4.6 Article

Trust evaluation model of cloud manufacturing service platform

Journal

Publisher

SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s00170-014-6112-0

Keywords

Cloud manufacturing; Trust evaluation; AHP; Cloud model; Cloud focus evaluation method

Funding

  1. Chinese National science and technology support plan subsidization project [2012BAF12B09]
  2. Chinese National Outstanding Youth Science Foundation [50925518]
  3. Chongqing major scientific and technological project [cstc2013gg-yyjsB70001]
  4. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [CDJXS12111108]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aiming at the shortcomings of manufacturing enterprises, cloud manufacturing (CMfg), as a new type of service-oriented manufacturing mode, is put forward recently. Due to the rapid development of information and other high-tech technologies, CMfg excellently satisfies the development requirements of modern manufacturing and gains some popularity. As one of the key characteristic for CMfg system, the management, sharing, and scheduling of resources and tasks will directly affect the accuracy and efficiency of CMfg service platform. In order to achieve the effective management, convenient use, and reliable transactions of resources and tasks, a framework of trust evaluation system in CMfg is established and a trust evaluation model of CMfg service platform oriented to mechanical manufacturing field is proposed. In this system, the weights of six trust evaluation indexes are obtained through analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method. Meanwhile, the quantitative and update algorithm for direct trust service is designed through a discrete method. Furthermore, the recommendation trust service is extracted through cloud theory model and cloud focus evaluation method. Experiments based on virtual transaction data are conducted to verify the validity and efficiency of the proposed trust evaluation model.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available