The Agile Executive

Making Agile Work

Archive for the ‘Cloud Computing’ Category

Cloud Computing Forecasts: “Cloudy” Future for Enterprise IT

leave a comment »

In a comment on The Urgency of Now, Marcel Den Hartog discusses technology assimilation in the face of hype:

But if people are already reluctant to run the things they have, on another platform they already have, on an operating system they are already familiar with (Linux on zSeries), how can you expect them to even look at cloud computing seriously? Every technological advancement requires people to adapt and change. Human nature is that we don’t like that, so it often requires a disaster to change our behavior. Or carefully planned steps to prove and convince people. However, nothing makes IT people more cautious than a hype. And that is how cloud is perceived. When the press, the analysts and the industry start writing about cloud as part of the IT solution, people will want to change. Now that it’s presented as the silver bullet to all IT problems, people are cautious to say the least.

Here is Annie Shum‘s thoughtful reply to Marcel’s comment:

Today, the Cloud era has only just begun. Despite lingering doubts, growing concerns and wide-spread confusion (especially separating media and vendor spun hype from reality), the IT industry generally views Cloud Computing as more appealing than traditional ASP /hosting or outsourcing/off-shoring. To technology-centric startups and nimble entrepreneurs, Cloud Computing enables them to punch above their weight class. By turning up-front CapEx into a more scalable and variable cost structure based on an on-demand pay-as-you-go model, Cloud Computing can provide a temporary, level playing field. Similarly, many budget-constrained and cash-strapped organizations also look to Cloud Computing for immediate (friction-free) access to “unlimited” computing resources. To wit: Cloud Computing may be considered as a utility-based alternative to an on-premises datacenter and allow an organization (notably cash-strapped startups) to “Think like a ‘big guy’. Pay like a ‘little guy’ ”.

Forward-thinking organizations should not lose sight of the vast potential of Cloud Computing that extends well beyond short-term economics. At its core, Cloud Computing is about enabling business agility and connectivity by abstracting computing infrastructure via a new set of flexible service delivery/deployment models. Harvard Business School Professor Andrew McAffee painted a “Cloudy” future for Corporate IT in his August 21, 2009 blog and cited a perceptive 1983 paper by Warren D. Devine, Jr. in the Journal of Economic History called “From Shafts to Wires: Historical Perspective on Electrification”.[1] There are three key take-away messages that resonate with the current Cloud Computing paradigm shift. First: The real impact of the new technology was not apparent right away. Second: The transition to full utilization of the new technology will be long, but inevitable. Third: There will be detractors and skeptics about the new technology throughout the transition. Interestingly, telephone is another groundbreaking disruptive technology that might have faced similar skepticism in the beginning. Legend has it that a Western Union internal memo dated 1876 downplayed the viability of the telephone: “This ‘telephone’ has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communications. The device is inherently of no value to us.”

The dominance of Cloud Computing as a computing platform, however, is far from a fait accompli. Nor will it ever be complete, a “one-size fits all” or a “big and overnight switch”. The shape of computing is constantly changing but it is always a blended and gradual transition, analogous to a modern city. While the cityscape continues to change, a complete “rip-and-replace” overhaul is rarely feasible or cost-effective. Instead, city planners generally preserve legacy structures although some of them are retrofitted with standards-based interfaces that enable them to connect to the shared infrastructure of the city. For example, the Paris city planners retrofitted Notre Dame with facilities such as electricity, water, and plumbing. Similarly, despite the passage of the last three computing paradigm shifts – first mainframe, next Client/Server and PCs, and then Web N-tier – they all co-exist and can be expected to continue in the future. Consider the following. Major shares of mission-critical business applications are running today on mainframe servers. Through application modernization, legacy applications – notably Cobol for example – now can operate in a Web 2.0 environment as well as deploy in the Cloud via the Amazon EC2 platform.

Cloud Computing can provide great appeal to a wide swath of organizations spanning startups, SMBs, ISVs, enterprise IT and government agencies. The most commonly cited benefits include the promise of avoiding CapEx and lowering TCO to on-demand elasticity, immediacy and ease of deployment, time to value, location independence and catalyzing innovation. However, there is no magic in the Cloud and it is certainly not a panacea for all IT woes. Some applications are not “Cloud-friendly”. While deploying applications in the Cloud can enable business agility incrementally, such deployment will not change the characteristics of the applications fundamentally to be highly scalable, flexible and automatically responsive to new business requirements. Realistically, one must recognize that the many of the challenging problems – security, data integration and service interoperability in particular – will persist and live on regardless of the computing delivery medium: Cloud, hosted or on-premises.

[1] “The author combed through the contemporaneous business and technology press to learn what ‘experts’ were saying as manufacturing switched over from steam to electrical power, a process that took about 50 years to complete.” – Andrew McAfee, September 21, 2009.

I will go one step further and add quality to Annie’s list of challenging problem. A crappy on-premises application will continue to be crappy in the cloud. An audit of the technical debt should be conducted before “clouding” an application. See Technical Debt on Your Balance Sheet for a recommendation on quantifying the results of the quality audit.

Advertisements

The Urgency of Now – Guest Post by Annie Shum

with 3 comments

Failure to learn, failure to anticipate, and failure to adapt are the three generic causes of military disasters. Each one of these three failures is bad enough. In combination, they can be catastrophic. Germany swiftly defeated and conquered France in 1940 due to the utter failure of the French army to grasp the nature of future war, to conceive the probable action of the German forces and to adequately react to the German initiative once it unfolded through the Ardennes. The patterns leading to the catastrophe suffered by the French are similar in some ways to the eco-meltdowns described by Jared Diamond in Collapse: How Societies Choose to Succeed or Fail.

In this guest post, colleague and friend Annie Shum poses disturbing questions with respect to our willingness and ability as IT professionals to learn, anticipate and adapt to the imperatives of Cloud Computing. Between shockingly low (15%) server capacity utilization on the one hand, and dramatic changes in the needs of the business on the other hand, companies who continue to use industrial-era IT models are at peril. Annie weaves theses and other related threads together, and makes a resounding call-to-action to re-think IT.

It is remarkable that Annie’s analysis herein of the root causes of a possible meltdown in IT identifies worrisome patterns similar to those that the Agile movement has pointed out to with respect to arcane methods of software development. The very same core problems that afflict software development manifest themselves in the IT paradigm as well as in the corresponding business design. Painful and wasteful that this repeated manifestation is, it actually creates the opportunity to manage software, IT, and the business in unison. To do so, we need to embrace a data-driven version of the economics of IT, to grasp the true nature of Cloud Computing without the hype that currently surrounds it, and to adapt software development, IT operations and business design accordingly. As the title of this post states, we need to start carrying out these three tasks now.

Here is Annie:

The Urgency of Now: The Edge of Chaos and A “Strategic Inflection Point” for IT

“It was the worst of times. It may be the best of times.” – IBM

Consider the following table. It contains a list of statistics pertaining to the enterprise datacenter index compiled by Peter Mell and Tim Grance, NIST. Overall, the statistics are sobering, perhaps even alarming, and do not bode well for the long-term sustainability of traditional on-premises datacenters. Prudent IT organizations – whether big or small, stalwart or startup – should consider this as a wake-up call. In particular, out of the almost twelve million servers in US datacenters today, the typical server capacity utilization is only around fifteen percent. Although not explicitly shown in this table, the average utilization of the mainframe z/OS servers is typically over eighty percent. However, mainframe z/OS server utilization is only a minor component of the overall average server utilization.

Statistics Enterprise Datacenter Index
11,800,000 Servers in US datacenters
15% Typical server capacity utilization
$800,000,000,000/year Purchasing & maintaining enterprise software
80% Software costs spent on maintenance: the “80-20” ratio
100x Power consumption/sq ft compared to office building
4x Increase in server power consumption, 2001 to 2006
2x Increase in number of servers, 2001 to 2006
$21,300,000 Datacenter construction cost, 9000 sq ft
$1,000,000/year Annual cost to power the datacenter
1.5% Portion of national power generation
50% Potential power reduction from green technologies
2% Portion of global carbon emissions

 

Over the years, organizations have accepted such skewed levels of server inefficiency and escalating maintenance costs of IT infrastructure as the norm. Even as organizations continue to express concerns, many seem resigned to the status quo tacitly: akin to what Bob Evans of InfoWeek described as “insurmountable laws of physics.” Looking ahead, however, the status quo may no longer be a viable option for most organizations. Due to soaring electricity/power costs compounded by the recent global financial meltdown with a near collapse of the financial system that triggered a prolonged (and for now, apparently indefinite) credit crunch, these are unparalleled strident and chaotic times for businesses. Pressured by business decision-makers who are under a heightened level of anxiety, enterprise IT is now confronting a transformative dilemma whether to preserve the status quo or to re-think IT.

On one hand, the current global recessionary down cycle is a particularly powerful (albeit rooted in fear) and instinctive deterrent to challenging the status quo. For risk-adverse organizations, it is only understandable why status quo, fundamental flaws notwithstanding, may trump disruptive change during these challenging times. On the other hand, forward-thinking decision-makers may make the bold but disruptive (radical) choice to view status quo as the fundamental problem: acknowledge the growing “urgency of now” by resolving to overcome and correct the entrenched shortcomings of enterprise IT.

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste”. That quote (or its many variations) has been attributed alike to economists and politicians. The same could be said for IT. Indeed a growing number of IT industry observers believe the profound impact of the on-going economic crisis could offer a rare window of opportunity for organizations to rethink traditional capital-intensive, command-control, on-premises IT operations and invest in new and more flexible self-service IT delivery/deployment models. Think of this defining moment as what Andy Grove, co-founder of Intel, described as the “strategic inflection point”.  He was referring to the point in the dynamic when the fundamentals of a business are about to change and “that change can mean an opportunity to rise to new heights.” Nonetheless, the choices will be hard decisions because the options are stark: either counter-intuitively invest in a down cycle by focusing on a more sustainable but disruptive trajectory or hunker down and risk irreversible shrinking business. 

As one considers how to address the challenges of today’s enterprise IT, perhaps the following two observations should be taken into account. First, despite the quantum leap in technology advancements, generally the basic design and delivery models of existing IT applications/services are variations of traditionally insular, back-office automation business tools. Second, the organizational structure and business models of most companies are deeply rooted in models of yesteryear, in many instances dating back to the Industrial Revolution. In theory, adhering to the traditional organizational model of top-down command-control can maximize predictability, efficiency and order. Heretofore, this has been the modus operandi for most organizations that Umair Haque succinctly characterized as “ industrial-era companies that make industrial-era stuff — and play by industrial-era rules.” In today’s exponential times, however, the velocity of change and the rapidly growing need of interconnecting to other organizations and automating value chains inevitably lead to an increase in uncertainty and disorder.  Strategically, forward-thinking organizations should consider seeking alternative models to address the interdependent and shifting new world order.  

In their book, “Presence – Human Purpose and the Field of the Future”, authors Peter Senge, Otto Schramer, Joe Jaworski and Betty Sue Flower observe that many of the practices of the Industrial Age appear to be largely unaffected by the changing reality of today’s society and continue to expand in today’s business organizations. They conclude with this advice:  “As long as our thinking is governed by industrial ‘machine age’ metaphors such as control, predictability, and faster is better, we will continue to re-create organizations as we have had – for the last 100 years – despite their increasing disharmony with the world and the science of the 21st century.”  Likewise, the traditional top-down command-control modus operandi of enterprise IT today does not reflect adequately and hence likely is unable to accommodate fully the transformational shift of business from silo organizations to “all thing’s digital all the time”, hyper-interconnected and hyper-interdependent ecosystems.

And Now the Bottle-neck is in Operations

with 4 comments

In his forthcoming Agile Austin presentation, colleague and friend Michael Cote will be discussing velocity in Agile development vis-a-vis velocity in IT operations. To quote Cote:

Technologies used by public web companies and now cloud computing are looking to offer a new way to deliver applications by addressing deployment and provisioning concerns. Agile software development has sped up the actual development of software, and now the bottle-neck is in operations who’re not always able to deploy software at the same velocity that Agile teams ship code. What do these technologies look like, are they realistic, and how might they affect your organization?

The topic is important from a few perspectives, such as the new business models it enables. With Agile infrastructure, a closed loop is formed between vendor and customer. This loop operates on the basis of close to real-time feedback. The new functionality in the software deployed in the afternoon could be in response to a specific need that was brought up in the morning. Hence, the business focus and the business design change from software that has already been developed and tested  (‘done done’) but not yet delivered, to one that has been developed, tested and deployed (‘done done done’) in ultra fast way. 

It should also be pointed out that the line between developing content and developing software gets really blurry nowadays. From a company perspective both software and contents are entities that are being made available for dissemination. If you accept the premise that the generation of content and development of the corresponding software should be done under a unified Agile model, the desirability, the power and the benefits of managing development and delivery in unison become obvious. When applied to both content and software, an agile infrastructure paradigm could easily transform the publishing industry, and others.

In short, the business benefits Agile Infrastructure begets trump the (very significant) operational benefits it enables.

Double Wake-up

with one comment

Computer Associates and Salesforce made the following announcement a couple of weeks ago:

SAN FRANCISCO – Salesforce.com Dreamforce Conference – November 19, 2009 – CA, Inc. (NASDAQ: CA), the leader in Enterprise IT Management, and salesforce.com (NYSE: CRM), the enterprise cloud computing company, today announced they have partnered to deliver agile development management in the cloud on the Force.com platform. Through the alliance, CA and salesforce.com intend to introduce CA Agile Planner on Force.com to help small businesses and enterprises alike accelerate development timelines while gaining control and visibility over 100 percent of their development initiatives. The intended result will be increased innovation and reduced time-to-market.

Following an e-conversation on the subject with colleague and friend Annie Shum, I would characterize this announcement as a Double Wake-up:

  • To the premise of Agile methods; and,
  • To the premise of Cloud Computing

How appropriate it is that Annie has recently posted in this blog on the two threads coming together – Cloud Computing: Agile Deployment for Agile QA Testing.

Cloud Computing Meet the Iterative Requirements of Agile

leave a comment »

It so happened that a key sentence fell between my editing fingers while publishing Annie Shum‘s splendid post Cloud Computing: Agile Deployment for Agile QA Testing. Here is the corrected paragraph with the missing sentence highlighted:

By providing virtually unlimited computing resources on-demand and without up-front CapEx or long-term commitment, QA/load stress and scalability testing in the Cloud is a good starting point. Especially, the flexibility and on-demand elasticity of the Cloud Computing meet the iterative requirements of Agile on an on-going basis. More than likely it will turn out to be one of the least risky but quick ROI pilot Cloud projects for enterprise IT. Case in point, Franz Inc, opted for the Cloud solution when confronted with the dilemma of either abandoning their critical software product testing plan across dozens of machines and databases or procuring new hardware and software that would have been cost-prohibitive. Staging the stress testing study in Amazon’s S3, Franz completed its mission within a few days. Instead of the $100K capital expense for new hardware as well as additional soft costs (such as IT staff and other maintenance costs), the cost of the Amazon’s Cloud services was under $200 and without the penalty of delays in acquisition and configuration.

Reading the whole post with this sentence in mind makes a big difference… And, it is is a little different from my partner Cote‘s perspective on the subject

My apology for the inconvenience.

Israel

Cloud Computing: Agile Deployment for Agile QA Testing

with 9 comments

Annie Shum‘s original thinking has often been quoted in this blog. Her insights are always characterized by seeing the world through the prism of fractals principles.  And, she always relentlessly pursues the connecting of the dots. In this guest post, she examines in an intriguing manner both the tactical and the strategic aspects of large scale testing in the cloud.

Here is Annie:

