It's another way of saying "maintaining infrastructure isn't a task of a public service." Generally, the "why/why not" tends to be answered with: "A public services can never provide a similar value proposition compared to private vendors." which isn't really an answer to the question.
One problematic aspect is that public entities don't just rely on infrastructure, but also on an entire stack of in-house expertise that provides support and understands the specifics that come with the problem domain - e.g. legal compliance, accountability,... - of providing public services online.
So, barring an alternative, this would effectively mean that public services would have to source consultancy themselves on the private market to set up / maintain their applications on a private cloud on a per-project basis. Both of which are easily a factor more expensive compared to a shared platform / framework / solution where resources and expertise can be pooled together to provide affordable and secure services towards other branches of the authorities.
Oddly enough, they seem to be all to aware of that conundrum:
> In parallel, we are starting a piece of joint work with the Central Digital & Data Office, in partnership with Chief Technology Officers (CTOs) across government, to understand what a future central hosting offer could or should be. We don’t know what we’ll conclude, the options ranging from doing nothing, to creating a reusable set of configuration and management components (similar to the GOV.UK Design System, but for secure cloud hosting) all the way through to building a new PaaS v2 using different architecture.
Personally, I believe this is a decision based on cost. The cost of keeping centralized hosting infrastructure based on old technology online, or migrating towards new technology, is just too steep and can't be readily justified anymore in 2022 compared to what the private market offers. Perhaps most surprisingly: there's no clear short-term plan B for all those entities relying on this service.
If I were managing a few projects from some department, I wouldn't be happy learning that I'd now have 18 months to scramble, figure out how to move forward, find funds, write a project proposal, align all stakeholders, source consultancy, etc. without going offline for a prolonged time.
Given they charged a markup on AWS costs, I find that it's weird they did not manage to at least break even. Other departments switching to running on their own cloud account rather than use the PaaS could be the main reason, and that's partly due to the PaaS/Cloud foundry stagnating.
No, not at all. They released services and software to make integrations easier on these platforms but the toolset is becoming stale and more effort goes into k8s (on several different clouds, depending on project)
Well they sort of do already. There are armies of consultancies queuing up to provide packaged solutions far above the cloud infra level solutions abstractions that GDS offer. Those guys use commercial clouds.
It's another way of saying "maintaining infrastructure isn't a task of a public service." Generally, the "why/why not" tends to be answered with: "A public services can never provide a similar value proposition compared to private vendors." which isn't really an answer to the question.
One problematic aspect is that public entities don't just rely on infrastructure, but also on an entire stack of in-house expertise that provides support and understands the specifics that come with the problem domain - e.g. legal compliance, accountability,... - of providing public services online.
So, barring an alternative, this would effectively mean that public services would have to source consultancy themselves on the private market to set up / maintain their applications on a private cloud on a per-project basis. Both of which are easily a factor more expensive compared to a shared platform / framework / solution where resources and expertise can be pooled together to provide affordable and secure services towards other branches of the authorities.
Oddly enough, they seem to be all to aware of that conundrum:
> In parallel, we are starting a piece of joint work with the Central Digital & Data Office, in partnership with Chief Technology Officers (CTOs) across government, to understand what a future central hosting offer could or should be. We don’t know what we’ll conclude, the options ranging from doing nothing, to creating a reusable set of configuration and management components (similar to the GOV.UK Design System, but for secure cloud hosting) all the way through to building a new PaaS v2 using different architecture.
Personally, I believe this is a decision based on cost. The cost of keeping centralized hosting infrastructure based on old technology online, or migrating towards new technology, is just too steep and can't be readily justified anymore in 2022 compared to what the private market offers. Perhaps most surprisingly: there's no clear short-term plan B for all those entities relying on this service.
If I were managing a few projects from some department, I wouldn't be happy learning that I'd now have 18 months to scramble, figure out how to move forward, find funds, write a project proposal, align all stakeholders, source consultancy, etc. without going offline for a prolonged time.