It is too easy to think of `infrastructure’, in IT terms, as just meaning the datacentres, networks and management software that go to make up the `plumbing’ of the system. But in practice, as yesterday’s inglorious debacle at HM Revenue and Customs so ably demonstrates, one of the most important parts of the infrastructure is the people that actually make it work.

There have already been a number of comments about the fact that the data was transported on two disks that were only password protected and not encrypted. Chancellor Darling did suggest that there was some other, unspecified, protective device on the disks which would save the identity of every UK child benefit claimant, and it is to be fondly hoped that he is right.

As a technology scribe I am surely not alone in also receiving a number of press release comments from those in and around the industry that want to have a say about it. What is interesting is that most have centred on technology issues. As the submitted commentary from Dave Martin, Security Consultant at LogicaCMG suggests, it is indeed “frustrating that many of the systems and processes that would have ensured this did not happen already exist.”

Too right it is. Let’s not even ponder why the data was not emailed. Even though it be Gigabytes in size it would surely be still quicker – and greener - to deliver the data that way than by overnight courier. If you have ever seen the treatment the cages carrying the parcels and envelopes get at a courier’s regional sorting station it would be easy to surmise that the disks have fallen out of the cage and been inadvertently kicked into a convenient rat hole.

But the fundamental learning to come out of this is that, while we tend to put our faith in technology and argue about which technology could have handled things better when something goes wrong, the real problem is at a much higher level in `the process’ – though technologiest might argue that it is a `lower level’. . Ultimately, this is a people problem, and I suspect it is a problem caused by the demeaning of those that have to do often mundane, repetitive tasks – the `pen pushers’, `bean counters’ and `jobsworths’ that actually make mundane, repetitive but important processes.

Yes, we all loath them and their interfering, pernickety ways. I suspect many of them start to loath themselves as well – I think I probably would in their shoes. Yet, when stupendous cock-ups like this occur we suddenly realise how vital their collective anal retention capabilities can be in making processes work effectively.

So let’s hear a shout in praise of those most vital parts of every process – the jobsworths that make it work.

One of the long term objectives of all the big IT systems vendors is to find the next `big thing’. Selling servers that are now off-the-shelf commodity items, even with infrastructure management software, is now a recipe for disastrously decreasing margins. That next big thing is likely to be the big `S’ word – services. This is why IBM’s recent Blue Cloud announcement is more interesting for the future it presages than what it offers now.

IBM’s laboratories are most certainly not alone in developing technologies that allow users to request packages of services in the form of applications and tools together with the systems resources needed to run them. HP, for one, has been demonstrating just such a capability at its research labs for more than two years. The company may well be kicking itself for not announcing something already – and conspiracy theorists might even be tempted to ponder any possible connection between HP’s Software Universe event next week (a regular focus for new announcements) and IBM’s announcement last week.

Be that as it may, IBM’s Blue Cloud looks at first sight an interesting attempt at providing users with new tools that offer users a far greater operational flexibility. This is where users can start to request packages of applications and resources that can be provisioned dynamically, either when requested (if sufficient resources are available of course) or at a pre-determined time, for a pre-determined time period. Such packages would, of course, come to be seen by users as `services’ called up when required. This would mean that one of the underlying concepts of SOA – getting users to stop thinking in terms of `running applications’ (with all that that entails) – would at last start to become reality.

It would not be unreasonable to suggest that Blue Cloud, as it currently exists as a BladeCenter chassis of Linux-based Blades, is little more than a prototyping tool. But the question for CIOs and IT managers is then – a prototype of what?

It would be easy to suggest that the `production’ system would be a whole datacentre of BladeCenter chassis’ providing a gloriously flexible SOA infrastructure just for one company – an `intra-structure’. But, even with the developments in IBM’s autonomic computing environment announced a couple of weeks ago – where the systems can be expected to care for themselves even more comprehensively – having to provide maintenance and support to such hugely complex datacentres scattered all over the globe would be, to put an unfine point on it, an economic pain in the butt.

However, if those datacentres were fewer, and bigger, and IBM-owned the economics of it all could look a lot brighter, and they would be moving in on the `inter-structure’. In addition, the company would be selling systems to itself to provide a service to end users rather than to end users themselves, or other service providers. This would be an obvious opportunity for the accountancy profession to wax creatively in the area of operating margins.

Let’s face it, when compared to the network `Cloud’, Blue Cloud is a mere wisp of steam from a dying cup of coffee. But for IBM, HP and one or two others, moving towards owning a large tranche of the network Cloud that is not already owned by Google - and providing the services that users will need - is an obvious and important goal.

Getting users experienced in the new ways of working in and through the Cloud – and in particular away from the current psychological barriers to SOA that present themselves in the concepts of `my data’ and `my applications’ – is arguably the most important prototype work that could now be undertaken. Once beyond that, users can start to stop caring about `systems’. Who cares what `system’, `application’ or `operating system’ is being used, for the cloud is the cloud is the cloud.

The recent suggestions that Software as a Service (SaaS) is likely to become more popular amongst enterprise users is probably good news for the users themselves – the fact that a growing number are starting to think that way means that they are likely to be ready the SaaS surge that may be coming.

For many of them, that surge is likely to be thrust upon them whether they like it or not. With the likes of Microsoft, Google and Yahoo already spending money like there is no tomorrow on building huge datacentres, it is going to be an increasing range of SaaS services that will fill up the capacity currently being installed or in planning. And there is a lot of capacity going in. Google is already well-known for the constant streams of servers and associated kit it has been installing. Microsoft is also in on the act, with recent announcements of new datacentres in Dublin and Chicago – each at some $500m a pop.

Though it is still often perceived as the new Verb for finding information, Google is arguably the biggest SaaS provider by a country mile, and is only going to get bigger. Its moves into areas such as personal productivity tools also moves it closer to more obvious business applications as well. It can only be expected to move further in that direction – without forsaking its individual consumer users, of course – with more acquisitions of SaaS providers in the business space to join the likes of Urchin and Postini.

Microsoft, while trying hard to catch up with Google in the consumer SaaS market with Live, already has the potential of a serious head start in the business sector of SaaS, not only in terms of its applications suites but also their penetration into the marketplace. And with its acquisition of Softricity it has some technology that could help deliver those applications through a SaaS infrastructure.

Now, to digress just a bit, let us assume that all these vast datacentre resources go purely to servicing the immediate needs of consumers. It may have less immediate impact on enterprise users, who might then see less need to take up SaaS as a front line delivery vehicle. But that would be a serious miss-reading of the runes. What would happen is that a vast army of consumer users will be spawned that is fully expert at exploiting SaaS delivery methodologies, without even knowing it. Any consumer business that then cannot service customers in that way will lose out, probably big time.

In practice, however, that is unlikely to be the scenario, particularly where Microsoft is concerned. For the Big M, business users are still big business, and not something to let slip away without a fight. So offering a SaaS delivery capability, both direct through Live and indirectly through its many levels of business partners, is going to be important.

In fact, now that the company is investing big-time in datacentres it is not difficult to predict the commensurate marketing push. Business users should expect to see Microsoft start to offer some very attractive deals on moving their infrastructure requirements away from onsite facilities and onto a Microsoft hosted service.

And for the smart cookies amongst the CIO community, there could be good mileage to be had in taking one up. Getting the right price terms, over the right time period, with the right Service Level Agreement, all coupled to a Microsoft backside to kick if it doesn’t work well, could prove a tempting prospect to early adopters. It could also be just the kicker that SaaS actually needs to move beyond the status of `nice idea in theory’.