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
Ms.Veena Nayak1, Dr.Rio D’Souza2
Dept. of Computer Science & Engineering, Dept. of Computer Science & Engineering,
St Joseph Engineering College, Mangaluru, India St Joseph Engineering College, Mangaluru, India
[email protected] [email protected]

Abstract- Multi-criteria decision making methods have been actual or fuzzy, depending on the intervals. A modern
widely used in different fields of development system to attain MCDM method provides the platform for the decision
significant results. These are the quantitative methods used for maker to retrieve these data. One of the main stages of
reducing the complexity of system design and to arrive at final
MCDM is deciding on the aggregation method to finalize
statement considering the involvement of the number of
stakeholders to make a decision. With the increased
the decision. However recent advancement in MCDM has
alternatives and the constraints decision making becomes given a variety of evaluation theories and the assessment
complex issue. Many researchers have proposed several techniques. There are no definite methods adopted for
techniques to enhance software quality by adopting multi- decision making. Depending on the application and the
criteria decision making methods in the area such as Testing object of comparison, aggregation method is chosen to
Criteria for UML Models, Software Project Selection, Risk decide on the priorities and to rank the alternatives [4].
Analysis, Quality Evaluation, and Assessment etc. This paper
mainly focuses on combining all the work related to the II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
implementation of MCDM in software engineering, for making
a decision in the different area of application. This highlights The decision support methods have been implemented
more prominently used methods and the advancements in those
in the various applications satisfying the constraints to the
methods in the recent years.
major extent. These methods came into existence in early
Keywords- Multi criteria decision making (MCDM), Decision 1960 and the work continued with the different application.
Making (DM), Software Engineering (SE), Prioritizing, The complexity in decision making, increased with the
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 research
could be statistical analysis, quantitative analysis or survey and soft computing, Knowledge management etc. Vaidya, O.
to attain the solution satisfying requirements and reducing S. & Kumar, S [5] shows survey on AHP used in Energy
the probable conflict on problem definition. MCDM majorly 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 I. and are discussed as
on the preferences. In economics, utility theory is adopted to follows.
study the preference of DM and in multi-attribute systems, In this study total of fifty-seven papers which referred to
multiple attribute utility theory (MAUT) is used for software engineering application have been considered. It is
preference analysis. The utility adaptive (UTA) method uses observed that twenty papers discuss software application
MAUT along with regression and linear programming to based on the implementation using the AHP method and
analyse the DM preferences. MAUT works with the twenty-four papers refer to fuzzy AHP method. AHP is
principle of independence of attributes and UAT works with considered to be the foundation method in decision making
an independence of variables [3]. MODM is used for widely used in applications like optimized model selection,
obtaining continuous set of solutions when two or more software selection, tool selection, qualitative evaluation,
criteria are present. Majorly MCDM deals with distinct quality control systems and Project management evaluation
alternatives, defined by constraint at different intervals. etc. (A. Kengpol, C. O Brien [8],2001, Cagno et al.[9],2001;
Constraint values are retrieved either manually or by Badri [10],2001; Al-Harbi [11],2001).
mathematical evaluation. Information retrieved could be

IJISRT18JL109 www.ijisrt.com 110

Volume 3, Issue 7, July – 2018 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
Table I. MCDM Techniques applied to different area of Software functional and
Engineering regression testing [29]
tool
Sl. MCDM Year Selecting and Palcic I
Aspect Authors
No Technique Published 23 AHP evaluation of and Lalic 2009
A. project B [30]
Tool selection for
Kengpol, Rao R.V.
1 AHP advanced 2001 PROMETHEE
C. O Framework for and
technology 24 and AHP with 2009
Brien [8] software selection Rajesh
fuzzy logic
Simulation T.S. [31]
approach for Cagno et Software developers Trieneken
2 AHP 2001
quantitative al. [9] 25 AHP to improve software s et al. 2010
evaluation quality [32]
Model quality Badri Framework to Syamsudd
3 AHP 2001
control systems [10] evaluate in I. and
26 AHP 2010
Project management Al-Harbi information security Junseok
4 AHP 2001
evaluation [11] policy performance H. [33]
Belton Software defect
Peng Y et
Program aspect and 27 MCDM detection algorithms 2010
5 Fuzzy AHP 2002 al. [34]
Assessment Stewart selection
[12] Risk factors and E-
Wei et al.
V.Lai et 28 Fuzzy AHP commerce 2011
6 AHP Software selection 2002 [35]
al. [13] transaction
Selection of Tool for selecting
Al Khalil Challa et
7 AHP appropriate project 2002 29 Fuzzy AHP the quality 2011
[14] al.[36]
delivery method parameters
Structural approach Assessment of the
for measuring J.C.Y.Su. quality of ensemble Peng Y et
8 AHP 2003 30 AHP 2011
functional et al. [15] methods in software al. [37]
dependency defect prediction
Software Buyukozk Assessment of
Fuzzy logic
9 development an G.et al. 2004 building Li, Lai, &
and AHP 31 TOPSIS 2011
strategy selection [16] requirement Kao [38]
Ranking of the systems
factors behind the Kong and Appropriate web
10 Fuzzy AHP 2005 Sarfaraj et
success of E- Liu [17] 32 Fuzzy AHP development 2012
al. [39]
commerce platform
Kahraman Software Project Bakshi et
Evaluation and 33 Fuzzy AHP 2012
and Selection al.[40]
11 Fuzzy AHP assessment of 2006
Tuysuz Fuzzy AHP Mumin
project risks Software life cycle
[18] 34 and Fuzzy Hicdurma 2012
model
Ahmad TOPSIS z [41]
Model for selecting
and Comparison study Sumeet
12 AHP a software project 2006
Laplante on the selection of Kaur
management tool 35 AHP &FAHP 2012
[19] effort estimation Sehra et
Tamura model al. [42]
Reliability and Yajuan
13 AHP 2006 Evaluation of E-
assessment method Yamada 36 AHP Zhang et 2012
commerce security
[202] al. [43]
Evaluation of Thomaidi Vatanseve
Assessing the
14 Fuzzy MCDM information s et al. 2006 r and
37 Fuzzy AHP quality of service 2014
technology projects [21] Akgul
delivery of websites
Modified [44]
Shyur H.J
15 TOPSIS and COTS evaluation 2006 Information security
[22] 38 Fuzzy AHP Lee [45] 2014
ANP risk assessment
Mahmood Askari et
Fuzzy AHP 39 Fuzzy AHP Ranking of risks 2014
16 Project selection zadeh et 2007 al. [46]
and TOPSIS
al. [23] Selection process of
AHP and Machine tool Z. AYAG open source Jusoh et
17 2007 40 AHP 2014
Simulator selection [24] software (OSS) al.[47]
Soft computing Lin, products
18 AHP scheme and genetic Wang, & 2008
Algorithms Yu [25] Selection of R.Kohli
Evaluation of 41 Fuzzy AHP software quality and S. K. 2014
DEMATEL
19 knowledge Wu [26] 2008 models Sehra [48]
and ANP
management system
Measuring the
Buyukozk Selection of
Fuzzy Vikor performance of
an Computer aided Zeki Ayağ
20 and Fuzzy software 2008 42 Fuzzy AHP 2014
G.,Ruan manufacturing [49]
Delphi development
D. [27] (CAM) software
projects
LiShi & Software
FAHP & Evaluating Software Khan et
21 Shalin 2009 43 Fuzzy AHP development life 2014
FTOPSIS Trustworthiness al. [50]
Yang [28] cycle (SDLC)
22 Fuzzy AHP Comparing an Srivastava 2009 44 AHP and Information Ming- 2014
automated and Ray Fuzzy Security Risk Chang

IJISRT18JL109 www.ijisrt.com 111

Volume 3, Issue 7, July – 2018 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
comprehensive
Analysis Lee [51] tool. Wei et al.[35] implemented FAHP to Customer E-
method commerce transaction system’s security risk level analysis.
IGAPE,AHP Integrating and Vinay S et
45
and TOPSIS Prioritising goals al. [52]
2014 Challa et al.[36] have used FAHP to develop a tool for
Automating the selecting quality parameters by considering developer,
AHP & Migration of Web Michael project manager, and user perspective. Sarfaraj et al.[39]
46 Genetic Application Menzel et 2015 have used Fuzzy AHP for identifying the appropriate web
Algorithm Clusters to Public al. [53]
Clouds development platform. The proposed model took into
Sumeet account four criteria, namely security, compatibility,
47 Fuzzy AHP
Software Quality Kaur
2016
performance and licensing cost for choosing the best
