Transcript of a discussion on how cloud adoption is not reaching its potential due to outdated behaviors and persistent dissonance between what businesses can do and will do with cloud model strengths.
Dark Side of Cloud Adoption: People and Organizations Unable to Adapt and Improve the Business
Page 1 of 15
Dark Side of Cloud Adoption:
People and Organizations Unable
to Adapt and Improve the Business
Transcript of a discussion on how cloud adoption is not reaching its potential due to
outdated behaviors and persistent dissonance between what businesses can do and will
do with cloud model strengths.
Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes. Download the transcript. Sponsor:
Hewlett Packard Enterprise.
Dana Gardner: Hello, and welcome to the next edition of the BriefingsDirect Voice of
the Analyst podcast series. I’m Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions,
your host and moderator for this ongoing discussion on the latest insights into hybrid IT
and cloud computing.
Many of our ongoing discussions focus on infrastructure trends that support the evolving
hybrid IT continuum. Today’s focus shifts to behavior -- how individuals and groups, both
large and small, benefit from cloud adoption.
It turns out that a dark side to cloud points to a lackluster business outcome trend. A
large part of the disappointment has to do with outdated behaviors and persistent
dissonance between what line of business (LOB) practitioners can do and will do with
their newfound cloud strengths.
We’ll now hear from an observer of worldwide
cloud adoption patterns on why making cloud
models a meaningful business benefit rests more
with adjusting the wetware than any other variable.
Here to help explore why cloud failures and cost
overruns are dogging many enterprises is Robert
Christiansen, Vice President, Global Delivery,
Cloud Professional Services and Innovation at
Cloud Technology Partners (CTP), a Hewlett
Packard Enterprise (HPE) company.
Robert Christiansen: Thank you for having me,
Page 2 of 15
Gardner: What is happening now with the adoption of cloud that makes the issue of how
people react such a pressing concern? What’s bringing this to a head now?
Fits and starts
Christiansen: Enterprises are on a cloud journey. They have begun their investment,
they recognize that agility is a mandate for them, and they want to get those teams
rolling. They have already done that to some degree and extent. They may be moving a
few applications, or they may be doing wholesale shutdowns of data centers. They are in
lots of different phases in adoption situations.
What we are seeing is a lack of progress with regard to the speed and momentum of the
adoption of applications into public clouds. It’s going a little slower than they’d like.
Gardner: We have been through many evolutions, generations, and even step-changes
in technology. Most of them have been in a progressive direction. Why are we catching
our heels now?
Christiansen: Cloud is a completely different modality, Dana. One of the things that we
have learned here is that adoption of infrastructure that can be built from the ground-up
using software is a whole other way of thinking that has never really been the core
bread-and-butter of an infrastructure or a central IT team. So, the thinking and the
process -- the ability to change things on the fly from an infrastructure point of view -- is
just a brand new way of doing things.
And we have had various fits and starts around
technology adoption throughout history, but
nothing at this level. The tool kits available today
have completely changed and redefined how we
go about doing this stuff.
Gardner: We are not just changing a deployment pattern, we are reinventing the
concept of an application. Instead of monolithic applications and systems of record that
people get trained on and line up around, we are decomposing processes into services
that require working across organizational boundaries. The users can also access data
and insights in ways they never had before. So that really is something quite different.
Even the concept of an application is up for grabs.
Christiansen: Well, think about this. Historically, an application team or a business unit,
let’s say in a bank, said, “Hey, I see an opportunity to reinvent how we do funding for
We worked with a company that did this. And historically, they would have had to jump
through a bunch of hoops. They would justify the investment of buying new
infrastructure, set up the various components necessary, maybe landing new hardware
The tool kits available today
have completely changed
how we go about doing
Page 3 of 15
in the organization, and going into the procurement process for all of that. Typically, in
the financial world, it takes months to make that happen.
Today, that same team using a very small investment can stand up a highly available
redundant data center in less than a day on a public cloud. In less than a day, using a
software-defined framework. And now they can go iterate and test and have very low
risk to see if the marketplace is willing to accept the kind of solution they want to offer.
And that just blows apart the procedural-based thinking that we have had up to this
point; it just blows it apart. And that thinking, that way of looking at stuff is foreign to most
central IT people. Because of that emotion, going to the cloud has come in fits and
starts. Some people are doing it really well, but a majority of them are struggling
because of the people issue.
Gardner: It seems ironic, Robert, because typically when you run into too much of a
good thing, you slap on governance and put in central command and control, and you
throttle it back. But that approach subverts the benefits, too.
How do you find a happy medium? Or is there such a thing as a happy medium when it
comes to moderating and governing cloud adoption?
Christiansen: That’s where the real rub is, Dana. Let’s
give it an analogy. At Cloud Technology Partners (CTP),
we do cloud adoption workshops where we bring in all
the various teams and try to knock down the silos. They
get into these conversations to address exactly what
you just said. “How do we put governance in place
without getting in the way of innovation?”
It’s a huge, huge problem, because the central IT team’s whole job is to protect the
brand of the company and keep the client data safe. They provide the infrastructure
necessary for the teams to go out and do what they need to do.
When you have a structure like that but supplied by the public clouds like Amazon
(AWS), Google, and Microsoft Azure, you still have the ability to put in a lot of those
controls in the software. Before it was done either manually or at least semi-manually.
The challenge is that the central IT teams are not necessarily set up with the skills to
make that happen. They are not by nature software development people. They are
hardware people. They are rack and stack people. They are people who understand how
to stitch this stuff together -- and they may use some automation. But as a whole it’s
never been their core competency. So therein lies the rub: How do you convert these
teams over to think in that new way?
How do we put
governance in place
without getting in the
way of innovation?
Page 4 of 15
At the same time, you have the pressing issue of, “Am I going to automate myself right
out of a job?” That’s the other part, right? That’s the big, 800-pound gorilla sitting in the
corner that no one wants to talk about. How do you deal with that?
Gardner: Are we talking about private cloud, public cloud, hybrid cloud, hybrid IT -- all
the above when it comes to these trends?
Christiansen: It’s mostly public cloud that you see the perceived threats. The public
cloud is perceived as a threat to the current way of doing IT today, if you are an internal
Let’s say that you are a classic compute and management person. You actually split
across both storage and compute, and you are able to manage and handle a lot of those
infrastructure servers and storage solutions for your organization. You may be part of a
team of 50 in a data center or for a couple of data centers. Many of those classic roles
literally go away with a public cloud implementation. You just don’t need them. So these
folks need to pivot or change into new roles or reinvent themselves.
Let’s say you’re the director of that group and you happen to be five years away from
retirement. This actually happened to me, by the way. There is no way these folks want
to give up the range right before their retirement. They don’t want to reinvent their roles
just before they’re going to go into their last years.
They literally said to me, “I am not changing
my career this far into it for the sake of a
public cloud reinvention.” They are hunkering
down, building up the walls, and slowing the
process. This seems to be an undercurrent in
a number of areas where people just don’t
want to change. They don’t want any
Gardner: Just to play the devil’s advocate, when you hear things around serverless,
when we see more operations automation, when we see artificial intelligence (AI) Ops
use AI and machine learning (ML) -- it does get sort of scary.
You’re handing over big decisions within an IT environment on whether to use public or
private, some combination, or multicloud in some combination. These capabilities are
coming into fruition.
Maybe we do need to step back and ask, “Just because you can do something, should
you?” Isn’t that more than just protecting my career? Isn’t there a need for careful
consideration before we leap into some of these major new trends?
They literally said to me, “I am
not changing my career this far
into it for the sake of a public
cloud reinvention.” They are
hunkering down, building up the
walls, and slowing the process.
Page 5 of 15
Transform fear into function
Christiansen: Of course, yeah. It’s a hybrid world. There are applications where it may
not make sense to be in the public cloud. There are legacy applications. There are what
I call centers of gravity that are database-centric; the business runs on them. Moving
them and doing a big lift over to a public cloud platform may not make financial sense.
There is no real benefit to it to make that happen. We are going to be living between an
on-premises and a public cloud environment for quite some time.
The challenge is that people want to create a holistic view of all of that. How do I govern
it in one view and under one strategy? And that requires a lot of what you are talking
about, being more cautious going forward.
And that’s a big part of what we have done at
CTP. We help people establish that
governance framework, of how to put
automation in place to pull these two worlds
together, and to make it more seamless.
How do you network between the two
environments? How do you create low-
latency communications between your sources of data and your sources of truth?
Making that happen is what we have been doing for the last five or six years.
The challenge we have, Dana, is that once we have established that -- we call that
methodology the Minimum Viable Cloud (MVC). And after you put all of that structure,
rigor, and security in place -- we still run into the problems of motion and momentum.
Those needed governance frameworks are well-established.
Gardner: Before we dig into why the cloud adoption inertia still exists, let’s hear more
about CTP. You were acquired by HPE not that long ago. Tell us about your role and
how that fits into HPE.
CTP: A cloud pioneer
Christiansen: CTP was established in 2010. Originally, we were doing mostly private
cloud, OpenStack stuff, and we did that for about two to three years, up to 2013.
I am one of the first 20 employees. It’s a Boston-based company, and I came over with
the intent to bring more public cloud into the practice. We were seeing a lot of uptick at
the time. I had just come out of another company called Cloud Nation that I owned. I
sold that company; it was an Amazon-based, Citrix-for-rent company. So imagine, if you
would, you swipe a credit card and you get NetScaler, XenApp and XenDesktop running
on top of AWS way back in 2012 and 2013.
We help people establish that
governance framework, of how
to put automation in place to pull
these two worlds together, and
to make it more seamless.
Page 6 of 15
I sold that company, and I joined CTP. We grew the practice of public cloud on Google,
Azure, and AWS over those years and we became the leading cloud-enabled
professional services organization in the world.
We were purchased by HPE in October
2017, and my role since that time is to
educate, evangelize, and press deeply into
the methodologies for adopting public cloud
in a holistic way so it works well with what
people have on-premises. That includes the
technologies, economics, strategies,
organizational change, people, security, and
establishing a DevOps practice in the organization. These are all within our world.
We do consultancy and professional services advisory types of things, but on the same
coin, we flip it over, and we have a very large group of engineers and architects who are
excellent on keyboards. These are the people who actually write software code to help
make a lot of this stuff automated to move people to the public clouds. That’s what we
are doing to this day.
Gardner: We recognize that cloud adoption is a step-change, not an iteration in the
evolution of computing. This is not going from client/server to web apps and then to N-
Tier architectures. We are bringing services and processes into a company in a whole
new way and refactoring that company. If you don’t, the competition or a new upstart
unicorn company is going to eat your lunch. We certainly have seen plenty of examples
So what prevents organizations from both seeing and realizing the cloud potential? Is
this a matter of skills? Is it because everyone is on the cusp of retirement and politically
holding back? What can we identify as the obstacles to overcome to break that inertia?
A whole new ball game
Christiansen: From my perspective, we are right in the thick of it. CTP has been
involved with many Fortune 500 companies through this process.
The technology is ubiquitous, meaning that everybody in the marketplace now can own
pretty much the same technology. Dana, this is a really interesting thought. If a team of
10 Stanford graduates can start up a company to disrupt the rental car industry, which
somebody has done, by the way, and they have access to technologies that were only
once reserved for those with hundreds of millions of dollars in IT budgets, you have all
sorts of other issues to deal with, right?
So what’s your competitive advantage? It’s not access to the technologies. The true
competitive advantage now for any company is the people and how they consume and
use the technology to solve a problem. Before [the IT advantage] was reserved for those
My role is to educate,
evangelize, and press deeply
into the methodologies for
adopting public cloud in a
holistic way so it works well with
what people have on-premises.
Page 7 of 15
who had access to the technology. That’s gone away. We now have a level playing field.
Anybody with a credit card can spin up a big data solution today – anybody. And that’s
amazing, that’s truly amazing.
For an organization that had always fallen back on their big iron or infrastructure -- those
processes they had as their competitive advantage -- that now has become a detriment.
That’s now the thing that’s slowing them down. It’s the anchor holding them back, and
the processes around it. That rigidity of people and process locks them into doing the
same thing over and over again. It is a serious obstacle.
Untangle spaghetti systems
Another major issue came very much as a surprise, Dana. We observed it over the last
couple of years of doing application inventory assessments for people considering
shutting down data centers. They were looking at their applications, the ones holding the
assets of data centers, as not competitive. And they asked, “Hey, can we shut down a
data center and move a lot of it to the public cloud?”
We at CTP were hired to do what are called application assessments, economic
evaluations. We determine if there is a cost validation for doing a lift-and-shift [to the
public cloud]. And the number-one obstacle was inventory. The configuration
management data bases (CMDBs), which hold the inventory of where all the servers are
and what’s running on them for these organizations, were wholly out of date. Many of the
CMDBs just didn’t give us an accurate view of it all.
When it came time to understand
what applications were actually
running inside the four walls of the
data centers -- nobody really knew.
As a matter of fact, nobody really
knew what applications were
talking to what applications, or how
much data was being moved back
and forth. They were so complex;
we would be talking about hundreds, if not thousands, of applications intertwined with
themselves, sharing data back and forth. And nobody inside organizations understood
which applications were connected to which, how many there were, which ones were
important, and how they worked.
Years of managing that world has created such a spaghetti mess behind those walls that
it’s been exceptionally difficult for organizations to get their hands around what can be
moved and what can’t. There is great integration within the systems.
The third part of this trifecta of obstacles to moving to the cloud is, as we mentioned,
people not wanting to change their behaviors. They are locked in to the day-to-day
motion of maintaining those systems and are not really motivated to go beyond that.
When it came to [understanding] what
applications were actually running
inside the four walls of the data centers
– nobody really knew ... what
applications were talking to what
applications, or how much data was
being moved back and forth.
Page 8 of 15
Gardner: I can see why they would find lots of reasons to push off to another day, rather
than get into solving that spaghetti maze of existing data centers. That’s hard work, it’s
very difficult to synthesize that all into new apps and services.
Christiansen: It was hard enough just virtualizing these systems, never mind trying to
pull it all apart.
Gardner: Virtualizing didn’t solve the larger problem, it just paved the cow paths, gained
some efficiency, reduced poor server utilization -- but you still have that spaghetti, you
still have those processes that can’t be lifted out. And if you can’t do that, then you are
Christiansen: Exactly right.
Gardner: Companies for many years have faced other issues of entrenchment and
incumbency, which can have many downsides. Many of them have said, “Okay, we are
going to create a Skunk Works, a new division within the company, and create a seed
organization to reinvent ourselves.” And maybe they begin subsuming other elements of
the older company along the way.
Is that what the cloud and public cloud utilization within IT is doing? Why wouldn’t that
proof of concept (POC) and Skunk Works approach eventually overcome the digital
Clandestine cloud strategists
Christiansen: That’s a great question, and I immediately thought of a client who we
helped. They have a separate team that re-wrote or rebuilt an application using
serverless on Amazon. It’s now a fairly significant revenue generator for them, and they
did it almost two and-a-half years ago.
It uses a few cloud servers, but mostly they rely on the messaging backbones and non-
server-based platform-as-a-service (PaaS) layers of AWS to solve their problem. They
are a consumer credit company and have a lot of customer-facing applications that they
generate revenue from on this new platform.
The team behind the solution educated
themselves. They were forward-thinkers and saw
the changes in public cloud. They received
permission from the business unit to break away
from the central IT team’s standard processes, and
they completely redefined the whole thing.
The team really knocked it out of the park. So, high success. They were able to hold it
up and tried to extend that success back into the broader IT group. The IT group, on the
The team behind the
themselves. They were
forward thinkers and saw
the changes in public cloud.
Page 9 of 15
other hand, felt that they wanted more of a multicloud strategy. They weren’t going to
have all their eggs in Amazon. They wanted to give the business units options, of either
going to Amazon, Azure, or Google. They wanted to still have a uniform plane of
compute for on-premises deployments. So they brought in Red Hat’s OpenShift, and
they overlaid that, and built out a [hybrid cloud] platform.
Now, the Red Hat platform, I personally had had no direct experience, but I had heard
good things about it. I had heard of people who adopted it and saw benefits. This
particular environment though, Dana, the business units themselves rejected it.
The core Amazon team said, “We are not doing that because we’re skilled in Amazon.
We understand it, we’re using AWS CloudFormation. We are going to write code to the
applications, we are going to use Lambda whenever we can.” They said, “No, we are not
doing that [hybrid and multicloud platform approach].”
Other groups then said, “Hey, we’re an Azure shop, and we’re not going to be tied up
around Amazon because we don’t like the Amazon brand.” And all that political stuff
arose, they just use Azure, and decided to go shooting off on their own and did not use
the OpenShift platform because, at the time, the tool stacks were not quite what they
needed to solve their problems.
The company ended up getting a fractured view. We recommended that they go on an
education path, to bring the people up to speed on what OpenShift could do for them.
Unfortunately, they opted not to do that -- and they are still wrestling with this problem.
CTP and I personally believe that this was an issue of
education, not technology, and not opportunity. They needed
to lean in, sponsor, and train their business units. They
needed to teach the app builders and the app owners on why
this was good, the advantages of doing it, but they never
invested the time. They built it and hoped that the users
would come. And now they are dealing with the challenges of
the blowback from that.
Gardner: What you’re describing, Robert, sounds an awful lot like basic human nature,
particularly with people in different or large groups. So, politics, right? The conundrum is
that when you have a small group of people, you can often get them on board. But there
is a certain cut-off point where the groups are too large, and you lose control, you lose
synergy, and there is no common philosophy. It’s Balkanization; it’s Europe in 1916.
Christiansen: Yeah, that is exactly it.
Gardner: Very difficult hurdles. These are problems that humankind has been dealing
with for tens of thousands of years, if not longer. So, tribalism, politics. How does a fleet
organization learn from what software development has come up with to combat some of
these political issues? I’m thinking of Agile methodologies, scrums, and having short
This is an issue
of education, not
Page 10 of 15
bursts, lots of communication, and horizontal rather than command-and-control
structures. Those sorts of things.
Find common ground first
Christiansen: Well, you nailed it. How you get this done is the question. How do you
get some kind of agility throughout the organization to make this happen? And there are
successes out there, whole organizations, 4,000 or 5,000 or 6,000 people, have been
able to move. And we’ve been involved with them. The best practices that we see today,
Dana, are around allowing the businesses themselves to select the platforms to go deep
on, to get good at.
Let’s say you have a business unit generating $300 million a year with some service.
They have money, they are paying the IT bill. But they want more control, they want
more the “dev” from the DevOps process.
They are going to provide much of that on their own, but they still need core common
services from central IT team. This is the most important part. They need the core
services, such as identity and access management, key management, logging and
monitoring, and they need networking. There is a set of core functions that the central
team must provide.
And we help those central teams to find and govern those services. Then, the business
units [have cloud model choice and freedom as long as they] consume those core
services -- the access and identity process, the key management services, they encrypt
what they are supposed to, and they use the networking functions. They set up
separation of the services appropriately, based on standards. And they use automation
to keep them safe. Automation prevents them from doing silly things, like leaving
unencrypted AWS S3 buckets open to the public Internet, things like that.
You now have software that does all of that automation. You can turn those tools on and
then it’s like a playground, a protected playground. You say, “Hey, you can come out into
this playground and do whatever you want, whether it’s on Azure or Google, or on
Amazon or on-premises.”
“Here are the services, and if
you adopt them in this way, then
you, as the team, can go deep,
you can use Application
programming interface (API)
calls, you can use
CloudFoundation or Python or
whatever happens to be the
scripting language you want to
build your infrastructure with.”
Here are the services, and if you adopt them
in this way, then you, as the team, can go
deep, you can use API calls, you can use
CloudFoundation or Python or whatever
happens to be the scripting language you
want to build your infrastructure with.
