Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Consistency-Driven Pairwise Comparisons Approach to Software Product Management and Quality Measurement

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Contemporary Complex Systems and Their Dependability (DepCoS-RELCOMEX 2018)

Part of the book series: Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing ((AISC,volume 761))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

In this study, the software product quality measurement, based on the consistency-drive pairwise comparisons (PC) is proposed as a new way of approaching this complicated problem. The assessment of software quality (SQ) is a complex process. It is usually done by experts who use their knowledge and experience. Their subjective assessments certainly involve inaccuracy (which is difficult to control) and consistency of assessments (which can be measured and may influence accuracy). The inconsistency analysis, which is proposed in this approach, is used to improve assessments. Weights, reflecting the relative importance of the attributes, are computed as opposed to the commonly practiced arbitrary assignment. The PC method allows to define a consistency measure and use it as a validation technique. A consistency-driven knowledge acquisition, supported by a properly designed software, contributes to the improvement of quality of knowledge-based systems.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Chemuturi, M.: Mastering Software Quality Assurance: Best Practices. Tools and Technique for Software Developers. J. Ross Publishing, Fort Lauderdale (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Pressman, S.: Software Engineering: A Practitioner’s Approach, 6th edn. McGraw-Hill Education Pressman, Boston (2005)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Zhang, X.M., Teng, X.L., Pham, H.: Considering fault removal efficiency in software reliability assessment. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Syst. Hum. 33(1), 114–119 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Khoshgoftaar, T.M., Bhattacharyya, B.B., Richardson, G.D.: Predicting software errors, during development, using nonlinear regression models: a comparative study. IEEE Trans. Reliab. 41(3), 390–395 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kenny, G.Q.: Estimating defects in commercial software during operational use. IEEE Trans. Reliab. 42(1), 107–115 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Koczkodaj, W.W.: Testing the accuracy enhancement of pairwise comparisons by a Monte Carlo experiment. J. Stat. Plan. Infer. 69(1), 21–31 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Likert, R.: A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch. Psychol. 140, 1–55 (1932)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Faliszewski, P., Hemaspaandra, E., Hemaspaandra, L.A., Rothe, J.: Llull and Copeland voting computationally resist bribery and constructive control. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 35, 275–341 (2009). Conference: 2nd International Workshop on Computational Social Choice Location: Liverpool, England

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Thurstone, L.L.: A law of comparative assessments. Psychol. Rev. 34, 273–286 (1927)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Colonius, H.: Representation and uniqueness of the Bradley-Terry-Luce model for pair comparisons. Br. J. Math. Stat. Psychol. 33, 99–103 (1980)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Saaty, T.L.: A scaling methods for priorities in hierarchical structure. J. Math. Psychol. 15, 234–281 (1977)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. Koczkodaj, W.W., Mikhailov, L., Redlarski, G., Soltys, M., Szybowski, J., Tamazian, G., Wajch, E., Yuen, K.K.F.: Important facts and observations about pairwise comparisons. Fundamenta Informaticae 144, 1–17 (2016)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Koczkodaj, W.W.: Pairwise comparisons rating scale paradox. In: Transactions on Computational Collective Intelligence XXII. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 9655, pp. 1–9 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Williams, C., Crawford, G.: Analysis of subjective judgement matrices. The Rand Corporation Report R-2572-AF, pp. 1–59 (1980)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Koczkodaj, W.W.: Statistically accurate evidence of improved error rate by pairwise comparisons. Percept. Mot. Skills 82(1), 43–48 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Koczkodaj, W.W., Szwarc, R.: Pairwise comparisons simplified. Appl. Math. Comput. 253, 387–394 (2015)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Jensen, R.: An alternative scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J. Math. Psychol. 28, 317–332 (1984)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Bauschke, H.H., Borwein, J.M.: On projection algorithms for solving convex feasibility problems. SIAM Rev. 38(3), 367–426 (1996)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. Bozoki, S., Fulop, J., Koczkodaj, W.W.: An LP-based inconsistency monitoring of pairwise comparison matrices. Math. Compute Model. 54(1–2), 789–793 (2011)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. Khoshgoftaar, T.M., Allen, E.B., Bullard, L.A., Halstead, R., Trio, G.P.: A tree-based classification model for analysis of a military software system. In: Proceedings of IEEE High-Assurance Systems Engineering Workshop, pp. 244–251 (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  21. IEEE Standard 1061-1992: Standard for a Software Quality Metrics Methodology. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, New York (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  22. McCall, J., Richards, P., Walters, G.: Factors in Software Quality, NTIS (1977)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Boehm, B.W., Brown, J.R., Lipow, M.: Quantitative evaluation of software quality. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Software Engineering. IEEE Computer Society Press (1976)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Leffingwell, D., Widrig, D.: Managing Software Requirements: A Use Case Approach, 2nd edn. Addison Wesley, Boston (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  25. The Rome Air Development Center is now the Rome Laboratory, as of 1991

