Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A framework for SaaS software packages evaluation and selection with virtual team and BOCR of analytic network process

  • Published:
The Journal of Supercomputing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Software packages evaluation and selection is one of the most important activities encountered by software as a service (SaaS) users in the high performance networked computing environment, especially for the small or medium-sized enterprises. In this paper, we propose a framework for SaaS software packages evaluation and selection by combining the virtual team (VT) and the BOCR (benefits, opportunities, costs, and risks) of the analytic network process (ANP). Different from the traditional application of the BOCR model of ANP, the proposed VT-BOCR model attempts to solve the complex ANP model and overloaded pairwise comparisons by decomposing the tasks to four parts, and performed by benefits virtual team (B-VT), opportunities virtual team (O-VT), costs virtual team (C-VT), and risks virtual team (R-VT) separately. The interactive networked media on distributed environments not only makes the proposed framework possible without the limitations of time, space, and human resources, but also can take full advantage of the talent experts who are geographically dispersed. The proposed framework also shows great potentials for aiding practitioners and researchers concerned with the cloud services.

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
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Benlian A, Hess T (2011) Opportunities and risks of software-as-a-service: findings from a survey of IT executives. Decis Support Syst 52:232–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Camarinha-matos LM, Afsarmanesh H (2003) Elements of a base VE infrastructure. Comput Ind 51:139–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Challa JS, Paul A, Dada Y, Nerella V, Srivastava PR, Singh AP (2011) Integrated software quality evaluation: a fuzzy multi-criteria approach. Int J Inf Process Syst 7(3):473–518

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cochran JK, Chen H (2005) Fuzzy multi-criteria selection of object-oriented simulation software for production system analysis. Comput Oper Res 32:153–168

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Colombo E, Francalanci C (2004) Selecting CRM packages based on architectural, functional, and cost requirements: empirical validation of a hierarchical ranking model. Requir Eng 9:186–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Davis L, Williams G (1994) Evaluation and selecting simulation software using the analytic hierarchy process. Integr Manuf Syst 5(1):23–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ebrahim NA, Ahmed S, Taha Z (2009) Virtual teams: a literature review. Aust J Basic Appl Sci 3(3):2653–2669

    Google Scholar 

  8. Fan M, Kumar S, Whinston AB (2009) Short-term and long-term competition between providers of shrink-wrap software and software as a service. Eur J Oper Res 196:661–671

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Ergu D, Kou G, Peng Y, Shi Y (2011) A simple method to improve the consistency ratio of the pair-wise comparison matrix in ANP. Eur J Oper Res 213(1):246–259

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Franch X, Carvallo JP (2003) Using quality models in software package selection. IEEE Softw 20(1):34–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Garg SK, Versteeg S, Buyya R (2012) A framework for ranking of cloud computing services. Future Gener Comput Syst. doi:10.1016/j.future.2012.06.006

    Google Scholar 

  12. Jadhav AS, Sonar RM (2009) Evaluating and selecting software packages: a review. Inf Softw Technol 51:555–563

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Jadhav AS, Sonar RM (2011) Framework for evaluation and selection of the software packages: a hybrid knowledge based system approach. The journal of Systems and Software

  14. Kannan G, Vinay VP (2008) Multi-criteria decision making for the selection of CAD/CAM system. Int J Interact Des Manuf 2(3):151–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lai VS, Trueblood RP, Wong BK (1999) Software selection: a case study of the application of the analytical hierarchical process to the selection of a multimedia authoring system. Inf Manag 36:221–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lipnack J, Stamps J (2000) Why the way to work. virtual teams: people working across boundaries with technology, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kou G, Lu Y, Peng Y, Shi Y (2012) Evaluation of classification algorithms using MCDM and rank correlation. Int J Inf Technol & Decis Mak 11(1):197–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Meade LM, Presley A (2002) R&D project selection using the analytic network process (ANP). IEEE Trans Eng Manag 49(1):59–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Morisio M, Tsoukias A (1997) IusWare: a methodology for the evaluation and selection of software products. IEEE Proc Softw Eng 144(3):162–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Park J, Jeong HY (2012) The QoS-based MCDM system for SaaS ERP applications with social network. J Supercomput. doi:10.1007/s11227-012-0832-4

    Google Scholar 

  21. Peng Y, Kou G, Shi Y, Chen Z (2008) A descriptive framework for the field of data mining and knowledge discovery. Int J Inf Technol & Decis Mak 7(4):639–682

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Peng Y, Kou G, Wang G, Shi Y (2011) FAMCDM: a fusion approach of MCDM methods to rank multiclass classification algorithms. Omega 39(6):677–689

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Peng Y, Kou G, Wang G, Wu W, Shi Y (2011) Ensemble of software defect predictors: an AHP-based evaluation method. Int J Inf Technol & Decis Mak 10(1):187–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Piccoli G, Powell A, Ives B (2004) Virtual teams: team control structure, work processes, and team effectiveness. Inf Technol People 17:359–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Precup L, O’sullivan D, Cormican K, Dooley L (2006) Virtual team environment for collaborative research projects. Int J Innov Learn 3:77–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Saaty TL (1996) Decision making with dependence and feedback: the analytic network process. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh. ISBN 0-9620317-9-8

    Google Scholar 

  27. Saaty TL (2001) Decision making with the analytic network process (ANP) and its ‘Super decisions’ software: the national missile defense (NMD) example. In: ISAHP 2001 proceedings, Bern, Switzerland, pp 2–4

    Google Scholar 

  28. Saaty TL (2006) The analytic network process, decision making with the analytic network process. International series in operations research & management science, vol 95. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–26

    Google Scholar 

  29. Saaty TL (2009) Theory and applications of the analytic network process. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh. ISBN 1888603-06-2

    Google Scholar 

  30. Saaty TL, Vargus LG (2011) The encyclicon, Vol 3: A dictionary of complex decisions using the analytic network process. RWS Publication, Pittsburgh

    Google Scholar 

  31. Sarkis J, Talluri S (2004) Evaluating and selecting e-commerce software and communication systems for supply chain. Eur J Oper Res 159:318–329

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. Shang JS, Tjader Y, Ding Y (2004) A unified framework fro multicriteria evaluation of transportation projects. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 51(3):300–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was partially supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China #70901011, #71173028, #71373216 and #91224001, Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University (NCET-12-0086), and Academic Degree Programs Construction at Southwest University for Nationalities (#2012XWD-S1201).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Management and Economics, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, 610054, China

    Daji Ergu & Yi Peng

  2. Southwest University for Nationalities, Chengdu, 610041, China

    Daji Ergu

Authors
  1. Daji Ergu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yi Peng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yi Peng.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ergu, D., Peng, Y. A framework for SaaS software packages evaluation and selection with virtual team and BOCR of analytic network process. J Supercomput 67, 219–238 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-013-0995-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-013-0995-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation