Integrating fuzzy theory and hierarchy concepts to evaluate software quality

This study proposes a software quality evaluation model and its computing algorithm. Existing software quality evaluation models examine multiple characteristics and are characterized by factorial fuzziness. The relevant criteria of this model are derived from the international norm ISO. The main objective of this paper is to propose a novel Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) approach for addressing uncertainty and imprecision in service evaluation during pre-negotiation stages, where comparative judgments of decision makers are represented as fuzzy triangular numbers. A new fuzzy prioritization method, which derives crisp priorities from consistent and inconsistent fuzzy comparison matrices, is proposed. The Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP)-based decision-making method can provide decision makers or buyers with a valuable guideline for evaluating software quality. Importantly, the proposed model can aids users and developers in assessing software quality, making it highly applicable for academic and commercial purposes.

[1]  Wolfgang Ossadnik,et al.  AHP-based evaluation of AHP-Software , 1999, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[2]  Chandrasekharan Rajendran,et al.  An instrument for the measurement of customer perceptions of quality management in the software industry: An empirical study in India , 2006, Software Quality Journal.

[3]  William A. Ward,et al.  Some observations on software quality , 1999, ACM-SE 37.

[4]  Xiaoqing Frank Liu,et al.  A quantitative approach for setting technical targets based on impact analysis in software quality function deployment (SQFD) , 2006, Software Quality Journal.

[5]  Taghi M. Khoshgoftaar,et al.  An empirical study of predicting software faults with case-based reasoning , 2006, Software Quality Journal.

[6]  Brian Henderson-Sellers,et al.  A Metamodel for Assessable Software Development Methodologies , 2005, Software Quality Journal.

[7]  Leonard J. Bass,et al.  A Basis for Analyzing Software Architecture Analysis Methods , 2005, Software Quality Journal.

[8]  T. Saaty,et al.  The Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1985 .

[9]  Ronald R. Willis,et al.  Software quality engineering: a total technical and management approach , 1988 .

[10]  Hepu Deng,et al.  Multicriteria analysis with fuzzy pairwise comparison , 1999, FUZZ-IEEE'99. 1999 IEEE International Fuzzy Systems. Conference Proceedings (Cat. No.99CH36315).

[11]  Taghi M. Khoshgoftaar,et al.  Resource oriented selection of rule-based classification models: An empirical case study , 2006, Software Quality Journal.

[12]  Kwang-Woo Kim,et al.  Development of a housing performance evaluation model for multi-family residential buildings in Korea , 2005 .

[13]  Liming Zhu,et al.  Tradeoff and Sensitivity Analysis in Software Architecture Evaluation Using Analytic Hierarchy Process , 2005, Software Quality Journal.

[14]  Roger S. Pressman,et al.  Software Engineering: A Practitioner's Approach , 1982 .

[15]  T. Saaty.  How to Make a Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1990 .

[16]  Michel C. Desmarais,et al.  A method to elicit architecturally sensitive usability requirements: its integration into a software development process , 2007, Software Quality Journal.

[17]  James I. McManus,et al.  Total Quality Management for Software , 1992 .

[18]  Roger S. Pressman,et al.  Software Engineering: A Practitioner's Approach (McGraw-Hill Series in Computer Science) , 2004 .

[19]  Mao-Jiun J. Wang,et al.  Ranking fuzzy numbers with integral value , 1992 .

[20]  Hepu Deng.  Multicriteria analysis with fuzzy pairwise comparison , 1999, FUZZ-IEEE'99. 1999 IEEE International Fuzzy Systems. Conference Proceedings (Cat. No.99CH36315).

[21]  J. Buckley,et al.  Fuzzy hierarchical analysis , 1999, FUZZ-IEEE'99. 1999 IEEE International Fuzzy Systems. Conference Proceedings (Cat. No.99CH36315).

[22]  Eric W. T. Ngai,et al.  Selection of web sites for online advertising using the AHP , 2003, Inf. Manag..