Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Flexible Pricing Models for Cloud Computing Based on Group Decision Making Under Consensus

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Today, cloud computing is transforming the consumption of IT/ITeS. Numerous vendors are offering services where computing, storage and application resources, can be dynamically provisioned on a pay per use basis, purely based on the user’s need. However, the demands and requirements of different users vary significantly. In order to maximize the revenue, a flexible pricing approach is required, which can address these diverse requirements systematically. These systemic approaches need to estimate the potential value of such services to specific users for a specific context. The tradeoffs from potential value drivers also need to be accounted for while prioritizing the value drivers. In these lines, the current study proposes a flexible pricing approach for Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS), one of the important delivery models, based on its perceived value to multiple key stake-holders. The proposed approach prioritizes and aggregates the key features of IaaS for the migration to cloud, from multiple key users’ perspective by integrating fuzzy set theory and analytic hierarchy process for group decision making under consensus. Subsequently, the prioritization is mapped with a utility function to estimate the trade-offs from each value driver. The performance of the proposed approach has also been compared with that of another flexible pricing model through a case study.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aguaron, J., Escobar, M. T., & Moreno-Jiménez, J. M. (2003). Consistency stability intervals for a judgement in AHP decision support systems. European Journal of Operational Research, 145(2), 382–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aguarón, J., & Moreno-Jiménez, J. M. (2003). The geometric consistency index: Approximated thresholds. European Journal of Operational Research, 147(1), 137–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, M. (1996). Multiproduct nonlinear pricing. Econometrica., 64(1), 51–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bichler, M., Kalagnanam, J., Katircioglu, K., King, A. J., Lawrence, R. D., Lee, H. S., et al. (2002). Applications of flexible pricing in business-to-business electronic commerce. IBM Systems Journal, 41(2), 287–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bish, E. K., & Wang, Q. (2004). Optimal investment strategies for flexible resources, considering pricing and correlated demands. Operations Research, 52(6), 954–964.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolloju, N. (2001). Aggregation of analytic hierarchy process models based on similarities in decision makers’ preferences. European Journal of Operational Research, 128(3), 499–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, R., Canning, L., & McDowell, R. (2007). Price-setting in business-to-business markets. The Marketing Review, 7(3), 207–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryson, N. (1996). Group decision-making and the analytic hierarchy process: Exploring the consensus-relevant information content. Computers & Operations Research, 23(1), 27–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, J. J. (1985). Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 17(3), 233–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buyya, R., Yeo, C. S., Venugopal, S., Broberg, J., & Brandic, I. (2009). Cloud computing and emerging IT platforms: Vision, hype, and reality for delivering computing as the 5th utility. Future Generation Computer Systems, 25(6), 599–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cao, D., Leung, L. C., & Law, J. S. (2008). Modifying inconsistent comparison matrix in analytic hierarchy process: A heuristic approach. Decision Support Systems, 44(4), 944–953.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, S. M., & Lee, L. W. (2010). Fuzzy multiple attributes group decision-making based on the interval type-2 TOPSIS method. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(4), 2790–2798.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, S. M., Lee, L. W., Yang, S. W., & Sheu, T. W. (2012). Adaptive consensus support model for group decision making systems. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(16), 12580–12588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, R. (2010). Computing clouds on the Horizon? Benefits and risks from the user’s perspective. 23rd Bled e-Conference Etrust: Implications for the Individual, Enterprises and Society, Bled, Slovenia.

  • Clemons, E. K., & Weber, B. W. (1994). Segmentation, differentiation, and flexible pricing: Experiences with information technology and segment-tailored strategies. Journal of Management Information Systems, 11(2), 9–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Condon, E., Golden, B., & Wasil, E. (2003). Visualizing group decisions in the analytic hierarchy process. Computers & Operations Research, 30(10), 1435–1445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, G., & Williams, C. (1985). A note on the analysis of subjective judgement matrices. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 29, 387–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curle, D. (1998). There is no value if it’s not relevant. Information Today, 15(8), 8–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dhar, S. (2012). From outsourcing to cloud computing: Evolution of IT services. Management Research Review, 35(8), 664–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dong, Y., Zhang, G., Hong, W., & Xu, Y. (2010). Consensus models for AHP group decision making under row geometric mean prioritization method. Decision Support Systems, 49, 281–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, R. F., & Forman, E. H. (1992). Group decision support with the analytic hierarchy process. Decision Support Systems, 8(2), 99–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Escobar, M. T., Aguarón, J., & Moreno-Jiménez, J. M. (2004). A note on AHP group consistency for the row geometric mean prioritization procedure. European Journal of Operational Research, 153(2), 318–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Escobar, M. T., & Moreno-Jiménez, J. M. (2007). Aggregation of individual preference structures in AHP-group decision making. Group Decision and Negotiation, 16(4), 287–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finan, J. S., & Hurley, W. J. (1997). The analytic hierarchy process: Does adjusting a pairwise comparison matrix to improve the consistency ratio help? Computers & Operations Research, 24(8), 749–755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P.C., Odlyzko, A.M., & Siders, R.C. (1997) Fixed fee versus unit pricing for information goods: Competition, equilibria, and price wars. Conference on Internet Publishing and Beyond: Economics of Digital Information and Intellectual Property, Cambridge.

  • Freifelder, L. R. (1979). Exponential utility theory ratemaking: An alternative ratemaking approach. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 46(3), 515–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furht, B. (2010). Cloud computing fundamentals. In Handbook of cloud computing (pp. 3–19). US: Springer.

  • Gibbert, M., Leibold, M., & Probst, G. (2002). Five styles of customer knowledge management, and how smart companies use them to create value. European Management Journal, 20(5), 459–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, S. L., Nagel, R. N., & Preiss, K. (1995). Agile competitors and virtual organizations: Strategies for enriching the CUZSTOMER (pp. 235–266). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorod, A., Gandhi, S. J., Sauser, B., & Boardman, J. (2008). Flexibility of system of systems. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 9(4), 21–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gromoff, A., Kazantsev, N., Kozhevnikov, D., Ponfilenok, M., & Stavenko, Y. (2012). Newer approach to create flexible business architecture of modern enterprise. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 13(4), 207–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, R. L. (2009). The case for cloud computing. IT Professional, 11(2), 23–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harmon, R., Demirkan, H., Hefley, B., & Auseklis, N. (2009). Pricing strategies for IT services: a value-based approach. 42nd Hawaii Int. Conf. on System Sciences, USA, IEEE.

  • Harmon, R.R., & Laird, G. (1997). Linking marketing strategy to customer value: implications for technology marketers. Int. Conf. on Management of Eng. & Tech. Portland.

  • Harmon, R., Raffo, D., & Faulk, S. (2005). Value-based pricing for new software products: strategy insights for developers. In the Proceedings of the Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology.

  • Herrera-Viedma, E., Alonso, S., Chiclana, F., & Herrera, F. (2007). A consensus model for group decision making with incomplete fuzzy preference relations. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 15(5), 863–877.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinterhuber, A. (2004). Towards value-based pricing—an integrative framework for decision making. Industrial Marketing Management, 33(8), 765–778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho, W. (2008). Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applications—a literature review. European Journal of Operational Research, 186(1), 211–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, P. F., Ray, S., & Li-Hsieh, Y. Y. (2014). Examining cloud computing adoption intention, pricing mechanism, and deployment model. International Journal of Information Management, 34(4), 474–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iz, P. H. (1992). Two multiple criteria group decision support systems based on mathematical programming and ranking methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 61(1), 245–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jula, A., Sundararajan, E., & Othman, Z. (2014). Cloud computing service composition: A systematic literature review. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(8), 3809–3824.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kantere, V., Dash, D., Francois, G., Kyriakopoulou, S., & Ailamaki, A. (2011). Optimal service pricing for a cloud cache. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 23(9), 1345–1358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kar, A. K. (2014). Revisiting the supplier selection problem: An integrated approach for group decision support. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(6), 2762–2771.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kar, A. K. (2015). A hybrid group decision support system for supplier selection using analytic hierarchy process, fuzzy set theory and neural network. Journal of Computational Science, 6(1), 23–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kar, A. K., & Pani, A. K. (2011). A model for pricing emergent technology based on perceived business impact value. International Journal of Technology Marketing., 6(3), 241–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kar, A. K., & Pani, A. K. (2014). How can a group of procurement experts select suppliers? An approach for group decision support. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 27(4), 337–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kar, A. K., & Rakshit, A. (2014). Pricing of cloud IaaS based on feature prioritization—a value based approach. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, 235, 321–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, N. L., & Tindale, R. S. (2004). Group performance and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 623–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korhonen, P., Moskowitz, H., & Wallenius, J. (1992). Multiple criteria decision support—a review. European Journal of Operational Research, 63(3), 361–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lepmets, M., Mesquida, A. L., Cater-Steel, A., Mas, A., & Ras, E. (2014). The evaluation of the IT service quality measurement framework in industry. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 15(1), 39–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, J. K., & Taji, K. (2007). Group decision support for hazards planning and emergency management: A group analytic network process (GANP) approach. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 46(7), 906–917.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lombardi, F., & Di Pietro, R. (2011). Secure virtualization for cloud computing. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 34(4), 1113–1122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malaviya, P., & Wadhwa, S. (2005). Innovation management in organizational context: an empirical study. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 6(2), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manvi, S. S., & Shyam, G. K. (2014). Resource management for Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) in cloud computing: A survey. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 41, 424–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marston, S., Li, Z., Bandyopadhyay, S., Zhang, J., & Ghalsasi, A. (2011). Cloud computing—the business perspective. Decision Support Systems, 51(1), 176–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maskin, E., & Riley, J. (1984). Monopoly with incomplete information. RAND Journal of Economics, 15(2), 171–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mihailescu, M., & Teo, Y. M. (2010). Dynamic resource pricing on federated clouds. 10th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Cluster, Cloud and Grid Computing (CCGrid), 2010, 513–517.

  • Mikhailov, L. (2000). A fuzzy programming method for deriving priorities in the analytic hierarchy process. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 51(3), 341–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno-Jiménez, J. M., Aguarón, J., & Escobar, M. T. (2008). The core of consistency in AHP-group decision making. Group Decision and Negotiation, 17(3), 249–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nacer, H., & Aissani, D. (2014). Semantic web services: Standards, applications, challenges and solutions. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 44, 134–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Okoli, C., & Pawlowski, S. D. (2004). The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications. Information & Management, 42(1), 15–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pang, J., & Liang, J. (2012). Evaluation of the results of multi-attribute group decision-making with linguistic information. Omega, 40(3), 294–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pasura, A., & Ryals, L. (2005). Pricing for value in ICT. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 14(1), 47–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pérez, I. J., Cabrerizo, F. J., & Herrera-Viedma, E. (2011). Group decision making problems in a linguistic and dynamic context. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(3), 1675–1688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Repschlaeger, J., Wind, S., Zarnekow R., & Turowski, K. (2012). A reference guide to cloud computing dimensions: Infrastructure as a Service classification framework. 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2178–2188.

  • Ruoning, X., & Xiaoyan, Z. (1992). Extensions of the analytic hierarchy process in fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 52(3), 251–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process: New York: McGraw Hill. Pittsburgh: RWS Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T. L. (1994). How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. Interfaces, 24(6), 9–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sagar, M., Bora, S., Gangwal, A., Gupta, P., Kumar, A., & Agarwal, A. (2013). Factors affecting customer loyalty in cloud computing: A customer defection-centric view to develop a void-in-customer loyalty amplification model. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 14(3), 143–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, S. K., & Gupta, J. N. (2004). E-strategy model for creating flexible organizations. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 5(2, 3), 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, B., Thulasiram, R. K., Thulasiraman, P., Garg, S. K., & Buyya, R. (2012). Pricing cloud compute commodities: A novel financial economic model. 12th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Cluster, Cloud and Grid Computing, 451–457.

  • Shih, H. S., Shyur, H. J., & Lee, E. S. (2007). An extension of TOPSIS for group decision making. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 45(7), 801–813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, T. J. (1992). A critical survey on the status of multiple criteria decision making theory and practice. Omega, 20(5), 569–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stieninger, M., & Nedbal, D. (2014). Characteristics of cloud computing in the business context: A systematic literature review. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 15(1), 59–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sushil, (1994). Flexible systems methodology. Systems Practice, 7(6), 633–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sushil, (1997). Flexible systems management: An evolving paradigm. Systems research and behavioral science, 14(4), 259–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sushil, (2005). Interpretive matrix: A tool to aid interpretation of management and social research. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 6(2), 27–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sushil, (2012a). Multiple perspectives of flexible systems management. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 13(1), 1–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sushil, (2012b). Interpreting the interpretive structural models. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management., 13(2), 87–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sushil, (2012c). Flowing stream strategy: Managing confluence of continuity and change. Journal of Enterprise Transformation, 2(1), 26–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan, C. (2011). A multi-criteria interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making with Choquet integral-based TOPSIS. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(4), 3023–3033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tapia Garcia, J. M., Del Moral, M. J., Martínez, M. A., & Herrera-Viedma, E. (2012). A consensus model for group decision making problems with linguistic interval fuzzy preference relations. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(11), 10022–10030.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tavares, V. L. (2012). An acyclic outranking model to support group decision making within organizations. Omega, 40(6), 782–790.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teng, F., & Magoules, F. (2010). Resource pricing and equilibrium allocation policy in cloud computing. IEEE 10th International Conference on Computer and Information Technology, 195–202.

  • Tsai, J. M., & Hung, S. W. (2014). A novel model of technology diffusion: System dynamics perspective for cloud computing. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 33, 47–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vouk, M. A. (2008). Cloud computing-issues, research and implementations. CIT. Journal of Computing and Information Technology, 16(4), 235–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wadhwa, S., & Rao, K. S. (2002). Framework for a flexibility maturity model. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 3(2–3), 45–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walterbusch, M., Martens, B., & Teuteberg, F. (2013). Evaluating cloud computing services from a total cost of ownership perspective. Management Research Review, 36(6), 613–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wan, S. P., Wang, Q. Y., & Dong, J. Y. (2013). The extended VIKOR method for multi-attribute group decision making with triangular intuitionistic fuzzy numbers. Knowledge-Based Systems, 52, 65–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Y. M., Elhag, T., & Hua, Z. (2006). A modified fuzzy logarithmic least squares method for fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 157(23), 3055–3071.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, F. K., & He, W. (2014). Service strategies of small cloud service providers: A case study of a small cloud service provider and its clients in Taiwan. International Journal of Information Management, 34(3), 406–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, H., Jing, Q., Chen, R., He, B., Qian, Z., & Zhou, L. (2010). Distributed systems meet economics: pricing in the cloud. In Proceedings of the 2nd USENIX conference on hot topics in cloud computing, 1–6.

  • Wei, G. W. (2010). A method for multiple attribute group decision making based on the ET-WG and ET-OWG operators with 2-tuple linguistic information. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(12), 7895–7900.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinhardt, C., Anandasivam, A., Blau, B., Borissov, N., Meinl, T., Michalk, W., & Stößer, J. (2009). Cloud-computing—eine abgrenzung, geschäftsmodelle und forschungsgebiete. Wirtschaftsinformatik, 5, 453–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, A. (2007). Computing in the clouds. Networker, 11(4), 16–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, R. (1993). Nonlinear pricing. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wirtsch-Ing, D., Lehmann, S., & Buxmann, P. (2009). Pricing strategies of software vendors. Business & Information Systems Engineering., 6(6), 452–462.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, S., & Banker, R. (2010). Best pricing strategy for information services. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 11(6), 339–366.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, Z., & Xu, J. (2012). A consistency and consensus based decision support model for group decision making with multiplicative preference relations. Decision Support Systems, 52(3), 757–767.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu, R. (2000). Fuzzy least-squares priority method in the analytic hierarchy process. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 112(3), 395–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yue, Z. (2011). Deriving decision maker’s weights based on distance measure for interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(9), 11665–11670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yue, Z. (2012). Extension of TOPSIS to determine weight of decision maker for group decision making problems with uncertain information. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(7), 6343–6350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8(3), 338–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zadeh, L. A. (1978). Fuzzy sets as a basis for a theory of possibility. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 1(1), 3–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahedi, F. (1986). The analytic hierarchy process-a survey of the method and its applications. Interfaces, 16(4), 96–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Q., Cheng, L., & Boutaba, R. (2010). Cloud computing: state-of-the-art and research challenges. Journal of internet services and applications, 1(1), 7–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann, H. J. (2001). Fuzzy set theory and its applications. Germany: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann, H. J. (2010). Fuzzy set theory. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics, 2(3), 317–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Information Systems Area, DMS, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, Hauz Khas, New Delhi, 110016, India

    Arpan Kumar Kar

  2. Information Technology & Systems Area, Indian Institute of Management Rohtak, Rohtak, 124001, Haryana, India

    Atanu Rakshit

Authors
  1. Arpan Kumar Kar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Atanu Rakshit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arpan Kumar Kar.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kar, A.K., Rakshit, A. Flexible Pricing Models for Cloud Computing Based on Group Decision Making Under Consensus. Glob J Flex Syst Manag 16, 191–204 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40171-015-0093-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40171-015-0093-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation