When considering cloud adoption, the key factor isn't the sheer number of benefits, but whether it aligns with your company's specific operations and systems. Even if initial costs and operational burden are reduced, unclear integration with existing systems, security requirements, and cost management will only increase the burden after implementation.
In some cases, it's best to stick with an on-premises system, while in others, a hybrid configuration combining on-premises and cloud solutions is more appropriate. The key factors in making this decision are the business environment, system configuration, and operational structure.
This article explains the characteristics of companies that are well-suited to cloud adoption, cases where careful consideration is necessary, the differences between cloud and on-premises systems, and key points to check before implementation.
Cloud adoption is suitable for companies that want to flexibly change their IT environment, reduce their operational burden, and review their systems in line with business changes.
On-premise solutions involve providing your own servers and network equipment, and managing maintenance, updates, and troubleshooting. While this allows for customization to meet your specific requirements, it also leaves you with the burden of capital investment and maintenance.
Cloud computing is a system that allows you to access IT resources such as servers and storage via the internet. It is particularly effective in situations where usage and work styles change, such as business expansion, new service development, use across multiple locations, and remote work.
However, implementation doesn't necessarily mean lower costs. Depending on integration with existing systems, security requirements, usage management, and internal operational structures, continuing with an on-premises solution or a hybrid configuration may be more suitable.
Cloud adoption should be judged based on three factors: business processes, systems, and operational structure. Choosing based solely on cost and features can lead to problems after implementation, such as the system not being used, operations becoming complex, and costs being unpredictable.
In terms of operations, we check whether it's necessary to use the system from outside the company or from multiple locations. Tasks that involve handling the same data across locations, sharing information with external partners, or using internal systems even when working from home are candidates for cloud migration.
From a system perspective, we look at scalability and the difficulty of migration. Services with large fluctuations in access numbers, systems that are expected to have additional features added in the future, and foundations that will lead to data utilization and AI utilization are well-suited to the cloud. On the other hand, for older business systems and custom-developed core systems, we check the scope of integration and the need for modifications in advance.
The operational structure involves designating managers for costs, permissions, security, and incident response. Cloud computing doesn't eliminate the need for management simply because you don't own the equipment. Configuration errors, excessive permission granting, and neglecting usage tracking can lead to increased costs and security risks.
The decision shouldn't be "should we use the cloud?", but rather which tasks, to what extent, and under what organizational structure should we move them to the cloud?
Cloud computing is most effective in situations where the IT environment needs to be adaptable to change. For companies experiencing changes such as an increase in locations, shifts in work styles, unpredictable usage, and increased data utilization, combining cloud computing with on-premises solutions is more practical than continuing to rely solely on on-premises systems.
When information is separated by headquarters, branches, sales offices, factories, and stores, verification work and duplicate data entry increase. In operations where the same data is handled across different locations, discrepancies in information directly lead to delays in operations.
By using the cloud, you can handle data in a common environment without needing servers at each location. This also supports remote work, working from outside the office, and information sharing with clients and contractors.
Access control is crucial. As the number of users increases, it becomes necessary to clearly define the scope of what can be viewed and edited. Too broad a scope can lead to information leaks, while too narrow a scope can cause business stagnation.
Managing servers in-house involves ongoing tasks such as equipment obsolescence, OS updates, backups, troubleshooting, and security patch application. In companies with limited IT staff, maintenance work can easily become overwhelmed by daily inquiries and internal coordination.
Migrating to the cloud eliminates the need to procure and maintain physical servers in-house. The IT department can then dedicate its time to access control design, cost management, security configuration, and business process improvement, rather than managing equipment.
However, the operation itself won't disappear. Configuration, monitoring, cost management, and rules for handling failures will remain. While reducing the burden of server management, a system for managing the cloud environment will still be necessary.
For new businesses, e-commerce sites, reservation systems, and membership services, it's impossible to predict usage in advance. With on-premise solutions, equipment is prepared based on the expected maximum usage, which often leads to either over-investment or insufficient performance.
With the cloud, you can increase or decrease resources according to usage. It's well-suited for starting small and scaling up as usage grows. Even for services that see a temporary increase in access during campaigns or peak seasons, you can increase resources only for the necessary period.
On the other hand, you only pay for what you use. Ignoring unnecessary resources, increased data traffic, and bloated stored data will lead to soaring monthly costs. Mechanisms for adapting to change and mechanisms for monitoring usage should be designed together.
When sales data, customer data, inquiry history, and business logs are scattered across different departments, time is wasted on collection and organization before any analysis can even begin. To advance data utilization and AI implementation, a foundation is essential for collecting and maintaining the necessary data in a usable state.
By establishing a data infrastructure on the cloud, you can consolidate data from multiple systems, analyze it, visualize it, and leverage it for AI applications. This includes areas such as demand forecasting, customer support, report generation, and internal knowledge retrieval.
What determines success is not the location of the data, but the operational design. If the location, permissions, update frequency, and quality control of the data remain unclear, the reliability of the analysis results will decrease. If you are looking ahead to the use of AI, design your data operations in conjunction with the cloud environment.
Cloud computing is effective in reducing operational burden and improving scalability. On the other hand, depending on the configuration of existing systems, security requirements, and operational management structures, it may increase the burden after implementation.
What you should be looking at is not whether or not to move to the cloud, but the scope of the migration. You need to separate the areas to be moved to the cloud from the areas to remain, and then make a decision after clarifying the management structure and cost projections.
Migrating long-standing core systems and custom-developed business systems to the cloud becomes increasingly difficult. If the integration with surrounding systems, data formats, authentication methods, and network configurations are complex, a simple migration will likely halt business operations.
In systems that integrate sales management, inventory management, accounting, human resources, and factory equipment, it is essential to confirm the scope of impact. Changing only a portion of the linked systems can lead to data inconsistencies, processing delays, and disruption of on-site operations.
There's no need to insist on a one-time migration. You can also migrate gradually, starting with backups, file sharing, testing environments, and peripheral operations. A hybrid configuration, where you retain core systems and combine them with the cloud, is also a realistic option.
In certain sectors such as finance, healthcare, public services, and manufacturing, strict management of the data and operations handled is required. When dealing with personal information, confidential information, research and development data, or contractual obligations with business partners, cloud usage cannot be decided solely on a technical basis.
The items to be checked are the data storage location, access permissions, log management, encryption, audit compliance, and liability in the event of a failure. If a private network connection is required, the network design should also be considered. Proceeding solely for convenience may lead to discrepancies with internal regulations and requirements of business partners.
Strict requirements don't necessarily mean the cloud is unsuitable. Access control, logging, monitoring, and encryption can often be standardized. The problem isn't the cloud itself, but rather its implementation without clearly defined requirements and a well-defined design.
While cloud computing can reduce initial investment costs, expenses fluctuate based on usage. Unexpected costs can arise if servers, storage, data traffic, backups, monitoring, and log retention are not properly managed.
Without operational rules, unnecessary resources are left unused, excessive permissions are granted, and settings vary from person to person. If individual usage spreads among departments, it becomes impossible to track contracts, stored data, and incurred costs.
Before implementation, you need to decide on rules for user application, access control, cost verification, backup, and incident response. Signing a contract isn't the end of the process. Only with established management rules in place can you effectively manage costs and risks.
The difference between cloud and on-premises is not a matter of superiority or inferiority, but rather whether you own the equipment or utilize an external infrastructure. On-premises involves owning the equipment in-house, while cloud utilizes an external cloud infrastructure.
On-premises solutions can be meticulously designed to meet specific company requirements. However, the company is responsible for equipment procurement, maintenance, upgrades, and troubleshooting. Cloud solutions, on the other hand, can be used without owning any equipment, reducing the burden of setup and expansion. However, configuration management, access control, and cost management remain the responsibility of the user company.
On-premise systems involve significant initial investment in servers, network equipment, installation space, and maintenance contracts. However, for systems that operate stably at the same scale over a long period, the costs are easier to predict.
Cloud computing minimizes initial investment and allows users to pay only for what they use. It's well-suited for starting new services on a small scale and adjusting resources based on usage. On the other hand, leaving unnecessary resources, data traffic, and stored data can lead to inflated monthly costs.
The way expansion works also differs. Increasing capacity or performance on-premises requires purchasing, installing, and configuring additional equipment. In the cloud, resources can be increased by changing settings or adding services. This difference is particularly significant for new businesses, web services, campaigns, and operations with seasonal fluctuations.
In terms of operations, on-premises solutions still require the management of physical equipment. Failure response, replacement, backup, and update work are handled by the company itself or its maintenance vendor. With cloud solutions, the cloud provider handles the maintenance of physical equipment, allowing the user company to focus on configuration, monitoring, permissions, costs, and security policy management.
Security cannot be simply divided into on-premises being safer and cloud being more dangerous. The difference lies in the scope of responsibility.
In an on-premises environment, the company bears significant responsibility for everything from the network, servers, OS, middleware, applications, and data management. While this allows for granular control, it also increases the number of things to manage. The level of security will vary depending on the knowledge of the personnel in charge and the operational structure.
In the cloud, the cloud provider is responsible for protecting data centers and physical facilities. However, account management, access permissions, network settings, encryption, log review, and backup design are the responsibility of the user company.
In the cloud, problems are more likely to occur due to configuration errors or inadequate permission management than issues with the service itself. Unnecessary public access settings, excessively strong permissions, neglecting accounts of former employees, and failure to review logs are all risks.
If security requirements are stringent, pre-define data storage locations, connection methods, audit logs, encryption, and operational permissions. Consider private connections or hybrid configurations as needed. The important thing is not whether or not to use the cloud, but to clearly define what scope of security is protected and who is responsible for protecting it.
Cloud adoption should be decided based on current challenges, future changes, and the management structure after implementation. Migrating without clearly defining the challenges will only incur costs without leading to business improvements.
The first thing to look at is the operational load on the current system.
Cloud migration should be considered if you have aging servers, expired maintenance contracts, inadequate backups, reliance on specific individuals for troubleshooting, or delays in data sharing between locations. The same applies to companies with limited IT staff who spend a lot of time on equipment management and upgrades.
On the other hand, if the current system is stable, its scope of use is limited, and there are no major operational costs, there is no need to rush into migration. In some cases, migration can change business procedures and increase the burden on employees.
The deciding factor isn't cloud migration itself, but rather whether the current operational challenges can be resolved by using the cloud.
For companies planning to add new locations, launch new businesses, increase users, expand overseas, or utilize data, adopting cloud services becomes a higher priority.
On-premise solutions involve anticipating and preparing the necessary equipment in advance. While this makes planning easier if the business scale and usage are stable, it can lead to over-investment or insufficient performance in businesses with significant fluctuations.
With the cloud, you don't need to have large-scale infrastructure from the start; you can begin with what you need. It's also suitable for testing new services and changing the configuration while monitoring usage.
However, you don't need to migrate everything to the cloud just because of future changes. First, identify the business processes and systems that will be affected. A more realistic approach is to narrow the scope of the migration rather than migrating the entire company at once.
The success of cloud services depends on post-implementation management. It's not over once the contract is signed.
In terms of costs, we check usage, data traffic, storage, backups, and log retention. Leaving unused resources in place will result in unnecessary expenses.
In terms of security, we will establish account management, permission settings, log review, encryption, and backup policies. Excessive permissions, overlooking external access settings, and leaving former employee accounts unattended pose significant risks.
In terms of operations, we will clearly define who approves configuration changes, who verifies costs, and who handles incidents. As cloud usage spreads across departments, contracts, costs, and data management become fragmented.
Cloud adoption is best suited not to companies that simply want to use the cloud, but to companies that can manage costs, permissions, security, and operational rules after implementation.
Cloud adoption failures often occur before technology selection. Ambiguous objectives, lack of management rules, and overly broad migration scopes can lead to increased costs, operational chaos, and security risks.
First, we need to narrow down the purpose of implementing the cloud.
The services chosen, the scope of migration, and the design policy will vary depending on the objective, such as cost reduction, reduced operational burden, support for remote work, or launching new services.
Without clear objectives, it's impossible to evaluate the results after implementation. Did costs decrease? Were incident response times reduced? Was on-site work time shortened? Without clear criteria, it's impossible to explain the success of cloud migration.
