A Hybrid Method for Cloud Quality of Service Criteria Weighting
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.
KeywordsSubjective weighting Objective weighting DEMATEL method Quality of service Cloud service provider
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.
- 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.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.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
- 8.Saaty, T.L.: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, USA (1980)Google Scholar
- 13.Simos, J.: L’évaluation environnementale: Un processus cognitif négocié. Lausanne: DGF-EPFL, These de doctorat (1990)Google Scholar
- 15.Hwang, C.L., Yoon, K.: Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications. Springer, Berlin (1991)Google Scholar
- 19.Saaty, T.L.: The Analytic Hierarchy Process, p. 287. The Wharton School University of Pensilvania, United States of America (1991)Google Scholar
- 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