The CEO may have announced that your company “fully and collectively” endorses Cloud Provider X at a recent meeting, but don’t give in. Your organization is irreversibly multicloud. How do I know that? Because every enterprise, even a medium-sized one, is multi-cloud by chance, if not by design. This is how IT works in an enterprise and that’s why I suggested that learning a second cloud, like learning a second language, can be beneficial for your career.

However, cloud multimedia has a cost. As a result, as Tim Bray, former director of AWS, wrote recently, the best cloud strategy is what makes people more productive. Tip: This may involve consolidating as many services as possible with a single cloud service provider. But these are just aspirations.

Check also:

Multicloud by accident

Today we use services across multiple clouds. The CIO may not think so, but with the proliferation of open source software in recent years, CIO is not in the best position to know everything that is going on in the organization. Forced to deliver applications and infrastructure at an accelerated pace, developers will use whatever contributes to this goal.

Sometimes it will mean Google’s BigQuery. Lambda from AWS. Microsoft Azure Kubernetes Service. Any number of different services from this cloud or another, even basic functions like computing and storage vary greatly between cloud and your developers will have knowledge (and preferences) of one over the other.

So yeah, you’re a multimedia whether you like it or not. The question is whether you should.

Improvement for people

The often forgotten truism in IT is that people, not hardware or software, are the most valuable (and most valuable) asset in an organization. In 2008, Jeff Atwood, founder of Discourse and Stack Exchange, drew attention to this fact: “Even the simplest math will tell you that it takes a massive investment in hardware to offset the annual costs of even a modest team of five developers.” He puts it another way: “Hardware is cheap.” And developers are expensive. The same is true with the program.

However, it is not just about the salaries of the people involved. I would add another sentence to Atwood’s thought: “Hardware (or software) is a commodity – people are valuable.” People can think carefully about how to improve the software or extend the life of the hardware. People innovate the way hardware and software don’t.

This brings us back to Bray’s argument.

Yes, companies can choose to use the cloud or end up with good intentions. However, he asserts, it pays to “go on a public cloud platform and use serverless tools at the highest level possible” because “each time you reduce the workload associated with the number of instances, existing sizes, and space for tables, file descriptors, and revision levels, you’ve just increased the percentage of hard-earned hires to deliver business-critical functionality that is visible to clients.”

In other words, the less time developers spend exploring the various entrances and exits of clouds, the more time they spend innovating on behalf of customers.

The downside to trying to get an architectural way out of confinement is that you waste all the time you might spend building. Bray notes, “If you go all the way, you’re going to get really big gains,” like amazing gauge, flexibility, and more. Of course, “you may decide that you are not ready for all the proprietary APIs,” he continues, “but then you will have to hire more people, not be able to provide solutions as quickly, and (more likely) spend more money.”

All of this is not meant to make multiple clouds harmful to your organization. Instead, it’s a suggestion that the right strategy will always be to improve the productivity of the people you have or want to hire.

Source: InfoWorld