Professional Documents
Culture Documents
AHP Roy
AHP Roy
net/publication/264541664
CITATIONS READS
31 439
3 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Arunava Roy on 07 August 2014.
To cite this article: Subhashis Chatterjee , Jeetendra B. Singh & Arunava Roy (2013): A structure-based
software reliability allocation using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process, International Journal of Systems Science,
DOI:10.1080/00207721.2013.791001
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to
anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should
be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,
proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
International Journal of Systems Science, 2013
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207721.2013.791001
During the design phase of a software, it is often required to evaluate the reliability of the software system. At this stage of
development, one crucial question arises ‘how to achieve a target reliability of the software?’ Reliability allocation methods
can be used to set reliability goals for individual components. In this paper, a software reliability allocation model has been
proposed incorporating the user view point about various functions of a software. Proposed reliability allocation method
attempts to answer the question ‘how reliable should the system components be?’ The proposed model will be useful for
determining the reliability goal at the planning and design phase of a software project, hence making reliability a singular
measure for performance evaluation. Proposed model requires a systematic formulation of user requirements and preference
Downloaded by [Indian School of Mines] at 06:38 03 June 2013
into the technical design and reliability of the software. To accomplish this task, a system hierarchy has been established, which
combines the user’s view of the system with that of the software manager and the programmer. Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process
(FAHP) has been used to derive the required model parameters from the hierarchy. Sensitivity analysis has also been carried
out in this paper. Finally, an example has been given to illustrate the effectiveness and feasibility of the proposed method.
Keywords: reliability; software reliability; reliability allocation; system hierarchy; fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP)
∗
Corresponding author. Email: chatterjee_subhshis@rediffmail.com
C 2013 Taylor & Francis
2 S. Chatterjee et al.
Initially, research related to the reliability allocation the concept of fuzzy set theory is applicable in developing
problem was confined to the hardware system (Tillman, software reliability models. Cai, Wen, and Zhang (1991,
Hwang, and Kuo 1977; Nakagawa and Miyazaki 1981; 1993) have discussed about the applicability of fuzzy set
Painton and Campbell 1995). Later, software reliability al- theory in software reliability modelling. Software reliability
location has received attention (Kubat 1989; Zahedi and allocation problem is a decision-making and optimisation
Ashrafi 1991; Lee 1991; Poore, Mills, and Mutchler 1993; problem in nature. There are many factors which influence
Poore and Trammell 1995; Leung 1997; Lyu, Rangarajan, the reliability allocation. These factors include many un-
and van Moorsel 1997; Helander, Zhao, and Ohlsson 1998; certain fuzzy characteristics, and it is difficult to establish
Leung 2004). Poore et al. (1993) and Poore and Trammell by specific mathematical model (Yi and Chengwen 2009).
(1995) used a spreadsheet approach to consider various In this paper AHP with the fuzzy decision (FAHP) has been
strategies for allocating reliability to software modules. Za- applied to optimise reliability allocation problem for soft-
hedi and Ashrafi (1991) adopted analytic hierarchy process ware system. Proposed model provides a unified approach
(AHP) for modelling the software architecture with cost in which the user’s requirements and preferences are for-
as the constraints and proposed a method for the system mally integrated with the technical structure of the soft-
reliability maximisation. For reliability allocation problem, ware, its modules and programme reliabilities. Proposed
Leung (1997) has used the operational profile to define model determines reliability goal at the planning and de-
a software utility function, that reflects a weighted sum sign phase of a software project. Hence, making reliability
Downloaded by [Indian School of Mines] at 06:38 03 June 2013
of reliability-like measures based on the same AHP pro- a singular measure for performance evaluation and project
cess used by Zahedi and Ashrafi. Kubat (1989) presented control. Reliability allocation makes it possible to plan for
a stochastic model to minimise cost subject to an over- system reliability growth realistically. It helps in designing
all system failure intensity goal. Helander et al. (1998) schemes for achieving the target reliability, and it provides
described a reliability allocation model called RCCM a guideline for the allocation of programming talents and
(Reliability Constrained Cost Minimisation), which is used control scrutiny in the implementation stage. During the
to assign the reliability. Rani and Misra (2005) proposed an testing stage, the reliability allocations provide the target
economic model to allocate reliabilities during the design value against which the software performance should be
phase by minimising a cost function, which depends on tested. In this proposed model, a hierarchy has been con-
fixed development costs and on a previously experienced structed, which links user’s view about reliability to the
failure decrease cost. Some architecture-based approach software manager’s and programmer’s view of the software.
