Analysis of Dissatisfiers That Inhibit Cloud Computing Adoption Across Multiple Customer Segments

Abstract

Cloud computing in many ways can be viewed as both a technology offering and a business alternative. But its adoption today is driven more by economic rationale than by technology justifications. Though in delivery terms, cloud offering is a merger of state-of-the-art concepts like virtualization, server consolidation, interoperability and dynamic CPU provisioning, its risk-benefit analysis is purely driven by business imperatives. As a technology, Cloud Computing topped the Gartner’s Hype Cycle only as late as 2009. However since then the hype has settled down and ‘computing in the ethereal cloud’ is slowly emerging as a strong cost-effective alternative to traditional computing. This paper focuses on the customer side perceptions of cloud adoption with a purely India-centric perspective. Since cloud is a fairly new offering, there is bound to be a lot of inertia in its acceptance. This is because cloud offerings - from the product development lifecycle (PDLC) point of view - are at a nascent stage and hence perceived risks outweigh perceived gains. This paper focusses on the cloud adoption risks across four sectors – SME, BFS, Education and Hospitals. The four key risk categories identified in the context of cloud adoption are vendor related risk, security related risk, no-gain risk and efficiency related risk. The paper does a relative mapping of these four risks for each of the four mentioned industry clusters. Since cloud technology is only in the process of getting established and main stream adoption is still a few years away, many of the cloud adoption fears are nebulous and will be removed once critical volumes start building up. Till such a maturation happens, cloud vendors will have to assiduously work out ways and means of assuaging the fears that inhibit adoption – real or perceptional. This paper is posited to be a pointer in that direction.

Key Words: Cloud Computing, Dissatisfiers, Segmented Risk Profiling, Risk Perception Management, Conjoint Regression

Full text

AnalysisofDissatisfiersThatInhibitCloudComputingAdoption
AcrossMultipleCustomerSegments
EaswarKrishnaIyer,ArathiKrishnan,GauravSareenandTapanPanda
GreatLakesInstituteofManagement,Chennai,India
easwar@greatlakes.edu.in
arathi.krishnan@greatlakes.edu.in
gaurav.sareen@greatlakes.edu.in
tapan@greatlakes.edu.in

Abstract:Cloudcomputinginmanywayscanbeviewedasbothatechnologyofferingandabusinessalternative.Butits
adoptiontodayisdrivenmorebyeconomicrationalethanbytechnologyjustifications.Thoughindeliveryterms,cloud
offeringisamergerofstate‐of‐the‐artconceptslikevirtualization,serverconsolidation,interoperabilityanddynamicCPU
provisioning,itsrisk‐benefitanalysisispurelydrivenbybusinessimperatives.Asatechnology,CloudComputingtopped
theGartner’sHypeCycleonlyaslateas2009.Howeversincethenthehypehassettleddownand‘computinginthe
etherealcloud’isslowlyemergingasastrongcost‐effectivealternativetotraditionalcomputing.Thispaperfocusesonthe
customersideperceptionsofcloudadoptionwithapurelyIndia‐centricperspective.Sincecloudisafairlynewoffering,
thereisboundtobealotofinertiainitsacceptance.Thisisbecausecloudofferings‐fromtheproductdevelopment
lifecycle(PDLC)pointofview‐areatanascentstageandhenceperceivedrisksoutweighperceivedgains.Thispaper
focussesonthecloudadoptionrisksacrossfoursectors–SME,BFS,EducationandHospitals.Thefourkeyriskcategories
identifiedinthecontextofcloudadoptionarevendorrelatedrisk,securityrelatedrisk,no‐gainriskandefficiencyrelated
risk.Thepaperdoesarelativemappingofthesefourrisksforeachofthefourmentionedindustryclusters.Sincecloud
technologyisonlyintheprocessofgettingestablishedandmainstreamadoptionisstillafewyearsaway,manyofthe
cloudadoptionfearsarenebulousandwillberemovedoncecriticalvolumesstartbuildingup.Tillsuchamaturation
happens,cloudvendorswillhavetoassiduouslyworkoutwaysandmeansofassuagingthefearsthatinhibitadoption–
realorperceptional.Thispaperispositedtobeapointerinthatdirection.

Keywords:cloudcomputing,dissatisfiers,segmentedriskprofiling,riskperceptionmanagement,conjointregression
1. Introduction
CloudComputingbeinganevolvingtechnology,currentglobalresearchonitisfocusedmoreontechnology
andlessonbusiness.Eventuallytheacidtestforanytechnologyisitsmarketacceptance.Asfarasmarket
adoptiongoes,cloudisonthevergeofcrossingthevitalchasmbetweentheearlyadoptersandtheearly
majority.Earlyadoptershaveapsychographicprofileofbeingventuresomeandtheyareknowntohavefewer
inhibitionsinacceptingacompletelynewtechnologyoffering.Thecurrentofferings,beitinapplications,
computingorstorageisbeinglappedupbythistargetmarket.Ontheotherhand,theearlymajority
comprisesofthepragmatistsinthemarketandtheycoverthebulkoftherealmarket.Theytendtoaccept
newtechnologyonlyaftermeasuresagainstfailurearereasonablyinplace.Needforreferralsisastrong
driverforabuyinthissegment.Technologyadoptionbythepragmaticearlymajorityisacrucialmilestonefor
anynascenttechnology.

Thispaperoffersamulti‐sector,emergingmarket,customersideviewofcloudadoption,atechnologythatis
justonestepawayfromthe‘earlymajority’buyers.

Anynewtechnologycomesinwithasetofrisks–real,latentorperceived.Literaturesurveysupportedby
previousworkdonebysomeoftheauthorsandreportedelsewhereindicatesthattherearefourclearrisk
vectorsforcloudadoption.Theyarevendorrelatedrisk,datasecurityrelatedrisk,lackofsignificantcost
reductionriskandsystemefficiencyrisk.Theauthorspositvendorrelatedriskasthefirstdimensionof
perceivedrisk.Fearoflock‐inwithanincompatiblevendor,lackofguaranteeofbusinesscontinuityand
serviceavailability,reputationfatesharingwithavendorandunclearlicensingissuescomeunderthisrisk
profile.Thenextpositedriskcoversdatasecurity,dataprivacy,dataconfidentialityandlossofgovernance&
controlofITdelivery.Thethirdriskpositsthatthegainsthatcloudpurportstoofferintermsofreduced
capitalandoperativecostsmightnotbesufficientenoughtomovefromexistingsystemstocloudplatforms.
Thelastrisksumsuptheeffectsoflatency,downtime,databottlenecksandanyotherefficiencyimpediments.
Thepapercomparestherelativeweightageofthesefourrisksacrossfourcustomersegmentswhoseemtobe
145


EaswarKrishnaIyeretal.
potentialadoptersofcloud–SMEsector,bankingsector,educationsectorandhospitalsector.Eachsegment
chosenispositedtohaveadifferentriskperceptiontowardstechnologyadoption.

Extensiveliteratureisavailabletodayoneachofthefourvectorsofpositedrisk.Inaddition,someworkhas
alreadybeendoneinlookingattherisk‐gainprofileofdifferentindustrysectorsthatarepoisedtomoveonto
cloudplatforms.Beforeaninter‐sectorriskprofilingisundertaken,aringsideliteraturesurveyisprovided.
2. Literaturesurvey
Michael.Ambrustetal(2010)refertoCloudComputingasasymbiosisofapplicationsdeliveredasservices
overinternetcoupledwiththehardware/systemssoftwareinthedatacentersthatprovidethoseservices.A
paperwhichhasreceivedwidecitation,thisBerkeleyworkdelineatestherolesofthepurecloudproviderand
theintermediarySaaSmodelpackager.BrianGammageetal(2009)talkaboutthestrategicpossibilityofthe
‘powerofIT’shiftingtowardsexternalprovidersandusers.Thepaper,whichisessentiallyaGartnerreport,
triestoclearlydefinecorevs.non‐corestrategiesinthecontextofITassetownershipandutilization.Jeanne
Capachin(2012)researchesandreportsontheslowyetsteadycloudcomputingadoptionbythebanking
sector.Thepapercoverscontractmanagementandregulationsmanagementinthecontextofkeyfinancial
datamovingtothepubliccloud.IthasgotapredominantUSbankingsectorperspective.PaulLBannerman
(2010)hasdoneanexhaustivecomparativesurveyofallcloudresearchpaperspublishedbetween2009and
2010andhascomeoutwithacomparativeanalysisofwhatarethevariousadoptionrisks–realand
perceptional.Thepaperdiscussesvariousbarrierstocloudadoptionbyreviewingopinionsofindustry
commentators.SarfrazNawazBrohietal(2011)comparethechallengesaswellasthebenefitsinwhatthey
callthenewParadigm–CloudComputing.

ChinyaoLowetal(2011)investigatesthefactorsthataffectcloudadoptionbyfirmsbelongingtothehigh‐tech
industry.MaldenAVouk(2008)mapsthejourneyofcloudfromtechnologytoimplementation.Easwaretal
(yettobepublishedin2013)looksatthedriversandinhibitorsofcloudadoptionwithaspecificSMEsector
perspective.ThedatainthisworkisIndianSMEdata.TaraSBehrendetal(2011)examinescloudcomputing
initiativesintheeducationsector.ThepaperisintheUScontextandexaminesthefactorsthatleadto
adoptionofthistechnologyfromtheperspectiveofbothcollegesandstudentcommunity.VladimirVujin
(2011)looksattheeducationindustryandcloudcomputing,butmorefromaresearchsupportpointofview.
Thepapertalksaboutareliableandscalablecloudenvironmentthatcanfosterscientificresearchand
educationalprogress.

AlecNacamuli(2010)inwhatisessentiallyaneditorialpiecestressesontheimportanceofcloudinbankingin
thedaystocome.Thepapercitesthatregulation,datarecovery,customertrustandinnovationwouldbe
someofthekeythrustareaswhichcomeinthecuspofcloudcomputingandbanking.JeanneCapachin(2010)
inanotherwellresearchedarticleonbankingfocussesprimarilyonsecurityissuesthatwouldbeontopof
mindforbankerswhentheythinkof3rdpartydatastorage.ChrisChatman(2010)focussesonanothersector
whichhasaclearcloudadoptionfocus–healthcaresector.Thepaperfocusesonthedualconcernsofdata
securityaswellasspeedofimplementationforthehealthcaresector.EdwardJGiniat(2011)offersmore
insightsoncloudvs.healthcare.

FinallyEaswarKrishnaIyeretal(2012)studiestheNetPresentValue(NPV)behaviorforfullvs.fractional
adoptionofcloud.Thestudylooksattheunknownfearsofcloudadoptionwhichstretchesacrossdimensions
likesecurity,privacy,variability,redundancy,downtime,contractbreachmanagementandthelikesand
developsamathematicalmodeltomonetizetheserisks.Tosumup,thereisabodyofliteratureavailable
todaywhichindividuallytalksaboutcloudadoptioninthecontextofSME,BFS,EducationandHospitals.This
paperproceedstodoacomparativeriskprofilingofcloudadoptionacrossallthese4sectors.
3. Problemformulationandresearchmethodology
Cloud–asatechnology–hasalreadytransformeditselffromamerehypetoanimplementablerealityinthe
lastfewyears.Enlightenedtechnologymaturationandacceptancebythepragmatic‘earlymajority’usersare
thenextlogicalstepstowardsanall‐embracingacceptanceofthis‘pay‐as‐you‐use’businessmodel.
Technologyvendorsarekeenlyworkingonsolutionslikeeaseofdeployment,interoperability,server
consolidation,economicsofdeploymentandlevelofcustomizationpossibleintheireffortstodemystifythe
etherealcloud.Alltheseactivitiesareactuallyhappeningtodayontheproductfront.Theauthorsofthiswork
146


EaswarKrishnaIyeretal.
feelthatthereshouldbealotofsimultaneousresearchthrustinpositioningthecloudofferingtopotential
enterpriselevelbuyers.Therehastobeaggregatestudiesonresistancepointstocloudadoption.Theresearch
methodologythatisproposedhereisastepinthatdirection.

Aspreviouslymentioned,thereisaclearinertiaattheclientendingoingforafull‐fledgedacceptanceofcloud
computing.Thisinertiaispartlydrivenbythefactthatmanyclientindustrieshavealreadyinvestedheavilyin
technologyandarereluctanttoevenpartiallyabandontheiron‐premisetraditionalITinfrastructure.Fora
technologyintensivecompany,theITinfrastructureinvestmentwouldbeasignificantportionoftheirassetsin
thebalancesheet.Anymovetoadopta‘payanduse’type3rdpartyplatformwouldhaveramificationson
sunkenassetsanddepreciationoftheseassets.Inadditiontocapitalinvestment,organizationscurrently
runningtheirITinthetraditionalnon‐cloudmodehaveinvesteddeeplyinpeopleandprocessestorunthe
well‐oiledin‐houseITinfrastructure.Anysignificantcloudadoptionwillhavetotakeintoaccountamajor
peopleandprocesstransformation.

Anotherreasonfortheslackinadoptionisthatdespitethebuilduponcloudoverthelastfewyears,the‘real’
gainsfromthecloudofferinglookhazytothebuyer.Tocompoundthescenario,therisksoffull‐fledgedcloud
adoptionareyettobefullyquantified.Withmainstreamadoptionforcloudpredictedtohappeninthenext2
to5years,thisisthetimeforthecloudvendorindustrytointrospectonhowtheirnewofferingwillbe
perceivedbythecustomer.Theproblemformulationofthispaperisastepinthedirectionofsectorialrisk
profilingandassessmentofcloudadoption.Thepaperpositsthatdifferentsectorswillhavedifferentrelative
riskperceptionsandacorrectassessmentofthesamewillgoalongwayintailoringcustom‐madecloud
solutionsforeachsector.Incidentally,theprevioussubsectiononliteraturesurveyquotesatleastonepaper
whichhasdoneasignificantcloudadoptionstudyineachofthe4sectorsthatthispaperisworkingon.

Asmentionedintheabstract,thefourbroadriskdriversforthisstudyarevendorrelatedrisk,securityrelated
risk,no‐gainriskandefficiencyrelatedrisk.Theyhavebeenarrivedatbycollatingfromliteraturetherisk
studiesthathavebeenpreviouslydone.Subsequently,discussionswithindustryexpertsareusedtocondense
theriskmappingalongtheaforementionedfourvectors.Oncethefourkeyvectorshavebeenidentified,they
arepairedinallpossiblecombinationsoftwos,thusyielding4C2combinations;i.e.6combinationsofrisk.The
sixcombinationsarevendor+security,vendor+nogains,vendor+efficiency,security+nogains,security+
efficiencyandfinallynogains+efficiency.Therespondentsareaskedtodistributetheirrelativerisk
perceptionweightagesacrossthesixpairsinsuchawaythattheaggregateweightagecomesto100.Inthis
trade‐offscenario,therespondentsareforcedtostreamlinetheirrelativeperceptionofrisks.Inreality,risks
donotcomeinones,theyoccurtogether.Hence,seekingriskweightagesataone‐on‐onelevelwouldhave
‘disjointed’therisksintherespondent’smind.Theprocessofpairingthemistoenabletherespondentto
thinkin‘conjoint’termsbeforegoingforrelativeriskweightageassignment.

The4C2possiblecombinationscanberepresentedinbinomialtermsas1100,1010,1001,0110,0101and
0011.The1sand0sarebasicallydummyvariableswhichindicatethesimplepresence/absenceoftherisk(s)
understudy.Asimpleconjointregressionisdonebetweentherespondentriskperceptionsandthebinomial
combinations.Thepartworthofeachriskisderivedfromtheregressionoutput.Inall,5regressionsarerun‐4
individualregressionsforeachsectorsandacommonregressionforallrespondentstogetthemeanrisk
acrossallsectors.Allthe5regressionsyieldanR2valueofgreaterthan0.5witheducationsectorgivingthe
highestvalueof0.815andSMEgivinglowestvalueof0.574.Theaggregate‘all‐responses’R2valueis0.639.

Carehasbeentakentoensurethatthereareatleast30respondentsfromeachsector.Thestudywas
eventuallydoneon150respondentsspreadoverSME(55),Hospitals(35),Education(30)andBFS(30).The
entiresampleconsistsofex‐anteusersandhencethepicturethatemergesispurelyoneofriskperceptionand
nowayreflectsapost‐buyusagedrivenfeedback.Thequestionnaireitselfensuresthatatthepointof
submission,thetotalriskweightageisexactly100acrossthesixcombinationsofrisk.Else,submissionisnot
permitted.Thisensuresdataconsistency.
4. Analysisandinterpretation
Therelativeperceptionspreadofthe4risks,asgivenbytherespectivepartworthutilityfunctions,isplotted
forallthefoursectorsinFigure1.Inferencesonthisbehaviorbasedontheresultsobtainedaregivenona
sectorbysectorbasis.
147


EaswarKrishnaIyeretal.

Figure1:Relativeriskassessmentofcloudadoption:A4riskx4sectormapping
5. SMEsector
TheSMEsector’sriskperceptionspreadindicatesthatvendorrelatedfearsdominatethemindscapeofthe
SMEmarket.SinceCloud–asanoffering‐isnewandtherearemultiplelayersofcloudvendors(ibidMichael.
Ambrustetal),thereisanambiguityonwhoisone’sactualvendor.Atonelayerwehavethecloudutility
vendorwhoprovidescomputingandstorageatthehardwarelevel.Atanotherlayer,wehavethecloud
applicationvendorwhopackages/bundlesapplicationslikeCRMandERPalongwithpureplayhardware.
Whattheusergetsisanamalgamofthesetwo,vendedouttohimbytheintermediarySaaS(Softwareasa
Service)provider.Thusthereisaperceivedambiguityofescalationpointfortheuserwhenheneedstrouble
shooting.Itisthisdilemmawhichhasgivenvendorrelatedriskthehighestriskranking.TheSMErespondents
themselvesareproactive/reactiveproblemsolversintheirdomain.Hence,theyinstinctivelyunderstandthe
valueoftroubleshooting.Therespondentscurrentlyperceiveaninabilitytoidentifyafeedbackpathbywhich
theycansolvetheircloudadoptionproblems.Thisopinion,whichwasobtainedfromrandomchatswithSME
respondentsaftertheyhavefilledupthequestionnaire,canbepositedasoneofthereasonsforthesector
givinghighestweightageforvendorrisk.

Thesecondriskismoreeasilyexplained.Datasecurity,dataprivacyanditsassociatedlosseswouldweigh
acrossalladoptionclassesandliteraturequotesthesameasthekeydeterrentforwidespreadcloudadoption.
Sincebothvendorriskandsecurityriskcanbeperceivedevenbeforeadoption,theygarnerthetoptwo
perceivedriskspots.Theriskon‘Efficiency’willbefeltonlypostadoptionandhenceitgetsrelegatedtothe
3rdspot.Theinabilitytosenseefficiency‐relatedriskbeforeadoptionisnotgenericacrosssectors.Thiswillbe
explainedinthecontextofthenexttwosectors.Comingtothelastperceivedrisk,theSMErespondentmarket
isapparentlycompletelysoldonthemonetarygainaspectofCloudComputing.Hencetheirriskperceptionof
a‘NoGain’isjust13%.
6. BFSsector
Thesecurityriskisobviouslythemostoverwhelmingriskforthedatasensitivebankingsector.Ofallthe16
partworthfunctionsthathavebeenarrivedat(spreadacross4sectorsx4risks),thereisonlyonepartworth
functionwhichhasgotavalueinexcessof50%.ThisisforSecurityRiskinthecontextofBFSsector.Fearsof
dataloss,privacyinvasion,confidentialityloss,accounthackingandthelikeswhichcancriticallyhamper
bankingoperationsadduptoensurethatsecurityriskgetsarelativeweightageofawhopping61%.Banking–
likeanyothersectorinthevergeofcloudadoption–definitelystandstogainfromtheclassiccloudbenefitsof
elasticityofusage,granularityofscalingandflexibilityinpricing.Yet,thisstudyindicatesthatthedownside
duetosecurityfearsoverridelogicalupsideadvantages.

Comingtothe2ndrankedrisk,efficiencyconsiderationsand‘cost’ofinefficiencyarefarmorevisibleinbanking
sectorthaninagenericSMEsector.BFSindustry,whichuniversallyfollowsthenormofdailyaccountsclosing
148


EaswarKrishnaIyeretal.
andadaytodaytransactionreconciliationformat,recognizesex‐antethevalueofefficiency.Inadifferent
context,allonlinefinancialmarketslikestockmarkets,commoditymarkets,FOREXmarketsandcallmoney
marketsrequireminimaldowntimeand‘zero’latencyashygienefactors.Latencyincloudcanbeintroduced
bycloudelementsandinternetelements.Inaglobalonlinefinancialmarket,wheresnapshotexecutionof
tradedecisionsarecritical,lackofefficiencywillbeasignificantdeterrent.ItisforthesereasonsthatBFSgives
efficiencyrelatedriskthesecondhighestweightage.

BFSisaveryorganizedsectoranditsvendorcallsaretakenatnationallevel.Giventhescaleofoperations,
therewillbetightServiceLevelAgreements(SLAs)toensuresmoothoperations.Hencethesectordoesn’t
perceiveanysignificantvendorrelatedfears.The4thfearof‘nogain’wasn’tevenstatisticallysignificantfor
thissector.Thiswastheonlysectorforwhicha‘statisticallyinsignificant’riskwasobtained.Theconjoint
regressionwasre‐runafterdroppingthe‘nogain’risktogettherelativemappingoftheremainingthreerisks.
7. Hospital/healthsector
HealthSectorandBFSsectorshowaremarkablesimilarityintheirperceptiontowardsall4risks.Sinceboth
thesectorsarepartoftheorganizedsectorandremainwellinformed,theirvendorrelatedriskperceptions
arelow.Hospitalsareaswaryaboutdataconfidentialityasbanks.Leakageofpatientinformationcanmake
thissectormorallyandlegallytenable.Todaymosthospitalshavemovedtoapaperlesshealthrecordformat.
Loss,temporaryloss,swaporleakageofpatient’smedicaldatacanbecalumnioustotheindustry.Thus,like
banks,datasecuritytakesthetopslotforHealthsectoralso.

Theimportantofavailabilityofrightdataattherighttimetotherightmedicalpersoncannotbeoverstatedin
thecontextofhealth.Thepossibilityofanetwork/systemfailureinbetweenamissioncriticalsituationsuch
asatimesensitivesurgerymightbehighlydetrimentaltotheactualoutcomeofthesurgeryitself.Thevery
credibilityofthemedicalfraternityishingedonavailabilityofdynamicallyupdatedpatientdata.Hence,
efficiencyriskcomesaclose#2todatasecurityforhealthsector.Hereagain,asinBFS,thereisaclearex‐ante
judgementofefficiencylosses.Itisworthnotingthatamongstthe4sectors,thehealth/hospitalsector
recordsthehighestriskperceptionofefficiencyforthereasonscitedabove.Thenogainriskistheleast
perceived,arankthatitconsistentlymaintainsacrossall4sectors.
8. Educationsector
Theeducationsector’shighpitchingofvendorriskcouldbedrivenbythefactthatinthissector,studentsare
alsocloudusers[unlikesayinahospitalsectorwherethepatientsarenotexposedtothecloudenvironment].
Inauniversity,thestudentpopulationwouldrunintothousandsandhencetheloadvariabilityoncloudusage
wouldbehigh.Thiscreatesproblemswithprovisioning.Underprovisioningofcloudserviceswouldresultin
serviceoutageswhentheloadpeaksup.Ineducationsector,therewouldbedailyaswellasseasonalpeaking
ofload.IntheIndiancontext,post‐dinnerhourswouldbeheavyusagehoursifthesystemisconfiguredin
suchawaythatacademicmaterialhastobedownloadedfromthecloudplatform.Examination,placement
andadmissionstimewouldcreateseasonalspikesinusage.Totakecareofsuchaloadvariation,ifthe
universitygoesforover‐provisioning,itwouldleadtocapacityunder‐utilizationduringnon‐peakhours.This
scenarioactuallytranslatestoa‘vendorfear’fortheex‐antemarket.Wehaverespondentstalkingtousabout
vendorunpredictabilityinthecontextofwhatessentiallyisaprovisioningdrivensystemoutage.Thisfear–
likemanyothercloudadoptionrelatedfears–ispurelyperceptional.Yet,itexistsinthepotentialcustomer’s
mindspaceasthestudysuggests.

Aftervendorrisk,securityandefficiencyrisksarealmostevenforeducationsector.Asearliermentioned,no
sectorhasgotasignificant‘nogains’fear.Thiscanbeattributedtothefactthatthecloudvendorindustryhas
really‘sold’theCAPEXandOPEXgainsofcloudcomputingtotheaspiringadoptermarkets.

Asmentionedearlier,5independentregressionsweredone–thefirstfourforthe4independentsectorsand
the5thacrossall150respondents.Therelativeriskperceptionofeachsectorvis‐à‐visthemeanriskofthe
totalsamplepopulationisplottedinFigure2.
149


EaswarKrishnaIyeretal.

Figure2:Relativesectorialriskvis‐a‐vistheallsectormeanrisk
ItcanbeobservedthattheBFSsectorandtheHospitalsectortendtomovetogetherforalltheriskvectors.
SimilarlytheSMEsectorandEducationsectorshowsomesimilarityinriskmappingbehavior.Thisinter‐pair
correlationismappedinthematrixgiveninFigure3.Itisworthnotingthatexceptforthepairsmentioned
above,theriskperceptioncorrelationsarenothighforanyotherpairofindustrysectors.

Figure3:Correlationmatrixofinter‐sectorriskmapping
Bywayofaconclusion,theauthorsfeelthatthisstudywillcruciallyhelpcloudservicevendorstosegment
theirpositioningstrategyaftertheyunderstandthekeyinhibitorsofcloudadoptionfordifferentmarkets.
CloudmarketingbeingpredominantlyB2B,brochures,mailers,adsinsectorspecificmagazinesandother
promotionalcampaignscanbetweakedatthelastdeliverymiletoreducefearsandincreaseacceptanceof
thisnascenttechnology.

Thoughtheauthorshavefragmentedthetotalriskalong4vectorsonly,inreality,eachoftheseriskvectors
consistoffairlyuncorrelatedandindependentsubvectors.Fearofservicecontinuity,fearofreputationfate
sharingandriskofmismatchbetweenvendorarchitectureandclientbusinessneedsareallpartofthebroad
umbrellaofvendorrisk.Sameisthecasewithprivacy,confidentialityandlackofcontrolinthecontextofdata
security.Adetailedrelativeanalysisofthesesub‐risksismissinginthisstudy.Thatcanbeconstruedasoneof
thelimitationsofthisstudyatthispoint.

CloudasanalternativeisheretostayandthebusinessgainsofcloudadoptionintermsofbetterNetPresent
Valueismeasurable.Cloudchangestheparadigmfromownershipoftechnologytoutilizationoftechnology.
Theauthorsofthispaperfeelthatcustomer‐centeredresearchwillfacilitategoodproductaswellas
positioningstrategiesinsuchawaythatcloudadoptionfearsareplayeddownandgainsareusheredin.
150


EaswarKrishnaIyeretal.
9. Futuredirectionsofresearch
Thepapersthatarequotedfromliteratureofferperspectivesofcloudadoptionriskonlyonasectorbysector
basis.Thispaperattemptstocaptureareasonablygoodframeworkofinter‐sectorrelativeriskcomparison.
Butasmentionedintheprevioussection,thisworkhasnotexploredthesub‐risksthatresidewithineachrisk
category.Asegmentedandweightedstudyofeachsub‐categoryofriskwillenablethemonetizationofallrisk
possibilities.SuchamonetaryassociationofriskwillgoalongwayindelineatingtheactualNetPresentValue
gainsofCloudComputing(ibidEaswarKrishnaIyeretall2012).Someoftheauthorsofthispaperare
currentlyworkingonsuchastudy.

Thesecondthrustinresearchwouldbeacountryspecificresearchapproach.Theriskperspectivesofferedin
thispaperarehighlyIndiacentric.Therelativeriskperceptionscenariocouldplayoutdifferentlyinanother
country.Again,someoftheauthorsofthisworkarecurrentlyworkingoncloudadoptionriskmeasurementin
someneighboringemergingeconomies.
References
ArmbrustMichaeletal(2010)“AViewofCloudComputing”,CommunicationsoftheACM,Vol.53,IssueNo.4,April2010
BannermanPaulL(2010),“CloudComputingAdoptionRisks:StateofPlay”,AsiaPacificSoftwareEngineeringConference
(APSEC2010),CloudWorkshop–Nov2010
BehrendTaraSetal(2011),“CloudComputingadoptionandusageincommunitycolleges”,BehaviorandInformation
Technology,Vol.30,No.2,March–April2011
CapachinJeanne(2010),”Changeonthehorizon:TheimpactofCloudComputingonTreasuryandTransactionBanking”,
JournalofPaymentsStrategy&Systems,Vol.4,No.4,2010
CapachinJeanne(2012),“HowtoManageVendorsinthePublicCloud”,AmericanBanker,Vol.177,Issue156,October
2012
ChatmanChris(2010),“HowCloudComputingischangingthefaceofHealthCareInformationTechnology”,Journalof
HealthcareCompliance,May‐June2010
GammageBrianetal(2009),“Gartner’sTopPredictorsforITOrganizationsandUsers,2010andBeyond:ANewBalance”,A
GartnerResearchReport,IDno.G00173482,December2009
GiniatEdwardJ(2011),“CloudComputing:InnovatingtheBusinessofHealthCare”,HealthcareFinancialManagement,
May2011
KrishnaIyerEaswaretal(2012),“CloudComputingandModellingofCashFlowsforFullvs.FractionalAdoptionofCloud”,
ProceedingsoftheInternationalConferenceonBusinessManagementandInformationSystems(ICBMIS),November
2012
KrishnaIyerEaswaretal(2013),“DecisionvariablesinfluencingCloudadoptionbySMEsector:AConjointAnalysis
Mapping”,NationalConferenceonBusinessAnalyticsandBusinessIntelligence,January2013
LowChinyao,ChenYahsueh(2011),“Understandingthedeterminantsofcloudcomputingadoption”,Industrial
ManagementandDataSystems,Vol.111,Issue7,2011
NacamuliAlec(2010),”AnEditorialonCloudAdoptioninBFS”,JournalofPaymentsStrategy&Systems,Vol.4,No.4,2010
NawazBrohiSarfraz,AdibBamiahMervat(2011),“ChallengesandBenefitsforAdoptingtheParadigmofCloud
Computing”,InternationalJournalofAdvancedEngineeringSciencesandTechnologies,Vol.8IssueNo.2,2011
VoukMladenA.(2008),“CloudComputing–Issues,ResearchandImplementations”,JournalofComputingandInformation
Technology,CIT16,Vol4,2008
VujinVladimir(2011),“CloudComputinginScienceandHigherEducation”,Management,IssueNo.59,2011
151