Ver PDF
Registro

Soluciones en la nube y marco de decisión para planes de recuperación ante desastres en Panamá: mapeo sistemático y evaluación exploratoria

Rodríguez Aguilar, Cecil Lisseth ; Vargas-Lombardo, Miguel ; Calderón, Eduardo ; Chirú-Figueroa, José; Calderón-Gómez , Huriviades ; Moreno-De La Cruz, Cristian

Cloud-based solutions and a decision framework for disaster recovery plans in Panama: systematic mapping and exploratory assessment



Autores Rodríguez Aguilar, Cecil Lisseth
Autores Vargas-Lombardo, Miguel
Autores Calderón, Eduardo
Autores Chirú-Figueroa, José
Autores Calderón-Gómez , Huriviades
Autores Moreno-De La Cruz, Cristian
Tema recuperación ante desastres; computación en la nube; continuidad del negocio; respaldo; resiliencia; Panamá.
Tema nube computacional
Tema disaster recovery
Tema cloud computing
Tema business continuity
Tema backup; resiliency
Tema Panama
Tema cloud computing
Descripción The accelerated adoption of cloud computing has reshaped how organizations design and operate Disaster Recovery Plans (DRPs). Yet the heterogeneous portfolio of backup, replication, and failover orchestration services makes it difficult especially for resource-constrained teams to select appropriate capabilities, document operational procedures, and keep plans up to date. This applied study combines (i) a systematic mapping of scientific literature and vendor technical documentation to identify recurring capabilities and architectural patterns, (ii) the design of an artifact in the form of a taxonomy and decision framework that aligns business requirements (RTO/RPO, criticality, compliance, cyber-resilience) with cloud services, and (iii) an exploratory assessment via a questionnaire to system administrators in Panama (n=11) about current backup, replication, documentation, and update practices. Results suggest that while replication and backups are widely used, gaps persist in operational documentation (runbooks), change governance, and periodicity of updates and drills. The study concludes that the main contribution the taxonomy and decision framework enables meaningful incremental improvement of DRPs without requiring large samples and supports the formalization of controls and evidence for continuity and audit.
Descripción La adopción acelerada de computación en la nube ha transformado la forma en que las organizaciones diseñan y ejecutan planes de recuperación ante desastres (Disaster Recovery Plans, DRP). Sin embargo, la oferta de servicios de respaldo, replicación y orquestación de conmutación por error (failover) dificulta que equipos técnicos particularmente en contextos con recursos limitados seleccionen capacidades adecuadas, documenten procedimientos operativos y mantengan la vigencia del plan. Este estudio propone un enfoque aplicado que combina (i) un mapeo sistemático de literatura y documentación técnica de proveedores para identificar capacidades recurrentes y patrones de arquitectura, (ii) el diseño de un artefacto en forma de taxonomía y marco de decisión para alinear requisitos de negocio (RTO/RPO, criticidad, cumplimiento, ciber-resiliencia) con servicios cloud y (iii) una evaluación exploratoria mediante un cuestionario a administradores de sistemas en Panamá (n=11) sobre prácticas actuales de respaldo, replicación, documentación y actualización. Los resultados muestran que, aunque la replicación y las copias de seguridad son ampliamente utilizadas, persisten brechas en documentación operativa (runbooks), gobierno del cambio y periodicidad de actualización y pruebas. Se concluye que la contribución principal la taxonomía y el marco de decisión habilita una mejora incremental del DRP sin requerir muestras grandes, y orienta la formalización de controles y evidencias para auditoría y continuidad.
Editorial QLU
Fecha 2026-02-22
Tipo info:eu-repo/semantics/article
Tipo info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
Formato application/pdf
Identificador https://revistas.qlu.ac.pa/index.php/latitude/article/view/287
Identificador 10.55946/latitude.v23i1.287
Fuente Latitude; Vol. 23 No. 1 (2026): Vol. 1 Núm. 23 (2026): Latitude: Multidisciplinary Research Journal; 66-76
Fuente Latitude; Vol. 23 Núm. 1 (2026): Vol. 1 Núm. 23 (2026): Latitude: Revista Multidisciplinaria; 66-76
Fuente 2644-4038
Fuente 2644-4038
Idioma spa
Relación https://revistas.qlu.ac.pa/index.php/latitude/article/view/287/223
Relación /*ref*/Amazon Web Services. (2021). Disaster Recovery of Workloads on AWS: Recovery in the Cloud (AWS Well-Architected Framework). https://docs.aws.amazon.com/pdfs/whitepapers/latest/disaster-recovery-workloads-on-aws/disaster-recovery-workloads-on-aws.pdf
Relación /*ref*/Amazon Web Services. (n.d.-a). AWS Backup documentation. Retrieved January 2, 2026, from https://docs.aws.amazon.com/aws-backup/
Relación /*ref*/Amazon Web Services. (n.d.-b). AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery documentation. Retrieved January 2, 2026, from https://docs.aws.amazon.com/drs/
Relación /*ref*/Amazon Web Services. (n.d.-c). AWS Storage Gateway documentation. Retrieved January 2, 2026, from https://docs.aws.amazon.com/storagegateway/
Relación /*ref*/Amazon Web Services. (n.d.-d). Disaster recovery options in the cloud. Retrieved January 2, 2026, from https://docs.aws.amazon.com/whitepapers/latest/disaster-recovery-workloads-on-aws/disaster-recovery-options-in-the-cloud.html
Relación /*ref*/Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
Relación /*ref*/Google Cloud. (n.d.-a). Backup and Disaster Recovery (DR) Service (product page). Retrieved January 2, 2026, from https://cloud.google.com/backup-disaster-recovery
Relación /*ref*/Google Cloud. (n.d.-b). Backup and DR Service documentation. Retrieved January 2, 2026, from https://docs.cloud.google.com/backup-disaster-recovery/docs
Relación /*ref*/Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75–105. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148625
Relación /*ref*/IBM. (n.d.-a). Getting started with IBM Cloud Backup for Classic services. Retrieved January 2, 2026, from https://cloud.ibm.com/docs/Backup?topic=Backup-getting-started IBM. (n.d.-b). Understanding disaster recovery. Retrieved January 2, 2026, from https://cloud.ibm.com/docs/resiliency?topic=resiliency-understanding-dr
Relación /*ref*/Kitchenham, B., & Charters, S. (2007). Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering (EBSE Technical Report EBSE-2007-01). Keele University and University of Durham. https://legacyfileshare.elsevier.com/promis_misc/525444systematicreviewsguide.pdf
Relación /*ref*/Microsoft. (2025, November 12). What’s new in Site Recovery. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/site-recovery/site-recovery-whats-new
Relación /*ref*/Microsoft. (n.d.-a). Azure Backup service documentation. Retrieved January 2, 2026, from https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/backup/
Relación /*ref*/Microsoft. (n.d.-b). Azure Site Recovery documentation. Retrieved January 2, 2026, from https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/site-recovery/
Relación /*ref*/Oracle. (2025, April 29). About Full Stack Disaster Recovery. https://docs.oracle.com/iaas/disaster-recovery/doc/about-disaster-recovery.html
Relación /*ref*/Oracle. (n.d.). Full Stack Disaster Recovery documentation. Retrieved January 2, 2026, from https://docs.oracle.com/en-us/iaas/disaster-recovery/index.html
Relación /*ref*/Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M. A., & Chatterjee, S. (2007). A design science research methodology for information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(3), 45–77. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222240302
Relación /*ref*/Peters, M. D. J., Godfrey, C., McInerney, P., Munn, Z., Tricco, A. C., & Khalil, H. (2020). Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 18(10), 2119–2126. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-20-00167
Relación /*ref*/Swanson, M., Bowen, P., Phillips, A., Gallup, D., Lynes, D., & Mastrianni, J. (2010). Contingency planning guide for federal information systems (NIST SP 800-34 Rev. 1). National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/sp/800/34/r1/upd1/final Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D. J., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., Hempel, S., Akl, E. A., Chang, C., McGowan, J., Stewart, L., Hartling, L., Aldcroft, A., Wilson, M. G., Garritty, C., ... Straus, S. E. (2018). PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850
Relación /*ref*/Von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Egger, M., Pocock, S. J., Gøtzsche, P. C., & Vandenbroucke, J. P. (2007). The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. The Lancet, 370(9596), 1453–1457. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61602-X
Derechos Derechos de autor 2026 Cecil Lisseth Rodríguez Aguilar, Miguel Vargas-Lombardo, Eduardo Calderón, José Chirú-Figueroa, Huriviades Calderón-Gómez , Cristian Moreno-De La Cruz (Autor/a)
Derechos https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/deed.es