Brandsit

Category: Legislation and regulations

  • Cloud in the strategy trap. Why are Polish companies losing out on migration and how to change this?

    Cloud in the strategy trap. Why are Polish companies losing out on migration and how to change this?

    The cloud computing market in Poland is growing at an impressive rate and analysts forecast further dynamic growth. However, behind the enthusiastic statistics lies a complex reality: many cloud migration projects fail to deliver the expected benefits and often end in failure. Problems with cost, security and lack of competence mean that, for many companies, the cloud becomes a strategic trap instead of an opportunity. The key to success is not the technology per se, but a thoroughly considered approach.

    Migration to the cloud, although seemingly a simple transfer of resources, in practice represents one of the most serious challenges for today’s IT departments. The complexity of the process, the multitude of pitfalls and the regulatory pressures take even experienced organisations by surprise. In an era of increasing geopolitical uncertainty and tightening regulations such as the EU Data Act and the NIS2 Directive, the issue of data localisation and sovereignty has come to the fore. Companies today must not only protect data, but also demonstrate precisely where and how it is being processed – otherwise they risk not only financial penalties but, even worse, the loss of customer trust.

    The most common mistakes on the way to the cloud

    Analysis of failed implementations shows that problems almost always originate in a few repetitive areas. Understanding these is the first step to avoiding costly mistakes.

    1 Security and regulatory compliance: Many companies, especially when using global hyperscalers, have doubts about their ability to ensure compliance with European data protection standards. Concerns include the US CLOUD Act, which potentially gives US authorities access to European companies’ data. This is prompting organisations to look for providers with data centres within the EU.

    2. lack of competence and resources: Small and medium-sized companies rarely have in-house teams of cloud architects or DevOps specialists. Without external support, they lack the knowledge to design secure and efficient architectures and implement automation, which is the foundation of an effective cloud.

    3. opaque costs: The cloud was supposed to be cheaper, but unclear pricing models often lead to ‘accounting shock’. Misconfigurations, reserving resources exaggeratedly or failing to monitor costs can sharply increase expenses and undermine the economic sense of the entire project.

    4 Technical complexity and legacy systems: applications that were not designed with the cloud in mind (so-called monoliths) require deep modifications or re-writing. Fear of potential downtime for critical systems that must be available 24/7 often paralyses migration decisions.

    5 Organisational barriers: Migration is not just an IT project – it is a change that affects the processes, responsibilities and culture of the entire company. If management treats it as a purely technical task rather than a strategic business decision, the project lacks priority and acceptance in other departments, leading to its failure.

    6 Supplier selection and the risk of ‘dependency’: The variety of offers – from global giants to local specialists – can be overwhelming. At the same time, companies fear so-called vendor lock-in, i.e. dependence on a single supplier, which will make it difficult or drastically increase the cost of a possible change of platform in the future.

    How to make a successful migration?

    The experience of companies that have successfully exploited the potential of the cloud shows that a methodical and strategic approach is key.

    Firstly, the migration must be preceded by a readiness assessment (cloud readiness assessment). IT and business departments should jointly analyse the current state of applications and infrastructure in order to realistically assess what can be moved to the cloud and how, and what needs to be upgraded.

    Secondly, a strategy of small steps. Instead of moving everything at once, it is worth starting with pilot projects with a clearly defined scope. This allows you to test your processes, detect errors early and gain valuable experience that can be applied to migrating key systems.

    Thirdly, the conscious use of external know-how. Migration is a task for specialists. It is worth engaging experienced partners who not only know the technology, but also understand the business processes and can manage the change in the organisation.

    Fourthly, cost and security planning from the outset. The budget, monitoring tools and security concept must be an integral part of the migration plan, not an add-on implemented after the fact. This is the only way to avoid unpleasant surprises.

    Finally, and most importantly, the cloud strategy must be linked to business objectives. Migration is not an end in itself. It must realistically contribute to tangible benefits, such as greater flexibility, better scalability, innovation or higher levels of security.