(Guan, Wang, and Chen 2009; Pietrantuono, Russo, and The ultimate goal of this structure is to derive parameters
Trivedi 2010) for software reliability allocation has also needed for the formulation of a reliability allocation model.
been proposed in literature. In 2009, Guan et al. formu- The proposed method will be best suited for the reliability
lated an architecture-based model to optimise software re- allocation problem of those softwares which can be decom-
liability. They have used dynamic programming algorithm posed into hierarchical way. The proposed FAHP approach
to allocate the reliability to each component such that the has been compared with AHP using consistency ratio. Also,
software attains the desired reliability with minimum design the performance of the proposed model has been tested us-
cost. In 2010, Pietrantuono et al. suggested an architecture- ing sensitivity analysis.
based approach to allocate software reliability and test- The remaining part of this paper is organised as fol-
ing time. For modelling the architecture, they have used a lows: Section 2 describes some basic definition about the
Discrete Time Markov Chain (DTMC). Kubat (1989) fuzzy set and fuzzy number. In Section 3, the FAHP has
adopted a software reliability model to characterise the been discussed. Section 4 describes the proposed reliability
software operational profile and formulated the problem allocation model based on a hierarchical structure. Section
of minimising the total development cost subject to a given 5 illustrates model validation. Section 6 describes the com-
requirement on the software failure rate. Tamura and Ya- parative study between the proposed method and AHP, as
mada (2009) formulated the maintenance effort model to well as sensitivity analysis. Finally, Section 7 concludes the
control the software development process in terms of re- paper.
liability, development effort and version-upgrade time for
open source software. Also, some optimal resource alloca- 2. Fuzzy sets and fuzzy number
tion problems (Huang and Lyu 2005; Huang and Lo 2006) The concept of fuzzy set theory has been introduced by
have been discussed to minimise the cost of software de- Zadeh (1965) to deal with the uncertainty due to impreci-
velopment when the fixed amount of testing-effort and a sion in data or system. Fuzzy set theory includes fuzzy set,
desired reliability objective are given. membership function and fuzzy number to change vague
Starting from requirement analysis to design, coding data into useful data efficiently.
and maintenance activities of a software development pro-
cess are performed by human being and human behaviour Definition 2.1 (Fuzzy set): Let X be a universe of dis-
is fuzzy. Also, the environment of software is fuzzy. Hence, course, Ã is a fuzzy subset of X for all x ∈ X. There is a
International Journal of Systems Science 3
set implies that to obtain an overall rating for the alternatives and
∀x1 , x2 ∈ X and ∀α ∈ [0, 1], select the optimal one.
μà (αx1 + (1 − α)x2 ) ≥ min(μà (x1 ), μ (x2 )) (Zadeh
1965). There are different fuzzy AHP approaches proposed by
various authors for alternative selection and justification
Definition 2.3 (Triangular fuzzy number): A triangular problem (Van Laarhoven and Pedrycz 1983; Buckely 1985;
fuzzy number (TFN), defined to be a normal and convex Chang 1996; Mikhailov 2003; Mikhailov 2004; Wang, El-
fuzzy subset of X and denoted as  = (a, b, c), has the hag, and Hua 2006). Chang (1996) extent analysis method
following membership function (graphically represented in has been used in this paper since, the steps of this ap-
Figure 1) (Kaufmann and Gupta 1991): proach are similar to the conventional AHP and rela-
⎧ tively easier than the other fuzzy approaches (Lee 2010).
