Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Interactive selection of Web services under multiple objectives

  • Published:
Information Technology and Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The manual composition of efficient combinations of Web services becomes almost impossible as the number of services increases dramatically. When determining an appropriate set of services, managers must take into consideration given business processes, business strategy and multiple Quality of Service (QoS) objectives while ensuring the cost-efficient usage of limited resources. Because the agility with which new business requirements are adapted has a major influence on business success and poor investment decisions may thus entail corporate failure, decision makers are experiencing growing pressure to prove the value of IT investments—but they often lack appropriate multicriteria decision support tools. This paper introduces a new decision support approach that more properly addresses these challenges. We implemented this approach into a tool and evaluated the performance of two popular methods (i.e., the Analytic Hierarchy Process and the Weighted Scoring Method) by means of a real-life case study in the social security sector. It turns out that the decision support system assists decision makers in identifying investments that more precisely target their company’s business needs by allowing them to interactively determine and continually optimize service allocation according to the corporate business processes and multiple (strategic) objectives.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alonso G, Casati F, Kuno H, Machiraju V (2004) Web services: concepts, architectures and applications. Springer

  2. Alves C, Finkelstein A (2003) Investigating conflicts in COTS decision-making. Int J Softw Eng Knowl Eng 13(5):473–495

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Andresen JL (2001) A framework for selecting an IT evaluation method in the context of construction. Technical University of Denmark, Technical Report

  4. Ardagna D, Pernici B (2005) Global and local QoS constraints quarantee in Web service selection. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on Web services, pp 805–806

  5. Ardagna D, Pernici B (2007) Adaptive service composition in flexible processes. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 33(6):369–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Becker J, Kahn D (2003) The process in focus. In: Becker J, Kahn D, Rosemann M (eds) Process management: a guide for the design of business processes. Springer, pp 1–12

  7. Berbner R, Heckmann O, Mauthe A, Steinmetz R (2005) Eine dienstgüte unterstützende Webservice-architektur für flexible Geschäftsprozesse. Wirtschaftsinformatik 47(4):268–277 (in German)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Boehm B, Gruenbacher P, Briggs RO (2001) EasyWinWin a groupware-supported methodology for requirements negotiation. In: Proceedings of the international conference on software engineering, pp 720–721

  9. Canfora G, Penta MD, Esposito R, Villani ML (2005) QoS-aware replanning of composite Web services. In: Proceedings of the international conference on Web services, pp 121–129

  10. Cao L, Li M, Cao J (2005) Cost-driven Web service selection Using genetic algorithm. Workshop on Internet and network economics. LNCS, vol 3828. Springer, pp 906–915

  11. Chernoff H (1973) The use of faces to represent points in K-dimensional space graphically. J Am Stat Assoc 68(342):361–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Claro DB, Albers P, Hao J-K (2005) Selecting Web services for optimal composition. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international workshop on semantic and dynamic Web processes, pp 32–45

  13. Cobb CG (2003) From quality to business excellence: a systems approach to management. ASQ Quality Press

  14. Ehrgott M, Gandibleux X (2000) A survey and annotated bibliography of multiobjective combinatorial optimization. OR Spectr 22(4):425–460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ehrgott M, Gandibleux X (2004) Approximative solution methods for multiobjective combinatorial optimization. Top 12(1):1–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Elzinga DJ, Horak T, Lee C-Y, Bruner C (1995) Business process management: survey and methodology. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 42(2):119–128

    Google Scholar 

  17. Farbey B, Land F, Targett D (1993) How to assess your IT investment: a study of methods and practice. Butterworth-Heinemann

  18. Fensel D, Bussler C (2002) The Web service modeling framework WSMF. Electr Commer Res Appl 1(2):113–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Focke A, Stummer C (2003) Strategic technology planning in hospital management. OR Spectr 25(2):161–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Freitas AA (2004) A critical review of multi-objective optimization in data mining: a position paper. ACM SIGKDD Explor Newsl 6(2):77–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Gao A, Yang D, Tang S, Zhang M (2006) QoS-driven Web service composition with inter service conflicts. In: Proceedings of the 8th Asia-Pacific Web conference. LNCS, vol 3841. Springer, pp 121–132

  22. Gouscos D, Kalikakis M, Georgiadis P (2003) An approach to modeling Webservice QoS and provision Price. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Web information systems engineering workshops, pp 121–130

  23. Hirschfeld R, Kawamura K (2006) Dynamic service adaptation. Softw Pract Exp 36(11):1115–1131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hodgkin J, Belton V, Koulouri A (2005) Supporting the intelligent MCDA user: a case study in multi-person multi-criteria decision support. Eur J Oper Res 160(1):172–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hopkins J, Kessler M (2002) Companies squander billions on tech. USA Today 4(351):1A

    Google Scholar 

  26. Ittner CD, Larcker DF (2003) Coming up short on nonfinancial performance measurement. Havard Bus Rev 81(11):88–95

    Google Scholar 

  27. Jaeger MC, Ladner H (2005) Improving the QoS of WS compositions based on redundant services. In: Proceedings of the international conference on next generation Web services practices, pp 189–195

  28. Kalepu S, Krishnaswamy S, Loke SW (2003) A QoS metric for selecting Web services and providers. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Web information systems engineering, pp 131–139

  29. Koch C (2005) A new blueprint for the enterprise. CIO Magazine 5(4):1–8

    Google Scholar 

  30. Kontio J, (1995) OTSO: a systematic process for reusable software component selection. University of Maryland, Technical report, December

  31. Korhonen P (1991) Using harmonious houses for visual pairwise comparison of multiple criteria alternatives. Decis Support Syst 7(1):47–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Lai C, Gong L, Koved L, Nadalin A, Schemers R (1999) User authentication and authorization in the java platform. In: Proceedings of the 15th annual computer security applications conference, pp 285–290

  33. Lécué F, Léger A (2006) A formal model for semantic Web service composition. In: Proceedings of the 5th international semantic Web conference. LNCS, vol 4273. Springer, pp 385–398

  34. Lee K, Jeon J, Lee W, Jeong S-H, Park S-W (2003) QoS for Web services: requirements and possible approaches. W3C Working Group Note 25, November

  35. Little JDC (2004) Models and managers: the concept of a decision calculus. Manag Sci 50(12):1841–1853

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Liu F, Dai K, Wang Z (2004) Applying multiple criteria decision making to improve security architecture development. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on information security, pp 244–246

  37. Lotov AV, Bushenkov VA, Kamenev GK (2004) Interactive decision maps: approximation and visualization of Pareto Frontier. Kluwer

  38. Luftman JN, Papp R, Brier T (1999) Enablers and inhibitors of business-IT alignment. Commun AIS 1(art 11):1–33

    Google Scholar 

  39. Maiden NA, Ncube C (1998) Acquiring COTS software selection requirements. IEEE Softw 15(2):46–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Malone TW, Crowston K, Lee J, Pentland B, Dellarocas C, Wyner G, Quimby J, Osborn CS, Bernstein A, Herman G, Klein M, O’Donnell E (1999) Tools for inventing organizations: toward a handbook of organizational processes. Manag Sci 45(3):425–443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Martello S, Toth P (1990) Knapsack problems: algorithms and computer implementations. Wiley

  42. Matskin M, Rao J (2002) Value-added Web services composition using automatic program synthesis. In: Bussler et al (eds) Proceedings of the international workshop on Web services, E-Business, and the semantic Web. LNCS, vol 2512. Springer, pp 213–224

  43. McAfee A (2004) Do you have too much IT? MIT Sloan Manag Rev 45(3):18–22

    Google Scholar 

  44. Menascé D (2002) QoS issues in Web services. IEEE Internet Comput 6(6):72–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Navarrete F, Botella P, Franch X (2005) How agile COTS selection methods are (and can be)? In: Proceedings of the 31st EUROMICRO conference on software engineering and advanced applications, pp 160–167

  46. Ncube C, Dean JC (2002) The limitations of current decision-making techniques in the procurement of COTS software components. In: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on COTS-based software systems. LNCS, vol 2255. Springer, pp 176–187

  47. Neubauer T (2006) Multiobjective decision support for the business process driven allocation of service oriented architectures. Vienna University of Technology, Technical Report

  48. Neubauer T, Stummer C (2007) Interactive decision support for multiobjective COTS selection. In: Proceedings of the 40th Hawaii international conference on system sciences, pp 1–7

  49. Powell PL (1999) Evaluation of information technology investments: business as usual? In: Willcocks LP, Lester S (eds) Beyond the IT productivity paradox. Wiley, pp 151–182

  50. Preuner G, Schrefl M (2002) Integration of Web services into workflows through a multi-level chema architecture. In: Proceedings of the 4th IEEE international workshop on advanced issues of E-commerce and Web-based information systems, pp 51–60

  51. Ran S (2003) A model for Web services discovery with QoS. ACM SIGecom Exch 4(1):1–10

    Google Scholar 

  52. Renkema TJW, Berghout EW (1997) Methodologies for information systems investment evaluation at the proposal stage: a comparative review. Inf Softw Technol 39(1):1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Rossi P, Tari Z (2006) Software adaptation for service-oriented systems. In: Proceedings of the 1st workshop on middleware for service oriented computing, pp 12–17

  54. Ryan SD, Gates MS (2004) Inclusion of social sub-system issues in IT-investment secisions: an empiricial assessment. Inf Resour Manag J 17(1):1–18

    Google Scholar 

  55. Saaty T (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw Hill

  56. Schniederjans MJ, Hamaker JL, Schniederjans AM (2004) Information technology investment: decision making methodology. World Scientific

  57. Shuping R (2003) A model for Web services discovery with QoS. ACM SIGecom Exch 4(1):1–10

    Google Scholar 

  58. Sreenath RM, Singh MP (2004) Agent-based service selection. J Web Semant 1(3):261–279

    Google Scholar 

  59. Srivastava B, Koehler J (2003) Web service composition: current solutions and open problems. In: Proceedings of the international conference on automated planning and scheduling, pp 28–25

  60. Strauss C, Stummer C (2002) Multiobjective decision support in IT-risk management. Int J Inf Technol Decis Mak 1(2):251–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Stummer C (2001) Fair group decisions in investment planning. OR Spectr 23(4):431–443 (in German)

    Google Scholar 

  62. Stummer C, Heidenberger K (2003) Interactive R&D portfolio analysis with project interdependencies and time profiles of multiple objectives. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 50(2):175–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Stummer C, Sun M (2005) New multiobjective metaheuristic solution procedures for capital investment planning. J Heuristics, 11(3):183–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Stummer C, Doerner KF, Focke A, Heidenberger K (2004) Determining location and size of medical departments in a hospital network: a multiobjective decision support approach. Health Care Manag Sci 7(1):63–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Sun M, Steuer R (1996) InterQuad: an interactive quad tree based procedure for solving the discrete alternative multiple criteria problem. Eur J Oper Res 89(3):462–472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Teltumbde A (2000) A framework for evaluating ERP projects. Int J Prod Res 38(17):4507–4520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Thieke C, Küfer K-H, Monz M, Scherrer A, Alonso F, Oelfke U, Huber PE, Debus J, Bortfeld T (2007) A new concept for interactive radiotherapy planning with multicriteria optimization: first clinical evaluation. Radiother Oncol 85(2):292–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Thio N, Karunasekera S (2005) Automatic measurement of a QoS metric for Web service recommendation. In: Proceedings of the Australian conference on software engineering, pp 202–211

  69. Tian M, Gramm A, Naumowicz T, Ritter H, Schiller J (2003) A concept for QoS integration in Web services. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Web information systems engineering workshops, pp 149–155

  70. Tian M, Gramm A, Ritter H, Schiller J (2004) Efficient selection and monitoring of QoS-aware Web services with the WS-QoS framework. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/WIC/ACM international conference on Web intelligence, pp 152–158

  71. Triantaphyllou E, Sanchez A (1997) A sensitivity analysis approach for some deterministic multi-criteria decision-making methods. Decis Sci 28(1):151–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Verhoef C (2002) Quantitative IT portfolio management. Sci Comput Progr 45(1):1–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Wanyama T, Far BH (2005) Towards providing decision support for COTS selection. In: Proceedings of the 18th IEEE Canadian conference on electrical and computer engineering, pp 908–911

  74. World Wide Web Consortium (2007) OWL-S: semantic markup for Web services. http://www.w3.org/Submission/OWL-S

  75. Yu P, Ma X, Lu J (2005) Dynamic software architecture oriented service composition and evolution. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on computer and information technology, pp 1123–1129

  76. Yusuff RM, Yee KP, Hashmi MSJ (2001) A preliminary study on the potential use of the Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP) to predict Advanced Manufacturing Technology (AMT) implementation. Robotics Comput Integr Manuf 17(5):421–427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Zeng L, Benatallah B, Dumas M, Kalagnanam J, Sheng QZ (2003) Quality driven Web services composition. In: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on World Wide Web, pp 411–421

  78. Zeng L, Benatallah B, Ngu AHH, Dumas M, Kalagnanam J, Chang H (2004) QoS-aware middleware for Web services composition. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 30(5):311–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was performed at Secure Business Austria, a competence center that is funded by the Austrian Federal Ministry of Economics and Labor (BMWA) as well as by the provincial government of Vienna.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Secure Business Austria, Vienna, Austria

    Thomas Neubauer

  2. Department of Business Administration, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

    Christian Stummer

Authors
  1. Thomas Neubauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christian Stummer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Neubauer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Neubauer, T., Stummer, C. Interactive selection of Web services under multiple objectives. Inf Technol Manag 11, 25–41 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-009-0058-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-009-0058-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation