Unlock comprehensive cost visibility and fully automated optimization for your Kubernetes environments. By combining StormForge’s machine learning capabilities with CloudBolt’s Augmented FinOps platform, this solution empowers Engineering, CloudOps, and FinOps teams to align on actionable insights that reduce waste and improve ROI. Achieve continuous Kubernetes optimization, gain real-time performance metrics, and make cloud spend decisions with confidence.
The Promise of AI for FinOps with Kyle Campos (CTO, CloudBolt)
Are you experiencing a gap between your FinOps and DevOps/Engineering teams?
In this webinar, we delve into the findings of our latest CloudBolt Industry Insights report, “Focus on FinOps: The alignment paradox“.
View the Transcript:
William Norton: Yep, thanks everybody for joining
William Norton: couple of housekeeping notes before we kick off.
William Norton: I just wanna make sure everybody knows we are recording this webinar. So if you don’t have a chance to fit all the way through. If you want to come back to it, we’ll make a recorded version available via email to everybody who has registered and who jumped on feel free to share and comment this out. If you don’t have us on social. We’ll be sharing that out via email as well our Linkedin, where you can keep up with all kind of future events and and webinars that we will have on the calendar
William Norton: with that. Let’s jump in.
William Norton: Everyone who works in this industry knows that it’s here. It’s here to stay.
William Norton: Finops is not going away.
William Norton: And that’s because the cloud cost problem is not going away
William Norton: from our own research. The cloud industry insights. We know that 82% of companies now have a formal finops practice within their company.
William Norton: but they’re still struggling. It’s still hard.
William Norton: If it was easy. We wouldn’t be talking about this.
William Norton: So, as we analyse the market, talk to our customers and engaged our partners.
William Norton: We realized that the market had gone to a cloud first, st which was, How do I deploy, cloud to get cost savings. How do I deploy Cloud to get additional agility? Or how do I deploy Cloud? Because, frankly, it was a company mandate?
William Norton: But what it meant was, cloud was not necessarily deployed in a way that was best optimized to serve the company’s outcomes and business requirements. At 1st it was save money at all costs. Now it’s
William Norton: prove to me that this new service is going to actually show value to the business. Gone are the days where you can say this is bigger, better, faster. So I’m going to go and move everything over here. A lot of our.
William Norton: Our customer stakeholders are extremely challenged with
William Norton: finding the value
William Norton: that investment truly entailed for the business, right so to be able to
William Norton: portray that roi back to the executives and the boards for them is is extremely important.
William Norton: We’ve seen so much in the press over the last year or 2 about reducing cloud costs, optimizing, reducing cloud spend.
William Norton: But it’s been recently where we started to see the conversation start to shift towards. There’s got to be something more. There’s got to be something around maximizing cloud value, and when you play that out to its logical destination
William Norton: it lands at Cloud Roi.
William Norton: Alright. Well, thanks to everybody for joining today’s.
William Norton: we have a panel of speakers today, and I definitely want to thank everybody for jumping on. So Paul is a senior partner at Wakefield research and brings more than a decade of research experience with cutting edge global brand from Microsoft to Sprint Samsung and Nintendo and Paul is our partner in crime when it comes to industry research.
William Norton: We use Wakefield research for a lot of our public industry, insight reports. And so a lot of what we’ve done in the last year or so has been with Wakefield, and he brings kind of the the analysis perspective to everything that we’re talking about today.
William Norton: For those who have not met our chief technology and product officer at Bubble. That is Mr. Kyle Campos, and he leads the development of of kind of our next generation augmented finops capabilities before joining bubble. He was the executive Vice President of Technology at Smart, where he led the Enterprise engineering and finops team. So a lot of background in this space he is also a board member of the Finops Foundation.
William Norton: and then finally to Yasmin from Storeforge, who leads up their product team as head of product. Stormforge, is the strategic technology partner of Bubble that offers automated Kubernetes resource management using AI and Ml to continuously right guys workloads.
William Norton: This is our panel. My name is Will Norton. I oversee product marketing for Cloudvolt, and I will be kind of running Mc. Today.
William Norton: So let’s
William Norton: put some context here for those of you who are unaware of
William Norton: the kind of methodology and contact, as well as if you’re new to public industry, insights
William Norton: a bit of a primer there. So public industry, insights is our market research, and really our goal. With all things, Pii is to offer kind of an objective examination of prevalent trend in the market.
William Norton: And and opportunities in the market, and really help all of us who kind of exist in these spaces separate
William Norton: the reality from hype and discord, that oftentimes can kind of muddy the waters, and so, taking more of of a of a research angle and asking kind of key questions that we feel are not being asked in the market of of business leaders and executives.
William Norton: In doing so, you know, we we like to share that out with with larger audiences. So business leaders, such as those of you who are on the call are more informed and can make better decisions in your organization. As we talk about today. You know our our. This would be the second in a series of finops, related bubble industry insights.
William Norton: both of which we’ve worked with Wakefield on.
William Norton: and Paul gonna walk through the methodology of this one because we took a different approach of who we reached out to and where we did that. So Paul.
Paul Bragan: So for this research Wakefield fielded the survey questions to 900 respondents in total across 3 key audiences. So 300 300 of our respondents were were finops, professionals so essentially finops, practitioners.
Paul Bragan: We also surveyed 300 engineers and developers who work across cloud engineering and devops and cloud architecture platform, engineering, etc. And then we also surveyed 300 executives and business leaders. So these are the Ctos, the Cios the Svps that are managing cloud decision making at their organization.
Paul Bragan: We surveyed a mix of businesses across the country. We did that so we could get a broad. Read on perspectives. There’s there’s 2 specific elements of this research that I think are worth calling attention to that make this survey design really distinct. One is.
Paul Bragan: we have a large survey sample so that we can look at each of those 3 audiences with statistical significance. So, in short, this is this is a robust decision grade survey sample.
Paul Bragan: The second element is that we didn’t want to explore Finops purely from the perspective of finops. It it can create a little bit of an echo chamber. And so we wanted to understand how finops, professionals, how engineers, how the C-suite, how they’re viewing Finops! Are they seeing the same picture that way we can look and see like, where is their alignment? And where’s their potential disagreement?
William Norton: Thanks, Paul. So I want to give a bit of a backdrop and and talk about
William Norton: the thesis going into this this research. And really what? What led us to create this piece?
William Norton: For those of you who read it. We’ll go through some of the
William Norton: findings from our last finops report. We did have a baseline
William Norton: in in 2023 of a lot of of kind of insights, and I’ll go through the high level of that. But the backdrop coming out of that research, and what we found in 2023 is is just a continued momentum in the world of been on.
William Norton: I think at this point, if if you know, we can confidently say most businesses have an established den off practice within their corporate structure, and the impact of that team.
William Norton: Now we see 4 to 5 people on average, that make up that team continues to advance out
William Norton: from kind of its early origins.
William Norton: And so, as Paul had mentioned, you know, we we talked to Finoff leaders and practitioners.
William Norton: obviously to get their perspective. But then, going to the other personas that we know are critical to making
William Norton: finops.
