![\"\"](\"http:\/\/upload.wikimedia.org\/wikipedia\/commons\/thumb\/4\/4e\/Life_of_Martin_Luther.jpg\/763px-Life_of_Martin_Luther.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\nFirst we had 15 Ways<\/a>, then we had 16 Corrections<\/a>, then 15 Ways I am Wrong<\/a>, and now we have 3 Ways<\/a>. What would Martin Luther have done?<\/p>\n Staffing Software Talk<\/a> takes a very hard-boiled and boiled down approach:<\/p>\n For those of you not already plugged into this latest addition to tech jargon, you can read more about cloud computing here. But actually I wouldn’t waste your time. If you’re over 50 just think “service bureau”. 30 to 49, think “Application Service”, and 20 to 30 “SAAS (Software As A Service)”. If under 20 then cloud is everything you need in your online life – amazon, ebay, facebook, myspace, gmail.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Gregg certainly has a point that there is “nothing new” about the core concepts behind cloud, although I would argue its reimplementation of these ideas which gives them their current strength. I also think its notable that Gregg’s definition points to an age-related segmentation. I have to say that Gregg’s leap from there to 3 Ways To Tell Its Not A Cloud didn’t really chime with my understanding. <\/p>\n 1. If it leaves you with unintegrated systems, it’s not cloud computing. 1. I disagree because of David Weinberger’s core Web design pattern of Small Pieces, Loosely Joined<\/a>. Often integration is left to the user, which is no bad thing. Cloud componentry should be loosely-coupled, taking advantage of service orientation. Of course integration-as-packaging has value, but we must be careful not to simply recreate monoliths in the cloud.<\/p>\n 2. Not all powerful and useful cloud services will be “revenue generating”. Take data archiving for regulatory purposes for example, which is a necessity but doesn’t drive revenue. Data Backup<\/a> is another extremely useful cloud service. It may not drive revenues but its vital to a business.<\/p>\n 3. I like the promise behind this definition, especially given the dog’s breakfast state of so many of our paper-based processes, but it ends up feeling more like Office 2.0<\/a> than cloud to me. Clearly IT should help to remove laborious paper-based processes, but arguably that’s true of any application, cloud-based or not. <\/p>\n Gregg, Jeff and Eric have all helped to advance my thinking on the cloud subject, as have Hugh<\/a>, Nick<\/a>, Tim<\/a>, Tim<\/a> and Stephen<\/a>. Its time (if I can find some) for a significant update.<\/p>\n
\n 2. If it leaves you with non-revenue generating IT and data entry staff, it’s not cloud computing.
\n 3. If it doesn’t eliminate your paper processes, it’s not cloud computing.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n