    Google Scholar 

  26. Wiegers, K.: Software Requirements, 2nd edn. Microsoft Press, Redmond (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Wohlin, C., Lundberg, L., Mattsson, M.: Special issue: trade-off analysis of software quality attributes. Softw. Qual. J. 13, 327–328 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Sommerville, I.: Software Engineering, 9th edn. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston (2006)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Boehm, B.W., Brown, J.R., Kaspar, H., Lipow, M., Macleod, G., Merrit, M.: Characteristics of Software Quality. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1978)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. Pfleeger, S.L., Atlee, J.M.: Software Engineering: Theory and Practice. Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  31. https://sourceforge.net/projects/concluder/. Accessed 10 Feb 2017

  32. Heer, J., Card, S.K., Landay, J.A.: Prefuse: a toolkit for interactive information visualization. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Portland, Oregon, USA, pp. 421–430. ACM (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  33. The Agile Movement. http://agilemethodology.org/, see also W. W. Royce, Managing the development of large software systems: concepts and techniques, Proceeding ICSE 1987, pp. 328–338 (1987)

  34. Duncan, G.O.: Private communication. Accessed 02 Mar 2017

    Google Scholar 

  35. Lessmann, S., Baesens, B., Mues, C., Pietsch, S.: Benchmarking classification models for software defect prediction: a proposed framework and novel findings. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 34(4), 485–496 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. https://www.iso.org/standard/35733.html. Accessed 10 Feb 2017

  37. ISO/IEC 25010:2011, Systems and software engineering - Systems and software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE) - System and software quality models (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Feigenbaum, A.V.: Total Quality Control. McGraw-Hill, New York (1983)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Kitchenham, B., Pfleeger, S.L.: Software quality: the elusive target. IEEE Softw. 13(1), 12–21 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Computer Science, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Canada

    Waldemar W. Koczkodaj

  2. Faculty of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Rzeszów University of Technology, al. Powstańców Warszawy 12, 35-959, Rzeszów, Poland

    Paweł Dymora, Mirosław Mazurek & Dominik Strzałka

Authors
  1. Waldemar W. Koczkodaj
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paweł Dymora
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mirosław Mazurek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dominik Strzałka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dominik Strzałka .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Engineering, Wrocław University of Technology, Wrocław, Poland

    Wojciech Zamojski

  2. Department of Computer Engineering, Wrocław University of Technology, Wrocław, Poland

    Jacek Mazurkiewicz

  3. Department of Computer Engineering, Wrocław University of Technology, Wrocław, Poland

    Jarosław Sugier

  4. Department of Computer Engineering, Wrocław University of Technology, Wrocław, Poland

    Tomasz Walkowiak

  5. Polish Academy of Sciences, Systems Research Institute, Warsaw, Poland

    Janusz Kacprzyk

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Koczkodaj, W.W., Dymora, P., Mazurek, M., Strzałka, D. (2019). Consistency-Driven Pairwise Comparisons Approach to Software Product Management and Quality Measurement. In: Zamojski, W., Mazurkiewicz, J., Sugier, J., Walkowiak, T., Kacprzyk, J. (eds) Contemporary Complex Systems and Their Dependability. DepCoS-RELCOMEX 2018. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 761. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91446-6_28

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation