diff --git a/docs/README.md b/docs/README.md
deleted file mode 100644
index e69de29..0000000
diff --git a/docs/Vendor Lock-In Risks/deployment_options.md b/docs/Vendor Lock-In Risks/deployment_options.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..9489ebe
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/Vendor Lock-In Risks/deployment_options.md	
@@ -0,0 +1,178 @@
+### Detailed Information on Deployment Options: Docker, Kubernetes, AWS, and Bare Metal Deployments
+
+**Description:** This comprehensive document provides detailed information on four major deployment options: Docker, Kubernetes, AWS, and bare metal deployments. It includes documentation, vendor practices, and technical specifics for each option, offering a thorough overview to support informed decision-making.
+
+---
+
+## Table of Contents
+
+1. **Introduction**
+2. **Docker Deployment**
+    - 2.1. Overview
+    - 2.2. Documentation
+    - 2.3. Vendor Practices
+    - 2.4. Technical Specifics
+3. **Kubernetes Deployment**
+    - 3.1. Overview
+    - 3.2. Documentation
+    - 3.3. Vendor Practices
+    - 3.4. Technical Specifics
+4. **AWS (Amazon Web Services) Deployment**
+    - 4.1. Overview
+    - 4.2. Documentation
+    - 4.3. Vendor Practices
+    - 4.4. Technical Specifics
+5. **Bare Metal Deployments**
+    - 5.1. Overview
+    - 5.2. Documentation
+    - 5.3. Vendor Practices
+    - 5.4. Technical Specifics
+6. **Conclusion**
+7. **References**
+
+---
+
+## 1. Introduction
+
+The choice of deployment strategy significantly impacts application performance, scalability, and management. This document provides detailed information on Docker, Kubernetes, AWS, and bare metal deployments, helping organizations evaluate these options comprehensively.
+
+---
+
+## 2. Docker Deployment
+
+### 2.1. Overview
+
+**Docker** is a platform that automates the deployment of applications inside lightweight, portable containers. Docker containers bundle application code with its dependencies, enabling consistent behavior across various environments.
+
+### 2.2. Documentation
+
+- **Official Documentation**: [Docker Documentation](https://docs.docker.com/)
+- **Docker Hub**: [Docker Hub](https://hub.docker.com/) for container images and repository management.
+- **Docker Compose**: [Docker Compose Documentation](https://docs.docker.com/compose/)
+
+### 2.3. Vendor Practices
+
+- **Security**: Docker advocates for the use of minimal base images, regular vulnerability scanning, and the use of Docker Content Trust (DCT) to verify image integrity.
+- **Community Support**: Docker provides extensive community forums, official training, and certification programs.
+- **Updates**: Regular updates are released for Docker Engine, CLI, and Compose to improve functionality and security.
+
+### 2.4. Technical Specifics
+
+- **Container Runtime**: Docker uses the `containerd` runtime for managing containers.
+- **Networking**: Docker supports several networking modes, including bridge, host, and overlay.
+- **Storage**: Docker supports various storage drivers (e.g., `overlay2`, `aufs`) for managing container data.
+- **Resource Management**: Docker allows setting CPU and memory limits for containers.
+
+**Reference:**
+- [Docker Engine Overview](https://docs.docker.com/engine/)
+- [Docker Networking](https://docs.docker.com/network/)
+
+---
+
+## 3. Kubernetes Deployment
+
+### 3.1. Overview
+
+**Kubernetes** (K8s) is an open-source platform designed to automate the deployment, scaling, and management of containerized applications. It orchestrates containers across clusters of machines.
+
+### 3.2. Documentation
+
+- **Official Documentation**: [Kubernetes Documentation](https://kubernetes.io/docs/)
+- **Kubernetes GitHub**: [Kubernetes GitHub Repository](https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes)
+- **Helm Charts**: [Helm Documentation](https://helm.sh/docs/)
+
+### 3.3. Vendor Practices
+
+- **Security**: Kubernetes emphasizes security practices like RBAC, Network Policies, and Pod Security Policies. The community and vendors offer tools for continuous security monitoring.
+- **Ecosystem**: Kubernetes integrates with various tools and services (e.g., Helm for package management, Prometheus for monitoring).
+- **Updates**: Kubernetes releases updates approximately every three months, including bug fixes, new features, and security patches.
+
+### 3.4. Technical Specifics
+
+- **Cluster Management**: Kubernetes manages clusters using API servers, controllers, and schedulers.
+- **Networking**: Uses CNI (Container Network Interface) plugins for network management and supports network policies for controlling traffic.
+- **Storage**: Supports dynamic provisioning of storage using PersistentVolumes (PVs) and PersistentVolumeClaims (PVCs).
+- **Scaling**: Provides horizontal and vertical scaling capabilities for applications and resources.
+
+**Reference:**
+- [Kubernetes Cluster Architecture](https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/architecture/)
+- [Kubernetes Networking](https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/services-networking/networking/)
+
+---
+
+## 4. AWS (Amazon Web Services) Deployment
+
+### 4.1. Overview
+
+**AWS** is a comprehensive cloud services platform offering various services including computing power, storage, and databases. AWS provides managed services for container orchestration, serverless computing, and more.
+
+### 4.2. Documentation
+
+- **Official Documentation**: [AWS Documentation](https://docs.aws.amazon.com/)
+- **AWS CLI**: [AWS Command Line Interface](https://docs.aws.amazon.com/cli/latest/userguide/cli-configure-quickstart.html)
+- **AWS SDKs**: [AWS SDK Documentation](https://aws.amazon.com/tools/)
+
+### 4.3. Vendor Practices
+
+- **Security**: AWS provides tools and practices for securing infrastructure, such as IAM for access control, AWS Shield for DDoS protection, and AWS Key Management Service (KMS) for encryption.
+- **Compliance**: AWS complies with various industry standards and regulations (e.g., GDPR, HIPAA).
+- **Support**: AWS offers different support plans including Basic, Developer, Business, and Enterprise, along with extensive documentation and training resources.
+
+### 4.4. Technical Specifics
+
+- **Compute Services**: Includes EC2 (Elastic Compute Cloud), ECS (Elastic Container Service), EKS (Elastic Kubernetes Service), and Lambda for serverless computing.
+- **Storage Services**: Includes S3 (Simple Storage Service), EBS (Elastic Block Store), and EFS (Elastic File System).
+- **Networking**: AWS offers VPC (Virtual Private Cloud), ELB (Elastic Load Balancing), and Route 53 for DNS services.
+- **Database Services**: Includes RDS (Relational Database Service), DynamoDB (NoSQL), and Aurora for high-performance databases.
+
+**Reference:**
+- [AWS Compute Services Overview](https://aws.amazon.com/compute/)
+- [AWS Security Best Practices](https://aws.amazon.com/whitepapers/aws-security-best-practices/)
+
+---
+
+## 5. Bare Metal Deployments
+
+### 5.1. Overview
+
+**Bare Metal** deployments refer to using physical servers rather than virtualized environments. This approach provides full control over the hardware and is often used for high-performance or specialized workloads.
+
+### 5.2. Documentation
+
+- **General Documentation**: [Bare Metal Servers Overview](https://www.ibm.com/cloud/bare-metal-servers)
+- **Vendor Documentation**: Documentation varies by hardware and vendor (e.g., Dell, HPE, Lenovo).
+
+### 5.3. Vendor Practices
+
+- **Security**: Bare metal deployments require manual implementation of security practices, including patch management, physical security, and network protection.
+- **Customization**: Offers high customization for hardware configurations and software installations.
+- **Support**: Vendor support typically includes hardware maintenance and troubleshooting, with less focus on software stack management.
+
+### 5.4. Technical Specifics
+
+- **Hardware Specifications**: Involves managing server specs such as CPU, RAM, storage, and networking components.
+- **Operating Systems**: Supports a range of operating systems including various distributions of Linux, Windows Server, and others.
+- **Management Tools**: Utilizes tools for remote management such as IPMI (Intelligent Platform Management Interface) or vendor-specific tools for hardware monitoring and management.
+
+**Reference:**
+- [Bare Metal vs. Virtual Servers](https://www.digitalocean.com/blog/bare-metal-vs-virtual-servers/)
+- [IBM Bare Metal Servers](https://www.ibm.com/cloud/bare-metal-servers)
+
+---
+
+## 6. Conclusion
+
+Each deployment option—Docker, Kubernetes, AWS, and bare metal—offers distinct advantages and challenges. Docker and Kubernetes provide flexible containerization and orchestration solutions, AWS offers a broad range of cloud services with extensive documentation and support, while bare metal deployments provide full control over physical hardware but require manual management and security practices. This detailed overview aims to assist in evaluating and selecting the most suitable deployment strategy based on technical and operational requirements.
+
+---
+
+## 7. References
+
+- [Docker Documentation](https://docs.docker.com/)
+- [Kubernetes Documentation](https://kubernetes.io/docs/)
+- [AWS Documentation](https://docs.aws.amazon.com/)
+- [IBM Bare Metal Servers](https://www.ibm.com/cloud/bare-metal-servers)
+- [Bare Metal vs. Virtual Servers](https://www.digitalocean.com/blog/bare-metal-vs-virtual-servers/)
+- [AWS Security Best Practices](https://aws.amazon.com/whitepapers/aws-security-best-practices/)
+
+This report should be updated regularly to incorporate the latest technological advancements and industry trends.
diff --git a/docs/Vendor Lock-In Risks/financial_implications.md b/docs/Vendor Lock-In Risks/financial_implications.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c00aa55
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/Vendor Lock-In Risks/financial_implications.md	
@@ -0,0 +1,131 @@
+### Comprehensive Analysis: Financial Impact of Vendor Lock-In for Deployment Options
+
+---
+
+**Executive Summary:**
+
+Vendor lock-in can significantly impact a business’s financial health and operational flexibility. This report provides a detailed financial analysis of vendor lock-in for four deployment options: Docker, Kubernetes, AWS, and Bare Metal. It examines costs related to switching vendors, licensing issues, long-term financial commitments, and potential hidden costs associated with each option.