Cloud Computing: Agile Deployment for Agile QA Testing
Annie Shum twitter@insightspedia
Invariably, the underlying questions at the heart of every technology or business initiative are less about technology but more about the people (generally referred to as the users and consumers in the IT industry). For example, “How does this technology/initiative impact the lives and productivity of people?” or “What happens to the uses/consumers when they are offered new power or a new vehicle of empowerment?” Remarkably, very often the answers to these questions will directly as well as indirectly influence whether the technology/initiative will succeed or fail; whether its impact will be lasting or fleeting ; and whether it will be a strategic game-changer (and transform society) or a tactical short-term opportunity.
One can approach some of the Cloud-friendly applications, e.g. large scale QA and load stress testing in the Cloud, either from a tactical or from a strategic perspective. As aforementioned, the answer to the question “What happens to the uses/consumers when they are offered new power or a new vehicle of empowerment?” can influence whether a new technology initiative will be a strategic game-changer (and transform society) or a tactical short-term opportunity. In other words, think about the bacon-and-eggs analogy where the chicken is involved but the pig is committed. Look for new business models and innovation opportunities by leveraging Cloud Computing that go beyond addressing tactical issues (in particular, trading CapEx for OpEx). One example would be to explore transformative business possibilities stemming from Cloud Computing’s flexible, service-based delivery and deployment options.
Approaching Large-scale QA and Load Stress Testing in the Cloud from a Tactical Perspective
Nowadays, an enterprise organization is constantly under pressure to demonstrate ROI of IT projects. Moreover, they must be able to do this quickly and repeatedly. So as they plan for the transition to the Cloud, it is only prudent that they start small and focus on a target area that can readily showcase the Cloud potential. One of the oft-touted low hanging fruit of Cloud Computing is large scale QA (usability and functionality) testing and application load stress testing in the Cloud. Traditionally, one of the top barriers and major obstacles to comprehensive and high quality (iterative) QA testing is the lack of adequate computing resources. Not only is the shortfall due to budget constraint but also staff scheduling conflicts and the long lead time to procure new hardware/software. This can cause significant product release delays, particularly problematic with new application development under Scrum. An iterative incremental development/management framework commonly used with Agile software development, Scrum requires rapid successive releases in chunks, commonly referred to as splints. Sophisticated Agile users leverage this chunking technique as an affordable experimentation vehicle that can lead to innovationi. However, the downside is each iteration can lead to new testing needs and further compounding the QA woes.
By providing virtually unlimited computing resources on-demand and without up-front CapEx or long-term commitment, QA/load stress testing in the Cloud is a good starting point. More than likely it will turn out to be one of the least risky but quick ROI pilot Cloud projects for enterprise IT. In addition, the flexibility and on-demand elasticity of Cloud Computing meet the iterative nature of Agile on an on-going basis. Case in point, Franz Inc, opted for the Cloud solution when confronted with the dilemma of either abandoning their critical software product testing plan across dozens of machines and databases or procuring new hardware and software that would have been cost-prohibitive. Staging the stress testing study in Amazon’s S3, Franz completed its mission within a few days. Instead of the $100K capital expense for new hardware as well as additional soft costs (such as IT staff and other maintenance costs), the cost of the Amazon’s Cloud services was under $200 and without the penalty of delays in acquisition and configuration.
Approaching Large-scale QA and Load Stress Testing in the Cloud from a Strategic Perspective
While Franz Inc. leverages the granular utility payment model, the avoidance of upfront CapEx and long-term commitment for a one-off project, other entrepreneurs have decided to harness the power of on-demand QA testing in the Cloud as a new business model. Several companies, e.g. SOASTA, LoadStorm and Browsermob are now offering “Testing as a Service” also known as “Reliability as a Service” to enable businesses to test the real-world performance of their Web applications based on a utility-based, on-demand Cloud deployment model. Compared to traditional on-premises enterprise testing tool such as LoadRunner, the Cloud offerings promise to reduce complexity without any software download and up-front licensing cost. In addition, unlike conventional outsourcing models, enterprise IT can retain control of their testing scenarios. This is important because comprehensive QA testing typically requires an iterative process of test-analyze-fix-test cycle that spans weeks if not months.
Notably, all three organizations built their service offerings on Amazon EC2 infrastructure. LoadStorm launched in January 2009 and Browsermob (open source) currently in beta, each enable users to run iterative and parallel load tests directly from its Website. SOASTA, more established than the aforementioned two startups, recently showcases the viability of “Testing as a Service” business model by spawning 650 EC2 Servers to simulate load from two different availability zones to stress test a music-sharing website QTRAX. As reported by Amazon, after a 3-month iterative process of test-analyze-fix-test cycle, QTRAX can now serve 10M hits/hour and handle 500K concurrent users.
The bottom line is there are effectively two different perspectives: tactical (“involved”) versus the strategic (“committed”) and both can be successful. Moreover, the consideration of tactical versus strategic is not a discrete binary choice but a granularity spectrum that accommodates amalgamations of short term and long-term thinking. Every business must decide the best course to meet its goals.
i A shout out to Israel Gat for his insightful comment on chunking as a vehicle for innovation.

Invariably, the underlying questions at the heart of every technology or business initiative are less about technology but, as Clive Thompson of Wired Magazine observed, more about the people (generally referred to as the users and consumers in the IT industry). For example, “How does this technology/initiative impact the lives and productivity of people?” or “What happens to the uses/consumers when they are offered new power or a new vehicle of empowerment?” Remarkably, very often the answers to these questions will directly as well as indirectly influence whether the technology/initiative will succeed or fail; whether its impact will be lasting or fleeting ; and whether it will be a strategic game-changer (and transform society) or a tactical short-term opportunity.

One can approach some of the Cloud-friendly applications, e.g. large scale QA and load stress testing in the Cloud, either from a tactical or from a strategic perspective. As aforementioned, the answer to the question “What happens to the uses/consumers when they are offered new power or a new vehicle of empowerment?” can influence whether a new technology initiative will be a strategic or tactical. In other words, think about the bacon-and-eggs analogy where the chicken is involved but the pig is committed. Look for new business models and innovation opportunities by leveraging Cloud Computing that go beyond addressing tactical issues (in particular, trading CapEx for OpEx). One example would be to explore transformative business possibilities stemming from Cloud Computing’s flexible, service-based delivery and deployment options.

Approaching Large-scale QA and Load Stress Testing in the Cloud from a Tactical Perspective

Nowadays, an enterprise organization is constantly under pressure to demonstrate ROI of IT projects. Moreover, they must be able to do this quickly and repeatedly. So as they plan for the transition to the Cloud, it is only prudent that they start small and focus on a target area that can readily showcase the Cloud potential. One of the oft-touted low hanging fruit of Cloud Computing is large scale QA (usability and functionality) testing and application load stress testing in the Cloud. Traditionally, one of the top barriers and major obstacles to conducting comprehensive, iterative and massively parallel QA test cases is the lack of adequate computing resources. Not only is the shortfall due to budget constraint but also staff scheduling conflicts and the long lead time to procure new hardware/software. This can cause significant product release delays, particularly problematic with new application development under Scrum. An iterative incremental development/management framework commonly used with Agile software development, Scrum requires rapid successive releases in chunks, commonly referred to as splints. Advanced Agile users leverage this chunking technique as an affordable experimentation vehicle that can lead to innovation. However, the downside is the rapid accumulation of new testing needs.

By providing virtually unlimited computing resources on-demand and without up-front CapEx or long-term commitment, QA/load stress and scalability testing in the Cloud is a good starting point. Especially, the flexibility and on-demand elasticity of the Cloud Computing meet the iterative requirements of Agile on an on-going basis. More than likely it will turn out to be one of the least risky but quick ROI pilot Cloud projects for enterprise IT. Case in point, Franz Inc, opted for the Cloud solution when confronted with the dilemma of either abandoning their critical software product testing plan across dozens of machines and databases or procuring new hardware and software that would have been cost-prohibitive. Staging the stress testing study in Amazon’s S3, Franz completed its mission within a few days. Instead of the $100K capital expense for new hardware as well as additional soft costs (such as IT staff and other maintenance costs), the cost of the Amazon’s Cloud services was under $200 and without the penalty of delays in acquisition and configuration.

Approaching Large-scale QA and Load Stress Testing in the Cloud from a Strategic Perspective

While Franz Inc. leverages the granular utility payment model, the avoidance of upfront CapEx and long-term commitment for a one-off project, other entrepreneurs have decided to harness the power of on-demand QA testing in the Cloud as a new business model. Several companies, e.g. SOASTA, LoadStorm and Browsermob are now offering “Testing as a Service” also known as “Reliability as a Service” to enable businesses to test the real-world performance of their Web applications based on a utility-based, on-demand Cloud deployment model. Compared to traditional on-premises enterprise testing tool such as LoadRunner, the Cloud offerings promise to reduce complexity without any software download and up-front licensing cost. In addition, unlike conventional outsourcing models, enterprise IT can retain control of their testing scenarios. This is important because comprehensive QA testing typically requires an iterative process of test-analyze-fix-test cycle that spans weeks if not months.

Notably, all three organizations built their service offerings on Amazon EC2 infrastructure. LoadStorm launched in January 2009 and Browsermob (open source) currently in beta, each enable users to run iterative and parallel load tests directly from its Website. SOASTA, more established than the aforementioned two startups, recently showcases the viability of “Testing as a Service” business model by spawning 650 EC2 Servers to simulate load from two different availability zones to stress test a music-sharing website QTRAX. As reported by Amazon, after a 3-month iterative process of test-analyze-fix-test cycle, QTRAX can now serve 10M hits/hour and handle 500K concurrent users.

The bottom line is there are effectively two different perspectives: tactical (“involved”) versus the strategic (“committed”) and both can be successful. Moreover, the consideration of tactical versus strategic is not a discrete binary choice but a granularity spectrum that accommodates amalgamations of short term and long-term thinking. Every business must decide the best course to meet its goals.

P.S.  A shout out to Israel Gat for not only allowing me to post my piece today but for his always insightful comments in our daily email exchanges.