IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0097831.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Approach for Web Service Selection Based on Confidence Level of Decision Maker

Author

Listed:
  • Mojtaba Khezrian
  • Ali Jahan
  • Wan Mohd Nasir Wan Kadir
  • Suhaimi Ibrahim

Abstract

Web services today are among the most widely used groups for Service Oriented Architecture (SOA). Service selection is one of the most significant current discussions in SOA, which evaluates discovered services and chooses the best candidate from them. Although a majority of service selection techniques apply Quality of Service (QoS), the behaviour of QoS-based service selection leads to service selection problems in Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM). In the existing works, the confidence level of decision makers is neglected and does not consider their expertise in assessing Web services. In this paper, we employ the VIKOR (VIšekriterijumskoKOmpromisnoRangiranje) method, which is absent in the literature for service selection, but is well-known in other research. We propose a QoS-based approach that deals with service selection by applying VIKOR with improvement of features. This research determines the weights of criteria based on user preference and accounts for the confidence level of decision makers. The proposed approach is illustrated by an example in order to demonstrate and validate the model. The results of this research may facilitate service consumers to attain a more efficient decision when selecting the appropriate service.

Suggested Citation

  • Mojtaba Khezrian & Ali Jahan & Wan Mohd Nasir Wan Kadir & Suhaimi Ibrahim, 2014. "An Approach for Web Service Selection Based on Confidence Level of Decision Maker," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-14, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0097831
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0097831
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0097831
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0097831&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0097831?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Opricovic, Serafim & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2004. "Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(2), pages 445-455, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hadi Lalghorbani & Ali Jahan, 2022. "Selection of a Wheat Harvester according to Qualitative and Quantitative Criteria," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-17, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yongming Song & Jun Hu, 2017. "Vector similarity measures of hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets and their applications," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(12), pages 1-13, December.
    2. Yi Peng, 2015. "Regional earthquake vulnerability assessment using a combination of MCDM methods," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 234(1), pages 95-110, November.
    3. Zheng, Guozhong & Wang, Xiao, 2020. "The comprehensive evaluation of renewable energy system schemes in tourist resorts based on VIKOR method," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    4. Lin, Sheng-Hau & Zhao, Xiaofeng & Wu, Jiuxing & Liang, Fachao & Li, Jia-Hsuan & Lai, Ren-Ji & Hsieh, Jing-Chzi & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2021. "An evaluation framework for developing green infrastructure by using a new hybrid multiple attribute decision-making model for promoting environmental sustainability," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    5. Milad Zamanifar & Seyed Mohammad Seyedhoseyni, 2017. "Recovery planning model for roadways network after natural hazards," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 87(2), pages 699-716, June.
    6. Pedro Ponce & Citlaly Pérez & Aminah Robinson Fayek & Arturo Molina, 2022. "Solar Energy Implementation in Manufacturing Industry Using Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Fuzzy TOPSIS and S4 Framework," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(23), pages 1-19, November.
    7. Mohit Jain & Gunjan Soni & Deepak Verma & Rajendra Baraiya & Bharti Ramtiyal, 2023. "Selection of Technology Acceptance Model for Adoption of Industry 4.0 Technologies in Agri-Fresh Supply Chain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-20, March.
    8. Chen, Lisa Y. & Wang, Tien-Chin, 2009. "Optimizing partners' choice in IS/IT outsourcing projects: The strategic decision of fuzzy VIKOR," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(1), pages 233-242, July.
    9. Wenyao Niu & Yuan Rong & Liying Yu & Lu Huang, 2022. "A Novel Hybrid Group Decision Making Approach Based on EDAS and Regret Theory under a Fermatean Cubic Fuzzy Environment," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(17), pages 1-30, August.
    10. Deb, Madhujit & Debbarma, Bishop & Majumder, Arindam & Banerjee, Rahul, 2016. "Performance –emission optimization of a diesel-hydrogen dual fuel operation: A NSGA II coupled TOPSIS MADM approach," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 117(P1), pages 281-290.
    11. Kuang-Hua Hu & Wei Jianguo & Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng, 2017. "Risk Factor Assessment Improvement for China’s Cloud Computing Auditing Using a New Hybrid MADM Model," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(03), pages 737-777, May.
    12. Fernando Rojas & Peter Wanke & Víctor Leiva & Mauricio Huerta & Carlos Martin-Barreiro, 2022. "Modeling Inventory Cost Savings and Supply Chain Success Factors: A Hybrid Robust Compromise Multi-Criteria Approach," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(16), pages 1-18, August.
    13. Maghsoodi, Abtin Ijadi, 2023. "Cryptocurrency portfolio allocation using a novel hybrid and predictive big data decision support system," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    14. Hisham Alidrisi, 2021. "An Innovative Job Evaluation Approach Using the VIKOR Algorithm," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-19, June.
    15. Büsing, Christina & Goetzmann, Kai-Simon & Matuschke, Jannik & Stiller, Sebastian, 2017. "Reference points and approximation algorithms in multicriteria discrete optimization," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 260(3), pages 829-840.
    16. Abbas Keramati & Fatemeh Shapouri, 2016. "Multidimensional appraisal of customer relationship management: integrating balanced scorecard and multi criteria decision making approaches," Information Systems and e-Business Management, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 217-251, May.
    17. Xiaodong Li & Haibo Kuang & Yan Hu, 2019. "Carbon Mitigation Strategies of Port Selection and Multimodal Transport Operations—A Case Study of Northeast China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-17, September.
    18. Serafim Opricovic, 2009. "A Compromise Solution in Water Resources Planning," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 23(8), pages 1549-1561, June.
    19. Büyüközkan, Gülçin & Ruan, Da, 2008. "Evaluation of software development projects using a fuzzy multi-criteria decision approach," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 77(5), pages 464-475.
    20. María Pilar de la Cruz López & Juan José Cartelle Barros & Alfredo del Caño Gochi & Manuel Lara Coira, 2021. "New Approach for Managing Sustainability in Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-27, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0097831. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.