Friday, January 15, 2016

Mapping Exercise - Enterprise Virtualization - update

Simon Wardley keeps posting maps, exercises of maps and guidelines for maps.  Maps, maps, maps.  As he @swardley recently followed me on twitter @abusedbits, I suddenly developed an immense sense of trust and responsibility to have a look at his teachings.

In a similar fashion, but most certainly naïve to the totality of his methods, I'm mapping Enterprise Virtualization Services.  One must start somewhere....

What I was hoping for was a simplified method to create a level of prediction about what could be expected in 2016 based on where they were from my PoV in 2015.

The results as follows:

Enterprise Virtualization Value Chain Mapping 2015
As position is relative, the map is comprised of elements of Enterprise Virtualization.  These are connected where natural connections exist and placed to the best of my ability. 

I then made a decision to create a direction and magnitude vector, also being relative, but as a predictor for how those elements would advance on the map.

Network of the legacy variety is getting more complex the more virtualization is applied.  So,  up and to the left it is.  Opposing this direction, Network using SDN should get less complex as SDN functions are developed to be used with the control plane, so to the right.  Certainly not downward as it still has some level of visibility to the user.

Storage is similar to Network.  Traditional Storage will be a lot less fun to deal with at any higher densities than it is today, with a direction up and left.  Software Defined Storage will start replace traditional storage methods so, to the right.

In both cases, when the Software Defined capability completely outpaces the traditional, a wholesale shift to the +SD feature set should take place.

Open virtualization in the enterprise still needs some nurturing.  It should slide right on the map as users get more familiar with it.  It probably won't outpace more traditional virtualization methods, so only into the enterprise product space.  I also realize there are vendors with it is a product, but have a difficulty justifying it in the product space by what I've seen to date.

Platform ecosystems are tenuously on the border of products.  They still require a substantial amount of care and feeding.  I'm parking them for now.

Container technology should be one of the big movers.  Enterprise adoption is masked by the reliance on 2nd platform application types, but should be a clear win for any enterprise that makes the jump to 3rd platform, so, to the right.

Hybrid Cloud, still a manual integration process, but it should improve, so it moves to the right a smidge.

The resulting prediction, with hopeful vectors for 2016:
Enterprise Virtualization Value Chain Mapping 2016

Update:  I picked some tidbits from the ensuing Twitter conversation.


Mapping smaller scale predictors in XaaS space. Wondering if you can have a look at this.

using a perception of the previous years vectors.

@swardley Consumer Cloud Value Chain Mapping
@swardley Consumer Cloud Value Chain Areas
Ok , I had a look at your map. I'd counter (which is part of the point of mapping) with this.

PS : I would have added unikernel to the map at the genesys/ custom limit. Especially linked with NVF/storage / deploy

: that's the point of map, people can add / delete / debate etc.

In the fast movers, makes perfect sense. Are you confident in the more conservative Enterprise space RE adoption?

well , as a priority order then I'd expect ... 1) Access to utility infrastructure to trump deployment (sourcing) practice ...

2) Access to coding platform to trump concerns over if it uses VM / containers etc. ... it's a question of what is more important to user.

So , if someone said to me I have an non commodity / non utility baed infrastructure environment which uses containers - well ...

... provision of containers maybe a differentiator but my need is for very utility based infrastructure and this trumps.

That's the real trick there, isn't it.

: hence position relative to an anchor ... the anchor being user needs.

in that case you are adding inertia in your map Which I feel is counter productive You want now not perception of now

I was trying to create a prediction based on the map at smaller scales than WAR.

in that case adding the spread of usage on the map would probably be useful

: find duplication and bias is a big bugbear of mine.

I've seen it before, but really "saw" it for the first time in the presentation today.

awesome conversation

No comments:

Post a Comment