Advertisement

A Unified Framework for Specifying Cost Models of IT Service Offerings

  • Kugmoorthy Gajananan
  • Aly Megahed
  • Shubhi Asthana
  • Taiga Nakamura
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics book series (SPBE)

Abstract

Information technology (IT) service providers compete to win highly-valued service contracts in a tender-like kind of process. The process starts with clients submitting a request for proposals, for which competing providers prepare a solution that covers the client requirements, and then begin the negotiation with the client trying to win the deal. Traditionally, IT providers design solutions by establishing a laundry list of services that the customer needs. Then, they try to cost and price each of these services individually. The more recent trend is that IT providers identify and design solutions that integrate a set of services bundles, usually called offerings, to allow for standardization and usage of economies of scale. This makes defining cost models for such integrated solution challenging as there is no consistent way to specify these costs for individual offerings which may have their own characteristics. In this work, we provide a unified framework that provides a consistent approach for specifying cost models for different service offerings while being flexible enough to handle individual differences among them.

References

  1. 1.
    Yin P, Nezhad HRM, Megahed A, Nakamura T. A progress advisor for IT service engagements. In: 2015 IEEE International conference on services computing (SCC). IEEE;2015. p. 592–9.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Megahed A, Yin P, Nezhad HRM. An optimization approach to services sales forecasting in a multi-staged sales pipeline. In: 2016 IEEE international conference on services computing (SCC). IEEE;2016. p. 713–9.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Megahed A, Gajananan K, Asthana S, Becker V, Smith M, Nakamura T. Top-down pricing of IT services deals with recommendation for missing values of historical and market data. In: Proceedings of the international conference on service-oriented computing (ICSOC). 2016. p. 745–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fukuda MA, Gajananan K, Jiang S, Megahed A, Nakamura T, Smith MA. Top-down pricing of a complex service deal. U.S. Patent Application 15/192,884, filed 28 Dec 2017.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gajananan K, Megahed A, Asthana S, Becker V, Nakamura T, Smith M. A method for estimating annual cost reduction of IT service deals. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on service operations and logistics, and informatics (SOLI). 2014. p. 45–50.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fukuda MA, Gajananan K, Jiang S, Megahed A, Nakamura T, Smith MA. Method and system for determining an optimized service package model for market participation. U.S. Patent Application 15/050,986, filed 24 Aug 2017.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Megahed A, Shubhi A, Becker V, Nakamura T, Gajananan K. A method for selecting peer deals in IT service contracts. In: 2017 IEEE international conference on artificial intelligence and mobile services (AIMS). IEEE;2017. p. 1–7.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mine D. Bundling products and service: the new super solution that gives companies and edge. Ivey Bus J. 2013;77(3).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Akkiraju R, Smith M, Greenia D, Jiang S, Nakamura T, Mukherjee D. Pusapaty S. On pricing complex IT service solutions. In: Service research and innovation institute global conference. 2014. p. 55–64.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gajananan K, Megahed A, Abe M, Nakamura T, Smith M. A top-down pricing algorithm for IT service contracts using lower level service data. In: 2016 IEEE international conference on services computing (SCC). IEEE;2016. p. 720–7.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Megahed A, Gajananan K, Abe M, Jiang S, Smith M, Nakamura T. Pricing IT services deals: a more agile top-down approach. In: International conference on service-oriented computing. Springer Berlin Heidelberg;2015. p. 461–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Megahed A, Ren GJ, Firth M. Modeling business insights into predictive analytics for the outcome of IT service contracts. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on services computing (SCC). 2015. p. 515–2.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Firth MK, Megahed A, Ren G. Assessing probability of winning an in-flight deal for different price points. U.S. Patent Application 15/192,892, filed 28 Dec 2017.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Motahari Nezhad HR, Shwartz L. Towards open smart services platform. In: Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii international conference on system sciences. 2017. p. 1103–9.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Greenia DB, Qiao M, Akkiraju R. A win prediction model for IT outsourcing bids. In: 2014 Annual SRII global conference (SRII). IEEE;2014. p. 39–42.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Carman S, Strong R, Chandra A, Oh S, Spangler S, Anderson L, Bernard JJ. Predictive value of comments in the service engagement process. Proc Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2012;49(1):1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nezhad HRM, Greenia DB, Nakamura T, Akkiraju R. Health identification and outcome prediction for outsourcing services based on textual comments. In: 2014 IEEE international conference on services computing (SCC). IEEE;2014. p. 155–62.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Li N, Zhang LJ, Xu P, Wang L, Zheng J, Guo Y. Research on pricing model of cloud storage. In: 203 IEEE ninth world congress on services (SERVICES). IEEE;2013. p. 412–9.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Li Z, Li M. A hierarchical cloud pricing system. In: 2013 IEEE ninth world congress on services (SERVICES). IEEE;2013. p. 403–11.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Basu S, Chakraborty S, Sharma M. Pricing cloud services the impact of broadband quality. Omega. 2015;50:96–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    de Medeiros RW, Rosa NS, Pires LF. Predicting service composition costs with complex cost behavior. In: 2015 IEEE international conference on services computing (SCC). IEEE;2015. p. 419–26.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Indounas K, Avlonitis GJ. Pricing objectives and their antecedents in the services sector. J Serv Manage. 2009;20(3):342–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Xu L, Jennings B. A cost-minimizing service composition selection algorithm supporting time-sensitive discounts. In: 2010 IEEE international conference on services computing (SCC). IEEE;2010. p. 402–8.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fukuda MA, Gajananan K, Jiang S, Megahed A, Nakamura T, Smith MA. Effectiveness of service complexity configurations in top-down complex services design. U.S. Patent Application 14/977,383, filed 22 June 2017.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fukuda MA, Gajananan K, Jiang S, Megahed A, Nakamura T, Smith MA. Augmenting missing values in historical or market data for deals. U.S. Patent Application 15/192,875, filed 28 Dec 2017.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kugmoorthy Gajananan
    • 1
  • Aly Megahed
    • 2
  • Shubhi Asthana
    • 2
  • Taiga Nakamura
    • 2
  1. 1.IBM Research - Tokyo, IBMTokyoJapan
  2. 2.IBM Research - Almaden, IBMSan JoseUSA

Personalised recommendations