TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparing Apples and Oranges in IoT context
T2 - A deep dive into methods for comparing IoT platforms
AU - Mijuskovic, Adriana
AU - Ullah, Ikram
AU - Bemthuis, Rob
AU - Meratnia, Nirvana
AU - Havinga, Paul J.M.
N1 - Funding Information:
Manuscript received January 31, 2020; revised April 16, 2020 and July 2, 2020; accepted August 4, 2020. Date of publication August 17, 2020; date of current version January 22, 2021. This work was supported in part by OP Oost; in part by Project CountDown; and in part by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO), Project DataRel under Grant 628.009.015. (Corresponding author: Adriana Mijuskovic.) The authors are with the EEMCS Faculty, Pervasive Systems Group, University of Twente, 7522 NB Enschede, The Netherlands (e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]). Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/JIOT.2020.3016921
Publisher Copyright:
© 2014 IEEE.
PY - 2021/2/1
Y1 - 2021/2/1
N2 - Many researchers try to make a comparison between various Internet-of-Things (IoT) platforms based on specific requirements. However, none of the reviewed studies proposed a thorough analysis of the variety of comparative methods. Since there is a lack of comparison frameworks for IoT platforms, individuals or companies have difficulties when selecting a suitable IoT platform matching their associated business requirements. In order to support this selection process, a set of functional and nonfunctional requirements is identified. A framework containing methods in selecting an IoT platform is presented. The methodology is based on statistical and visualization techniques to recommend a suitable IoT platform. Five IoT platforms: 1) Azure; 2) AWS; 3) SaS; 4) ThingWorx; and 5) Kaa IoT are studied to evaluate the performance of the framework. Different comparison methods are proposed and a multicriteria decision analysis method was applied by using an analytical hierarchical process (AHP). One of the methods clusters the functional requirements and compares the IoT platforms based on their ability in supporting a specific requirement or not. The K -means clustering was applied to determine the clusters of functional requirements. The comparison was made based on the hierarchical level of requirements per main requirement. The other methods use the following statistical tests: error bar test, one-way Anova test, and Tukey's honest significant difference test. Based on the selected requirements, an approach is suggested for which IoT platform can be used.
AB - Many researchers try to make a comparison between various Internet-of-Things (IoT) platforms based on specific requirements. However, none of the reviewed studies proposed a thorough analysis of the variety of comparative methods. Since there is a lack of comparison frameworks for IoT platforms, individuals or companies have difficulties when selecting a suitable IoT platform matching their associated business requirements. In order to support this selection process, a set of functional and nonfunctional requirements is identified. A framework containing methods in selecting an IoT platform is presented. The methodology is based on statistical and visualization techniques to recommend a suitable IoT platform. Five IoT platforms: 1) Azure; 2) AWS; 3) SaS; 4) ThingWorx; and 5) Kaa IoT are studied to evaluate the performance of the framework. Different comparison methods are proposed and a multicriteria decision analysis method was applied by using an analytical hierarchical process (AHP). One of the methods clusters the functional requirements and compares the IoT platforms based on their ability in supporting a specific requirement or not. The K -means clustering was applied to determine the clusters of functional requirements. The comparison was made based on the hierarchical level of requirements per main requirement. The other methods use the following statistical tests: error bar test, one-way Anova test, and Tukey's honest significant difference test. Based on the selected requirements, an approach is suggested for which IoT platform can be used.
KW - Functional requirements
KW - Internet-of-Things (IoT) platforms
KW - statistical comparative techniques
KW - visualization
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85100261112&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1109/JIOT.2020.3016921
DO - 10.1109/JIOT.2020.3016921
M3 - Article
SN - 2327-4662
VL - 8
SP - 1797
EP - 1816
JO - IEEE Internet of Things Journal
JF - IEEE Internet of Things Journal
IS - 3
M1 - 9169714
ER -