Cutting Through the Jungle of Cloud Computing Whitepapers: Development of an Evaluation Model



Cloud computing is hyped as a revolutionary form of information technology (IT) resource provision, attracting the attention of numerous researchers and practitioners. This hype results in a disparate collection of whitepapers that act as guidelines or best practices to counter the prevailing challenges in the domain. But the variety of cloud computing whitepapers differs substantially in its quality and relevance for specific contexts. Based on the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), we propose an evaluation model that enables readers to assess the quality and relevance of cloud computing whitepapers in order to select appropriate whitepapers that support their current needs. Furthermore, the evaluation model supports authors to create whitepapers for a specific target audience and accordingly to provide a ready-for-use taxonomy to structure adequate whitepapers. The target audience of this article are potential cloud adopters referring to the business perspective with a demand of high quality whitepapers for their own requirements.


Cloud Computing Business Process Analytic Hierarchy Process Quality Dimension Cloud Service 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Aguar´on, J., Moreno-Jim´enez, J.M.: The geometric consistency index: Approximated thresholds. European Journal of Operational Research 147(1), 137–145 (2003). DOI  10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00255-2
  2. 2.
    AIS: Senior scholars’ basket of journals (2011). URL
  3. 3.
    Armbrust, M., Fox, A., Griffith, R., Joseph, A.D., Katz, R.H., Konwinski, A., Lee, G., Patterson, D.A., Rabkin, A., Stoica, I., Zaharia, M.: Above the clouds: A berkeley view of cloud computing: Tech. report (2009). URL
  4. 4.
    Armbrust,M., Stoica, I., Zaharia, M., Fox, A., Griffith, R., Joseph, A.D., Katz, R., Konwinski, A., Lee, G., Patterson, D., Rabkin, A.: A view of cloud computing. Communications of the ACM 53(4), 50 (2010). DOI  10.1145/1721654.1721672
  5. 5.
    Beck, S.: The good, the bad & the ugly: or, why it’s a good idea to evaluate web sources (1997). URL
  6. 6.
    Benlian, A.: Is traditional, open-source, or on-demand first choice? developing an ahp-based framework for the comparison of different software models in office suites selection. European Journal of Information Systems 20(5), 542–559 (2011). DOI  10.1057/ejis.2011.14
  7. 7.
    Bhattacharjee, S., Ramesh, R.: Enterprise computing environments and cost assessment. Communications of the ACM 43(10), 74–82 (2000). DOI  10.1145/352183.352208
  8. 8.
    Bodin, L.D., Gordon, L.A., Loeb, M.P.: Evaluating information security investments using the analytic hierarchy process. Communications of the ACM 48(2), 78–83 (2005). DOI  10.1145/1042091.1042094
  9. 9.
    Byun, D.H.: The ahp approach for selecting an automobile purchase model. Information & Management 38(5), 289–297 (2001). DOI  10.1016/S0378-7206(00)00071-9330 Pascal Grochol, Stephan Schneider, and Ali Sunyaev
  10. 10.
    Chang, S.I., Yen, D.C., Ng, C.S.P., Chang, W.T.: An analysis of it/is outsourcing provider selection for small- and medium-sized enterprises in taiwan. Information & Management 49(5), 199–209 (2012). DOI  10.1016/
  11. 11.
    Eayrs, M.: A principled methodology for information retrieval on the web. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology 3(1), 211–218 (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    European Commission: Cloud computing: Public consultation report (2011). URL http: // Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gartner Research: Gartner says worldwide cloud services market to surpass $109 billion in 2012 (2012). URL
  14. 14.
    Gillespie, J.F., Leininger,W.E., Kahalas, H.: A human resource planning and valuation model. Academy of Management Journal 19(4), 650–656 (1976). DOI  10.2307/255798
  15. 15.
    Gonc¸alves, M.A., Moreira, B.L., Fox, E.A.,Watson, L.T.: “what is a good digital library?” – a quality model for digital libraries. Information Processing & Management 43(5), 1416–1437 (2007). DOI  10.1016/j.ipm.2006.11.010
  16. 16.
    Haskin, D.: Don’t believe the hype: The 21 biggest technology flops (2007). URL
  17. 17.
    Heiner, K., Wallace, W.A., Young, K.: A resource allocation and evaluation model for providing services to the mentally retarded. Management Science 27(7), 769–784 (1981). DOI  10.1287/mnsc.27.7.769
  18. 18.
    Huang, J., Jiang, X., Tang, Q.: An e-commerce performance assessment model: Its development and an initial test on e-commerce applications in the retail sector of china. Information & Management 46(2), 100–108 (2009). DOI  10.1016/
  19. 19.
    Limam, N., Boutaba, R.: Assessing software service quality and trustworthiness at selection time. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 36(4), 559–574 (2010). DOI  10.1109/TSE. 2010.2
  20. 20.
    Marston, S., Li, Z., Bandyopadhyay, S., Zhang, J., Ghalsasi, A.: Cloud computing — the business perspective. Decision Support Systems 51(1), 176–189 (2011). DOI  10.1016/j.dss. 2010.12.006
  21. 21.
    Mell, P., Grance, T.: The nist definition of cloud computing: Recommendations of the national institute of standards and technology. URL
  22. 22.
    Miller, H.: The multiple dimensions of information quality. Information Systems Management 13(2), 79–82 (1996). DOI  10.1080/10580539608906992
  23. 23.
    Narasimhan, B., Nichols, R.: State of cloud applications and platforms: The cloud adopters’ view. Computer 44(3), 24–28 (2011). DOI  10.1109/MC.2011.66
  24. 24.
    Nickerson, R.C., Varshney, U., Muntermann, J.: A method for taxonomy development and its application in information systems. European Journal of Information Systems (2012). DOI  10.1057/ejis.2012.26
  25. 25.
    Ong, C.S., Day, M.Y., Hsu,W.L.: The measurement of user satisfaction with question answering systems. Information & Management 46(7), 397–403 (2009). DOI  10.1016/
  26. 26.
    Saaty, T.L.: A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 15(3), 234–281 (1977). DOI  10.1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5
  27. 27.
    Saaty, T.L.: How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research 48(1), 9–26 (1990). DOI  10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-I
  28. 28.
    Schneider, S., Lansing, J., Gao, F., Sunyaev, A.: A taxonomic perspective on certification schemes: Development of a taxonomy for cloud service certification criteria. In: Proceedings of the 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2014), pp. 4998–5007. Big Island, Hawaii, USA (2014). DOI  10.1109/HICSS.2014.614
  29. 29.
    Sellitto, C.: Towards a weighted average framework for evaluating the quality of web-located health information. Journal of Information Science 31(4), 260–272 (2005). DOI  10.1177/016555150505416819 Cutting Through the Jungle of Cloud Computing Whitepapers 331
  30. 30.
    Siler, K.F.: A stochastic evaluation model for database organizations in data retrieval systems. Communications of the ACM 19(2), 84–95 (1976). DOI  10.1145/359997.360010
  31. 31.
    Sun, L., Ivastava, R.P., Mock, T.J.: An information systems security risk assessment model under the dempster-shafer theory of belief functions. Journal of Management Information Systems 22(4), 109–142 (2006). DOI  10.2753/MIS0742-1222220405
  32. 32.
    Sunyaev, A., Schneider, S.: Cloud services certification. Communications of the ACM 56, 33–36 (2013)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tam, K.Y.: The impact of information technology investments on firm performance and evaluation: Evidence from newly industrialized economies. Information Systems Research 9(1), 85–98 (1998). DOI  10.1287/isre.9.1.85
  34. 34.
    Weber, R.: Computer technology and jobs: an impact assessment model. Communications of the ACM 31(1), 68–77 (1988). DOI  10.1145/35043.35049
  35. 35.
    Webster, J., Watson, R.T.: Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly 26(2), xiii–xxiii (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information SystemsCologneGermany

Personalised recommendations