⎪ x−a Various applications of FAHP based on Chang’s extent
⎪
⎪ , a ≤ x ≤ b,
⎪
⎪ b−a analysis in different areas are available in literature (Ce-
⎪
⎪
⎨ lik, Er, and Ozok 2009; Lee 2010; Mikaeil, Yousefi,
μà (x) = c−x (1)
⎪ , b≤x≤c and Ataei 2011; Reza, Mohammad, and Reza 2011). In
⎪
⎪ c−b
⎪
⎪ this section, the outline of Chang (1996) extent analy-
⎪
⎪
⎩ sis method on fuzzy AHP has been described. Let X
0, otherwise
= {x1 , x2 , . . . , xn } be an object set, and U = {u1 ,
u2 , . . . , um } be a goal set. According to the princi-
The operation laws on a TFN are as follows ples of Chang’s extent analysis, each object is consid-
(Zimmermann 1991): ered correspondingly and extent analysis for each of
the goal gi is executed. It implies that it is possi-
(a1 , b1 , c1 ) ⊕ (a2 , b2 , c2 ) = (a1 + a2 , b1 + b2 , c1 + c2 ) ble to obtain the values of m extent analysis that can
(2) be demonstrated as Mg1i , Mg2i , . . . , Mgmi , i = 1, 2, . . . , n,
j
where Mgi (j = 1, 2, . . . , m) are TFNs. The steps of
(a1 , b1 , c1 ) ⊗ (a2 , b2 , c2 ) = (a1 × a2 , b1 × b2 , c1 × c2 ) Chang’s extent analysis are as follows:
(3) Step 1. The value of the fuzzy synthetic extent with respect
to the ith object is defined as
1 1 1 ⎡ ⎤−1
(a, b, c)−1 = , , (4) m
n m
a b c
Si = Mgji ⊗ ⎣ Mgji ⎦ (5)
j =1 i=1 j =1
matrix of relative weights for the programmes may look programmes, use input matrix Am j where j signifies that
like: input matrix is for programme Pj where j = 1, 2, . . . , n.
For programme j, weights are calculated using the
⎛ ⎞
WP 11 WP 12 ··· WP 1n method described in Section 2 as follows:
⎜ WP 21 WP 22 ··· 1 ⎟
WP n ⎟
⎜
⎜ .. .. .. .. ⎟. j
⎝ . . . . ⎠ WMj = (WM k )∀j = 1, 2, . . . , n
f f
WP 1 WP 2 ··· WP fn
k ∈ Q ⊂ {1, 2, . . . , m| for all modules connected to Pj },
WPi s are the relative weights at the programme level. where k takes values in a set Q which is a subset of {1, 2,
A superscript on a weight vector indicates that it is a lo- . . . , m}.
cal relative weight of the programme j corresponding to Hence, allocated reliability will be
function i. Allocated reliability RFi , for function i will be
RF i = (R)W Fi provided all the functions are executed al- j
RM k = (RP j )WM k ∀j = 1, 2, . . . , n
j
ways.
j
For third level one must produce f matrices of pairwise RM k = Maximum(RM k ) ∀k = 1, 2, . . . , m
comparisons. This is because, the programmes may play
Downloaded by [Indian School of Mines] at 06:38 03 June 2013
RP j = Maximum (RP ij ) ∀ j = 1, 2, . . . , n F1 F2 F3
⎛ ⎞
F1 (1, 1, 1) (3/2, 2, 5/2)
(3/2, 2, 5/2)
i ∈ X ⊂ {1, 2, . . . , f| for all functions in which programme F2 ⎝ (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (1, 1, 1) (2/3, 1, 2) ⎠.
j is called RPj is the reliability of programme j ∀ j = 1, F3 (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (1/2, 1, 3/2) (1, 1, 1)
2, . . . , n. (15)
At the next level, similar approach is used for the cal- Based on the method discussed in Section 2, Si can be
culation of reliability of various modules. For developing obtained using Equation (5) as follows:
International Journal of Systems Science 7
Downloaded by [Indian School of Mines] at 06:38 03 June 2013
0.31 − 0.46
1 1 1 V (SF 2 ≥ SF 1 ) = = 0.38
SF 1 = (4, 5, 6) , , (0.25 − 0.46) − (0.5 − 0.31)
12.84 10 7.97
0.14 − 0.46
= (0.31, 0.50, 0.75) V (SF 2 ≥ SF 3 ) = =1
(0.25 − 0.46) − (0.25 − 0.14)
1 1 1
SF 2 = (2.07, 2.5, 3.67) , , 0.31 − 0.40
12.84 10 7.97 V (SF 3 ≥ SF 1 = 0.26
(0.25 − 0.46) − (0.5 − 0.31)
= (0.16, 0.25, 0.46)
V (SF 3 ≥ SF 2 ) = 1.
1 1 1
SF 3 = (1.9, 2.5, 3.17) , ,
12.84 10 7.97 Finally, using the formula given in Equation (11)
= (0.14, 0.25, 0.40).
d
(F1 ) = V (SF 1 ≥ SF 2 , SF 3 ) = min (1, 1) = 1
The degree of possibility (Si ≥ Sj ) (i = j) can be determined d
(F2 ) = V (SF 2 ≥ SF 1 , SF 3 ) = min (0.38, 1) = 0.38
by Equations (9) and (10) as follows:
d
(F3 ) = V (SF 3 ≥ SF 1 , SF 2 ) = min (0.26, 1) = 0.26.
V (SF 1 ≥ SF 2 ) = 1
Therefore
V (SF 1 ≥ SF 3 ) = 1
W
(F ) = (1, 0.38, 0.26).
Table 1. Fuzzy scale.
Via normalisation W(F) will be as follows:
Triangular Triangular fuzzy
Linguistic scale scale reciprocal scale W (F ) = (0.61, 0.23, 0.16).
Just equal (1,1,1) (1,1,1)
Equally important (1/2,1,3/2) (2/3,1,2) The reliability allocation RF i = R W Fi ∀(i = 1, 2, . . . , f ).
Weakly important (1,3/2,2) (1/2,2/3,1 ) Therefore, allocated reliability to the function F1 , F2 , F3
Moderately more important (3/2,2,5/2) (2/5,1/2,2/3) will be
More important (2,5/2,3) (1/3,2/5,1/2)
Strongly more important (5/2,3,7/2) (2/7,1/3,2/5)
RF 1 = (R)W F1 = (0.95)0.61 = 0.969
8 S. Chatterjee et al.
M1 M2 M3
⎛ ⎞
M1 (1, 1, 1) (3/2, 2, 5/2) (2/7, 1/3, 2/5)
AM1 = M2 ⎝ (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (1, 1, 1) (5/2, 3, 7/2) ⎠ (19)
M3 (5/2, 3, 7/2) (2/7, 1/3, 2/5) (1, 1, 1)
P1 P2
RM 11 = (RP 1 )WM 1 = (0.995)0.20 = 0.999
1
WP 2 = (WP 22 ) = 1
RM 22 = (RP 2 )WM 2 = (0.995)0.42 = 0.997
2
WP 22
RP 22 = (RF 2 ) = (0.988) = 0.988.
1
The estimated relative weights according to this matrix are RM 2 = Maximum (RM 12 , RM 22 )
= Maximum (0.997, 0.997) = 0.997
WP 3 = (WP 31 , WP 32 ) = (0.5, 0.5)
RP 31 = (RF 3 )WP 1 = (0.991)0.5 = 0.995
3
RM 3 = Maximum (RM 13 , RM 23 )
WP 32 = Maximum (0.998, 0.999) = 0.999.
RP 32 = (RF 3 ) = (0.991)0.5 = 0.995.
Hence Using this allocation method the reliability goals are set for
all component of the software before designing the actual
RP 1 = Maximum (RP 11 , RP 31 ) system. For these goals to be realistic and meaningful, one
International Journal of Systems Science 9
must encompass the typical user requirements and specifi- Table 2. Randomly generated consistency index for different
cation about the reliability and the structure of the software. size of matrix.
This method improves communication among users, soft- n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
ware managers and programmers for software reliability
allocation. RI 0 0 0.58 0.9 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49
6. Comparison
linguistic weight variable to respond to attributes of soft-
In this subsection, a comparison has been carried out with ware systems and expectation of the decision-maker.
the method used in Zahedi and Ashrafi (1991) and Aggar-
wal and Singh (1995). In Zahedi and Ashrafi (1991) and 6.1. Numerical example
Aggarwal and Singh (1995), AHP method has been used
for reliability allocation. AHP enables the decision-makers In this section, a numerical example has been given, which
to structure a complex problem in the form of a simple demonstrates the comparison between FAHP and AHP. To
hierarchy and to evaluate a large number of quantitative compare between these two approaches consistency index
as well as qualitative factors in a systematic manner under proposed by Saaty (1980) has been used here. Saaty (1980)
conflicting multiple criteria. The application of AHP to the measure of consistency is given as consistency index (CI),
−n
complex problem usually involves four major steps (Cheng, where CI = λmax n−1
. Consistency ratio = consistency index
Downloaded by [Indian School of Mines] at 06:38 03 June 2013
Yang, and Hwang 1999): / randomly generated consistency index. Randomly gener-
ated CI represents the average CI over numerous random
entries of same order reciprocal matrices. Table 2 shows
(1) Break down the complex problem into a number of
different randomly generated CI of matrices having orders
small constituent elements and then structure the
n × n.
elements in a hierarchical form.
The acceptable CR range varies according to the size
(2) Make a series of pairwise comparisons among the
of matrix, i.e., 0.05 for a 3 × 3 matrix, 0.08 for a 4 × 4 ma-
elements according to a ratio scale 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9.
trix and 0.1 for all larger matrices, n ≥ 5. If the value of
(3) Use the eigenvalue method to estimate the relative
CR is equal to or less than the above values, it implies that
weights of the elements.
the evaluation within the matrix is acceptable or indicates
(4) Aggregate these relative weights and synthesise
a good level of consistency in the comparative judgements
them for the final measurement of given decision
represented in that matrix. In contrast, if CR is more than the
alternatives.
acceptable value then, inconsistency of judgements within
that matrix has occurred and the evaluation process should
However, in complex systems, the experiences and therefore be reviewed, reconsidered and improved. An ac-
judgements of humans are represented by linguistic and ceptable consistency ratio helps to ensure decision-maker
vague patterns, and it is not quantitatively defined. There- reliability in determining the priorities of a set of criteria
fore, by fuzzy set theory, one can give a much better repre- (Saaty 1980).
sentation of these linguistic data. Case A: Let, for the software cited in Section 5, each
The AHP has some shortcomings as shown below module has five quality criteria, viz., the development cost
(Cheng et al. 1999): of a module (DC), demand of a module (DM), degree of
importance of a module (DI), last date of use of a mod-
(1) The AHP method is mainly used in nearly crisp ule (LM) and effectiveness of a module (EM). The fuzzy
(non-fuzzy) decision applications. comparison or the judgement matrix among those criteria
(2) The AHP method creates and deals with a very is given in Table 3.
unbalanced scale of judgement. To find the inconsistency of the information stored in
(3) The AHP method does not take into account the the judgement matrix, its consistency ratio (CR) has to
uncertainty associated with the mapping of one’s be calculated. The largest eigenvalue corresponding to the
judgement to a number. matrix given in Table 3 is λmax = 5.33 (approximately). Its
(4) Ranking of the AHP method is rather imprecise. Consistency Index, CI = 0.0825. The randomly generated
(5) The subjective judgement, selection and preference CI RI = 1.12 given in Table 2. Hence, the Consistency
of decision-makers have great influence on the AHP Ratio, CR = 0.074. As CR < 0.1 the level of inconsistency
method. present in the information stored in comparison matrix is
satisfactory.
Therefore, in the proposed model of allocating reliabil-
ity at design phase, AHP based on linguistic variable weight 1 1 1
SDC = (4.05, 6.59, 11.2) , ,
method has been used to overcome some of the above short- 47.46 31.2 28.8
comings. Proposed method combines the spirit of AHP with = (0.09, 0.23, 0.58)
10 S. Chatterjee et al.
Table 3. Aggregated fuzzy comparison matrix of the attributes for fuzzy AHP model.
