16
trust is being built between all stakeholders. These two assurance based
controls are necessities. Accountability mechanisms are contingent; they
only come in to effect when a trust violation occurs. Furthermore, when
initiated, these mechanisms are not mere objective features of the system
but recognise the psychological impact of trust violation and largely follow
accepted theory for repairing trust including immediate response, diagnosis, intervention performance, and evaluation (Gillespie and Dietz 2009).
Specifically, the framework includes actions that are effective for repairing
violations of different types of trust, whether competence-, benevolenceor integrity-based. The framework is technology-agnostic and in this way,
can not only accommodate technological solutions to building and repairing trust, but new use cases and evolutions of cloud computing including
the Internet of Things.
By recognising that policymakers and regulators, users and providers,
have different priorities and perceptions of what trust means in the context
of cloud computing, all stakeholders start on the basis of building trust
rather than waiting for that trust to be violated. Ultimately, this should
lead to greater understanding of the needs of different stakeholders, longer and deeper relationships, and innovation so that when a violation does
occur, and it will, the relationship will be strong enough to survive.
1.7 conclusIons
This chapter introduces trust, cloud computing, and discusses some of the
issues that present challenges to building trust in cloud computing, and
wider and deeper adoption thereof. While there has been extensive work
done to mitigate relational, performance, and compliance and regulatory
risks, these initiatives are highly fragmented and lack cohesion. They are
based on a conceptualisation of trust portrayed as an objective feature of
cloud computing technology rather than either policymaker or user perceptions of trust. We suggest that all stakeholders in the cloud computing
ecosystem need to come together and focus on how to build trust rather
than focusing on what to do when there is a violation of trust, a reposition
to assurance first, then accountability only when needed. To this end, we
reiterate the need for an integrated multi-stakeholder approach to assurance and accountability, and related inter-disciplinary research to support
the adoption of such approaches.
T. LYNN ET AL.
trust is being built between all stakeholders. These two assurance based
controls are necessities. Accountability mechanisms are contingent; they
only come in to effect when a trust violation occurs. Furthermore, when
initiated, these mechanisms are not mere objective features of the system
but recognise the psychological impact of trust violation and largely follow
accepted theory for repairing trust including immediate response, diagnosis, intervention performance, and evaluation (Gillespie and Dietz 2009).
Specifically, the framework includes actions that are effective for repairing
violations of different types of trust, whether competence-, benevolenceor integrity-based. The framework is technology-agnostic and in this way,
can not only accommodate technological solutions to building and repairing trust, but new use cases and evolutions of cloud computing including
the Internet of Things.
By recognising that policymakers and regulators, users and providers,
have different priorities and perceptions of what trust means in the context
of cloud computing, all stakeholders start on the basis of building trust
rather than waiting for that trust to be violated. Ultimately, this should
lead to greater understanding of the needs of different stakeholders, longer and deeper relationships, and innovation so that when a violation does
occur, and it will, the relationship will be strong enough to survive.
1.7 conclusIons
This chapter introduces trust, cloud computing, and discusses some of the
issues that present challenges to building trust in cloud computing, and
wider and deeper adoption thereof. While there has been extensive work
done to mitigate relational, performance, and compliance and regulatory
risks, these initiatives are highly fragmented and lack cohesion. They are
based on a conceptualisation of trust portrayed as an objective feature of
cloud computing technology rather than either policymaker or user perceptions of trust. We suggest that all stakeholders in the cloud computing
ecosystem need to come together and focus on how to build trust rather
than focusing on what to do when there is a violation of trust, a reposition
to assurance first, then accountability only when needed. To this end, we
reiterate the need for an integrated multi-stakeholder approach to assurance and accountability, and related inter-disciplinary research to support
the adoption of such approaches.
T. LYNN ET AL.