Case Study

Web and IT Hosting Facilities Selecting a Hosting Provider

The need for a hosting provider has become essential for the International Equi
pment Company if they wish to avoid complacency and to leverage current financia
l strength into enduring competitive advantage.
A comprehensive list has been prepared detailing the requirements for the infra
structure 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 carefu
l 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 lea
ves 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 t
hree providers.
8)Provider 1 declined to provide financial data due to it being a privately owne
d company.
9)Provider #2 had an after tax loss of 180 million on sales of 600 million but h
as also built many new facilities that the profitability of, will not be known f
or approximately 18 months. 10)Provider #3 had an after tax profit of 1.1 billio
n on sales of 13 billion, however most of this income does not come from the hos
ting business.
11)Information acquired from the RFP responses has shown that all providers meet
the necessary specifications, however Provider #2 is slightly more sufficient i
n 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 answ
ered more questions posed after the reviews of the RFP responses.
13)The initial walk around the exterior showed that all three providers were bui
lt using conventional brick, however provider #1 and #3 were not structurally ha
rdened.
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 b
omb going off close by is rather low, there is still an added advantage of havin
g this insurance.
16) All three providers had our required HVAC systems securely located on roof a
nd had our required diesel generators securely enclosed.
17)Security from the exterior of all three providers seemed under par. At all th
ree providers loading docks could be approached, and there was no security prese
nt 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 equipme

nt that could potentially slice through fiber cable. This is especially a concer
n 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 fun
ctioned 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 fa
cility itself was a regular sliding glass partition. With no security guard pres
ent it would have been easy to climb through the window and buzz other individua
ls 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 pr
opped open.
24)Provider #2 had impeccable interior security. The mantrap had Kevlar lined wa
lls with a guard seated inside. The security guard was located behind bulletproo
f 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 e
fficient in the physical presence of guards.
25)Provider #2 followed strict procedures and required picture ID for entry. Pro
viders #1 and #2 both had standard chain linked cages that were enclosed from th
e 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 di
d 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 configura
tion.
27)Provider #2 also had sophisticated NOC visible behind glass, and all facility
level networking, power distribution, and HVAC were in access controlled enclos
ed area.
28)Provider #3 did not have redundant power and connectivity however they promis
ed 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 su
pply on a contract base.
31)Onsite summary notes from visits to the Hosting Facilities gave a more in dep
th 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 l
ooking 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 comp
letion of construction, but if they could at any time at all. Provider #1 had se
curity 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 f
rom technology to security as has been printed above. The Service and Price Offe
rings 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 ve
ry closely related.
Provider #3 was slightly better however the advantages of their service agreemen

t 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 pa
yment and a cheaper monthly rate, However the one time payment difference is a m
er 1,600 dollars and the monthly payment is a bit steeper at a 700 dollar differ
ence. 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 outweigh
s the lower cost offered by Provider #1.