New Data Center Cost Estimate Updates from the Uptime Institute

You may be familiar with the “Dollars per KW plus Dollars per Square Foot of Computer Floor” white paper from the Uptime Institute for data center construction cost estimation. Following the update to their widely referenced Tier classifications paper, this benchmark for thumbnail cost estimation has been updated as well. If you’d like to look at it directly, it can be found here.

Beginning several years ago, the Institute put together some very good work to give us guidance on the cost of data centers according to Tier classification. The cost model is based upon the premise (quite accurately so) that the cost of the MEP infrastructure is far and away the dominant driver in the cost of erecting an IT facility. The model simply separates the cost of the building and support space from the cost of the MEP infrastructure.

The benefit offered by the Institute’s work in this regard is the benchmark cost data for applying this model to your own project. The reference benchmarks are based upon a set of real-world contemporary data center construction projects, where the relevant component data is extracted, averaged, and provided for our use.

It’s the term, contemporary, in the earlier statement that makes this update of the white paper important. First, the data is updated using four additional new data center projects,… so the sample set is that much larger. This might seem insignificant, but besides having four more data points we also have four new recent data points.

Over the course of the past 12-18 months, there has been a sharp escalation in the cost of materials and components critical to the construction of data centers. The cost of steel and copper has increased world-wide, by over 50% during this time. There has also been a boom in construction of very large data centers globally, which is driving the cost of critical components like generators and chillers. Recent developments such as these are folded into the guidance given by the Institute’s model.

Not stopping with the data updates, the Institute has taken the opportunity to also include cost estimation data for “empty space” in their model. This is a pragmatic addition, given that a facility owner will want to include space in the new building that might not be specifically programmed, but is likely to be used for growth or operation of the raised floor.

Finally, the Institute offers another piece of pragmatic guidance, suggesting the level of “seed funding” necessary to accomplish the planning needed to arrive at an accurate budget estimate. This seed money is used for project planning, design/build contractors, and consulting necessary to bring the definition of the project into focus sufficient to confidently go to the Board for approval.

Multiple Skins- A Common Shortcoming of Social Networking Sites

I have a strong interest in Social Networking Sites because I see enormous potential for positive change and productive collaboration across all dimensions of the social grid. I just wish I didn’t have to use so darn many of them at the same time.

If you’re a participant (or a “joiner,” to use the vernacular of Charlene Li) of Social Networking Sites, chances are you use more than one. I’ll bet you may even use more than a couple of them. For some “joiners,” users have subscribed to multiple Sites because other users and acquaintances have sent them invitations to join networks that they are using. You’ve been “friended” by someone you know. For others, you may use multiple sites out of the necessity to adequately represent the multiple aspects of yourself. I call this the phenomena of “living in multiple skins.”

I have multiple skins. I have my professional skin for my life as an IT Consultant. This skin has a list of professional credentials, accomplishments, experiences relevant to the work I do as a Consultant. I’m also a professional artist, and that skin has a list of credentials and accomplishments as well,… but are completely different from my Consultant’s skin. It also has a portfolio of work that is important to include in the profile of that skin. I’m also a father, there’s another skin. I’m an investor, and I need a skin for that. I play and coach ice hockey, so there’s yet another skin.

I’ll bet you could describe yourself in a similar way, needing multiple profiles to adequately describe all the skins you may wear each day. This is a common problem that everyone shares, but remains unsolved by the Social Networking Sites out there today. Unless you’re satisfied by slicing off a single persona from your real-world life to project into the online world, you’re in the ranks of unsatisfied Social Networking Site users. I, for one, want to take all my skins with me for my cyber persona.

Now, before I’m taken too literally in these comments let me say that the problem is not as simple as developing a site that allows multiple profiles to be linked to a common user account. The Social Grid is very dynamic and needs to remain that way. If one of my skins is that of an authority on early 20^th century French films (It’s not, but to use an example), it’s not necessarily a great idea to mash that up with my IT Consultant’s profile on LinkedIn. The Social Networking Sites focusing on film, or should we say a focus as directly relevant as practical for that topic, is the right place for that profile. Similarly, if I’m a user of a dating site I probably want to make sure there’s a separation between that profile and my professional profile.

The Social Network architecture we need is one that leverages an intelligent interface to appropriately link our multiple skins together, much in the same way that the dynamics of our real-life personal interactions dictate the changing from one skin into the next. It’s an architecture that images the dynamics of relationships that exist in our multiple professional and personal lives.

Collaboration: Email vs. Wiki

This comes by way of Espen Anderson’s blog: http://www.espen.com/archives/2008/03/email_vs_wiki.html  and (From Chris Rasmussen via Anthony Williams.

Per my earlier posts on email technology’s fit for today’s business processes, I think this diagram presents a very clear argument on its own.