Enable javascript in your browser for better experience. Need to know to enable it?

÷ÈÓ°Ö±²¥

As informa??es desta p¨¢gina n?o est?o completamente dispon¨ªveis no seu idioma de escolha. Esperamos disponibiliza-las integralmente em outros idiomas em breve. Para ter acesso ¨¤s informa??es no idioma de sua prefer¨ºncia, fa?a o download do PDF ²¹±ç³Ü¨ª.
Publicado : Nov 14, 2018
N?O ENTROU NA EDI??O ATUAL
Este blip n?o est¨¢ na edi??o atual do Radar. Se esteve em uma das ¨²ltimas edi??es, ¨¦ prov¨¢vel que ainda seja relevante. Se o blip for mais antigo, pode n?o ser mais relevante e nossa avalia??o pode ser diferente hoje. Infelizmente, n?o conseguimos revisar continuamente todos os blips de edi??es anteriores do Radar. Saiba mais
Nov 2018
Experimente ?

Often, in an effort to outsource risk to their suppliers, businesses look for "one throat to choke" on their most critical and risky system implementations. Unfortunately, this gives them fewer solution choices and less flexibility. Instead, businesses should look to maintain the greatest vendor independence where the business risk exposure is highest. We see a new risk-commensurate vendor strategy emerging that encourages investment to maintain vendor independence for highly critical business systems. Less critical business functions can take advantage of the streamlined delivery of a vendor-native solution because it allows them to absorb more easily the impact of losing that vendor. This trade-off has become apparent as the major cloud providers have expanded their range of service offerings. For example, using AWS Secret Management Service can speed up initial development and has the benefit of ecosystem integration, but it will also add more inertia if you ever need to migrate to a different cloud provider than it would if you had implemented, for example, Vault.

Inscreva-se para receber a newsletter do Technology Radar

?

?

Seja assinante

?

?

Visite nosso arquivo para acessar os volumes anteriores