Attributes DC DM DI LM EM
1 1 1 The minimum degree of possibility of superiority of each
SDM = (5.46, 8.06, 12.82) , , criterion over another is obtained. This further decides the
47.46 31.2 28.8
= (0.11, 0.26, 0.45) weight vectors of the criteria. Therefore, the weight vector
is given as:
1 1 1
SDI = (5.93, 7.85, 11.42) , ,
47.46 31.2 28.8
W = (0.86, 1, 0.96, 0.41, 0.41),
= (0.123, 0.252, 0.396)
Downloaded by [Indian School of Mines] at 06:38 03 June 2013
The degree of possibility of superiority of EM can be cal- DC 1 1.58 1.076 1.626 1.843 0.271
culated as follows: DM 0.625 1 3.294 1.104 2.784 0.283
DI 0.93 0.242 1 1.116 1.17 0.153
LM 0.615 0.72 0.713 1 1.06 0.157
V (SEM ≥ SDC ) = 0.53, V (SEM ≥ SDM ) = 0.41, EM 0.543 0.359 0.855 0.944 1 0.135
V (SEM ≥ SDI ) = 0.55, and V (SEM ≥ SLM ) = 0.90.
International Journal of Systems Science 11
Notes on contributors
6.1.2. Sensitivity analysis Subhashis Chaterjee obtained his BSc
(Mathematics) from TDB College,
From the numerical example given in Section 6.1, it is Raniganj, The University of Burdwan,
clear that the quality of a module is highly dependent on India. He obtained MSc (Mathematics)
the different given quality criteria. Small changes in the and PhD from IIT Kharagpur, India. His
relative weights can therefore cause major changes in the area of research is software reliability
final ranking. Since, these weights are usually based on modelling. Presently Dr. Chatterjee is
working as Associate Professor, in the
highly subjective judgements, the stability of the ranking Dept. of Applied Mathematics, Indian
under varying criteria weights has to be tested. For this School of Mines (ISM), Dhanbad, India. He has served GIET,
purpose, sensitivity analysis can be performed based on Orissa and SMIT, Sikkim, India, as a faculty. He has total 11 years
scenarios that reflect alternative future developments or of teaching and research experience. He has quite a good number
different views on the relative importance of the criteria. of international and national publications. He has reviewed
papers for various national and international journals. His areas
From the normalised weight vector of different criteria of of interest are software reliability, web software reliability, or,
a module of the software proposed in the example, i.e., W stochastic process and fuzzy set.
= (0.260, 0.285, 0.155, 0.158, 0.142), it can be observed
that the priority of the second criterion DM is highest. If its Jeetendra B. Singh received his MSc de-
weight increases by 30%, the global weight of each module gree in Mathematics in 2007 from Banaras
will increase from 0.2 to 0.2168. It indicates that when the Hindu University, Varanasi, India. He has
demand of the modules increases, their global weight also obtained his PhD degree in Applied Mathe-
increases. Similarly, if the weight of DC is increased by matics from Indian School of Mines, Dhan-
bad, India. His research interests include
30%, the global weight increases from 0.2 to 0.2156, which software reliability modelling, time series,
signifies that, if the development cost increases, the global fuzzy time series, genetic algorithm and ar-
weight of the modules increases. tificial neural network.
12 S. Chatterjee et al.
Arunava Roy is currently working as a Se- Kapur, P.K., Pham, H., Aggarwal, A.G., and Kaur, G. (2012),
nior Research Fellow in the Department ‘Two Dimensional Multi-Release Software Reliability Mod-
of Applied Mathematics, Indian school of eling and Optimal Release Planning’, IEEE Transactions on
Mines, Dhanbad. He did his MSc in Mathe- Reliability, 61(3), 758–768.
matics and Computing from Indian School Kaufmann, A., and Gupta, M.M. (1991), Introduction to Fuzzy
of Mines Dhanbad in 2010. He was a Arithmetic Theory and Applications, New York: Van Nostrand
gold medallist in MSc. His areas of in- Reinhold.
terest are web software reliability, algo- Kubat, P. (1989), ‘Assessing Reliability of Modular Software’,
rithm design and analysis, data structure and Operations Research Letters, 8, 35–41.
programming. Lee, H. (1993), ‘A Structure Methodology for Software Develop-
ment Effort Prediction Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process’,
Journal of System and Software, 21, 179–186.
Lee, S.H. (2010), ‘Using Fuzzy AHP to Develop Intellectual Cap-
References ital Evaluation Model for Assessing Their Performance Con-
Aggarwal, K.K., and Singh, Y. (1995), ‘Software Reliability Ap- tribution in a University’, Expert Systems with Applications,
portionment Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process’, ACM 37, 4941–4947.
SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 20(5), 56–61. Leung, Y.W. (1997), ‘Software Reliability Allocation Under an
Buckley, J.J. (1985), ‘Fuzzy Hierarchical Analysis’, Fuzzy Sets Uncertain Operational Profile’, Journal of the Operational
and Systems, 17, 233–247. Research Society, 48, 401–411.
Cai, K.Y., Wen, C.Y., and Zhang, M.L. (1991), ‘A Critical Review Leung, Y.W. (2004), ‘Optimal Reliability Allocation for Modu-
of Software Reliability Modeling’, Reliability Engineering lar Software Systems Designed for Multiple Customers’, IE-
Downloaded by [Indian School of Mines] at 06:38 03 June 2013
and System Safety, 32, 357–371. ICE Transactions on Information and Systems, 12(79), 1655–
Cai, K.Y., Wen, C.Y., and Zhang, M.L. (1993), ‘A Novel Approach 1662.
to Software Reliability Modeling’, Microelectronic and Reli- Lyu, M.R. (1996), Handbook of Software Reliability Engineering,
ability, 33, 2256–2267. New York: IEEE Computer Society Press McGraw Hill.
Celik, M., Er, I.D., and Ozok, A.F. (2009), ‘Application of Fuzzy Lyu, M.R., Rangarajan, S., and van Moorsel, A.P.A. (1997). ‘Op-
Extended AHP Methodology on Shipping Registry Selection: timization of Reliability Allocation and Testing Schedule
The Case of Turkish Maritime Industry’, Expert Systems with for Software Systems’, in Proceedings of the 1997 Interna-
Applications, 36, 190–198. tional Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering, Nov.,
Chang, D.Y. (1996), ‘Applications of Extent Analysis Method on pp. 336–346.
Fuzzy AHP’, European Journal of Operational Research, 95, Mikaeil, R., Yousefi, R., and Ataei, M. (2011), ‘Sawability Rank-
649–655. ing of Carbonate Rock Using Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Pro-
Chatterjee, S., Misra, R.B., and Alam, S.S. (1997), ‘Prediction cess and TOPSIS Approaches’, Scientia Iranica, 18(5), 1106–
of Software Reliability Using an Auto Regressive Process’, 1115.
International Journal of Systems Science, 28, 205–211. Mikhailov, L. (2003), ‘Deriving Priorities From Fuzzy Pairwise
Cheng, C.H., Yang, K.L., and Hwang, C.L. (1999), ‘Evaluating Comparison Judgements’, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 134, 365–
Attack Helicopters by AHP Based on Linguistic Variable 385.
Weight’, European Journal of Operational Research, 116, Mikhailov, L. (2004), ‘A Fuzzy Approach to Deriving Priorities
423–435. From Interval Pairwise Comparison Judgments’, European
Guan, H., Wang, T., and Chen, W. (2009), ‘Exploring Architecture- Journal of Operational Research, 159(3), 687–704.
Based Software Reliability Allocation Using a Dynamic Pro- Nakagawa, Y., and Miyazaki, S. (1981), ‘Surrogate Constraints
gramming Algorithm’, in Proceedings of the Second Sym- Algorithm for Reliability Optimization Problems With Two
posium International Computer Science and Computational Constraints’, IEEE Transactions on Reliability, 30(2), 175–
Technology (ISCSCT ’09), Huangshan, P. R. China, pp. 106– 181.
109. Painton L., and Campbell, J. (1995), ‘Genetic Algorithms in Op-
Helander, M.E., Zhao, M., and Ohlsson, N. (1998), ‘Planning timization of System Reliability’, IEEE Transactions on Re-
Models for Software Reliability and Cost’, IEEE Transactions liability, 44(2), 172–178.
on Software Engineering, 24(6), 424–434. Pham, H. (1996), ‘A Software Cost Model With Imperfect De-
Huang, C.Y., and Lo, J.H. (2006), ‘Optimal Resource Allocation bugging, Random Life Cycle and Penalty Cost’, International
for Cost and Reliability of Modular Software Systems in the Journal of Systems Science, 27(5), 455–463.
Testing Phase’, Journal of Systems and Software, 79(5), 653– Pham, H. (2006), System Software Reliability, London: Springer.
