The good and bad of 'zero-touch' cloud operations

• Lack of control. Automating routine tasks in cloud management can reduce the level of control that cloudops teams have over the environment. Many cloud architects suffer from the fear of automation but they do make some valid points.
• Loss of cloudops skills. If we are not directly controlling cloudops most of the time, how will we learn to fix things when humans are needed? Zero-touch cloudops could result in complacency. This could lead to a disaster when true human skills are needed but no one’s done any real cloudops work for years.
• Balancing automation with human oversight. Most companies err on one extreme or the other: Either humans are never involved or they are completely involved. The reality is that zero touch still requires oversight from humans, but a balance must be found.
• Dependence on technology. The double-edged sword is that technology can improve efficiency and reduce risk, but it can also introduce new risks and challenges if it fails. Many teams only focus on the benefits. Some risk still exists, or net-new risk can be introduced by zero-touch cloudops.
• It’s expensive. Implementing zero touch comes at a high price—not just the technology, but also the talent and planning to pull it off successfully. Often, I see enterprises attempt to do it on the cheap and make things worse. If you think the cost savings that might result will fund a zero-touch transformation project (I hear this often), you’re going to be disappointed.