When is it time to change your IT platform? How do you decide if a point solution in your architecture should follow your current vendor offerings or that it’s time to add something new? Let me give you my perspective on this important question.

I recently worked on a project for a large company that was considering upgrading components and services in its infrastructure portfolio. The issue was whether to expand the footprint of the existing vendor’s solutions or replace some technology with a third-party solution that would eventually replace large portions of the infrastructure.

From the technical point of view, both possibilities satisfied the need. So that area was irrelevant in the discussion.

Investing more in a particular platform would increase the size of the company’s datacenter and consequently increase the desktop footprint. This translates to a higher cost of moving away from that platform. 

The cost comes in two areas. One of them is operations expertise and training: The more I have of one vender, the less I will know about the intricacies of another solution. In addition, if this is a solution that involves desktops, the cost of training end users on new systems will also grow.

Another cost comes from implementation when you’re replacing an existing solution (the cost of implementation for both solutions per se is a given). Replacing a datacenter solution tends to be simple, particularly in a cloud computing environment (for example with a hosted services provider), where little or no touch to the end users’ environment may be required.  When it comes to the desktop, even with centralized configuration management tools, the cost can quickly add up.

Therefore, at this point, keeping the current vendor and expanding the footprint seems like it may be the right direction. Of course, there is the long-term penalty of being tied to the platform, but in the short term, it makes sense as a cost-conscious solution.

So what other factors can aid in the decision? Use the value equation, where value equals the benefit of the platform divided by the total cost of ownership (TCO). In this case, the analysis differs from a traditional value case in the sense that we want to understand the benefits of replacing a dominant infrastructure vendor on our platform.

TCO is an overused term. Every single vendor claims its platform does better than anybody else’s. Here, it simply means “my cost of operations in the current environment.” If that cost constantly crosses above my replacement cost (as described above), the time has come to replace the platform.

Now, it’s obvious to say that, in a perfect world, the new solution would have an equal or better TCO. However, the cost of adding more to the existing platform and therefore creating a deeper dependency on a single vendor may offset a less-than-desirable initial TCO with the new solution. 

Benefit is more elusive, since as I mentioned before, both solutions were technically speaking equal and both satisfied the business needs IT asked for.  This is where you need to do a business analysis of the vendors that are looking to provide the solution. You need to get answers to questions like the following:

 ·         Where do I go for additional technology components?

·         Who provides support or licensing terms or models?

·         What is the supplier’s business viability?

You need to think about such considerations from a long-term point of view. Thinking this way provides reassurance that whatever your decision is, especially if you’re switching, you will not create a problem when you expand the new platform.

In summary, as indicated, pure datacenter decisions are easier. You may already have an unequal mix of vendors in place, and in that case, the effects of migration can be limited to the IT organization.  It is in the best interest of the vendor—and not yours—to expand the footprint, increasing the cost of replacement and locking all other solutions out. Multiple platforms imply a more educated (and expensive) IT staff, but this cost can be offset by having a broader set of technology options to choose from (and more negotiation power). On the other hand, when end users are involved, the cost of training them may surpass any benefit. This can be an argument, then, in favor of private cloud computing, centralizing services and applications into the datacenter while standardizing the user interface into a browser.