Ok, I'm not pretending the 'cloud' is the sole answer or even that there aren't legitimate privacy/security concerns about citizen data; I'm just making the case that:
1. the state's business case dismisses the entire cloud without any real analysis of where it may or may not be appropriate;
2. the $1,200 per sq/foot cost for state data center is probably closer to $2,000 in reality;
3. the $300M is for the data center 'shell' and doesn't include anything to fix old Cobalt databases, buy or build new applications, create an XML or other neutral interface to access trapped data, get our hands on real enterprise applications;
4. even if we want to have a state owned and operated facility, does it make sense to build in Olympia where labor, energy, building, etc. costs are all higher than in Eastern Washington?
5. if we had a fraction of the $300M to buy and build very cool customer oriented applications and services, we'd be the top state in the nation for on line service, but this data center is taking every penny we have for capital infrastructure for technology. Period.
6. as for comments above about audits--I'm all for it. I agree there are legitimate issues (privacy, security, audits, etc.) but come on, at least we should design a 21st Century strategy for a new approach to services instead of automatically assuming the only answer is a state owned and operated facility.
I acknowledge that I'm more interested in front end citizen/consumer applications than back end infrastructure....but at least I admit it.
I don't have all the answers, of course, just trying to raise some questions before $300M of the public's money is spent.
Reuven Carlyle
State Representative
Washington State House of Representatives--36th District
www.reuvencarlyle36.com
