Fintech: Choosing a Cloud

Services Provider
ISM ASSIGNMENT 3
GROUP 6, SECTION B
JETHWA SUMIT PRASHANT 2022PGP567

DIVYA KUMAR GAUTAM 2022PGP618

KUTE MAHESH POPAT 2022PGP213

L SANGEETHA 2019IPM112

SHUBHAM MALLIK 2022PGP370

How would a move to the cloud make it easier and/or more profitable for
Fintech to provide large volumes of selected data to its clients?

Real Time
Improved Zero/Less
Data Analytics
and Reporting Scalability Downtime

Renting
Strengthening
Cloud
Relationships
Service
with
Customers
saves heavy
investments
 FINTECH :: Cloud Services Implementation

Challenges
Technical Business
Data breaches, compromised credentials, and Primarily the availability of in-house resources to
broken authentication adapt to the new technology

Hacked Interfaces and APIs leading to Managing an entire change in functioning and training
exploitation of system vulnerabilities new employees.

Account hijacking and Advanced Persistent Updating existing infrastructure and ICT networks to
Threats or “parasites” accommodate the new technology

Data integration within the company using The probable down time of the system owing to the
existing infrastructure to the cloud platform overhaul of the IT infrastructure

The viability of the technology and the ease of

accessibility to the customers
Q2. Assume Joe Kwo must choose a cloud services provider. Based only on
the information provided in the case, which provider should Kwo choose?
Why? You will need to compare and contrast the three providers’ offerings in
detail and prepare to discuss the technical and business implications of their
similarities and differences.
Factors to be considered for the selection of Cloud service provider
● Account economic factor (initial price, complementary investment, total cost of
ownership)
● Technical factors(programmability, Database support, Scalability)
● Human factors ( Availability and skills of local provider and consultant IT staff and
analytics staff)
● Security.
● System Reliability
Looking at all the above-mentioned factors, Amazon web service would be the best
choice for the Fintech cloud service provider
Comparative analysis

From Exhibits 6, 7, and 8 following conclusions are derived:

● AWS ($1638) is offered at the lowest cost as compared with Google ($1684) and
Microsoft ($7301)
● Server uptime per month is the maximum for AWS (744 hours) also it provides
services for many Databases
● AWS offers maximum storage space (120GB), competitive services, and
computational power.
● AWS offers billing per service and has more security features than Microsoft and
google.
● Technical support is provided for most of the services and most importantly for
developers to work in the future.
● AWS provides IDE integrated development environment with Eclipse and visual
studio whereas Microsoft provides only Visual studio.
3. For each provider (Amazon, Google, Microsoft), identify specific risks and prepare to offer specific
suggestions for launching, running, and managing the proposed new service if that provider is chosen.

Google
The risks identified included: The regular Google Cloud SQL Relational Database was inadequate for Fintech's storage and
processing needs. It provides variable pricing, but estimating the amount of clients who will utilise the service in order to take
advantage of the volume discount is a burden for Fintech. It lacks a Data Warehousing product equivalent to AWS RedShift
and SQL Data Warehouse. Uncertainty exists around termination expenses incurred by Fintech if necessary.

➔ Suggestions
- As FinTech deals with voluminous amounts of data, construct an effective Data Warehouse. Before purchasing,
consider consumer feedback. Make apps suitable with all devices, and Fintech will attract a large clientele. Fintech
can rely on its demand estimates and collaborate with GCP to anticipate a conservative number of clients utilising the
platform, allowing it to assess the platform's utilisation and choose a pricing structure. It can continue to adjust the
price range based on consumption, as indicated in SOW and MSA contracts with GCP. Fintech and GCP can jointly
decide on termination costs, exit alternatives, and long-term versus short-term contracts.
Amazon
The risks identified included: The regular AWS Redshift storage and computation capabilities were insufficient
for Fintech's operations. To load test data into AWS, Fintech must rely on a third-party service. Uncertainty
exists regarding the initial fees, and the foundation for billing is unclear. There are no long-term contracts
available.

➔ Suggestions
By adding virtual CPUs, the storage requirements can be upgraded to match the requirements of
Fintech. The tool from a third party can be readily incorporated into the system. Fintech must guarantee
that the third-party tool is dependable and scalable in relation to the volume of data being entered into
the system. Regarding the initial fees and billing, Fintech should engage directly with the vendor and
draught Service Level Agreements in accordance with their needs.
Microsoft
The risks identified included: It costs more than AWS and GCP for its SQL database service. It was tough to
configure the Premium Tier instance type utilised to fulfil Fintech's computing and storage needs. It calculated
computing performance using Data Throughput Units (DTUs), which was not clear. Extremely high monthly
total cost incurred compared to AWS and GCP equivalents.

➔ Suggestions
Fintech must rely on Microsoft's pre-configured alternatives, which are a secure bet owing to
Microsoft's history of supplying corporations with tailored solutions through its other offerings besides
Azure. Fintech could convene specific sessions to comprehend the computations in DTUs or request
that Fintech translate the computations in DTUs to virtual CPUs, if possible. Microsoft Azure's In-
Memory OLTP solution can be incredibly valuable for Fintech's future transactions, and because it is a
niche technology, Fintech can separate itself from its competitors by utilising the most cutting-edge
cloud service.
Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the provider evaluation process
described in the case. What useful steps were taken? Do you see any
problem?
Strength
● In house evaluation of the major service providers.
● Use case was defined for evaluation.
● Evaluation of the offerings was done from several perspectives

Weakness
● The data provided by the cloud service providers website was used to perform the evaluation process.

Useful Steps
● Briefing on service requirements and the use case were given.
● Clearly defined guiding principles.
● Compared on the same criteria wrt to use case.

Problems
● Each evaluator focused just on their assigned cloud service provider.