William Norton: you know, useful and and beneficial in a business
William Norton: having to work with the Devops, teams and the cloud engineering teams that actually have hands on keyboards for the public and private cloud, as well as the it executives who obviously have to steer, enable and support the cultural changes needed, for
William Norton: you know, if they’re not be effective.
William Norton: And our goal was to ask the same question of all of these persona groups to look at the variation, and to see if there’s any perceptible differences among these different stakeholder groups
William Norton: going into the.
William Norton: We knew there was strong industry, adoption, and business alignment.
William Norton: We knew that synops is considered very fast moving. It is growing significantly year on year, but it is still very much maturing domain.
William Norton: and we also knew through things like the data. Finops report that the Finop Foundation does every year that there is a a heavy emphasis on automation in the community to try to scale out using technology, these, the effects and the results of finops teams.
William Norton: And so with this, the the kind of the big question that we went into this research with was what gaps exist between current and up
William Norton: team. And what do they need to achieve? Continuous roi in the cloud.
William Norton: Now, another piece of this backdrop was that we had done a 2023 Vii report.
William Norton: And you know, we we kind of submitted in that research that while that presents a very promising narrative
William Norton: there, there is a lot of accountability and and new layers of technical capability that need to be revisited for Finops to actually break through and overcome what consistently seems to be a trend of rising cloud cost.
William Norton: Some of the big data points that we saw is that 82% of companies, as of 2,023 had that formalized and not practiced.
William Norton: I think we, you know, looking at that now, it’s probably much higher. At this point.
William Norton: The average team size was about 4.1 and growing.
William Norton: We saw that 9% of respondents believe that finops is the responsibility of everyone involved in the cloud, which kind of flies in the face of what you would consider the community to be saying so. I think anybody who has existed in in Finops for some time knows that there has to be kind of cultural change where everybody who works in the cloud has a responsibility
William Norton: of of making sure that there’s financial management and and good cost decisions. And so we saw that being very low, and and that was one of those things that kind of struck us as as being potential issue
William Norton: of of kind, of cultural change that needed to happen. And and then, probably most starkly. We heard from a lot of the respondents in that survey that
William Norton: While there was a lot of excitement around, finops.
William Norton: most were were kind of hedging that it was going to take 2 to 3 years to get a positive outcome for their finops program that they had stood up.
William Norton: And so it’s with that context that you know, some of our recommendations coming out of that survey were largely around. How do you kind of create cultural change within the business and adoption within the business. Because there’s excitement from leadership. There’s there’s growing investment in finops
William Norton: but ultimately it does feel like the the rest of the organization have yet to kind of catch on
William Norton: to fin Ops, and really be
William Norton: very confident in in what would be kind of a a
William Norton: a long term pattern in the business.
William Norton: So I’ll pause there, and and I’ll let Kyle, if you have any other kind of observations that led into this study that we’re going to talk about next.
Kyle Campos: Yeah, no, I think I I think that report came at an interesting time with like community momentum. And what sort of trailing indicators or business impact had been felt at at that time.
Kyle Campos: And it was clear the business impact hadn’t yet been felt yet, right? And I think there was
Kyle Campos: a lot a lot more uncertainty about the path ahead.
Kyle Campos: I think you use the word hedging on on the forward looking impact as well, like, okay, well.
Kyle Campos: we got some. We got some things brewing here in the community in this practice, and we have some thesis around. It’s its business impact. But there wasn’t a lot of
Kyle Campos: evidence yet of it, of it bearing fruit that that I think for some
Kyle Campos: myself included, who had, you know, are already been in it in it. You know, some years leading into that. I was pretty shocked by that like, really, you’re not like.
Kyle Campos: The impact seemed pretty clear from my perspective of being like in the, you know, in the sort of finop salt mines, I guess. With you know with with my organization.
Kyle Campos: But at the same time that that Finops X at that time you could. It was a big jump forward from the previous previous year, right in just sort of community engagement, and the conversation was starting to evolve
Kyle Campos: and mature.
Kyle Campos: so I think you know teaser for the next one. You can kind of see how this, how this moved year to year.
William Norton: Exactly right. And that’s why we thought it was so important to kind of give this this groundwork in this context, because this was a report that was released in either. Late Q. 2 of last year, early Q. 3 of the calendar year, and so about a year difference between this report and what we’re going to go through here. And, boy what a year can do. So let’s let’s talk about some of the key. Finding that we
William Norton: received in in our latest Vii.
William Norton: So there were a lot of gains
William Norton: in in the
William Norton: in the world of finops, culturally, that we saw from this study.
William Norton: 70% of respondents claim that the effectiveness of building a culture of collaboration between Finops and and the devops. Slash engineering
William Norton: Teams was was was very high confidence, and that is something that has, I, I would say, plagued the Fin Ops community for such a long time. In fact, if you look back on kind of prior years in in the state of finop report.
William Norton: This kind of collaboration, and getting finops and devops seems to work arm in arm
William Norton: had been this challenge that the finox community had been looking to overcome for quite some time. So 70% was
William Norton: very good to see. In this report
William Norton: we saw that 65%
William Norton: across again, all cohort indicate that finops, objectives at this point are mostly or completely incorporated into cloud engineering teams and metrics and incentives. So that’s a big leap. Bringing the the goals and the frameworks and and the insight from
William Norton: in, you know, from spin off directly to the engineering teams and incorporating it into their processes and their their frameworks, is very important to seeing noticeable change
William Norton: happening kind of consistently throughout day to day in the cloud.
William Norton: 84% of respondents say that you know, finop considerations are always or often being built into the product engineering life, cycle and processes.
William Norton: I’ll be the 1st to admit this one surprised me. 85, you know, nearly 85% of respondents saying that.
William Norton: yeah, finops. Considerations are kind of now in in the mix with all the other considerations that happen
William Norton: with product development and and life cycle choices. That is a pretty big gain for for something that has been kind of on the back
William Norton: burner for a while.
William Norton: and then 88% claim that executive sponsorship and support in aligning finops and devops is very good or excellent. So the the higher layers of the business kind of making sure that this is important and that that’s well known. These are all very good signals to cultural change.
William Norton: That, I think, was was a long time kind of barrier to success for a lot of finops teams. You think about the ratio of you know what is 4.1 on average finops, leaders to oftentimes thousands
William Norton: of of engineers and devops leaders in a business.
William Norton: That ratio can really only be balanced if you have this kind of overall culture of finops in the business. And so, seeing these gains
William Norton: was great Paul. I’ll open it up to you to bring any insights from the data from your perspective, and then hand it to Kyle.
Paul Bragan: Yeah, so if we, there’s a lot here to be really happy about if we look at these numbers a little a little deeper. We look at them through the prism of those 3 audiences that we surveyed. You know. Naturally, there is the most confidence at the at the top of the org chart, where
Paul Bragan: maybe leaders aren’t as ball as involved in sort of the day to day operations. So executives are are actually the most likely they’re almost 40% more likely to say that efforts have been very effective. But across the board, you know, more than
Paul Bragan: over 80%. So more than 8 and 10. Whether we’re talking about practitioners or leaders, they feel that the efforts have been effective at, you know, at some level, whether somewhat effective, very effective, completely effective to build this culture of of collaboration.
Paul Bragan: So that’s a that’s a big accomplishment the
Paul Bragan: down below, where we see, you know, 88% claiming that executive support in aligning fin Ops and engineering, that it’s that it’s very good, or or that it’s excellent. To give you a sense for how strong that number is.
Paul Bragan: the the rest of respondents are essentially saying that it’s good across the board, you know, one port, 1% or or less, you know. Essentially 0. Statistically speaking, of of fin ops, professionals of engineers would say that it’s
Paul Bragan: fair or poor. So essentially, nobody is saying that people are saying that there is definitely support from executives. So like, I said, these are, these are really strong claims. These are these are numbers to be, really proud of.
William Norton: Kyle. I’ll open it up to you, I mean, I know, early on, and and obviously I’ve been in the the world of finance for quite some time. Getting that executive buy in seemed to be the largest challenge. Early on
William Norton: from an investment dollars perspective headcount, you know, just getting the rest of the organization to to steer in this direction.
William Norton: Pretty exciting to see 88%.
William Norton: What are your thoughts on that and the other things on on this slide?
Kyle Campos: Yeah, I
Kyle Campos: I was surprised. Cause I would say the you know, the sentiment
Kyle Campos: in the community, the chat, the chat in the summit in the virtual summits, and you know some of the state of phenomenal support data as well.
Kyle Campos: Shows a lot more tension here, or, you know, desire for improved exec executive support. So
Kyle Campos: this shows we have made a lot of progress there which is good.
Kyle Campos: Now,
Kyle Campos: Being an executive myself.
Kyle Campos: This is not. This is not something that stays forever. Executive support can be somewhat fickle if the if the outcomes don’t closely follow behind, right? So it’s it’s, you know, over one hurdle, and then staring, staring at the next. I think a little bit here, which it’s it’s a good thing from community momentum. And and you know the
Kyle Campos: the theoretical business impact. You need to clear that hurdle like, all right. Now you got the sponsorship. Now you got the support. Go, do.
Kyle Campos: and give me the promises that you’ve been you’ve been you know, talking about. So it’s it’s congratulations in one breath, and then like onto the next challenge in another. I think.
William Norton: I think some of the the next slide kind of points to
William Norton: maybe what you’re alluding to, and what we we see in here in the community is, you know, all of that last slide is really
William Norton: exciting to read and and digest when we 1st got the results back. But where we were scratching our head of it. And and this is.
William Norton: you know, really, some of the reason is we we kind of name this, that alignment paradox.
William Norton: At the same time that clearly there’s there’s cultural growth and movement maturity. There’s also
William Norton: a lot of of the cohort
William Norton: kind of saying blatantly that the divide between finops, teams and cloud engineer and engineering teams still exists. 86% that there’s still a divide between team
William Norton: and then 74% agree that the divide is is widening. So in the last 12 months
William Norton: that gap is growing
William Norton: between those 2 teams.
William Norton: the divide is is very much felt more by finop professionals. So 42% of finop professionals
William Norton: the viewing finops as a separate entity as a top challenge that they face. So so again getting the rest of the organization to kind of adopt that mindset of finops is the the role of everyone in the business, the steward of of it?
William Norton: And then, you see engineering
William Norton: reporting back that you know, they they only believe about 32% believe that same thing. So this paradox that we see where there’s obviously some some cultural barriers that have and hurdles that have been jumped over in the last, you know, one to 2 years. But then still, this kind of growing divide between engineering and finops teams.
William Norton: We’ll talk about.
William Norton: you know, some of some of the the challenges that Finops leaders face to try to get over these hurdles in a moment.
William Norton: But
William Norton: this was one that definitely made us scratch our heads. And so, Paul, is there anything that you’d like to talk about in the data set here.
Paul Bragan: Yeah, I think this slide is a good it’s a good snapshot of
Paul Bragan: where the rubber hits the road, or maybe you know, the difference between talking the talk and walking the walk, so to speak. So there’s a lot there’s disalignment, and there’s disagreement on the details and sort of what that divide is.
Paul Bragan: why it exists. And where do we go from here but that 80, that 86%. The fact that there is a divide. The fact that there’s an issue.
Paul Bragan: large companies and smaller organizations equally agree that there’s this divide. In fact, the numbers are nearly identical. You know, there’s a divide between Finops and the engineering engineering teams. Even the even the the C-suite, those that are managing the decision making. They see that divide and the that 86%. The fact that there’s an issue here.
Paul Bragan: That was one of the most consistent findings in the study, of course. Where do we go from? Here is where we see a lot of divergence.
Paul Bragan: And so it felt to us when we looked at these numbers that Finops has been prioritized, and they’ve they’ve been given a seat at the table. But maybe there’s still a question over whether they’re really being allowed to speak up. You know, when it comes to next steps, and and where do we go from? Here?
William Norton: How? What were your reactions when you 1st saw this.
Kyle Campos: Yeah, so clearly, like the previous slide was like, we are, the cultures made a large.
Kyle Campos: a large leap. And then this was like, well, clearly the work is not done here, because what this is
Kyle Campos: this is pushing back against is one of like the foundational principles of of
Kyle Campos: finops. And it’s and its influence from the devops principles. And 1 1 of those 3 is systems thinking and de siloing desiling yourselves. And what this is showing
Kyle Campos: is that everyone’s running to their specialization corners right?
Kyle Campos: and and in some cases viewing that positive, some some might view that positively here, saying, there’s not a problem with that.
Kyle Campos: Running, running, and and siloing yourself.
Kyle Campos: But the reality is, is that
Kyle Campos: You can’t possibly have
Kyle Campos: the business impact.
Kyle Campos: That is, that is promised by by doing that.
Kyle Campos: I I personally fought against this a lot when I started my finops team because it was there was a lot of sort of.
Kyle Campos: you know, business intuition that because there’s so many numbers and finances involved here that it should be something that’s taken outside of an engineering context.
Kyle Campos: And you know, handled entirely separately. And I think that’s kind of surfacing here.
Kyle Campos: That that’s a that’s a reflex. That’s an intuition that a lot have, and depending on how that function is running the fin Ops
Kyle Campos: function and practices is running
Kyle Campos: sort of you know how alien it feels to the engineering.
Kyle Campos: You know, language and process and mode of work, etc. It can keep separating that way right? And and you know, showing that the divide is even widening more
Kyle Campos: versus, you know, facilitating something that’s more common where there’s more, more and more overlap. That’s the direction we need to see in the Finops community. And as it’s, you know, being practiced in in businesses is that that’s actually becoming less and less specialized, more and more overlap collaboration and continuity between those 2 functions, and we’ll get into some of the
Kyle Campos: the how. You know, we think we can do that. But but clearly we got a lot of work to do there.
William Norton: Wanted to offer up, you know, Yasmin, maybe calling on you for a second, because, as we think about the user base of of Stormforge.
William Norton: I know you lean. You know that that product leans far more towards kind of engineering
William Norton: personas versus. You know some of the
William Norton: the world that we live in. You know more finops, leaders as buyers. What were we? What are your reactions to this? And and from the engineering perspective?
William Norton: Any any comments on on why this divide continues to grow.
Yasmin: This is definitely something we see, and
Yasmin: for for what we see from a like Kubernetes standpoint is teams just aren’t speaking the same language. It’s a lot of what you’re seeing in the report of. We’ll see Finops team saying like, Yes, cost is a top priority for us. We want to go in and optimize that they may have a level of reporting that they can go back to the teams and say, Hey, here are the areas that are the most challenging. We need to go address.
Yasmin: But from a platform engineer. Okay, great. You want me to go address this. But it it’s not that easy to just go in and make a change like if I make a change in one place, it’s gonna have ramifications across the application, and especially when it like my world obviously, is the Kubernetes world. There’s a lot more toggles for people to have to configure, so it’s
Yasmin: they can’t go back to the Finops team and say, like, No, this is actually really complicated. We can’t do it. And it’s getting them for us. It’s getting them on the same page, having them in the same meeting and having the software be the thing that drives the language versus the people, so that they can say, okay, I ran a report. I see the recommendations that I can go take action on. I will do that. And at the end of the day the Finops team sees the dollar value go down and they’re happy. And the platform engineers know that automation is handling this and not like someone going in and
Yasmin: making, one c, 2 z, changes.
William Norton: We see, you know, on this next slide. I just maybe build this out a little bit, but I think it speaks to, you know both of
William Norton: yes, and what you’re commenting on here, as well as what Kyle was commenting on is, you know, as we dug deeper into. Okay, why is there this divide?
William Norton: There’s some key questions and answers that I think at least point us in the right direction.
William Norton: and then we’ll layer on some of what we’re hearing from the community towards the end here. But you know there, there’s still no consensus on who should be responsible for fenops. Success.
William Norton: 63% of executives have the It department 53% of engineers of the It department
William Norton: 53% of finance professionals, said the finance department. So there’s a kind of pointing
William Norton: in a bunch of different directions to go. Well, the the buck stopped here or there, or or somewhere else.
William Norton: but this lack of alignment around.
William Norton: You know what?
William Norton: Who, who really ultimately should be in charge of the results of a finops team?
William Norton: It’s still something that’s very blurry even now, with, you know, a lot of mature companies having, you know, 2 to 3 years of a practice in place.
William Norton: Paul. Was there anything you wanted to comment on on this slide.
Paul Bragan: Just how deep this lack of consensus runs. So you’re looking here at sort of who people think is their 1st choice. And there really is a consensus here. There isn’t even consensus on who would be your second choice, you know, for example, like engineers, even as their second choice, they tend to say that the Dev team should be responsible for finop success rather than the finance team. We saw disagreement when we looked at
Paul Bragan: larger organizations versus smaller organizations. The the numbers were kind of all over the place, and it was really I like, I said, they’re they’re not even just disagreeing on who they who they pick, 1st who they pick. Second, there’s still disagreement. There’s really no alignment here.
Kyle Campos: Yeah.
William Norton: Internet.
Kyle Campos: Yeah. So
Kyle Campos: the the how closely this follows, like the devops cultural arc over time is, is pretty striking to me. When I saw this so
Kyle Campos: shared responsibility is like 3rd rail organizational thought, like, it is very difficult
Kyle Campos: to and very scary thought to walk up the executive chain like, well, it’s all of our responsibility. And like, okay, like, let’s back on planet Earth. Who is the throat that I am choking right like that? That is that is how the conversation devolves. And I think the the way through this, which is similar
Kyle Campos: exactly parallel to the to the devops. You know, cultural arc
Kyle Campos: is
Kyle Campos: moving from responsibility to outcome. To say, like, Okay, I know the shared responsibility is a difficult organizational thought for accountability, etc. purposes. But if we can align on the business outcome that this is going to drive the how becomes a little bit less important at at a at a top executive level
Kyle Campos: and seeing the impact is what is, what can align people on? So not a lot of people understood the impact of devops and continuous delivery and all those things and what it was going to do to your product velocity. It was like, Okay, there’s a lot of
Kyle Campos: lot of you know, complex language. But then the business impact started getting felt like, Oh, my, gosh, we’re getting time, our time to markets lowering right? And our our. You know, our, our lead time is actually making. Our customers are decreasing lead times when our customers happier. So that type of impact is where I think, is the next step of this conversation to to mature into.
William Norton: Is it fair to say that as you’re maturing your finance practice, this will change as well where where you begin responsibility, is maybe a little bit more centralized, and then, as you
William Norton: kind of get wins in your sale around finops as a practice, then it starts to kind of grow. You know, the responsibility starts to get felt in a broader sense.
Kyle Campos: I think a lot of that depends on how how it originated in, like where the seed was planted in the organization. To begin with.
Kyle Campos: In my context.
Kyle Campos: it’s always been the engineering side, because, you know, it was Cfos yelling at me about like
Kyle Campos: the the cost, the budget. And how are we going to forecast? And all of this before? Finops was really in a sort of, you know, emerging
Kyle Campos: title, and you know, practice in and of itself.
Kyle Campos: And so in those contexts, I think you you see this sort of
Kyle Campos: instrument instrumentation, the facilitation of how all of this comes together from insight to action.
Kyle Campos: I think you see that spread, you know, throughout the organization much more organically when it starts the other way. And you’re trying to inject
Kyle Campos: inject back into all those other parts of the business.
Kyle Campos: It takes it takes it takes more time, right? And you got more. Yasmin was talking about the you know language differences. You got a lot of things, a lot of a lot of
Kyle Campos: a lot of hurdles to to clear to to get it, you know, baked in to other parts of the org.
Paul Bragan: And yeah.
William Norton: And if I can, yeah, go ahead.
Yasmin: I was just gonna jump in on what Kyle said. What? Where we’ve seen this be most successful is with the rise of rise of a platform engineering teams. A lot of this capability becomes self service for other for folks in the organization. So even if they’re not thinking about it from a like this is my responsibility. The tooling is available to them. So it’s not extra effort to make sure that you are optimized from day one. It’s not extra effort to like.
Yasmin: Consider how this will impact your costs, because that tooling is available for you. And we’ve seen that be like when you talked about maturity like the more mature orgs
Yasmin: are thinking about this on day one, because it’s available to them, and it’s not oh, it’s not a lot more thinking and tooling that they have to put into place.
Yasmin: That maybe they would choose to not trade off like a developer is going to say I gotta get my app out as fast as possible. I’m not going to think about the cost ramifications, but if he doesn’t have to think about it on day one. Then it makes it a lot simpler.
William Norton: One other thing, Yasmin, that I know we’ve talked about in the past. That might be worth commenting on here, is there? There definitely does exist. Kind of silos of of strategy. Right? I mean, cost reduction in an organization.
William Norton: The pressure is felt everywhere. The pressure doesn’t always necessarily go through the fin OP. Team out every single time. And so, you know, I I’m sure it’s probably fair to say that in a lot of your engagements with customers
William Norton: you may be talking to an engineering or or dev team
William Norton: about. You know, storm Forge is a solution to to reduce cost
William Norton: kind of existing outside of a spin up priority or strategy, almost the silo that. Maybe the sales team isn’t even aware about. I mean, I know you’re talking about platform engineering
William Norton: that really can be beneficial in the way of kind of connecting the technology strategy. But and how often are finops leaders involved in the decision making. From your perspective.
Yasmin: In our world. Honestly, it’s a minority of the time that the Finops team is involved. Because those engineering teams are feeling the pressure. And it’s not even always the okay. I’m trying to reduce costs. It’s more about resources. It’s I know I’m wasting resources. And I would like to. If it’s, let’s say an on Prem Kubernetes deployment, I would like to free up those resources for other teams to be able to make use of them. If they’re on one of the cloud vendors, it’s
Yasmin: I can see the bill, and I’m trying to be more resource, aware, so that some the Cfo doesn’t knock on my door, so they’re trying to get ahead of that. And then also just making sure that workloads are properly right side from the other side of it. Of do I have enough resources? So they usually have that view, and as a result it ends up saving money, and we’ve had situations where the turn off team had no idea that the team was using Stormforge they’re optimizing their resources.
Yasmin: But when they were able to share a report that gets sent out through the organization. And then someone on the finance team sees it gets excited and they get pulled in. We can like, have that story. It’s a really nice win. But it almost.
Yasmin: It almost always happens after the fact than in the beginning. And it kind of points back to how siloed these teams are. Even if they’re the same goals, they’re not always talking to each other.
William Norton: Yeah.
William Norton: thank you for that.
William Norton: So I think as we
William Norton: we asked kind of another set of questions, and I’ll I’ll let Paul comment on on the exact methodology of this question. But you know, one of the things we wanted to do is go. Okay. So
William Norton: for the longest time. I think anybody who’s kind of been in the Finops role.
William Norton: whether it be, you know, leader or practitioner.
William Norton: You. There’s been this constant feeling of there’s a lot of different things I’m being asked to do. And if you you talk to, you know finite practitioner A, and then you go talk to finop practitioner B about their weekly schedule and their daily priorities. You hear a wide.
William Norton: that of variation.
William Norton: Between what? What finance leaders are all focusing on?
William Norton: And we asked the question, What’s what’s holding you back right now to bridge that divide, to get
William Norton: kind of better organizational adoption of fenops and what we found with kind of dark in in that there’s not one lever that
William Norton: this these cohorts agreed upon. It’s kind of
William Norton: all of the above, really. And so you see this becoming a problem of
William Norton: focusing on a whole bunch of different things and trying to overcome a whole bunch of different things
William Norton: as a small team.
William Norton: and that, you know, we continue to see the priorities of Finops
William Norton: teams kind of grow and change and and and get more complex as the clouds grow and become more complex, and as we learn more as a community
William Norton: but as you can see here, you know what what the responses were were pretty close. I mean, you don’t really have much variation.
William Norton: People are saying that there’s a skill set and knowledge gap. There is this issue of kind of viewing finops as a separate entity. You’ve got different reporting structures as as being a big problem. Cross functional collaboration is missing misaligned objectives and incentives, and then organizational silos.
William Norton: Paul, did you want to talk about this question and anything that was significant from your vantage point?
Paul Bragan: Sure. So the intent behind this question and the way it was asked was to try and get respondents to prioritize, so that we’d have certain things rise up to the top, and certain priorities
Paul Bragan: fall down to the bottom, and you can see it. It was really hard here. Everything kind of tied and that that shows that you know, people
Paul Bragan: A aren’t really sure. And B think all of these things are are
Paul Bragan: important challenges and barriers
Paul Bragan: when we look at them amongst the different audiences, I mean, there’s slight degrees. There’s differences, but they’re sort of degrees of difference the degrees of difference, not not really differences in in the top 2 or top 3 priorities, you know.
Paul Bragan: fin ops professionals. They they tend to feel that the key obstacle to overcome is being viewed as a separate ident, a separate entity, executives and business leaders. They tended to be more focused on trying to solve that the knowledge gap, the skill set gap developers, engineers, they tend to be more focused on
Paul Bragan: the different reporting structures and organizational silos as their top concerns. But these are nuanced differences. These are differences in degrees. They’re really people thought all of these things are are important concerns and barriers. There wasn’t 1 thing that rose above the rest.
William Norton: We kind of turn the page into
William Norton: talking about kind of what we see is critical maturity. Kpi
William Norton: wanna maybe set the
William Norton: the context here, as we think about all of what we saw in the last few slides, and I would say, the
William Norton: the kind of ongoing complexity and pressure that finops teams are feeling. There’s been this shift in the community and we we saw it at Fenops X. We hear it with our customers. We certainly thought in the state of finops around. Okay, well, there’s all these kind of organizational, cultural things that need to get done. And we.
William Norton: I I think most Finops teams have resolved themselves to having to be kind of change agents for businesses. And then, at the same time, there’s functional things that need to happen to affect that change. And and there’s a layer of, we think about kind of people process and technology. There’s a layer of well, the technology has to help us scale this out and overcome these things so that we can be focused on
William Norton: what? What really is kind of the the organizational change management required to make them that goal.
William Norton: We asked a question about insight to action.
William Norton: which we’ll we’ll kind of dissect in in a little bit, and I know there’s a a lot here on this on this screen. But if I was to give you a too long didn’t read
William Norton: the insight to action. Kpi, if you will, is really focused on from the time that a a team becomes aware of a cost, anomaly, or waste
William Norton: in the cloud, what is the total time it takes to resolve that waste in the cloud.
William Norton: And when you ask the question just
William Norton: based on your knowledge and experience, to all of these cohorts. What do you think your average insight to action? Time is
William Norton: most were very confident, saying it. It takes days or longer to respond.
William Norton: At best, and then you’ve got 31%, you know, who are saying this oftentimes will take weeks or months, and for those of us who have been in the finops. World, you know. We know that it it largely depends on on what workloads we’re talking about, and maybe what part of of our cloud that we’re talking about. But there absolutely are instances where this lead time to action.
William Norton: Can take quarters, if not years, to be resolved. And there’s a lot of reasons for that. We’ll talk about kind of where we think technology plays here. But, Paul, is there anything on this question that you wanted to
William Norton: call out specifically.
Paul Bragan: No, I mean, I think the 67 and the 31 tell the best story, which is just, you know.
Paul Bragan: Wow! The fact that 2 out of 3 are saying it’s taking a long time, and then
Paul Bragan: one in 3 is saying it’s taking effectively, you know.
Paul Bragan: forever. I mean, it’s taking an incredible amount of time. We saw the we saw those alarms consistently when we looked at the different size organizations. It’s a consistent story. Yeah.
William Norton: So at the same time, and we’ll open up to Kyle and Yasmin in a second to talk about this in in general, but at the same time, you know, we kind of asked the question.
William Norton: do you know, do you feel that technology should be the answer
William Norton: and the overwhelming majority agree that you know finance is not going to be able to reach its full potential without advanced tooling.
William Norton: With things like AI and Ml to kind of accelerate that insight to action.
William Norton: for for optimization and other tasks in the cloud.
William Norton: I’m gonna switch forward to this next slide around kind of what, how we feel, that plays out in a perfect world, and what you know Nirvana should look like
William Norton: but as I do that, you know, I’ll I’ll toss it over to Kyle. Can you talk through? You know why we feel there’s this golden metric around insight to action, and how we think about obviously the technical layer. But then there’s people in profit that we know all kind of come together to to create that that period of time between insight and action. And you know, if you get that insight to action down, you really are showing a lot of maturity in your finance practice.
Kyle Campos: Yeah, I I think it’s a key metric, because it is the system metric of from beginning to end.
Kyle Campos: How many humans are involved? How much time does it take the human to react to a data point, to then to you know, to receive, there’s lead time to actually receive that data point, to analyze it. Then to make a decision about what what happens next?
Kyle Campos: There’s approval processes, etc. So that sort of beginning to end. Insight to action lead time is indicative of the entire, you know, value stream process or waste cycle of your entire organization, and sometimes in fact, most times, especially with that last data point.
Kyle Campos: It’s an eye watering, scary figure to to add up
Kyle Campos: and I think you know.
Kyle Campos: when you
Kyle Campos: when you do that analysis.
Kyle Campos: If you’re
Kyle Campos: optimization process in, you know how you evaluate and improve cloud Roi
Kyle Campos: is more closely tied to like
Kyle Campos: quarterly tax preparation than like a continuously continuous optimization and pipelines executing off off of you know, real time telemetry. It’s closer to quarterly tax prep where you’re analyzing cloud receipts and humans are, may, you know, going through their emotional responses of Oh, my gosh! That’s been a wasteful thing like, how do we get the teams to behave differently. You’re in a you’re in a poor spot, and I think right now we are
Kyle Campos: as an industry, but certainly a couple
Kyle Campos: as a as a vendor solution is is saying, practitioners can’t accept that dynamic anymore. Businesses certainly can’t absorb the waste generated by those you know. Human episodic driven processes. We need
Kyle Campos: the augmented finops. Aiml driven insights to be able to
Kyle Campos: quicken the pace, but also.
Kyle Campos: you know, attack the most the areas that are most driving waste. And that is very difficult for humans to do. I think you know. And Yasmin, your your context, this is, it’s it’s really clear, because that type of telemetry is is all that can influence these decisions. Humans can’t possibly evaluate all those signals and make decisions at all.
Yasmin: Yeah, definitely. And that’s where I think we see the majority of these initiatives kind of fail. Humans will try and don’t get me wrong for a subset of your infrastructure. You can spend a lot of effort. Figure out what changes you need to make. Deploy those changes, get all the approvals, and that’s great once. But then, once you put that in place tomorrow, it’s out of date. Do the dynamic nature of your environment due to just traffic patterns changing and
Yasmin: like it, like you mentioned, humans can’t possibly look at all that data. It’s all structured. It’s all essentially the same type of data that just changes and it’s perfect for machine learning. And in order to make any of these initiatives successful, it can’t be a 1 and done thing. It has to be continuous. It has to always be looking, always be addressing it. And it’s the only way you can actually get this down to seconds like you mentioned.
William Norton: I’d love to ask the question, because I know this has come up, and I I see it in some of the polling. We’re actually doing right now. There’s always been hesitation in
William Norton: the
William Norton: I I certainly say I’m I’m more of the cloud engineering side as spin off. Leaders have said, Hey, we, we have this automation tool that will help do this all behind the scenes.
William Norton: And and oftentimes I was met, you know, a couple of years ago as a consultant with
William Norton: that looks like a lot of risk. And it is just. It just does not allow me to put the type of logic that I know I have
William Norton: to ensure that we’re we’re making the right decisions, I just.
William Norton: And it’s far too dangerous for me to run at scale.
William Norton: And there’s been a lot of talk in the community right now around, okay, we know we need automation.
William Norton: But we know the automation that we’ve been historically
William Norton: handing out to the rest of the organization has been met with a lot of like, no way.
William Norton: that’s not gonna work.
William Norton: You know. Both of you are product leaders.
William Norton: I’d love for you to kind of respond to that and talk about, how can we make automation more practical
William Norton: and and get that degree of confidence a lot higher, because, you know, we know on the other side, cloud engineering teams use automation all the time at the part of everything that they do it just feels like it always fell short in this one contact. So Kyle.
Kyle Campos: I’ll I’ll I’ll go real quick and get it. Get it to Yasmin as well. But here’s here’s what I’ve always told my my platform teams, etc.
Kyle Campos: Codify your anxiety like if if you are, if you are standing there saying only I can interpret a B or C, or make a wise judgment about ABC. ABC, I would say, if it’s not in the pipeline, it’s not a real. It’s not a real concern. It can’t be that important to you. If you can’t codify that decisioning
Kyle Campos: build in protection like, wh, what do you? What do you think the risk is? Codify it in
Kyle Campos: cloud engineering in general. I I would just say this. I’ll maybe my last controversial thought, and I’ll hand it to you, Yasmin.
Kyle Campos: There was a lot more complex automation happening in this world with much higher stakes.
Kyle Campos: Then just
Kyle Campos: cloud optimization and scale decisions. Right? There’s, you know, a lot of automated security decisions that could ruin companies that are happening all of the time.
Kyle Campos: There’s, you know, there’s multi cloud
Kyle Campos: failover decisions happening for large e-commerce companies
Kyle Campos: that could that could cost a a company tens of millions of dollars with that with bad decisioning there. So the the level of complexity we’re operating at here, I think, is pretty basic, and I think it shows some of the siloing between Finopsin and the engineering teams that this is still a large concern.
Kyle Campos: Yasmin, your thoughts tell me I’m crazy.
Yasmin: Yeah, no, no, you’re not. And you mentioned how similar this initiative is to the Devops days. So before Stormforge, I spent many years at puppet.
Yasmin: and people had the same fear of like, Oh, you’re gonna detect drift and then automatically change it. And the reality is to get anyone bought into automation, especially machine learning, driven automation. You have to give them the proof points upfront like they need to be able to see that all of their fears like you mentioned. If they can codify them, can they see that? Okay, if this was to run, it wouldn’t impact me poorly.
Yasmin: And giving really humans control over the automation and the machine learning, putting in guardrails, saying, allowing them to put inputs like, don’t deploy this unless it’s X percent larger or slowly, gradually deploy this out so that I can watch the impacts and feel confident before I pull the trigger to deploy it everywhere. It’s kind of building those gates into the automation to let the humans feel like they’re in control, which
Yasmin: they should be and get that confidence upfront before. Just like turning it all on all or nothing.
William Norton: Thank you both.
William Norton: I’ve tried to weave some of the questions that we’ve received throughout. I I don’t think there’s anything that has been left unanswered. I will
William Norton: open it up, though, if there are any questions feel free to put those in the chat.
William Norton: and I can hang on for a few more minutes, and for any of our panelists who can hang out. We can
William Norton: give a few more seconds. But in the meantime I want to thank everybody who was able to join
William Norton: for jumping on and to our panelists for taking the time. Today, this has been great. Obviously we will have the recording available and sent out to everybody who showed interest.
William Norton: So with that I’ll give a few more seconds. But
William Norton: thanks everybody for joining.
Kyle Campos: Thanks everyone, appreciate it.
Yasmin: Thank you. Thanks for having me.
William Norton: Alright. Looks like we are good. Thanks, everybody. We will send a follow up via email. And Yasmin, Paul Kyle appreciate you all joining.
William Norton: Have a good rest of your day.
Paul Bragan: Welcome. Thank you.
This is for eGuides category filter so the category will not return empty.
Introduction:
I received a text from a former colleague and friend out of the blue today that read “I guess VMware is officially dead now that they’re just part of the Broadcom portfolio”. I had already started to write this article, but his sentiments really hit home with what I was feeling throughout the process of working through things; I felt a little like I was writing an obituary for a friend. Not that VMware is dead, but after the Broadcom acquisition there is certainly a sense that the company and technology that I have been passionate about for the last 15+ years will be changing in the very near future.
I started working with VMware technologies in the mid-2000’s and instantly knew that virtualization is where I wanted to focus my efforts in the IT industry. I’ve passed at least 7 VMware certifications (3 of which were VCAPs), I attended 4 VMworlds, and was recognized as a vExpert for 3 years. I’ve worked with most of their Datacenter-centric products and some of the End User Computing (EUC) technologies. I’ve spent long hours in the middle of the night with VMware support to resolve critical outages, and I’ve had the privilege of being employed at a software company that competes with VMware in some areas, and augments them in others for the past 5 years. It has been an exciting ride, and anyone else who’s taken a similar journey can probably relate. But with the latest news (now a few weeks old) out of Palo Alto, change is very likely on the horizon.
In this article I am attempting to summarize what I’ve heard from my customers who are leveraging VMware and concerned with the recent Broadcom acquisition. Migration with VMware can be a complex problem, and I hope to offer some guidance for customers who are wondering if this is something that they should be considering, as well as address some best practices on what a migration might look like. The challenge with attempting to tackle something like this is that the answer (as with so many other things in IT) is not a one-size-fits-all approach. Each organization has its own processes, procedures, requirements, and personnel that are uniquely its own and all of these will play into the decision for migration as well as the path towards any such efforts.
A Cause for Concern?
Over the past 6-12 months I’ve spoken with customers all over the spectrum as far as what their priorities would be if and then when the Broadcom acquisition closed. Some customers were ready to jump ship altogether, others on the opposite end of the spectrum were indifferent to the acquisition and considered things to be business as usual. Most customers, however, at least wanted to understand what their alternatives were so that they could take a measured approach to migration should the need arise.
From the customers that I have spoken with, their concerns with the acquisition are usually centered around three pain points. None of these have actually come to fruition yet. Nonetheless, we are already starting to read the tea leaves by way of layoffs, office closures, and product line spinoffs, which will all have an impact on customers in both the short and long term. The bottom line is that Broadcom is following a playbook that has been very familiar to them across previous acquisitions – they are seeking to capitalize on their investment by increasing revenues and cutting costs. The typical concerns that I am hearing include:
- Broadcom price increases: Broadcom has a history of increasing prices post-acquisition with other products. In previous instances, they knew customers were reliant on solutions that Broadcom purchased and had no other option than to accept steep price hikes upon their next renewal. All indications are that this is happening again now.
- Product discontinuation: Customers are also wondering which products may find themselves being discontinued. If these decisions impact their critical workloads they want to be better prepared for the road ahead.
- Future roadmap/investment: Will there continue to be investment in the products under Broadcom leadership? In previous acquisitions, the pace and depth of innovation waned significantly; in some cases it stopped altogether.
Discovery Phase – Should we Migrate?
With VMware, the migration question comes with a very complex answer due to the nature of VMware technologies potentially being embedded in a majority of all IT systems in the datacenter, and at times the public cloud as well. These days, the VMware technologies stack encompasses far more than their original breadwinner of vSphere for server virtualization. A lot of customers have bought into the entire VMware ecosystem – VMware technologies are hosting all of their compute workloads, running their virtual desktops and remote access systems, providing security, networking, disaster recovery, storage, identity management and application access just to name a few.
If you are happy with the VMware technologies that are in use today, and have zero concern surrounding the Broadcom acquisition, I would say that this is a pretty straightforward answer. You are in a good position to continue with your current investment in VMware. VMware has been a leader in the industry for a long time for a good reason; hopefully, under Broadcom leadership, this trend continues and you can expect the same innovation and service levels that you are accustomed to as a VMware customer.
Discovery Phase Considerations
For the rest of us, here are some good steps and questions to consider when making this determination:
- Take inventory: What VMware solutions are we licensed for/using? How mission-critical are these technologies? Who are the stakeholders for each system? Identify dependencies for each solution in use.
- Assess the organization’s ongoing need for each solution: Can we do without any of these solutions? Which products are not being actively used and have transitioned to being shelfware (you might be surprised at this answer when asked of the stakeholders)?
- Discover product overlap: What other technology investments has the organization made that have overlapping capability sets? Do these solutions meet the requirements that we have for the corresponding VMware capability?
- Evaluate alternatives for each solution: Are there best-of-breed alternatives in the market that meet our organizations requirements for the challenge that this technology is being used to solve? Do these technologies offer a migration path? Do some of these alternatives better position us for migration away from other VMware technologies in the future?
- Account for the cost of migration: The cost to migrate IT systems can often be drastically underestimated. How much work is needed to migrate? How much will ramp-up time on a new technology cost the organization?
Discovery Phase Outputs
When the discovery phase is complete, you should understand at least the following about the task at hand:
- All VMware Products currently licensed, dependencies and the stakeholders for each
- VMware Products that aren’t actively in use (shelfware)
- Existing (competitive solutions) investments with overlapping capabilities
- Viable alternative solutions
- Estimated costs for migration
- VMware products that are essential to the organization’s strategy that cannot be initially migrated either due to criticality of the system or lack of viable alternative solutions
The Decision Point
Armed with your outputs from discovery, you should be in a position to determine whether to move away from VMware or not. There are really only three outcomes here, but I suspect that most customers will probably fall into the third bucket
- No migration:
- We are happy with all of our current investments
- The cost to migrate is too great; we are willing to accept potential price increases and risks
- Migrate everything
- Migrate the surrounding solutions that we identified where good alternatives have been identified:
- Stop paying for shelfware.
- Reduce overall VMware licensing cost by investing in third-party solutions where it makes sense.
- Leave core critical VMware solutions alone but migrate the add-on solutions.
Quite a few of the customers that I’ve spoken with who have already completed their discovery phase here are planning on paring back to just the core VMware SDDC services (Compute (vSphere), Networking (NSX), and Storage (vSAN/others)). Others are planning on doing away with things like the Aria suite and other solutions for which they’ve identified good alternatives.
Planning – Migration Strategy
Now that the decision has been made to migrate – just remember a few key adages :
- “Manage the migration like a product”
- Gather and manage ideas
- Determine specs
- Create a product roadmap
- Can some products be migrated in parallel?
- Are there any dependencies on other migrations?
- Prioritize work
- Delivery
- Testing/Measurement
- Gather feedback: involve end-users early and often – close the feedback loop
- “Leverage existing investments first”
You already have the skillsets to manage these solutions. - “Not everything needs to migrate right away”
Start in areas with the greatest cost impact. Just remember that there is no need to boil the ocean.
Conclusion
Hopefully this article has been thought-provoking and has further helped set a framework to navigate what could be a daunting task. I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that here at CloudBolt offer solutions that are great options – ones I honestly believe are better – for key components of the VMware suite of products should you decide that migration is a path that you are considering. Please reach out to our team with any additional questions, or if you would like to set up a demonstration to discuss your needs.
CloudBolt Cloud Management Platform – Directly replaces the Aria Automation and Aria Orchestration capabilities. Easy Python (the language of automation) backed extensibility. We have a migration path for Aria Automation customers that helps to minimize any burden of migration to CloudBolt and allows you to continue to leverage the development work you and your team did in vRA/vRO specifically. Be on the lookout for additional demonstrations and posts surrounding this migration capability in the coming weeks. (Spoiler alert: CloudBolt makes it easy. Seriously)
CloudBolt Cloud Cost Management – directly replaces the VMware Aria Cost powered by CloudHealth capabilities and offers an innovation pace and path that Broadcom will never keep up with post-acquisition. Stay tuned for some amazing announcements in the coming weeks on this, as well.
Ready to learn more? See how CloudBolt can help with you.
The finalization of Broadcom’s $61 billion acquisition of VMware on November 22, 2023, marks a significant shift in the FinOps and cloud management sector. Given the history of workforce and investment reductions following such large-scale tech mergers, VMware users, particularly those reliant on tools like Aria and Tanzu CloudHealth, are justifiably concerned about potential disruptions.
Know the History and Prepare for the Future
VMware has been a large player in virtualization and cloud infrastructure management, playing a pivotal role in cost optimization and resource efficiency. Its suite was an instrumental first-generation solution adopted by many FinOps professionals for monitoring cloud spending and beginning to ensure financial effectiveness. However, this acquisition introduces uncertainties that require proactive strategies.
The Road Ahead for VMware Customers: Monitoring Upcoming Changes
As the Broadcom-VMware saga unfolds, customers are understandably apprehensive about what lies ahead. This acquisition, while bringing potential for integration of diverse technologies, also raises concerns about the future of VMware’s offerings and how they will fit into Broadcom’s broader strategy.
Restructuring and Streamlining: VMware customers should prepare for shifts in product focus and support structures. Historically, Broadcom’s acquisitions have led to changes in branding, support quality, and investment in innovation. VMware’s strong footprint in enterprise IT and cloud infrastructure could see alterations in its roadmap to align with Broadcom’s business model. In fact, since the merger, Broadcom has already divided VMware into four divisions: the Tanzu Platform Division, the VMware Cloud Foundation, the Application Networking and Security Division, and the Software-Defined Edge Unit.
Price Stability and Negotiations: Broadcom’s CEO, Hock Tan, has assured stakeholders that there will be no price increases on VMware products. However, with what we know of past acquisitions, it’d be prudent to stay skeptical. Negotiating favorable terms and ensuring price stability in a post-acquisition environment will be paramount for users tasked with managing budgets and optimizing costs.
Strategic Partnerships and Ecosystem: The integration of VMware into Broadcom will likely impact its existing partnerships and the broader ecosystem. Customers should closely monitor any changes in strategic alliances that could affect their current deployments and future technology choices.
Backing up these concerns, a recent Forrester Research blog post “WMware Customers: Brace for Impact” has sounded a clarion call: “Don’t hold your breath on a true success story in which VMware remains unaltered and its own independent entity. Do expect price hikes, degraded support, and a VMware with a more diluted value prop.”
VMware in the Broadcom Era: Building a Proactive Response Plan
As we continue to monitor the developments of this acquisition, understanding its impact on the FinOps landscape and preparing for a range of outcomes will be key for VMware customers. The future might hold challenges, but with proactive planning and strategic thinking, businesses can navigate this transition effectively. Below are some key items to get you started:
Proactivity with a Migration Blueprint: Prepare for potential transitions by developing a robust migration plan. This should include:
- Involvement of Cross-Functional Teams: Engage stakeholders from various departments to ensure a well-rounded perspective.
- Thorough Assessment of Features and Dependencies: Understand the full scope of your reliance on VMware products and identify critical functionalities that must be preserved in any transition.
- Risk Assessment and Resource Planning: Evaluate the potential risks and the technical, time, and financial resources required for a smooth transition.
- Phased Migration Approach: Implement the transition in stages, allowing for adjustments and minimizing disruptions.
Scouting for Stable Alternatives: In light of the uncertainties surrounding Broadcom’s future plans for VMware, it’s wise to explore other vendors. Prioritize those who demonstrate a commitment to innovation and customer-centric development, like CloudBolt, which offers next-generation capabilities, robust innovation, stability and agility in an evolving market.
Open Communication and Vigilance: Keeping an open line of communication with Broadcom and staying informed about their plans for VMware will be essential. Customers should engage in discussions about product roadmaps, support commitments, and how their specific needs will be addressed post-acquisition.
Adapting to Market Dynamics: Stay abreast of the developments in the FinOps and cloud management space. Be prepared to adjust your strategies in response to Broadcom’s management decisions and the evolving technological landscape.
Align with Visionaries: Align with partners who share your vision and commitment to cloud financial management. CloudBolt, for instance, stands out as a partner offering consistent, agile, and innovative solutions, well-suited to navigate the uncertainties of post-acquisition market shifts.
Looking Ahead with CloudBolt
As the cloud financial management realm undergoes these significant changes, remember that forewarned is forearmed. By being proactive, staying informed, and partnering with reliable vendors like CloudBolt, you can ensure that your cloud strategy remains resilient and adaptable in the face of industry upheavals.
In these uncertain times, CloudBolt emerges as a steadfast ally in the FinOps domain. We offer unwavering consistency in focusing on customer-centric, agile development to stay ahead of market demands. If you’re contemplating a shift from your current solutions, CloudBolt promises an uninterrupted, stable partnership in navigating the dynamic cloud strategy landscape.
Ready to Explore Alternatives?
CloudBolt enables organizations to gain financial clarity, eliminate wasteful spending, and deploy preventive controls so that they can find true FinOps success. The results speak for themselves – our customers report reducing manual financial processes by 50% or more and actualizing substantial savings within 3-6 months of deployment.
(And after seeing what CloudBolt can do, you might just conclude that “Life’s too short for Broadcom.”)