Efficacious Technology Management

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Explore: Online and Interactive Exercises

When selecting a cloud vendor to host your enterprise data and apps, you need to evaluate the service level agreement (SLA).
- Research the SLAs of two cloud vendors, such as Rackspace, Amazon, or Google.
  - The selected cloud vendors are Google and Amazon
- For the vendors, you selected, what are the SLAs’ uptime percentages? Expect them to be 99.9% or less.
  - For Google, its SLAs’ uptime percent is not less than 99.95% a month. On the other hand, the SLAs’ uptime percentage of Amazon relies on the service credit percent, although it ranges between 99.0% to about 99.95%.
- Does each vendor count both scheduled downtime and planned downtime toward the SLA uptime percentage?
  - Google calculates scheduled downtime toward the SLA uptime percent while Amazon has been found to count uptime proportion towards SLA (De Carvalho, de Castro, de Castro, Coutinho, & Agoulmine, 2017).
- Compare the SLAs in terms of two other criteria.
  - The SLA credit of Amazon is 10% of the annual bill while that of Google ranges from 10% to 50% (De Carvalho et al., 2017). Moreover, Amazon has an SLA exception of 5 minutes while in Google; maintenance has a period of fewer than 5 minutes.
- Decide which SLA is better based on your comparisons.
  - Based on the comparisons, Google appears to have a better SLA than Amazon.
- Report your results and explain your decision.
  - Google has been established to have one of the most reliable SLA. For instance, in the entire 2014, they experienced downtime of approximately 14 minutes only. This translates to over 99.9995 percent (De Carvalho et al., 2017). On the contrary, Amazon experienced downtime of about 2.4 hours in the same year, which is equivalent to 99.9974% in operation.
Compare the communication practices of organizations using the broadcast model versus the communication practices of organizations using a conversation model and Web 2.0 technologies.

While using the broadcast model, Internet interactivity permits robust social interrelations between a company and other people, such as different organizations, customers, and governments. For organizations employing a conversation model and Web 2.0 technologies, information keeps flowing backward and forward between the recipient and the sender (Sinton, 2018).

It is crucial to understand that while Information Technology (IT) offers the platform for the occurrences in the communication using conversation model and Web 2.0 technologies, the varying actions of users account for the greatest challenge and opportunity for organizations today (Turban, Pollard, & Wood, 2018). With the broadcast model, recipients get the message but are not anticipated to interact and offer input. For the conversation model and Web 2.0 technologies, a continuing dialog is established thus engaging the recipients (for example, clients) in interactions with the organization (Ackerman, 2018).

References

Ackerman, G. (2018). Efficacious technology management: A guide for school leaders. Web.

De Carvalho, C., de Castro A., de Castro, M., Coutinho, E., & Agoulmine, N. (2017). State of the art and challenges of security SLA for cloud computing. Computers & Electrical Engineering, 59, 141-152.

Sinton, M. (2018). No longer one-to-many: How Web 2.0 interactivity is changing public service radio’s relationship with its audience. Journal of Radio & Audio Media, 25(1), 62-76.

Turban, E., Pollard, C., & Wood, G. (2018). Information technology for management: On-demand strategies for performance, growth, and sustainability (11th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Global Education.

Click Here To Order Now!

Efficacious Technology Management

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)