CLOUD SERVICE PROVIDER SELECTION FOR A BUSINESS WITH A NEW INTEGRATED FUCOM - WEDBA APPROACH

Öz

Since the impact of cloud technology on businesses has been proven, more and more businesses worldwide are turning to and investing in this technology. With cloud technology, businesses provide high storage space for their data with high security service by eliminating physical boundaries, while providing significant cost savings with faster data sharing. Determining a cloud service provider for businesses is an important decision. Businesses may have a variety of concerns about cloud service providers, and they need to consider a number of conflicting criteria for selecting the most appropriate cloud service provider. The MCDM (Multiple Criteria Decision Making) methods can be used to solve this problem. The aim of this study is to determine the most appropriate cloud service provider for a business. In this study, after the criterion weights are determined by FUCOM (Full Consistency Method), the most appropriate cloud service provider is presented as a recommendation with the WEDBA (Weighted Euclidean Distance Based Approximation) method. The results obtained from the study show that the criteria in selection of a cloud service provider are security, monthly cost, memory capacity, sustainability, file sharing capacity and additional free storage, respectively, according to their importance levels. In terms of packages offered to businesses, the most suitable cloud service provider is determined as Google Drive.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• MCDM
• Cloud service provider selection
• FUCOM
• WEDBA

YENİ BÜTÜNLEŞİK FUCOM - WEDBA YAKLAŞIMI İLE BİR İŞLETME İÇİN BULUT HİZMET SAĞLAYICISI SEÇİMİ

Öz

Bulut teknolojisinin işletmeler üzerindeki etkisi kanıtlandığından beri dünya çapında her geçen gün daha fazla işletme bu teknolojiye yönelmekte ve yatırım yapmaktadır. Bulut teknolojisi ile işletmeler, fiziksel sınırları ortadan kaldırarak yüksek güvenlik hizmeti ile verileri için yüksek depolama alanı kazanırken daha hızlı veri paylaşımı ile önemli maliyet tasarrufu sağlamaktadır. İşletmeler için bulut hizmet sağlayıcısı seçimi önemli bir karardır. İşletmelerin bulut hizmet sağlayıcıları için çeşitli endişeleri mevcut olabilmektedir ve işletmelerin en uygun bulut hizmet sağlayıcısının seçimi için birbiri ile çelişen bir dizi kriteri göz önünde bulundurması gerekir. Bu problemin çözümünde Çok Kriterli Karar Verme (ÇKKV) yöntemleri kullanılabilir. Bu çalışmanın amacı bir işletme için en uygun bulut hizmet sağlayıcısının seçimidir. Bu çalışmada, kriter ağırlıkları FUCOM (Full Consistency Method) ile belirlendikten sonra WEDBA (Weighted Euclidean Distance Based Approximation) yöntemi ile en uygun bulut hizmeti sağlayıcısı öneri olarak sunulmaktadır. Çalışmadan elde edilen sonuçlar, bulut hizmet sağlayıcısı seçiminde kriterlerin önem seviyelerine göre sırasıyla güvenlik, aylık maliyet, hafıza kapasitesi, sürdürülebilirlik, dosya paylaşım kapasitesi ve ek ücretsiz depolama alanı şeklinde olduğunu göstermektedir. İşletmelere sunulan paketler açısından ise en uygun bulut hizmet sağlayıcısı Google Drive olarak belirlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• ÇKKV
• FUCOM
• WEDBA
• Bulut hizmet sağlayıcı seçimi

Kaynakça

1. Abdullah, A., Ahmad, S., Athar, M.A., Rajpoot, N. ve Talib, F. (2022). “Healthcare performance management using integrated FUCOM-MARCOS approach: The case of India”. Health Planning and Management, 37(5), 2635-2668.
2. Ahmad, N. ve Quahmash, A. (2020). “Implementing Fuzzy AHP and FUCOM to evaluate critical success factors for sustained academic quality assurance and ABET accreditation”. PLoS ONE 15(9): e0239140.
3. Akar, G.S. (2022). “Tedarik Zincirlerinde Sürdürülebilir İmalatın Önündeki Engelleyici Faktörlerin Tam Tutarlılık Yöntemiyle (FUCOM) Değerlendirilmesi”. Bucak İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 5(2), 298-318.
4. Akbari, M., Meshram, S. G., Krishna, R. S., Pradhan, B., Shadeed, S., Khedher, K. M., Sepehri, M., Ildoromi, A.R.,
5. Alimerzaei, F. ve Darabi, F. (2021). “Identification of the Groundwater Potential Recharge Zones Using MCDM Models: Full Consistency Method (FUCOM), Best Worst Method (BWM) and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)”. Water Resources Management, 35(14), 4727-4745.
6. Alam, K.A., Ahmed, R., Butt, F.S., Kim, S. G. ve Ko, K.M. (2018). “An Uncertainty-Aware Integrated Fuzzy AHP-WASPAS Model to Evaluate Public Cloud Computing Services”. Procedia Computer Science, 130, 504-509.
7. Ali, Y., Mehmood, B., Huzaifa, M., Yasir, U. ve Khan, A. U. (2020). “Development of a New Hybrid Multi Criteria Decision-Making Method for a Car Selection Scenario”. Facta Universitatis. Series: Mechanical Engineering, 18(3), 357-373.
8. Ayçin, E. ve Aşan, H. (2021). “İş Zekası Uygulamaları Seçimindeki Kriterlerin Önem Ağırlıklarının FUCOM Yöntemi ile Belirlenmesi”. KOCATEPE İİBFD, 23(2), 195-208.

9. Badi, I. ve Abdulshahed, A. (2019). “Ranking the Libyan Airlines by Using Full Consistency Method (FUCOM) and Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) “. Operational Research in Engineering Sciences: Theory and Applications, 2(1), 1-14.
10. Badi, I., Muhammad, L. J., Abubakar, M. ve Bakır, M. (2022). “Measuring Sustainability Performance Indicators Using FUCOM-MARCOS Methods”. Operational Research in Engineering Sciences: Theory and Applications, 5(2), 99-116.
11. Basar, M. ve Tolga, A. C. (2020, July). Smart System Evaluation in Vertical Farming via Fuzzy WEDBA Method. In International Conference on Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems (pp. 534-542). Springer, Cham.
12. Biswas, S., Pamucar, D., Kar, S. ve Sana, S.S. (2021). “A New Integrated FUCOM–CODAS Framework with Fermatean Fuzzy Information for Multi-Criteria Group Decision-Making”. Symmetry, 13, 2430.
13. Buyya, R., Yeo, C.S., Venugopal, S., Broberg, J. ve Brandic, I. (2009). “Cloud Computing and Emerging IT Platforms: Vision, Hype and Reality for Delivering Computing as the 5th Utility”. Future Generation Computer Systems, 25(6), 599–616.
14. Chang, C. W., Wu, C.R., Lin, C.T. ve Chen, H. C. (2007). “An Application of AHP and Sensitivity Analysis for Selecting the Best Slicing Machine”. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 52(2), 296-307.
15. Demir, G. (2021). “E-Devlet Web Sitelerinin Bulanık FUCOM ile Değerlendirilmesi”. International Journal of Economic and Administrative Academic Research, 1(2), 41–53.
16. Demir, G. ve Bircan, H. (2020). “Kriter Ağırlıklandırma Yöntemlerinden BWM ve FUCOM Yöntemlerinin karşılaştırılması ve bir Uygulama”. Sivas Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 21(2), 170-185.
17. Do Chung, B. ve Seo, K. K. (2015). “A Cloud Service Selection Model Based on Analytic Network Process”. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 8(18), 1-5.
18. Durmić, E., Stević, Ž., Chatterjee, P., Vasiljević, M. ve Tomašević, M. (2020). “Sustainable Supplier Selection Using Combined FUCOM–Rough SAW Model”. Reports in mechanical engineering, 1(1), 34-43.
19. Ecemiş, O. ve Coşkun, A. (2022). “Türkiye’de Bilişim Teknolojileri Kullanımının ÇKKV Yöntemleriyle İncelenmesi 2014-2021 dönemi”. Avrupa Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi, (37), 81-89.
20. Ecer, F. (2021). “An Analysis of the Factors Affecting Wind Farm Site Selection through FUCOM Subjective Weighting Method”. Pamukkale University Journal of Engineering Sciences, 27(1), 24-34.
21. Emekci, A., Kuğu, E. ve Temiztürk, M. (2016). “Adli Bilişim Ezberlerini Bozan Bir Düzlem: Bulut Bilişim”. Uluslararası Bilgi Güvenliği Mühendisliği Dergisi, 2(1), 8-14.
22. Erceg, Ž., Starčević, V., Pamučar, D., Mitrović, G., Stević, Ž. ve Žikić, S. (2019). “A New Model for Stock Management in Order to Rationalize Costs: ABC-FUCOM-Interval Rough CoCoSo Model”. Symmetry, 11(12), 1527.
23. Fazlollahtabar, H., Smailbašić, A. ve Stević, Ž. (2019). “FUCOM Method in Group Decision-Making: Selection of Forklift in a Warehouse”. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 2(1), 49-65.
24. Gupta, A., Gupta, N. ve Garg, R. K. (2018). “Implementing Weighted Entropy-Distance Based Approach for the Selection of Software Reliability Growth Models”. International Journal of Computer Applications in Technology, 57(3), 255-266.
25. Hoan, P. ve Ha, Y. (2021). “ARAS-FUCOM approach for VPAF fighter aircraft selection”. Decision Science Letters, 10(1), 53-62.
26. Işık, Ö. (2021). “AHP, CRITIC VE WEDBA Yöntemlerini İçeren Entegre Bir ÇKKV Modeli İle AXA Sigorta Şirketinin Finansal Performansının Analizi”. Uluslararası İşletme, Ekonomi ve Yönetim Perspektifleri Dergisi (IJBEMP), 5(2), 892-908.
27. Jain, V. ve Ajmera, P. (2019). “Application of MADM Methods as MOORA and WEDBA for Ranking of FMS Flexibility”. International Journal of Data and Network Science, 3(2), 119-136.
28. Jaiswal, A. ve Mishra, R.B. (2017). “Cloud Service Selection Using TOPSIS and Fuzzy TOPSIS with AHP and ANP “. International Conference on Machine Learning and Soft Computing, Ho Chi Minh City Vietnam, January 13 - 16, 2017, 136-142.
29. Kumar, R. R., Mishra, S. ve Kumar, C. (2018). “A novel framework for cloud service evaluation and selection using hybrid MCDM methods”. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 43(12), 7015-7030.
30. Kumar, R.R., Shameem, M. ve Kumar, C. (2022). “A Computational Framework for Ranking Prediction of Cloud Services Under Fuzzy Environment”. Enterprise Information Systems, 16(1), 167-187.
31. Kwon, H. K. ve Seo, K. K. (2013). “A Decision-Making Model to Choose a Cloud Service Using Fuzzy AHP”. Advanced Science and Technology Letters, 35(1), 93-96.
32. Madhavaiah, C. ve Bashir, I. (2012). “Defining Cloud Computing in Business Perspective: A Review of Research”. Metamorphosis, 11(2), 50-65.
33. Mahendra, G. S. (2022). “Decision Support System Using FUCOM-MARCOS for Airline Selection in Indonesia”. JITK (Jurnal Ilmu Pengetahuan dan Teknologi Komputer), 8(1), 1-9.
34. Mandal, S. ve Khan, D. A. (2022). “Cloud-CoCoSo: Cloud Model-Based Combined Compromised Solution Model for Trusted Cloud Service Provider Selection”. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 8, 1-26.
35. Monika ve Sangwan, O.P. (2022). “Quality Evaluation of Cloud Services Using MCDM Techniques: A Comparative Analysis”. 13th International Conference on Soft Computing and Pattern Recognition (SoCPaR 2021). Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, 417. Springer, Cham.
36. Munier, N. ve Hontoria, E. (2021). “Uses and Limitations of the AHP Method. A Non-Mathematical and Rational Analysis”. In Management for Professionals, Springer, Berlin, Germany.
37. Nawaz, F., Asadabadi, M. R., Janjua, N. K., Hussain, O. K., Chang, E. ve Saberi, M. (2018). “An MCDM Method for Cloud Service Selection Using a Markov Chain and The Best-Worst Method” . Knowledge-Based Systems, 159, 120-131. .
38. Noureddine, M. ve Ristic, M. (2019). “Route Planning for Hazardous Materials Transportation: Multi criteria Decision Making Approach”. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 2(1), 66-85.
39. Nunić, Z. (2018). “Evaluation and selection of Manufacturer PVC carpentry using FUCOM-MABAC model”. Operational Research in Engineering Sciences: Theory and Applications, 1(1), 13-28.
40. Ong, M.C., Leong, Y.T., Wan, Y.K. vd. (2021). “Multi-objective Optimization of Integrated Water System by FUCOM-VIKOR Approach”. Process Integr Optim Sustain, 5, 43–62.
41. Pamučar, D., Stević, Ž. ve Sremac, S. (2018). “A New Model for Determining Weight Coefficients of Criteria in MCDM Models: Full Consistency Method (FUCOM)”. Symmetry, 10(9), 393.
42. Papathanasiou, J., Kostoglou, V. ve Petkos, D. (2015). “A Comparative Analysis of Cloud Computing Services Using Multicriteria Decision Analysis Methodologies”. International Journal of Information and Decision Sciences, 7(1), 51-70.
43. Peker, B. N. ve Görener, A. (2022). “Tesis Yeri Seçiminde Kriterlerin Önem Ağırlıklarının Bulanık FUCOM Yöntemiyle Belirlenmesi”. İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 21(45), 1512-1536.
44. Prentkovskis, O., Erceg, Ž., Stević, Ž., Tanackov, I., Vasiljević, M. ve Gavranović, M. (2018). “A New Methodology for Improving Service Quality Measurement: Delphi-FUCOM-SERVQUAL Model”. Symmetry, 10(12), 757.
45. Rao, R. V. ve Singh, D. (2011). “Evaluating Flexible Manufacturing Systems Using Euclidean Distance-Based İntegrated Approach”. International Journal of Decision Sciences, Risk and Management, 3(1-2), 32-53.
46. Rao, R. V. ve Singh, D. (2012). “Weighted Euclidean Distance Based Approach as a Multiple Attribute Decision Making Method for Plant or Facility Layout Design Selection”. International Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations, 3(3), 365–382.
47. Rashid, A. ve Chaturvedi, A. (2019). “Cloud Computing Characteristics and Services: A Brief Review”. International Journal of Computer Sciences and Engineering, 7(2), 421-426.
48. Rezaei, J. (2015). “Best-Worst Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Method”. Omega, 53, 49-57.
49. Saaty, T. L. (2008). “Decision Making with The Analytic Hierarchy Process”. International Journal of Services Sciences, 1(1), 83-98.
50. Saqib, N., Arora, M. ve Chopra, S. (2018). “Cloud Computing Architecture Issues and Future Research Directions”. Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR), 5(11), 532- 537.
51. Stević, Ž. ve Brković, N. (2020). “A Novel Integrated FUCOM-MARCOS Model for Evaluation of Human Resources in a Transport Company”. Logistics, 4(1), 4.
52. Şimşek, O. (2022). “Hibrid bir ÇKKV Modeli ile Türk Bankacılık Sektöründe Finansal Performans Değerlendirmesi”. Turkish Studies-Economy, 17(2), 447-470.
53. Tang, C. ve Liu, J. (2015). “Selecting a Trusted Cloud Service Provider for Your Saas Program”. Computers & Security, 50, 60-73.
54. Tanwar, A.S., Evangelatos, N., Venne, J., Ogilvie, L. A., Satyamoorthy, K. ve Brand, A. (2021). “Global Open Health Data Cooperatives Cloud in an Era of COVID-19 and Planetary Health”. OMICS: A Journal of Integrative Biology, 25(3), 169-175.
55. Tolga, Ç. A. ve Basar, M. (2022). “The Assessment of a Smart System in Hydroponic Vertical Farming via Fuzzy MCDM Methods”. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 42(1), 1-12.
56. Toslak, M., Aktürk, B. ve Ulutaş, A. (2022). “MEREC ve WEDBA Yöntemleri ile Bir Lojistik Firmasının Yıllara Göre Performansının Değerlendirilmesi”. Avrupa Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi, (33), 363-372.
57. Ulutaş, A. (2020). “Stacker Selection with PSI and WEDBA Methods” . International Journal of Contemporary Economics and Administrative Sciences, 10(2), 493-504.
58. Youssef, A.E. (2020). “An Integrated MCDM Approach for Cloud Service Selection Based on TOPSIS and BWM”, IEEE Access, 8, 71851-71865.
59. Zafar, S., Alamgir, Z. ve Rehman, M. H. (2021). “An Effective Blockchain Evaluation System Based on Entropy-CRITIC Weight Method and MCDM Techniques”. Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications, 14(5), 3110-3123.