The Evaluation of Software Trustworthiness with FAHP and FTOPSIS Methods

Trustworthy software has attracted increasing concern both in academia and industry in recent years. How to effectively evaluate the trustworthiness is becoming a closed question. This paper models the software trustworthiness evaluation (STE) problem as a multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) problem, and proposes both an evaluation framework and a practical approach to evaluate the software trustworthiness based on the Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP) and Fuzzy Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (FTOPSIS) methods. FAHP method is utilized to obtain the weights of evaluation criteria. The FTOPSIS method is used to determine the final ranking of the software alternatives. The uncertainty and vagueness included in evaluation procedure are represented as fuzzy triangular numbers. Finally, the proposed method is applied to the case study of evaluating the trustworthiness of project management (PM) software alternatives for a car manufacturer in China. Keywords—trustworthy software; evaluation; trustworthiness; FAHP; FTOPSIS; PM software

[1]  Chung-Tsen Tsao,et al.  Evaluating investment values of stocks using a fuzzy TOPSIS approach , 2003 .

[2]  Hsu-Shih Shih,et al.  A hybrid MCDM model for strategic vendor selection , 2006, Math. Comput. Model..

[3]  Wilhelm Hasselbring,et al.  Toward trustworthy software systems , 2006, Computer.

[4]  Hui-sheng Gao,et al.  Risk Evaluation of Communication Network of Electric Power Based on Improved FAHP , 2007, Fourth International Conference on Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge Discovery (FSKD 2007).

[5]  İrfan Ertuğrul,et al.  Fuzzy TOPSIS Method for Academic Member Selection in Engineering Faculty , 2007 .

[6]  Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng,et al.  Fuzzy MCDM approach for planning and design tenders selection in public office buildings , 2004 .

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

[8]  Irfan Ertugrul,et al.  Performance evaluation of Turkish cement firms with fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and TOPSIS methods , 2009, Expert Syst. Appl..

[9]  Rifat Gürcan Özdemir,et al.  A Fuzzy AHP Approach to Evaluating Machine Tool Alternatives , 2006, J. Intell. Manuf..

[10]  Tien-Chin Wang,et al.  Application of TOPSIS in evaluating initial training aircraft under a fuzzy environment , 2007, Expert Syst. Appl..

[11]  Surendra M. Gupta,et al.  Evaluation of production facilities in a closed-loop supply chain: a fuzzy TOPSIS approach , 2004, SPIE Optics East.

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

[13]  Carleen Maitland,et al.  Trust in cyberspace , 2000 .

[14]  Serkan Yavuz,et al.  Weapon selection using the AHP and TOPSIS methods under fuzzy environment , 2009, Expert Syst. Appl..

[15]  Yildiz Esra Albayrak,et al.  Using analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to improve human performance: An application of multiple criteria decision making problem , 2004, J. Intell. Manuf..

[16]  W. Pedrycz,et al.  A fuzzy extension of Saaty's priority theory , 1983 .

[17]  Wilhelm Hasselbring,et al.  Trustworthy software systems: a discussion of basic concepts and terminology , 2006, SOEN.

[18]  Sheng-Hshiung Tsaur,et al.  The evaluation of airline service quality by fuzzy MCDM. , 2002 .

[19]  Ching-Lai Hwang,et al.  Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications - A State-of-the-Art Survey , 1981, Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems.

[20]  Ching-Lai Hwang,et al.  Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Making - Methods and Applications , 1992, Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems.