Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Hybrid Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Model for a Cloud Service Selection Problem Using BSC, Fuzzy Delphi Method and Fuzzy AHP

  • Published:
Wireless Personal Communications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In rapid changing the global business environment, information communication technology (ICT) is essential for the survival of a firm, and the functions of ICT is becoming increasingly important. The emergence of cloud computing represents a fundamental change of ICT services and cloud services continue to grow rapidly with increasing functionality and more users. As a result of this growth, it is a critical issue to select a suitable cloud service which meets all the business strategies and the objectives of firms. This paper proposes a hybrid multi-criteria decision-making model for a cloud service selection problem using balanced scorecard (BSC), fuzzy Delphi method (FDM) and fuzzy analytical hierarchy process (FAHP). We focus on selecting an IaaS among cloud services for firms’ users. The BSC concept is applied to define the hierarchy with four major perspectives (i.e. financial, customer, internal business process, and learning and growth), and to derive decision-making criteria and decision-making factors are selected for each BSC perspective. FDM is used to select the list of important decision-making factors within each BSC perspective based on the decision makers’ opinion. A FAHP approach is then proposed in order to compares the decision-making criteria and factors and determine the importance of them. It is also used to select the best cloud service among the cloud service alternatives based on the predetermined weights of decision-making criteria and factors. In this study, the BSC and FAHP as the hybrid multi-criteria decision-making technique are used to select the best cloud service. Our findings can be utilized as bases to apply systematic decision-making processes for the best cloud service selection and for providing guidance to IT department managers or CTO regarding performance evaluation and strategies to improve companies’ performance and capability.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

References

  1. Shin, S. Y. (2010). Master plan for vitalization of cloud computing. Local Information Magazine, 61, 46–51.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Choi, E. Y., Han, B. J., Shin, D. H., Jung, H. C., & KISA Security R&D Team. A study for enhancing mobile cloud computing security. In Proceedings of 2011 korean society for internet information summer conference (Vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 221–222).

  3. Korea Communications Commission Press. (2010). KCC open the cloud service test bed. Korea: KCC.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Yoon, Y. B., Oh, J., & Lee, B. G. (2013). The establishment of security strategies for introducing cloud computing. KSII Transactions on Internet and Information Systems, 7(4), 860–877.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Lee, S., & Seo, K.-K. (2013). A decision-making model for IaaS provider selection. In Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on convergence technology (pp. 1217–1218).

  6. Godse, M., & Mulik, S. (2009). An approach for selecting software-as-a-service (SaaS) product. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on cloud computing (pp. 155–158).

  7. Menzel, M., Schönherr, M., & Tai, S. (2013). (MC2)2: Criteria, requirements and a software prototype for cloud infrastructure decisions. Software: Practice and Experience, 43(11), 1283–1297.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Zheng, Z., Wu, X., Zhang, Y., Lyu, M. R., & Wang, J. (2013). QoS ranking prediction for cloud services. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 24(6), 1213–1222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Limam, N., & Boutaba, R. (2010). assessing software service quality and trustworthiness at selection time. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 36(4), 559–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Saripalli, P., & Pingali, G. (2011). MADMAC: Multiple attribute decision methodology for adoption of clouds. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on cloud computing (pp. 316–323).

  11. Martens, B., Teuteberg, F., & Gräuler, M. (2011). Design and implementation of a community platform for the evaluation and selection of cloud computing services: A market analysis. In Proceedings of 19th European conference on information systems, ECIS 2011.

  12. Sundareswaran, S., Squicciarini, A., & Lin, D. (2012). A brokerage-based approach for cloud service selection. In Proceedings of the IEEE 5th international conference on cloud computing (pp. 558–565).

  13. Jung, G., Mukherjee, T., Kunde, S., Kim, H., Sharma, N., & Goetz, F. (2013). CloudAdvisor: A recommendation-as-a-service platform for cloud configuration and pricing. In Proceedings of 2013 IEEE ninth world congress on services (pp. 456–463).

  14. Yang, J., Lin, W., & Dou, W. (2013). An adaptive service selection method for cross-cloud service composition. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience, 25(18), 2435–2454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Dastjerdi, A. V., Tabatabaei, S. G. H., & Buyya, R. (2010) An effective architecture for automated appliance management system applying ontology-based cloud discovery. In Proceedings of the 10th IEEE/ACM international conference on cluster, cloud and grid computing (pp. 104–112).

  16. Quinton, C., Romero, D., & Duchien, L. (2014). Automated selection and configuration of cloud environments using software product lines principles. In Proceedings of the 7th IEEE international conference on cloud computing (pp. 144–151).

  17. Wikipedia. [online]. Accessed from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_computing.

  18. NIST. (2011). The NIST definition of cloud computing. United States: National Institute of Standards and Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  19. AWS. [online]. Accessed July 17, 2013 from http://aws.amazon.com/what-is-cloud-computing/.

  20. Tmcnet. [online]. Accessed August 24, 2011 from http://technews.tmcnet.com/channels/cloud-storage/articles/211183-rising-cloud-storage-market-opportunity-strengthens-vendors.htm.

  21. Thectoforum. [online]. Accessed December 02, 2011 from http://www.thectoforum.com/content/converged-infrastructure-0.

  22. Voorsluys, W., Broberg, J., & Buyya, R. (2011). Introduction to cloud computing. In Cloud computing: Principles and paradigms (pp. 1–44). New York: Wiley.

  23. Wikimedia. [online]. Accessed from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ACloud_computing.svg.

  24. Cloudave. [online]. Accessed February 12, 2009 from http://www.cloudave.com/2425/recession-is-good-for-cloud-computing-microsoft-agrees/.

  25. IDC. (2010). Defining cloud services and cloud computing. Framingham: IDC.

    Google Scholar 

  26. CNET. [online]. Accessed September 9, 2008 from http://www.cnet.com/news/the-new-geek-chic-data-centers/.

  27. Hof, R. D. (2006). Jeff Bezos’ risky bet. Business Week.

  28. He, S., Guo, L., Guo, Y. & Ghanem, M. (2012). Improving resource utilization in the cloud environment using multivariate probabilistic models. In Proceedings of 2012 IEEE 5th international conference on cloud computing (pp. 574–581).

  29. King, R. (2010). Cloud computing: Small companies take flight. Business week.

  30. Mao, M., & Humphrey, M. (2012). A performance study on the vm startup time in the cloud. In Proceedings of 2012 IEEE 5th international conference on cloud computing (p. 423).

  31. He, S., Guo, L., & Guo, Y. (2011). Real time elastic cloud management for limited resources. In Proceedings of 2011 IEEE 4th international conference on cloud computing (pp. 622–629).

  32. Shawky, D.M., & Ali, A.F. (2012). Defining a measure of cloud computing elasticity. In Proceedings of 1st International conference on systems and computer science (ICSCS) (pp. 1–5).

  33. Cloud Slam. [online]. Accessed May 13, 2011 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfDsY3f4nVI.

  34. He, S., Guo, L., Guo, Y., Wu, C., Ghanem, M., & Han, R. (2012). Elastic application container: A lightweight approach for cloud resource provisioning. In Proceedings of 2012 IEEE 26th international conference on advanced information networking and applications (pp. 15–22).

  35. He, Q., Han, J., Yang, Y., Jin, H., Schneider, J.-G., & Versteeg, S. (2014). Formulating cost-effective monitoring strategies for service-based systems. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 40(5), 461–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Katsaros, G., Kousiouris, G., Gogouvitis, S. V., Kyriazis, D., Menychtas, A., & Varvarigou, T. (2012). A Self-adaptive hierarchical monitoring mechanism for Clouds. Journal of Systems and Software, 85(5), 1029–1041.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The balanced scorecard: measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review, 70(1), 71–79.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system. Harvard Business Review, 74(1), 75–85.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). The balanced scorecard: translating strategy into action. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Martinsons, M., Davison, R., & Tse, D. (1999). The balanced scorecard: A foundation for the strategic management of information systems. Decision Support Systems, 25(1), 71–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Murray, T. J., Pipino, L. L., & van Gigch, J. P. (1985). A pilot study of fuzzy set modification of Delphi. Human Systems Management, 5(1), 76–80.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Ishikawa, A., Amagasa, T., Tamizawa, G., Totsuta, R., & Mieno, H. (1993). The max–min Delphi method and fuzzy Delphi method via fuzzy integration. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 55(3), 241–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Kuo, Y. F., & Chen, P. C. (2008). Constructing performance appraisal indicators for mobility of the service industries using Fuzzy Delphi Method. Expert Systems with Applications, 35(4), 1930–1939.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Cheng, C. H., Yang, K. L., & Hwang, C. L. (1999). Evaluating attack helicopters by AHP based on linguistic variable weight. European Journal of Operational Research, 116(2), 423–435.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  45. Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information Control, 8, 338–353.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  46. Lee, A. H. I., Chen, W.-C., & Chang, C.-J. (2006). A fuzzy AHP and BSC approach for evaluating performance of IT department in the manufacturing industry in Taiwan. Expert Systems with Applications, 34(1), 96–107.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  47. Wang, L., Chu, J., & Wu, J. (2007). Selection of optimum maintenance strategies based on a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Production Economics, 107(1), 151–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Lee, A. H. I., & Lin, C.-Y. (2011). An integrated fuzzy QFD framework for new product development. Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal, 23(1), 26–47.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  49. Chang, D. (1992). Extent analysis and synthetic decision, optimization techniques and applications (Vol. 1, p. 352). Singapore: World Scientific.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Wang, Y. M., Luo, Y., & Hua, Z. (2008). On the extent analysis method for fuzzy AHP and its applications. European Journal of Operational Research, 186(1), 735–747.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  51. Javanbarg, M. B., Scawthorn, C., Kiyono, J., & Shahbodaghkhan, B. (2012). Fuzzy AHP-based multicriteria decision making systems using particle swarm optimization. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(1), 960–966.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Saaty, A. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  53. Leung, L. C., & Cao, D. (2000). On consistency and ranking of alternatives in fuzzy AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 124(1), 102–113.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Interaction Science, Sungkyunkwan University, 25-2, Sungkyunkwan-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 110-745, South Korea

    Sangwon Lee

  2. Department of Management Engineering, Sangmyung University, 31 Sangmyungdae-gil, Dongnam-gu, Cheonan-si, Choongnam, 330-720, South Korea

    Kwang-Kyu Seo

Authors
  1. Sangwon Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kwang-Kyu Seo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kwang-Kyu Seo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lee, S., Seo, KK. A Hybrid Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Model for a Cloud Service Selection Problem Using BSC, Fuzzy Delphi Method and Fuzzy AHP. Wireless Pers Commun 86, 57–75 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11277-015-2976-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11277-015-2976-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation