Advertisement

A Hybrid Method for Cloud Quality of Service Criteria Weighting

  • Constanta Zoie RădulescuEmail author
  • Marius Rădulescu
Chapter
Part of the AIRO Springer Series book series (AIROSS, volume 1)

Abstract

The Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methods can be used for selection of a Cloud Services Provider (CSP). The most critical input of these methods is the assignment of criteria weights which can be based on subjective, objective, or a combination of weighting methods. In this paper a new hybrid method is proposed for Quality of Service (QoS) criteria analysis and weighting. The approach is based on a subjective weighting method and an objective weighting method. The hybrid method is applied in a case study. An analysis of causal relations and the degree of influence between QoS criteria based on DEMATEL method is presented.

Keywords

Subjective weighting Objective weighting DEMATEL method Quality of service Cloud service provider 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the project PN 18 19 01 01 and PN 18 19 05 01 from the Romanian Core Program of the Ministry of Research and Innovation.

References

  1. 1.
    Rădulescu, C.Z., Rădulescu, I.: An extended TOPSIS approach for ranking cloud service providers. Stud. Inf. Control 26(2), 183–192 (2017)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rădulescu, C.Z., Rădulescu, D.M., Harţescu, F.: A cloud service providers ranking approach, based on SAW and modified TOPSIS methods. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Informatics in Economy (IE 2017), Bucharest, Romania, pp. 7–12 (2017)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rădulescu, C.Z., Balog, A., Rădulescu, D.M., Dumitrache, M.: A decision making framework for weighting and ranking criteria for cloud provider selection. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on System Theory, Control and Computing (ICSTCC), October 13–15 (2016)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Deng, H., Yeh, C.H., Willis, R.J.: Inter-company comparison using modified TOPSIS with objective weights. Comput. Oper. Res. 27, 963–973 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wang, T.C., Da Lee, H.: Developing a fuzzy TOPSIS approach based on subjective weights and objective weights. Expert Syst. Appl. 36, 8980–8985 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lotfi, F.H., Fallahnejad, R.: Imprecise Shannon’s entropy and multi attribute decision making. Entropy 12, 53–62 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ardakani, M.A., Milani, A., Yannacopoulos, S., Shokouhi, G.: On the effect of subjective, objective and combinative weighting in multiple criteria decision making: a case study on impact optimization of composites. Expert Syst. Appl. 46, 426–438 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Saaty, T.L.: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, USA (1980)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chu, A.T.W., Kalaba, R.E., Spingarn, K.: A comparison of two methods for determining the weights of belonging to fuzzy sets. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 27(4), 531–538 (1979)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hwang, C.L., Lin, M.J.: Group Decision Making Under Multiple Criteria: Methods and Applications. Springer, Berlin (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Edwards, W.: How to use multi attribute utility measurement for social decision-making. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 7(5), 326–340 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Edwards, W., Barron, F.H.: SMARTS and SMARTER -improved simple methods for multi attribute utility measurement. Org. Behav. Human Decis. Process. 60, 306–325 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Simos, J.: L’évaluation environnementale: Un processus cognitif négocié. Lausanne: DGF-EPFL, These de doctorat (1990)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Figueira, J., Roy, B.: Determining the weights of criteria in the ELECTRE type methods with a revised Simos’ procedure. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 139, 317–326 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hwang, C.L., Yoon, K.: Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications. Springer, Berlin (1991)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shannon, C.E., Weaver, W.: The Mathematical Theory of Communication. The University of Illinois Press, Urbana (1947)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Choo, E.U., Wedley, W.C.: Optimal criterion weights in repetitive multicriteria decision-making. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 36, 983–992 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Croux, C., Filzmoser, P., Fritz, H.: Robust sparse principal component analysis. Technometrics 55, 202–214 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Saaty, T.L.: The Analytic Hierarchy Process, p. 287. The Wharton School University of Pensilvania, United States of America (1991)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gabus, A., Fontela, E.: Perceptions of the World Problematique: Communication Procedure, Communicating with Those Bearing Collective Responsibility. Battelle Geneva Research Center, Geneva, Switzerland (1973)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wang, W.C., Lin, Y.H., Lin, C.L., Chung, C.H., Lee, M.T.: DEMATEL-based model to improve the performance in a matrix organization. Expert Syst. Appl. 39, 4978–4986 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gölcük, I., Baykasoglu, A.: An analysis of DEMATEL approaches for criteria interaction handling within ANP. Expert Syst. Appl. 46, 346–366 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lee, Y.C., Li, M.L., Yen, T.M., Huang, T.H.: Analysis of adopting an integrated decision making trial and evaluation laboratory on a technology acceptance model. Expert Syst. Appl. 37, 1745–1754 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Institute for R&D in InformaticsBucharestRomania
  2. 2.Institute of Mathematical Statistics and Applied MathematicsBucharestRomania

Personalised recommendations