Advertisement

Soft Computing

, Volume 22, Issue 15, pp 5091–5114 | Cite as

Cloud computing technology selection based on interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy MCDM methods

  • Gülçin Büyüközkan
  • Fethullah Göçer
  • Orhan Feyzioğlu
Focus
  • 61 Downloads

Abstract

Cloud computing technology (CCT) can bring considerable advantages to businesses and people by taking over many time-wasting technicalities, such as establishing communications infrastructure, thus adding value. CCT is revolutionizing every industry by allowing all types of organizations to buy a service instead of owning with flexible rates. An objective of this study is to identify a set of relevant decision criteria and their subcriteria needed in the evaluation of the CCT provider selection (PS) problem. Another objective is to provide a powerful integrated framework that can be used for the evaluation and selection of the most appropriate CCT provider and then to apply this proposed approach in a real case study. CCT PS is a complex multi-criteria decision problem that involves a number of qualitative and quantitative parameters that might be conflicting, or even ambiguous. Interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy (IVIF) set is an effective concept that is used to cope with uncertainty by taking both the degree of membership and non-membership functions in an interval. Therefore, this paper proposes a state-of-the-art novel methodology consisting of IVIF analytic hierarchy process, IVIF complex proportional assessment, IVIF multi-objective optimization by ratio analysis plus the full multiplicative form, IVIF technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution and IVIF višekriterijumsko kompromisno rangiranje methods. This combination aims to rank available CCT PS alternatives in the presence of imprecise and vague information.

Keywords

Cloud computing technology (CCT) Provider selection (PS) CCT criteria identification Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) Interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy (IVIF) 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the Editor and anonymous reviewers for their comments, which have helped to improve the paper. The authors kindly express their appreciation for the support of industrial experts. This research has received financial support of Galatasaray University Research Fund (Projects Nos: 17.402.009 and 18.402.001).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

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

References

  1. Abdullah L, Najib L (2016) A new preference scale mcdm method based on interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets and the analytic hierarchy process. Soft Comput 20:511–523.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-014-1519-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atanassov K (1986) Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst 20:87–96CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Atanassov K, Gargov G (1989) Interval valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst 31:343–349.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(89)90205-4 MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Bathla P, Vashist S (2014) SLA aware cost based service ranking in cloud computing. Int J Appl or Innov Eng Manag 3:257–268Google Scholar
  5. Brauers WKM, Zavadskas EK (2006) The MOORA method and its application to privatization in a transition economy. Control Cybern 35:445–469MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Brauers WKM, Zavadskas EK (2010) Project management by multimoora as an instrument for transition economies. Technol Econ Dev Econ 16:5–24.  https://doi.org/10.3846/tede.2010.01 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brauers WKM, Zavadskas EK (2011) Multimoora optimization used to decide on a bank loan to buy property. Technol Econ Dev Econ 17:174–188.  https://doi.org/10.3846/13928619.2011.560632 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Büyüközkan G, Gocer F (2017) An intuitionistic fuzzy MCDM approach for effective hazardous waste management. In: Kahraman C, Sari IU (eds) Intelligence systems in environmental management: theory and applications. Springer, Cham, pp 21–40.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42993-9_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Büyüközkan G, Göçer F (2017) Application of a new combined intuitionistic fuzzy MCDM approach based on axiomatic design methodology for the supplier selection problem. Appl Soft Comput 52:1222–1238.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2016.08.051 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Büyüközkan G, Göçer F (2018) Smart medical device selection based on interval valued intuitionistic fuzzy VIKOR. In: Kacprzyk J, Szmidt E, Zadrożny S et al (eds) Advances in intelligent systems and computing (proceedings of: EUSFLAT- 2017). Springer, Cham, pp 306–317Google Scholar
  11. Büyüközkan G, Göçer F, Feyzioğlu O (2018) Cloud computing technology selection based on interval valued intuitionistic fuzzy COPRAS. In: Kacprzyk J, Szmidt E, Zadrożny S et al (eds) Advances in intelligent systems and computing (proceedings of: EUSFLAT- 2017). Springer, Cham, pp 318–329Google Scholar
  12. Ceballos B, Lamata MT, Pelta DA, Yager RR (2018) Crisp vs. fuzzy data in multicriteria decision making: the case of the VIKOR method. In: Kacprzyk J, Szmidt E, Zadrożny S et al (eds) Advances in intelligent systems and computing (proceedings of: EUSFLAT- 2017). Springer, Cham, pp 455–465Google Scholar
  13. Chen JS, Hwang CL (1992) Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making-methods and applications. Springer, BerlinCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Chen C, Tseng C, Lee K, Yang H (2011) Conceptual framework and research method for personality traits and sales force automation usage. Sci Res Essays 6:3784–3793.  https://doi.org/10.5897/SRE11.1022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gal T, Stewart TJ, Hanne T (1999) Multicriteria decision making: advances in MCDM models, algorithms, theory, and applications. Springer, BostonCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Garg SK, Versteeg S, Buyya R (2013) A framework for ranking of cloud computing services. Future Gener Comput Syst 29:1012–1023.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2012.06.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Godse M, Mulik S (2009) An approach for selecting Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) product. In: CLOUD 2009–2009 International Conference on Cloud Computing, pp 155–158.  https://doi.org/10.1109/CLOUD.2009.74
  18. Hwang CL, Yoon K (1981) Multiple attribute decision making-methods and application. Springer, New YorkCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Jatoth C, Gangadharan GR, Fiore U (2017) Evaluating the efficiency of cloud services using modified data envelopment analysis and modified super-efficiency data envelopment analysis. Soft Comput 21:7221–7234.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-016-2267-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jatoth C, Gangadharan GR, Fiore U, Buyya R (2018) SELCLOUD: a hybrid multi-criteria decision-making model for selection of cloud services. Soft Comput.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-018-3120-2
  21. Kahraman C, Öztayşi B, Çevik Onar S (2016) Intuitionistic fuzzy multicriteria evaluation of outsource manufacturers. IFAC-PapersOnLine 49:1844–1849.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2016.07.851 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Karim R, Ding C, Miri a (2013) An end-to-end QoS mapping approach for cloud service selection. In: Serv (SERVICES), 2013 IEEE Ninth World Congress, pp 341–348.  https://doi.org/10.1109/SERVICES.2013.71
  23. Kumar RR, Mishra S, Kumar C (2017) Prioritizing the solution of cloud service selection using integrated MCDM methods under Fuzzy environment. J Supercomput 73:4652–4682.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-017-2039-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Le S, Dong H, Hussain FK et al (2014) Cloud service selection: state-of-the-art and future research directions. J Netw Comput Appl 45:1–17.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnca.2014.07.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lee S, Seo K-K (2016) A hybrid multi-criteria decision-making model for a cloud service selection problem using BSC, fuzzy Delphi method and fuzzy AHP. Wirel Pers Commun 86:57–75.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11277-015-2976-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Li L, Hang J, Gao Y, Mu C (2017) Using an integrated group decision method based on SVM, TFN-RS-AHP, and TOPSIS-CD for cloud service supplier selection. Math Probl Eng 2017:1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/3143502 MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  27. Liao C-N, Kao H-P (2014) A QFD approach for cloud computing evaluation and selection in KMS: a case study. Int J Comput Intell Syst 7:896–908.  https://doi.org/10.1080/18756891.2014.960233 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ma H, Hu Z, Li K, Zhang H (2016) Toward trustworthy cloud service selection: a time-aware approach using interval neutrosophic set. J Parallel Distrib Comput 96:75–94.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpdc.2016.05.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Meesariganda BR, Ishizaka A (2017) Mapping verbal AHP scale to numerical scale for cloud computing strategy selection. Appl Soft Comput 53:111–118.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2016.12.040 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Menzel M, Ranjan R (2012) CloudGenius? Decision support for web server cloud migration categories and subject descriptors. In: WWW 2012—Session Web Eng, vol 2, pp 979–988.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2187836.2187967
  31. Onar SC, Oztaysi B, Kahraman C (2018) Multicriteria evaluation of cloud service providers using pythagorean fuzzy TOPSIS. J Mult Log SOFT Comput 30:263–283Google Scholar
  32. Opricovic S (1998) Multicriteria optimization of civil engineering systems. Faculty of Civil Engineering, BelgradeGoogle Scholar
  33. Opricovic S, Tzeng G-HH (2004) Compromise solution by MCDM methods: a comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. Eur J Oper Res 156:445–455.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00020-1 CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. Oztaysi B, Onar SC, Goztepe K, Kahraman C (2017) Evaluation of research proposals for grant funding using interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Soft Comput 21:1203–1218.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-015-1853-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Park JH, Cho HJ, Kwun YC (2011) Extension of the VIKOR method for group decision making with interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy information. Fuzzy Optim Decis Mak 10:233–253.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10700-011-9102-9 MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. Razavi Hajiagha SH, Hashemi SS, Zavadskas EK et al (2013) A complex proportional assessment method for group decision making in an interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy environment. Technol Econ Dev Econ 19:22–37.  https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2012.762953 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rehman ZU, Hussain OK, Hussain FK (2014) Parallel cloud service selection and ranking based on QoS history. Int J Parallel Program 42:820–852.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10766-013-0276-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Repschlaeger J, Proehl T, Zarnekow R (2014) Cloud service management decision support: an application of AHP for provider selection of a cloud-based IT service management system. Intell Decis Technol 8:95–110.  https://doi.org/10.3233/IDT-130181 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Saaty TL (1977) A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J Math Psychol 15:234–281MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resource allocation. McGraw, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  41. Sachdeva N, Singh O, Kapur PK, Galar D (2016) Multi-criteria intuitionistic fuzzy group decision analysis with TOPSIS method for selecting appropriate cloud solution to manage big data projects. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag 7:316–324.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13198-016-0455-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sun L, Dong H, Hussain FK et al (2014) A hybrid fuzzy framework for cloud service selection. IEEE Int Conf Web Serv 2014:313–320.  https://doi.org/10.1109/ICWS.2014.53 Google Scholar
  43. Tan C, Chen X (2013) Interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy multicriteria group decision making based on VIKOR and Choquet integral. J Appl Math 2013:1–16.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/656879 Google Scholar
  44. Tooranloo HS, Iranpour A (2017) Supplier selection and evaluation using interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy AHP method. Int J Procure Manag 10:539.  https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPM.2017.086399 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Xu Z, Cai X (2012) Intuitionistic Fuzzy Information Aggregation. In: Intuitionistic fuzzy information aggregation. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 1–102.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29584-3_1
  46. Ye J (2010) Multicriteria fuzzy decision-making method using entropy weights-based correlation coefficients of interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Appl Math Model 34:3864–3870.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2010.03.025 MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  47. Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8:338–353.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  48. Zavadskas EK, Kaklauskas A, Sarka V (1994) The new method of multicriteria complex proportional assessment of projects. Technol Econ Dev Econ 1:131–139Google Scholar
  49. Zavadskas EK, Antucheviciene J, Razavi Hajiagha SH, Hashemi SS (2014) Extension of weighted aggregated sum product assessment with interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy numbers (WASPAS-IVIF). Appl Soft Comput 24:1013–1021.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2014.08.031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zavadskas EK, Antucheviciene J, Razavi Hajiagha SH, Hashemi SS (2015) The interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy MULTIMOORA method for group decision making in engineering. Math Probl Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/560690 Google Scholar
  51. Zhang F, Xu S (2016) Multiple attribute group decision making method based on utility theory under interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy environment. Group Decis Negot 25:1261–1275.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-016-9473-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zhao H, You JX, Liu HC (2016) Failure mode and effect analysis using MULTIMOORA method with continuous weighted entropy under interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy environment. Soft Comput.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-016-2118-x

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Industrial Engineering DepartmentGalatasaray UniversityOrtaköy, IstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations