Case Study Web and IT Hosting Facilities Selecting a Hosting Provider The need for a hosting provider has become essential for the International Equipment Company if they wish to avoid complacency and to leverage current financial strength into enduring competitive advantage. A comprehensive list has been prepared detailing the requirements for the infrastructure facility, and the space, power and connectivity that will be needed. Three hosting provider overviews have been submitted that meet these or in time, will meet these specifications. The providers have been thoroughly reviewed based on our needs, and after careful deliberation Provider #2 is with no question the best there is for IEC. Based on IEC criteria, here is what lead to this recommendation.1) Differentiating data on the RFP responses between the three providers was an important step in this process. 2) Providers #1 and #3 are both regional based while Provider #2 is national. 3)Providers #1 and #3 do offer connections through other backbone providers for worldwide activity while the information exchanged between Provider #2 never leaves Provider #2 equipment.4) Even though all offer the same capabilities, concentrating all traffic to be exchanged through one provider will limit any loss or the possibility of theft. 5)This will also restrict the provider from pushing blame to another company if in-fact a problem arises with-in the system. 6)Employee numbers between the three providers varies greatly but has no bearing on our decision.7) Financial profile also varies, however this is also no use in review of the three providers. 8)Provider 1 declined to provide financial data due to it being a privately owned company. 9)Provider #2 had an after tax loss of 180 million on sales of 600 million but has also built many new facilities that the profitability of, will not be known for approximately 18 months. 10)Provider #3 had an after tax profit of 1.1 billion on sales of 13 billion, however most of this income does not come from the hosting business. 11)Information acquired from the RFP responses has shown that all providers meet the necessary specifications, however Provider #2 is slightly more sufficient in that is has the capability to nationally host with no need for outsourcing. 12)The summary notes from the service visits to the hosting facilities have answered more questions posed after the reviews of the RFP responses. 13)The initial walk around the exterior showed that all three providers were built using conventional brick, however provider #1 and #3 were not structurally hardened. 14)Provider #2 has been hardened by physically erecting a steel inner structure on the inside of the building it also has been hardened against earthquakes and would possibly survive even a close proximity bomb blast. 15)Even though Cincinnati is not prone to earthquakes and the probability of a bomb going off close by is rather low, there is still an added advantage of having this insurance.16) All three providers had our required HVAC systems securely located on roof and had our required diesel generators securely enclosed. 17)Security from the exterior of all three providers seemed under par. At all three providers loading docks could be approached, and there was no security present to prevent this. 18)Provider #3 was considerably worse and had three loading dock doors all with seemingly open access. Entry through the loading dock led directly to the power infrastructure room where many of the facilities UPS's reside. Once inside this room no security came to rectify the situation. 19)Provider #3 had another major problem concerning the exterior of the building. 20)City workers were doing roadwork near the facility with heavy digging equipment that could potentially slice through fiber cable. This is especially a concern for Provider #3 due to the fact they are currently only connected to one power grid.21) Internally two of the three providers had serious security issues that could cause major problems for IEC. 22)Within Provider #1 security guards were seen holding open the entrance to the mantrap area, and therefor bypassing the voice recognition system. The facility itself had many CCTV monitors visible through bulletproof glass, however there was no guard monitoring them at that time of the visit.23) Provider #3 had even more serious security issues. The building security functioned properly, however the security for the hosting provider itself was very poor. There was only one visible CCTV monitor and there was no guard on duty at the security desk. The only separator between the security checkpoint and the facility itself was a regular sliding glass partition. With no security guard present it would have been easy to climb through the window and buzz other individuals in. Upon entry into the mantrap another door approximately 20 feet away could have potential stopped an individual from entering however the door had been propped open. 24)Provider #2 had impeccable interior security. The mantrap had Kevlar lined walls with a guard seated inside. The security guard was located behind bulletproof glass, and several other guards were visible watching the CCTV monitors. They had Biometrics Palm readers that were used after 6 PM and there were more than efficient in the physical presence of guards. 25)Provider #2 followed strict procedures and required picture ID for entry. Providers #1 and #2 both had standard chain linked cages that were enclosed from the top. Power came in from underneath raised floor and patch panels were visible for comms in the location of our choice. Provider #3 did not have cages, however there were enclosed rooms built from drywall. Each room had its own keypad for access to room. Unfortunately, a major disadvantage was that the room's walls did not extend to the ceiling, making it possible for an individual to climb over into the room or possibly throw something in, over the wall. 26)Providers #1 and #2 currently meet redundant power and connectivity configuration. 27)Provider #2 also had sophisticated NOC visible behind glass, and all facility level networking, power distribution, and HVAC were in access controlled enclosed area.28)Provider #3 did not have redundant power and connectivity however they promised it would be running in 6 weeks.29)Even with Provider #3's promise of a six weeks, it would be not be unwise to speculate it might take a longer period of time then promised.30)Provider #3 also lacked onsite NOC, although they expressed willingness to supply on a contract base. 31)Onsite summary notes from visits to the Hosting Facilities gave a more in depth look at the hosting providers and what they could offer IEC.32)Based on these visits Provider #3 proved to be insufficient for what IEC is looking for. The facility had poor security, and with it being under construction it was hard to assess if they would meet IEC requirements, not only by the completion of construction, but if they could at any time at all. Provider #1 had security lapses but on the overall it was sufficient to what IEC is looking for. Provider #2 however has by far the most impressive of the facilities, ranging from technology to security as has been printed above. The Service and Price Offerings would be the only factors causing IEC to shy away from selecting Provider #2. However the Service Level agreements between Provider #1 and Provider #2 were very closely related. Provider #3 was slightly better however the advantages of their service agreement would not offset other problems we would encounter upon choosing this firm. Pricing between Provider #1 and #2 varies. Provider #1 has a cheaper one time payment and a cheaper monthly rate, However the one time payment difference is a mer 1,600 dollars and the monthly payment is a bit steeper at a 700 dollar difference. It would be to IEC's advantage to pay the higher prices of Provider #2 due to the belief that the extra resources provided by provider #2 greatly outweighs the lower cost offered by Provider #1.