When it comes to modern IT applications, there is currently no way around the cloud. In order to consistently leverage its advantages, more and more companies are turning to cloud-native architecture (CNA). msg and the Technical University of Munich (TUM) have jointly published a white paper on the use of cloud-native. In a position interview, Michael Schäfer from msg and Maximilian Schreieck from the University of Innsbruck (formerly at TUM) discuss this IT architecture and explain why a cloud-native approach is not an either/or decision.
Cloud-native architecture is currently considered the preferred form of IT architecture in many companies. What are the reasons for this?
Michael Schäfer: For a long time, the discussion was: Will all companies move to the cloud? I don't think that's debatable anymore. All companies are taking this step. First, for cost reasons. Innovation also plays a role. And flexibility and speed: It takes too long for companies to provide the infrastructure for new technological trends. In the public clouds of the large hyperscalers, this can be done very quickly. So if everyone is moving to the cloud, there is a lot of pressure to come up with a suitable architecture offering. And that is precisely what cloud-native architecture is – because it addresses the advantages of the cloud.
Maximilian Schreieck: Companies are realizing how costly it is to maintain their own IT infrastructure. Over the past few years, this has become increasingly extensive and complex. If they opt for a CN approach instead, much of the burden is lifted from them and they can concentrate on using their resources wisely. More and more companies are currently realizing this—partly because technological developments among cloud providers are advancing so rapidly.
Are there any disadvantages to cloud-native?
Michael Schäfer: One issue is the increased complexity. In the past, we built monolithic applications that ran on a single server. With CNA, we cut this monolith into many pieces and distribute them. There are reasons for this fragmentation, as the advantages of the cloud could not otherwise be optimally exploited. At the same time, however, this fragmentation creates complexity that entails new risks and high implementation costs.
What challenges do companies face when implementing cloud-native?
Maximilian Schreieck: We are currently experiencing a paradigm shift as a result of cloud transformation. And paradigm shifts are never frictionless. I can give three examples here: First, cloud-native architecture must be accompanied by a cultural change. Companies usually train their workforce for this. This process takes time and should not be rushed. However, this is often exactly what happens, as companies want to reap the benefits of “speed” and “innovation” as quickly as possible. In the medium term, however, you will lose relevance in the market if you don't take the necessary time.
Another point is legacy: unless you are a start-up building from scratch, there is always some kind of legacy that remains on-premises. One of the findings of our white paper is that there may well be cases where cloud-native architecture may not make sense right away. This then leads to integration difficulties between legacy systems that are still on-premises and new use cases that are implemented with cloud-native architecture.
One final example: companies that distribute their own software and are converting their originally license-based on-premises products to cloud-native architecture also need to make significant changes to their sales model. The traditional sales model, in which employees generate commissions from license sales, no longer works. Companies should consider this early on.
What should companies that want to go cloud-native pay attention to?
Michael Schäfer: Cloud-native is not just a binary thing. The decision to go CNA offers flexibility. You can offer certain features, such as elasticity, in high quality or in lower quality. It always depends on the individual use case. Do I need to offer particularly high quality here, or is less sufficient?
Maximilian Schreieck: One keyword is prioritization. This is where our FAMM model comes into play. It provides a method for prioritizing use cases.
What is behind the FAMM method?
Michael Schäfer: The aim of the method is to find the optimum CNA quality for a specific use case. What do I really need to minimize risk and costs while still fulfilling the purpose?
Maximilian Schreieck: The beauty of the method is that it really breaks this down into individual use cases and moves away from a dogmatic “everything must be cloud-native” approach. That makes it very concrete.
Last but not least: Is cloud-native a short-lived trend or the future that companies should definitely be betting on?
Michael Schäfer: Cloud is definitely a megatrend. And as long as it remains so, the topic of cloud-native will also remain with us. After all, paradigm shifts don't happen every two years. But as the world becomes increasingly innovative and faster, use cases will always need CN in its full form in the long term. That's why the method we've developed has a half-life. For the transition phase, however, it offers very good guidance to accompany companies in their cloud transformation.
