2.3 Community cloud approach
Konrad Walser and Olivier Brian
In this section, the theoretical approach for a community cloud is explained in more detail. This special type of cloud brings with it additional problems and questions that need to be addressed. Possible forms for the organisation with their advantages and disadvantages are reviewed. The provision of cloud services within a community depends on the type of service model( IaaS, PaaS, SaaS). A distinction between public clouds and private clouds is made in cloud literature. In between, there are various mixed forms( hybrids) which combine the advantages and disadvantages of public and private clouds. A community cloud requires the following parameters( IDABC. 2004): defined number of SRs or SPs, number must be greater than two; shared vision and strategy; legal basis; harmonised processes and organisation; semantic agreement for collaboration; compatible technology. A central issue for the community cloud is that of the legal body responsible for the governance and management of the cloud solution( Johannsen and Goeken 2011). A legal body may be necessary to enable contracts and service level agreements for the relevant services to be concluded. Transferring the services into a community cloud is a type of outsourcing with special challenges( Johannsen and Goeken 2011). The involvement of several stakeholders with different interests complicates the organisation. There is also a technical dependency between the providers. An SaaS provider is thus dependent on the platform and infrastructure, even though it can obtain these as an isolated service. If the service is provided in geographically different locations, this requires a correspondingly high‐performing network connection between the data centres and the SR, to guarantee the availability of the data on the one hand and the desired performance of the service on the other. The advantage of using several providers is a greater availability of the overall system, whereby the individual providers do not have to offer any maximum availability. Each provider contributes towards to the overall high level of availability( Chakravartin 2010). The pooling effect can also be better exploited which may lead to cost savings for the providers. However, there are also difficulties associated with sharing the service between several providers. Duties, competencies and responsibilities must be clearly agreed between the providers, as circumstances may arise where there is no longer an individual contact person( if no institutional cloak is created for the community cloud). To create the community and ensure that it survives, specific rules for collaboration must be defined, together with objectives in and for the community. Policies and principles of governance for the cloud must be defined by all parties involved. Guidelines within the community prevent one service provider from taking over the entire service and obtaining a monopoly. However, if the demands and requirements of the community towards the service providers are too high or not lucrative enough, there will no longer be any providers willing to work with the community. For an organisation, whether it be a company or a public authority, to be able to run a cloud solution successfully, it is essential to define roles with corresponding duties, competencies and responsibilities( governance). An appropriate concept for governance and roles is particularly vital in the cloud environment, where transparency is veiled by the cloud( Retarus 2012). Alongside the SR that uses the services delivered by the SP, two further roles are also described. A broker can assume a mediating role within a community acting as an intermediary between the SR and the SP. A consortium consists of representatives from the SR and the SP. This committee provides a platform for the exchange of information and decisions that have to be made throughout the entire community. In order to shape an organisation successfully, the following is required from all parties involved( Rüter 2010): co‐operative behaviour – interest in a long‐term business relationship, and the willingness to invest in this beyond the actual terms of the contract; mutual trust – the expectation that the business partner will act with good intent and fulfil the agreed arrangements as far as possible; flexibility – the willingness to adapt the agreed arrangements if circumstances change; open and honest communication – inform the business partner in a proactive, proper and timely manner.
2.4 Roles
Starting from the development of the organisational models for the community cloud presented in the next chapter, the following roles, which helped to structure the models, can be derived. The SR receives the service to the desired extent and with the appropriate quality from the SP. In most cases, the SR pays the SP for the service consumed. The SR can also present itself as an SP towards third parties with the related services. The SP produces the desired service and can perform them in the market for one or more SRs. How the SP delivers the performance and which service it generates is dependent on its product portfolio and strategy. The SP can also obtain services from third parties in order to perform its own service. For an SP to become involved within a community, there must be an incentive that could also bring it added value. Synonyms for SP are provider and supplier. Brokers mediate the provision of services of a specific quality between the SP and the SR. Depending on the characteristics, they are organisational and / or technical mediators. The consortium can consist of representatives of the SR and the SP. It can develop and specify necessary standards and guidelines.
538