the expectations are more critical to the business or the expectations are higher, a stronger relationship is warranted. And I’m talking about more than just a contract and SLA.

There are many ways to create a partnership. Understanding what is core and important is a good first step. I’m not referring to technology requirements. I’m referring to relationship requirements. What is important to you for that specific service or offering? Thinking ahead, what is expected when things do not work as expected? Do both parties agree to the approach? In some cases, this may be a simple documented communication and action plan. In other cases, it may require a more engaged discussion.

In many ways, this is not too different from a contract. What is a contract? Frankly, it should be something you negotiate at the beginning of the relationship and never have to refer to again. But it really serves as a backstop for when things do not go as planned. SLAs may serve in a similar capacity. When the contract is negotiated, both parties agree to the process, actions and consequences…up front. When something happens, you know what to expect.

But is that really enough? Plenty of providers have written contracts and SLAs available. They provide a basic understanding of expectations, but do not go far enough for critical business processes. In those situations, one needs to look deeper into the organization, the processes, the expectations and the level of relationship to establish. Where there is a gap, correct it. When there is confusion, clarify it.

I was told many years ago that the best business relationships have a senior or executive-level relationship behind it. That is very true to this day. I’m sure this is harder to do with the larger providers. But you may be surprised.

Bottom Line: Look beyond the contract and SLA. What other attributes are in place to ensure a successful relationship?

There has been quite a bit discussion about the topic of Cloud Computing and specifically if interest was starting to wane. In discussions over the past year, I’ve used the term ‘cloud fatigue’ to describe how cloud came on strongly, but without a clear understanding of value, multiple issues are creating confusion. More clarity around direct business value from cloud computing is needed. This includes both top-line and bottom-line impact.

As a current benchmark, I was curious to see how the term ‘cloud computing’ was trending in Google searches. The results were surprising. The charts below were collected April 12, 2011.

Here are the Google search results for the term ‘cloud computing’ since 2004.

It appears that the term has had a steady climb, but is hitting a plateau of late. More on the plateau…or plateaus below. Further details revealed searches originating from India as the top country. The United States came in 7^th behind India, Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Ireland and Malaysia.

It is interesting to see the heavy interest from countries in Asia. The top states (or sub-regions) and cities were fascinating as well. Quincy, MA ranked top in the US well ahead of any other city.

In addition to the surprise in locations that generated the most interest, the data showed another interesting trend. Since 2004, interest has plateaued a few times. Steady growth was observed from 2004 until March 2009. Then growth plateaued for two quarters until October 2009. Afterward, growth continued again until November 2009. However, interest plateaued for another three quarters until June 2010. Then growth resumed again until September 2010. Since then, growth has essentially plateaued yet again.

It’s not clear what is driving these growth spurts followed by plateaus. One could map major announcements against the data. It’s not obvious that the data reveals seasonality either. Overall, normalization of the data does represent overall growth, but suggests a potential slow-down of interest in cloud computing. The slow-down could be attributed to cloud fatigue. Based on past plateaus, the next quarter should tell if growth resumes, continues flat or declines.

Failure…the F-word to some. It is often suggested that we learn from our failures. However, it is often our successes that are celebrated. The question is: Are we truly learning from failure? And do we fear failure too much?

In many cases, the answer is yes…to both questions. While inventing the light bulb, Thomas Edison was famously quoted as saying: “”I have not failed 1,000 times. I have successfully discovered 1,000 ways to NOT make a light bulb.” How do we embrace failure in a positive way as a learning experience?

This month, Harvard Business Review (http://hbr.org/) features a series on failure. It provides some good insight on the subject.

HBR: Failing Toward Success (http://blogs.hbr.org/hbr/mcgrath/2011/04/failing-their-way-to-success-a.html)

HBR: Why Leaders Don’t Learn from Success (http://hbr.org/2011/04/why-leaders-dont-learn-from-success/ar/1)

Looking back, what have you failed miserably at? Are there examples where you have failed over and over again and eventually got it right?

Hopefully we can push forward to think differently about how to learn from our mistakes, make forward progress and change our paradigm when needed.