## 3 Evaluation
### Case Study 1: Organization A  
Eleven respondents answered the Compliance Evaluation Sheet. Three roles are represented in the sample: CIO (9.09%), Manager (36.36%), and Group Leader (54.55%). The second questionnaire was answered just by the CIO of the company. With regards to the first questionnaire, descriptive statistics are shown in Table 3.  
Generally, it is noteworthy that all the mean values are higher in Phase II compared to Phase I, while standard deviations differ. The only case in which it stays stable is in the first variable, while it is lower with the case of satisfaction with the compliance management in cloud computing. Thus, it is concluded that there is less dispersion of the respondents with respect to their opinion being in a higher agreement. Furthermore, the agreement is achieved with a superior satisfaction. Anyhow, there is a higher satisfaction rate, regarding variables three and four, in Phase II than in Phase I.  
The second step in the analysis is the comparison of results between the phases. To do so, the Student's t-test was used. The only aspect in which there are statistical differences is in the last one: t (10) = \(-3.451\), \(p<0.05\).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Phase I**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Phase II**} \\ \cline{2-5}  & **M** & **SD** & **M** & **SD** \\ \hline Satisfaction on cloud services & 3.91 &.539 & 4.09 &.539 \\ Satisfaction on CM in cloud & 3.36 &.809 & 4.00 &.632 \\ CM contribution to IT quality of service & 3.09 &.701 & 3.73 &.786 \\ CM contribution to the organizational CM & 2.82 &.405 & 3.64 &.674 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Descriptive statistics on compliance evaluation sheet. Case Study 1.  
Table 4 presents a comparison of the compliance metrics.  
Main aspects in the compliance metrics are as follows:  
1. Considering the average time span between identification of external compliance issues and resolution, Phase 2 illustrates a minor difference (6.25%) in the resolution of compliance issues after implementing the framework. There is a very limited difference, although, it is possible to see it as a good sign in favor of the adoption of the framework.  
2. Considering the number of compliance problems in which employees require advice or support, Phase 2 demonstrate an increase (5.26%) in the problem compliance framework for alteration of the management in the cloud setting identified in which employees require assistance. Again, differences are very minor, however, it is valuable to mention that the framework has potential to guide employees towards a process of guiding them to the correct management of issues, including guidance among its steps.  
3. Regarding the number of reports of supposed or actual compliance, violations figures reduced from 89 to 60 (32.59%). Although these facts are very inspiring, the authors want to highlight that the sample size was rather small and the generalization of results is endangered by the unlikelihood of isolating the external factors from the variables. Anyhow, it should be considered that the enhancement is aligned with the rest of the metrics provided.  
4. Concerning the percentage of compliance enhancement opportunities implemented, it can be seen that there is again a minimum improvement (8.22%). This is also a sign of the validity of the framework for the effectiveness and efficiency of the management of compliance problems.  
5. The last part regarding the frequency (in days) of compliance reviews stays stable. In this case, the organization in Phase 1 offered a compliance management procedure, where reviews were considered to be part of the process. This process stays without any changes in Phase II.