Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Quality evaluation and best service choice for cloud computing based on user preference and weights of attributes using the analytic network process

  • Published:
Electronic Commerce Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The quality offered by cloud computing services is becoming an issue of the utmost priority and, regardless of the cloud delivery models, the adoption of cloud services will depend on having the capability to ensure quality of service to the users. However, studies to find and select cloud computing services according to their service quality are still in their infancy. Here, we propose a system that calculates the priority weights for each quality attribute according to the quality preference of a user and the interrelation analysis results between the attributes, and reflects the weights in selecting the cloud computing service. To calculate the quality preference of the user, we applied a pairwise comparison matrix and an eigenvector of the matrix. Through the proposed system, users can easily perform the process of calculating the weights and selecting the best services according to their quality preference. The simulation results show that the weights of the quality attributes and the quality score ranking of the sample cloud computing services vary according to users’ preferences and interrelations between attributes.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Aragonés-Beltrán, P., Chaparro-González, F., Pastor-Ferrando, J. P., & Rodríguez-Pozo, F. (2010). An ANP-based approach for the selection of photovoltaic solar power plant investment projects. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14(1), 249–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bard, J. F., & Sousk, S. F. (1990). A tradeoff analysis for rough terrain cargo handlers using the AHP: An example of group decision-making. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 37(3), 222–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bard, J. F., & Sousk, S. F. (1990). A tradeoff analysis for rough terrain cargo handlers using the AHP: An example of group decision-making. IEEE Transaction on, Engineering Management, 37(3), 222–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bhattacharya, A., Wanmin, W., & Yang, Z. (2012). Quality of experience evaluation of voice communication: An affect-based approach. Human-centric Computing and Information Sciences. doi:10.1186/2192-1962-2-7.

  5. Boehm, B. W., Brown, J. R., Kaspar, H., Lipow, M., McLeod, G., & Merritt, M. (1978). Characteristics of software quality. Boehm, Barry W: North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Chang, C.-W., Cheng-Ru, W., Lin, C.-T., & Lin, H.-L. (2007). Evaluating digital video recorder systems using analytic hierarchy and analytic network processes. Information Sciences, 177(16), 3383–3396.

  7. Comerio, M., Truong, H.-L., Batini, C., Dustdar, S. (2010). Service-oriented data quality engineering and data publishing in the cloud. In 2010 IEEE international conference on service-oriented computing and Applications (SOCA) (pp. 1–6). Perth, WA.

  8. Dromey, R. G. (1996). Concerning the chimera [software quality]. IEEE Software, 12(1), 33–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. European Commission. (2007). INSPIRE network services performance guidelines. INSPIRE Consolidation Team.

  10. Gonzalez, J. L., & Marcelnez, R. (2011). Phoenix: Fault-tolerant distributed web storage based on URLs. Journal of Convergence, 2(1), 79–86.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gorla, N., & Lin, S.-C. (2010). Determinants of software quality: A survey of information systems project managers. Information and Software Technology, 52, 602–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Goscinski, A., & Brock, M. (2010). Toward dynamic and attribute based publication, discovery and selection for cloud computing. Future Generation Computer Systems, 26(7), 947–970.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. ISO, IEC 9126-1. (2001). ISO/IEC 9126-1:2001: Software engineering–Product Quality–Part 1: Quality model. Geneva: International Standards Organization.

  14. ISO, IEC 9126-2. (2003). ISO/IEC 9126-2:2003: Software Engineering—Product Quality—Part 2: External metrics. Geneva: International Standards Organization.

  15. ISO. (1986). ISO 8402 quality vocabulary. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Jung, U. K., & Seo, D. W. (2010). An ANP approach for R&D project evaluation based on interdependencies between research objectives and evaluation criteria. Decision Support Systems, 49(3), 335–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kennedy, S., Stewart, R., Jacob, P., & Molloy, O. (2011). StoRHm: A protocol adapter for mapping SOAP based Web Services to RESTful HTTP format. Electronic Commerce Research, 11(3), 245–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kitchenham, B., & Pfleeger, S. L. (1996). Software quality: The elusive target [special issues section]. IEEE Software, 13(1), 12–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Lee, J. Y., Lee, J. W., Cheun, D. W., Kim, S. D. (2009). A quality model for evaluating software-as-a-service in cloud computing. In 2009 seventh ACIS international conference on software engineering research, management and applications (pp. 261–266).

  20. Marciniak, J. J. (2002). Encyclopedia of software engineering (2nd ed., Vol. 2). Chichester: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  21. 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 

  22. McCall, J. A., Richards, P. K., Walters, G. F. (1977). Factors in software quality, Nat’l Tech. Information Service. Vol. 1, 2 and 3.

  23. Meade, L. M., & Sarkis, J. (1999). Analyzing organizational project alternatives for agile manufacturing process. An Analytical Network Approach, International Journal of Production Research, 37, 241–261.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Motoei AZUMA. (2011). SquaRE The next generation of the ISO/IEC 9126 and 14598 international standards series on software product quality. http://www.cs.joensuu.fi/pages/pages/intra/tSoft/suojattu/FiSMA/fisma/paketti2003_1/SquareEsitelAzuma.pdf.

  25. Nathan, R. J., & Yeow, P. H. P. (2011). Crucial web usability factors of 36 industries for students: A large-scale empirical study. Electronic Commerce Research, 11(2), 151–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Pan, R., Guandong, X., Bin, F., Peter, D., Zhihai, W., & Martin, L. (2012). Improving recommendations by the clustering of tag neighbours. Journal of Convergence, 3(1), 13–20.

  27. Panniello, U., & Gorgoglione, M. (2012). Incorporating context into recommender systems: An empirical comparison of context-based approaches. Electronic Commerce Research, 12(1), 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Papaioannou I. V., Tsesmetzis D. T., Roussaki I. G., Anagnostou M. E. (2006). A QoS ontology language for web-services. In 20th international conference on advanced information networking and applications (Vol. 1, pp. 1–6).

  29. Rachung, Y., & Tzeng, G.-H. (2006). A soft computing method for multi-criteria decision making with dependence and feedback. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 180(6), 63–75.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Raisinghani, M. S., Meade, L., & Schkade, L. L. (2007). Strategic e-business decision analysis using the analytic network process. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 54(4), 673–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Ramanathan, R. (2010). E-commerce success criteria: Determining which criteria count most. Electronic Commerce Research, 10(2), 191–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Ran, S. (2003). A model for web services discovery with QoS. ACM, 4(1), 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  34. Saaty, T. L. (2001). Decision making with dependence feedback: The analytic network process. Pittsburgh: RWS Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Services Sciences, 1(1), 83–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Samadhiya, D., Wang, S.-H., Chen, D. (2010). Quality models: Role and value in software engineering. In 2010 2nd international conference on software technology and engineering (ICSTE). (Vol. 1, pp. 320–324).

  37. Sibisi, M., & van Waveren, C. C. (2007). A process framework for customizing software quality models. AFRICON 2007 (pp. 1–8), 26–28.

  38. Silas, S., Ezra, K., & Rajsingh, E. B. (2012). A novel fault tolerant service selection framework for pervasive computing. Human-centric Computing and Information Sciences. doi:10.1186/2192-1962-2-5.

  39. Subashini, S., & Kavitha, V. (2011). A survey on security issues in service delivery models of cloud computing. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 34(1), 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Swamynathan, G., Almeroth, K. C., & Zhao, B. Y. (2010). The design of a reliable reputation system. Electronic Commerce Research, 10(3–4), 239–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Takabi, H., Joshi, J. B. D., & Ahn, G.-J. (2010). Security and privacy challenges in cloud computing environments. IEEE Security & Privacy, 8(6), 24–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Tang, X., & Feng, J. (2006). ANP Theory and Application expectation. Statistics and Decision-making, 12(3), 138–140.

  43. Taylor, D. G., Davis, D. F., & Jillapalli, R. (2009). Privacy concern and online personalization: The moderating effects of information control and compensation. Electronic Commerce Research, 9(3), 203–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Tian, J. (2004). Quality-evaluation models and measurements. IEEE Software, 21(3), 84–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Yu, T., & Lin, K. J. (2005). Service Selection Algorithms for Web Services with End-to-end QoS Constraints. Journal of Information Systems and E-Business Management, 3(2), 129–136.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Yuksel, I., & Dagcarondeviren, M. (2007). Using the analytic network process (ANP) in a SWOT analysis—A case study for a textile firm. Information Sciences, 177, 3364–3382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Humanitas College, Kyung Hee University, 1 Hoegi-dong, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, Korea

    Cheol-Rim Choi & Hwa-Young Jeong

Authors
  1. Cheol-Rim Choi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hwa-Young Jeong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hwa-Young Jeong.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Choi, CR., Jeong, HY. Quality evaluation and best service choice for cloud computing based on user preference and weights of attributes using the analytic network process. Electron Commer Res 14, 245–270 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-014-9156-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-014-9156-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation