ArticlePDF Available

Critical analysis of vendor lock-in and its impact on cloud computing migration: a business perspective

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Vendor lock-in is a major barrier to the adoption of cloud computing, due to the lack of standardization. Current solutions and efforts tackling the vendor lock-in problem are predominantly technology-oriented. Limited studies exist to analyse and highlight the complexity of vendor lock-in problem in the cloud environment. Consequently, most customers are unaware of proprietary standards which inhibit interoperability and portability of applications when taking services from vendors. This paper provides a critical analysis of the vendor lock-in problem, from a business perspective. A survey based on qualitative and quantitative approaches conducted in this study has identified the main risk factors that give rise to lock-in situations. The analysis of our survey of 114 participants shows that, as computing resources migrate from on-premise to the cloud, the vendor lock-in problem is exacerbated. Furthermore, the findings exemplify the importance of interoperability, portability and standards in cloud computing. A number of strategies are proposed on how to avoid and mitigate lock-in risks when migrating to cloud computing. The strategies relate to contracts, selection of vendors that support standardised formats and protocols regarding standard data structures and APIs, developing awareness of commonalities and dependencies among cloud-based solutions. We strongly believe that the implementation of these strategies has a great potential to reduce the risks of vendor lock-in.
Content may be subject to copyright.
R E S E A R C H Open Access
Critical analysis of vendor lock-in and its
impact on cloud computing migration: a
business perspective
Justice Opara-Martins
*
, Reza Sahandi and Feng Tian
Abstract
Vendor lock-in is a major barrier to the adoption of cloud computing, due to the lack of standardization. Current
solutions and efforts tackling the vendor lock-in problem are predominantly technology-oriented. Limited studies
exist to analyse and highlight the complexity of vendor lock-in problem in the cloud environment. Consequently,
most customers are unaware of proprietary standards which inhibit interoperability and portability of applications
when taking services from vendors. This paper provides a critical analysis of the vendor lock-in problem, from a
business perspective. A survey based on qualitative and quantitative approaches conducted in this study has
identified the main risk factors that give rise to lock-in situations. The analysis of our survey of 114 participants
shows that, as computing resources migrate from on-premise to the cloud, the vendor lock-in problem is
exacerbated. Furthermore, the findings exemplify the importance of interoperability, portability and standards in
cloud computing. A number of strategies are proposed on how to avoid and mitigate lock-in risks when migrating
to cloud computing. The strategies relate to contracts, selection of vendors that support standardised formats and
protocols regarding standard data structures and APIs, developing awareness of commonalities and dependencies
among cloud-based solutions. We strongly believe that the implementation of these strategies has a great potential
to reduce the risks of vendor lock-in.
Keywords: Cloud computing, Vendor lock-in, Enterprise migration, Cloud adoption, Cloud APIs, Interoperability,
Portability, Standards, DevOps
Introduction
Cloud computing is to offer an opportunistic business
strategy to enterprises (small or large), to remain com-
petitive and meet business needs [13]. Whilst this
seems like an attractive proposition for both public and
private companies, a number of challenges remain inad-
equately addressed. A recent survey conducted by [4] re-
ported security and vendor lock-in as major barriers to
cloud adoption across the United Kingdom (UK) market.
The European Network and Information Security
Agency (ENISA) and European Commission (EC) have
recognized the vendor lock-in problem as a one of the
greatest obstacles to enterprise cloud adoption [5].
The reviews of existing literature [612] have shown
that previous studies have focused more on interoper-
ability and portability issues of cloud computing when
lock-in is discussed. Amongst many problems being dis-
cussed are: the lack of standard interfaces and open APIs
[13], the lack of open standards for VM format [14] and
service deployment interfaces [15], as well as lack of
open formats for data interchange. These issues result in
difficulties in integration between services obtained from
different cloud providers as well as between cloud
resources and internal legacy systems [16]. Conse-
quently, this renders the interoperability and portability
of data and application services difficult. The emergent
difficulty is a direct result of the current differences
between individual cloud vendors offerings based on
non-compatible underlying technologies and proprietary
standards. In essence, cloud providers often propose
their own solutions and proprietary interfaces for access
to resources and services. This heterogeneity of cloud
provider solutions (i.e. hardware and software) and
* Correspondence: joparamartins@bournemouth.ac.uk
Faculty of Science and Technology, Bournemouth University, Bournemouth,
UK
Journal of Cloud Computing
:
Advances, Systems and Application
s
© 2016 Opara-Martins et al. Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to
the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
Opara-Martins et al. Journal of Cloud Computing: Advances, Systems and Applications
(2016) 5:4
DOI 10.1186/s13677-016-0054-z
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
service interfaces is a crucial problem since most of the
current resources bind the customer to stick with one
cloud technology due to high cost in porting the applica-
tions and data to a different providers interface. The
heterogeneity in cloud computing is simply the existence
of differentiated hardware, architectures, infrastructure,
and technology used by cloud providers. Many cloud
vendors provide services based on custom-built pol-
icies, infrastructure, platforms, and APIs that make
the overall cloud landscape heterogeneous. Such vari-
ations cause interoperability, portability, and integra-
tion very challenging.
Following the principle that compatible interfaces are
important in a cloud environment, two implementations
of the same cloud service may store and process data
very differently. This may well also involve storing de-
rived and implementation specific data differently [17].
Without proper definitions for import and export for-
mats, a set of data from one service implementation will
probably be meaningless when imported into another
cloud service. For example, a cloud service may be
accessed and used by a wide variety of clients, including
mobile, desktops and even tablet PCs. However, the
information created and consumed by those services can
still be limited to a single vendor if a proprietary data
format is used. Further, this can create a degree of
instability and data incompatibility issue as interfaces to
the functionality may be proprietary, and thus any solu-
tion that is built to leverage the functionality provided
cannot be easily migrated to a competitive cloud service
offering [15]. So, while customers might be able to
access and use the services from a variety of clients, the
ability to move seamlessly from one vendor to another
may be difficult because of other dependencies such as
different data formats. Clearly, this problem has an
impact on interoperability and data portability between
clouds.
At the core of all these problems, we can identify con-
cerns about consumersdemand to migrate data to and
from different clouds (data portability), and interoper-
ability between clouds. Research has already addressed
movability and migration on a functional level [18, 19].
However, migration is currently far from being trivial.
The two main reasons are the lack of world-wide
adopted standards or interfaces to leverage the dynamic
landscape of cloud related offers [14], and absence of
standards for defining parameters for cloud applications
and their management. Without an appropriate stan-
dardized format, ensuring interoperability, portability,
compliance, trust, and security is difficult [12]. Standards
continue to rapidly evolve in step with technology.
Hence, standards may be at different stages of maturity
and levels of acceptance. But, unless the standards are
well-accepted and widely used, such standards remain a
questionable solution [20]. In other words a partially
adopted standard would represent a poor solution. Es-
sentially, this explicit lack of standards to support port-
ability and interoperability among cloud providers stifles
the market competition and locks customers to a single
cloud provider [21]. To expatiate further, potential diffi-
culties (by primarily technological means) in achieving
interoperability and portability lead to lock-in result-
ing in customer dependency on the services of a single
cloud computing provider [22]. From a legal stance, the
dependency can be aggravated by the abusive conduct of
a cloud computing provider within the meaning of Art-
icle 102 TFEU (Treaty on the Functioning of the Euro-
pean Union) [18], where other providers are excluded
from competing from the customers of the initial cloud
provider. In such situations, limitations to interoperabil-
ity and portability could be seen as an abuse by a domin-
ant provider using this practice as a technical means to
stifle (i.e. monopolize) competition. Such practices dis-
tort competition and harm consumers by depriving them
of better prices, greater choices and innovation. Hence,
the competition law has the role of ensuring competition
is maintained and enforced in the market by regulating
anti-competitive conduct by cloud providers. To this
end, it can be concluded that cloud interoperability (and
data portability) constraints are potential results of anti-
competitive environment created by offering services
with proprietary standards.
Vendor lock-in
The vendor lock-in problem in cloud computing is the
situation where customers are dependent (i.e. locked-in)
on a single cloud provider technology implementation
and cannot easily move in the future to a different
vendor without substantial costs, legal constraints, or
technical incompatibilities [23]. To substantiate further
from the lenses of a software developer, the lock-in situ-
ation is evident in that applications developed for spe-
cific cloud platforms (e.g. Amazon EC2, Microsoft
Azure), cannot easily be migrated to other cloud plat-
forms and users become vulnerable to any changes made
by their providers [24]. Actually, the lock-in issue arises
when a company, for instance, decides to change cloud
providers (or perhaps integrate services from different
providers), but is unable to move applications or data
across different cloud services because the semantics of
resources and services of cloud providers do not match
with each other. This heterogeneity of cloud semantics
[25] and cloud Application Program Interfaces (APIs)
creates technical incompatibility which in turn leads to
interoperability and portability challenges [26]. This
makes interoperation, collaboration, portability and
manageability of data and services a very complex and
elusive task. For these reasons, it becomes important
Opara-Martins et al. Journal of Cloud Computing: Advances, Systems and Applications (2016) 5:4 Page 2 of 18
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
from the view point of the business to retain the flexibil-
ity to change providers according to business concerns
or even keep in-house some of the components that are
less mission-critical due to security related risks. Inter-
operability and portability among cloud providers can
avoid the problem of vendor lock-in. It is the way to-
ward a more competitive market for cloud providers and
customers.
Lock-in affects cloud migration
Interoperability and portability are essential qualities
that affect the cloud under different perspectives [7, 13],
due to the risk of vendor lock-in. While many studies
cite vendor lock-in as a major barrier to cloud comput-
ing adoption [3, 2732], yet due to its complexity, a lack
of clarity still pervades. Without a clear insight into how
such complex decision is made to avoid lock-in, it is dif-
ficult to identify gaps where further research is beneficial
for business adopters. Existing solutions and studies
addressing the lock-in problem have predominantly been
technological oriented, where the focus is on knowledge
garnered through logical deduction and technical expert-
ise. Such approach is compromised by ignoring organi-
sationsawareness and perception of the lock-in
problem. For example, how is cloud lock-in experienced
or understood from the business stance? Limited in-
depth studies exist to investigate the complexity of cloud
lock-in problem within enterprise organisations. Like-
wise the customers, who are willing to choose the cloud
services without being strictly bond to a specific solu-
tion, are mostly neglected. Advances in cloud computing
research have in recent years resulted in a growing inter-
est for migration towards the cloud. But due to concerns
about the risks of vendor lock-in, as noted by [33],
organisations would particularly welcome stand-
ards that address application migration (e.g. Open
Virtualization Format (OVF)) and data migration (e.g.
Amazon S3 API) because such standards mitigate
lock-in concerns. Various standardisation solutions
from different industry bodies have been developed
for increasing interoperability and portability within
diverse cloud computing services [32, 34]. However,
initiatives by multiple standard bodies, researchers,
and consortiums could indirectly lead to the possibil-
ity of multiple standards emerging with possible lack
of consensus, thereby deteriorating the lock-in prob-
lem even further.
In spite of these legitimate concerns and technical
complexity, our study aims to answer the following two
questions of interest to business adopters: 1) How to
avoid being locked-in to a single cloud provider? 2) How
easy and secure is it to deploy existing cloud artefacts
(e.g. software applications, databases, data, virtual
servers etc.) on another service providers platform
without modification to the artefacts which would re-
duce the financial benefit of the migration?The former
applies more to companies who have migrated or are
looking to adopt more cloud solutions, whereas the lat-
ter is closely related to companies considering moving
core systems into the cloud environment. Giving an-
swers to these questions is deceptively easy and straight-
forward, but the reality is different. Presently, for many
companies, there is a large amount of sensitive data and
IT assets in-house which can deter them to migrate to
the cloud due to risks of vendor lock-in, security and
privacy issues. For these reasons, it becomes not only
critical to consider security and privacy concerns but
also related issues such as integration, portability, and
interoperability between the software on-premise and in
the cloud [35], should be taking into account. Therefore,
organisations must be aware of appropriate standards
and protocols used by cloud providers to support data/
application movability. Moreover, the ease of moving
data across (i.e. portability) cloud providersplatform
mandates data to be in a compatible format [34], and in-
cludes the need to securely delete the old storage [36].
In other words, the ability to move data/application
about is of crucial importance, as much as the effort in-
volved in actually moving inability to achieve this por-
tends large as a management issue for cloud computing.
To further complicate matters, maintaining compliance
with governmental regulations and industry require-
ments adds another layer of considerations to the man-
agement of data. Whether or not organisations can
easily shift their data/application about seamlessly, still
remains one of the biggest issues facing cloud adoption
across diverse industries. Based on our findings, we
propose strategic solutions that enterprises can follow to
avoid entering into vendor lock-in situations.
Methodology
Research design
To explore factors that contribute to a lock-in situation
in cloud computing, epistemologically, our study design
in this paper consists of two distinct phases, as depicted
in Fig. 1.
Phase 1: pilot interview study
In the pilot study, qualitative data were collected
through the use of open-ended interviews with IT prac-
titioners to explore the business-related issues of vendor
lock-in affecting cloud adoption. Five participants from
different industry sectors and organizations were pur-
posely selected for in-depth interviews. They included a
security expert, cloud advisor, IT technician, business
end user, and an IT manager. The purpose was to ex-
plore the cloud lock-in problems, and explore the
Opara-Martins et al. Journal of Cloud Computing: Advances, Systems and Applications (2016) 5:4 Page 3 of 18
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
prevalence of its dimensions, by gaining a range of in-
sights from different IT professionals.
Each interview data collected was transcribed verba-
tim, and the data was analysed using the Nvivo 8 QSR
software package for data storage, coding, and theme de-
velopment [37]. Due to the participatory and time con-
suming nature of this pilot phase, it was deemed
important that each interview be given considerable time
for analysis. Seven themes emerged in relation to partici-
pantsperception of vendor lock-in problem and how
this affects their migration and adoption decisions. The
themes were; (1) standards, (2) interoperability in the
cloud environment, (3) the need for portability, (4) inte-
gration challenges, (5) contract exit strategy, (6) data
ownership (7) security and privacy issues. The analysis
of the responses across the seven themes showed the
participantspriority of the themes. As a result, data
portability and interoperability concerns were the most
discussed theme in relation to vendor lock-in. However,
participants were less interested to divulge about the
security and contract exit strategies, including data own-
ership and privacy risks. Subsequent to the pilot inter-
views a questionnaire was designed for a survey. The
main issues raised at the interviews were incorporated
into the questionnaire.
Phase 2: quantitative survey questionnaire
The goal of phase 2 was to identify and evaluate the
risks and opportunities of vendor lock-in which affect
stakeholdersdecision-making about adopting cloud so-
lutions. This phase of the research design is based on an
online survey tool [38]. Participants were selected and
invited by e-mail to participate in the survey. The aim of
the survey was an in-depth study of the effect of vendor
lock-in in migration of enterprise IT resources to the
cloud (Additional files 1 and 2).
Questionnaire data collection
The target population mainly consists of large corpora-
tions and small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) lo-
cated in the United Kingdom (UK). Participants in the
survey varied between IT professionals, managers and
decision-makers within their respective business enter-
prise. A total of 200 companies were invited to participate
in the survey. Overall, 114 participants responded and
completed the online survey, which constituted a satisfac-
tory response rate of 57 %. To supplement for a higher re-
sponse rate as possible and to avoid skewing the data, a
paper-based questionnaire was administered in person to
participants at conferences and workshops. 12 completed
responses were received, giving a good response rate of
63 %. Prior to presenting the findings of the survey, it
should be pointed out that the questionnaire comprised of
many questions, however only those which revealed im-
portant issues of lock-in are presented and discussed in
context. For the purpose of analysis, Table 1 presents a
socio-demographic profile of the companies and par-
ticipants in the survey. As shown in Table 1, the sam-
ples were slightly dominated by organisations sized
between 251 and 500 employees, and majority came
from ICT organisations, followed by education, con-
sumer business, public sector and healthcare.
Organisations in the survey
In Fig. 2, a vast majority of the respondents were IT man-
agers and CIOs. These are the key people responsible for
Table 1 Socio-Demographic profile of participant organisation
Organisation Size Percentage
124 7 %
2550 12 %
51250 28 %
251500 39 %
Over 501 Employees 14 %
Total: 100 %
Industry Sector Percentage
Construction sector 3.5 %
Consumer Business 10.5 %
Education sector 15.8 %
Financial services 4.4 %
ICT services 17.5 %
Production & Manufacturing 7.0 %
Public sector & Healthcare 11.4 %
Services industry 10.5 %
Other 19.3 %
Total: 100
Fig. 1 Two phase exploratory research design
Opara-Martins et al. Journal of Cloud Computing: Advances, Systems and Applications (2016) 5:4 Page 4 of 18
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
making buying decisions in the cloud adoption process.
This indicates that the role of IT manager in most organi-
sations is still considered paramount as opposed to prem-
ise that the advent of cloud computing will make IT
management obsolete that is, some of the existing IT
management roles will be moved to cloud providers [39].
Arguably this is not the case today as pointed by [40].
Cloud computing is seen as a viable deployment model
within the context of UK organisations IT strategy, but it
is not seen as the only viable model. Most organisations
foresee the continued use of on-premise IT alongside
cloud-based services for the foreseeable future, evolving
into a prevalence of hybrid IT estates.
Findings
The analysis of the results show over 49 % of top level
IT managers influence the decisions for adopting cloud
services. This confirms that cloud computing adoption
in the UK is seen as a viable IT deployment model.
Moreover, more than half (50.9 %) of the organisations
polled in the study are already using cloud services for
at least one application domain within their organisa-
tion. The higher majority (69 %) utilise a combination of
cloud services and internally owned applications (i.e. hy-
brid IT) for organisations needs (Fig. 3).
Adoption of cloud computing by UK businesses
The survey affirms that the concept of using cloud com-
puting services to address the business IT needs has
established a mainstream deployment across organisa-
tions of various sizes. To further substantiate this matter,
interestingly about 36 % of participants confirmed using
a hybrid (public and private) cloud deployment model as
opposed to a private cloud. Only 46 % of UK firms par-
ticipated in the survey use public cloud services, in spite
of the associated security risks (Fig. 4). The rate of adop-
tion has been motivated by numerous indicators for
effective cloud deployment decision. The most cited rea-
sons for adopting cloud computing includes better scal-
ability of IT resources (45.9 %), collaboration (40.5 %),
cost savings (39.6 %) and increased flexibility (36.9 %).
This suggests that organisations are allured to utilising
cloud services due to the perceived business benefits of
cost savings, IT flexibility and business agility.
The business benefits of cloud migration
In addition to the reasons for why the cloud model has
achieved a mainstream deployment status across UK
organisations, identifying the actual benefits of cloud
computing is critical to further our understanding of
motivations to migrate to cloud-based services. As
shown in Fig. 5, the majority of the respondents identi-
fied capacity and scalability (70.3 %), increased collabor-
ation, availability, geography and mobility as benefits for
migration. However, further analysis have shown, from a
business stance, that for organisations with more than
Fig. 2 Sample profile of participants
Fig. 3 Cloud adoption maturity in UK
Opara-Martins et al. Journal of Cloud Computing: Advances, Systems and Applications (2016) 5:4 Page 5 of 18
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
250 employees, the three most important realised bene-
fits reported by participants are reduced infrastructure
cost, ubiquity, and increased collaboration respectively.
This indicates that the business benefits of migrating to
the cloud vary across different organisation sizes. More-
over, the results also show slight difference between the
motivations for adoption and the actual benefits realised
from using cloud services.
Challenges to cloud implementation for UK businesses
In order to identify the factors that have an impact on
cloud implementation and purchasing decisions, this
study explored what are the greatest barriers for imple-
menting cloud computing for organisations?Fig. 6 shows
the barriers identified by the participants. Respondents
identified systems and data security risks, loss of control
and over dependence on a single cloud provider (35.1 %)
as core existing barriers to future cloud implementation.
To confer from this result, the security is still a major con-
cern for UK businesses in implementing cloud solutions.
In fact, this is due to lack of trust [11], often associated
with worries about loss of control (i.e. in terms of system
availability and business continuity risks), as indicated
by (48.6 %) participants in the study. For instance, some
organisations are worried about security within the
cloud (i.e. data centres), while others feel that moving
data into different geographies can have regulatory
(compliance) implications. Besides, another barrier to
Fig. 4 Service deployed models
Fig. 5 Benefits of cloud computing to UK Enterprises
Opara-Martins et al. Journal of Cloud Computing: Advances, Systems and Applications (2016) 5:4 Page 6 of 18
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
cloud implementation evident in Fig. 6 is legal and regu-
latory compliance issues (25.2 %). Moreover, the find-
ings tie in with a recent study published by [41], of
which (57 %) participants identified the biggest chal-
lenge in managing data security and privacy is compli-
ance. However, regarding systems and data security
risks (63.1 %), cloud service providers can demonstrate
their compliance with, and adherence to, industry-
accepted standards for data security and integrity. In es-
sence, this will show transparency in practice and cap-
ability, and also assist the establishment of trust for
organisations to implement/deploy their most critical,
data-intensive functions and processes in the cloud.
Cloud application usage and service adoption among UK
organisations
In order to identify the opportunities which may affect
stakeholdersand decisions for or against cloud migra-
tion, this study explored which applications have
adopted from cloud services, which local applications
are considered for moving to the cloud. It also explored
which applications for whatever reason, were not
intended to adopt from the cloud model. The findings
presented herein continue to validate cloud solutions as
being pervasive options across UK organisations and in-
dustry sectors. The results in Fig. 7 suggest that general
purpose applications such as email and messaging,
Fig. 6 Barriers to cloud implementation in the UK
Fig. 7 Cloud-based CRM and ERP service adoption rates soar
Opara-Martins et al. Journal of Cloud Computing: Advances, Systems and Applications (2016) 5:4 Page 7 of 18
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
desktop and office software, etc. have all adopted the
cloud delivery model. It should be noted that the wide-
spread and reckless sign of adoption could pose signifi-
cant risks, as the cloud computing era is still evolving.
This is further reinforced by respondents who consider
moving business process management (68 %), enterprise
management (67 %), and business intelligence applica-
tions (64 %) respectively to the cloud. This certainly re-
flects the impact that the cloud has on the delivery and
use of enterprise software applications, as identified by
respondents.
The one application which is identified by most re-
spondents as not suitable for cloud deployment is ac-
counting and finance (39 %), perhaps due to data
security concerns. Moreover, further data analysis in
cloud adoption rate across organisations, realised that
larger enterprises find disaster recovery, (ERP) and busi-
ness process management applications (BPM) as the best
fit for cloud migration. However, for smaller enterprises,
the adoption of (non-mission critical) cloud-based appli-
cations mirrors their use of email messaging, desktop
hosting and Customer Relationship Management (CRM)
applications for collaboration. Remarkably, the lower
cost and flexibility that cloud-based applications offer is
ideal for small businesses, as they are agile and often run
with teams that are spread over wide geographical re-
gions. In essence, these applications are better suited for
online delivery [42].
Vendor lock-in concerns and challenges in cloud
migration
As cloud computing adoption rate soars across the UK
market, the risks of vendor lock-in is also prevalent.
How lock-in critically affects an organisationsbusiness
application and operation in the cloud cannot be over-
emphasized or underestimated. For example, Fig. 8
paints a clear admonitory picture of how UK businesses
rate the risks of vendor lock-in against the decision to
migrate/adopt cloud services. The risks (in Fig. 8) were
identified from the initial pilot interviews and also from
the literature [911, 13]. Moreover, the following risks
(i.e. inability to move data and applications in/out of
cloud environments, data ownership and cyber breaches)
in Fig. 8 were critical themes that emerged from the un-
structured interviews with IT practitioners. The results
in Fig. 8, highlights that besides the risks of data breach
and cyber-attack, or failure to meet agreed service levels,
UK businesses are also concerned about having corpor-
ate data locked-in to a single cloud provider. These con-
cerns affect the wider business functions where an
enterprise is using cloud to perform essential business
activities to keep operations running.
In the study it was deemed paramount to first assess
participants current perception of the term vendor
lock-inin the context of cloud computing. As shown in
Fig. 9, only 44 % of respondents indicated to have a basic
understanding of the term. This indicates that whilst UK
Fig. 8 The potential for vendor lock-in risks is exacerbated in the cloud
Opara-Martins et al. Journal of Cloud Computing: Advances, Systems and Applications (2016) 5:4 Page 8 of 18
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
organisations are rapidly migrating and adopting cloud
services, only a few (3 %) had exceptional knowledge.
This means the lack of clarity on the problem of vendor
lock-in still pervades. In part, this gap of knowledge
means that organisations are not aware of the inherent
lock-in problem within the cloud environment. However,
the result implies that organisations with basic know-
ledge may not yet have experienced a cloud lock-in situ-
ation. A possible explanation for this may be attributed
to the immaturity of the cloud computing ecosystem. If
organisationsprevious experiences in IT are compatible
with the existing information and the infrastructure,
then the degree of lock-in introduced by service pro-
viders will be consistent with the current knowledge and
practice. Hence, in order to develop a comprehensive
understanding to manage the risks associated with lock-
in, organisations must first define what the lock-in
means to them. This requires mapping and cross-
examining the challenges of lock-in with different cloud
service types (i.e. infrastructure, platform and software)
and deployment models (i.e. public, private or hybrid).
Comprehending the term vendor lock-inis critical to
further our understanding. In agreement with the defin-
ition of vendor lock-in provided in [2] by Armbrust et
al., in Table 2 as many as 71 % of the participants
claimed vendor lock-in risks will deter their organisa-
tions from adopting more cloud services, although some
respondents were unsure.
Core risk factors of lock-in
In an effort to highlight factors which may affect future
cloud migration decisions, participants were requested to
identify practical challenges of lock-in they encountered
when using cloud services. These issues relate to lack of
integration points between existing management tools
(47.7 %), incompatibility issues with on-premise software,
and inability to move to another service provider or take
data in-house (Fig. 10). Overall, the results indicate that
these challenges closely relate to interoperability and data
portability issues prevalent in the cloud environment.
Moreover further results show that a significant majority
(76.6 %) of participants were unsure of relevant (existing
or emerging) standards to support interoperability across
clouds and portability of data from one cloud provider to
another.
To confer from Fig. 10, the main challenges associated
with cloud lock-in are integration and incompatibility is-
sues, followed by data portability. However, as shown in
Fig. 11, when asked to identify best practices to
minimize lock-in risks in cloud migration, most business
respondents identified the following as top mitigation
strategies: (a) making well-informed decisions before
selecting vendors and/or signing cloud contracts
(66.4 %); (b) the need for an open environment for con-
tinuous competition between providers in the cloud ser-
vice market (52.3 %); (c) use of standard software
components with industry-proven interfaces (39.3 %).
Equally, in the case of managing the risks of vendor
lock-in, it is encouraging to note that respondents
expressed by a substantial majority are slightly (39.4 %),
moderately (33.7 %), and quite likely (22.1 %) to use a
cloud computing risk management framework to man-
age vendor lock-in risks and compliance requirements
effectively. Furthermore, this indicates that UK busi-
nesses require effective and efficient strategies to man-
age lock-in risk(s) prevailing in the cloud ecosystem.
UK organisations view on cloud lock-in
Business strategies for avoiding vendor lock-in
This section summarises both the desires and experi-
ences of the participants who contributed to this study.
Moreover, this section presents strategic approaches for
mitigating the risks and challenges of lock-in in cloud
migration.
Awareness of the commonalities among cloud providers
To refer back to the first research question of interest to
business adopters stated in section 1.1. UK business de-
cision makers are rightly concerned about the risks of
being locked into a single cloud service provider and the
implications of such a risk including not having a clear
exit strategy. There is a need for these organisations to
understand what the exit strategy looks like, even if it is
unlikely that they will exit in the near future besides,
no company would want to buy into a service where
they feel they had no alternative provider. In this
Fig. 9 UK Business perception of vendor lock-in
Table 2 Response indicator suggest Lock-in is a deterrent to
Cloud migration
Definitely yes Possibly yes Not sure No
9% 71% 11% 9%
Opara-Martins et al. Journal of Cloud Computing: Advances, Systems and Applications (2016) 5:4 Page 9 of 18
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
connection, one possible strategy will require decision-
makers to possess a comprehensive understanding of the
heterogeneity that exist between cloud semantics and
the cloud interfaces. This often requires an awareness of
the commonalities (i.e. complexities and dependencies)
among services offered by cloud providers and standards
used. By clearly understanding this, organisations will
realise how the clouds loose structure can affect data/
application movability and security of data sent in it.
This can be done by having an in-depth understanding
of how data and application components are handled
and transmitted in the cloud environment. When this is
well understood and harnessed (at pre contractual
phase), the benefits to the organisations become appar-
ent (at post migration phase). Additionally, enterprises
can be more interoperable and avoid vendor lock-in
strategically by selecting vendors, platforms, or services
that support more standards and protocols (as further
discussed below in Section 4.1.3). This is essentially im-
portant in the vendor selection process as it enables or-
ganisations to maintain a favourable mix of cloud
providers and internal support. These strategies can help
Fig. 10 Practical challenges of vendor lock-in in cloud migration
Fig. 11 Current best practice for mitigating cloud lock-in risks
Opara-Martins et al. Journal of Cloud Computing: Advances, Systems and Applications (2016) 5:4 Page 10 of 18
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
organisations to form a plan for an efficient and effective
migration and adoption process. Actually, having a clear
understanding of the disparity between cloud semantics
and service interfaces offered by different cloud vendors
can help significantly to reduce the effects of vendor
lock-in.
Substantial training and stakeholder engagement is ne-
cessary to develop an understanding and agree solutions
on specific lock-in concerns [4345]. Otherwise, cloud
services offered to enterprises may not be properly
assessed for potential lock-in risks before decisions are
made to use the service [46]. Moreover, the results in
Fig. 6 indicate a general lack of understanding and
awareness of lock-in problem in the cloud. The low re-
sponse gained from participants who identified over de-
pendence on a single cloud provider (35.1 %) and
difficulty to move data back in-house or across to a dif-
ferent cloud provider (28.8 %) platform illustrates the
unawareness of practitioners on the potential effect of
cloud lock-in problem. To infer from this result, it ap-
pears the risk of dependency is a more significant barrier
than data lock-in. This seems counter intuitive consider-
ing the practical challenges associated with the data
lock-in when extending the use of cloud in the enter-
prise. However, the probable explanation is that pres-
ently most organisations are too reliant on cloud
providers for operational and technical support [47],
thus they fail to fully prepare to deal with unexpected
and undesirable data lock-in issues in the cloud (refer-
ring to Fig. 10). As pointed out by Bradshaw et al. [28],
lock-in will become more of an issue as the cloud com-
puting market matures. In agreement, Lipton in [48]
admits that the complexity and cost of switching (or
porting) a cloud service to a different provider is often
under-appreciated until it is too late. Therefore it can be
claimed that as long as corporate data is not locked-in
moving to another cloud provider is just a matter of en-
during a switching cost. Such cost can be reduced by
employing best practices such as choosing cloud pro-
viders that support: (i) the use of standardised APIs
wherever possible; (ii) wide range of programming
languages, application runtimes and middleware; (iii) as
well as ways to archive and deploy libraries of virtual
machine images and preconfigured appliances. Overall,
these findings suggest respondents do not currently have
sufficient understanding on possible technical and non-
technical issues of lock-in that can occur in the cloud
environment. Thus, it is recommended that organisa-
tions remain meticulous when making decisions towards
the selection of vendors, taking into consideration po-
tential difficulties associated with switching vendors.
However, it is probable for organisations to suffer finan-
cial loss if they did not make a strategically correct
vendor selection decision from the very onset.
Well-informed decision making
The study has found that for UK organisations, when it
comes to evaluating the business risks of vendor lock-in
for or against cloud migration, surprisingly, a vast major-
ity (66.4 %) of respondents said making well-informed
decisions before selecting vendors and/or signing the
cloud service contract is an extremely important part of
the decision-making process (refer to Fig. 11). This sig-
nifies that as cloud computing becomes more widely
used for various applications across different industry
sector[s] and size[s], UK businesses are finding it ex-
tremely important to understand ways to maximize ben-
efits and minimize the risks of lock-in. In essence, this is
particularly important given the plethora of vendors in
the market place today, with each offering businesses
proprietary cloud-based services and contracts that have
different specification (and legal agreements). In regard
to the interpretation of this finding, our study suggests
that the vetting process for selecting vendors is a critical
aspect for effective cloud migration with minimized risk
of lock-in. Moreover, such finding exemplify the need
for organisations to look beyond the vendor selection
phase, and focus on constantly monitoring any develop-
ment or changes in the cloud that may impact data se-
curity or hinder interoperability and portability thus
facilitating a lock-in situation. However, the findings (in
Fig. 11) also reveal a gap in understanding, regarding
how organisations should manage the risks of vendor
lock-in. A sign of lack of understanding is explained by a
smaller percentage (8.4 %) of participants identifying the
need to build perceived lock-in risks into initial risk as-
sessment. This is quite enlightening, in spite of the rele-
vance of this strategy in the vendor selection phase.
Possible interpretation of these may be attributed to the
general lack of understanding and experience (on the
part of IT and business managers) in respect of technical
aspects of complex distributed cloud-based solutions.
Standards and cloud-based solutions
The impact caused by vendor lock-in problem due to
lack of standards is what enterprises should be wary
about when considering migration to cloud computing
[29]. Despite the number of studies in recent years
underlining the high relevance of standards in cloud
computing, unfortunately this study reveals that most
UK organisations still lack a comprehensive understand-
ing on the importance of standards in minimising lock-
in risks. In fact, as pointed out by [49], there are two
ways a business can achieve the full potential of cloud
computing (i) either by changing providers according to
their needs (ii) prioritising or simply combining different
solutions to get the best of the breed services. However,
this will require standards and interoperability to be sup-
ported by all providers, but it is often not the case. An
Opara-Martins et al. Journal of Cloud Computing: Advances, Systems and Applications (2016) 5:4 Page 11 of 18
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
informative example in this context is seen in research
in [50], arguing that many cloud providers are con-
cerned with the loss of customer that may come with
standardisation initiatives which may flatten profits, and
do not regard the solution favourable. Based on our
research findings, from a business perspective, we sug-
gest the following as key measures to improve customer
retention and engender trust in enterprise cloud migra-
tion: 1) the quality of service (QoS) guarantee, 2) data
protection and metadata ownership, 3) contract termin-
ation, as well as 4) data export functionality. Further-
more, as discussed in our previous study [4], in the
absence of standardisation, UK businesses willing to
outsource and combine a range of services from differ-
ent cloud providers to achieve maximum efficiency, irre-
futably, will experience difficulty when trying to get their
in-house systems to interact with the cloud. Likewise,
the lack of standardisation also brings disadvantages,
when migration, integration or exchange of computer
resources is required. This is consistent with the re-
search findings presented in this paper (see Fig. 10). Un-
surprisingly these issues were identified from a business
perspective, considering the important role of standards
in at least mitigating such concerns. Hence, business
stakeholdersshould be aware that decisions to adopt or
move resources to the cloud require adequate risk ana-
lysis for potential lock-in. Based on this analysis and the
evidence in Fig. 10, we believe there are opportunities
that exist for the regulatory and standard bodies to take
the necessary action. One potential solution would be to
standardise the APIs in such a way that businesses (or
SaaS developers for example) could deploy services and
data across multiple cloud providers. Thus, the failure of
a single cloud provider/vendor would not take all copies
of corporate data with it.
Standard initiatives Cloud-specific standards are regu-
larly proposed as a way to mitigate vendor lock-in and
achieve portability and interoperability [50]. It is
expressed in [51] that many providers are concerned
with customer churn rate that may come with stand-
ardisation. But according to [52], unless there is a well-
accepted and widely used standard, it remains a question-
able solution. Therefore as a partially adopted standard
would represent a poor solution [53], many cloud vendors
now support the creation and adoption of new standards
by proposing them to standardisation groups. Clear exam-
ples of such cloud-specific standards are OASIS CAMP
[54] for PaaS and TOSCA [55] for IaaS. Both specifica-
tions aim at enhancing the portability and interoperability
of applications across different clouds. We review the two
OASIS cloud-specific standards (TOSCA and CAMP) and
their potential for dealing with the lock-in problem.
TOSCA The Topology and Orchestration Specification
for Cloud Applications (TOSCA) [55], is an emerging
standard that enhances service and application portabil-
ity in a vendor-neutral ecosystem. TOSCA specification
describes a meta-model for defining IT services. This
metamodels defines both the structure of a service
(topology model of a service) and its operational as-
pects (such as how to deploy, terminate, and manage
this service). Service templates are interpreted by a
TOSCA-compliant environment (e.g. OpenTOSCA
[56]), which operates the cloud services and manages
their instances [54].
Managing cloud services requires extensive, mostly
manual effort by the customers. Further, important
cloud properties (such as self-service and rapid elasti-
city) can only be realised if service management is auto-
mated. In this aspect, TOSCA allows application
developers and operators (DevOps) to model manage-
ment best practices and reoccurring tasks explicitly into
so-called plans (i.e. Workflows). TOSCA plans use exist-
ing workflow languages such as Business Process Model
and Notation (BPMN) [57, 58] or the Business Process
Execution Language (BPEL) [59]. To increase portability,
TOSCA allows service creators to gather into plans
those activities necessary to deploy, manage, and termin-
ate the described cloud service. TOSCA also enables a
cloud service creator to provide the same plan or imple-
mentation artefact in different languages (e.g. a plan can
include the same functionality twice in BPEL and
BPMN). An application ported to the cloud using
TOSCA can be composed of services provided by differ-
ent cloud providers and a user can decide to a specific
service with a similar one from a different vendor.
CAMP Cloud Application Management for Platforms
(CAMP) is an Oasis cloud-specific standard designed to
ease the management of applications across platforms
offered as a service (PaaS) [54]. The CAMP standard de-
fines a self-service management API that a PaaS offering
presents to the consumer of the platform. The specified
CAMP API provides a resource model to describe the
main components of any platform offer. For instance, in-
dependent software vendors can exploit this interface to
create tools and services that communicate with any
CAMP-compliant cloud platform via the defined inter-
faces. Likewise, cloud vendors can also leverage these in-
terfaces to develop new PaaS offerings, or adapt the
existing ones, which would be compliant with independ-
ent tools. Thus, cloud users save time when deploying
applications across multiple cloud platforms.
At present, the effort of deploying applications with
vendor-specific tools across multiple PaaS cloud plat-
forms is a non-trivial task. Developers and system opera-
tors often face the barrier of redeploying applications to
Opara-Martins et al. Journal of Cloud Computing: Advances, Systems and Applications (2016) 5:4 Page 12 of 18
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
other providersplatform because tools are incompatible.
However, this can be simplified using the CAMP inter-
face common to both source and target platforms. To
simplify the deployment efforts and support migration
across multiple cloud platforms, CAMP defines the Plat-
form Deployment Package (PDP). A PDP is an archive
containing a plan file together with application content
files such as web archives, database schemas, scripts,
source code, localization bundles, icons etc. This archive
can be used to move an application and its components
from platform to platform, or between a development
environment and an operative target platform.
Portable hybrid IT environment
To infer from discussion in the preceding section, the
vendor lock-in risk is a valid concern for organisations
migrating to the cloud. Considering that lock-in is un-
desirable, and cannot be eradicated, then how can busi-
nesses mitigate its associated risks when migrating to
the cloud? From a portability perspective, it becomes
critical that organisationsdata is sharable between pro-
viders, since without the ability to port data or applica-
tion, it would become simply impossible to switch cloud
service providers at all [60, 61]. Cloud portability is a sa-
lient consideration to enable organisations migrate a
cloud-deployed asset to a different provider and it is a
direct benefit of overcoming vendor lock-in [62]. Gener-
ally, reconfiguration of systems and applications to
achieve interoperability is time/resource consuming and
may require a considerable amount of expertise, which
could be challenging for some organisations. Therefore,
from a business perspective, portability should be seen
as a key aspect to consider when selecting cloud pro-
viders as it can both help mitigate lock-in risks, and de-
liver business benefits. This means allowing applications,
systems and data components to continue to work cor-
rectly when moved between cloud providers(hardware
and/or software) environments [35]. Indeed, the need
for organisations to easily switch cloud providers with
their data alongside have been a consistent theme
throughout the discussion presented hitherto.
To expatiate on the question stated above, it is helpful
to view the situation from a business perspective after
deploying a SaaS cloud service such as CRM (which ac-
cording to Fig. 7, 52 % of organisations have already
adopted the cloud model). Suppose these organisations
use the SaaS CRM and over time, perhaps, the terms of
use or the price of the cloud-based CRM service become
less attractive, compared to other SaaS providers or with
the use of an in-house CRM solution. If the organisation
decides to change providers for whatever reason, data
portability aspects must be considered. For SaaS cloud
services, data formats and contents are handled by the
service provider thereby making data portability a major
consideration. The issue of importance in a SaaS-level
migration is the compatibility of the functional interface
presented to end-users and any API made available to
other customer applications. In order to alleviate this
problem, the APIs made available by the SaaS service
should be interoperable with the interface provided by
the on-premise application or data that is being re-
placed. On the other hand, the data handled by one ven-
dors software should be importable by the second
vendors software, which implies both applications have
to support the common format. Standard APIs for vari-
ous application types will also be required. If the APIs
are not interoperable, any customer application or data
using the APIs will need to be changed as part of the
migration process.
Data portability is usually of most concern in a SaaS,
since in these services, the content, data schemas and
storage format are under the control of the cloud service
provider. The customer will need to understand how the
data can be imported into the service and exported from
the service. Further, SaaS applications also present inter-
operability barriers. The lack of adoption of standard
APIs for SaaS applications makes switching from one
SaaS application to another difficult as it involves a
change in the interface. This also applies to any applica-
tion or system belonging to the cloud service customers
that use APIs offered by the SaaS application. Data
synchronization is another concern, encountered in
cloud interoperability and not in data portability [63].
To further substantiate this argument, we elucidate on
the need for a portable hybrid environment by highlight-
ing two main categories of portability scenarios encoun-
tered in current cloud service market: 1) porting legacy
applications or data; and 2) porting cloud native applica-
tions or data. In scenario 1, due to dependence on par-
ticular technologies and data organisation, the legacy
software assets currently require a significant amount of
effort to be invested in porting them into the cloud en-
vironment. Whereas in scenario 2, even when applica-
tions and data are written from scratch for a cloud
environment, they are usually locked and targeted for a
specific cloud [63]. Thus, the effort of porting in a differ-
ent cloud is usually a onetime exercise [63]. However, in
both scenarios, the main problem is that there must be a
capability to retrieve customer data from the source
cloud service and also a capability to import customer
data into the target cloud service. Thus, data portability
is based on import and export functionality from cloud
data services for data structures. This is commonly done
through the existence of some API (or web interface) as-
sociated with the cloud service it may be a generic
API or a specific API, unique to the cloud service.
In light of such challenges, [64] claims that ensuring
data portability is a major challenge for enterprises due
Opara-Martins et al. Journal of Cloud Computing: Advances, Systems and Applications (2016) 5:4 Page 13 of 18
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
to the large number of competing vendors for data stor-
age and retrieval. The ability to move data also emerges
as a management issue for cloud computing. Therefore,
in response to the question of data movability, it is im-
portant to note that the API used for the source service
may not be the same as the API used for the target ser-
vice and that different tooling may be required in each
case. The main aspects of data portability are the syntax
and semantics of the transferred data. The syntax of the
data should ideally be the same for the source service
and the target service. However, if the syntax does not
match (i.e., the source may use JSON syntax, but the tar-
get may use XML), it may be possible to map the data
using commonly available tools. If the semantics of the
transferred data does not match between the source and
target services, then data portability is likely to be more
difficult or even impossible. However, this might be
achieved by the source service supplying the data in
exactly the format that is accepted by the target service.
Therefore, on a long term, achieving data portability will
depend on the standardization of import and export
functionality of data and its adoption by the providers.
The aim is to minimize the human efforts in re-design
and re-deployment of application and data when moving
from one cloud to another. To this end, it becomes vital
that any enterprise cloud migration project can be car-
ried out without any disruption to data availability since
data is an organisations most critical, ubiquitous, and
essential business asset [29].
Observations
This paper confirms that UK organisations are increas-
ingly adopting cloud services, and it also reveals that
they have been progressively migrating services per-
ceived as non-mission critical (i.e. where lock-in and se-
curity risks seem lower) such as general purpose
applications suites, email and massaging applications.
This strategy used allows the organisations to get a feel
for how the cloud environment works before fully com-
mitting themselves. However, this is generally not the
case for organisations surveyed. A lesser minority (see
Fig. 7) seem to have adopted core systems in the cloud
(e.g. ERP and CRM), including accounting and finance
applications. At present, as indicated by the Cloud
Industry Forum [39], cloud providers or vendors are bet-
ter placed, if they ensure such capabilities like the trial
or test and seestrategy (whether completely free or
paid for time limited pilot) is made available within their
go-to-market strategy. It is worth underlining that, free
of charge or low cost does not necessary mean free of
lock-in risks or low proprietary lock-in risk. Organisa-
tions must be cautious of potential areas of lock-in traps
and take adequate measures to mitigate their exposure;
e.g. choice of operating environment, programming
models, API stack, data portability etc. Further, busi-
nesses should take heed of other legal, regulatory, or
reputational risks that may exist. This is vitally import-
ant if the data involved is not just for testing, but consti-
tutes real corporate data, perhaps even confidential or
personal data. It is interesting to note that 28 % of orga-
nisations surveyed have already adopted the cloud model
for hosting accounting and finance applications (refer to
Fig. 7).
On a conclusive note, it is believed that the discussions
presented herein, above all, indicate hypothetically that
vendor lock-in risks will reduce cloud migration, which
in turn affects the widespread adoption of cloud com-
puting across organisations (small or large). Thus an
emerging research agenda arises as to investigate: 1)
ways to come up with multijurisdictional laws to support
interoperability and portability of data across cloud pro-
viders platform, along with effective data privacy and se-
curity policies; and 2) novel ideas of avoiding vendor
dependency on the infrastructure layer, platform, and
through to the application layer as lock- cannot be com-
pletely eliminated, but can be mitigated. However, these
require, not just tools and processes, but also strategic
approaches attitude, confidence, comfort, and en-
hanced knowledge of how complex distributed cloud-
based services work. Sometimes the inhibitor to cloud
adoption and migration in most organisations, in
principle, are the attitude, knowledge, and confidence of
the paramount decision makers. Thus, for most organi-
sations today, the challenge is clear that they simply do
not understand potential effect of lock-in to the busi-
ness. While the business benefits of cloud computing are
compelling, organisations must realise that achieving
these benefits are consistent with ensuring the risks of
vendor lock-in and security implication of such risk is
clearly understood upfront. When identified, such risks
should be mitigated with appropriate business continuity
plans or vendor selection, prior to migration to the
cloud.
Potential of DevOps tools for avoiding vendor lock-in
Issues with cloud lock-in surpass those of technical in-
compatibility and data integration. Mitigating cloud
lock-in risks cannot be guaranteed with a selection of in-
dividual open (technology-centric) solutions or vendors.
Instead, the management and operation of cloud services
to avoid lock-in should be addressed at a standardised
technology-independent manner. In this respect, we
present a concise discussion on the potential of DevOps
[65] and of tools (such as Chef, Juju and Puppet) that
support interoperable management.
DevOps is an emerging paradigm [66] to eliminate the
split and barrier between developers and operations
personnel. Automation underlies all the practices that
Opara-Martins et al. Journal of Cloud Computing: Advances, Systems and Applications (2016) 5:4 Page 14 of 18
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
constitute DevOps. The philosophy behind DevOps is to
bring agile methodologies into IT infrastructure and ser-
vice management [65]. This is achieved by implementing
the concept of Infrastructure as Code(IaC) using con-
figuration management tooling. An automation platform
is what provides the ability to describe an infrastructure
as code. IaC automations are designed to be repeatable,
making the system converge to a desired state starting
from arbitrary states [67, 68]. In practice, this is often
centred on the release management process (i.e., the
managed delivery of code into production), as this can
be a source of conflict between these two groups often
due to different objectives [68]. DevOps approaches can
be combined with cloud computing to enable on-
demand provisioning of underlying resources (such as
virtual servers, database, application middleware and
storage) in a self-service manner. These resources can
be configured and managed using DevOps tools and ar-
tifacts. As a result, end-to-end deployment automation
is effectively enabled by using the DevOps approaches in
cloud computing environments [69]. Tools are emerging
that address building out a consistent application or
service model to reduce the proprietary lock-in risks
stemming from customized scripting while improving
deployment success due to more-predictable configura-
tions. Today, several applications provisioning solution
exists that enable developers and administrators to de-
claratively specify deployment artefacts and dependen-
cies to allow for repeatable and managed resource
provisioning [56]. Below, we review some DevOps tools
among the currently available ones that may help enter-
prises simplify their application release circle.
Chef Chef is a configuration management framework
written in Ruby [70]. Chef uses an internal Domain Spe-
cific Language or DSL to express configurations. Config-
uration definitions (i.e. ruby-scripts) and supporting
resources (e.g. installation files) in Chef are called rec-
ipes. These recipes are basically scripts written in DSL
to express the target state of a system [71]. Chef man-
ages so called nodes. A node is an element of enterprise
infrastructure, such as a server which can be physical,
virtual, in the cloud, or even a container instance run-
ning a Chef client [72]. Chef provides APIs to manage
resources on a machine in a declarative fashion. Chef
recipes are typically declarative (resources which define
a desired state) but can include imperative statements as
well. Combining a Chef system together with cloud
infrastructure automation framework makes it easy to
deploy servers and applications to any physical, virtual,
or cloud location. Using Chef, an organization can con-
figure IT from the operating system up; applying system
updates, modifying configuration files, restarting any
necessary system services, applying and configuring
middleware and applications.
Puppet Puppet is an open source configuration and
management tool implemented in Ruby [47] that allows
expressing in a custom declarative language using a
model-based approach [73]. Puppet enables deploying
infrastructure changes to multiple nodes simultaneously.
It functions the same way as a deployment manager, but
instead of deploying applications, it deploys infrastructure
changes. Puppet employs a declarative model with explicit
dependency management. One of the key features of Pup-
pet is reusability. Modules can then be reused on different
machines with different operating systems. Moreover,
modules can be combined into configuration stacks.
Juju Juju is a cloud configuration, deployment and mon-
itoring environment that deploy services across multiple
cloud or physical servers and orchestrate those services
[74]. Activities within a service deployed by Juju are or-
chestrated by a Juju charm, which is a deployable service
or application component [75].
In summary, as applications evolve to function in the
cloud, organizations must reconsider how they develop,
deploy, and manage them. While cloud computing is
heavily used to provide the underlying resource, our re-
view shows that DevOps tools and artefacts can be used
to configure and manage these resources. As a result,
end-to-end deployment automation is efficiently enabled
by employing DevOps approaches in cloud environ-
ments. But, cloud providers such as Amazon and cloud
frameworks such as OpenStack provide cost-effective
and fast ways to deploy and run applications. However,
there is a large variety of deployment tools and tech-
niques available [76]. They differ in various dimensions,
most importantly in the metamodels behind the different
approaches. Some use application stacks (e.g., AWS
OpsWorks2 or Ubuntu Juju) or infrastructure, others
use lists of scripts (e.g., Chef run) or even PaaS-centric
application package descriptions such as Cloud Foundry
manifests. This makes it challenging to combine differ-
ent approaches and especially to orchestrate artefacts
published by communities affiliated with the different
tools, techniques, and providers. Nevertheless, these so-
lutions are highly desirable because some communities
share a lot of reusable artefacts such as portable scripts
or container images as open-source software [77]. Prom-
inent examples are Chef Cookbooks, Puppet modules,
Juju charms, or Docker images. Adopting a configur-
ation management tool implies a significant investment
in time and/or money [78]. Nevertheless, before making
such an investment, an informed choice based on object-
ive criteria is the best insurance that an enterprise has
picked the right tool for its environment, as the focus is
Opara-Martins et al. Journal of Cloud Computing: Advances, Systems and Applications (2016) 5:4 Page 15 of 18
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
on deploying predefined application stacks across several
(virtual or physical) machines.
Discussion and conclusion
In this paper a comprehensive analysis of vendor lock-in
problems was discussed and the impact to companies as
a result of migration to cloud computing was explored.
A survey was conducted and revealed that the cloud
paradigm has greatly impacted on many organisations
subsequent to migrating IT and business applications to
the cloud due to vendor lock-in. In fact, the study has
shown that, while organisations are eager to adopt cloud
computing due to its benefits, there is equally an urgent
need for avoiding vendor lock-in risks. Moreover, the re-
sults of our study have highlighted customerslack of
awareness of proprietary standards which prohibit inter-
operability and portability when procuring services from
vendors. The complexity and cost of switching providers
is often under-appreciated until implementation. Busi-
ness decision makers are often unaware of how to tackle
this issue. Our findings offer cloud computing con-
sumers, service providers, and industry practitioners a
better understanding of the risk of lock-in embedded in
the complex, technologically interdependent and hetero-
geneous cloud systems. In this respect, our research
points to the need for more sophisticated policy ap-
proaches that take a system-wide perspective to alleviate
the current vendor lock-in problem which affects inter-
operability and portability. Furthermore, our findings
show that within many organisations in the study, a lack
of clarity on the problem space of vendor lock-in still
pervades. This lack of knowledge poses a significant bar-
rier to obscure the potential effect the vendor lock-in
problem could have on enterprise applications migrated
to and operating in cloud platforms. Hence, to be pro-
tected against such risks when migrating to the cloud
environment, companies require standards, portability,
and interoperability to be supported by providers. How-
ever, this is currently difficult to achieve as explored in
this paper. Fundamentally, the difficulty is attributed to
the vendorsAPIs which control how cloud services are
harnessed, as cloud APIs are not yet standardized, mak-
ing it complex for customers to change providers. Some
cloud providers are concerned with the loss of cus-
tomers that may come with standardisation initiatives
which may then flatten their profits and do not regard
the solution favourable. Therefore, we propose the fol-
lowing strategic approaches to address the issues: (i) cre-
ate awareness of the complexities and dependencies that
exist among cloud-based solutions; (ii) assess providers
technology implementation such as API and contract for
potential areas of lock-in; (iii) select vendors, platforms,
or services that support more standardised formats and
protocols based on standard data structures; and (iv)
ensure there is sufficient portability. In our future work,
we will explore interoperability and portability con-
straints which affect enterprise application migration
and adoption of SaaS clouds.
Additional files
Additional file 1: Questionnaire Survey Questions. (PDF 402 kb)
Additional file 2: Survey Data Analysis. (XLS 283 kb)
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authorscontributions
All listed authors made substantive intellectual contributions to the research
and manuscript. JOM was responsible for the overall vendor lock-in research
including drafting the manuscript, analysis and interpretation of study results.
RS, FT and JOM contributed to the design of methodology used. RS and FT
participated in the critical and technical revisions of the paper including
editing the final version, also helping with the details for preparing the paper
to be published. RS and FT coordinated and supervised the project related
to the paper and also gave final approval of the version to be published. All
authors read and approved final manuscript.
Authorsinformation
Justice Opara-Martins is a PhD candidate at Bournemouth University where
he graduated with an MSc in Wireless and Mobile Networks. He holds a BSc
(Hons.) in Information and Communication Technology. He is a member of
the British Computer Society (BCS), IBM Academic Initiative and Association
for Project Managers (APM). His research interests include cloud computing,
virtualization and distributed systems.
Reza Sahandi completed his PhD at Bradford University in the United
Kingdom in 1978. He has been a senior academic at various Universities in
the United Kingdom for many years. He is currently Associate Dean at
Bournemouth University. His research areas include multimedia and network
systems, wireless remote patient monitoring and cloud computing.
Feng Tian received the PhD degree from Xian Jiaotong University, China.
Currently he is an Associate Professor Bournemouth University (BU), United
Kingdom. He was an Assistant Professor in Nanyang Technological University
in Singapore before joining BU in 2009. His current research interests include
computer graphics, computer animation, augmented reality, image
processing and cloud computing.
Acknowledgements
The research leading to these results is supported by Bournemouth
University (DEC) Doctoral Scholarship funding. Additionally, the authors
would like to thank the Faculty of Science and Technology for providing
additional financial support to enhance the quality of this manuscript.
Received: 6 May 2015 Accepted: 5 April 2016
References
1. Andrikopoulos V, Binz T, Leymann F, Strauch S (2013) How to Adapt
Applications for the Cloud Environment: Challenges and Solutions in
Migrating Applications to the Cloud. Springer Comput J 95(6):493535
2. Armbrust M, Fox A, Griffith R, Joseph AD, Katz R, Konwinski A, Lee G,
Patterson D, Rabkin A, Stoica I, Zaharia M (2009) Above the Clouds: A
Berkeley View of Cloud Computing. Commun ACM 53(4):5058
3. Buyya R, Yeo CS, Venugopal S, Broberg J, Brandic I (2009) Cloud computing
and emerging IT platforms: Vision, hype, and reality for delivering
computing as the 5th utility. Futur Gener Comput Syst 25(6):599616
4. Sahandi R, Alkhalil A, Opara-Martins J (2013) Cloud Computing from SMEs
Perspective: A Survey Based Investigation. J Inf Technol Manag Publ Assoc
Manag XXIV(1):112, ISSN #1042-1319
5. Loutas N, Kamateri E, Bosi F, Tarabanis KA (2011) Cloud Computing
Interoperability: The State of Play. In: CloudCom., pp 752757
Opara-Martins et al. Journal of Cloud Computing: Advances, Systems and Applications (2016) 5:4 Page 16 of 18
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
6. Toosi AN, Calheiros RN, Buyya R (2013) Interconnected Cloud Computing
Environments: Challenges, Taxonomy and Survey. ACM Computing Survey
5:Article A
7. Di Martino, B. Cretella, G. Esposito, A. (2015) Classification and Positioning of
Cloud Definitions and Use Case Scenarios for Portability and Interoperability,
in Future Internet of Things and Cloud (FiCloud), 3rd International
Conference on, pp.538544, doi: 10.1109/FiCloud.2015.119
8. Di Martino, B. Cretella, G. Esposito, A. Sperandeo, R.G., (2014) Semantic
Representation of Cloud Services: A Case Study for Microsoft Windows
Azure, in Intelligent Networking and Collaborative Systems (INCoS), 2014
International Conference on, pp.647652, doi: 10.1109/INCoS.2014.76
9. Satzger B, Hummer W, Inzinger W (2013) Winds of Change: From Vendor
Lock-in to the Meta Cloud. IEEE Internet Comput 1:6973
10. Binz T, Breiter G, Leyman F, Spatzier T (2012) Portable cloud services using
tosca. IEEE Internet Comput 3:8085
11. Petcu D, Macariu G, Panic S, Craciun C (2013) Portable cloud applications-
from theory to practice. Futur Gener Comput Syst 29(6):14171430, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2012.01.009
12. Ardagna, D., Di Nitto, E., Casale, G., Petcu, D., Mohagheghi, P., Mosser, S.,
Matthews, P., Gericke, A., Ballagny, C., D'Andria, F. and Nechifor, C.S., (2012)
Modaclouds: A model-driven approach for the design and execution of
applications on multiple clouds. In Proceedings of the 4th International
Workshop on Modelling in Software Engineering (pp. 5056). IEEE Press.
13. The OpenGroup Consortium. Available from: http://www.opengroup.org
14. Ferry, N. Hui Song Rossini, A Chauvel, F. Solberg, A. (2014) CloudMF:
Applying MDE to Tame the Complexity of Managing Multi-cloud
Applications, in Utility and Cloud Computing (UCC), 2014 IEEE/ACM 7th
International Conference on, pp.269277, doi:10.1109/UCC.2014.36
15. Silva, G.C, Louis M. R, and Radu, C. (2013) A Systematic Review of Cloud
Lock-in Solutions. Cloud Computing Technology and Science (CloudCom),
IEEE 5th International Conference on. Vol. 2. IEEE.
16. Edmonds, A. Metsch, T. Papaspyrou, A. Richardson, A. (2012) Toward an
Open Cloud Standard, in Internet Computing, IEEE, vol.16, no.4, pp.1525
doi: 10.1109/MIC.2012.65
17. Toosi, A. Rodrigo N. C, and Buyya, R. (2014) Interconnected Cloud
Computing Environments: Challenges, Taxonomy, and Survey. 47, 1, Article
7 47 pages. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2593512
18. Behrens, P, (2015) The Ordoliberal Concept of 'Abuse' of a Dominant
Position and its Impact on Article 102 TFEU. Nihoul/Takahashi, Abuse
Regulation in Competition Law, Proceedings of the 10th ASCOLA
Conference Tokyo 2015, Forthcoming. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/
abstract=2658045
19. Leymann F et al (2011) Moving Applications to the Cloud: An Approach
Based on Application Model Enrichment. Intl J Cooperative Information
Systems 20(3):307356
20. Shan C, Heng C, Xianjun Z (2012) Inter-cloud operations via NGSON. IEEE
Commun Mag 50(1):8289, January
21. Toivonen, M., 2013. Cloud Provider Interoperability and Customer Clock-In.
In Proceedings of the seminar (No. 58312107, pp. 1419). Available from:
https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/42910/cbse13_proceedings.
pdf?sequence=2#page=17
22. Moreno-Vozmediano R, Montero R, Llorente I (2012) Key Challenges in
Cloud Computing to Enable the Future Internet of Services, IEEE Internet
Computing., 18 May, Available from: http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.
1109/MIC.2012.69
23. Michael A, Armando F, Rean G, Anthony DJ, Randy HK, Andrew K, Gunho L,
David AP, Ariel R, Ion S, Matei Z (2010) A view of cloud computing.
Commun ACM 53(4):5058
24. Sitaram D, Manjunath G (2012) Moving To the Cloud: Developing Apps in
the New World of Cloud Computing. Elsevier, USA
25. Loutas N, Peristeras V, Bouras T, Kamateri E, Zeginis D, Tarabanis K (2010)
Towards a Reference Architecture for Semantically Interoperable Clouds. In:
IEEE Second International Conference on Cloud Computing Technology
and Science., pp 143150
26. Rodero-Merino L, Vaquero LM, Gil V, Galán F, Fontán J, Montero RS, Llorente
IM (2010) From infrastructure delivery to service management in clouds.
Futur Gener Comput Syst 26(8):12261240
27. Petcu D, Vasilakos AV (2014) Portability in clouds: approaches and research
opportunities. Scalable Comput Practice Experience 15(3):251270
28. Bradshaw D, Folco G, Cattaneo G, Kolding M, (2012) Quantitative estimates
of the demand for cloud computing in Europe and the likely barriers to up-
take. IDC Interim Tech. Report. SMART 2011/0045. http://cordis.europa.eu/
fp7/ict/ssai/docs/study45-d2-interim-report.pdf Accessed 29 Dec 2014
29. Opara-Martins J, Sahandi R, Tian F (2014) Critical review of vendor lock-in and
its impact on adoption of cloud computing, International Conference on
Information Society (i-Society), pp.92-97, doi: 10.1109/i-Society.2014.7009018
30. Badger L, Grance T, Patt-Corner R, Voas J (2011) Cloud Computing Synopsis
and Recommendations [draft] (Special Publication 800-146). National
Institute of Standards and Technology. http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/
drafts/800-146/Draft-NIST-SP800-146.pdf Accessed 24 Jan 2015
31. Ahronovitz M et al. (2010) Cloud Computing Use Cases: Introducing Service
Level Agreements. Use Cases Discussion Group, White Paper V4.0. http://
www.cloud-council.org/Cloud_Computing_Use_Cases_Whitepaper-4_0.pdf
Accessed 8 Feb 2015
32. Liu X, Ye H (2008) A Sustainable Service-Oriented B2C Framework for Small
Businesses. In 4th IEEE International Symposium on Service Oriented
Systems Engineering (SOSE'08), Taiwan, December.
33. Miranda J, Guillen J, Murillo J (2012) Identifying Adaptation Needs to Avoid
the Vendor Lock-in Effect in the Deployment of Cloud ServiceBased
Applications (SBAs). WAS4FI I-Mashups September 19 Bertinoro, Italy.
34. Petcu D (2011) Portability and Interoperability between Clouds: Challenges
and Case Study. In: Towards a Service-Based Internet, vol 6994. Springer,
Berlin Heidelberg, pp 6274
35. Lewis GA (2013) Role of standards in cloud-computing interoperability. In: 46th
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS)., pp 16521661
36. Hogan M, Liu F S A, Tong J (2011) NIST Cloud Computing Standards
Roadmap. NIST Special Publication 500-291, July. http://www.nist.gov/itl/
cloud/upload/NIST_SP-500-291_Jul5A.pdf Accessed 7 Jan2015
37. NVivo qualitative data analysis software; QSR International Pty Ltd. Version 8,
2008.
38. Survey Monkey, (2014) Online Survey Development Tool. https://www.
surveymonkey.com Accessed 17 Sept 2014
39. Alkhalil A, Sahandi R, John D (2013) Migration to Cloud Computing-The
Impact on IT Management and Security. In 1st International Workshop on
Cloud Computing and Information Security, Atlantis Press.
40. Cloud Industry Forum (2014) The Normalisation of Cloud in a Hybrid IT
market UK Cloud Adoption Snapshot & Trends for 2015. Cloud UK, Paper
14. http://www.aspect.com/globalassets/images/uk-documents/aspectcif-
wp.pdf Accessed 17 Nov 2014
41. KPMG (2013) Breaking through the Cloud Adoption Barriers. Cloud Providers
Survey https://www.kpmg.com/LU/en/IssuesAndInsights/
Articlespublications/Documents/breaking-through-the-cloud-adoption-
barriers.pdf Accessed 24 Nov 2014
42. Dubey A, Wagle D (2007) Delivering software as a service. The McKinsey
Quarterly (May), pp. 112
43. Premkumar G, Michael P (1995) Adoption of computer aided software
engineering (CASE) technology: an innovation adoption perspective. SIGMIS
Database 26(23):105124
44. Eder L, Igbaria M (2001) Determinants of intranet diffusion and infusion.
Omega 29(3):233242
45. Daylami N, Ryan T, Olfman L, Shayo C (2005) System sciences. HICSS 05,
Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference, Island of
Hawaii, 3-6 January.
46. T. Binz, F. Leymann, and D. Schumm (2012) CMotion: A Framework for
Migration of Applications into and between Clouds,Proc. Intl Conf.
Service-Oriented Computing and Applications, IEEE Press, pp. 14.
47. Dutta A, Peng GCA, Choudhary A (2013) Risks in enterprise cloud
computing: the perspective of IT experts. J Comput Inf Syst 53(4):3948
48. Lipton P (2013) Escaping Vendor Lock-in with TOSCA, an Emerging Cloud
Standard for Portability, CA Technology Exchange 4, 1
49. Leimbach T, Hallinan D, Bachlechner D, Weber A, Jaglo M, Hennen L,
Nielsen R O, Nentwich M, StrauB S, Lynn T, Hunt G (2014) Potential and
Impacts of Cloud Computing Services and Social Network Websites.
Publication of Science and Technology Options Assessment. http://www.
europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2014/513546/IPOL-JOIN_
ET(2014)513546_EN.pdf Accessed 14 Nov 2014
50. Govindarajan A, Lakshmanan L (2010) Overview of Cloud Standards.
Springer Computer Communications and Networks Journal, London,
pp 7789
51. Petcu D (2011) Portability and interoperability between clouds: Challenges
and case study. In: Towards a Service-Based Internet, vol. 6994 LNCS.
Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Poland, pp 6274
Opara-Martins et al. Journal of Cloud Computing: Advances, Systems and Applications (2016) 5:4 Page 17 of 18
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
52. Lewis, G (2013) Role of standards in Cloud Computing Interoperability. In:
4
th
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences Jan, pp. 16521661.
53. Shan, C. Heng, and Z. Xianjun (2012) Inter-cloud operations via NGSON. In:
IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 8289.
54. OASIS Cloud Application Management for Platforms, version 1.0. (2012)
Available from: https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/
47278/CAMP-v1.0.pdf
55. OASIS Topology and Orchestration Specification for Cloud Applications
(TOSCA) Version 1.0, Committee Specification Draft 04 (2012).
56. OpenTOSCA (2015) Available from: http://www.iaas.uni-stuttgart.de/
OpenTOSCA
57. Breitenbucher, U., Binz, T., Kèpes, K., Kopp, O., Leymann, F., and Wettinger, J.
(2014) Combining Declarative and Imperative Cloud Application
Provisioning based on TOSCA. In IC2E. IEEE.
58. Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) Version 2.0. OMG (2011)
59. OASIS (2007) Web Services Business Process Execution Language (BPEL)
Version 2.0
60. Parameswaran AV, Chaddha A (2009) Cloud Interoperablility and
Standardization. Infosys, SETLabs Briefings 7(7):1926
61. Cisco Systems, (2010) Planning the Migration of Enterprise Applications to
the Cloud. A Guide to your migration Options and Best Practices, Technical
report. http://www.cisco.com/en/US/services/ps2961/ps10364/ps10370/
ps11104/Migration_of_Enterprise_Apps_to_Cloud_White_Paper.pdf
Accessed 1 Dec 2014
62. Mell P, Grance T (2009) The NIST Definition of Cloud Computing, Technical
report
63. Petcu D, Vasilakos AV (2014) Portability in clouds: Approaches and research
opportunities. Scalable Comput Pract Exp 15(3):251270. doi:10.12694/scpe.
v15i3.1019
64. Buyya R, Ranjan R, Calheiros RN (2010) InterCloud: Utility-oriented federation
of cloud computing environments for scaling of application services,
Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Algorithms and
Architectures for Parallel Processing (ICA3PP 2010), Busan, South Korea.
Springer, Germany, pp 328336
65. Humble J. and Farley D. (2010) Continuous Delivery: Reliable Software
Releases through Build, Test, and Deployment Automation. Addison-Wesley
Professional.
66. Wettinger J, Breitenbücher U, Leymann F (2014) DevOp Slangbridging
the gap between development and operations. In: Villari M, Zimmermann
W, Lau KK (eds) Service-Oriented and Cloud Computing. Lecture Notes in
Computer Science, vol. 8745. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 108122
67. Hummer, W, Rosenberg, F., Oliveira, F and Eilam, T., (2013) Automated
testing of chef automation script. In: Proceedings of ACM/IFIP/USENIX 14th
International Middleware Conference
68. Nelson-Smith, S. (2011) Test-Driven Infrastructure with Chef. OReilly.
69. Wettinger J, Gorlach K, Leymann F (2014) Deployment aggregatesa
generic deployment automation approach for applications operated in the
cloud. In: IEEE 18th International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing
Conference Workshops and Demonstrations (EDOCW)., pp 173180
70. Nelson-Smith, S. (2011). Test-Driven Infrastructure with Chef. OReilly Media, Inc.
71. Sabharwal N, Wadhwa M (2014) Automation through Chef Opscode: A
Hands-on Approach to Chef
72. Ruby (2016) Available from: https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/
73. Puppet Labs (2015) Open Source Puppet. Available from https://puppetlabs.
com/puppet/puppet-open-source
74. Ubuntu Juju (2015) Available from: https://juju.ubuntu.com
75. Wettinger, J., Breitenbücher, U., Leymann, F (2014) Standards-based Devops
automation and integration using tosca. In: Proceedings of the 7th
International Conference on Utility and Cloud Computing (UCC 2014), pp.
5968. IEEE Computer Society
76. Gunther, S., Haupt, M., and Splieth, M. (2010) Utilizing Internal Domain-
Specific Languages for Deployment and Maintenance of IT Infrastructures.
Technical report, Very Large Business Applications Lab Magdeburg, Fakultat
fur Informatik, Otto-von-Guericke-Universitat Magdeburg
77. J. Wettinger, V. Andrikopoulos, S. Strauch, and F. Leymann (2013) Enabling
Dynamic Deployment of Cloud Applications Using a Modular and
Extensible PaaS Environment,in Proceedings of IEEE CLOUD. IEEE
Computer Society, pp. 478485.
78. Delaet T, Joosen W, Vanbrabant B (2010) A Survey of System Configuration
Tools. In: Proceedings of the 24th Large Installations Systems Administration
(LISA) conference
Submit your manuscript to a
journal and benefi t from:
7 Convenient online submission
7 Rigorous peer review
7 Immediate publication on acceptance
7 Open access: articles freely available online
7 High visibility within the fi eld
7 Retaining the copyright to your article
Submit your next manuscript at 7 springeropen.com
Opara-Martins et al. Journal of Cloud Computing: Advances, Systems and Applications (2016) 5:4 Page 18 of 18
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com
... Network effects (network externalities) occur when the benefits of using a CSP rise with the number of users of the CSP. Opara-Martins et al. (2016) find that organizations with 250 ? employees realize significant benefits from increased collaboration through CSPs. ...
... In this context, CSPs increase profits by increasing their degree of lock-in. It is consistent with Opara-Martins et al. (2016) conjecture that the anticompetitive nature of the CSP market is the result of interoperability and data portability constraints stemming from CSPs' proprietary protocols. Indeed, both CSPs' profits increase when only one of the CSPs introduces or enhances security-induced lock-in. ...
... Here the cloud network effect is collectively within user groups, as identified byOpara-Martins, Sahandi, and Tian (2016), rather than between user groups. ...
Article
Full-text available
Cloud services providers practice security-induced lock-in when employing cryptography and tamper-resistance to limit the portability and interoperability of users’ data and applications. Moreover, security-induced lock-in and users’ anti-lock-in strategies intersect within the context of platform competition. When users deploy anti-lock in strategies, such as using a hybrid cloud, a leader–follower pricing framework increases profits for cloud services providers relative to Nash equilibrium prices. This creates a second-mover advantage, as the follower’s increase in profits exceeds that of the leader owing to the potential for price undercutting. By contrast, introducing or enhancing security-induced lock-in creates both an increase in profits and a first-mover advantage. Cloud services providers therefore favor security-induced lock-in over price leadership. More broadly, we show why standardization of semantics, technologies, and interfaces is a nonstarter for cloud services providers.
... Moreover, sharing of sensitive data has increased 53% year after year [31,58]. Due to this, organizations require systems to prepare sensitive data to prevent withstanding incidents that are still arising in the cloud, such as outages [20], unauthorized accesses and integrity alterations [3,41], and confidentiality violations [3,41]. Those problems are critical nowadays, as the staff of healthcare organizations not only exchange portions of the accumulated data with other members inside the same organization (called intra-dataflows in this paper) but also with staff from other healthcare organizations (called inter-dataflows in this paper). ...
... Moreover, sharing of sensitive data has increased 53% year after year [31,58]. Due to this, organizations require systems to prepare sensitive data to prevent withstanding incidents that are still arising in the cloud, such as outages [20], unauthorized accesses and integrity alterations [3,41], and confidentiality violations [3,41]. Those problems are critical nowadays, as the staff of healthcare organizations not only exchange portions of the accumulated data with other members inside the same organization (called intra-dataflows in this paper) but also with staff from other healthcare organizations (called inter-dataflows in this paper). ...
Article
Full-text available
Data synchronization and content delivery services are key to supporting healthcare dataflows built by organizations. These types of services must prepare and process the data to accomplish mandatory non-functional requirements, such as security and reliability. This is a challenge as multiple applications, infrastructures, and platforms participate in healthcare dataflows. This paper presents FedFlow, a federated content distribution platform to build infrastructure-agnostic health data sharing and synchronization services to support healthcare dataflows. FedFlow creates secure and efficient data sharing and synchronization patterns for intra-dataflows and inter-dataflows by using implicit parallel data preparation schemes. A prototype of FedFlow was developed to conduct a case study about the building of inter-dataflows for delivering synchronized health data to multiple organizations by using combinations of non-functional requirements algorithms to accomplish governmental rules related to health data management. The experimental evaluation in a multi-cloud federated environment showed that FedFlow is around 90% faster than a traditional pipeline implementation, around 40% faster than Jenkins workflow management, and almost 30% faster than duplicity.
... As a result of these possible concerns and difficulties, a user firm may be unable to change their cloud-based ERP vendor, even if the service is poor. A subsequent examination of the literature revealed that these challenges, usually referred to as the vendor lock-in scenario, are frequently encountered in the cloud context [27]. Vendor lock-in and changeover fees have emerged as major impediments to the retirement of CERP systems. ...
... Future collaboration with cloud ERP vendors must centre on the selection process during the adoption phase [40]. Frequent meetings are held from the beginning to make certain that the systems built fit the criteria and are implemented in a low-risk setting [27]. Furthermore, confidence in the ability of the cloud ERP vendors to ensure continued functioning and support is seen as an issue and a necessary component of the partnership with cloud service providers. ...
Article
Full-text available
Cloud ERP is a type of enterprise resource planning (ERP) system that runs on the vendor’s cloud platform instead of an on-premises network, enabling companies to connect through the Internet. The goal of this study was to rank and prioritise the factors driving cloud ERP adoption by organisations and to identify the critical issues in terms of security, usability, and vendors that impact adoption of cloud ERP systems. The assessment of critical success factors (CSFs) in on-premises ERP adoption and implementation has been well documented; however, no previous research has been carried out on CSFs in cloud ERP adoption. Therefore, the contribution of this research is to provide research and practice with the identification and analysis of 16 CSFs through a systematic literature review, where 73 publications on cloud ERP adoption were assessed from a range of different conferences and journals, using inclusion and exclusion criteria. Drawing from the literature, we found security, usability, and vendors were the top three most widely cited critical issues for the adoption of cloud-based ERP; hence, the second contribution of this study was an integrative model constructed with 12 drivers based on the security, usability, and vendor characteristics that may have greater influence as the top critical issues in the adoption of cloud ERP systems. We also identified critical gaps in current research, such as the inconclusiveness of findings related to security critical issues, usability critical issues, and vendor critical issues, by highlighting the most important drivers influencing those issues in cloud ERP adoption and the lack of discussion on the nature of the criticality of those CSFs. This research will aid in the development of new strategies or the revision of existing strategies and polices aimed at effectively integrating cloud ERP into cloud computing infrastructure. It will also allow cloud ERP suppliers to determine organisations’ and business owners’ expectations and implement appropriate tactics. A better understanding of the CSFs will narrow the field of failure and assist practitioners and managers in increasing their chances of success.
... Due to the lack of standards in such a heterogeneous environment, switching or accessing applications or data from one cloud to another for the best advantage can not be performed and put us in a lock-in situation. Lock-in is characterized by a time-consuming procedure to migrate one application, data, or service to another competitive cloud or establish communication among distinct cloud entities [22]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Cloud Platforms are heterogeneous, and users may face interoperability issues migrating applications or exchanging data among distinct clouds due, for instance, to the lack of standards solutions. Several solutions have been proposed to overcome lock-in situations, and middleware platforms are one of them. A semantic interoperability solution named middleware for Data as a Service (DaaS)/Database as a Service (DBaaS) and Software as a Service (SaaS)—MIDAS has been developed to overcome this lock-in issue. It is an intermediate communication layer to retrieve data from DaaS or DBaaS through a Structured Query Language (SQL) or a Not Only SQL (NoSQL) created at the SaaS level. MIDAS is a platform for software execution, but software development needs support for its entire life cycle. Therefore, we propose the Model drIven Approach for MIDAS (MIAMI), which enables the specification of platform-independent middleware models and their use to generate code on different cloud platforms. MIAMI comprises a Domain-Specific Modeling Language (DSML) that enables middleware models and a transformation specification, which defines how these models can be converted to code. MIAMI offers a strategy for MIDAS specification and code generation phases to help middleware developers’ activities. MIAMI was applied to code generation specifications in Cloud Foundry, Amazon Web Services, OpenShift, and Heroku providers to evaluate our approach. This specification shows MIAMI’s feasibility and points out that MDD is a promising approach to improving cloud interoperability solutions.
... A German university conducted research related to the features of the microservice architecture [11]. According to their research, security, performance resilience, reliability, latency, and fault tolerance are the most important features of the microservice architecture. ...
Article
Full-text available
The software industry widely used monolithic system architecture in the past to build enterprise-grade software. Such software is deployed on the self-managed on-premises servers. Monolithic architecture systems introduced many difficulties when transitioning to cloud platforms and new technologies due to scalability, flexibility, performance issues, and lower business value. As a result, people are bound to consider the new software paradigm with the separation of concern concept. Microservice architecture was introduced to the world as an emerging software architecture style for overcoming monolithic architectural limitations. This paper illustrates the taxonomical classification of microservice architecture and a systematic review of the current state of the microservice architecture by comparing it to the past and future using the PRISMA model. Conference papers and journal papers the base on the defined keywords from well-known research publishers. The results showcase that most researchers and enterprise-grade companies use microservice architecture to develop cloud-native applications. On the contrary, they are struggling with certain performance issues in the overall application. The acquired results can facilitate the researchers and architects in the software engineering domain who aspire to be concerned with new technology trends about service-oriented architecture and cloud-native development.
