Introduction The process of creating the research proposal will be evaluated using the Rolfe reflective model, which has three major steps; that is, what, so what and now what. First, one must determine what the problem, difficulty, situation, or achievement is in a project; this is a descriptive reflective level. Thereafter, one must establish what the issue teaches implies or means. In other words, it is necessary to analyze what one has learned from the process on a theoretical level. Step two may entail deducing the attitudes, actions, relationships, and knowledge that apply to the situation. Finally, one ought to focus on action orientation. Here, one should carve out a strategy for improving outcomes in the future. Reflection on the Literature review The Rolfe model in the literature review is as follows: What When carrying out a literature review, I started with the general topic of cloud computing and then narrowed it down to the research topic. I selected references based on their relatedness to the topic. To eliminate unnecessary work, I settled on authors who had a clear research problem. Furthermore, their research theories needed to resonate with approaches in my field of study. I also wanted to use documents that considered both aspects of the debate. Authors who were too convinced that cloud computing was synonymous with security threats or those who downplayed the importance of security threats were discarded. For journal articles, they needed to have logical arguments that could be well understood. They are also related to the research topic. So what The main challenge of using such a rigorous approach was getting consistent themes from all the authors. The literature review needed to flow, so it took a lot of time to read through the documents before picking out the common themes. In addition to the above, plenty of information existed about cloud computing, so it was difficult to weed out the irrelevant pieces and stick to the ones that corresponded to the research question. Furthermore, the broad nature of the topic caused me to place disjointed ideas together in one paragraph. Additionally, the documents I selected for the study all supported my research thesis. No articles offered contrary opinions. My documents were merely collected based on the research topic. I did not make a concept map or diagrammatic illustration of what needed to be done. Now what In the future, it will be useful to have a concept map that would narrow down the research topic appropriately and conveniently. Additionally, this approach will assist in making the literature review coherent and connected. In line with the latter idea, I should probably place one idea in one paragraph. This can be achieved by identifying the overall direction of the literature and then relating it to what different sources are saying about it. I also need to mind the connection between ideas in my literature review by having an overall story, which I should be elaborating on. I could also enrich future literature reviews by adding sources that do not support the research thesis. In my work, I assumed that security threats are a menace in cloud computing; however, other writers believe that security threats created by the platform are too insignificant to neutraliz