The panellists

Ian Ryder	Nicola Thompson
appiChar Director	ICT Hub Head of ICT Hub
John Tate (chair) Charity IT Resource Alliance (CITRA) Chairman
Gordon Fong	Duska Rosenberg
Kimcell (incorporting e-mango, X-Net, Datacenta) Director	University of London Royal Holloway Professor of ICT

For the average charity chief executive or trustee, strategic ICT issues don’t often fall particularly high on the agenda. For many, a term like ‘virtualisation’ probably conjures images of Disney films rather than computer technology, but coming to grips with the concept of virtualisation, and implementing it, could lead to a whole raft of organisational benefits.

So what is virtualisation? Well it refers to a variety of ICT solutions, but in simplest terms it means taking a physical computer resource, so a server or a desktop, and splitting it into different logical resources.

Analogous to partitioning your PC’s hard drive – creating multiple ‘virtual’ drives all sitting within a single physical drive – virtualisation allows you to do this to an entire computer system. This can then be extended into a range of virtualised servers and desktops, potentially making use of hosted and web-based solutions, ‘thin client’ architecture which will eventually – or so it is hoped – lead to a new age of possibilities in collaboration and information sharing.

Even with a desktop environment now though, says Ian Ryder, there is the ability to have a virtual environment with a central system holding multiple desktop environments that users log in to as they would any computer, “but everything is stored centrally, and hosted from one place allowing users freedom of movement”.

This also has the advantage, says Gordon Fong, of allowing several operating systems or computer environments to run on one machine, which is ideal for organisations that need to run older systems or for a test environment where you need to switch in and out of different systems. “You can have Windows 95 on top of a machine running Vista, just to use the old software, shut it down and then go,” he says. “So you have the benefit of not having an extra machine sitting there being used one per cent of the time.”

This, in and of itself, would benefit many charities because, as John Tate points out: “I think an awful lot of charities have legacy software that was written for a much earlier version of an operating system and they still have a box in the corner that runs it.”

Other possibilities go beyond the tech side of things to the actual people using the technology. As Duska Rosenberg points out: “We have the people and the technology spectrum, and if we take for granted that the infrastructures and the virtualisation are there on the technology level, we can then look at how this can benefit people and organisations to make the optimum use, and actually have virtual communities as well as virtual servers.”

This point is furthered by Nicola Thompson who says: “For me it’s about the development of communities, and actually how you as a user interact with one-to-one or one-to-many or how you access services – not just how you can benefit from virtual technology but how users can benefit from their interaction with that technology.”

It is worth noting that the idea of virtualisation is not a new one – before Windows became ubiquitous, an organisation’s IT infrastructure was generally powered by a central mainframe, with dummy terminals feeding into this system. Arguably virtualisation and thin client technology are pretty much the same thing as this. As John Tate says: “As with a lot of new technology and buzz words, those of us who are old enough will remember that it’s the same old thing with a new name.” That isn’t, of course, to say that the technology hasn’t advanced in some very interesting ways.

Top

Old dog, new tricks

“Once upon a time there were mainframes where you had a server sitting in an air-conditioned room, with every application an organisation ran on it, and users had dumb terminals, as they were called, or thin client as it is called now,” says John Tate. “The technology on the desktop was simpler than a television screen, and the central computer received key strokes and sent back images, with all the processing done on the server.”

What this meant was that the cost of desktop maintenance was very low, and the desktop units themselves were cheap and had a much longer shelf life.

Unfortunately, according to Thompson, support was a big issue. “One particular top 100 charity had a mainframe when I first started and I can remember the problems were in relation to support, and actually being able to afford to buy in that expertise to support the system.”

Now, while the concept remains the same, there are definitely differences. “One of which I think is critical,” says Rosenberg. “In the age of mainframes and dummy terminals you had to go to the computer, and you now expect the computer to come to you, and that’s how we manage to be mobile through the virtualisation of the infrastructure, and a much more powerful infrastructure allows you to do that much more effectively.”