model selection Sehra et platform. Bakshi et al.[40] used FAHP for selection of
al. [54]
S. A.
software project. Vatansever and Akgul [44] proposed Fuzzy
Sahaaya AHP for assessing the quality of service delivery of
48 ELECTRE
Requirement Arul Mary
2016
websites. The major importance was given to the quality
Prioritization and G. concern and the vendor specific quality turned out to be
Suganya
[55]
most significant from the study. Lee [45] has used FAHP for
Selection of Agile information security risk assessment. Using FAHP Askari et
methodologies in Vanessa al. [46] achieved Ranking of risks considering project
49 SMARTER Software B.S.Silva 2016 objectives and alternatives.
development et al. [56]
projects
Elissa Jusoh et al. [47] implemented AHP for the selection of
TOPSIS and Exploring the issues Nadia Open Source Software (OSS) based on independent criteria
50 2016
Fuzzy TOPSIS and limitations Madi et.al defined by stakeholders. The selection practices change
[57] between the contributors to the organizations. Every
Javed Ali
51 ANP
Requirements
Khan et 2016 operator has a subjective opinion on the selection of
Prioritization software depending on the problem to be solved. The factors
al. [58]
Hybrid
Hybrid model in Romulo included for study are quality of the system, Information and
Cumulatie service delivered. The author included twelve measures for
52 Requirement Santos et 2016
Voting and
Macbeth
Prioritization al. [59] selection; like reliability, usability, performance efficiency,
Hadeel E. functionality, and competence etc. The features were defined
Decision Support
53 Data Analysis for Requirements
Elsherbei
2017 by the system to satisfy the requirements of OSS. AHP was
ny et al. effectively applied to identify the best alternatives for
Prioritization
[60]
Gamification for
selecting the OSS. Future work suggests the use of fuzzy
Kifetew theory for converting the requirements into a hierarchical
prioritising
Meshesha
54 AHP requirements in
Fitsum et
2017 structure representing the weights corresponding to the
Software requirement. Group decision making can be used in future
al.[61]
engineering
Review of
for including all the stakeholders for decision making. Vinay
Requirements S el at. [52] proposed combining IGAPE along with AHP
55 AHP Prioritization Raneem 2017 and TOPSIS. The results of Integration of Goals after
Techniques and Qaddoura Prioritization and evaluation were provided as input to
Analysis et al. [62]
decision making methods AHP and TOPSIS. This proposed
Hassan,
Rank Priorities in model was used in requirement engineering to attain
Fuzzy Weiger's Abeer &
56 Requirement 2017
Method
Engineering
Ramadan validation for various decisions when multiple stakeholders
Nagy [63] are involved. The major work included identifying strategies
Hybrid Hassan, for decision support system and framework generation. The
Prioritization Abeer &
57 Fuzzy logic Technique for Ramadan 2018 proposed method was explained with an e-commerce
Software Nagy [64] application. The suggested future work, to consider different
Requirements stakeholders while prioritizing requirements or hard goals
and exploring game theoretic approaches in the decision
Belton and Stewart [12] have evaluated programs support system.
qualitatively based on the different factors of software
testability using FAHP, in their studies. Kong and Liu [17] Sumeet Kaur Sehra et al. [54] highlighted some of the
have studied the ranking of the factors behind the success of application of FAHP in their work of Software Quality
E-commerce. They have considered different criteria and model selection. The work shows the FAHP can be
sub-criteria for the successful evaluation. The study successfully implemented in solving software engineering
concluded with the “Trust” as a major criteria and problems like finding web development platform, assessing
“Security” as the sub-criteria of Trust. Kahraman and the quality of website and success factor evaluation of e-
Tuysuz [18] have suggested that the MCDM can be used for commerce. Study included three different criteria: reliability,
evaluation and assessment of project risks. A method for efficiency, and maintainability to evaluate McCall, Boehm
project selection is suggested by Mahmoodzadeh et al. [23] and ISO9126 software quality model. The selection of the
using fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS technique method for project model is done on the basis of normalized weights. The
selection. Srivastava and Ray [29] suggested FAHP for weights for criteria are calculated using both FAHP and AHP
comparing an automated functional and regression testing and the comparison is done. The weight factor of 1.39 in

IJISRT18JL109 www.ijisrt.com 112

Volume 3, Issue 7, July – 2018 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
case of AHP shows Boehm's model selection and with FAHP Romulo Santos et al. [59] makes use of Hybrid
normalized weight is 0.38 for ISO9126 resulting in the best Cumulative Voting (HCV) prioritizing technique for
software model. The results depend on the specific analysing the requirements through the questionnaire
application and the decision maker’s viewpoint during the method. Case study of Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS)
value assignment. Since the decision making is uncertain, software requirements prioritization was selected. Some of
the FAHP method can be considered as one of the best the potential software user’s response was taken online and
solutions for ranking and for assessment issues in software documented. The database is processed using HCV method
engineering. Sahaaya et al. [55] implemented ELECTRE to obtain weights using ratio scale. The resulted response
method for prioritizing the requirements. ELECTRE is one was consolidated using Macbeth (Measuring Attractiveness
of the multi-criteria decision-making methods mainly used by the Categorical Based Evaluation Technique) process. It
for ranking initiatives. In this proposed system, inputs from is found that the method could satisfy the features of
multiple stakeholders were taken using 100 points method Market-driven software development. Future work suggests
and the ranking was done using ELECTRE. It is observed case study favouring global scope, with region’s culture and
that the resulting system had the advantage of the cost of economic weight as additional features. Another
implementation and the man-hour requirement over improvement suggested is to use Integer Linear
conventional development system. The drawback of the programming with additional selection criteria as cost and
system is with the 100 points method which is restricted the requirement interdependency. Hadeel E. Elsherbeiny et
when large numbers of requirements are considered. The al.[60] used Statistical analysis to prioritize the requirements
authors suggest the use of fuzzy methods in future for taking for a system involving a large number of stakeholders. The
the preferences of the stakeholders. researcher used Rate P method of eliciting the requirements,
as it has received a high rating from the respondents out of
Vanessa B.S.Silva et al. [56] presented an multi- the three methods RateP, RankP, and PointP. In Rate P, the
criteria method SMARTER (Simple Multi-Attribute Rating rating is provided from 0 to 5(lowest to highest) and -1 for
Technique Exploiting Ranks) for the selection of agile the not required requirement. The data collection is done
software development methodology for small and medium using a questionnaire, brainstorming and group discussions
enterprises to match the requirement of software etc. The study is done over 76 stakeholders, 10 project
development. The selection was considered among the objectives, 48 requirements and 104 specific requirements.
popular agile process models DSDM (Dynamic Systems The input to the system is non-prioritized requirements and
Development Method), SCRUM, XP2 and Crystal. The the output is suggested prioritized requirements. Researcher
alternatives are restricted to these methodologies. Set of uses SPSS for prioritizing and to get the correlation to
criteria was defined and the survey was conducted. The predict the stakeholder’s requirements.
resulting linguistic values were then converted into Kifetew Meshesha Fitsum et al. [61] discuss
numerical indices to attain the final results. Ranking of the Gamification concept adopted for requirements
methodology was done based on the multi-attribute values. prioritization in software engineering. Decision-Making
The procedure is easier and cost effective but results in lack Game (DMGame) is a software tool designed for supporting
of complete information for the robust selection of the requirement engineers. DMGame makes use of gamification
process. This is one of the recent works with SMARTER and automated reasoning for requirement prioritization and
application in the software engineering domain. Researcher to involve stakeholders to contribute to the decision making
has concluded the study with some of his observation for the process. DMGame depends on Online Role-Playing Game
further study. Future work suggested using numerical (ORPG) enfolding manual prediction algorithms into a
scaling may provide better result rather than survey methods decision making. Process observed to be faster, considering
for precise criteria. Efficient quantitative analysis of individual stakeholders contribution and automating
linguistic scales for the evaluation of the alternatives was prioritizing activities. For automated reasoning, AHP
suggested as future work. Elissa Nadia Madi et al. [57] algorithm is used for ranking alternatives using pairwise
discussed different stages involved in TOPSIS and FTOPSIS comparison. It is customized to handle multiple
methods and highlights the key difference between these stakeholders. Future work suggests a Non-pairwise approach
two methods. This work also details about the issues and the using multi-objective optimization as an alternative for AHP
challenges of FTOPSIS method. Identifying these for a large number of requirements. Raneem Qaddoura et al.
drawbacks, the solution has been suggested which can be [62] presented a review of different methods used for
used in future for improving the exciting fuzzy TOPSIS requirements prioritization. The selection of the methods is
methods for providing more consistent decisions. Javed Ali done depending on the type of the project and the
Khan et al.[58] proposed model for prioritizing requirement to be satisfied. The comparison of these
interdependent requirements using ANP. The researcher methods was done using many parameters, some of them are
suggests that ANP is one of the best-suited methods for complexity, ease of use, the reliability of results, fault
requirement prioritizing because of its consistent result tolerance etc. Future work is to study more data mining and
which depends on proportion scale. The study shows that machine learning techniques and their comparisons with the
ANP provides better results in prioritizing than AHP. The exciting technique.
simulation performed using MATLAB software. Future
work proposes using ANP in the industry for requirement Hassan Abeer & Ramadan Nagy [63] discussed
prioritizing during software development. different methods adopted for prioritizing the requirements
for developing systems by different researchers. This paper
proposes a framework which depends on the Fuzzy Wieger’s

IJISRT18JL109 www.ijisrt.com 113

Volume 3, Issue 7, July – 2018 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
Method for prioritizing requirements by assigning weight world considering the vagueness in decision making. The
values to benefits, penalty, cost, and risk of individual degree of importance of requirements divided as large,
requirement. The comparison is done with the classical medium and small for prioritization purpose. This method
Wieger’s method with the numerical example using overcomes the problem of complicated decision making
MATLAB and spreadsheet. Recent work shows Hassan structures, collective decision making and to handle an
Abeer & Ramadan Nagy [64] proposed a hybrid model for ambiguity during group decision making. Author also
requirement prioritization using three different techniques compares the proposed fuzzy version of this method with
such as QFD (Quality Function Deployment), CV the classical form, ensures the ease of implementation, the
(Cumulative Voting), and AHP (Analytical Hierarchy efficiency and effective management of uncertainty in
Process) using fuzzy technique. The idea of using Fuzzy decision making.
approach is mainly due to the uncertainty in the decisions of
stakeholders. Fuzzy version gives a closed look to the real

Figure 1: MCDM techniques in Software Engineering

The chart (Figure 1) shows various MCDM techniques aggregation and representing decision close to an ideal
used in different area of software engineering over the years. solution. The method uses vector normalization to calculate
Some of the study shows combining different MCDM the shortest distance from the positive ideal solution and the
methods to increase efficiency and to attain consistent result. farthest distance from the negative ideal solutions. An initial
It is observed from the study that the AHP and FAHP are work with Fuzzy TOPSIS method for group decision-
more prominently used methods. making was implemented by Chen in 2000. In this work,
decision makers use fuzzy sets to allot the semantic values
III. MCDM METHODS to the alternatives [69].
D. VIKOR was originally developed by Serafim Opricovic
A. Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP) was proposed by in 1979 and an application was published in 1980 to solve
Thomas Saaty [65] in 1980, to decompose problem into a decision problems with conflicting criteria’s. The method is
hierarchical structure and a pairwise comparison is based on aggregation and decision representation close to an
performed over the alternatives to decide on the preferences. ideal solution as that in TOPSIS. In VIKOR linear
AHP finds wide applications in many fields of complex, normalization method is used [70]. It is a compromise
real-world challenges comprising of number of alternatives. ranking method providing maximum utility for the majority
The difficulty in assigning the weights to the alternatives and the minimum utility with minor preferences for the
resulted in fuzzy logic implementation, resulting in fuzzy individual.
AHP method [66]. Instead of comparing two values fuzzy E. Elimination and Choice Translating algorithm
logic resulted in the intermediate values which made an (ELECTRE) family includes ELECTRE I, II, III, IV, IS and
evaluation of alternatives easier. Altogether AHP works on TRI methods which appear similar but differ in the way
the theory of independent criteria. decision problem is solved. The ELECTRE was introduced
B. Analytic Network Process (ANP) method [67] developed by Benayoun, Roy, and Sussman in 1968 [71]. The method
in 1996 allows the dependencies between the criteria. Most was later developed by Bernard Roy (Roy,
of the problems cannot be arranged in hierarchical form 1996).ELECTRE III is considered to be more efficient in
because of the contribution from different levels. ANP is ranking analysis. This method mainly depends on the
represented by a network, with the cycles interconnected to evaluation of concordance index and discordance index.
the system. The major drawback of ANP is uncertainty in Ascending and descending pre-order is done and then the
human judgment which results in a deficiency in the alternative ranking is evaluated.
evaluation of important criteria. Fuzzy ANP derives local F. PROMETHEE [72] and its complement Geometric
weights using fuzzy preference programming method. This analysis for interactive aid (GAIA) developed in the early
local weight forms super matrix to obtain global weights for 1980s are majorly used to conquer alternate best solutions to
ranking the alternatives. attain goals rather providing a right decision. These methods
C. Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal help the developers in designing the framework for the
Solution (TOPSIS) which was introduced by Hwang and process, analysing the solution and prioritizing the
Yoon in 1981[68] is used along with AHP to increase the alternatives.
efficiency in decision making. TOPSIS is based on

IJISRT18JL109 www.ijisrt.com 114

Volume 3, Issue 7, July – 2018 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
G. SMARTER (SMART Exploiting Ranks) method, based on [2]. Hwang, C. L., & Lin, M. J. (1967). Group decision
MAUT (Multiple Attribute Utility Theory) which is mainly making under multiple criteria: Methods and
used for preference analysis. This method belongs to applications: Springer-Verlag.
SMART (Simple Multi-Attribute Rating Technique) [3]. Hadeel E. Elsherbeiny, A. A. Abd El-Aziz, Nagy
proposed by Edwards and Barron, a family of compensatory Ramadan(2017)Decision Support for Requirements
methods. SMARTER uses Rank of Order Centroid (ROC) Prioritization Using Data Analysis, Egyptian
[73] for elicitation of weights, which converts ranking Computer Science Journal (ISSN-1110-2586)Volume
criteria into numerical weights. SMARTER is divided into 41–Issue2.
different steps; defining the goal and recognizing decision [4]. Abbas Mardani, Ahmad Jusoh, Khalil MD nor, Zainab
makers, Criteria setting, defining goal alternative, evaluating Khalifah, Norhayati Zakwan & Alireza Valipour (2015)
criteria and alternatives, analysis of prominent alternatives, Multiple criteria decision-making techniques and their
calculating one-dimensional value function and finally applications – a review of the literature from 2000 to
weight swing and ROC method implementation. 2014, Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja,
H. Wieger’s method with fuzzy logic is used for requirement 28:1, 516-571, DOI: 10.1080/1331677X.2015.1075139
prioritizing in the recent paper. The method depends on [5]. Omkarprasad S. Vaidya, Sushil Kumar, Analytic
benefits, penalty, risk, and cost of each requirement. Weights hierarchy process: An overview of applications,
are evaluated in terms of the membership function. European Journal of Operational Research 169 (2006)
Implementation is done using MATLAB for membership 1–29.
function and designer inference rules to determine the [6]. Achimugu, P., Selamat, A., Ibrahim, R. and Mahrin,
priority based on the fuzzy logic. It is considered to be more M.N. (2014) A Systematic Literature Review of
suitable for the real-time implementation, as the degree of Software Requirements Prioritization Research.
importance of requirements is very high during the Information and Software Technology, 56, 568-585.
development stage. The progress in the MCDM methods http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2014.02.001.
shows that fuzzy version of the methods is more appropriate [7]. Vicent Penadés-Plà, Tatiana García-Segura, José V.
because of the vagueness in the decisions made by the Martí and Víctor Yepes, A Review of Multi-Criteria
stakeholders and the ambiguity in the requirement [64]. Decision-Making Methods Applied to the Sustainable
Most of the work shows that fuzzy concepts can better Bridge Design, Sustainability 2016, 8, 1295;
handle uncertainty during complex decision making. doi:10.3390/su8121295.
[8]. A. Kengpol, C. O Brien, The development of a decision
IV. OBSERVATION AND CONCLUSION support tool for the selection of a advanced technology to
achieve rapid product development, International Journal
Decision support methods are majorly used in many of Production Economics 69 (2) (2001) 177–191.
different areas such as energy system, business sectors, and [9]. E. Cagno, F. Caron, A. Perego, Multi-criteria
software engineering etc. Recent trends shows decision- assessment of the probability of winning in competitive
making methods have made researcher to innovate new bidding process, International Journal of Production
methods to achieve more competent outcomes. The study Management 19 (2001) 313–324.
highlights the application of multi-criteria decision-making [10]. M. Badri, Combining the AHP and GP model for
methods in the different phases of software engineering life quality control systems, International Journal of
cycle. Recent survey shows most of the work with Production Economics 72 (1) (2001) 27–40.
combination of available MCDM methods to improve on the [11].Al-Harbi, K. M. (2001). Application of the AHP in
efficiency of decision making. Overall work shows that the project management. International Journal of Project
AHP and the Fuzzy AHP are more frequently used methods. Management, 19, 19 –27.
This is mainly because of simplicity in understanding and [12]. V. Belton and T. Stewart, Multiple criteria decision
ease of implementation, forming a strong base for decision- analysis: an integrated approach. Springer Science &
making methods. Recent work also shows the Business Media, 2002.
implementation of TOPSIS, SMARTER, ELECTRE, [13].V. Lai, B.K. Wong, W. Cheung, Group decision making
PROMETHEE and Fuzzy Wieger’s Methods for different in a multiple criteria environment: A case using the AHP
application in software engineering. Most of these in the software selection, European Journal of Opera-
traditional methods have limitations when used for solving tional Research 137 (1) (2002) 134–144.
real world problems. Thus, decision-making should take into [14].M.I. Al Khalil, Selecting the appropriate project
account the complexity to deal with actual run time systems. delivery method using AHP, International Journal of
Future work suggests a hybrid model of decision-making Project Management 20 (2002) 469–474.
method, combining essential features from existing methods, [15].J.C.Y. Su, et al., A structured approach to measuring
to increase the efficiency and consistency of the software functional dependency and sequencing of coupled tasks
life cycle model. in engineering design, Computers and Industrial
Engineer-ing 45 (1) (2003) 195–204.
REFERENCES [16].Buyukozkan G., Kahraman C., Ruan D., 2004: A fuzzy
multi-criteria decision approach for software
[1]. Nemhauser, G.L., Rinnoy Kan, A.H.G. and Todd, M.J. development strategy selection, International Journal of
(1989) Handbooks in Operations Research and General Systems, Vol. 33 (2–3), pp. 259–280.
Management Science: Volume 1 Optimization, North- [17]. F. Kong and H. Liu, “Applying fuzzy analytic
Holland, Amsterdam. hierarchy process to evaluate success factors of e-

IJISRT18JL109 www.ijisrt.com 115

Volume 3, Issue 7, July – 2018 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
commerce,” International Journal of Information and decision making method, promethee, Intelligent
Systems Sciences, vol. 1, no. 3-4, pp. 406– 412, 2005. Information Management, Vol. 1, pp. 159-165.
http://www.math.ualberta.ca/ijiss/ SS-Volume-1- [32].Trienekens J. J. M., Kusters R. J., Brussel D. C., 2010:
2005/No-3-05/SS-05-03-22.pdf Quality specification and metrication, results from a
[18].F.TyszandC.Kahraman,“Project risk evaluation using a case-study in a missioncritical software domain,
fuzzy analytic hierarchy process: An application to Software Qual J Vol. 18 pp. 469–490.
information technology projects,” International Journal [33].Syamsuddin I., Junseok H., 2010: The use of ahp in
of Intelligent Systems, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 559–584, Jun. security policy decision making: an open office calc.
2006. [Online]. Available: Application, Journal of Software, Vol. 5 (10), pp. 1162-
http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/int.20148. 1169.
[19].Ahmad N., Laplante P. A., 2006: Software Project [34].Peng Y., Wang G., Wang H., 2010: User preferences
Management Tools: Making a Practical Decision Using based software defect detection algorithms selection
AHP, IEEE Computer Society Proceedings of the 30th using MCDM, Information Sciences, (In press).
Annual IEEE/NASA Software Engineering Workshop [35].B. Wei, F. Dai, and J. Liu, “C2c E-commerce Risk
SEW-30, 0-7695-2624-1/06. Assessment Based on AHP and Fuzzy Comprehensive
[20].Tamura Y., Yamada S., 2006: Comparison of Software Evaluation,” International Journal of Engineering and
Reliability Assessment Methods for Open Source Manufacturing, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 34–39, Feb. 2011.
Software and Reliability Assessment Tool, Journal of http://www.mecs-press.org/ijem/ijem-v1-n1/ v1n1-
Computer Science. Vol. 2 (6) pp. 489495. 6.html.
[21].Thomaidis N. S., Nikitakos N., Dounias G. D., 2006: [36].J. S. Challa, A. Paul, Y. Dada, V. Nerella, P. R.
The evaluation of information technology projects: a Srivastava, and A. P. Singh, “Integrated Software
fuzzy multicriteria decisionmaking approach, Quality Evaluation: A Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Approach,”
International Journal of Information Technology & Journal of Information Processing Systems, vol. 7, no.
Decision Making , Vol. 5 (1), pp. 89–122. 3, pp. 473–518, Sep. 2011.:
[22].Shyur H. J., 2006: COTS evaluation using modified http://koreascience.or.kr/journal/view.jsp?
TOPSIS and ANP, Applied Mathematics and kj=E1JBB0&py=2011&vnc=v7n3&sp=473.
Computation, Vol. 177, pp. 251–259. [37]. Peng Y., Kou G., Wang G., Wu W., Shi Y., 2011:
[23].S. Mahmoodzadeh, J. Shahrabi, M. Pariazar, and M. S. Ensemble of software defect predictors: an ahp-based
Zaeri, “Project selection by using fuzzy AHP and evaluation method, International Journal of Information
TOPSIS technique,” International Journal of Human Technology & Decision Making, Vol. 10 (1), pp. 187-206.
and social sciences, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 135–140, 2007. [38].Li, Y.-M., Lai, C.-Y., & Kao, C.-P. (2011). Building a
Available: http://www.waset.org/publications/128 qualitative recruitment system via SVM with MCDM
[24].Z. Ayağ (2007) A hybrid approach to machine-tool approach. Applied Intelligence, 35, 75.
selection through AHP and simulation, International [39].A. Sarfaraz, P. Mukerjee, and K. Jenab, “Using fuzzy
Journal of Production Research, 45:9, 2029-2050, DOI: analytical hierarchy process (AHP) to evaluate web
10.1080/00207540600724856. development platform,” Management Science Letters,
[25]. Lin, C.-C., Wang, W.-C., & Yu, W.-D. (2008). vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 253–262, Jan. 2012. [Online].
Improving AHP for construction with an adaptive AHP Available: http://www.growingscience.com/msl/Vol2/
approach (A3). Automation in Construction, 17, 180– msl\ 2011\ 67.pdf .
187. [40].T. Bakshi, B. Sarkar, and S. K. Sanyal, “A Novel
[26].Wu, W.-W. (2008). Choosing knowledge management Integrated AHP-QFD Model for Software Project
strategies by using a combined ANP and DEMATEL Selection under Fuzziness,” International Journal of
approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 35, 828– Computer Applications (09758887), c,
835. 2012.http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?
[27].Buyukozkan G., Ruan D., 2008: Evaluation of software doi=10.1.1.258.7185&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
development projects using a fuzzy multi-criteria [41].Mumin Hicdurmaz, A Fuzzy Multi Criteria Decision
decision approach, Mathematics and Computers in Making Approach to Software Life Cycle Model
Simulation, Vol. 77, pp. 464–475. Selection. 2012 38th Euromicro Conference on
[28].LiShi & Shalin Yang, 2009: The Evaluation of Software Engineering and Advanced Applications 978-
Software trustworthiness with FAHP & FTOSIS 0-7695-4790-9/12 © 2012 IEEE DOI
method, Computational Intelligence and Software 10.1109/SEAA.2012.71.
Engineering, 2009. CiSE 2009. [42].Sumeet Kaur Sehra, Yadwinder Singh Brar and
[29].P. R. Srivastava and M. P. Ray, “Multi-attribute Navdeep Kaur “Multi Criteria Decision Making
Comparison of Automated Functional and Regression Approach for Selecting Effort Estimation Model”
Testing Tools using Fuzzy AHP.” in IICAI, 2009, pp. International Journal of Computer Applications (0975 –
1030–1043. 8887) Volume 39– No.1, January 2012
[30].Palcic I and Lalic B, Analytical Hierarchy Process As A [43].Zhang, Y., Deng, X., Wei, D., & Deng, Y. (2012).
Tool For Selecting and evaluating Project,Int J Simul Assessment of E-Commerce security using AHP and
Model 8(2009)1,16-26. evidential reasoning. Expert Systems with Applications,
[31].Rao R. V., Rajesh T. S., 2009: Software selection in 39, 3611–3623.
manufacturing ndustries using a fuzzy multiple criteria [44].K. Vatansever and Y. Akgul, “Applying Fuzzy Analytic
Hierarchy Process for Evaluating Service Quality of

IJISRT18JL109 www.ijisrt.com 116

Volume 3, Issue 7, July – 2018 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
Private Shopping Website Quality: A Case Study in [55].Mary, S.A.S.A. and Suganya, G. (2016) Multi-Criteria
Turkey,” Journal of Business Economics and Finance, Decision Making Using ELECTRE. Circuits and
vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 283–301, 2014. [Online]. Available: Systems,7,1008-1020.
http://dergipark.ulakbim.gov.tr/jbef/article/ http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/cs.2016.76085
download/5000075891/5000070192. [56].Vanessa B.S.Silva et al. A multicriteria approach for
[45].M. Chang Lee, “Information Security Risk Analysis selection of agile methodologies in software
Methods and Research Trends: AHP and Fuzzy development projects, 2016 IEEE International
Comprehensive Method,” International Journal of Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics • SMC
Computer Science and Information Technology, vol. 6, 2016 | October 9-12, 2016 • Budapest, Hungary.
no. 1, pp. 29–45, Feb. 2014. [Online]. Available: [57].Elissa Nadia Madi, Jonathan M. Garibaldi, Christian
http//www.airccse.org/journal/jcsit/6114ijcsit03.pdf Wagner, An Exploration of Issues and Limitations in
[46].M. Askari, H. R. Shokrizadeh, and N. Ghane, “A Fuzzy Current Methods of TOPSIS and Fuzzy TOPSIS, 2016
AHP Model in Risk Ranking,” European Journal of IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems
Business and Management, vol. 6, no. 14, pp. 194–202, (FUZZ) ,978-1-5090-0626-7/16/$3l.00 ©2016 IEEE
2014. [58].Khan, Javed. (2016). Requirements Prioritization Using
http://iiste.org/Journals/index.php/EJBM/article/view/13 Analytic Network Process (ANP). International Journal
347 of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 7, Issue
[47].Y. Y. Jusoh, K. Chamili, N. C. Pa, and J. H. Yahaya, 11,November-2016 ISSN 2229-5518.
“Open source software selection using an analytical [59].Rômulo Santos, Adriano Albuquerque, Plácido Rogerio
hierarchy process (AHP),” American Journal of Pinheiro.Towards the Applied Hybrid Model in
Software Engineering and Applications, vol. 3, no. 6, Requirements Prioritization. Procedia Computer
pp.83–89,2014. Science 91 (2016) 909 – 918.
http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648. [60].E.Elsherbeiny, Hadeel & Ahmed, Abd El-Aziz &
j.ajsea.20140306.13.pdf . Ramadan, Nagy. (2017). Decision Support for
[48].R. Kohli and S. K. Sehra, “Fuzzy Multi Criteria Requirements Prioritization Using Data Analysis.
Approach for Selecting Software Quality Model,” Egyptian Computer Science Journal (ECS)- ISSN 1110-
International Journal of Computer Applications, vol. 98, 2586. 41.
no. 11, pp. 11–15, 2014. [61].Kifetew, Fitsum Meshesha & Munante, Denisse &
[49].Zeki Ayağ “A fuzzy analytic hierarchy process tool to Perini, Anna & Susi, Angelo & Siena, Alberto &
evaluate computer-aided manufacturing software Busetta, Paolo & Valerio, Danilo. (2017). Gamifying
alternatives” TJFS: Turkish Journal of Fuzzy Systems Collaborative Prioritization: Does Pointsification
(eISSN: 1309–1190) An Official Journal of Turkish Work?. 322-331. 10.1109/RE.2017.66.
Fuzzy Systems Association Vol.5, No.2, pp. 114-127, [62].Qaddoura, Raneem & Abu-Srhan, Alaa & Haj Qasem,
2014. Mais & Hudaib, Amjad. (2017). Requirements
[50].M. Khan, A. Parveen, and M. Sadiq, “A method for the Prioritization Techniques Review and Analysis. 258-
selection of software development life cycle models 263. 10.1109/ICTCS.2017.55.
using analytic hierarchy process,” in Issues and [63].Hassan, Abeer & Ramadan, Nagy. (2017). A Fuzzy
Challenges in Intelligent Computing Techniques Approach for Wieger’s Method to Rank Priorities in
(ICICT), 2014 International Conference on, Feb. 2014, Requirement Engineering. CiiT International Journal of
pp. 534–540. Fuzzy Systems, ISSN 0974-9608. 9. 189-196.
[51].Ming-Chang Lee” Information Security Risk Analysis [64].Hassan, Abeer & Ramadan, Nagy. (2018). A Proposed
Methods and Research Trends: AHP and Fuzzy Hybrid Prioritization Technique for Software
Comprehensive Method” International Journal of Requirements based on Fuzzy Logic. CiiT International
Computer Science & Information Technology (IJCSIT) Journal of Fuzzy Systems, ISSN 0974-9608. 10. 45-52.
Vol 6, No1, February 2014 [65]. Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process:
[52].Vinay S1, Shridhar Aithal2 and Sudhakara Adiga3 Planning, priority setting, resources allocation. New
“INTEGRATING GOALS AFTER PRIORITIZATION York, NY: McGraw.
AND EVALUATION – A GOAL-ORIENTED [66]. Ying-Ming Wang, Kwai-Sang Chin “Fuzzy
REQUIREMENTS ENGINEERING METHOD” Analytic Hierarchy Process: A logarithmic Fuzzy
International Journal of Software Engineering & performance Programming Methodology “International
Applications (IJSEA), Vol.5, No.6, November 2014 Journal of Approximate Reasoning 52(2011)541-553
[53].Michael Menzel, Rajiv Ranjan, Lizhe Wang, Samee U. [67]. Saaty, T. L. (1996). Decision making with
Khan, Jinjun Chen, CloudGenius: A Hybrid Decision dependence and feedback: the analytic network process:
Support Method for Automating the Migration of Web The organization and prioritization of complexity.
Application Clusters to Public Clouds. IEEE Pittsburgh: Rws Publications.
TRANSACTIONS ON COMPUTERS, VOL. 64, NO. [68]. C..-L. Hwang and K. Yoon, Multiple Attribute
5, MAY 2015 Decision Making: Methods and Application- A State of
[54].Sumeet Kaur Sehra, Yadwinder Singh Brar and The Art Survey, lecture no ed., M. Beckmann and H. P.
Navdeep Kaur “Applications of Multi-criteria Decision Kunzi, Eds. Springer Berlin Heidelberg New York,
Making in Software Engineering” ,(IJACSA) 1981.
International Journal of Advanced Computer Science
and Applications, Vol. 7, No. 7, 2016.

IJISRT18JL109 www.ijisrt.com 117

Volume 3, Issue 7, July – 2018 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
[69]. C.-T. Chen, "Extensions of the TOPSIS for group
decision-making under fuzzy environment, "Fuzzy Sets
SYST., vol. 114, no. I, pp. 1-9, aug 2000.
[70]. Serafim Opricovic, Gwo-Hshiung
Tzeng,”Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A
compromise analysis of VIKOR & TOPSIS,European
Journal of Operational Research 156(2004)445-455
[71]. Giannoulis, C. and Ishizaka, A. (2010) A Web-
Based Decision Support System with ELECTRE III for
a Personalised Ranking of British Universities. Decision
Support Systems, 48, 488-497.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2009.06.008.
[72]. Mareschal, B., Brans, J. P., & Vincke, P. (1984).
PROMETHEE: A new family of outranking methods in
multicriteria analysis. ULB Institutional Repository,
ULB–Universite Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels.
[73]. W. Edwards, and F.H. Barron, “SMARTS and
SMARTER: Improved simple methods for
multiattribute utility measurement,” Organizational
Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 60, pp.
306-325, 1994.

IJISRT18JL109 www.ijisrt.com 118