Using the following case from Information Technology for Managers (2nd ed.),
Do the following in this week’s case discussion forum:
- Collaborate with your peers in this week’s case discussion forum to research Salesforce’s policies on the following:
- shared resource risk management;
- virtualization software;
- service disruption;
- disaster recovery;
- data ownership;
- record retention; and
- Share how easy it was to identify these specific policies. Are they posted, easily accessed, and transparent?
- Identify other, possibly smaller, SaaS providers and provide a link to their website.
This collaborative research activity should provide you the foundation you’ll need to conduct your analysis of the case.
Then, answer the following (case questions) to begin your independent research on the topic:
- Give your analysis of both the accessibility and transparency of Salesforce’s policies.
- What questions would you have to ask a Salesforce vendor to find this information?
- Provide a summary of another SaaS provider’s policy information (accessibility and transparency) and outline any previous security breaches the alternate company has experienced.
- Compare the risks of cloud sourcing to large, well-known vendors versus smaller, less well-known vendors.
You have been asked by leadership to present your findings. Develop a 7-10 slide PowerPoint Presentation leveraging what you have learned through collaboration, your own research, and the application of this week’s topics to critically analyze the case through the management lens. Be sure to address all points of this assignment in your final presentation (introduction, summary of the central issue, analysis, recommendations and conclusion) and cite your work appropriately using APA formatted citations and include a references page at the end of your presentation.
Get help with APA-style citations at Purdue’s OWL site>>Links to an external site.
View RubricCase Study RubricCase Study RubricCriteriaRatingsPtsUnderstandingview longer description5 ptsExceptional: Demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of the topic(s) and issue(s)4 ptsGood: Demonstrates an accomplished understanding of the topic(s) and issue(s)3 ptsFair: Demonstrates an acceptable sophisticated understanding of the topic(s) and issue(s)2 ptsPoor: Demonstrates an inadequate understanding of the topic(s) and issue(s)0 pts/ 5 ptsAnalysisview longer description5 ptsExceptional: Makes appropriate and powerful connections between the issues identified and the strategic concepts studied in the reading4 ptsGood: Makes appropriate connections between the issues identified and the strategic concepts studied in the reading3 ptsFair: Makes appropriate but somewhat vague connections between the issues and concepts studied in the reading2 ptsPoor: Makes little or no connection between the issues identified and the strategic concepts studied in the reading0 pts/ 5 ptsRecommendationsview longer description10 ptsExceptional: Presents detailed, realistic, and appropriate recommendations clearly supported by the information presented and concepts from the reading8 ptsGood: Presents specific, realistic, and appropriate recommendationssupported by the information presented and concepts from the reading6 ptsFair: Presents realistic or appropriate recommendations supported by the information presented and concepts from the reading4 ptsPoor: Presents realistic or appropriate recommendations with little, if any, support from the information presented and concepts from the reading0 pts/ 10 ptsUse and Quality of Referencesview longer description5 ptsAll reliable authorities.4 ptsMost are reliable authorities.3 ptsSome are reliable authorities2 ptsNone are reliable authorities0 pts/ 5 pts