... Regarding stored data, some cloud service providers integrate cryptographic mechanisms based on encryption protocols such as AES or RSA. However, this can lead to vendor lock-in [20], forcing every partner in the value chain to use the same service for information exchange in order to guarantee an end-to-end (E2E) secure exchange. Therefore, it becomes imperative to have solutions that provide E2E security within a value chain and do not depend entirely on third-party services. ...
Preprint
Full-text available
Data exchange among value chain partners provides them with a competitive advantage, but the risk of exposing sensitive data is ever-increasing. Information must be protected in storage and transmission to reduce this risk, so only the data producer and the final consumer can access or modify it. End-to-end (E2E) security mechanisms address this challenge, protecting companies from data breaches resulting from value chain attacks. Moreover, value chain particularities must also be considered. Multiple entities are involved in dynamic environments like these, both in data generation and consumption. Hence, a flexible generation of access policies is required to ensure that they can be updated whenever needed. This paper presents a CP-ABE-reliant data exchange system for value chains with E2E security. It considers the most relevant security and industrial requirements for value chains. The proposed solution can protect data according to access policies and update those policies without breaking E2E security or overloading field devices. In most cases, field devices are IIoT devices, limited in terms of processing and memory capabilities. The experimental evaluation has shown the proposed solution's feasibility for IIoT platforms.
Chapter
Cloud computingCloud computing is an emerging area of computer sciences, and much research is in progress in different aspects since the beginning. Cloud computingCloud computing creates security, cost, and governance concerns in other prospects in use and a network system of food industries. Food industries are the fastest growing industries in India and abroad. Simultaneously, cloud computingCloud computing plays an essential role in data and application migration to the cloud for better and effective services. Enterprises get multiple benefits in terms of hardware and software through cloud computingCloud computing technologies. This book chapter describes various aspects of cloud computing implementation challenges and issues among distributed systems that are well connected geographically. This chapter also provides multiple levels of challenges during the implementation of cloud services in the food industries at the server-side and client-side. This chapter describes a systematic literature review of benefits, technologies, challenges, and issues encountered during cloud computingCloud computing services offered to food industries.
Article
The serverless platform allows a customer to effectively use cloud resources and pay for the exact amount of used resources. A number of dedicated open source and commercial cloud data management tools are available to handle the massive amount of data. Such modern cloud data management tools are not enough matured to integrate the generic cloud application with the serverless platform due to the lack of mature and stable standards. One of the most popular and mature standards, TOSCA (Topology and Orchestration Specification for Cloud Applications), mainly focuses on application and service portability and automated management of the generic cloud application components. This paper proposes the extension of the TOSCA standard, TOSCAdata, that focuses on the modeling of data pipeline-based cloud applications. Keeping the requirements of modern data pipeline cloud applications, TOSCAdata provides a number of TOSCA models that are independently deployable, schedulable, scalable, and re-usable, while effectively handling the flow and transformation of data in a pipeline manner. We also demonstrate the applicability of proposed TOSCAdata models by taking a web-based cloud application in the context of tourism promotion as a use case scenario.
Article
Serverless computing and, in particular, the functions as a service model has become a convincing paradigm for the development and implementation of highly scalable applications in the cloud. This is due to the transparent management of three key functionalities: triggering of functions due to events, automatic provisioning and scalability of resources, and fine-grained pay-per-use. This article presents a serverless web-based scientific gateway to execute the inference phase of previously trained machine learning and artificial intelligence models. The execution of the models is performed both in Amazon Web Services and in on-premises clouds with the OSCAR framework for serverless scientific computing. In both cases, the computing infrastructure grows elastically according to the demand adopting scale-to-zero approaches to minimize costs. The web interface provides an improved user experience by simplifying the use of the models. The usage of machine learning in a computing platform that can use both on-premises clouds and public clouds constitutes a step forward in the adoption of serverless computing for scientific applications.
Article
Peer-to-peer (P2P) federated cloud system has emerged as a promising service delivery model wherein multiple cloud service providers (CSPs) collaborate and share resources and services among themselves to fulfill the spikes in demand from their cloud service consumers (CSCs). It facilitates CSPs to accomplish the committed service level agreements (SLAs) to their CSCs. However, the lack of preexisting trust relationships and unawareness about the cloud infrastructure and service delivery performance among CSPs in a distributed environment poses a risk to the quality of service (QoS) being delivered. We address this challenge by proposing a trust model, PRTrust, for a peer-to-peer federated cloud system that capitalizes the triangular relationship of performance, risk, and trust for the participating CSPs. The main contributions of this work are: (1) providing a logical design and architecture for trust and performance management in a peer-to-peer federated cloud system; (2) providing a two-tier weighted performance evaluation mechanism for CSPs; (3) providing a risk evaluation mechanism for CSPs based on their current performance level; (4) providing an improvised mechanism to evaluate and manage personalized reputation-based trust for the participating CSPs; (5) providing a CSP selection mechanism from a trusted list of CSPs, using the evaluated performance-based risk, for sharing the resources and services in a peer-to-peer federated cloud system. The proposed PRTrust model has shown better threat resilient behavior in dealing with malicious peer CSPs when compared with the reference EigenTrust model.
Article
Automation through Chef Opscode provides an in-depth understanding of Chef, which is written in Ruby and Erlang for configuration management, cloud infrastructure management, system administration, and network management. Targeted at administrators, consultants, and architect, the book guides them through the advanced features of the tool which are necessary for infrastructure automation, devops automation, and reporting. The book presumes knowledge of Ruby and Erlang which are used as reference languages for creating recipes and cookbooks and as a refresher on them to help the reader get on speed with the flow of book. The book provides step by step instructions on installation and configuration of Chef, usage scenarios of Chef, in infrastructure automation by providing common scenarios like virtual machine provisioning, OS configuration for Windows, Linux, and Unix, provisioning and configuration of web servers like Apache along with popular databases like MySQL. It further elaborates on the creation of recipes, and cookbooks, which help in deployment of servers and applications to any physical, virtual, or cloud location, no matter the size of the infrastructure. The books covers advanced features like LWRPs and Knife and also contains several illustrative sample cookbooks on MySQL, Apache, and CouchDB deployment using a step by step approach.
Book
Cloud Computing is one of the top ten strategic technologies predicted to revolutionize the future of computing. Moving to the Cloud provides application developers and technical architects with an in-depth introduction to cloud computing models, applications development paradigms, and technologies. The authors examine the cloud platforms and technologies in use today, not only describing how to program the APIs, but also comparing the concepts and technologies that underlie them. They examine methods for developing both client-side and cloud-side applications covering data parallelism, virtual infrastructures, thin web apps, rich client apps, and mashups. Key challenges such as scaling, security, and managing the cloud infrastructure are also addressed. The book concludes by discussing technologies related to Cloud Computing, along with key open issues, and emerging Cloud technology standards that will drive the continuing evolution of cloud computing. Includes complex case studies of Cloud applications actually implemented by Cloud experts from Yahoo! Amazon, IBM, and HP Labs. Presents insights and techniques for creating compelling rich client applications that interact with Cloud services. Demonstrates and distinguishes features of different Cloud platforms using simple to complex API programming examples.
Article
Cloud computing has become an increasingly prevalent topic in recent years. However, migrating hitherto internal IT data and applications to the cloud is associated with a wide range of risks and challenges. The study reported in this paper aims to explore potential risks that organisations may encounter during cloud computing adoption, as well as to assess and prioritise these risks, from the perspective of IT practitioners and consultants. A questionnaire was designed and distributed to a group of 295 highly experienced IT professionals involved in developing and implementing cloud based solutions, of which 39 (13.2%) responses were collected and analysed. The findings identified a set of 39 cloud computing risks, which concentrated around diverse operational, organisational, technical, and legal areas. The most critical top 10 risks perceived by IT experts were found to be caused by current legal and technical complexity and deficiencies associated with cloud computing, as well as by a lack of preparation and planning of user companies.
Conference Paper
Cloud Computing has rapidly evolved and spread in the past few years, with always new services and functionalities being offered by providers in order to gain larger market sectors. This has caused in many cases a lot of distress and confusion to customers who have been often subjected to the “vendor lock- in”phenomenon, because of interoperability and portability issues often arising among different Cloud providers. In this paper we provide a brief introduction to the basic definitions of Cloud Computing, portability and interoperability and we also describe a set of established use cases. All these notions are mapped to a multi-dimensional space, which is used to classify both definitions and use cases. The focus here is represented by portability and interoperability features.
Conference Paper
DevOps is an emerging paradigm to eliminate the split and barrier between developers and operations personnel that traditionally exists in many enterprises today. The main promise of DevOps is to enable continuous delivery of software in order to enable fast and frequent releases. This enables quick responses to changing requirements of customers and thus may be a critical competitive advantage. In this work we propose a language called DevOpSlang in conjunction with a methodology to implement DevOps as an efficient means for collaboration and automation purposes. Efficient collaboration and automation are the key enablers to implement continuous delivery and thus to react to changing customer requirements quickly.
Article
DevOps is an emerging paradigm to tightly integrate developers with operations personnel. This is required to enable fast and frequent releases in the sense of continuously delivering software. Users and customers of today's Web applications and mobile apps running in the Cloud expect fast feedback to problems and feature requests. Thus, it is a critical competitive advantage to be able to respond quickly. Beside cultural and organizational changes that are necessary to implement DevOps in practice, tooling is required to implement end-to-end automation of deployment processes. Automation is the key to efficient collaboration and tight integration between development and operations. The DevOps community is constantly pushing new approaches, tools, and open-source artifacts to implement such automated processes. However, as all these proprietary and heterogeneous DevOps automation approaches differ from each other, it is hard to integrate and combine them to deploy applications in the Cloud. In this paper we present a systematic classification of DevOps artifacts and show how different kinds of artifacts can be transformed toward TOSCA, an emerging standard in this field. This enables the seamless and interoperable orchestration of arbitrary artifacts to model and deploy application topologies. We validate the presented approach by a prototype implementation, show its practical feasibility by a detailed case study, and evaluate its performance.
Book
The automation of application provisioning is one of the most important issues in Cloud Computing. The Topology and Orchestration Specification for Cloud Applications (TOSCA) supports automating provisioning by two different flavors: (i) declarative processing is based on interpreting application topology models by a runtime that infers provisioning logic whereas (ii) imperative processing employs provisioning plans that explicitly describe the provisioning tasks to be executed. Both flavors come with benefits and drawbacks. This paper presents a means to combine both flavors to resolve drawbacks and to profit from benefits of both worlds: we propose a standards-based approach to generate provisioning plans based on TOSCA topology models. These provisioning plans are workflows that can be executed fully automatically and may be customized by application developers after generation. We prove the technical feasibility of the approach by an end-to-end open source toolchain and evaluate its extensibility, performance, and complexity.
Book
One of the most essential requirements to make use of the benefits of Cloud computing is fully automated provisioning and deployment of applications including all related resources. This leads to crucial cost reductions when deploying and operating applications in the Cloud because manual processes are slow, error-prone, and thus costly. Both Cloud providers and the open-source community provide a huge variety of tools, APIs, domain-specific languages, and reusable artifacts to implement deployment automation. However, the meta-models behind these approaches are diverse. This diversity makes it challenging to combine different approaches, avoiding vendor lock-in and tooling lock-in. In this work we propose deployment aggregates as a generic means to use and orchestrate different kinds of deployment approaches. We define a generic meta-model and show its relation to existing meta-models in the domain of deployment automation. Moreover, we discuss how existing artifacts can be used as deployment aggregates as a result of transformation and enrichment.