The empty hotel

This sad story on what could have been the largest hotel in the world has a lot of similarities with what happens with ambitious (Cloud) platform attempts. 

You see, often a big investment is made in a state-of-the-art platform, but in reality the adoption of the platform in terms of workloads or applications is extremely low.  Just like the Ryugyong Hotel, the platform remains empty. Setting up such a platform successfully involves a number of complexities you need to think of before constructing your state-of-the-art prestige project. 

First of all, you need to get your business value and (Cloud) strategy clear. A Cloud migration will not result in ‘cheaper IT’, since the exact cost implications depend on architectural migration choices.  In other words, the business value must come from something else.  And to be more precise: from somewhere else.  The central platform team is not in the best position to make statements on business value.  It is the business teams (IT and other) that should be in the driving seat to clearly articulate the business value. However, the central platform team can help to shape this.  We see that ‘empty platforms’ are very often the result of an unclear business value proposition or strategic vision. Because, closely related to the previous topic, is the absence of a strategic (platform) vision.  The central team is having a full Cloud roadmap, but one question remains unanswered: why would the business agree to that roadmap?  What is in it for them? 

Secondly, a clear business value and platform vision should be complemented with clear accountability models. Clarity on who does what or who is accountable for a task or an activity, are crucial in every organisation. However, business critical workloads can only be operated in a business critical manner if there is clear agreement on accountability.  And these accountabilities will shift from where they are in an on-premises only world.  A clear accountability model is not an easy, quick thing to achieve, however.  The accountabilities will shift depending on the architectural models you will use.  It would lead us too far to discuss this in detail here, but. – the key point is: unclarity on accountabilities is one of the drivers for low platform adoption or usage. 

When your business value is clearly defined, stakeholders are known and everyone is aware of his accountability, you can start building your state-of-the-art platform. And just like a Hotel consisting of 3000 rooms, 105 floors, 3 wings and 7 restaurants there are a number of other things you need to consider in your platform. 

Skilling: The adoption of a new (Cloud) platform comes with a new set of skills requirements.  Not only on the platform team side, but also in the application/business teams.  However, simply hiring new skills is not the solution. You see, there already is an existing team with extensive knowledge of the current environment and business needs.  That team needs to be trained and partly re-skilled. Besides, just hiring external consultants for all the new technology is not a long-term solution either.  The adoption of a new Cloud) platform needs a real skills and resourcing roadmap. 

Self Services vs Enablement: If your central (platform) team is doing all the projects, this will never scale.  To scale Cloud adoption, you need decentral teams picking up application and solution development.  The theory says that building a self-service catalogue is the way to go.  The reality is that this will not be enough to drive the adoption of your (Cloud) platform.  The most pragmatic solution is to provide temporary enablement functions.  An example : do you need a Cloud architect with IoT knowledge to boost a project?  This can be provided from a central enablement team. 

Financial certainty: A Cloud platform is a consumption based financial setup:  you pay what you consume.  And you are invoiced afterwards.  This means that budgeting, forecasting and a lot of other typical scenarios will be fundamentally different.  When this domain is not under control, businesses will be reluctant to commit to Cloud-based workloads. 

Focus: A new platform requires special focus.  In mature organisations we see a trend to talk about a centre of excellence or a platform team.  One team covering the full spectrum: multiple Cloud and on-premises.  Eventually, the ‘Cloud’ disappears from the ‘Cloud centre of excellence’.  Until you get to that maturity point, special focus and attention is needed in the form of a dedicated group of transformation specialists, a dedicated team, and a dedicated organisation structure.  While this is not the end state, it helps to get the ball rolling. 

Finally, even when you do everything right, the difference between an empty or a full hotel will be made by communication.  A transformation journey is a massive change.  People are not against change as such, they are against the feeling of being changed.  A rock solid communication plan and the execution of it should get the people onboard.  Managing this communication plan is as critical as managing the backlog of the platform team.In conclusion, the challenges discussed underscore the complexities involved in successfully adopting and leveraging (Cloud) platforms, likened to the abandoned Ryugyong Hotel in North Korea. To overcome these hurdles, it is imperative for organisations to articulate a clear business value proposition, foster a strategic vision for Cloud adoption, address skills gaps, balance self-service capabilities with temporary enablement functions, navigate the financial shift to consumption-based models, establish a transparent accountability model, and maintain a dedicated focus through centres of excellence. By addressing these key aspects and with a top quality communication plan, organisations can pave the way for a more effective and sustainable platform adoption, avoiding the pitfalls that often result in underutilised and unfulfilled potential, much like the unfortunate fate of the Ryugyong Hotel.

---