Also, says Ryder, one of the benefits of the PC side of virtualisation is that you are combining the mainframe style of centralisation in a PC environment. “So from a management point of view it is a centralised system, but as far as the users are concerned it’s their own PC they can do whatever they like with.”

Weighing up the benefits

So what are the specific benefits of going down the virtualised route? Well these are many and varied, depending on how stringent a definition of virtualisation you are following, and the level to which you are actually implementing it.

Tate describes one of the main benefits as creating the opportunity to collaborate at a technical level, by sharing hardware and software, and at a strategic level by sharing information processes.

On that technical level, and more specifically on the technical management side of things, Ryder points to the aspect of rolling out software and managing systems in different locations, from head office to various satellite offices dotted around the country. “In the old days it was a major headache to look after,” he says. “I’ve seen some horrors when no-one’s been able to manage it properly, and this technology offers the ability to pull that all into one place, either at the head office or in a hosted environment.”

He gives the example of an organisation that was rolling out a new monitoring database. It had 20 or 30 sites around the country and the new application took about an hour to implement. “I remember sending the chief exec an email saying that his investment in the centralised system had worked. We just rolled this out – it cost you £50 or £60, and had we done this on the old system, we’d have had to go out to every desktop across the country and it would have cost thousands. And any time there’s an upgrade to the application it’s done in seconds.”

And Rosenberg says that this concept of centralised rollout can be applied across the board, from back-ups to operating system upgrades to security improvements. “If it’s done centrally then you know that it has been done. So you don’t have to keep reminding each individual user to upgrade or update the applications on their PCs or else they will infect everybody else – or alternatively,” she jokes, “you can buy a Mac.”

Fong points out the benefits from both a migration, and a disaster recovery, perspective. In terms of migration, he says that when running virtualisation software, if an organisation decides to upgrade to a more powerful server, for example, it is a matter of transferring an image file – which represents all of the information on that server – to the new machine. “You launch the virtualisation software, and then suddenly you’ve got the benefit of increased power of the new server without having to reinstall, configure and so on. You are just taking that image and moving it across.”

And this has obvious benefits for disaster recovery where, again, you simply take that image file, buy a new machine and copy it straight on to it. “As long as you’ve still got virtualisation software, you can then recover very quickly without having to deal with back up tapes, reinstalling operating systems, applications and all of the other hassles.”

Some of the other advantages include energy efficiency and a reduced environmental footprint – this is particularly true with thin client where you don’t need new sleek desktops, (as the power rests in the server) and the lifecycle of machines can be greatly increased. Virtualisation also means a reduction in the amount of physical servers you need, which means less electricity being sucked up by the energy thirsty machines.

As Ryder points out: “Research I’ve seen shows that server utilisation levels for standard systems vary between something like five and 15 per cent. So you may have a server which is doing very little most of the time – with a virtualised system you could get that up to say 60, 70 or 80 per cent utilisation. That means maybe three or four servers consolidating into one. You’ve obviously got to take account of putting your eggs into less baskets when doing that, of course.”

Virtualisation could also help to reduce start-up costs, particularly in terms of software licensing fees. “Using the example of Office,” says Fong, “if there are 10 people in an office, from day one you would need to purchase 10 licenses from anything from £350 to £500 a copy. With virtualisation, and the way Microsoft has a long-term view with licensing on a per-month per-usage basis, then you only pay the licensing fees for what you’re actually using.”

In addition, with centralised data and mobile access to that data, mobile laptops can act as dummy terminals, accessing a huge repository of information which isn’t stored locally on that laptop – and hence, if that laptop is lost, the data won’t be lost with it.

“I have my own desktop which is like its own server but I can also, using a broadband connection, connect to a remote server which allows me to either store or back up my files, but also allows me to access the resources and applications that I don’t necessarily want to have with me,” says Rosenberg. “So you’ve got a small laptop, with the essential services on it, but you are able to access the full processing power of the server and use your little laptop as a dumb terminal for that period of time.”

Top

In the pipeline

Hosted services (so physical servers located outside of the office with a third party) and web-based applications are growing in line with the use of high-speed internet. As more and more of these applications become available, and particularly with hosted services, reliance on your internet connection becomes more pronounced. This begs the question of whether broadband is at the stage where you can actually trust its reliability enough to put all of your systems at its disposal.

“I think now we’ve all learned to accept a little bit of unreliability – so when I’m mobile I understand that sometimes it’s not going to work, and even with my broadband at home connecting into the office, if it isn’t working I’ll do something else. We’ve become a little more relaxed – with a bank I’m sure it’s still the same, but I think generally people can now cope with a little bit more unreliability then maybe a few years ago.”

If you wanted pretty well guaranteed reliability, you could opt for a leased line, but this is unlikely to fall within the ICT spend for most charities. As Fong points out, where an ADSL connection will cost you £20 or £30 a month, a leased line is more in the order of £1,000.

This, says Thompson, is not really viable. “Research conducted with rural groups in Herefordshire found that the average IT budget was at £500 per year.”

“Organisations I talk to look at those numbers and say, well that’s alright, we can make a cup of tea if it goes down for a couple of hours,” adds Ryder.

This, however, is likely to become less of an issue going forward, as reliability issues, and speed issues, are likely to be sorted out by providers. “There is a lot of interesting research being done in the combination of wireless and fixed broadband infrastructures,” says Rosenberg. “I would imagine that within five to 10 years some really interesting advances will be made.”

A brave new world?

There is a further, potentially huge, benefit of virtualisation, which is somewhat theoretical at present. Examining a combination of virtualisation, web-based applications and externally hosted servers, the possibilities become extremely interesting in terms of sharing resources, sharing information, and collaboration between organisations.

“I think most charities believe they have very specific needs, saying things like ‘our CRM is much different from your CRM’ but when you get down to it, broadly speaking, most charities have quite similar needs,” says Thompson. “I understand that there are bespoke needs as well, but I think this means a real opportunity to share expertise and systems between charities.”

“There would be a view from the virtualisation community that it could change the world,” says Tate. “And I’d express an argument to support that. There are charities that would like to work together or share applications, information and expertise. Today, with technology, this is difficult to achieve. You need an expensive machine on the desk top, you need broadband connectivity through to a server at high speed, you need lots of different servers, and you need an environment that’s quite unique to your organisation in many cases. With a virtualised environment properly orchestrated, it potentially takes away the need for all of that complexity.

“As an enabling technology, virtualisation would remove all of the technical difficulties that charities have in collaborating and sharing and working together. This could, in fact, be the catalyst for a brave new world for how charities work together.”

It’s not all roses

Of course, as with any technology solution there are downsides as well: trust, security and ease of use to name three, according to Rosenberg. However, she says: “I don’t think that these are insurmountable difficulties, but you need to mitigate against the potential negatives. It is one thing using the web to upload your personal file and hope that interesting people email you. It is quite another to actually run a sensitive, sophisticated social system. Cheap and cheerful isn’t going to work.”

In addition, with the issue of centralisation, people may feel that they are losing control and “some big brothery thing is controlling them” says Ryder. “I would have my doubts as to whether I’d want to be part of that as well. Maybe that’s something else that virtualisation offers – feeling like you have control over your environment where you work, but it is still somewhere else and someone else can still look after it.”

Also, in terms of hosted solutions, Ryder asks if it is possible to fully trust an external company providing all of your applications and holding all of your data. “People use Google services,” he says. “A big company like Enron disappeared overnight and who’s to say a big company like Google might not go the same way? Organisations need to know that if they’re going to go down that route then one day they’re not going to come in and some of there systems aren’t there.”

Thompson furthers this point saying: “Many charities hold highly sensitive
data about individuals. And many organisations would feel quite concerned about losing control of that data.”

Potential drawbacks aside, the benefits of virtualisation, both from the perspective of IT management and the strategic, day-to-day functioning of a charity, are many-fold. And if it can, in fact, lead to that brave new world of collaboration as proffered by Tate, then further investment in it by charities will surely be a good thing.

Top

To return to the Oct-Nov 07 features list click here