Reliability Evaluation of Software System Using AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS Approach

  • Chahat SharmaEmail author
  • Sanjay Kumar Dubey
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 437)


The paper evaluates the reliability of software systems using the multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) approaches. In this paper, object-oriented software systems are evaluated using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and fuzzy technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (FTOPSIS). The selection criteria are determined on the basis of ISO/IEC 25010 quality model. The approaches evaluate and select the most reliable object-oriented software system considering the fuzzy nature of decision-making process. The work is different in nature and easy in comparison to the other reliability evaluation approaches which can be explored according to the needs of an individual from various paradigms of software industry.


Reliability Object-oriented system AHP FTOPSIS Model 


  1. 1.
    Chatterjee, S., Singh, J.B., Roy, A.: A structure-based software reliability allocation using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Int. J. Syst. Sci. (2013). doi: 10.1080/00207721.2013.791001 MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Antony, J., Dev, H.: Estimating reliability of software system using object oriented metrics. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Eng. 283–294 (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mishra, A., Dubey, S.K.: Evaluation of reliability of object oriented software system using fuzzy approach. In: 5th International Conference-Confluence, The Next Generation Information Technology Summit, 806–809 (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    ISO/IEC 25010:2011. Accessed 1 May 2015
  5. 5.
    Olsina, L., Covella, G., Rossi, G.: Web Quality. In: Mendes, E., Mosley, N. (eds.) Web Engineering, pp. 109–142. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Losavio, F., Chirinos, L., Lévy, N., Cherif, A.R.: Quality characteristics for software architecture. J. Object Technol. 133–150 (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Malaiya, Y.K.: Software Reliability and Security. Taylor & Francis (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
  9. 9.
    Hsu, H.M., Chen, C.T.: Fuzzy hierarchical weight analysis model for multicriteria decision problem. J. Chinese Inst. Industrial Eng., 129–136 (1994)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Coyle, G.: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. Practical Strategy, Pearson Education Limited (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Saaty, T.L.: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. Mc-Graw Hill, New York (1980)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W.: Management Models and Industrial Applications of Linear Programming. Wiley, New York (1961)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brans, J.P., Vincke, P., Marschal, B.: How to select and how to rank projects: The PROMETHEE method. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 228–238 (1986)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Deng, H.: Multicriteria analysis with fuzzy pairwise comparison. Int. J. Approximate Reasoning, 215–231 (1999)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chen, C.-T.: Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 1–9 (2000)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Saaty, T.L.: Decision making with dependence and feedback: the analytic hierarchy process. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh (1996)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    MakeItRational: Accessed 11 May 2015
  18. 18.
    Hwang, C.L., Yoon, K.: Multiple Attributes Decision Making. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Amity School of Engineering and TechnologyAmity UniversityNoidaIndia

Personalised recommendations