Advertisement

Cloud Computing Adoption Decision Modelling for SMEs: From the PAPRIKA Perspective

  • Salim Alismaili
  • Mengxiang Li
  • Jun Shen
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 375)

Abstract

The popularity of cloud computing has been growing among enterprises since its inception. It is an emerging technology which promises competitive advantages, significant cost savings, enhanced business processes and services, and various other benefits. The aim of this paper is to propose a decision modelling using Potentially All Pairwise RanKings of all possible Alternatives (PAPRIKA) for the factors that have impact in SMEs cloud computing adoption process.

Keywords

Potentially all pairwise RanKings of all possible alternatives (PAPRIKA) Cloud services Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank 1000minds decision-making software (the software that supports PAPRIKA method) for providing us a free license and open access for the duration of the research, and Paul Hansen for his suggestions to our thinking in this area.

References

  1. 1.
    Baltussen R, Niessen L (2006) Priority setting of health interventions: the need for multi-criteria decision analysis. Cost Eff Resour Allocat 4(1):14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bolloju N (2001) Aggregation of analytic hierarchy process models based on similarities in decision makers’ preferences. Eur J Oper Res 128(3):499–508CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cameron TA, DeShazo J (2010) Differential attention to attributes in utility-theoretic choice models. J Choice Model 3(3):73–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clemen R, Reilly T (2013) Making hard decisions with DecisionTools. Cengage Learn, BostonGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    de Lautour H, Dalbeth N, Taylor W (2014) Development of preliminary remission criteria for Gout using Delphi and 1000Minds consensus exercises. Wiley-Blackwell, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Christian LM (2014) Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Doumpos M, Marinakis Y, Marinaki M, Zopounidis C (2009) An evolutionary approach to construction of outranking models for multicriteria classification: the case of the ELECTRE TRI method. Eur J Oper Res 199(2):496–505CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart GL (2005) Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. OUP Catalogue, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Edwards W (1977) How to use multiattribute utility measurement for social decisionmaking. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 7(5):326–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Edwards W, Barron FH (1994) SMARTS and SMARTER: improved simple methods for multiattribute utility measurement. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 60(3):306–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    El-Gazzar RF (2014) A literature review on cloud computing adoption issues in enterprises. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Forman EH, Selly MA (2001) Decision by objectives: how to convince others that you are right. World Scientific, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Godse M, Mulik S (2009) An approach for selecting software-as-a-service (SaaS) product. IEEE, USAGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Han S-M, Hassan MM, Yoon C-W, Huh E-N (2009) Efficient service recommendation system for cloud computing market. ACM, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hansen P, Ombler F (2008) A new method for scoring additive multi-attribute value models using pairwise rankings of alternatives. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal 15(3–4):87–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hastie R, Dawes RM (2010) Rational choice in an uncertain world: the psychology of judgment and decision making. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hussain FK, Hussain OK (2011) Towards multi-criteria cloud service selection. IEEE, USAGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    KPMG (2013) The cloud takes shape. KPMG, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Landon EL (1971) Order bias, the ideal rating, and the semantic differential. J Market Res 8:375–378Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Li A, Yang X, Kandula S, Zhang M (2010) CloudCmp: comparing public cloud providers. ACM, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Marston S, Li Z, Bandyopadhyay S, Zhang J, Ghalsasi A (2011) Cloud computing—the business perspective. Decis Support Syst 51(1):176–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Martin-Collado D, Byrne T, Amer P, Santos B, Axford M, Pryce J (2015) Analyzing the heterogeneity of farmers’ preferences for improvements in dairy cow traits using farmer typologies. J Dairy Sci 98:4148–4161Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Moshkovich HM, Mechitov AI, Olson DL (2002) Ordinal judgments in multiattribute decision analysis. Eur J Oper Res 137(3):625–641CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nielsen H, Amer P, Byrne T (2014) Approaches to formulating practical breeding objectives for animal production systems. Acta Agric Scand A: Anim Sci 64(1):2–12Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Oliveira T, Martins MF (2011) Literature review of information technology adoption models at firm level. Electron J Inf Syst Eval 14(1):110–121Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ombler F, Hansen P (2012) 1000Minds softwareGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Perreault WD (1975) Controlling order-effect bias. Publ Opin Q 39:544–551Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Raghavarao D, Wiley JB, Chitturi P (2010) Choice-based conjoint analysis: models and designs. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ryan M, Gerard K (2003) Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2(1):55–64Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Saaty TL (2008) Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int J Serv Sci 1(1):83–98MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Saaty TL (1990) How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 48(1):9–26CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sullivan T (2012) Using MCDA (multi-criteria decision analysis) to prioritise publicly-funded health care, University of Otago, DunedinGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Timmermans J, Stahl BC, Ikonen V, Bozdag E (2010) The ethics of cloud computing: a conceptual reviewGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Venters W, Whitley EA (2012) A critical review of cloud computing: researching desires and realities. J Inf Technol 27(3):179–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Von Winterfeldt D, Edwards W (1986) Decision analysis and behavioral research. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wu Y, Cegielski CG, Hazen BT, Hall DJ (2013) Cloud computing in support of supply chain information system infrastructure: understanding when to go to the cloud. J Suppl Chain Manage 49(3):25–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Yang H, Tate M (2012) A descriptive literature review and classification of cloud computing research. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 31(2):35–60Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Computing and Information TechnologyUniversity of WollongongWollongongAustralia

Personalised recommendations