Integrating fuzzy theory and hierarchy concepts to evaluate software quality | Software Quality Journal Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Integrating fuzzy theory and hierarchy concepts to evaluate software quality

  • Published:
Software Quality Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
¥17,985 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Japan)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Buckley, J. J. (1985). Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 17, 233–247.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Cesar, G. P., Tom, M., & Brian, H. S. (2005). A metamodel for assessable software development methodologies. Software Quality Journal, 13(2), 195–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deng, H. (1999). Multicriteria analysis with fuzzy pair-wise comparisons. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 21, 215–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch, M. S., & Wills, R. R. (1998). Software quality engineering; a total technical and management approach. Prentic-Hall, Inc.

  • ISO/IEC9126-1 (2001). Software engineering—product quality— part1: Quality model.

  • Issac, G., Rajendran, C., & Anantharaman, R. N. (2006). An instrument for the measurement of customer perceptions of quality management in the software industry: An empirical study in India. Software Quality Journal, 14(4), 291–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kazman, R., Bass, L., Klein, M., Lattanze, T., & Northrop, L. (2005). A basis for analyzing software architecture analysis methods. Software Quality Journal, 13(4), 329–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khoshgoftaar, T. M., Herzberg, A., & Seliya, N. (2006b). Resource oriented selection of rule-based classification models: An empirical case study. Software Quality Journal, 14(4), 309–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khoshgoftaar, T. M., Seliya, N., & Sundaresh, N. (2006a). An empirical study of predicting software faults with case-based reasoning. Software Quality Journal, 14(2), 85–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kima, S. S., Yang, I. O., Yeo, M. S., & Kim, K. W. (2005). Development of a housing performance evaluation model for multi-family residential buildings in Korea. Building and Environment, 40, 1103–1116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lious, T. S., & Wang, M. J. J. (1992). Ranking fuzzy numbers with integral value. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 50(3), 247–255.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, F., Noguchi, K., Dhungana, A., Srirangam, A. V. V. N. S. N., & Inuganti, P. (2006). A quantitative approach for setting technical targets based on impact analysis in software quality function deployment. Software Quality Journal, 14(2), 113–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ngai, E. W. T (2003). Selection of web sits for online advertising using the AHP. Information and Management, 46, 669–678.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ossadnik, W., & Lange, O. (1999). AHP-based evaluation of AHP-Software. European Journal of Operational Research, 118(2), 578–588.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Pressman, R. S. (2001). Software engineering a practitioner’s approach. Fifth Edition, McGraw Hill.

  • Rafla, T., Robillard, P. N., & Desmarais, M. C. (2007). A method to elicit architecturally sensitive usability requirements: its integration into a software development process. Software Quality Journal, 15(2), 117–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw Hill.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T. L. (1988). Multicriteria decision making: The analytic hierarchy process. Pittsburgh: RWS Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to mark a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1), 9–26.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Schulmeyer, G. G., & McManus, J. I. (1996). Total quality management for software quality. Southern Africa: International Thomson Pub.

    Google Scholar 

  • Word, W. A., & Venkataraman, B. (1999). Some observations on software quality. In Proceedings of the 37th annual Southeast regional conference, April 1999.

  • Zadeh, L. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information Control, 8, 338–353.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, L., Aurum, A., Gorton, I., & Jeffery, R. (2005). Tradeoff and sensitivity analysis in software architecture evaluation using analytic hierarchy process. Software Quality Journal, 13(4), 357–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Information Management, Yuanpei University, 306 Yuanpei St., Hsin Chu, 300, Taiwan R.O.C

    Che-Wei Chang

  2. Graduate Institute of Business Management, Yuanpei University, 306 Yuanpei St., Hsin Chu, 300, Taiwan R.O.C

    Cheng-Ru Wu

  3. Department of Business Administration, National Central University, 300, Jhungda Rd., Jhongli City, Taoyuan County, 320, Taiwan R.O.C

    Hung-Lung Lin

Authors
  1. Che-Wei Chang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cheng-Ru Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hung-Lung Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Che-Wei Chang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chang, CW., Wu, CR. & Lin, HL. Integrating fuzzy theory and hierarchy concepts to evaluate software quality. Software Qual J 16, 263–276 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-007-9035-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-007-9035-2

Keywords