+
+---
+
+**1. Introduction**
+
+Vendor lock-in occurs when a customer becomes dependent on a particular vendor’s technology or service, making it difficult or costly to switch to another vendor. This report provides a comprehensive analysis of vendor lock-in for Docker, Kubernetes, AWS, and Bare Metal environments. It focuses on:
+
+- **Switching Costs**
+- **Licensing and Contractual Obligations**
+- **Long-Term Financial Commitments**
+- **Potential Hidden Costs**
+
+---
+
+**2. Docker**
+
+**2.1. Switching Costs:**
+
+- **Image and Container Migration:** Migrating Docker containers to a different container platform or orchestration system involves reconfiguring images and ensuring compatibility. Tools like Docker Compose can help but may require extensive adjustments.
+- **Integration Costs:** Docker-specific integrations and tools may need to be replaced or reconfigured when switching platforms, potentially incurring significant development and testing costs.
+
+**2.2. Licensing and Contractual Obligations:**
+
+- **Docker Community vs. Docker Enterprise:** Docker Community Edition (CE) is open-source and free, but Docker Enterprise Edition (EE) comes with licensing fees. Transitioning from Docker EE to another container management solution may involve licensing costs or penalties.
+- **Docker Enterprise Pricing:** As of 2024, Docker Enterprise pricing starts at around $150 per node per year for basic support and can rise depending on the level of support and additional features ([Docker Pricing](https://www.docker.com/pricing/)).
+
+**2.3. Long-Term Financial Commitments:**
+
+- **Support and Updates:** Docker EE includes enterprise-grade support and regular updates, which can be costly if transitioning to a new solution requires similar support services.
+- **Training and Adaptation:** Staff training on new container management solutions can be a significant long-term expense.
+
+**2.4. Potential Hidden Costs:**
+
+- **Operational Downtime:** Transitioning container platforms can result in downtime and reduced productivity.
+- **Compatibility Issues:** Ensuring compatibility with existing applications and workflows may require additional development effort.
+
+---
+
+**3. Kubernetes**
+
+**3.1. Switching Costs:**
+
+- **Configuration and Resource Migration:** Moving Kubernetes clusters between providers (e.g., from Google Kubernetes Engine (GKE) to Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS)) involves reconfiguring Kubernetes resources and services.
+- **Tooling and Integrations:** Kubernetes-specific tools and integrations may need to be replaced or reconfigured, potentially incurring additional costs.
+
+**3.2. Licensing and Contractual Obligations:**
+
+- **Open-Source Kubernetes:** Kubernetes itself is open-source and free, but managed Kubernetes services from cloud providers or third-party vendors involve costs.
+- **Managed Kubernetes Costs:** For managed services like GKE, AKS, or EKS, costs typically include compute and storage fees plus a management fee, which can be substantial depending on the scale ([GKE Pricing](https://cloud.google.com/kubernetes-engine/pricing), [AKS Pricing](https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/pricing/details/kubernetes-service/), [EKS Pricing](https://aws.amazon.com/eks/pricing/)).
+
+**3.3. Long-Term Financial Commitments:**
+
+- **Scaling Costs:** Kubernetes costs can scale with the number of nodes and workloads, leading to higher expenses as applications grow.
+- **Management Fees:** Managed Kubernetes services include ongoing management fees that can accumulate over time.
+
+**3.4. Potential Hidden Costs:**
+
+- **Complexity and Learning Curve:** Kubernetes can be complex and require significant expertise, potentially leading to higher training and operational costs.
+- **Operational Overheads:** Managing a Kubernetes environment can involve additional overheads in terms of monitoring, logging, and troubleshooting.
+
+---
+
+**4. AWS**
+
+**4.1. Switching Costs:**
+
+- **Data Transfer and Migration:** Switching away from AWS can incur significant data transfer fees and migration costs. For example, transferring large volumes of data out of AWS can be costly ([AWS Data Transfer Pricing](https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/pricing/on-demand/#Data_Transfer)).
+- **Service Integration:** AWS-specific integrations (e.g., with AWS Lambda, RDS, S3) may require reconfiguration or replacement.
+
+**4.2. Licensing and Contractual Obligations:**
+
+- **Reserved Instances and Savings Plans:** AWS offers Reserved Instances and Savings Plans with significant discounts for long-term commitments. Exiting these contracts early can result in substantial penalties.
+- **AWS Pricing:** Reserved Instances can cost thousands of dollars depending on the instance type and term length ([AWS Reserved Instances Pricing](https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/pricing/reserved/)).
+
+**4.3. Long-Term Financial Commitments:**
+
+- **Commitment Contracts:** Long-term commitments with AWS, including Reserved Instances or Savings Plans, can tie businesses to AWS for extended periods.
+- **Service Costs:** AWS charges for a range of services, and costs can escalate as usage grows.
+
+**4.4. Potential Hidden Costs:**
+
+- **Vendor-Specific Features:** AWS-specific features and integrations can be difficult to replicate with other vendors, leading to additional development costs.
+- **Operational Costs:** Managing and optimizing AWS environments can incur additional costs for monitoring, support, and compliance.
+
+---
+
+**5. Bare Metal**
+
+**5.1. Switching Costs:**
+
+- **Hardware Depreciation:** Transitioning from one hardware provider to another involves depreciating existing assets and potential costs for disposing of old equipment.
+- **Configuration and Setup:** Setting up new bare metal servers and configuring them can be time-consuming and costly.
+
+**5.2. Licensing and Contractual Obligations:**
+
+- **Hardware Licensing:** Bare metal servers often involve licensing costs for operating systems and applications. Transitioning to new hardware may involve new licensing agreements or fees.
+- **Vendor Contracts:** Long-term contracts with hardware vendors may include early termination penalties.
+
+**5.3. Long-Term Financial Commitments:**
+
+- **Maintenance and Upgrades:** Maintaining and upgrading bare metal servers can be costly, including hardware maintenance, energy costs, and facility management.
+- **Capacity Planning:** Scaling with bare metal servers requires purchasing new hardware, which involves significant upfront costs.
+
+**5.4. Potential Hidden Costs:**
+
+- **Operational Complexity:** Managing physical hardware involves additional complexity and costs related to data center operations, cooling, and power.
+- **Flexibility Issues:** Bare metal solutions are less flexible compared to cloud-based solutions, potentially leading to inefficiencies and higher costs.
+
+---
+
+**6. Conclusion**
+
+Vendor lock-in can have profound financial implications across different deployment options. Each option—Docker, Kubernetes, AWS, and Bare Metal—presents unique costs related to switching vendors, licensing, and long-term commitments. Businesses must weigh these costs against their operational needs and strategic goals. Planning for potential transitions and understanding the financial impact of vendor lock-in is crucial for maintaining flexibility and managing costs effectively.
+
+**References:**
+
+- Docker Pricing. (2024). Retrieved from [Docker Pricing](https://www.docker.com/pricing/)
+- Google Kubernetes Engine (GKE) Pricing. (2024). Retrieved from [GKE Pricing](https://cloud.google.com/kubernetes-engine/pricing)
+- Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) Pricing. (2024). Retrieved from [AKS Pricing](https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/pricing/details/kubernetes-service/)
+- Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service (EKS) Pricing. (2024). Retrieved from [EKS Pricing](https://aws.amazon.com/eks/pricing/)
+- AWS Data Transfer Pricing. (2024). Retrieved from [AWS Pricing](https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/pricing/on-demand/#Data_Transfer)
+- AWS Reserved Instances Pricing. (2024). Retrieved from [AWS Reserved Instances Pricing](https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/pricing/reserved/)
+
+This report should be updated regularly to incorporate the latest technological advancements and industry trends.
diff --git a/docs/Vendor Lock-In Risks/risk-vendor-lock-in.md b/docs/Vendor Lock-In Risks/risk-vendor-lock-in.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b377a4d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/Vendor Lock-In Risks/risk-vendor-lock-in.md	
@@ -0,0 +1,173 @@
+### Risks Associated with Vendor Lock-In for Various Deployment Options
+
+**Description:** This comprehensive document outlines the risks associated with vendor lock-in for different deployment options, including Docker, Kubernetes, AWS, and bare metal deployments. It covers factors such as proprietary technologies, data migration challenges, and integration complexities, providing a detailed analysis for each option.
+
+---
+
+## Table of Contents
+
+1. **Introduction**
+2. **Docker**
+    - 2.1. Proprietary Technologies
+    - 2.2. Data Migration Challenges
+    - 2.3. Integration Complexities
+3. **Kubernetes**
+    - 3.1. Proprietary Technologies
+    - 3.2. Data Migration Challenges
+    - 3.3. Integration Complexities
+4. **AWS (Amazon Web Services)**
+    - 4.1. Proprietary Technologies
+    - 4.2. Data Migration Challenges
+    - 4.3. Integration Complexities
+5. **Bare Metal Deployments**
+    - 5.1. Proprietary Technologies
+    - 5.2. Data Migration Challenges
+    - 5.3. Integration Complexities
+6. **Conclusion**
+7. **References**
+
+---
+
+## 1. Introduction
+
+Vendor lock-in refers to the risks and challenges associated with being dependent on a single vendor for technology solutions, which can limit flexibility and increase costs if migration or multi-vendor integration is required. Understanding these risks is crucial for making informed decisions about deployment strategies and avoiding potential pitfalls.
+
+---
+
+## 2. Docker
+
+### 2.1. Proprietary Technologies
+
+**Docker Swarm vs. Kubernetes:**
+- **Docker Swarm**: While Docker Swarm is integrated with Docker's ecosystem, it is less commonly used compared to Kubernetes, which may limit future flexibility if you need to switch orchestrators.
+- **Proprietary Features**: Docker’s proprietary features and integrations may not be fully supported or replicable in other container runtimes or orchestration platforms.
+
+**Reference:**
+- [Docker Swarm vs. Kubernetes](https://www.redhat.com/en/topics/containers/docker-swarm-vs-kubernetes)
+
+### 2.2. Data Migration Challenges
+
+**Image Formats and Registries:**
+- **Docker Images**: Migrating Docker images to a different container platform might involve conversion or adaptation to the new platform's image format and registry.
+
+**Reference:**
+- [Container Image Migration](https://www.docker.com/blog/container-image-migration/)
+
+### 2.3. Integration Complexities
+
+**Ecosystem Integration:**
+- **Tooling and APIs**: Docker’s integration with its own ecosystem tools and APIs (e.g., Docker Compose) might not be compatible with other ecosystems or require significant adaptation.
+
+**Reference:**
+- [Docker Ecosystem and Integrations](https://www.docker.com/blog/docker-swarm-vs-kubernetes/)
+
+---
+
+## 3. Kubernetes
+
+### 3.1. Proprietary Technologies
+
+**Managed Kubernetes Services:**
+- **Cloud Providers**: Managed Kubernetes services (e.g., GKE, EKS, AKS) may offer proprietary features and integrations specific to each cloud provider, which can create lock-in.
+- **Custom Resources and Extensions**: Use of custom resources or extensions in Kubernetes that are specific to a provider's managed service can complicate migration.
+
+**Reference:**
+- [Kubernetes Cloud Provider Differences](https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/cluster-administration/cloud-providers/)
+
+### 3.2. Data Migration Challenges
+
+**Persistent Storage:**
+- **Volume Migration**: Migrating persistent volumes and storage configurations across different Kubernetes providers or setups can be complex and may require data conversion or reconfiguration.
+
+**Recent Reference:**
+- [Kubernetes Persistent Storage Migration](https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/migrating-persistent-volumes-kubernetes)
+
+### 3.3. Integration Complexities
+
+**Platform-Specific Features:**
+- **Extensions and Add-ons**: Kubernetes clusters often use platform-specific extensions or add-ons for features such as logging, monitoring, and security, which can complicate migration to a different platform.
+
+**Reference:**
+- [Kubernetes Integration and Customization](https://www.openshift.com/blog/kubernetes-custom-resource-definitions)
+
+---
+
+## 4. AWS (Amazon Web Services)
+
+### 4.1. Proprietary Technologies
+
+**AWS-Specific Services:**
+- **Services**: AWS provides a wide range of proprietary services (e.g., Lambda, RDS, S3) that may not have direct equivalents in other cloud providers.
+- **APIs and SDKs**: Using AWS-specific APIs and SDKs can lead to difficulties in migrating to other cloud providers due to differences in API designs and capabilities.
+
+**Reference:**
+- [AWS Proprietary Services Overview](https://aws.amazon.com/products/)
+
+### 4.2. Data Migration Challenges
+
+**Service Migration:**
+- **Data Transfer**: Migrating large datasets and applications from AWS to another cloud provider can be time-consuming and costly, often requiring careful planning and data transfer strategies.
+
+**Reference:**
+- [AWS Data Migration Strategies](https://aws.amazon.com/dms/)
+
+### 4.3. Integration Complexities
+
+**Ecosystem Lock-In:**
+- **Service Integration**: Heavy integration with AWS services can lead to difficulties in integrating with non-AWS services or platforms, increasing the complexity of multi-cloud or hybrid-cloud setups.
+
+**Reference:**
+- [Multi-Cloud Integration Challenges](https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2021/03/24/multi-cloud-strategy-how-to-mitigate-complexity-and-risk/)
+
+---
+
+## 5. Bare Metal Deployments
+
+### 5.1. Proprietary Technologies
+
+**Hardware Dependencies:**
+- **Vendor-Specific Hardware**: Using hardware from specific vendors may create dependencies that complicate hardware upgrades or migrations to new vendors.
+- **Firmware and Drivers**: Proprietary firmware and drivers tied to specific hardware can lead to challenges when attempting to switch hardware providers.
+
+**Reference:**
+- [Challenges in Bare Metal Deployments](https://www.techrepublic.com/article/the-challenges-of-bare-metal-deployment/)
+
+### 5.2. Data Migration Challenges
+
+**Physical Migration:**
+- **Data Movement**: Migrating data from physical servers often involves significant logistical and technical challenges compared to cloud-based data migration.
+
+**Reference:**
+- [Data Migration Strategies for Bare Metal](https://www.datamation.com/storage/data-migration-strategies/)
+
+### 5.3. Integration Complexities
+
+**Customization and Compatibility:**
+- **Custom Solutions**: Custom configurations and solutions on bare metal hardware can be difficult to replicate or migrate to cloud environments or different hardware setups.
+
+**Reference:**
+- [Integration Complexities in Bare Metal Deployments](https://www.zdnet.com/article/bare-metal-vs-cloud-servers-the-pros-and-cons/)
+
+---
+
+## 6. Conclusion
+
+Understanding the risks associated with vendor lock-in for each deployment option—Docker, Kubernetes, AWS, and bare metal—is crucial for making informed decisions about technology adoption and migration strategies. Each option has its own set of challenges related to proprietary technologies, data migration, and integration complexities. By being aware of these risks, organizations can better plan for flexibility and avoid potential issues related to vendor dependence.
+
+---
+
+## 7. References
+
+- [Docker Swarm vs. Kubernetes](https://www.redhat.com/en/topics/containers/docker-swarm-vs-kubernetes)
+- [Container Image Migration](https://www.docker.com/blog/container-image-migration/)
+- [OWASP - Open Web Application Security Project](https://owasp.org/)
+- [Kubernetes Cloud Provider Differences](https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/cluster-administration/cloud-providers/)
+- [Kubernetes Persistent Storage Migration](https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/migrating-persistent-volumes-kubernetes)
+- [AWS Proprietary Services Overview](https://aws.amazon.com/products/)
+- [AWS Data Migration Strategies](https://aws.amazon.com/dms/)
+- [Multi-Cloud Integration Challenges](https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2021/03/24/multi-cloud-strategy-how-to-mitigate-complexity-and-risk/)
+- [Challenges in Bare Metal Deployments](https://www.techrepublic.com/article/the-challenges-of-bare-metal-deployment/)
+- [Data Migration Strategies for Bare Metal](https://www.datamation.com/storage/data-migration-strategies/)
+- [Integration Complexities in Bare Metal Deployments](https://www.zdnet.com/article/bare-metal-vs-cloud-servers-the-pros-and-cons/)
+
+This report should be updated regularly to incorporate the latest technological advancements and industry trends.
diff --git a/docs/Vendor Lock-In Risks/strategies_to_avoid_vendor_lock-In.md b/docs/Vendor Lock-In Risks/strategies_to_avoid_vendor_lock-In.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c5f78cc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/Vendor Lock-In Risks/strategies_to_avoid_vendor_lock-In.md	
@@ -0,0 +1,75 @@
+## Strategies to Mitigate Vendor Lock-In
+
+Vendor lock-in can restrict flexibility, increase costs, and complicate transitions between technologies or providers. To address these challenges, organizations should adopt strategies that focus on using open standards, ensuring data portability, and creating a multi-vendor strategy. Below are detailed strategies tailored to Docker, Kubernetes, AWS, and bare metal deployments, as well as general best practices to mitigate vendor lock-in risks.
+
+### 1. Adopt Open Standards
+
+**Containerization and Orchestration:**
+- **OCI Standards**: Use container images and runtimes that comply with the Open Container Initiative (OCI) standards. This ensures compatibility across different container platforms and avoids vendor-specific dependencies.
+    - **Reference**: [OCI Image Format Specification](https://opencontainers.org/)
+
+- **Kubernetes APIs**: Leverage standard Kubernetes APIs and resources, rather than relying on custom extensions or vendor-specific features. This ensures that applications and configurations are portable across different Kubernetes distributions.
+    - **Reference**: [Kubernetes API Reference](https://kubernetes.io/docs/reference/kubernetes-api/)
+
+**Cloud and Data Formats:**
+- **Data Interchange Formats**: Use widely supported data formats (e.g., JSON, XML, CSV) for data storage and interchange to facilitate easy migration between systems.
+    - **Reference**: [Data Format Standards](https://www.w3.org/standards/xml/)
+
+- **APIs and Integration**: Prefer standardized APIs and protocols (e.g., REST, GraphQL) that are supported by multiple vendors. This reduces the dependency on proprietary APIs and simplifies integration with other systems.
+    - **Reference**: [REST API Design Guidelines](https://restfulapi.net/)
+
+### 2. Ensure Data Portability
+
+**Data Management:**
+- **Data Backups**: Implement robust backup strategies that support exporting data in portable formats. Regularly test backup and restore processes to ensure data integrity during migrations.
+    - **Reference**: [Best Practices for Data Backup](https://www.cio.com/article/282073/backup-and-recovery-best-practices.html)
+
+- **Data Migration Tools**: Use tools and services that facilitate data migration between different environments, such as AWS Data Migration Service or open-source tools like `rsync` or `Rclone`.
+    - **Reference**: [AWS Data Migration Service](https://aws.amazon.com/dms/)
+
+**Service Portability:**
+- **Database Portability**: Choose databases that support standard data formats and export/import functionalities. For instance, use databases that can export data to common formats like SQL dumps or CSV files.
+    - **Reference**: [Database Portability Best Practices](https://www.dataversity.net/database-portability/)
+
+- **Configuration Management**: Store configuration in a way that can be easily transferred between environments. Use configuration management tools like Ansible or Terraform, which are designed to be platform-agnostic.
+    - **Reference**: [Ansible Documentation](https://docs.ansible.com/ansible/latest/index.html)
+
+### 3. Create a Multi-Vendor Strategy
+
+**Cloud Strategy:**
+- **Hybrid Cloud Approach**: Implement a hybrid cloud strategy that combines private and public clouds. This approach reduces reliance on a single cloud provider and provides more flexibility.
+    - **Reference**: [Hybrid Cloud Strategy](https://www.ibm.com/cloud/learn/hybrid-cloud)
+
+- **Multi-Cloud Strategy**: Design your architecture to work across multiple cloud providers. This involves using cloud-agnostic services and tools that can operate seamlessly across different cloud environments.
+    - **Reference**: [Multi-Cloud Strategy Best Practices](https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2021/03/24/multi-cloud-strategy-how-to-mitigate-complexity-and-risk/)
+
+**Vendor Management:**
+- **Contract Negotiation**: Negotiate contracts with vendors to include terms for data portability, migration assistance, and exit strategies. Ensure that SLAs cover support for transitions and data access.
+    - **Reference**: [Vendor Contract Best Practices](https://www.cio.com/article/320260/how-to-negotiate-it-vendor-contracts.html)
+
+- **Service Compatibility**: Select services and tools that offer compatibility with other vendors’ products. Avoid locking into proprietary features or integrations that are not available elsewhere.
+    - **Reference**: [Choosing Compatible Services](https://www.zdnet.com/article/choosing-the-right-services-for-your-business/)
+
+### 4. Regular Assessments and Planning
+
+**Continuous Evaluation:**
+- **Technology Review**: Regularly review technology choices and assess the risk of lock-in. Stay informed about alternative technologies and vendors that offer similar functionalities.
+    - **Reference**: [Technology Assessment Framework](https://www.techrepublic.com/article/technology-assessment-how-to-evaluate-your-it-options/)
+
+- **Migration Planning**: Develop and maintain a migration plan that outlines steps for transitioning between vendors. This plan should include strategies for data transfer, application reconfiguration, and testing.
+    - **Reference**: [Effective Migration Planning](https://www.datamation.com/it-management/migration-strategies/)
+
+**Vendor-Agnostic Tools:**
+- **Open-Source Tools**: Utilize open-source tools and frameworks that are designed to be vendor-agnostic. These tools often have broad community support and reduce the risk of lock-in.
+    - **Reference**: [Benefits of Open-Source Tools](https://www.techradar.com/news/the-advantages-of-open-source-software)
+
+**Documentation and Training:**
+- **Documentation**: Maintain comprehensive documentation of system configurations, dependencies, and architecture. This documentation facilitates easier migration and reduces the risk of vendor lock-in.
+    - **Reference**: [Best Practices for IT Documentation](https://www.itproportal.com/features/the-importance-of-technical-documentation/)
+
+- **Training**: Ensure that your team is trained on multiple platforms and technologies. Cross-training helps reduce dependency on specific vendors and prepares the team for transitions.
+    - **Reference**: [IT Training and Development](https://www.trainingindustry.com/articles/learning-technologies/why-you-need-a-training-strategy/)
+
+---
+
+By adopting these strategies, organizations can reduce the risks associated with vendor lock-in, improve flexibility, and ensure smoother transitions between technologies and providers.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/docs/Vendor Lock-In Risks/technical_implications.md b/docs/Vendor Lock-In Risks/technical_implications.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c547dc3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/Vendor Lock-In Risks/technical_implications.md	
@@ -0,0 +1,143 @@
+### Technical Implications of Vendor Lock-In: A Comprehensive Evaluation
+
+**Description:** This detailed report evaluates the technical implications of vendor lock-in across various deployment options including Docker, Kubernetes, AWS, and bare metal deployments. It examines dependencies on proprietary APIs, tools, and frameworks, and assesses how these dependencies might affect future scalability and flexibility.
+
+---
+
+## Table of Contents
+
+1. **Introduction**
+2. **Docker**
+    - 2.1. Dependency on Proprietary APIs
+    - 2.2. Tools and Frameworks
+    - 2.3. Scalability and Flexibility Implications
+3. **Kubernetes**
+    - 3.1. Dependency on Proprietary APIs
+    - 3.2. Tools and Frameworks
+    - 3.3. Scalability and Flexibility Implications
+4. **AWS (Amazon Web Services)**
+    - 4.1. Dependency on Proprietary APIs
+    - 4.2. Tools and Frameworks
+    - 4.3. Scalability and Flexibility Implications
+5. **Bare Metal Deployments**
+    - 5.1. Dependency on Proprietary APIs
+    - 5.2. Tools and Frameworks
+    - 5.3. Scalability and Flexibility Implications
+6. **Conclusion**
+7. **References**
+
+---
+
+## 1. Introduction
+
+Vendor lock-in occurs when an organization becomes dependent on a particular vendor's technologies, making it difficult or costly to switch to another vendor. This report investigates the technical implications of vendor lock-in, focusing on how dependencies on proprietary APIs, tools, and frameworks impact future scalability and flexibility.
+
+---
+
+## 2. Docker
+
+### 2.1. Dependency on Proprietary APIs
+
+- **Docker APIs**: Docker provides its own APIs for container management and orchestration. While these APIs are widely adopted, reliance on Docker-specific APIs can limit flexibility if migrating to another container platform or orchestration tool.
+    - **Example**: Docker's remote API for managing containers is specific to Docker and may not be compatible with other container solutions ([Docker API Documentation](https://docs.docker.com/engine/api/)).
+
+### 2.2. Tools and Frameworks
+
+- **Docker Compose**: Docker Compose is used for defining and running multi-container Docker applications. Its YAML configuration files are specific to Docker and can complicate migration to other orchestration tools.
+    - **Example**: Migrating from Docker Compose to Kubernetes might require translating `docker-compose.yml` files into Kubernetes manifests ([Docker Compose Documentation](https://docs.docker.com/compose/)).
+- **Docker Hub**: Docker Hub is a repository service for Docker images. Dependency on Docker Hub may limit flexibility if transitioning to alternative image registries or private repositories.
+
+### 2.3. Scalability and Flexibility Implications
+
+- **Scaling Issues**: While Docker supports scaling applications using Docker Swarm or Kubernetes, scaling out of Docker's ecosystem can require reconfiguration and adaptation of deployment strategies.
+- **Future Adaptations**: Migrating from Docker to other container technologies (e.g., Podman) or orchestration platforms (e.g., OpenShift) may necessitate significant adjustments to existing container configurations and workflows.
+
+**Reference:**
+- [Container Orchestration and Docker](https://www.redhat.com/en/topics/containers/what-is-container-orchestration)
+
+---
+
+## 3. Kubernetes
+
+### 3.1. Dependency on Proprietary APIs
+
+- **Cloud Provider Integrations**: Managed Kubernetes services (e.g., GKE, EKS) often come with proprietary extensions and APIs that are specific to the cloud provider.
+    - **Example**: GKE offers features like Cloud SQL integration that are unique to Google Cloud and not available in other Kubernetes environments ([Google Kubernetes Engine](https://cloud.google.com/kubernetes-engine)).
+
+### 3.2. Tools and Frameworks
+
+- **Helm**: Helm is a package manager for Kubernetes that simplifies the deployment of applications. While Helm itself is open-source, the Helm charts might include configurations and integrations that are tailored to specific Kubernetes environments.
+    - **Example**: Helm charts for specific cloud environments may include settings that are not easily portable to other environments ([Helm Documentation](https://helm.sh/docs/)).
+
+### 3.3. Scalability and Flexibility Implications
+
+- **Scalability**: Kubernetes provides robust scaling features, but relying on specific managed services or cloud integrations can limit portability and complicate multi-cloud strategies.
+- **Flexibility**: The use of custom resource definitions (CRDs) and extensions specific to a cloud provider or Kubernetes distribution can create barriers to moving to a different environment.
+
+**Reference:**
+- [Kubernetes Scalability](https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/cluster-administration/scaling/)
+
+---
+
+## 4. AWS (Amazon Web Services)
+
+### 4.1. Dependency on Proprietary APIs
+
+- **AWS APIs**: AWS services are accessed through proprietary APIs and SDKs. Heavy reliance on AWS APIs can limit the ability to migrate applications to other cloud providers or on-premises solutions.
+    - **Example**: AWS Lambda's specific API for serverless functions differs from similar services on other cloud platforms ([AWS Lambda API Documentation](https://docs.aws.amazon.com/lambda/latest/dg/API_Reference.html)).
+
+### 4.2. Tools and Frameworks
+
+- **AWS CloudFormation**: AWS CloudFormation is used to define and provision AWS infrastructure as code. It is specific to AWS and can complicate migrations to other cloud providers or environments.
+    - **Example**: Moving from CloudFormation to Terraform requires rewriting infrastructure definitions ([AWS CloudFormation Documentation](https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSCloudFormation/latest/UserGuide/)).
+
+### 4.3. Scalability and Flexibility Implications
+
+- **Scalability**: AWS services offer extensive scalability options but becoming heavily integrated with AWS-specific tools can create challenges when scaling out to other environments.
+- **Flexibility**: Dependency on AWS features and services (e.g., AWS-specific database engines or managed services) can create difficulties in moving to other cloud providers or hybrid environments.
+
+**Reference:**
+- [AWS Cloud Services Overview](https://aws.amazon.com/products/)
+
+---
+
+## 5. Bare Metal Deployments
+
+### 5.1. Dependency on Proprietary APIs
+
+- **Hardware Vendors**: Bare metal deployments often involve specific hardware vendors and their APIs for management and monitoring. Dependence on these APIs can limit hardware flexibility.
+    - **Example**: Management interfaces like Dell iDRAC or HPE iLO are proprietary and can create challenges if migrating to hardware from different vendors ([Dell iDRAC Documentation](https://www.dell.com/support/manuals/en-us/poweredge-r740xd/idrac9-3.30.30.30/idrac9-firmware-version-3.30.30.30)).
+
+### 5.2. Tools and Frameworks
+
+- **Management Tools**: Tools like OpenManage or HP OneView are often used to manage bare metal servers. These tools are specific to their respective hardware vendors and can create dependencies that affect future flexibility.
+    - **Example**: Moving from Dell to HPE hardware may require a shift in management tools and practices ([HPE OneView Documentation](https://www.hpe.com/us/en/servers/oneview.html)).
+
+### 5.3. Scalability and Flexibility Implications
+
+- **Scalability**: Scaling with bare metal involves physically adding more servers and managing them manually or with specific tools. This can be more challenging compared to cloud-based solutions that offer automated scaling.
+- **Flexibility**: The need to manage hardware directly and the potential for vendor-specific management tools can limit the ability to quickly adapt to new hardware or deploy in different environments.
+
+**Reference:**
+- [Bare Metal vs. Cloud Scaling](https://www.techrepublic.com/article/bare-metal-vs-cloud-how-to-make-the-right-choice/)
+
+---
+
+## 6. Conclusion
+
+Vendor lock-in can have significant technical implications for scalability and flexibility. Each deployment option—Docker, Kubernetes, AWS, and bare metal—presents its own set of dependencies on proprietary APIs, tools, and frameworks. Understanding these dependencies is crucial for planning future migrations and ensuring that applications remain scalable and adaptable in a rapidly evolving technology landscape.
+
+---
+
+## 7. References
+
+- [Docker API Documentation](https://docs.docker.com/engine/api/)
+- [Google Kubernetes Engine](https://cloud.google.com/kubernetes-engine)
+- [Helm Documentation](https://helm.sh/docs/)
+- [AWS Lambda API Documentation](https://docs.aws.amazon.com/lambda/latest/dg/API_Reference.html)
+- [AWS CloudFormation Documentation](https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSCloudFormation/latest/UserGuide/)
+- [Dell iDRAC Documentation](https://www.dell.com/support/manuals/en-us/poweredge-r740xd/idrac9-3.30.30.30/idrac9-firmware-version-3.30.30.30)
+- [HPE OneView Documentation](https://www.hpe.com/us/en/servers/oneview.html)
+- [Bare Metal vs. Cloud Scaling](https://www.techrepublic.com/article/bare-metal-vs-cloud-how-to-make-the-right-choice/)
+
+This report should be updated regularly to incorporate the latest technological advancements and industry trends.