Soft Computing

, Volume 21, Issue 23, pp 7221–7234 | Cite as

Evaluating the efficiency of cloud services using modified data envelopment analysis and modified super-efficiency data envelopment analysis

  • Chandrashekar Jatoth
  • G. R. Gangadharan
  • Ugo Fiore
Methodologies and Application


Several cloud services with comparable functionality are now available to customers at different prices and performance levels. Often, there may be trade-offs among different functional and non-functional requirements fulfilled by different cloud providers. Hence, it is difficult to evaluate the relative performances of the cloud services and their ranking based on various quality of service attributes. In this paper, we propose a modified data envelopment analysis and a modified super-efficiency data envelopment analysis for evaluating the cloud services and their efficiencies considering user preferences. We compare these methods of cloud service selection based on sensitivity analysis, adequacy to changes in DMUs, adequacy to support decision making and modeling of uncertainty. The comparison helps customers to choose a cloud service that is most suitable to their requirements and also creates a healthy competition among the cloud service providers.


Cloud computing Data envelopment analysis Multi-criteria decision making Analytic hierarchy process Analytic network process 



We thank Saurabh Kumar (IIT, Kanpur, India) and Akshay Jaiswal (IIT-BHU, Varanasi, India) for their help in implementing parts of DEA and SDEA (during their internships at IDRBT) in this work.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Chandrashekar Jatoth declares that he has no conflict of interest. G. R. Gangadharan declares that he has no conflict of interest. Ugo Fiore declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.


