Volume 3, Issue 7, July – 2018 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology

ISSN No:-2456-2165

A Survey on Multi-Criteria Decision Making

Methods in Software Engineering
Veena Nayak1, Dr.Rio D’Souza2
1
Department of Computer Science & Engineering, SJEC, Mangalore, India
2
Department of Computer Science & Engineering, SJEC, Mangalore, India

Abstract:- Multi-criteria decision methods have been alternatives, defined by constraint at different intervals.
widely used in different fields of development system to Constraint values are retrieved either manually or by
attain significant results. These are the quantitative mathematical evaluation. Information retrieved could be
methods used for reducing the complexity of system actual or fuzzy, depending on the intervals. A modern
design and to arrive at final statement considering the MCDM method provides the platform for the decision
involvement of the number of stakeholders to make a maker to retrieve these data. One of the main stages of
decision. As the alternatives increases and comes with MCDM is deciding on the aggregation method to finalize
attached constraints decision making becomes the decision. However recent advancement in MCDM has
difficult. Many researchers have proposed several given a variety of evaluation theories and the assessment
techniques to enhance software quality by adopting techniques. There are no definite methods adopted for
multi-criteria decision-support methods in the area such decision making. Depending on the application and the
as Testing Criteria for UML Models, Software Project object of comparison, aggregation method is chosen to
Selection, Risk Analysis, Quality Evaluation, and decide on the priorities and to rank the alternatives in order
Assessment etc. This paper mainly focuses on combining [4].
all the work related to the implementation of MCDM in
software engineering, for making a decision in the II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
different area of application. This highlights more
prominently used methods and the advancements in The decision support methods have been implemented
those methods in the recent years. in the various applications satisfying the constraints to the
major extent. These methods came into existence in early
Keywords:- Multi criteria decision making (MCDM), 1960 and the work continued with the different application.
Decision Making (DM), Software Engineering (SE), The complexity in decision making, increased with the
Prioritizing, Alternatives, Constraints. number of alternatives and the stakeholder involvement
resulting in the implementation of MCDM. Depending on
I. INTRODUCTION the functional requirement different techniques can be used
for the attainment of the solution using either linear
Decision making (DM) always aims for deciding on programming or non-linear programming or discrete
the optimal solution for a problem. It depends on the optimization technique. Abbas Mardani et.al [4] published
decision maker to study the possibilities and to select from study on the MCDM techniques and their applications in
multiple options to attain the desired outcome [1]. This Energy, environmental and sustainability, Operation
could be statistical analysis, quantitative analysis or survey research and soft computing, Knowledge management etc.
to attain the solution satisfying requirements and reducing Vaidya, O. S. & Kumar, S [5] shows survey on AHP used in
the probable conflict on problem definition. MCDM majorly Energy management, E-commerce, Government sectors
focuses on decision making to attain the ideal result when etc. Achimugu P.et.al [6] gives details on a literature review
multiple preferences are provided. Prioritization is also one of Software Requirements Prioritization. Vicent Penades-Pla
of the factors which have to be considered with the increase et.al [7] work details about a review of Multi-Criteria
of alternatives. The complexity of the system also increases Decision-Making Methods Applied to the Sustainable
as stakeholder involves actively in the system Bridge Design. This study mainly highlights MCDM
design. MCDM mainly classified as Multi-attribute decision application in different areas of software engineering from
making (MADM) and Multi-objective decision making 2001 to 2018. The sources referred are IEEE, Science
(MODM). MADM helps in selection of alternatives from a Direct, Research Gate, Conferences and Journals. Some of
given set [2].These alternatives can be evaluated depending the applications are tabulated in Table 1. and are discussed
on the preferences. In economics, utility theory is adopted to as follows.
study the preference of DM and in multi-attribute systems,
multiple attribute utility theory (MAUT) is used for
preference analysis. The utility adaptive (UTA) method uses
MAUT along with regression and linear programming to
analyse the DM preferences. MAUT works with the
principle of independence of attributes and UAT works with
an independence of variables [3]. MODM is used for
obtaining continuous set of solutions when two or more
criteria are present. Majorly MCDM deals with distinct

