(MC²)²: A GenericDecision-Making Framework anditsApplicationtoCloud Computing<br />Michael Menzel1, Marten Schönherr2, Jen...
“Which IT infrastructure?“ iscomplex<br />Existingapproachesonlyconsidercostaspects!<br />Operationsresearch: Ngwenyama/Br...
(MC²)² Framework<br />
Processdescribedby (MC²)²<br /><ul><li>Write a detailedscenariodescription
Useinformationresourcesto find alternatives, criteria, andrequirements
Choose an appropriate multi-criteriadecision-makingmethod
Configuremethodby e.g. definingweights, dependenciesofcriteria
ApplyMethod</li></li></ul><li>Applicationtocloud Computing<br />EXAMPLE<br />
Summary: <br />New CRM softwareforExamChoccompany<br />Mustbecostefficient<br />Mustbeverysecure<br />Loadprofileknown (ro...
A1. In-housedatacenterinstallation<br />A2. 3rd-party provider<br />A3. IaaSprovider<br />Example – alternatives<br />
C1. Security & Reliability<br />C1.1. Data safety level of the infrastructure <br />C1.2. Reliability of the infrastructur...
R1. Trustworthiness of the provider <br />R2. Green IT: minimum power consumption per hour per server <br />Example - requ...
Wechoose:<br />ANP – Analytic Network Process<br />Supports complexcriteriadependencies<br />Considers qualitative criteri...
Example – configure multi-criteriadecision-makingmethod<br />
Example – evaluationmethod<br />
Requirementsfulfilledby in-house, IaaS<br />Apply ANP<br />Pairwisecomparisonsof in-house, IaaSregardingcriteria<br />Calc...
Example – evaluationmethod<br />
Example - results<br />ANP results:<br />Indices formulas:<br />Indices results:<br />
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

(MC²)²: A Generic Decision-Making Framework and its Application to Cloud Computing

1,913 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,913
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
8
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
58
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

(MC²)²: A Generic Decision-Making Framework and its Application to Cloud Computing

  1. 1. (MC²)²: A GenericDecision-Making Framework anditsApplicationtoCloud Computing<br />Michael Menzel1, Marten Schönherr2, Jens Nimis1, Stefan Tai31FZI Karslruhe, 2T-Labs Berlin, 3KIT Karslruhe<br />
  2. 2. “Which IT infrastructure?“ iscomplex<br />Existingapproachesonlyconsidercostaspects!<br />Operationsresearch: Ngwenyama/Bryson[1] proposetransactioncosts<br />Cloudspecific Armbrust2:cpuhourcostsofcloud vs. Datacenter<br />Cloudspecific Walker3: netpresentvalueofleasingorbuying CPU<br />Considering also non-costfactorsrequiresextensionofexistingapproaches => multi-criteriadecision-making (MCDM):<br />Multi-criteriadecision-makingaloneisnot sufficient !=> supportandcustomizationof multi-criteriadecision-making in a framework<br />Motivation of (MC²)²<br />[1] Ngwenyama, O. & Bryson, N. (1999), 'Making the information systems outsourcing decision: A transaction cost approach to analyzing outsourcing decision problems', European Journal of Operational Research 115(2), 351-367. <br />[2] Armbrust, M.; Fox, A.; Griffith, R.; Joseph, A.; Katz, R.; Konwinski, A.; Lee, G.; Patterson, D.; Rabkin, A.; Stoica, I. & others (2009), 'Abovetheclouds: A berkeleyviewofcloudcomputing', EECS Department, University ofCalifornia, Berkeley, Tech. Rep. UCB/EECS-2009-28.<br />[3] Walker, E. (2009), 'The Real Cost of a CPU Hour', Computer 42, 35-41.<br />
  3. 3. (MC²)² Framework<br />
  4. 4. Processdescribedby (MC²)²<br /><ul><li>Write a detailedscenariodescription
  5. 5. Useinformationresourcesto find alternatives, criteria, andrequirements
  6. 6. Choose an appropriate multi-criteriadecision-makingmethod
  7. 7. Configuremethodby e.g. definingweights, dependenciesofcriteria
  8. 8. ApplyMethod</li></li></ul><li>Applicationtocloud Computing<br />EXAMPLE<br />
  9. 9. Summary: <br />New CRM softwareforExamChoccompany<br />Mustbecostefficient<br />Mustbeverysecure<br />Loadprofileknown (roughly)<br />Support green IT<br />Example – scenario<br />The scenario of this example shall address the widely articulated IT infrastructure decision-making problem. Consider a chocolate producing company called ―ExamChoc‖, which needs to make an IT infrastructure decision on the deployment of a new Customer Relationship Management (CRM) software system. After a long analysis by the company’s chair it is decided that the solution has to be cost efficient and very secure at the same time. The chair based the decision on the current economic situation the organization has to cope with and on the company’s regulations that require a high security level for customer data. <br />Due to the nature of ExamChoc’s business the usage statistics of the CRM software are forecasted to be very seasonally varying. Also, the software will not be in use between 6 pm and 8 am as very strict policies for working hours are set upon the employees. <br />Additionally, the company cares about its corporate responsibility strongly and, thus, is supporting green IT approaches whenever possible.<br />
  10. 10. A1. In-housedatacenterinstallation<br />A2. 3rd-party provider<br />A3. IaaSprovider<br />Example – alternatives<br />
  11. 11. C1. Security & Reliability<br />C1.1. Data safety level of the infrastructure <br />C1.2. Reliability of the infrastructure <br />C1.3. Data security level in the infrastructure <br />C1.4. Security level of data transmissions from and to the infrastructure <br />C2. Benefits<br />C2.1. Number of resources available <br />C2.2. Green IT: power consumption during usage <br />C3. CloudTCOcriteria<br />C3.1. Uptime costs for dynamic usage <br />C3.2. Costsforsecurity<br />C3.3. Initial upfrontcosts<br />C3.4. Administration costs<br />C3.5. Costs for internet connection <br />C3.6. Research costs for hardware <br />Example – criteria<br />
  12. 12. R1. Trustworthiness of the provider <br />R2. Green IT: minimum power consumption per hour per server <br />Example - requirements<br />
  13. 13. Wechoose:<br />ANP – Analytic Network Process<br />Supports complexcriteriadependencies<br />Considers qualitative criteria<br />Results on absolute scale (0-1)<br />in othercasesothermethodsmight fit better<br />MAUT<br />Promethée<br />…<br />Example – choose multi-criteriadecision-makingmethod<br />
  14. 14. Example – configure multi-criteriadecision-makingmethod<br />
  15. 15. Example – evaluationmethod<br />
  16. 16. Requirementsfulfilledby in-house, IaaS<br />Apply ANP<br />Pairwisecomparisonsof in-house, IaaSregardingcriteria<br />Calculateresultsforcriterianetworks<br />Applyindices<br />Example – evaluationmethod<br />
  17. 17. Example – evaluationmethod<br />
  18. 18. Example - results<br />ANP results:<br />Indices formulas:<br />Indices results:<br />
  19. 19. A3. IaaS > A1. in-house<br />But, bybenefitsonly: A1 > A3 !<br />Bycosts: A3 < A1 (smallermeansbetter) <br />Example – results – ctd.<br />IaaS<br />
  20. 20. (MC²)² canbeimprovedandextended in manyaspects:<br />More IT supportwithintheframework<br />List ofsuitableinformationsystemsthatcansupportthedefinitionof alternatives, criteria, andrequirements<br />Prototype of a systemthatoffers (MC²)² decisionmakingandintegrationwithinformationresources<br />Inclusionofsensitivityanalysisandgroupdecisionaspects<br />Support withthechoiceof MCDM methods<br />…<br />Future work<br />
  21. 21. Thanksforyourattention!<br />Discussion<br />
  22. 22. Backup<br />
  23. 23. Processofresultingevaluationmethod<br /><ul><li>Filter existing alternatives byrequirementstogainappropriate alternatives
  24. 24. Apply MCDM method on theappropriate alternatives usingdefinedcriteria (+ weights, dependencies)
  25. 25. Resultof MCDM methodis a rankingandvaluesfor alternatives</li></li></ul><li>IT infrastructuredecision 3rd party, in-house, cloud<br />Criteria, requirementsderivedfromliterature<br />ANP as MCDM method<br />2 goalsand 2 criterianetworks<br />Indices to find optimal alternative forbothgoals<br />(seepaperformoredetails)<br />Exampleapplicationforcloudcomputing<br />
  26. 26. To find alternatives, criteria, requirements, and MCDM method<br />Expert searchandsurveycreationsystems<br />Internal knowledgeordatabaseswith<br />Experiencesfromearlierevaluations<br />Guidelinedocumentsofdepartments<br />Collaborationsystems<br />Data miningtools<br />Literature<br />…<br />Toexternalizeyourexperiencesmadeduringtheuseoftheframework<br />Useofinformationresources…<br />
  27. 27. Qualitative vs. Quantitative (non-measurable vs. measurable)<br />Scalesofmeasurement<br />Rules toconsider<br />Completeness and Exhaustiveness<br />Mutually exclusive items only<br />Restrict to criteria of highest degree of importance<br />Examples:<br />Criteria<br />
  28. 28. Constraintsfor alternatives<br />A minimumormaximumvalue<br />Examples:<br />Requirements<br />
  29. 29. Manymethodsavailable*<br />Outranking: ELECTRE, PROMETHEE<br />TOPSIS, AHP/ANP<br />Bayesian Analysis<br />MAUT, SMART<br />…<br />Chooseoneandconsider<br />Not everymethodresults in a value<br />Not everymethodfitsyourneedsto model criteriadependencies<br />Not everymethodsupports qualitative (non-measurable) criteria well<br />Multi-criteriadecision-makingmethod<br />* Yoon and Hwang (1995), ‘Multi Attribute Decision Making: An Introduction‘, Sage University Paper series on Quantitative Applications in theSocialSciences.<br />Keun Tae Cho (2003), ‘Multicriteria Decision Methods: An Attempt To Evaluate and Unify’, Mathematicaland Computer Modelling.<br />Fülöp (2004), ‘Introduction to Decision Making Methods’, Paper developed for the BDEI-3 Workshop, The Evergreen State College.<br />

×