First, clearly define the target operations and the expected effects. Is the goal to reduce the burden of server updates, improve information sharing between locations, or establish a foundation for data utilization? Once the objective is determined, design the scope of the cloud migration.
Getting started with the cloud isn't difficult. The difficult part is managing and maintaining it over time.
In terms of cost, we will determine who will monitor usage, the rules for stopping unnecessary resources, and the methods for detecting budget overruns. Since costs vary depending on usage, monthly monitoring alone may not be sufficient to address the issue effectively.
Access control is also designed in the initial stages. Granting broad administrator privileges expands the scope of settings changes and data viewing. Conversely, restricting privileges too much will halt on-site operations. Only the necessary privileges are granted according to department, position, and job content.
The operational rules should define everything from application and approval to configuration changes, backups, incident response, and deletion of accounts of former employees. If these are ambiguous, individual usage by each department will increase, leading to fragmented contracts, costs, and data management.
Migrating the entire company's systems to the cloud from the start expands the scope of impact. In addition to the migration work, on-site training, changes to work procedures, permission design, and troubleshooting will all occur simultaneously.
First, start with areas that have a small impact. Potential candidates include file sharing, backups, testing environments, internal portals, and business systems of specific departments. By testing within a limited scope, you can check costs, operational burden, and reactions from users.
In a phased migration, we differentiate between areas to be moved to the cloud and areas to remain on-premises. One configuration involves keeping core systems in place while moving only peripheral business processes and data utilization platforms to the cloud.
Before expanding the scope of implementation, the first thing to check is whether the operational rules will actually work. Start with what you can manage and gradually expand only to areas where costs, permissions, and incident response are manageable.
For tasks with a limited scope of impact, such as file sharing, backups, and SaaS usage, it may be possible to define the requirements and proceed in-house.
On the other hand, when the project involves migrating existing systems, designing cloud infrastructure, implementing security measures, and optimizing costs, relying solely on internal decisions carries risks. Incorrect migration targets or operational designs can lead to integration problems, additional costs, and increased management burden.
When migrating an existing system to the cloud, it's necessary to define the scope of the migration. The design and costs will vary depending on which parts of the system—servers, databases, network, authentication, external integrations, backups, and monitoring—are to be moved.
The selection of services like Amazon Web Services (AWS), Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud cannot be based solely on brand recognition. Compatibility with existing environments, the applications used, security requirements, internal operational skills, and future expansion plans must all be considered.
For core systems, business systems, and systems handling customer data, pre-migration surveys are essential. Proceeding without a thorough understanding of the current environment can lead to processing delays, integration problems, and unexpected downtime.
What's difficult for a company to decide on on its own is how to identify what needs to be migrated, the impact on the current environment, and the operational burden after the migration. If these points are left unclear, rework will occur after the migration.
When implementing the cloud, simply setting up the environment is insufficient. To ensure continued safe use, security, cost, and operational structures must be designed from the outset.
Security involves determining account management, permission design, logging, encryption, backup, monitoring, and incident response. Misconfigurations and excessive permission granting can lead to data breaches and misuse.
In terms of cost, it's necessary to estimate usage, manage budgets, shut down unnecessary resources, and visualize expenses. Even if initial implementation costs are kept low, poor operational design can lead to inflated monthly costs.
In the operational structure, clearly define who approves configuration changes, who handles incidents, and who reviews costs. If there are no employees with cloud operation experience within the company, management tends to become concentrated in specific individuals, leading to reliance on individual expertise.
The purpose of consulting with experts is not simply to confirm whether or not you can implement the cloud. It's to ensure that you can design a system that allows you to manage costs, permissions, security, and incident response even after implementation.
Cloud adoption is suitable for companies facing challenges such as multi-site usage, remote work, external collaboration, fluctuating usage, and data utilization. It's also worth considering if you want to reduce the burden of server maintenance and equipment upgrades.
On the other hand, if integration with existing systems, security requirements, cost management, and operational rules remain unclear, the burden will increase after the migration.
The decision-making criteria are simple: Which tasks should be moved to the cloud, which should remain on-premises, and who will manage the operations? We proceed with implementation only after clarifying these three points.