IJISRT18JL109 www.ijisrt.com 366

Volume 3, Issue 7, July – 2018 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
S MCD Year AHP
Z.
l. M Publ 1 and Machine tool 200
Aspect Authors AYAG
N Techni ishe 7 Simula selection 7
[24]
o que d tor
A. Soft computing Lin,
1 200
Tool for selection of Kengpol, 200 AHP scheme and genetic Wang, &
1 AHP 8 8
advance technology C. O 1 Algorithms Yu [25]
Brien [8] DEMA
Evaluation of
Simulation approach 1 TEL 200
Cagno et 200 knowledge Wu [26]
2 AHP for quantitative 9 and 8
al. [9] 1 management system
evaluation ANP
Model quality control Badri 200 Fuzzy
3 AHP Measuring the Buyukoz
systems [10] 1 Vikor
2 performance of kan 200
Project management Al-Harbi 200 and
4 AHP 0 software G.,Ruan 8
evaluation [11] 1 Fuzzy
development projects D. [27]
Belton Delphi
Fuzzy Program aspect and 200 FAHP LiShi &
5
AHP Assessment Stewart 2 2 & Evaluating Software Shalin 200
[12] 1 FTOP Trustworthiness Yang 9
V.Lai et 200 SIS [28]
6 AHP Software selection
al. [13] 2 Comparing an
Srivastav
Selection of 2 Fuzzy automated functional 200
Al Khalil 200 a and
7 AHP appropriate project 2 AHP and regression testing 9
[14] 2 Ray [29]
delivery method tool
Structural approach Palcic I
2 Selecting and 200
for measuring J.C.Y.Su. 200 AHP and Lalic
8 AHP 3 evaluation of project 9
functional et al. [15] 3 B [30]
dependency PROM
Fuzzy ETHE
Software Buyukoz Rao R.V.
logic 200 E and
9 development strategy kan G.et 2 Framework for and 200
and 4 AHP
selection al.[16] 4 software selection Rajesh 9
AHP with
T.S. [31]
Ranking of the fuzzy
Kong logic
1 Fuzzy factors behind the 200
and Liu Software developers Trieneke
0 AHP success of E- 5 2 201
[17] AHP to improve software ns et al.
commerce 5 0
Kahrama quality [32]
Evaluation and Framework to Syamsud
1 Fuzzy n and 200
assessment of project 2 evaluate information din I. and 201
1 AHP Tuysuz 6 AHP
risks 6 security policy Junseok 0
[18]
Ahmad performance H. [33]
Model for selecting a Software defect
1 and 200 2 MCD Peng Y 201
AHP software project detection algorithms
2 Laplante 6 7 M et al. [34] 0
management tool selection
[19]
Tamura Risk factors and the
1 Reliability and 200 Customer-to
AHP 2 Fuzzy Customer E- Wei et 201
3 assessment method Yamada 6
[202] 8 AHP commerce transaction al.[35] 1
Fuzzy Evaluation of Thomaid system’s security risk
1 200 level
MCD information is et al.
4 6 2 Fuzzy Tool for selecting the Challa et 201
M technology projects [21]
Modifi 9 AHP quality parameters al.[36] 1
ed Assess the quality of
1 Shyur 200 3 ensemble methods in Peng Y 201
TOPSI COTS evaluation AHP
5 H.J [22] 6 0 software defect et al. [37] 1
S and
ANP prediction
Fuzzy Assessment of Li, Lai,
3 TOPSI 201
AHP Mahmoo building requirement & Kao
1 200 1 S 1
and Project selection dzadeh et systems [38]
6 7
TOPSI al. [23] 3 Fuzzy Appropriate web Sarfaraj 201
S 2 AHP development et al. [39] 2

IJISRT18JL109 www.ijisrt.com 367

Volume 3, Issue 7, July – 2018 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
platform S. A.
3 Fuzzy Software Project Bakshi et 201 Sahaaya
3 AHP Selection al.[40] 2 Arul
4 ELEC Requirement 201
Fuzzy Mary and
8 TRE Prioritization 6
AHP G.
Mumin Suganya
3 and Software life cycle 201
Hicdurm [55]
4 Fuzzy model 2
az [41]
TOPSI Selection of Agile
Vanessa
S 4 SMAR methodologies in 201
B.S.Silva
Sumeet 9 TER Software 6
AHP Comparison study on et al. [56]
3 Kaur 201 development projects
&FAH the selection of effort
5 Sehra et 2 An Exploration of
P estimation model TOPSI
al. [42] Issues and Elissa
S and
Yajuan 5 Limitations in Nadia 201
3 Evaluation of E- 201 Fuzzy
AHP Zhang et 0 Current Methods of Madi 6
6 commerce security 2 TOPSI
al. [43] TOPSIS and Fuzzy et.al [57]
S
Vatansev TOPSIS
Assessing the quality Requirements
3 Fuzzy er and 201
of service delivery of 5 Prioritization Using Javed Ali 201
7 AHP Akgul 4 ANP
websites 1 Analytic Network Khan et 6
[44]
3 Fuzzy Information security 201 Process (ANP) al. [58]
Lee [45] Hybrid
8 AHP risk assessment 4
3 Fuzzy Askari et 201 Cumul
Ranking of risks ative Hybrid model in Romulo
9 AHP al. [46] 4 5 201
Selection process of Voting Requirement Santos et
4 Jusoh et 201 2 6
AHP open source software and Prioritization al. [59]
0 al.[47] 4 Macbe
(OSS) products
R. Kohli th
4 Fuzzy Selection of software and S. K. 201 Hadeel
1 AHP quality models Sehra 4 Data DS for Requirements E.
5 201
[48] Analys Prioritization Using Elsherbei
3 7
Selection of is Data Analysis ny et
Zeki al.[60]
4 Fuzzy Computer aided 201
Ayağ Gamification for Kifetew
2 AHP manufacturing(CAM) 4
[49] 5 prioritising Meshesh 201
software AHP
Software 4 requirements in a Fitsum 7
4 Fuzzy Khan et 201 Software engineering et al.[61]
development life
3 AHP al. [50] 4 Review of
cycle (SDLC)
AHP Requirements Raneem
5 201
and AHP Prioritization Qaddour
5 7
Fuzzy Techniques and a et al.
Ming- Analysis [62]
4 compr Information Security 201
Chang Fuzzy Fuzzy Approach for Hassan,
4 ehensi Risk Analysis 4
Lee [51] Weiger Wieger’s Method to Abeer &
ve 5 201
metho 's Rank Priorities in Ramadan
6 7
d Metho Requirement Nagy
IGAPE d Engineering [63]
,AHP Hybrid Prioritization Hassan,
4 Integrating and Vinay S 201 Technique for Abeer &
and 5 Fuzzy 201
5 Prioritising goals et al. [52] 4 Software Ramadan
TOPSI 7 logic 8
S Requirements based Nagy
AHP on Fuzzy Logic [64]
& Automating the
Michael Table 1. MCDM Techniques applied to different area of
4 Geneti Migration of Web 201
Menzel Software Engineering
6 c Application Clusters 5
et al. [53]
Algorit to Public Clouds
hm In this study total of fifty-seven papers have been
Sumeet referred. It is observed that twenty papers discuss software
4 Fuzzy Software Quality Kaur 201 application based on the implementation using the AHP
7 AHP model selection Sehra et 6 method and twenty-four papers refer to fuzzy AHP method.
al. [54] AHP is considered to be the foundation method in decision

IJISRT18JL109 www.ijisrt.com 368

Volume 3, Issue 7, July – 2018 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
making widely used in applications like optimized model validation for various decisions when multiple stakeholders
selection, software selection, tool selection, qualitative are involved. The major work included identifying strategies
evaluation, quality control systems and Project management for decision support system and framework generation. The
evaluation etc. (A. Kengpol, C. O Brien [8],2001, Cagno et proposed method was explained with an e-commerce
al.[9],2001; Badri [10],2001; Al-Harbi [11],2001). application. The suggested future work, to consider different
stakeholders while prioritizing requirements or hard goals
Belton and Stewart [12] have evaluated programs and exploring game theoretic approaches in the decision
qualitatively based on the different factors of software support system.
testability using FAHP, in their studies. Kong and Liu [17]
have studied the ranking of the factors behind the success of Sumeet Kaur Sehra et al. [54] highlighted some of the
E-commerce. They have considered different criteria and application of FAHP in their work of Software Quality
sub-criteria for the successful evaluation. The study model selection. The work shows the FAHP can be
concluded with the “Trust” as a major criteria and successfully implemented in solving software engineering
“Security” as the sub-criteria of Trust. Kahraman and problems like finding web development platform, assessing
Tuysuz [18] have suggested that the MCDM can be used for the quality of website and success factor evaluation of e-
evaluation and assessment of project risks. A method for commerce. Study included three different criteria: reliability,
project selection is suggested by Mahmoodzadeh et al. [23] efficiency, and maintainability to evaluate McCall, Boehm
using fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS technique method for project and ISO9126 software quality model. The selection of the
selection. Srivastava and Ray [29] suggested FAHP for model is done on the basis of normalized weights. The
comparing an automated functional and regression testing weights for criteria are calculated using both FAHP and
tool. Wei et al.[35] implemented FAHP to Customer E- AHP and the comparison is done. The weight factor of 1.39
commerce transaction system’s security risk level analysis. in case of AHP shows Boehm's model selection and with
Challa et al.[36] have used FAHP to develop a tool for FAHP normalized weight is 0.38 for ISO9126 resulting in
selecting quality parameters by considering developer, the best software model. The results depend on the specific
project manager, and user perspective. Sarfaraj et al.[39] application and the decision maker’s viewpoint during the
have used Fuzzy AHP for identifying the appropriate web value assignment. Since the decision making is uncertain,
development platform. The proposed model took into the FAHP method can be considered as one of the best
account four criteria, namely security, compatibility, solutions for ranking and for assessment issues in software
performance and licensing cost for choosing the best engineering. Sahaaya et al. [55] implemented ELECTRE
platform. Bakshi et al.[40] used FAHP for selection of method for prioritizing the requirements. ELECTRE is one
software project. Vatansever and Akgul [44] proposed of the multi-criteria decision-making methods mainly used
Fuzzy AHP for assessing the quality of service delivery of for ranking initiatives. In this proposed system, inputs from
websites. The major importance was given to the quality multiple stakeholders were taken using 100 points method
concern and the vendor specific quality turned out to be and the ranking was done using ELECTRE. It is observed
most significant from the study. Lee [45] has used FAHP for that the resulting system had the advantage of the cost of
information security risk assessment. Using FAHP Askari et implementation and the man-hour requirement over
al. [46] achieved Ranking of risks considering project conventional development system. The drawback of the
objectives and alternatives. system is with the 100 points method which is restricted
when large numbers of requirements are considered. The
Jusoh et al. [47] implemented AHP for the selection of authors suggest the use of fuzzy methods in future for taking
Open Source Software (OSS) based on independent criteria the preferences of the stakeholders.
defined by stakeholders. The selection practices change
between the contributors to the organizations. Every Vanessa B.S.Silva et al. [56] presented an multi-
operator has a subjective opinion on the selection of criteria method SMARTER (Simple Multi-Attribute Rating
software depending on the problem to be solved. The factors Technique Exploiting Ranks) for the selection of agile
included for study are quality of the system, Information and software development methodology for small and medium
service delivered. The author included twelve measures for enterprises to match the requirement of software
selection; like reliability, usability, performance efficiency, development. The selection was considered among the
functionality, and competence etc. The features were popular agile process models DSDM (Dynamic Systems
defined by the system to satisfy the requirements of OSS. Development Method), SCRUM, XP2 and Crystal. The
AHP was effectively applied to identify the best alternatives alternatives are restricted to these methodologies. Set of
for selecting the OSS. Future work suggests the use of fuzzy criteria was defined and the survey was conducted. The
theory for converting the requirements into a hierarchical resulting linguistic values were then converted into
structure representing the weights corresponding to the numerical indices to attain the final results. Ranking of the
requirement. Group decision making can be used in future methodology was done based on the multi-attribute values.
for including all the stakeholders for decision making. Vinay The procedure is easier and cost effective but results in lack
S el at. [52] proposed combining IGAPE along with AHP of complete information for the robust selection of the
and TOPSIS. The results of Integration of Goals after process. This is one of the recent works with SMARTER
Prioritization and evaluation were provided as input to application in the software engineering domain. Researcher
decision making methods AHP and TOPSIS. This proposed has concluded the study with some of his observation for the
model was used in requirement engineering to attain further study. Future work suggested using numerical

IJISRT18JL109 www.ijisrt.com 369

Volume 3, Issue 7, July – 2018 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
scaling may provide better result rather than survey methods engineering. Decision-Making Game (DMGame) is a
for precise criteria. Efficient quantitative analysis of software tool designed for supporting requirement
linguistic scales for the evaluation of the alternatives was engineers. DMGame makes use of gamification and
suggested as future work. Elissa Nadia Madi et al. [57] automated reasoning for requirement prioritization and to
discussed different stages involved in TOPSIS and involve stakeholders to contribute to the decision making
FTOPSIS methods and highlights the key difference process. DMGame depends on Online Role-Playing Game
between these two methods. This work also details about the (ORPG) enfolding manual prediction algorithms into a
issues and the challenges of FTOPSIS method. Identifying decision making. Process observed to be faster, considering
these drawbacks, the solution has been suggested which can individual stakeholders contribution and automating
be used in future for improving the exciting fuzzy TOPSIS prioritizing activities. For automated reasoning, AHP
methods for providing more consistent decisions. Javed Ali algorithm is used for ranking alternatives using pairwise
Khan et al.[58] proposed model for prioritizing comparison. It is customized to handle multiple
interdependent requirements using ANP. The researcher stakeholders. Future work suggests a Non-pairwise approach
suggests that ANP is one of the best-suited methods for using multi-objective optimization as an alternative for AHP
requirement prioritizing because of its consistent result for a large number of requirements. Raneem Qaddoura et al.
which depends on proportion scale. The study shows that [62] presented a review of different methods used for
ANP provides better results in prioritizing than AHP. The requirements prioritization. The selection of the methods is
simulation performed using MATLAB software. Future done depending on the type of the project and the
work proposes using ANP in the industry for requirement requirement to be satisfied. The comparison of these
prioritizing during software development. methods was done using many parameters, some of them are
complexity, ease of use, the reliability of results, fault
Romulo Santos et al. [59] makes use of Hybrid tolerance etc. Future work is to study more data mining and
Cumulative Voting (HCV) prioritizing technique for machine learning techniques and their comparisons with the
analysing the requirements through the questionnaire exciting technique.
method. Case study of Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS)
software requirements prioritization was selected. Some of Hassan Abeer & Ramadan Nagy [63] discussed
the potential software user’s response was taken online and different methods adopted for prioritizing the requirements
documented. The database is processed using HCV method for developing systems by different researchers. This paper
to obtain weights using ratio scale. The resulted response proposes a framework which depends on the Fuzzy
was consolidated using Macbeth (Measuring Attractiveness Wieger’s Method for prioritizing requirements by assigning
by the Categorical Based Evaluation Technique) process. It weight values to benefits, penalty, cost, and risk of
is found that the method could satisfy the features of individual requirement. The comparison is done with the
Market-driven software development. Future work suggests classical Wieger’s method with the numerical example using
case study favouring global scope, with region’s culture and MATLAB and spreadsheet. Recent work shows Hassan
economic weight as additional features. Another Abeer & Ramadan Nagy [64] proposed a hybrid model for
improvement suggested is to use Integer Linear requirement prioritization using three different techniques
programming with additional selection criteria as cost and such as QFD (Quality Function Deployment), CV
the requirement interdependency. Hadeel E. Elsherbeiny et (Cumulative Voting), and AHP (Analytical Hierarchy
al.[60] used Statistical analysis to prioritize the requirements Process) using fuzzy technique. The idea of using Fuzzy
for a system involving a large number of stakeholders. The approach is mainly due to the uncertainty in the decisions of
researcher used Rate P method of eliciting the requirements, stakeholders. Fuzzy version gives a closed look to the real
as it has received a high rating from the respondents out of world considering the vagueness in decision making. The
the three methods RateP, RankP, and PointP. In Rate P, the degree of importance of requirements divided as large,
rating is provided from 0 to 5(lowest to highest) and -1 for medium and small for prioritization purpose. This method
the not required requirement. The data collection is done overcomes the problem of complicated decision making
using a questionnaire, brainstorming and group discussions structures, collective decision making and to handle an
etc. The study is done over 76 stakeholders, 10 project ambiguity during group decision making. Author also
objectives, 48 requirements and 104 specific requirements. compares the proposed fuzzy version of this method with
The input to the system is non-prioritized requirements and the classical form, ensures the ease of implementation, the
the output is suggested prioritized requirements. Researcher efficiency and effective management of uncertainty in
uses SPSS for prioritizing and to get the correlation to decision making.
predict the stakeholder’s requirements.
Kifetew Meshesha Fitsum et al. [61] discuss Gamification
concept adopted for requirements prioritization in software

IJISRT18JL109 www.ijisrt.com 370

Volume 3, Issue 7, July – 2018 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165

2020

Year of Publishing
2000

1980

MCDM Methods

The chart (Figure 1) shows various MCDM techniques ELECTRE family includes ELECTRE I, II, III, IV, IS and
used in different area of software engineering over the years. TRI methods which appear similar but differ in the way
Some of the study shows combining different MCDM decision problem is solved. The ELECTRE (Elimination and
methods to increase efficiency and to attain consistent result. Choice Translating algorithm) was introduced by Benayoun,
It is observed from the study that the AHP and FAHP are Roy, and Sussman in 1968 [71]. The method was later
more prominently used methods. developed by Bernard Roy (Roy, 1996).ELECTRE III is
considered to be more efficient in ranking analysis. This
III. MCDM METHODS method mainly depends on the evaluation of concordance
index and discordance index. Ascending and descending
AHP was proposed by Thomas Saaty [65] in 1980, to pre-order is done and then the alternative ranking is
decompose problem into a hierarchical structure and a evaluated. PROMETHEE [72] and its complement
pairwise comparison is performed over the alternatives to Geometric analysis for interactive aid (GAIA) developed in
decide on the preferences. AHP finds wide applications in the early 1980s are majorly used to conquer alternate best
many fields of complex, real-world challenges solutions to attain goals rather providing a right decision.
comprising of number of alternatives. The difficulty in These methods help the developers in designing the
assigning the weights to the alternatives resulted in fuzzy framework for the process, analysing the solution and
logic implementation, resulting in fuzzy AHP method [66]. prioritizing the alternatives. Some of the research work
Instead of comparing two values fuzzy logic resulted in the shows SMARTER (SMART Exploiting Ranks) method,
intermediate values which made an evaluation of based on MAUT (Multiple Attribute Utility Theory) which
alternatives easier. AHP works on the theory of independent is mainly used for preference analysis. This method belongs
criteria, whereas Analytic Network Process (ANP) method to SMART (Simple Multi-Attribute Rating Technique)
[67] developed in 1996 allows the dependencies between the proposed by Edwards and Barron, a family of compensatory
criteria. Most of the problems cannot be arranged in methods. SMARTER uses Rank of Order Centroid (ROC)
hierarchical form because of the contribution from different [73] for elicitation of weights, which converts ranking
levels. ANP is represented by a network, with the cycles criteria into numerical weights. SMARTER is divided into
interconnected to the system. The major drawback of ANP different steps; defining the goal and recognizing decision
is uncertainty in human judgment which results in a makers, Criteria setting, defining goal alternative, evaluating
deficiency in the evaluation of important criteria. Fuzzy criteria and alternatives, analysis of prominent alternatives,
ANP derives local weights using fuzzy preference calculating one-dimensional value function and finally
programming method. This local weight forms super weight swing and ROC method implementation. The
matrix to obtain global weights for ranking the alternatives. progress in the MCDM methods shows that fuzzy version of
TOPSIS (Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to the methods is more appropriate because of the vagueness in
Ideal Solution) which was introduced by Hwang and Yoon the decisions made by the stakeholders and the ambiguity in
in 1981[68] is used along with AHP to increase the the requirement [64]. The recent paper shows a study done
efficiency in decision making. TOPSIS is based on using Wieger’s method with fuzzy logic for requirement
aggregation and representing decision close to an ideal prioritizing. The method depends on benefits, penalty, risk,
solution. The method uses vector normalization to calculate and cost of each requirement. Weights are evaluated in
the shortest distance from the positive ideal solution and the terms of the membership function. Implementation is done
farthest distance from the negative ideal solutions. An initial using MATLAB for membership function and designer
work with Fuzzy TOPSIS method for group decision- inference rules to determine the priority based on the fuzzy
making was implemented by Chen in 2000. In this work, logic. It is considered to be more suitable for the real-time
decision makers use fuzzy sets to allot the semantic values implementation, as the degree of importance of requirements
to the alternatives [69]. VIKOR is also based on aggregation is very high during the development stage. Most of the work
and decision representation close to an ideal solution as that shows that fuzzy concepts can better handle uncertainty
in TOPSIS. In VIKOR linear normalization method is used during complex decision making.
[70]. It is a compromise ranking method providing
maximum utility for the majority and the minimum utility
with minor preferences for the individual.

IJISRT18JL109 www.ijisrt.com 371

Volume 3, Issue 7, July – 2018 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
IV. OBSERVATION AND CONCLUSION [8]. A. Kengpol, C. O Brien, The development of a decision
support tool for the selection of a advanced technology to
Decision support methods are majorly used in many achieve rapid product development, International Journal
different areas such as energy system, business sectors, and of Production Economics 69 (2) (2001) 177–191.
software engineering etc. Recent trends shows decision- [9]. E. Cagno, F. Caron, A. Perego, Multi-criteria
making methods have made researcher to innovate new assessment of the probability of winning in competitive
methods to achieve more competent outcomes. The study bidding process, International Journal of Production
highlights the application of multi-criteria decision-making Management 19 (2001) 313–324.
methods in the different phases of software engineering life [10]. M. Badri, Combining the AHP and GP model for
cycle. Recent survey shows most of the work with quality control systems, International Journal of
combination of available MCDM methods to improve on the Production Economics 72 (1) (2001) 27–40.
efficiency of decision making. Overall work shows that the [11]. Al-Harbi, K. M. (2001). Application of the AHP in
AHP and the Fuzzy AHP are more frequently used methods. project management. International Journal of Project
This is mainly because of simplicity in understanding and Management, 19, 19 –27.
ease of implementation, forming a strong base for decision- [12]. V. Belton and T. Stewart, Multiple criteria decision
making methods. Recent work also shows the analysis: an integrated approach. Springer Science &
implementation of TOPSIS, SMARTER, ELECTRE, Business Media, 2002.
PROMETHEE and Fuzzy Wieger’s Methods for different [13]. V. Lai, B.K. Wong, W. Cheung, Group decision
application in software engineering. Most of these making in a multiple criteria environment: A case using
traditional methods have limitations when used for solving the AHP in the software selection, European Journal of
real world problems. Thus, decision-making should take into Opera-tional Research 137 (1) (2002) 134–144.
account the complexity to deal with actual run time systems. [14]. M.I. Al Khalil, Selecting the appropriate project
Future work suggests a hybrid model of decision-making delivery method using AHP, International Journal of
method, combining essential features from existing methods, Project Management 20 (2002) 469–474.
to increase the efficiency and consistency of the software [15]. J.C.Y. Su, et al., A structured approach to measuring
life cycle model. functional dependency and sequencing of coupled tasks
in engineering design, Computers and Industrial
REFERENCES Engineer-ing 45 (1) (2003) 195–204.
[16]. Buyukozkan G., Kahraman C., Ruan D., 2004: A fuzzy
[1]. Nemhauser, G.L., Rinnoy Kan, A.H.G. and Todd, M.J. multi-criteria decision approach for software
(1989) Handbooks in Operations Research and development strategy selection, International Journal of
Management Science: Volume 1 Optimization, North- General Systems, Vol. 33 (2–3), pp. 259–280.
Holland, Amsterdam. [17]. F. Kong and H. Liu, “Applying fuzzy analytic
[2]. Hwang, C. L., & Lin, M. J. (1967). Group decision hierarchy process to evaluate success factors of e-
making under multiple criteria: Methods and commerce,” International Journal of Information and
applications: Springer-Verlag. Systems Sciences, vol. 1, no. 3-4, pp. 406– 412, 2005.
[3]. Hadeel E. Elsherbeiny, A. A. Abd El-Aziz, Nagy http://www.math.ualberta.ca/ijiss/ SS-Volume-1-
Ramadan(2017)Decision Support for Requirements 2005/No-3-05/SS-05-03-22.pdf
Prioritization Using Data Analysis, Egyptian [18]. F.TyszandC.Kahraman,“Project risk evaluation using a
Computer Science Journal (ISSN-1110-2586)Volume fuzzy analytic hierarchy process: An application to
41–Issue2. information technology projects,” International Journal
[4]. Abbas Mardani, Ahmad Jusoh, Khalil MD nor, Zainab of Intelligent Systems, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 559–584, Jun.
Khalifah, Norhayati Zakwan & Alireza Valipour (2015) 2006. [Online]. Available:
Multiple criteria decision-making techniques and their http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/int.20148.
applications – a review of the literature from 2000 to [19]. Ahmad N., Laplante P. A., 2006: Software Project
2014, Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, Management Tools: Making a Practical Decision Using
28:1, 516-571, DOI: 10.1080/1331677X.2015.1075139 AHP, IEEE Computer Society Proceedings of the 30th
[5]. Omkarprasad S. Vaidya, Sushil Kumar, Analytic Annual IEEE/NASA Software Engineering Workshop
hierarchy process: An overview of applications, SEW-30, 0-7695-2624-1/06.
European Journal of Operational Research 169 (2006) [20]. Tamura Y., Yamada S., 2006: Comparison of Software
1–29. Reliability Assessment Methods for Open Source
[6]. Achimugu, P., Selamat, A., Ibrahim, R. and Mahrin, Software and Reliability Assessment Tool, Journal of
M.N. (2014) A Systematic Literature Review of Computer Science. Vol. 2 (6) pp. 489495.
Software Requirements Prioritization Research. [21]. Thomaidis N. S., Nikitakos N., Dounias G. D., 2006:
Information and Software Technology, 56, 568-585. The evaluation of information technology projects: a
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2014.02.001. fuzzy multicriteria decisionmaking approach,
[7]. Vicent Penadés-Plà, Tatiana García-Segura, José V. International Journal of Information Technology &
Martí and Víctor Yepes, A Review of Multi-Criteria Decision Making , Vol. 5 (1), pp. 89–122.
Decision-Making Methods Applied to the Sustainable [22]. Shyur H. J., 2006: COTS evaluation using modified
Bridge Design, Sustainability 2016, 8, 1295; TOPSIS and ANP, Applied Mathematics and
doi:10.3390/su8121295. Computation, Vol. 177, pp. 251–259.

IJISRT18JL109 www.ijisrt.com 372

Volume 3, Issue 7, July – 2018 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
[23]. S. Mahmoodzadeh, J. Shahrabi, M. Pariazar, and M. S. [37]. Peng Y., Kou G., Wang G., Wu W., Shi Y., 2011:
Zaeri, “Project selection by using fuzzy AHP and Ensemble of software defect predictors: an ahp-based
TOPSIS technique,” International Journal of Human evaluation method, International Journal of Information
and social sciences, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 135–140, 2007. Technology & Decision Making, Vol. 10 (1), pp. 187-206.
Available: http://www.waset.org/publications/128 [38]. Li, Y.-M., Lai, C.-Y., & Kao, C.-P. (2011). Building a
[24]. Z. Ayağ (2007) A hybrid approach to machine-tool qualitative recruitment system via SVM with MCDM
selection through AHP and simulation, International approach. Applied Intelligence, 35, 75.
Journal of Production Research, 45:9, 2029-2050, DOI: [39]. A. Sarfaraz, P. Mukerjee, and K. Jenab, “Using fuzzy
10.1080/00207540600724856. analytical hierarchy process (AHP) to evaluate web
[25]. Lin, C.-C., Wang, W.-C., & Yu, W.-D. (2008). development platform,” Management Science Letters,
Improving AHP for construction with an adaptive AHP vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 253–262, Jan. 2012. [Online].
approach (A3). Automation in Construction, 17, 180– Available: http://www.growingscience.com/msl/Vol2/
187. msl\ 2011\ 67.pdf .
[26]. Wu, W.-W. (2008). Choosing knowledge management [40]. T. Bakshi, B. Sarkar, and S. K. Sanyal, “A Novel
strategies by using a combined ANP and DEMATEL Integrated AHP-QFD Model for Software Project
approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 35, 828– Selection under Fuzziness,” International Journal of
835. Computer Applications (09758887), c,
[27]. Buyukozkan G., Ruan D., 2008: Evaluation of software 2012.http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi
development projects using a fuzzy multi-criteria =10.1.1.258.7185&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
decision approach, Mathematics and Computers in [41]. Mumin Hicdurmaz, A Fuzzy Multi Criteria Decision
Simulation, Vol. 77, pp. 464–475. Making Approach to Software Life Cycle Model
[28]. LiShi & Shalin Yang, 2009: The Evaluation of Selection. 2012 38th Euromicro Conference on
Software trustworthiness with FAHP & FTOSIS Software Engineering and Advanced Applications 978-
method, Computational Intelligence and Software 0-7695-4790-9/12 © 2012 IEEE DOI
Engineering, 2009. CiSE 2009. 10.1109/SEAA.2012.71.
[29]. P. R. Srivastava and M. P. Ray, “Multi-attribute [42]. Sumeet Kaur Sehra, Yadwinder Singh Brar and
Comparison of Automated Functional and Regression Navdeep Kaur “Multi Criteria Decision Making
Testing Tools using Fuzzy AHP.” in IICAI, 2009, pp. Approach for Selecting Effort Estimation Model”
1030–1043. International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 –
[30]. Palcic I and Lalic B, Analytical Hierarchy Process As 8887) Volume 39– No.1, January 2012
A Tool For Selecting and evaluating Project,Int J Simul [43]. Zhang, Y., Deng, X., Wei, D., & Deng, Y. (2012).
Model 8(2009)1,16-26. Assessment of E-Commerce security using AHP and
[31]. Rao R. V., Rajesh T. S., 2009: Software selection in evidential reasoning. Expert Systems with Applications,
manufacturing ndustries using a fuzzy multiple 39, 3611–3623.
criteria decision making method, promethee, Intelligent [44]. K. Vatansever and Y. Akgul, “Applying Fuzzy
Information Management, Vol. 1, pp. 159-165. Analytic Hierarchy Process for Evaluating Service
[32]. Trienekens J. J. M., Kusters R. J., Brussel D. C., 2010: Quality of Private Shopping Website Quality: A Case
Quality specification and metrication, results from a Study in Turkey,” Journal of Business Economics and
case-study in a missioncritical software domain, Finance, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 283–301, 2014. [Online].
Software Qual J Vol. 18 pp. 469–490. Available: http://dergipark.ulakbim.gov.tr/jbef/article/
[33]. Syamsuddin I., Junseok H., 2010: The use of ahp in download/5000075891/5000070192.
security policy decision making: an open office calc. [45]. M. Chang Lee, “Information Security Risk Analysis
Application, Journal of Software, Vol. 5 (10), pp. 1162- Methods and Research Trends: AHP and Fuzzy
1169. Comprehensive Method,” International Journal of
[34]. Peng Y., Wang G., Wang H., 2010: User preferences Computer Science and Information Technology, vol. 6,
based software defect detection algorithms selection no. 1, pp. 29–45, Feb. 2014. [Online]. Available:
using MCDM, Information Sciences, (In press). http//www.airccse.org/journal/jcsit/6114ijcsit03.pdf
[35]. B. Wei, F. Dai, and J. Liu, “C2c E-commerce Risk [46]. M. Askari, H. R. Shokrizadeh, and N. Ghane, “A Fuzzy
Assessment Based on AHP and Fuzzy Comprehensive AHP Model in Risk Ranking,” European Journal of
Evaluation,” International Journal of Engineering and Business and Management, vol. 6, no. 14, pp. 194–202,
Manufacturing, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 34–39, Feb. 2011. 2014.
http://www.mecs-press.org/ijem/ijem-v1-n1/ v1n1- http://iiste.org/Journals/index.php/EJBM/article/view/1
6.html. 3347
[36]. J. S. Challa, A. Paul, Y. Dada, V. Nerella, P. R. [47]. Y. Y. Jusoh, K. Chamili, N. C. Pa, and J. H. Yahaya,
Srivastava, and A. P. Singh, “Integrated Software “Open source software selection using an analytical
Quality Evaluation: A Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Approach,” hierarchy process (AHP),” American Journal of
Journal of Information Processing Systems, vol. 7, no. Software Engineering and Applications, vol. 3, no. 6,
3, pp. 473–518, Sep. 2011.: pp.83–89,2014.
http://koreascience.or.kr/journal/view.jsp?kj=E1JBB0& http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.
py=2011&vnc=v7n3&sp=473. j.ajsea.20140306.13.pdf .

IJISRT18JL109 www.ijisrt.com 373

Volume 3, Issue 7, July – 2018 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
[48]. R. Kohli and S. K. Sehra, “Fuzzy Multi Criteria [60]. E.Elsherbeiny, Hadeel & Ahmed, Abd El-Aziz &
Approach for Selecting Software Quality Model,” Ramadan, Nagy. (2017). Decision Support for
International Journal of Computer Applications, vol. 98, Requirements Prioritization Using Data Analysis.
no. 11, pp. 11–15, 2014. Egyptian Computer Science Journal (ECS)- ISSN 1110-
[49]. Zeki Ayağ “A fuzzy analytic hierarchy process tool to 2586. 41.
evaluate computer-aided manufacturing software [61]. Kifetew, Fitsum Meshesha & Munante, Denisse &
alternatives” TJFS: Turkish Journal of Fuzzy Systems Perini, Anna & Susi, Angelo & Siena, Alberto &
(eISSN: 1309–1190) An Official Journal of Turkish Busetta, Paolo & Valerio, Danilo. (2017). Gamifying
Fuzzy Systems Association Vol.5, No.2, pp. 114-127, Collaborative Prioritization: Does Pointsification
2014. Work?. 322-331. 10.1109/RE.2017.66.
[50]. M. Khan, A. Parveen, and M. Sadiq, “A method for the [62]. Qaddoura, Raneem & Abu-Srhan, Alaa & Haj Qasem,
selection of software development life cycle models Mais & Hudaib, Amjad. (2017). Requirements
using analytic hierarchy process,” in Issues and Prioritization Techniques Review and Analysis. 258-
Challenges in Intelligent Computing Techniques 263. 10.1109/ICTCS.2017.55.
(ICICT), 2014 International Conference on, Feb. 2014, [63]. Hassan, Abeer & Ramadan, Nagy. (2017). A Fuzzy
pp. 534–540. Approach for Wieger’s Method to Rank Priorities in
[51]. Ming-Chang Lee” Information Security Risk Analysis Requirement Engineering. CiiT International Journal of
Methods and Research Trends: AHP and Fuzzy Fuzzy Systems, ISSN 0974-9608. 9. 189-196.
Comprehensive Method” International Journal of [64]. Hassan, Abeer & Ramadan, Nagy. (2018). A Proposed
Computer Science & Information Technology (IJCSIT) Hybrid Prioritization Technique for Software
Vol 6, No1, February 2014 Requirements based on Fuzzy Logic. CiiT International
[52]. Vinay S1, Shridhar Aithal2 and Sudhakara Adiga3 Journal of Fuzzy Systems, ISSN 0974-9608. 10. 45-52.
“INTEGRATING GOALS AFTER PRIORITIZATION [65]. Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process:
AND EVALUATION – A GOAL-ORIENTED Planning, priority setting, resources allocation. New
REQUIREMENTS ENGINEERING METHOD” York, NY: McGraw.
International Journal of Software Engineering & [66]. Ying-Ming Wang, Kwai-Sang Chin “Fuzzy
Applications (IJSEA), Vol.5, No.6, November 2014 Analytic Hierarchy Process: A logarithmic Fuzzy
[53]. Michael Menzel, Rajiv Ranjan, Lizhe Wang, Samee U. performance Programming Methodology “International
Khan, Jinjun Chen, CloudGenius: A Hybrid Decision Journal of Approximate Reasoning 52(2011)541-553
Support Method for Automating the Migration of Web [67]. Saaty, T. L. (1996). Decision making with
Application Clusters to Public Clouds. IEEE dependence and feedback: the analytic network process:
TRANSACTIONS ON COMPUTERS, VOL. 64, NO. The organization and prioritization of complexity.
5, MAY 2015 Pittsburgh: Rws Publications.
[54]. Sumeet Kaur Sehra, Yadwinder Singh Brar and [68]. C..-L. Hwang and K. Yoon, Multiple Attribute
Navdeep Kaur “Applications of Multi-criteria Decision Decision Making: Methods and Application- A State of
Making in Software Engineering” ,(IJACSA) The Art Survey, lecture no ed., M. Beckmann and H. P.
International Journal of Advanced Computer Science Kunzi, Eds. Springer Berlin Heidelberg New York,
and Applications, Vol. 7, No. 7, 2016. 1981.
[55]. Mary, S.A.S.A. and Suganya, G. (2016) Multi-Criteria [69]. [69] C.-T. Chen, "Extensions of the TOPSIS for
Decision Making Using ELECTRE. Circuits and group decision-making under fuzzy environment,
Systems,7,1008-1020. "Fuzzy Sets SYST., vol. 114, no. I, pp. 1-9, aug 2000.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/cs.2016.76085 [70]. Serafim Opricovic, Gwo-Hshiung
[56]. Vanessa B.S.Silva et al. A multicriteria approach for Tzeng,”Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A
selection of agile methodologies in software compromise analysis of VIKOR & TOPSIS,European
development projects, 2016 IEEE International Journal of Operational Research 156(2004)445-455
Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics • SMC [71]. Giannoulis, C. and Ishizaka, A. (2010) A Web-
2016 | October 9-12, 2016 • Budapest, Hungary. Based Decision Support System with ELECTRE III for
[57]. Elissa Nadia Madi, Jonathan M. Garibaldi, Christian a Personalised Ranking of British Universities. Decision
Wagner, An Exploration of Issues and Limitations in Support Systems, 48, 488-497.
Current Methods of TOPSIS and Fuzzy TOPSIS, 2016 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2009.06.008.
IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems [72]. Mareschal, B., Brans, J. P., & Vincke, P. (1984).
(FUZZ) ,978-1-5090-0626-7/16/$3l.00 ©2016 IEEE PROMETHEE: A new family of outranking methods in
[58]. Khan, Javed. (2016). Requirements Prioritization Using multicriteria analysis. ULB Institutional Repository,
Analytic Network Process (ANP). International Journal ULB–Universite Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels.
of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 7, Issue [73]. W. Edwards, and F.H. Barron, “SMARTS and
11,November-2016 ISSN 2229-5518. SMARTER: Improved simple methods for
[59]. Rômulo Santos, Adriano Albuquerque, Plácido Rogerio multiattribute utility measurement,” Organizational
Pinheiro.Towards the Applied Hybrid Model in Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 60, pp.
Requirements Prioritization. Procedia Computer 306-325, 1994.
Science 91 (2016) 909 – 918.

IJISRT18JL109 www.ijisrt.com 374