664. Pietrantuono, R., Russo, S., and Trivedi, K.S. (2010), ‘Software
Huang, C.Y., and Lyu, M.R. (2005), ‘Optimal Testing Resource Reliability and Testing Time Allocation: An Architecture-
Allocation and Sensitivity Analysis in Software Develop- Based Approach’, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineer-
ment’, IEEE Transactions on Reliability, 54(4), 592–603. ing, 36(3), 323–337.
Ishii, T., Dohi, T., and Okamura, H. (2012), ‘Software Reliabil- Pievatolo, A., Ruggeri, F., and Soyer, R. (2012), ‘A Bayesian
ity Prediction Based on Least Squares Estimation’, Quality Hidden Markov Model for Imperfect Debugging’, Reliability
Technology and Quantitative Management, 9(3), 243–264. Engineering & System Safety, 103, 11–21.
Junhong, G., Xiaozong Y., and Hongwei, L. (2005), ‘Software Poore, J.H., Mills, H.D., and Mutchler, D. (1993), ‘Planning
Reliability Nonlinear Modeling and Its Fuzzy Evaluation’, in and Certifying Software System Reliability’, IEEE Software,
4th WSEAS International Conference on Non-Linear Analy- 10(1), 88–99.
sis, Non-Linear Systems and Chaos, Sofia, Bulgaria, October Poore, J.H., and Trammell, C.J. (1995), Cleanroom Software En-
27–29, 2005, pp. 49–54. gineering: A Reader, Oxford: Blackwell.
Kapur, P.K., Garg, R.B., and Kuamr, S. (1999), Contribution to Rani, I., and Misra, R.B. (2005), ‘Economic Allocation of Tar-
Hardware and Software reliability, Singapore: World Scien- get Reliability in Modular Software Systems’, in Proceed-
tific Press.
International Journal of Systems Science 13
ings of the Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, Analytic Hierarchy Process’, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 157,
pp. 428–432. 3055–3071.
Reza, M., Mohammad, A., and Reza, Y. (2011), ‘Application of Xie, M. (1991), Software Reliability Modelling, Singapore: World
a Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process to the Prediction of Scientific Press.
Vibration During Rock Sawing’, Mining Science and Tech- Yamada, S., Tokuno, K., and Osaki, S. (1992), ‘Imperfect Debug-
nology (China), 21, 611–619. ging Models With Fault Introduction Rate for Software Relia-
Saaty, T.L. (1980), The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Pri- bility Assessment’, International Journal of Systems Science,
ority Setting, Resources Allocation, London: McGraw-Hill. 23(12), 2241–2252.
Tamura, Y., and Yamada, S. (2009), ‘Optimisation Analysis for Re- Yi, W., and Chengwen, W.U. ( 2009), ‘Optimal Reliability Alloca-
liability Assessment Based on Stochastic Differential Equa- tion for Modular Software Systems Basis on Support Vector
tion Modelling for Open Source Software’, International Clustering and Fuzzy Decision’, in International Conference
Journal of Systems Science, 40(4), 429–438. on Artificial Intelligence and Computational Intelligence, pp.
Tillman, F.A., Hwang, C.L., and Kuo, W. (1977), ‘Determining 515–519.
Component Reliability and Redundancy for Optimum System Zadeh, L.A. (1965), ‘Fuzzy Sets’, Information Control, 8, 338–
Reliability’, IEEE Transactions on Reliability, 26, 162–165. 353.
Van Laarhoven, P.J.M., and Pedrycz, W. (1983), ‘A Fuzzy Ex- Zahedi, F., and Ashrafi, N. (1991), ‘Software Reliability Allo-
tension of Saaty’s Priority Theory’, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, cation Based on Structure, Utility, Price, and Cost’, IEEE
11(1–3), 229–241. Transactions on Software Engineering, 17(4), 345–356.
Wang, L., Chu, J., and Wu, J. (2007), ‘Selection of Optimum Main- Zhang, X., and Pham, H. (2000), ‘Comparisons of Nonhomo-
tenance Strategies Based on a Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Pro- geneous Poisson Process Software Reliability Models and
cess’, International Journal of Production Economics, 107, Its Applications’, International Journal of Systems Science,
Downloaded by [Indian School of Mines] at 06:38 03 June 2013