The name game: Is it worth the wrangle?

Many believe that one important impediment to broad-based adoption of utility computing is the confusing array of proprietary names and technical terms associated with this concept. It seems like every vendor (and analyst firm) has coined a competing label for its own brand of utility computing. But how significant is that impediment really?

As vendors battle to win mindshare based on their proprietary brand of utility computing, enterprise customers also have varying views of what they think constitutes utility computing. This point became particularly clear at the UtilCompWorld Conference in New York City in March that brought together an impressive list of CIOs and CTOs from a wide range of companies, including Capital One, Deutsche Bank, Guardian Life, Merrill Lynch, UBS, USA Today and even the NYPD, to talk about their utility computing ideas and initiatives. Their presentations were enlightening for a number of reasons.

First, each enterprise executive described corporate initiatives that many wouldn't necessarily call utility computing. For instance, the CTO from USA Today talked about the value of a Web hosting arrangement it established with Loudcloud that is now administered by EDS in conjunction with Opsware, Loudcloud's software successor. Deutsche Bank outlined its approach to strategic outsourcing. Merrill Lynch talked about the use of virtualization technology to support desktop systems. And, UBS talked about the power of grid computing.

There were numerous discussions of the implications of Salesforce.com's rapid rise and the role of other 'on-demand' software services in demonstrating the potential of utility computing.

The talks were bookended by two enthusiastic endorsements of the long-term benefits of utility computing by the CIOs of Guardian Life and the NYPD. Vendors in this market have seldom given talks as optimistic as these presentations in support of the utility computing concept.

In over twenty years in this industry, I can't recall a market trend that was promoted by customers equally as much as vendors - especially when the name of the trend is still up for debate.

Whether they were talking about utility computing, on-demand computing, grid computing, applications services, software as a service, Web hosting, outsourcing, offshoring or even business process outsourcing, the senior enterprise executives at the UtilCompWorld conference were unanimous in their view that the 'production' aspects of computing were becoming a commodity, as Nicholas Carr proclaimed in his now infamous Harvard Business Review article in 2003.

What's more, these enterprise executives were pleased to have a growing array of utility computing and outsourcing alternatives at their disposal to reduce the cost and hassles of managing the commodity aspects of their IT operations, allowing them to focus on the strategic potential and business value of IT.

While utility computing vendors and industry analysts debate terminology or tinker with names, leading enterprise executives are moving aggressively to adopt utility computing through a combination of product acquisition and outsourcing services.

These enterprise executives are not concerned about the exact name or definition for utility computing and aren't interested in debating whether Web hosting, software or managed services, or a specific technical capability is a true example of utility computing. Instead, they clearly view these services, and the technologies that enable them, as compelling proof points of the long-term cost savings and strategic advantages of utility computing. As a result, enterprise executives are enthusiastically pursuing their individual forms of the utility computing dream.

href="mailto:submissions@itworld.com">Tell us what utility computing means to you.

THINKstrategies

Sign up for ITworld's Daily newsletter
Follow ITworld on Twitter @IT_world

• Email
• Print
• Share
  • Slashdot
  • Digg
  • Stumble
  • Reddit
  • Newsvine