Page 11 of 15
Then you have the ability to let those teams do what they want. If you notice, what it
doesn’t do is overlay a common PaaS layer, which isolates the hyperscale public cloud
provider from your work. That’s a whole other food fight, religious battle, Dana, around
lock-in and that kind of conversation.
Gardner: Imposing your will on everyone else doesn’t seem to go over very well.
So what you’re describing, Robert, is a right-sizing for agility, and fostering a separate-
but-equal approach. As long as you can abstract to the services level, and as long as
you conform to a certain level of compliance for security and governance -- let’s see who
can do it better. And let the best approach to cloud computing win, as long as your
processes end up in the right governance mix.
Development power surges
Christiansen: People have preferences, right? Come on! There’s been a Linux and
.NET battle since I have been in business. We all have preferences, right? So, how you
go about coding your applications is really about what you like and what you don’t like.
Developers are quirky people. I was a C programmer for 14 years, I get it.
The last thing you want to do is completely blow up your routines by taking development
back and starting over with a whole bunch of new languages and tools. Then they’re
trying to figure out how to release code, test code, and build up a continuous
integration/continuous delivery pipeline that is familiar and fast.
These are really powerful personal stories that
have to be addressed. You have to understand
that. You have to understand that the
development community now has the power --
they have the power, not the central IT teams.
That shift has occurred. That power shift is
monumental across the ecosystem. You have to
pay attention to that.
If the people don’t feel like they have a choice, they will go around you, which is where
the problems are happening.
Gardner: I think the power has always been there with the developers inside of their
organizations. But now it’s blown out of the development organization and has seeped
up right into the line of business units.
Christiansen: Oh, that’s a good point.
Gardner: Your business strategy needs to consider all the software development issues,
and not just leave them under the covers. We’re probably saying the same thing. I just
see the power of development choice expanding, but I think it’s always been there.
You have to understand that
the development community
now has the power – they have
the power, not the central IT
teams. That shift has occurred.
Page 12 of 15
But that leads to the question, Robert, of what kind of leadership person can be mindful
of a development culture in an organization, and also understand the line of business
concerns. They must appreciate the C-suite strategies. If you are a public company,
keeping Wall Street happy, and keeping the customer expectations met because those
are always going up nowadays.
It seems to me we are asking an awful lot of a person or small team that sits at the
middle of all of this. It seems to me that there’s an organizational and a talent
management deficit, or at least something that’s unprecedented.
Christiansen: It is. It really is. And this brings us to a key piece to our conversation.
And that is the talent enablement. It is now well beyond how we’ve classically looked at
Some really good friends of mine run learning and development organizations and they
have consulting companies that do talent and organizational change, et cetera. And they
are literally baffled right now at the dramatic shift in what it takes to get teams to work
In the more flexible-thinking communities of up-and-coming business, a lot of the folks
that start businesses today are technology people. They may end up in the coffee
industry or in the restaurant industry, but these folks know technology. They are not
unaware of what they need to do to use technology.
So, business knowledge and
technology knowledge are mixing
together. They are good when they
get swirled together. You can’t live
with one and not have the other.
For example, a developer needs to understand the implications of economics when they
write something for cloud deployment. If they build an application that does not
economically work inside the constructs of the new world, that’s a bad business
decision, but it’s in the hands of the developer.
It’s an interesting thing. We’ve had that need for developer-empowerment before, but
then you had a whole other IT group put restrictions on them, right? They’d say, “Hey,
there’s only so much hardware you get. That’s it. Make it work.” That’s not the case
Business knowledge and technology
knowledge are mixing together … You can’t
live with one and not have the other.
Page 13 of 15
At the same time, you now have an operations person involved with figuring out how to
architect for the cloud, and they may think that the developers do not understand what
has to come together.
As a result, we have created a whole new training track category called Talent
Enablement that CTP and HPE have put together around the actual consumers of cloud.
We have found that much of an organization’s delay in rolling this out is because the
people who are consuming the cloud are not ready or knowledgeable enough on how to
maximize their investment in cloud. This is not for the people building up those core
services that I talked about, but for the consumers of the services, the business units.
We are rolling that out later this year, a full Talent Enablement track around those new
Gardner: This targets the people in that line of business, decision-making, planning, and
execution role. It brings them up to speed on what cloud really means, how to consume
it. They can then be in a position of bringing teams together in ways that hadn’t been
possible before. Is that what you are getting at?
Christiansen: That’s exactly right. Let me give you an example. We did this for a
telecommunications company about a year ago. They recognized that they were not
going to be able to roll out their common core services.
The central team had built out about 12 common core services, and they knew almost
immediately that the rest of the organization, the 11 other lines of business, were not
ready to consume them.
They had been asking for it, but they weren’t
ready to actually drive this new Ferrari that
they had asked for. There were more than
5,000 people who needed to be up-skilled on
how to consume the services that a team of
about 100 people had put together.
Now, these are not classic technical services like AWS architecture, security
frameworks, or Access control list (ACL) and Network ACL (NACL) for networking traffic,
or how you connect back and backhaul, that kind of stuff. None of that.
I’m talking about how to make sure you don’t get a cloud bill that’s out of whack. How do
I make sure that my team is actually developing in the right way, in a safe way? How do I
make sure my team understands the services we want them to consume so that we can
They weren’t ready to drive this
new Ferrari that they had asked for
... more than 5,000 people needed
to be up-skilled on how to consume
the services that a team of about
100 people had put together.
Page 14 of 15
It was probably 10 or 12 basic use domains. The teams simply didn’t understand how to
consume the services. So we helped this organization build a training program to bring
up the skills of these 4000 to 5000 people.
Now think about that. That has to happen in every global Fortune 2000 company where
you may only have a central team of a 100, and maybe 50 cloud people. But they may
need to turn over the services to 1,000 people.
We have a massive, massive,
training, up-skilling, and enablement
process that has to happen over the
next several years.
Gardner: I’m afraid we’ll have to leave it there. We’ve been exploring how a large part of
the disappointment with cloud-based business outcomes has to do with outdated
behaviors and even persistent dissonance between what line of business practitioners
can do and what they should do with their new cloud strength.
And we’ve learned why making cloud models meaningful businesses rests more with the
people, change management, and talent management than just about anything else.
Please join me in thanking our guest, Robert Christiansen, Vice President, Global
Delivery of Cloud Professional Services and Innovation at Cloud Technology Partners,
an HPE company.
Robert, thank you so much. I really enjoyed it.
Christiansen: Thanks, Dana. I did too. I hope to come back again.
Gardner: And thanks also to our audience for joining this BriefingsDirect Voice of the
Analyst hybrid IT and cloud computing strategies interview.
I’m Dana Gardner, Principal Analyst at Interarbor Solutions, your host for this ongoing
series of Hewlett Packard Enterprise-sponsored discussions. Thanks again for listening.
Please pass this along to your IT community and do come back next time.
Listen to the podcast. Find it on iTunes. Download the transcript. Sponsor:
Hewlett Packard Enterprise.
Transcript of a discussion on how cloud adoption is not reaching its potential due to
outdated behaviors and persistent dissonance between what businesses can do and will
do with cloud model strengths. Copyright Interarbor Solutions, LLC, 2005-2018. All rights
You may also be interested in:
We have a massive, massive, training, up-
skilling, and enablement process that has
to happen over the next several years.
Page 15 of 15
• Better management of multicloud IaaS proves accelerant to developer productivity
for European gaming leader Magellan Robotech
• Ryder Cup provides extreme use case for managing the digital edge for 250K mobile
• How Norway’s Fatland beat back ransomware thanks to a rapid backup and recovery
data protection stack
• How hybrid cloud deployments gain traction via Equinix datacenter adjacency
coupled with the Cloud28+ ecosystem
• HPE and Citrix team up to make hybrid cloud-enabled workspaces simpler to deploy
• Citrix and HPE team to bring simplicity to the hybrid core-cloud-edge architecture
• New strategies emerge to stem the costly downside of complex cloud choices
• Huge waste in public cloud spend sets stage for next wave of total cloud governance
decisions, says 451’s Fellows
• How HPE and Docker together accelerate and automate hybrid cloud adoption