Evaluate Database Management System Quality By Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) Methodolog
Abstract
Any organization that intends to use component-based software development, like outsourcing software, must first evaluate existing components against system requirements to find the best fit among many alternatives. As a result, there should be a mechanism to help with decision-making. Our proposed methodology tries to select the best alternative among available components, using the best decision-making approach. As an integrated method for order preference, the methodology in this paper uses two well-known criterion decision-making procedures, namely Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Simple Additive Weighting (SAW). By analyzing and selecting the optimal solution among a variety of Out Sourcing (OS) modules, the new model design makes the decision-making process easier. We evaluated two software attributes and predicted which was more effective. In this case, the advantage of utilizing AHP is that it allows the developer to evaluate the structure of the OS selection problem and calculate weights for the chosen criteria. After that, the SAW technique is used to calculate the alternatives ratings for OS components. The integration strategy used in our model and the resulting preference indication, which is produced as an explicit numeric value.
References
Aguar´on, J., Escobar, M. T., Moreno-Jimenez, J. M., and Tur´on, A. Ahp-group decision making based on consistency. Mathematics 7, 3 (2019), 242.
Al Nawaiseh, A. J., Helmy, Y., and Khalil, E. Evaluating system content’s quality in elearning system. International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation 24, 08 (2020).
Behzadian, M., Otaghsara, S. K., Yazdani, M., and Ignatius, J. A state-of the-art survey of topsis applications. Expert Systems with applications 39, 17 (2012), 13051–13069.
Chung, L., and Cooper, K. Defining goals in a cots-aware requirements engineering approach. Systems engineering 7, 1 (2004), 61–83.
Daghouri, A., Mansouri, K., and Qbadou, M. Information system evaluation based on multicriteria decision making: A comparison of two sectors. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications 9, 6 (2018).
Dursun, M. Evaluation of wastewater treatment alternatives using fuzzy vikor method. Journal ofAdvanced Management Science Vol 4, 4 (2016).
Farshidi, S., Jansen, S., de Jong, R., and Brinkkemper, S. A decision support system for software technology selection. Journal of Decision systems 27, sup1 (2018), 98–110.
Ilic, M., Kopanja, L., Zlatkovic, D., Trajkovic, M., and Curguz, D. Microsoft sql server and oracle: Comparative performance analysis. Book of proceedings of the 7th International conference Knowledge management .
Ilic, M., Kopanja, L., Zlatkovic, D., Trajkovic, M., and Curguz, D. Microsoft sql server and oracle: Comparative performance analysis.
Jadhav, A., and Sonar, R. Analytic hierarchy process (ahp), weighted scoring method (wsm), and hybrid knowledge based system (hkbs) for software selection: a comparative study. In 2009 Second International Conference on Emerging Trends in Engineering & Technology (2009), IEEE, pp. 991–997.
Josaputri, C. A., Sugiharti, E., and Arifudin, R. Decision support systems with ahp and saw method for determination of cattle with superior seeds. Scientific Journal of Informatics 3, 2 (2016), 119–128.
Kabassi, K., Karydis, C., and Botonis, A. Ahp, fuzzy saw, and fuzzy wpm for the evaluation of cultural websites. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction 4, 1 (2020), 5.
Kaur, A., and Mann, K. S. Component selection for component based software engineering. International Journal of Computer Applications 2, 1 (2010), 109–114.
Kilic, H. S., and Yalcin, A. S. Modified twophase fuzzy goal programming integrated with iftopsis for green supplier selection. Applied Soft Computing 93 (2020), 106371.
Kusumadewi, S., Hartati, S., Harjoko, A., and Wardoyo, R. Fuzzy multi-attribute decision making (fuzzy madm). Yogyakarta: Graha Ilmu 74 (2006).
Liu, W. Vikor method for group decision making problems with ordinal interval numbers. International Journal of Hybrid Information Technology 9, 2 (2016), 67–74.
Mardani, A., Zavadskas, E. K., Govindan, K., Amat Senin, A., and Jusoh, A. Vikor technique: A systematic review of the state of the art literature on methodologies and applications. Sustainability 8, 1 (2016), 37.
Moslem, S., Ghorbanzadeh, O., Blaschke, T., and Duleba, S. Analysing stakeholder consensus for a sustainable transport development decision by the fuzzy ahp and interval ahp. Sustainability 11, 12 (2019), 3271.
Neves, J. A., Rangel, A. H. d. N., Neto, M. P., Matos, M. M. S., Silva, R. d. C. d. A., Novaes, L. P., Urbano, S. A., and Paulino, H. M. Using the analytic hierarchy process method to develop two efficiency indicators for the food acquisition program–milk modality. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (2022).
Pordelan, N., and Hosseinian, S. Design and development of the online career counselling: a tool for better career decision-making. Behaviour & Information Technology 41, 1 (2022), 118–138.
Pradal, C., Dufour-Kowalski, S., Boudon, F., Fournier, C., and Godin, C. Openalea: a visual programming and component-based software platform for plant modelling. Functional plant biology 35, 10 (2008), 751–760.
Rawashdeh, A., and Matalkah, B. A new software quality model for evaluating cots components. Journal of Computer Science 2, 4 (2006), 373–381.
Saaty, T. L. What is the analytic hierarchy process? In Mathematical models for decision support. Springer, 1988, pp. 109–121.
Sari, N. K. A. P. Implementation of the ahpsaw method in the decision support system for selecting the best tourism village. Jurnal Teknik Informatika CIT Medicom 13, 1 (2021), 24–35.
Sembiring, B. S. B., Zarlis, M., Agusnady, A., Qowidho, T., et al. Comparison of smart and saw methods in decision making. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (2019), vol. 1255, IOP Publishing, p. 012095.
Simoes, C., and Santos, G. It workforce outsourcing benefits, challenges and success factors in the customer and supplier perspectives. In 19th Brazilian Symposium on Software Quality (2020), pp. 1–9.
Yigit, T., Isik, A. H., and Ince, M. Webbased learning object selection software using analytical hierarchy process. IET software 8, 4 (2014), 174–183.
Copyright (c) 2022 MENDEL
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
MENDEL open access articles are normally published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ . Under the CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license permitted 3rd party reuse is only applicable for non-commercial purposes. Articles posted under the CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license allow users to share, copy, and redistribute the material in any medium of format, and adapt, remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose. Reusing under the CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license requires that appropriate attribution to the source of the material must be included along with a link to the license, with any changes made to the original material indicated.
