Consolidation of Data Centers, Analysis of the CIOs Current Situation - Essay Example

Case Name: Institution: Date: Introduction Hard economic times call for effective strategies to reduce operation costs in the Information Technology (IT) industry. This case presents a government initiative for cutting down costs by spelling out a timeline for consolidation of data centers by firms and federal agencies by the year 2015. A proposed legislation has stirred a debate among lawmakers about its effectiveness and how it will ensure federal agencies stick to the timeline. In an effort to consolidate organizations’ and federal government agencies data centers, a bipartisan legislation has been sponsored in the senate, and it sets difficult deadlines. Lawmakers are skeptical about the effectiveness of this legislation and how it will enhance oversight. The lawmakers question the application of the legislation to federal government agencies and the penalty spelt out for them in case of non-commitment to the consolidation initiative and program. A data center is a repository for management, dissemination, and storage of data information. Data consolidation helps organizations and government agencies to reduce IT assets by application of efficient technologies. Some technologies used in data centers consolidation include storage virtualization, server virtualization, cloud computing, using smaller blade server systems instead of mainframes, applying tools for process automation, and better capacity planning (Golden, 2010). It is the target of the federal government to achieve energy consumption reductions, cost savings, improvements in IT asset utilization, and optimal space utilization. This essay analyzes the current case of data centers consolidation with reference to the proposed legislation while giving suggestions on the proper procedure that would have been followed to meet the deadline. Summary of the Situation In this case, lawmakers in the United States are skeptical about the sponsoring of a bill by the senate that sets difficult deadlines for the consolidation of government data centers. The bipartisan bill is meant to push the effort forward according to the interpretation of concerned lawmakers. The main sponsors of the bill with regard to data centers are lawmakers Kelly Ayotte, Tom Coburn, and Michael Bennet. The sponsors believe that their legislation will enhance regular reporting and oversight to the process, and make sure deadlines are met. The effectiveness of this legislation is in doubt. Gartner analyst, Rakesh Kumar is of the opinion that many organizations are running into consolidation difficulties and not the government alone (Thibodeau, 2013). A sizeable number of organizations possess too many data centers. Absence of the passion for consolidation has made organizations to lose millions of dollars over a period of years. The move to consolidate frightens employees hence making organizations to be slowed down by organization politics. It is the desire of the federal government to close 40% of its three thousand plus data centers by the year 2015. The federal government will be able to save $3 billion after consolidation. According to Government Accountability Office (GAO) very little has been saved by the federal government since it is falling behind schedule by close to 300 data centers. GAO does not see internal politics or resistance as the reason for the delay but suggests enhanced oversight to make sure that consolidation takes place. Federal consolidation requires moving to virtualization and cloud platforms. Some government agencies lack the expertise to effect consolidation or have trouble with their budgets. Kumar suggests that companies should possess not more than two data centers in a continent. One data center will act as backup for a total of twelve worldwide. Many companies acquire data centers through consolidation and incurring huge costs as a result. The effectiveness of the legislation is still in doubt (Thibodeau, 2013). The federal government has not spelt out the penalty that will be meted out to federal agencies that will fall behind schedule. Federal agencies are viewed by lawmakers as dragging their feet with regard to consolidation of government data centers. The delay is the reason for bipartisan bill and its hard deadlines. Analysis of the CIO’s current situation The 9/11 attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center highlighted the constraints in homeland protection, data sharing, cooperation, and communication. The Department of Homeland Security components had multiple disparate data centers. In order to reduce costs, standardize IT resources, and enhance efficiency the Department of Homeland Security has set out an initiative to collect and then consolidate the various computing facilities that currently serves each of the components at the Department of Homeland Security (Stair & Reynolds, 2011). The collective computing environments made it challenging for collaboration and data sharing. The consolidation initiative is aimed at dealing with some of these challenges and enhances efficiency. Part of the strategy of consolidation is the deployment and definition of a Common Operating Environment in which case a component’s equipment is migrated and then transformed into common, standardized platforms for network, server, and storage. Reduction in the overall footprint for computing asset occasioned reduced system maintenance. The need for change towards consolidation of data centers cannot be overemphasized in the wake of these events. Consolidation hugely minimizes the redundancy of hardware and systems across facilities of computing translating into minimized maintenance, administrative, and management costs, and providing a smaller platform for IT to effectively put in place green IT. Consolidation will assist in standardizing IT resource acquisitions in components, and streamline support and maintenance contracts that will permit less complex vendor support; hence resulting in quick responses in times of emergency (Gens, 2008). The cost saving advantage occasioned by consolidation of data centers does not happen overnight; it takes a period of time. The benefit of key technologies can be realized through consolidation but the federal agencies and firms have to be supported in order to attain full implementation. This case depicts absence of coordination and disjointed and desperate effort by the government to meet the set deadline of consolidation in 2015. There are many challenges that organizations are facing an effort to meet the 2015 consolidation guidelines. These challenges have to be analyzed by the government and proper advice and direction provided to firms and government agencies. The initiative by OMB to track progress by agencies in their consolidation effort has to be stepped up and proper follow up instituted. Laxity and complacency can creep in following small results of the consolidation initiatives. GAO has to continue doing its research to ensure that there are other ways that can be explored to speed up the consolidation process. Recommended governance approach Operation costs have shot up owing to increase in the number of data centers. The initiative by the federal government to consolidate data centers is aimed at bringing down the cost of operation. The numerous data centers have little reuse or sharing resources across or within agencies. Data centers escalate energy consumption by the federal government owing to the increase in demand of services offered by the centers. Data centers consumed about 1.5% of all United States electricity consumption in 2006 and twice this amount had been consumed in the year 2000. The consumption of energy by federal data centers is anticipated to rise over the coming years if the consolidation initiative is not taken serious. This escalating consumption of energy calls the need to attain efficiency through data centers consolidation (Thibodeau, 2013). The Office of Management and Budget had required agencies to finalize missing elements in data centers plans and inventories by September 2011. By this time only three agencies had submitted complete inventories and only one out of agencies had a complete plan. It is at this juncture that the government should have raised the red flag and warned about missing the deadline for consolidation by the year 2015. The agencies should have been evaluated to determine what they needed to come up with a compete plan and complete inventory. Absence of much needed expertise to such agencies may be a challenge if the federal government had not carried out a feasibility test. It has been clearly stated that some agencies may be facing expertise challenges hence making it difficult for them to move along defined timelines. The federal government can offer the budget advice and help individuals firms to scale through challenges to do with costs. With proper information on the budget needed according to the capacity of the firm, it will be impossible for some firms to make estimations if they lack the expertise for consolidation. In order to succeed in consolidation efforts firms must have IT facilities, building facilities, IT operations, and IT development (Dodaro, 2012). Consolidation of data centers is not an easy process and full commitment is needed by the CIO and the management of the organization. The governance approach applied by the federal government has to be conducive to the environment and capacities of individual firms and federal agencies. A clearly spelt out road make had to be laid down and outline the stages that are required to achieve complete consolidation. The government should have established if the guidelines provided by GAO had been adhered by both firms and government agencies. The guidelines provided by the federal government through GAO should have been followed to the latter. The government had to first carry out a feasibility test that evaluates the capacity of organization to consolidate under the prevailing budgets. Companies had to be given time to lay down consolidation plans before the legislation. The government is not an exception in having trouble with consolidation. The same case has affected big individual companies. The Chief Information Officers (CIOs) of various firms have to be incorporated in the program. It is okay for the senate to worry about government agencies and firms not consolidating their data centers in good time in order to reap the benefits. Nevertheless, any decision to come up with a legislation that sets difficult timelines has to be done in consultation with the affected stakeholders. Shareholders and stakeholders have to be thoroughly informed with regard to the impact of the program to the future of the firm and its workers. The legislation should not be imposed to the firms and government agencies without their full knowledge and contribution. Their opinion counts on matters that affect them. The concern being raised by lawmakers about the effectiveness of the legislation is genuine. An oversight role has to be offered by the government to all players in the IT industry but federal government has to involve the other stakeholders. Absence of coordination and proper communication between the government agencies and private firms with regard to consolidation of data centers may pose a challenge to meeting the recommended deadline. The consolidation guideline consists of six phases that have to be followed by organization during the consolidation exercise. The government should have followed up an ensured each firm and government agency is aware of the guideline. The first phase involves IT asset inventory baseline; second phase is the application mapping, the third face is analysis and strategic decisions, fourth phase is consolidation design and transition plan, fifth face is consolidation and optimization execution, and finally the sixth phase is the ongoing optimization support (Gens, 2008). The federal government should have ensured that all organizations are conversant with these guidelines. Inspectors have to be used to assess the readiness of any agency and firm to effect consolidation without cause internal strive to operations. It is one thing for OMB to require agencies consolidation plans have a cost-benefit analysis and a master program; and it is another thing to ensure that the agencies have these requirement. Some of the agencies that were evaluated neither a cost estimate nor a schedule that was up-to-date consistent with a properly sequenced schedule. The three sponsors of the data centers legislation have to consult with all industry players about the timeline that will be realist and practical to achieve. Setting hard deadlines will only create pressure and confusion within government agencies, as well as private firms. The firms have to be versed in new technologies that support consolidation like cloud computing (Dodaro, 2012). Training and facilitating training workshops had to be done to prepare everyone for consolidation. The deadlines have to be set if every firm and government agency has been fully prepared. The lawmakers are wondering about the penalty that will be discharged to government agencies who fail to meet the set out deadlines. The agencies should be at the forefront of implementation of consolidation but remedies for failure to meet the deadlines have to be put in place. In order to fight the challenges it is crucial for OMB to continue with guidance and leadership through the use of a consolidation task force that monitors the efforts of agencies to consolidate their data centers. The guidelines should precede the oversight role being offered by the government. The agencies have to be fully prepared and guided to prior to being monitored. The target of saving $3 billion in term of savings and energy consumption has to be accompanied with a well down plan. The master plan by the federal government has to be tailor-made for each of the firms in the industry that have to engage in consolidation. Conclusion The need for consolidation of data centers in the wake of increased costs and security concerns about data sharing is inevitable. However, the federal government has to come up with a timeline that involves consultation with other stakeholders so that firms that need to consolidate do not feel ambushed. The legislation with the hard deadline cannot compel organization to consolidate data centers in order to cut down on costs and energy consumption without proper backing from the government. Any directive and guidelines has to address the needs of all stakeholders in order to avoid conflicts and unnecessarily constraints. Any plan to consolidate data centers by 2015 has to involve all stakeholders who are affected considering the limitations of their budgets. It is evident that the effort being made by the government to facilitate consolidation of data centers is not enough and more has to be done to ensure adherence to the set timeline. Some of the federal agencies are within the set timeline whereas others are lagging behind. Assistance has to be provided to agencies and firms that are experiencing challenges. The consolidation process requires the use of money and specific facilities, the federal government has to facilitate some of the requirements and play fully its oversight role to ensure compliance to the set timeline. A legislation that set hard deadlines may only cause panic and confusion in the industry without speeding the consolidation process. The federal government has to review its tactics and change some its strategies. The concerns about the legislation by other lawmakers are genuine and the sponsors of the law should reconsider its impact to all stakeholders. References Thibodeau, P. (2013), Senate looks to push U.S. Govt Data center Consolidations, CXO Media Inc. Golden, B. (2010), Cloud Computing: Why You Can't Ignore Chargeback, CIO.com. Gens, F. (2008), Defining ‘Cloud Services’ and ‘Cloud Computing’, IDC Exchange. Stair, R., & Reynolds, G. (2011), Principles of Information Systems, Cengage Learning Dodaro, G.L. (2012), Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, DIANE Publishing. Read More