  1. Ahmad N, Berg D, Simons GR (2006) The integration of analytical hierarchy process and data envelopment analysis in a multi-criteria decision-making problem. Int J Inf Technol Decis Mak 5(2):263–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersen P, Petersen NC (1993) A procedure for ranking efficient units in data envelopment analysis. Manag Sci 39(10):1261–1264CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Azadeh A, Ghaderi S, Izadbakhsh H (2008) Integration of dea and ahp with computer simulation for railway system improvement and optimization. Appl Math Comput 195(2):775–785zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. Azadeh A, Ghaderi S, Mirjalili M, Moghaddam M (2011) Integration of analytic hierarchy process and data envelopment analysis for assessment and optimization of personnel productivity in a large industrial bank. Expert Syst Appl 38(5):5212–5225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Banker RD, Chang H (2006) The super-efficiency procedure for outlier identification, not for ranking efficient units. Eur J Oper Res 175(2):1311–1320CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Banker RD, Charnes A, Cooper WW (1984) Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Manag Sci 30(9):1078–1092CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Bedi P, Kaur H, Gupta B (2012) Trustworthy service provider selection in cloud computing environment. In: Proceedings of the 2012 international conference on communication systems and network technologies, IEEE, pp 714–719Google Scholar
  8. Buckley JJ (1985) Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets Syst 17(3):233–247CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. Buckley JJ, Feuring T, Hayashi Y (2001) Fuzzy hierarchical analysis revisited. Eur J Oper Res 129(1):48–64CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. Buyya R, Broberg J, Goscinski AM (2010) Cloud computing: principles and paradigms. Wiley, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  11. Chandrashekar J, Gangadharan GR, Buyya R (2016) Computational intelligence based qos-aware web service composition: a systematic literature review. IEEE Trans Serv Comput. doi: 10.1109/TSC.2015.2473840
  12. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E (1978) Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur J Oper Res 2(6):429–444CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. Chou CC (2010) An integrated quantitative and qualitative FMCDM model for location choices. Soft Comput 14(7):757–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cooper WW, Seiford LM, Zhu J (2011) Handbook on data envelopment analysis, vol 164. Springer Science & Business Media, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Ertay T, Ruan D (2005) Data envelopment analysis based decision model for optimal operator allocation in cms. Eur J Oper Res 164(3):800–810CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Ertay T, Ruan D, Tuzkaya UR (2006) Integrating data envelopment analysis and analytic hierarchy for the facility layout design in manufacturing systems. Inf Sci 176(3):237–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Esposito C, Ficco M, Palmieri F, Castiglione A (2015) Smart cloud storage service selection based on fuzzy logic, theory of evidence and game theory. IEEE Trans Comput. doi: 10.1109/TC.2015.2389952
  18. Garg SK, Versteeg S, Buyya R (2013) A framework for ranking of cloud computing services. Future Gener Comput Syst 29(4):1012–1023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kuo R, Hsu C, Chen Y (2015) Integration of fuzzy anp and fuzzy TOPSIS for evaluating carbon performance of suppliers. Int J Environ Sci Technol 12(12):3863–3876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kuo RJ, Lin Y (2012) Supplier selection using analytic network process and data envelopment analysis. Int J Prod Res 50(11):2852–2863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kwon HK, Seo KK (2013) A decision-making model to choose a cloud service using fuzzy ahp. Adv Sci Technol Lett 35:93–96Google Scholar
  22. Li A, Yang X, Kandula S, Zhang M (2010) Cloudcmp: comparing public cloud providers. In: Proceedings of the 10th ACM SIGCOMM conference on internet measurement, ACM, pp 1–14Google Scholar
  23. Lin HT (2010) Personnel selection using analytic network process and fuzzy data envelopment analysis approaches. Comput Ind Eng 59(4):937–944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lin MI, Lee YD, Ho TN (2011) Applying integrated DEA/AHP to evaluate the economic performance of local governments in China. Eur J Oper Res 209(2):129–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Menzel M, Schönherr M, Tai S (2013) (mc2) 2: criteria, requirements and a software prototype for cloud infrastructure decisions. Softw Pract Exp 43(11):1283–1297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mohajeri N, Amin GR (2010) Railway station site selection using analytical hierarchy process and data envelopment analysis. Comput Ind Eng 59(1):107–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ramanathan R (2006) Data envelopment analysis for weight derivation and aggregation in the analytic hierarchy process. Comput Oper Res 33(5):1289–1307CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. Saaty T (1980) Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory with analytical hierarchical process, vol 6. RWS Publications, University of Pittsburgh, PittusburghGoogle Scholar
  29. Saaty TL (1988) What is the analytic hierarchy process?. Springer, BerlinCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. Saaty TL (1996) Analytical network process. RWS Publications, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  31. Saaty TL (2006) The analytic network process. Springer, BerlinCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. Seiford LM, Zhu J (1999) An investigation of returns to scale in data envelopment analysis. Omega 27(1):1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shang J, Sueyoshi T (1995) A unified framework for the selection of a flexible manufacturing system. Eur J Oper Res 85(2):297–315CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. Shivakumar U, Ravi V, Gangadharan GR (2013) Ranking cloud services using fuzzy multi-attribute decision making. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on fuzzy systems, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  35. Silas S, Rajsingh EB, Ezra K (2012) Efficient service selection middleware using ELECTRE methodology for cloud environments. Inf Technol J 11(7):868–875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sinuany-Stern Z, Mehrez A, Hadad Y (2000) An AHP/DEA methodology for ranking decision making units. Int Trans Oper Res 7(2):109–124CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  37. Tone K (2002) A slacks-based measure of super-efficiency in data envelopment analysis. Eur J Oper Res 143(3):32–41CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  38. Vaidya OS, Kumar S (2006) Analytic hierarchy process: an overview of applications. Eur J Oper Res 169(1):1–29CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  39. Wen M, Qin Z, Kang R, Yang Y (2015) Sensitivity and stability analysis of the additive model in uncertain data envelopment analysis. Soft Comput 19(7):1987–1996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Xu C, Ma Y, Wang X (2015) A non-parametric data envelopment analysis approach for cloud services evaluation. In: Proceedings of the service-oriented computing-ICSOC 2014 workshops, Springer, pp 250–255Google Scholar
  41. Yan S, Chen C, Zhao G, Lee BS (2012) Cloud service recommendation and selection for enterprises. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on network and service management and workshop on systems virtualization management, IEEE, pp 430–434Google Scholar
  42. Yang T, Kuo C (2003) A hierarchical AHP/DEA methodology for the facilities layout design problem. Eur J Oper Res 147(1):128–s136CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  43. Zheng Z, Wu X, Zhang Y, Lyu MR, Wang J (2013) Qos ranking prediction for cloud services. IEEE Trans Parallel Distrib Syst 24(6):1213–1222CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chandrashekar Jatoth
    • 1
    • 2
  • G. R. Gangadharan
    • 2
  • Ugo Fiore
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Computer and Information SciencesUniversity of HyderabadHyderabadIndia
  2. 2.Institute for Development and Research in Banking Technology (IDRBT)HyderabadIndia
  3. 3.Department of Molecular Medicine and Medical BiotechnologyFederico II UniversityNaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations