bit current cloud survey 2011 bc bccs 0311

8/3/2019 Bit Current Cloud Survey 2011 BC BCCS 0311

1/36

March 4, 2011

Cloud adoption, concerns, and motivationsBITCURRENT CLOUD COMPUTING SURVEY 2011


2/36

Copyright 2011 Bitcurrent Inc. All rights reserved. www.bitcurrent.com | 2

INTRODUCTIONThis survey looks at the cloud providers people are using today, their main

reasons for using ulity compung, and their main concerns around on-demand infrastructure. It was collected and processed by Bitcurrents team

in February, 2011 and is distributed under a Creave Commons aribuon

license.

Cloud performance from the end user


3/36

Bitcurrent cloud compung survey 2011


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introducon................................................................................................. 2

Survey methodology ................................................................................... 5

Survey results .............................................................................................. 6

Respondents ............................................................................................ 6

Current usage ............................................................................................ 10

Overall usage .......................................................................................... 10

Usage by company type ......................................................................... 10

Usage by vercal industry ...................................................................... 11

Usage by company size .......................................................................... 12

Which public cloud providers are you using? ......................................... 13

Concerns about clouds .............................................................................. 15

Overall concerns..................................................................................... 15Concerns by company type .................................................................... 16

Concerns by company size ..................................................................... 17

Concerns by vercal industry ................................................................. 18

Concerns by job tle .............................................................................. 19

Movaons for cloud use.......................................................................... 21

Overall movaons ................................................................................ 21

Movaons by industry vercal............................................................. 22

Movaons by company size ................................................................. 23

Movaons by company type................................................................ 24

Movaons by job tle .......................................................................... 25

Conclusions ............................................................................................... 27

About Bitcurrent ........................................................................................ 28

Distribuon license ................................................................................ 28

Appendix A: Individual responses ............................................................. 29


4/36



TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Respondents by company type .............................................................6

Figure 2: Respondents by company type .............................................................7

Figure 3: Respondents by industry .......................................................................8

Figure 4: Respondents by job tle .......................................................................9

Figure 5: Level of adopon by cloud type..........................................................10

Figure 6: Cloud adopon by company type .......................................................11

Figure 7: Cloud adopon by industry vercal ....................................................12

Figure 8: Cloud adopon by company size ........................................................13

Figure 9: Cloud providers used ..........................................................................14

Figure 10: Tag cloud of providers used ..............................................................14

Figure 11: Relave importance of concerns about cloud adopon...................16

Figure 12: Heat table of cloud concerns about clouds by type of company ......16

Figure 13: Radar chart of concerns by type of company ...................................17

Figure 14: Heat table of cloud concerns by company size .................................18

Figure 15: Radar chart of cloud concerns by company size ...............................18

Figure 16: Heat table of cloud concerns by vercal industry.............................19

Figure 17: Heat table of cloud concerns by job descripon ..............................20

Figure 18: Overall movators for cloud adopon ..............................................21

Figure 19: Heat table of movaons for cloud adopon by industry vercal ...22

Figure 20: Radar diagram of movaons by industry vercal ...........................23

Figure 21: Heat table of movaons for cloud adopon by company size .......24

Figure 22: Bar graph of movaons for cloud adopon by company size ........24

Figure 23: Heat table of cloud movaons by company type ...........................25

Figure 24: Bar graph of movaons for cloud adopon by company type .......25

Figure 25: Heat table of movaons by job tle ...............................................26


5/36



SURVEY METHODOLOGYRespondents were recruited via Twier menons over a period of ve days.

In all, roughly 150 people responded to the survey; several worked for cloudproviders directly and their responses, while interesng, were excluded

from the study because of their bias towards a specic plaorm. Despite

the extremely unscienc recruitment process, however, respondents

came from a relavely wide cross-secon of industries, company types, and

company sizes.

The survey was a set of quesons administered through a Google Docs

form, consisng of mulple-choice and range-based quesons. Individual

responses to each queson are available in Appendix A, below. We oered

a free Flexpass to the Cloud Connect conference to one parcipant as an

incenve.

While the average responses are instrucve, our goal was really to

understand how dierent segments of the market view the cloud:

Did smaller companies use SaaS more than bigger ones?

Did public companies have dierent concerns about the cloud than

startups?

Did companies in a health vercal see dierent benets from clouds

than those in nance?

To understand this, we analyzed the responses in a Pivot Table format,

and then tried to nd visualizaons that would convey these dierences.

Given the many possible segmentscompany size, vercal, company type,concerns, movators, and providersits not always easy to display the

informaon, so in each case we also created a heat table of responses,

where red cells are worse and green cells are beer. In other words,

if something is a serious concern, its red; if something is a signicant

movator, its green.


6/36



SURVEY RESULTSWell now review the results of the study. For individual responses, please

refer to Appendix A; here, were more concerned with paerns anddierences among segments.

Respondents

We asked each respondent a few quesons about their background in order

to segment their answers, and to understand who was responding. The

sample is heavily biased towards Twier users and the clouderathe

social graph surrounding Bitcurrent and parcipants in Techwebs Cloud

Connect and Interop events.

What kind of company do you work for?

We intenonally tried to lump companies into a relavely small set of

company structures, from private start-ups to global giants. Unfortunately,

a signicant number of respondents didnt understand the categorizaon,

or were eager to tell us more about themselves, providing answers such as

Hybrid Global Consultant and Event Company or A technology journal. If

we repeat this study, we need to break this segmentaon down into several

categories (is your company private or public? and are you protable?,

for example) to avoid having people unable to t themselves into a specic

group.

45

28

19

11

10

10

7

A startup (pre-breakeven, self- or

VC-funded)

A large web business (breakeven,

around for more than 3 years)

A public company

Other

A government or nonprofit organization

A Global 2000 company operating in

several countries

A private non-tech company operating

regionally

Respondents by company type

Figure 1: Respondents by company type

In many cases, the companies that didnt classify themselves as one of

these were, in fact, cloud providers; we eliminated them from the clouds,

concerns, and movators secons. When possible, we modied some


7/36



respondents when they t into a category (for example, we put Research

university into government or nonprot organizaon.)

Number of employees

We also asked people to tell us how many employees worked at their

company. No ambiguity here.

7

16

18

27

30

32

Just me

10000 or more

1001 to 10000

101 to 1000

Less than 10

11 to 100

Respondents by number of employees

Figure 2: Respondents by company type

What industry do you work in?

The queson about industry sector was also badly categorized. While we

chose the list of industry vercals from a reasonably broad public list (hp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vercal_market#Examples), many respondents added

their own categories and in some cases expressed frustraon that their

industry, as they dened it, wasnt listed (Hosng - how is this not on this

list?). We tried to strike a balance between a relavely small number of

vercalsto make analysis and visualizaon possible, and get a reasonably

large sample of respondents in each vercalwhile sll encompassing most

industries.


8/36



1

1

2

2

2

2

2

4

4

5

6

6

7

9

11

17

49

Automotive

Food & beverage

Travel & leisure

Gaming

Real estate, construction

Logistics, transportation

Energy

Retail sales

Health & medicine

Manufacturing

Law, management consulting

Education

Finance, banking, or

insurance

Entertainment, media

R&D

Telecommunications

Other

Respondents by industry

Figure 3: Respondents by industry

Again, we made some heroic assumpons about where certain job tles

belonged in our inial list, and added a few. Many people were in IT

consulng or business consulng in the endagain, this is likely due to

where we solicited respondents.

Whats your job?

We also posted a list of possible jobs, and respondents were predominantly

in technical vocaons, or leaders of their companies. None of therespondents worked in shipping, legal services, HR, or accounng. In many

cases, respondents tried to be more specic about their job tle, rather than

picking a broader tle from the list (for example, Mgr., Info design & dev

or soluons architect and pracce lead.) While its great that respondents


9/36



were trying to be helpful here, we had to make some assumpons about

aggregang these kinds of responses into the right category.

0

0

0

0

3

8

12

20

21

30

36

Finance, accounting

HR

Legal & contracts

Shipping, logistics

QA and testing

Sales, business development

Marketing, communications, PR

Operations, production

CEO

Other

Software engineering, development

Respondent by job title

Figure 4: Respondents by job title


10/36



CURRENT USAGEThe rst area we wanted to invesgate was what respondents were using

today.

Overall usage

Overall, public IaaS and SaaS, along with other on-demand services, are the

clear winners.

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

1="NotAtAll",

5="

Heavyadoption"

Level of adoption by cloud type

Figure 5: Level of adoption by cloud type

Usage by company type

We then split these results based on the kind of company someone worked

for.


11/36



Average of Private IaaS 3.10 1.91 2.62 2.67 2.88 2.27

Average of Private PaaS 2.00 2.00 2.14 2.33 2.35 1.88

Average of Public IaaS 2.50 3.55 3.17 3.67 3.12 3.20

Average of Public PaaS 2.10 2.27 2.59 3.67 2.59 2.45

Average of Public SaaS 3.00 4.00 3.28 3.83 3.88 3.49

Average of Other services 2.30 3.73 3.10 3.83 3.53 3.18

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

1="notatall",

5="heavy

adop

tion"

Cloud adoption by company type

A Global 2000company

operating inseveral

countries

A governmentor nonprofitorganization

A large webbusiness

(breakeven,around for

more than 3years)

A privatenon-techcompanyoperatingregionally

A publiccompany

A startup(pre-

breakeven,self-or

VC-funded)

Figure 6: Cloud adoption by company type

Governments and public companies were the largest users of SaaS;

Global 2000 and public companies also led in private Infrastructure as a

Service. The largest users of PaaS were non-technical, regionally operated

companies.

Usage by vercal industry

Breaking adopon down by industry, we see some dierences in how each

kind of cloud is being adopted. Unfortunately, as with many of the responses

that are widely segmented, the number of responses per vercal is small

enough that its dangerous to make generalizaons.

WHAT INDUSTRY DO YOUWORK IN?

PrivateIaaS

PrivatePaaS

PublicIaaS

PublicPaaS

PublicSaaS

Otherservices

Aerospace/DoD 5.00 2.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00

Automove 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Business Services 3.13 3.00 3.50 3.13 3.38 3.13

Educaon 2.43 2.43 3.86 2.29 4.14 4.00

Energy 2.00 1.50 1.50 3.00 3.00 1.50

Engineering & Construcon 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00 1.00

Entertainment, media 3.44 2.67 3.56 2.89 4.00 3.56

Finance, banking, orinsurance

2.86 1.86 2.43 1.86 3.57 4.43


12/36



WHAT INDUSTRY DO YOUWORK IN?

PrivateIaaS

PrivatePaaS

PublicIaaS

PublicPaaS

PublicSaaS

Otherservices

Food & beverage 1.00 1.00 5.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Gaming 1.00 1.50 3.50 4.00 2.50 4.00

Health & medicine 1.00 1.75 4.25 1.50 4.25 4.50

Horizontal 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

IT services 2.29 2.18 2.94 2.47 3.59 3.18

Law, managementconsulng

4.14 3.43 3.43 3.14 4.29 4.29

Logiscs, transportaon 3.00 1.50 3.00 4.00 3.00 3.50

Management Consulng 2.00 2.00 5.00 3.00 5.00 5.00

Manufacturing 3.40 1.80 2.40 1.60 3.80 1.80

Media 1.33 1.00 2.00 2.00 4.33 4.00

R&D 2.10 1.90 4.00 2.50 4.00 3.40

Real estate, construcon 3.00 3.00 3.50 2.00 3.00 3.50

Retail sales 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.25 2.25 1.50

Soware development 3.14 2.43 3.14 3.43 3.43 3.29

Telecommunicaons 2.06 1.41 3.24 1.76 3.29 2.65

Travel & leisure 2.50 1.50 4.50 5.00 3.00 3.50

Figure 7: Cloud adoption by industry vertical

There are some interesng outliers here: travel organizaons, engineering

and construcon rms, and logiscs companies use public PaaS;

telecommunicaons rms do on.

Usage by company size

When we compare adopon by size of company, we see that very small

companies strongly favor SaaS, while larger ones use private Infrastructure

as a Service. The clear leader for public IaaS is small rms with less than 10

people.


13/36



10000 or

more

1001 to

10000

101 to

1000

11 to 100Less

than 10

Just me

Average of Private IaaS 2.80 3.35 2.60 2.03 2.41 1.57

Average of Private PaaS 2.40 2.12 2.12 1.93 2.00 1.57

Average of Public IaaS 3.13 2.47 3.16 3.45 3.62 2.14

Average of Public PaaS 2.60 2.29 2.44 2.45 2.69 2.71

Average of Public SaaS 3.13 3.24 3.64 3.66 3.62 3.57

Average of Other services 3.00 2.71 3.60 3.38 3.34 2.43

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

1="Notatall",

5="Heavy

adoption"

Cloud adoption by company size

Figure 8: Cloud adoption by company size

Which public cloud providers are you using?

We also asked respondents which providers they used. This was a mulple-answer queson, so people could select several providers. Some people

named one-o SaaS providers, or said, none. Since this was an open text

eld we had to aggregate the responses by provider.


14/36



69

40

28

26

12

5

5

4

2

Amazon Web Services

Google App Engine

Rackspace Cloud

Salesforce Force.com

Microsoft Azure public cloud

Terremark Cloud

Joyent

Gogrid

Savvis Symphony

Cloud providers used by respondents

Figure 9: Cloud providers used

The following tag cloud shows the relave popularity of clouds from the

many responses we received.

Figure 10: Tag cloud of providers used


15/36



CONCERNS ABOUT CLOUDSWe then turned to peoples concerns about clouds. We had our own list,

based on discussions with end users, analysts, and vendors, so the goal herewasnt to build a catalog of concerns, but rather, to rate the ones wed heard

over and over again.

Overall concerns

Our list of concerns included:

Data privacy: Concerns over the leakage of informaon when its

managed by someone else.

Infrastructure control: Inability to dictate what happens to

infrastructure, who can disable it, and who ulmately controls it.

Reliable upme: Inability of a provider to deliver the same availability

that a company can oer itself.

High costs: Higher overall cost for recurring ulity bills than the cost of

in-house infrastructure and operaons.

Lock-in: Being stuck with a provider, and unable to move, because of

some dependency.

Poor performance: Slow applicaon performance, parcularly because

of the fact that resources are shared with others.

Architectural needs: Exisng applicaons have specic requirements

that wont work in the cloud.

Networking costs: Compared to the cost of moving bytes around,

everything else is cheap. As clouds are elsewhere, networking costs will

be high.

Job security: Concerns that private IT will lose its jobs to public providers

Escalaon concerns: Inability to escalate problems to someone who can

x them; not having one throat to choke.

Just don't like it: A general feeling of danger and ennui about clouds.


16/36



1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

1="Notaconcern",

5="Shows

topper"

Concerns about clouds

Figure 11: Relative importance of concerns about cloud adoption

Concerns by company typeWe then broke this informaon down by the segments wed collected.

DATA

A Global2000

companyoperangin severalcountries

A governmentor nonprotorganizaon

A large webbusiness


more than 3years)

A privatenon-techcompanyoperangregionally

A publiccompany

A startup(pre-

breakeven,self- or VC-

funded)

Data privacy 2.90 2.73 3.03 3.50 3.24 2.78

Infrastructure control 2.70 2.18 2.48 2.67 2.35 2.49

Reliable upme 2.10 1.64 1.90 2.00 1.35 1.71

High costs 2.10 1.73 2.03 2.00 1.71 2.08

Lock-in 2.60 2.36 2.41 3.00 2.29 2.39

Poor performance 2.70 2.27 2.38 3.00 1.94 2.35

Architectural needs 2.10 2.45 1.97 2.50 2.12 1.86

Networking costs 2.50 2.36 1.97 2.33 2.00 2.02

Job security 1.70 1.00 1.10 1.33 1.12 1.33

Escalaon concerns 2.80 2.55 2.17 2.17 2.35 2.29

Just don't like it 1.40 1.00 1.00 1.17 1.06 1.16

Figure 12: Heat table of cloud concerns about clouds by type of company

Employees of Global 2000 companies worried more about intangible, non-

technical things like job security and a general dislike; private, non-technical

companies worried more about privacy, lock-in, and poor performance;

public companies worried less about upme and cost; and everyone worried

about privacy.


17/36



1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50Data privacy

Infrastructure control

Reliable uptime

High costs

Lock-in

Poor performanceArchitectural needs

Networking costs

Job security

Escalation concerns

Just don't like it

Concerns by company type

G2000 Gov or nonprofit

Large web business Private regional non-tech

Public company Startup

Figure 13: Radar chart of concerns by type of company

In Figure 13, we display this data as a radar chart. This is one way to look at

how several segments view the relave importance of the concerns weve

outlined above.

Concerns by company size

We then analyzed concerns by size of company.

DATA10000 or

more1001 to10000

101 to1000

11 to 100Less than

10Just me

Data privacy 3.80 3.41 2.88 2.76 2.48 2.86

Infrastructure control 2.47 2.41 2.36 2.59 2.38 2.86

Reliable upme 1.73 1.94 1.76 1.86 1.59 1.43

High costs 2.00 2.18 2.04 1.79 2.00 2.00

Lock-in 2.33 2.82 2.36 2.52 2.31 2.00

Poor performance 2.47 2.41 2.52 2.45 2.24 1.43

Architectural needs 2.20 2.12 2.24 2.21 1.69 1.29Networking costs 2.33 2.35 2.16 2.03 1.83 2.00

Job security 1.60 1.65 1.16 1.03 1.14 1.14

Escalaon concerns 2.47 2.35 2.08 2.34 2.34 2.71


18/36



DATA10000 or

more1001 to10000

101 to1000

11 to 100Less than

10Just me

Just don't like it 1.00 1.29 1.12 1.14 1.07 1.00

Figure 14: Heat table of cloud concerns by company size

Here, we see that the bigger the company, the more they care about privacy,

and the non-technical issues of job security and general dislike. Smaller

companies are also concerned about their ability to get aenon and have

things resolved properly.

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

Data privacy

Infrastructure

control

Reliable uptime

High costs

Lock-in

Poor

performance

Architectural

needs

Networking

costs

Job security

Escalation

concerns

Just don't like it

10000 or more

1001 to 10000

101 to 1000

11 to 100

Less than 10

Just me

Figure 15: Radar chart of cloud concerns by company size

We also generated this as a radar chart.

Concerns by vercal industry

We then looked at concerns by vercal. Since there is a long list of vercals

and concerns, we didnt represent the data as a radar chart in this case.


19/36



Figure 16: Heat table of cloud concerns by vertical industry

Remember that the number of segments in these responses make it unwise

to rely on them for general conclusions about a parcular industry. That

said, Figure 16 shows us that the automove, horizontal, and manufacturing

industries are the most concerned; and that health and medicine, real

estate, energy, and soware development seem relavely unconcerned.

Concerns by job tle

Because we had the wide range of job tles, we also generated a table of

concerns by the raw job descripon respondents supplied, as shown in

Figure 17.

WHAT'S YOUR JOB?

Dataprivacy

Infrastructurecontrol

Reliableupme

Highcosts

Lock-in

Poorperformance

Architecturalneed

s

Networkingcosts

Jobsecurity

Escalaon

concerns

Justdon'tlikeit

Architect 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Business Strategy 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

CEO 2.6 2.6 1.5 1.7 2.3 1.8 1.6 1.7 1.2 2.6 1.0

Consultant / CloudCompung Service

Oering Development2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0

CTO 3.3 2.5 2.0 1.3 2.0 3.0 2.3 2.0 1.3 1.8 1.0

Informaon management 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 1.0 4.0 2.0

Infrastructure Engineering 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0

IT Architect 3.0 2.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 3.0 1.0

IT Management 3.5 2.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 2.0 2.5 2.5 1.0 3.0 1.0

Markeng,communicaons, PR

3.0 1.9 1.6 1.9 2.5 1.9 1.9 2.1 1.2 1.8 1.0


20/36



WHAT'S YOUR JOB?

Dataprivacy

Infrastructurecontrol

Reliableupme

High

costs

Lock-in

Poorper

formance

Architect

uralneeds

Networkingcosts

Jobsecurity

Escalaon

concerns

Justdon'tlikeit

Mgr., Info design & dev 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 5.0 3.0 2.0 5.0 1.0

Operaons, producon 3.0 2.5 2.0 2.3 2.6 2.8 2.1 2.2 1.1 2.4 1.1

Partner, COO 3.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0

pracce manager ms 4.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0

Product Manager 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0

Professional Services &consulng

3.0 4.0 1.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

QA and tesng 3.7 3.3 2.0 1.7 2.0 2.7 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.7 1.0

Research analyst 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Researcher 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Sales, businessdevelopment

3.0 2.4 1.9 1.6 2.8 2.6 2.3 2.6 1.5 2.5 1.0

Soware engineeering,development

2.8 2.4 1.7 2.1 2.3 2.4 1.8 2.0 1.3 2.4 1.1

soluons architect andpracce lead

4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 3.0

Soluons Architecture 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0

Sr. Mgmt 4.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

student 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Systems Architect 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 1.0

systems manager 4.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Technical consultant 5.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 1.0

Technical Support 3.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0

VP R&D 4.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 1.0

VP Technology 3.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 1.0

Figure 17: Heat table of cloud concerns by job description


21/36



MOTIVATIONS FOR CLOUD USEHaving measured concerns, we now looked at the movators encouraging

cloud adopon. These included:

Lower costs: Saving money through lower total costs and reduced

upfront investment.

Elascity: The ability to grow and shrink capacity with demand.

Speed to deploy: Time to develop, test, deploy, and procure

components goes down with clouds.

Beer security: Access to a cloud providers security infrastructure.

Arm's-length employees: Third-party providers separaon from the

day-to-day business, which is good for security and fraud.

Wide set of services: Cloud providers oering addional services suchas message busses, mailing and payment systems, image manipulaon,

and large-scale storage.

Access to talent: Ability to use a cloud providers employees experse

rather than having to hire internally.

Just like clouds: Generally posive feeling about ulity compung.

Overall movaons

Overall, lower costs, elascity, and deployment speed were the clear

winners.

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

1="Couldn'tcareless",

5="Mainmotivator"

Motivators for cloud adoption

Figure 18: Overall motivators for cloud adoption


22/36



Movaons by industry vercal

We then segmented movaons by industry vercal.

Figure 19: Heat table of motivations for cloud adoption by industry vertical

There were some consistent paerns herebut its important to remember

that the volume of respondents and number of segments makes this data

not representave of industry paerns without further study.


23/36



1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.003.50

4.00

4.50

5.00Lower costs

Elasticity

Speed to deploy

Better security

Arm's-length

employees

Wide set of services

Access to talent

Just like clouds

Aerospace/DoD AutomotiveBusiness Services EducationEnergy Engineering & ConstructionEntertainment, media Finance, banking, or insuranceFood & beverage GamingHealth & medicine HorizontalIT services Law, management consultingLogistics, transportation Management ConsultingManufacturing MediaR&D Real estate, constructionRetail sales Software developmentTelecommunications Travel & leisure

Figure 20: Radar diagram of motivations by industry vertical

We also mapped the movaons to a radar diagram in Figure 20.

Movaons by company size

We then looked at movaons by company size. While theres general

agreement, there are some disncons: mid-sized companies (101 to 1000

employees) like the wide set of services cloud providers oer, and elascity

maers more to the very small and the very big.

DATA 10000 +1001 to10000

101 to 1000 11 to 100 Less than 10 Just me

Lower costs 3.47 3.47 3.44 3.45 3.66 4.00

Elascity 4.20 4.12 3.80 3.97 3.97 4.43

Speed to deploy 3.53 3.88 3.76 3.66 3.90 3.71

Beer security 2.80 2.88 2.80 2.79 3.14 4.00

Arm's-lengthemployees

1.93 2.35 2.04 1.72 2.03 1.57

Wide set of services 3.13 3.00 3.48 2.83 3.24 3.29

Access to talent 2.20 2.82 2.96 2.21 2.45 3.00


24/36



DATA 10000 +1001 to10000

101 to 1000 11 to 100 Less than 10 Just me

Just like clouds 1.33 2.00 1.96 2.07 2.31 1.71

Figure 21: Heat table of motivations for cloud adoption by company size

We also visualized these results as a bar graph, making it easier to see the

relave distribuon of importance by each size of organizaon, in Figure 22.

Lower

costsElasticity

Speed to

deploy

Better

security

Arm's-

lengthemployees

Wide

set of

services

Access

to talent

Just like

clouds

10000 + 3.47 4.20 3.53 2.80 1.93 3.13 2.20 1.33

1001 to 10000 3.47 4.12 3.88 2.88 2.35 3.00 2.82 2.00

101 to 1000 3.44 3.80 3.76 2.80 2.04 3.48 2.96 1.96

11 to 100 3.45 3.97 3.66 2.79 1.72 2.83 2.21 2.07

Less than 10 3.66 3.97 3.90 3.14 2.03 3.24 2.45 2.31Just me 4.00 4.43 3.71 4.00 1.57 3.29 3.00 1.71

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

1="Couldn'tcareless"

5="Mainreason

Iuseclouds"

Cloud motivators by company size

Figure 22: Bar graph of motivations for cloud adoption by company size

Movaons by company type

We then applied the same analysis to each type of company.

DATA

A startup(pre-

breakeven,self- or VC-

funded)

A privatenon-techcompanyoperangregionally

A large webbusiness


more than 3

years)

Agovernmentor nonprotorganizaon

A Global 2000companyoperangin severalcountries

A publiccompany

Lower costs 3.45 2.67 3.38 3.64 3.70 4.18

Elascity 4.06 3.50 3.83 4.27 4.20 4.06

Speed todeploy

3.76 3.33 3.86 3.82 3.70 3.71


25/36



DATA

A startup(pre-

breakeven,

self- or VC-funded)

A privatenon-techcompany

operangregionally

A large webbusiness


more than 3years)

Agovernmentor nonprot

organizaon

A Global 2000companyoperang

in severalcountries

A publiccompany

Beersecurity

3.02 2.50 2.97 2.45 2.60 3.47

Arm's-lengthemployees

2.00 2.00 1.86 1.91 2.20 1.94

Wide set ofservices

3.10 4.00 3.14 3.18 2.70 3.24

Access totalent

2.61 2.67 2.48 2.64 2.60 2.35

Just likeclouds

2.00 2.33 1.97 1.73 2.20 1.88

Figure 23: Heat table of cloud motivations by company type

We also displayed this as a bar graph in Figure 24.

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

Lower

costs

Elasticity Speed to

deploy

Better

security

Arm's-

length

employees

Wide set

of services

Access to

talent

Just like

clouds

1="Couldn'tcareless"

5="MainreasonIuseclouds"

Motivations for cloud by company type

A startup (pre-breakeven, self- or VC-funded)

A private non-tech company operating regionally

A large web business (breakeven, around for more than 3 years)

A government or nonprofit organization

Figure 24: Bar graph of motivations for cloud adoption by company type

Movaons by job tle

Once again, armed with all of the job descripons our respondents provided,

we generated a heat table showing how they scored the relave benets. Aswith the data segmented by industry vercal, there arent enough responses

for each job descripon to make this stascally signicant.


26/36



WHAT'S YOUR JOB?

Lo

wercosts

Elascity

Speedtodeploy

Be

ersecurity

Arm's-length

employees

W

idesetof

services

Accesstotalent

Justlikeclouds

Architect 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00

Business Strategy 3.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 1.00 4.00 3.00 3.00

CEO 3.94 3.89 4.00 3.44 2.06 3.39 2.94 2.61

Consultant / Cloud CompungService Oering Development

5.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 4.00 4.00 5.00

CTO 3.75 4.25 3.25 2.75 1.75 4.00 3.50 2.25

Informaon management 4.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 2.00

Infrastructure Engineering 5.00 5.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

IT Architect 3.00 4.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 1.00

IT Management 2.50 3.50 4.00 3.50 1.50 2.50 2.50 1.00

Markeng, communicaons,PR 3.64 4.36 4.18 3.45 2.45 3.18 3.36 2.00

Mgr., Info design & dev 5.00 4.00 5.00 4.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.00

Operaons, producon 3.15 4.05 3.85 2.20 1.55 2.95 1.80 1.80

Partner, COO 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 1.00

pracce manager ms 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 1.00

Product Manager 2.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 2.00

Professional Services &consulng

4.00 5.00 4.00 4.00 1.00 5.00 5.00 1.00

QA and tesng 3.67 4.33 3.33 3.67 2.67 2.67 1.67 2.33

Research analyst 5.00 3.00 3.00 5.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Researcher 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 2.00

Sales, business development 3.88 4.13 4.25 3.00 2.13 2.75 2.75 1.88

Soware engineeering,development

3.27 3.97 3.73 2.79 1.88 3.15 2.21 1.76

soluons architect andpracce lead

4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00

Soluons Architecture 3.00 5.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00

Sr. Mgmt 4.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00

student 2.00 3.00 2.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 4.00

Systems Architect 3.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 3.00

systems manager 5.00 4.00 5.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 5.00 1.00

Technical consultant 4.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 1.00

Technical Support 2.00 4.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 2.00 2.00

VP R&D 4.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 2.00 4.00 1.00 1.00

VP Technology 2.00 5.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 2.00 1.00

Figure 25: Heat table of motivations by job title


27/36



CONCLUSIONSThis kind of analysis is very useful for marketers and analysts to understand

how to posion their products, and for end users to understand theirindustries concerns and biases. It also shows, overall, that some movators

(cost, elascity, and speed) are common across most industries, and some

concerns (privacy, loss of control, lock-in) are common; but that industries

disagree signicantly on certain movators and concerns.

Unfortunately, the relave small volume of respondents, and the unscienc

way in which they were recruited, means that the highly segmented data

should not be relied on without further vericaon and a more controlled

selecon process. It is, however, a good model for how to conduct further

research into the adopon of on-demand compung technologies. The

research suggests that there is signicant variance in opinion about cloud

adopon, movaons, and concerns across types of organizaons, sizes, jobdescripons, and industries.

Whats clear, however, is that the top concerns about clouds are data

privacy, loss of control over infrastructure, lock-in to a cloud plaorm, poor

performance, and an inability to properly escalate problems. At the same

me, lower costs, elascity, speed of deployment, and access to a wide set

of services are the main factors drawing companies into the cloud.


28/36



ABOUT BITCURRENTSince 2006, Bitcurrent has been researching emerging technologies. We

work with startups, enterprises, and governments to separate hype fromreality, pung new technology to work. We also write and present on

topics such as cloud compung, web performance, analycs, and enterprise

collaboraon.

In 2010, Bitcurrent became the consulng arm ofCloudOps, a service

provider that migrates, opmizes, and runs applicaons in the cloud, helping

companies take advantage of on-demand infrastructure.

www.bitcurrent.com

[email protected]

1-888-796-8364

Distribuon license

This report is distributed under a Creave Commons Aribuon/No

Derivave license. You are free to to copy, distribute and transmit the workprovided that you provide aribuon to Bitcurrent, and that you do not

create derivave works from it without the express wrien permission of

the author.

BC_BCCS_0311


29/36



APPENDIX A: INDIVIDUAL RESPONSESThese are the actual survey quesons, and response counts, for the survey.

Kind of company

Type of company Count Percent

A startup (pre-breakeven, self- or VC-funded) 45 35%

A large web business (breakeven, around for more than 3 years) 28 22%

A government or nonprot organizaon 10 8%

A private non-tech company operang regionally 7 5%

A public company 19 15%

A Global 2000 company operang in several countries 10 8%

Other 11 8%

Number of employees

Number of employees Count Percent

Just me 7 5%

Less than 10 30 23%

11 to 100 32 25%

101 to 1000 27 21%

1001 to 10000 18 14%

10000 or more 16 12%

What industry do you work in?

Industry vercal Count Percent

Retail sales 4 3%

Travel & leisure 2 2%

Gaming 2 2%

Real estate, construcon 2 2%

Law, management consulng 6 5%

Finance, banking, or insurance 7 5%

Manufacturing 5 4%

R&D 11 8%

Logiscs, transportaon 2 2%

Entertainment, media 9 7%

Health & medicine 4 3%

Energy 2 2%

Automove 1 1%

Food & beverage 1 1%

Telecommunicaons 17 13%


30/36



Industry vercal Count Percent

Educaon 6 5%

Other 49 38%

Whats your job?

Job tle Count Percent

CEO 21 16%

Finance, accounng 0 0%

HR 0 0%

Legal & contracts 0 0%

Soware engineeering, development 36 28%

Operaons, producon 20 15%

QA and tesng 3 2%

Markeng, communicaons, PR 12 9%

Sales, business development 8 6%

Shipping, logiscs 0 0%

Other 30 23%

How much are you using Private Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS)

How much use Count Percent

Not at all 50 38%

Looking into it 23 18%

Currently tesng 13 10%

Some use 24 18%

Heavy adopon 20 15%

How much are you using Private Plaorm as a Service (PaaS)


Not at all 61 47%



Some use 17 13%

Heavy adopon 8 6%

How much are you using Public IaaSi.e. Amazon EC2, Rackspace, Terremark, Gogrid


Not at all 30 23%



31/36





Some use 33 25%

Heavy adopon 36 28%

How much are you using Public PaaS

i.e. Heroku, Google App Engine, Force.com


Not at all 48 37%



Some use 25 19%

Heavy adopon 16 12%

How much are you using Public Soware as a Service (SaaS)

i.e. Salesforce, Taleo, Basecamp, Rightnow, Freshbooks


Not at all 26 20%



Some use 50 38%

Heavy adopon 39 30%

How much are you using Other cloud services (Storage, CDN, etc.)How much use Count Percent

Not at all 25 19%



Some use 39 30%

Heavy adopon 33 25%

Which public cloud providers are you using?

Cloud provider Count Percent

Amazon Web Services 69 53%

Google App Engine 40 31%

Microso Azure public cloud 12 9%

Terremark Cloud 5 4%

Joyent 5 4%

Gogrid 4 3%


32/36



Cloud provider Count Percent

Savvis Symphony 2 2%

Salesforce Force.com 26 20%

Rackspace Cloud 28 22%

Other 41 32%

People may select more than one checkbox, so percentages may add up to

more than 100%.

INDIVIDUAL CONCERNS ABOUT CLOUD

Data privacy in a public locaon?

Degree of concern Count Percent

Not an issue. This doesn't factor into my decisions. 16 12%

Mildly concerned 30 23%

Concerned 39 30%

Serious issue 40 31%

Showstopper. I will never use them because of this. 5 4%

Lack of control over your own infrastructure




Concerned 31 24%



Cloud reliability and upme




Concerned 23 18%

Serious issue 4 3%



33/36



Cost versus owning infrastructure yourself




Concerned 21 16%

Serious issue 11 8%


Cloud lock-in




Concerned 29 22%



Shared nature of clouds undermining performance




Concerned 34 26%



Special architectural needs for my applicaons




Concerned 23 18%



High networking costs




Concerned 36 28%



34/36





Outsourcing and job security




Concerned 6 5%

Serious issue 1 1%


Lack of a clear way to escalate problems




Concerned 38 29%



Concerned about clouds, for no parcular reason




Concerned 3 2%

Serious issue 0 0%


Lower cost than buying and running it in-house

Amount this is a movator Count Percent

I couldn't care less about this 6 5%

This is a slight advantage 21 16%

Somewhat important 25 19%

This is a major benet 52 40%

This is the main reason I use clouds 26 20%

Elasc capacity on demand




35/36








Speed of deployment from avoiding procurement and management







Security and upme of the cloud







Third-party security and cloud trustworthiness







The set of services clouds have built-in








36/36


Access to IT talent through a provider







General posive atude towards clouds







bit current cloud survey 2011 bc bccs 0311

Documents