  • Donald Trump’s AI plan – deregulation and domination in the name of a race with China

    Donald Trump’s AI plan – deregulation and domination in the name of a race with China

    Washington is setting its sights on dramatically accelerating the development of artificial intelligence through extensive deregulation, infrastructure strengthening and strategic technology exports. The new ‘AI Roadmap’ is a roadmap to ensure global hegemony for the US in a key future technology, but it also raises serious questions about the costs of such an approach.

    Donald Trump’ s administration has unveiled a 20-page document that sets an aggressive new course for the United States in the field of artificial intelligence. The plan, a political statement of intent, focuses on three fundamental goals: maximising the acceleration of innovation, expanding domestic AI infrastructure and promoting US technology to allies to set global standards. The strategy’s main driver is competition with China and its key tool is radical deregulation.

    The three pillars of Washington’s strategy

    The new White House policy is based on a coherent vision in which technological dominance is synonymous with national security and global influence.

    • Accelerating innovation through deregulation: At the core of the plan is the identification and elimination of any bureaucratic or legal barriers that may slow down the development or implementation of AI. This approach assumes that regulation is inherently a brake on progress.
    • StrengtheningAI infrastructure: the plan calls for strategic investment and facilitation to build key elements of the AI ecosystem: data centres, semiconductor factories and, crucially, an energy infrastructure capable of meeting the technology’s growing appetite for energy.
    • Exporting technology and building alliances: The third pillar is an offensive in international markets. The aim is for allies and partner countries to base their AI systems on US solutions, with the aim of naturally making them the global standard and making the rest of the world dependent on US technology.

    Regulatory fire: the heart of the action plan

    The most momentous element of the strategy is an unprecedented push to remove regulatory obstacles. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has been tasked with reviewing and potentially repealing any regulations, standards or guidance that “unnecessarily impede” the development of AI. In practice, this means a systemic regulatory hunt.

    Moreover, the plan would put pressure on individual states. Federal funds for AI research and development would be directed away from states whose local regulations are deemed too restrictive. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), in turn, are to investigate whether state regulations interfere with federal goals, opening the door to challenge them. Industry analysts point out that this approach gives technology companies exactly what they have long sought: a free hand to act.

    Changing ideological framework and the issue of copyright

    Trump’s plan goes beyond pure technology and into the ideological realm. The document explicitly calls for the removal of references to concepts such as ‘diversity, equality and inclusion’ (DEI) from the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST) AI risk management framework.

    The federal government is also expected to favour in cooperation those developers of large language models (LLMs) whose systems are deemed to be ‘objective’ and free of ‘ideological bias’. This move could lead to legal disputes and further polarisation in the debate on algorithm neutrality.

    Another controversial point is the issue of copyright. The administration suggests that the requirement to obtain licences and pay for copyrighted material used to train AI models is a barrier to innovation. This position is a direct hit to the interests of the creative industries, publishers and artists who demand compensation for the use of their work.

    Infrastructure for the industry of the future

    Aware of AI’s huge demand for computing power and energy, the administration plans to make investment processes much easier. Regulations slowing down the construction of data centres and chip factories are to be reduced. The plan also envisages the expansion of the power grid to meet the growing demand. In this context, climate protection initiatives that could interfere with the development of the energy-intensive AI industry are to be marginalised.

    Global chessboard

    All these activities have one clear overarching goal: to win the technology race with China. The documentary portrays AI development as a zero-sum game in which there are only two parties: The US and its allies and the rest of the world. The technology export strategy aims to strengthen ties with partners while strengthening export controls on key components to hinder the development of competitors.

    Prospects and risks

    “The AI Action Plan is, for now, a roadmap and not a binding law. However, it heralds a series of implementing regulations and sends a clear message to all government agencies and to the market. It is a vision of a world in which the rush towards innovation in artificial intelligence justifies the setting aside of many existing priorities: from regulations protecting civil rights, to climate policy, to well-established principles of copyright law.

    The US is putting almost everything on the line, believing that the prize is technological and geopolitical supremacy for decades. The question that remains open is whether the potential benefits of dominating the AI era are worth the risks of dismantling the existing regulatory and ethical framework.