Hybrid Cloud Computing QoS Glitches

Abstract

The Hybrid Cloud Computing model has been growing extensively due to its Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) architecture, customisation and cost benefits. The hybrid cloud services are measured based on the Quality of Service parameters defined by the public cloud vendors. These parameters (i.e. availability, scalability, latency etc.) vary from vendor-to-vendor, developing complexity and confusion on the grounds of methods of service assessments. A Cloud Service Level Agreement (SLA) lists the QoS provisions to be provided to the tenant, the objectives, and exclusions. Regardless of vendors promised uptimes and service metrics, the tenants are susceptible to the following threats: data governance, Denial of Services, multi-tenancy, etc. Cloud computing has often been compared as a utility, but the basic different between a utility and the cloud is the amount of risk involved with data protection, provisioning and control. Few cloud standards have been developed for standardizing the hybrid cloud model but since each public cloud vendor provides different applications and services, these standards do not resolve the existing cloud QoS issue. Since each enterprise implementing the cloud and vendor supplying the services is diverse, a customized Trio (Cloud-IT-Business) QoS model is required to resolve the business need. The authors have designed a model to resolve this existing cloud QoS issue, the abstraction of the model is detailed in this paper.

Securing industry 5.0 using 6σ CYBERNETIC framework

“…One of the questions arising at this stage would be why Six Sigma (6σ) approach is being implemented and how it relates to Industry 5.0's promising vision. Well, 6σ is a strategic, structured quality standard tool that uses statistical process control (SPC) and problemsolving techniques in cross-functional processes [37,38]. As shown in Fig.…”

“…6σ is a widely adopted standard in the manufacturing environment for mitigating gaps and achieving the highest quality conformance (QC) metrics (i.e., define, measure, analyse, improve, and control, as shown in Fig. 2), producing zero defect products 99.99966% of the time (permitting 3.4 defects per million opportunities (DPMO)) [37,38,39]. This not only improves the overall QoS but also provides insights, visibility, and control and reduces unnecessary/conformance-based costs in production.…”

“…6σ's five-step approach "DMAIC" is data-driven and well-equipped to reduce waste and improve and monitor the supply-chain performance manufacturing, whereas lean fully focuses on waste reduction delivering maximum value to customers with the least amount of investment. The implementation and impact of Lean in IIoT have been discussed in terms of return on investment (ROI) perspective [14], however [37] states that Lean works best when it is aligned with 6σ, because as a standalone it does not focus entirely on the manufacturing aspects, instead on different business facets. The 6σ approach enables the production environment to mitigate defects, overproduction, and waiting (process bottlenecks, downtime), efficiently and effectively use human resources, transportation, inventory, and motion, and manage issues related to extra-processing.…”

“…The 6σ technique facilitates in improving the QoS considerations using different techniques, these techniques (voice of customer, critical to quality drivers, failure mode effects analysis, house of quality, etc.) have previously been implemented and aligned in the Business Cloud IT (BCIT) environment [37,41]. However, in this research, the authors extend the Six Sigma BCIT Framework in the context of Industry 5.0 for securely mitigating cyber risk in the environment.…”

Hybrid Cloud SLAs for Industry 4.0: Bridging the Gap

“…It also highlights the limitations, lock-ins and service breaches beforehand which helps the I4.0 tenants in negotiation and finding alternative solutions to overcome the hybrid cloud service breach. The fish bone cause-and-effect of the framework is presented by authors in [31]. Since this aspect of the project did not match with the dimension of this paper, the authors did not include this in the paper as it will form the basis of future publication.…”