Konrad Walser and Olivier Brian
vice providers is too low for community clouds to have been realized until now. Generally cloud offerings are not considered systematically, but rather case by case. Based on one interview with a big city, the following reasons were mentioned for not taking outsourcing into account: the security argument, partly from ignorance, as well as data ownership, which is not the case with some providers.
4. Summary and outlook
The appropriateness of the selected community cloud organisational models in terms of their practicability for public administration is summarised: Broker model: this leads to lack of market transparency from SR perspective. Broker model: this leads to lack of market transparency from SR perspective. The SPs have no direct client contact. There is a danger that, due to non‐transparent prices, the broker model will not lead to success. However, it does lead to a reduction in transaction costs for the SPs and SRs( depending on the number of SPs / SRs). Open community model: a disordered or uncontrolled organisation dominates. There is no pattern for order. The SPs organise themselves. Problems arise from the question of contact persons and clear governance from the SR ' s perspective. If need be, this model can be extended through a consortium. Consortial community cloud: the consortium ensures that all parties / stakeholders are represented. At most there is the danger that larger providers are disproportionately represented or have the decisive power. Smaller, less powerful providers may be excluded. However, the SPs and SRs can be well controlled due to the involvement of all involved parties. Cloud master provider: there is a monopoly with lock‐in danger for the SR. However, there is better clarity with regard to the offering; sub‐contractors may face pricing pressure through the cloud master. Cloud with standards and guidelines: this solution is linked to the SP. Quality pressure is exerted on the SP in this model. The SP is also required to set guidelines. Guidelines may be: cloud strategies, cloud policies, cloud standards etc. A lot has already been done in this area in Switzerland( EuroCloud Swiss 2012)( Fischer 2012)( ISB 2011) and the USA( Kundra 2011). Standard based cloud: this model is linked to the SR. This model gives rise to transparency of quality and performance. Non‐community cloud: this organisational model gives rise to a kind of pseudo‐monopoly and a problematic lock‐in effect. The model creates an open market, but there is the danger that pricing models are not transparent( non‐comparability of the offerings) and that the actual services delivered by the SP are obscured. However, it should result in a very clear service catalogue. It is also very difficult to exert control over the location where the data is stored( state interests, data protection etc.). The minimal regulation organisational model is a liberal type of model. Protecting state interests( data within the state) is( depending on the provider) rather difficult. The question is how effective relevant rules are and what role standards can play. Shared service cloud: the SPs act as owners. This may mean a reduction in the number of SRs involved in a community cloud( small SPs are sidelined, large SPs have supremacy). From an administrative perspective, the broker model( reduced transaction costs), consortial community cloud model( good pooling of offerings, clear governance, ideally suited for strong, federally organised, decentralised administrative organisations) and cloud master provider model( coherent offering, but with the issues of monopoly / lock‐in / possibly difficult governance) are of particular interest for the reasons stated in brackets. Due to the federal structures, the cloud master provider model is only a realistic option if it involves an independent provider that doesn ' t already work for the administration. This raises the question of whether there are suitable providers and if possible sub‐contractors would participate. From a governance perspective for the SP, models with clear contact persons from the SR are certainly an advantage.
The following can be concluded: the benefits promised by cloud computing meet the current IT requirements of business and also public administration as shown by a short survey. However, IT has yet to reach a state of maturity where it can fully exploit the promised benefits of the cloud. The expectations of IT are to save costs, be more efficient and simultaneously react more flexibly to constantly changing requirements. In view of the maturity level of the SR in the administrative environment in the areas of IT, business IT alignment and supplier management, these partly conflicting objectives are almost incompatible with the SR ' s current IT landscape. It will therefore be difficult to deploy cloud computing, regardless of the new community cloud solutions.
5. References
Bon, J. v., DeJong, A., Kolthof, A., Pieper, M., Tjassing, R., Van der Veen, A. and Verheijen, T.( 2009) Foundations in IT Service Management basierend auf ITIL V3. Van Haren Publishing, Zaltbommel. Brian, O.( 2012) Einsatz von Community Cloud in den Schweizer Behörden, Bachelor Thesis, Berner Fachhochschule, Bern. Carr, N.( 2008) The Big Switch: Rewiring the World, from Edison to Google, W. W. Norton & Company Inc., New York: Chakravarti, A. K( 2010) Cloud Computing – Challenges and Opportunities, [ online ], cdac. in / html / pdf / articles / AKCcloud. pdf
( as of 2012‐07‐27; created 2010‐02‐03).
541