Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Selection of Six Sigma projects based on integrated multi-criteria decision-making methods: the case of the software development industry

  • Published:
The Journal of Supercomputing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study aims to develop a methodology in which alternative Six Sigma projects are prioritized and selected using appropriate multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods in the software development industry. The methodology developed in this paper proposes an MCDM-based approach for researchers to prioritize and select Six Sigma projects for software development projects. The study reveals that by prioritizing software projects with CRITIC, Entropy, and ARAS methods, software companies will be able to achieve their goals such as quality, process improvement, resource allocation, and customer satisfaction. CRiteria Importance Through Intercriteria Correlation (CRITIC) and Entropy methods were used to determine criterion weights and a new Additive Ratio ASsessment (ARAS) method was used to rank alternatives in ordering software development projects. According to the results obtained, one of 7 software development projects (Project 6) was considered the highest priority project for Chidamber and Kemerer's (C&K) software quality metrics. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that implements CRITIC and ARAS methods in the Six Sigma project prioritization and selection process for software development projects.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and materials

Data are available from the authors upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Adams C, Gupta P, Wilson C (2003) Six sigma deployment. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bakar FAA, Subari K, Daril MAM (2015) Critical success factors of lean six sigma deployment: a current review. Int J Lean Six Sigma 6(4):339–348

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bañuelas R, Antony J (2003) Going from six sigma to design for six sigma: an exploratory study using analytic hierarchy process. TQM Mag 15(5):334–344

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bañuelas R, Tennant C, Tuersley I, Tang S (2006) Selection of six sigma projects in the UK. TQM Mag 18(5):514–527

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bošković S, Radonjić-Djogatović V, Ralević P, Dobrodolac M, Jovčić S (2021) Selection of mobile network operator using the critic-aras method. Int J Traffic Transp Eng 11:17–29

    Google Scholar 

  6. Breesam KM (2007) Metrics for object-oriented design focusing on class inheritance metrics. In: 2nd International Conference on Dependability of Computer Systems, 14–16 June 2007, Szklarska, Poland

  7. Breyfogle FW III (1999) Implementing Six Sigma: smarter solutions using statistical methods. John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  8. Briand LC, Wust J, Ikonomovski SV, Lounis H (1999) Investigating quality factors in object-oriented designs: an industrial case study. In: Proceedings of the 1999 International Conference on Software Engineering, 22 May 1999, Los Angeles, CA, USA

  9. Büyüközkan G, Öztürkcan D (2010) An integrated analytic approach for six sigma project selection. Expert Syst Appl 37(8):5835–5847

    Google Scholar 

  10. Çakir E (2017) Application of fuzzy multi-criteria decision making methods on six sigma projects selection. J Soc Adm Sci 4(1):132–138

    Google Scholar 

  11. Chauhan Y, Belokar RM (2015) Six Sigma in Project Management for Software Companies. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2624188 or https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2624188

  12. Chidamber SR, Kemerer CF (1994) A metrics suite for object-oriented design. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 20(6):476–493. https://doi.org/10.1109/32.295895

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Condé GCP, Martens ML (2020) Six sigma project generation and selection: literature review and feature based method proposition. Prod Plan Control 31(16):1303–1312

    Google Scholar 

  14. Dennis A, Wixom B, Tegarden D (2004) Systems analysis and design: an object oriented approach with UML version 2.0. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  15. Diakoulaki D, Mavrotas G, Papayannakis L (1995) Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems: the critic method. Comput Oper Res 22(7):763–770. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0548(94)00059-H

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Ecer F (2019) A multi-criteria approach towards assessing corporate sustainability performances of privately-owned banks: entropy-ARAS integrated model. Eskiseh Osman Univ IIBF Derg-Eskiseh Osman Univ J Econ Adm Sci 14:365–390

    Google Scholar 

  17. Fenton NE, Martin N (1999) Software metrics: successes, failures and new directions. J Syst Softw 47(2–3):149–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0164-1212(99)00035-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Gijo EV, Rao TS (2005) Six sigma implementation—hurdles and more hurdles. Total Qual Manag Bus Excell 16(6):721–725

    Google Scholar 

  19. Goswami SS, Behera DK (2021) Implementation of ENTROPY-ARAS decision making methodology in the selection of best engineering materials. Mater Today Proc 38:2256–2262

    Google Scholar 

  20. Goswami SS, Behera DK, Afzal A, Razak Kaladgi A, Khan SA, Rajendran P, Subbiah R, Asif M (2021) Analysis of a robot selection problem using two newly developed hybrid MCDM models of TOPSIS-ARAS and COPRAS-ARAS. Symmetry 13(8):1331

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hadi-Vencheh A, Yousefi A (2018) Selecting six sigma project: a comparative study of DEA and LDA techniques. Int J Lean Six Sigma 9(4):506–522

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hahn GJ et al (1999) The impact of six sigma improvement—a glimpse into the future of statistics. Am Stat 53:1–8

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hahn GJ et al (2000) The evolution of six sigma. Qual Eng 12(3):317–326

    Google Scholar 

  24. Harry MJ, ve Schroeder RR (2000) Six Sigma: the breakthrough management strategy revolutionizing the world’s top corporations. Dell Publishing Group Inc, New York

    Google Scholar 

  25. Hoerl RW (1998) Six sigma and the future of the quality profession. Qual Prog 31(6):35–42

    Google Scholar 

  26. Jovčić S, Průša P (2021) A hybrid MCDM approach in third-party logistics (3PL) provider selection. Mathematics 9(21):2729

    Google Scholar 

  27. Kalashnikov V, Benita F, Lopez-Ramos F, Hernandez-Luna A (2017) Bi-objective project portfolio selection in lean six sigma. Int J Prod Econ 186:81–88

    Google Scholar 

  28. Kendall D, Kendall J (2004) Systems analysis and design. Prentice Hall, Clifton Woods

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Khan M, Ansari MD (2020) Multi-criteria software quality model selection based on divergence measure and score function. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 38(3):3179–3188. https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-191153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kornfeld B, Kara S (2013) Selection of lean and six sigma projects in industry. Int J Lean Six Sigma 4(1):1071–1088

    Google Scholar 

  31. Kumar M, Antony J, Cho BR (2009) Project selection and its impact on the successful deployment of six sigma. Bus Process Manag J 15(5):669–686

    Google Scholar 

  32. Kwak YH, Anbari FT (2006) Benefits, obstacles, and future of six sigma approach. Technovation 26(5/6):708–715

    Google Scholar 

  33. Liu N, Xu Z (2021) An overview of ARAS method: theory development, application extension, and future challenge. Int J Intell Syst 36(7):3524–3565

    Google Scholar 

  34. Mawby WD (2007) Project portfolio selection for Six Sigma. Quality Press

  35. Michura J, Capretz MAM, Wang S (2013) Extension of object-oriented metrics suite for software maintenance. Int Sch Res Not. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/276105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Moaven S, Habibi J (2020) A fuzzy-AHP-based approach to select software architecture based on quality attributes (FASSA). Knowl Inf Syst 62:4569–4597. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-020-01496-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Padhy R (2017) Six sigma project selections: a critical review. Int J Lean Six Sigma 8(2):244–258

    Google Scholar 

  38. Pakdil F (2022) Six sigma project prioritization and selection methods: a systematic literature review. Int J Lean Six Sigma 13(2):382–407. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLSS-01-2021-0001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Pakdil F, Toktaş P, Can GF (2020) Six sigma project prioritization and selection: a multi-criteria decision making approach in the healthcare industry. Int J Lean Six Sigma 12(3):553–578. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLSS-04-2020-0054

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Pan B, Liu S, Xie Z, Shao Y, Li X, Ge R (2021) Evaluating operational features of three unconventional intersections under heavy traffic based on CRITIC method. Sustainability 13:4098. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084098

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Pande P, Neuman R, Cavanagh R (2000) The Six Sigma way: how GE, Motorola and other top companies are honing their performance. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  42. Pournaghshband H, Watson J (2017) Should Six Sigma be incorporated into software development & project management? In: International Conference on Computational Science and Computational Intelligence. https://doi.org/10.1109/CSCI.2017.176

  43. Pressman RS (2000) Software engineering: a practitioner’s approach, 5th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  44. Puzovic S, Vasovic JV, Radojicic M, Paunovic V (2019) An integrated MCDM approach to PLM software selection. Acta Polytechnica Hungarica 16(4):45–65

    Google Scholar 

  45. Rathi R, Khanduja D, Sharma S (2015) Six sigma project selection using fuzzy TOPSIS decision-making approach. Manag Sci Lett 5(5):447–456

    Google Scholar 

  46. Rathi R, Khanduja D, Sharma S (2016) A fuzzy MADM approach for project selection: a six sigma case study. Decis Sci Lett 5(2):255–268

    Google Scholar 

  47. Saghaei A, Didehkhani H (2011) Developing an integrated model for the evaluation and selection of six sigma projects based on ANFIS and fuzzy goal programming. Expert Syst Appl 38(1):721–728

    Google Scholar 

  48. Şahin M (2021) Location selection by multi-criteria decision-making methods based on objective and subjective weightings. Knowl Inf Syst. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-021-01588-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Sarpiri MN, Gandomani TJ (2021) A case study of using the hybrid model of scrum and six sigma in software development. Int J Electr Comput Eng (2088–8708) 11(6)

  50. Shanmugaraja M, Nataraj M, Gunasekaran N (2012) Six sigma project selection via quality function deployment. Int J Product Qual Manag 10(1):85–111

    Google Scholar 

  51. Shannon CE (1948) A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst Tech J 27(3):379–423

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  52. Shukla V, Swarnakar V, Singh AR (2021) Prioritization of lean six sigma project selection criteria using best worst method. Mater Today Proc 47:5749–5754

    Google Scholar 

  53. Singh M, Rathi R (2019) A structured review of lean six sigma in various industrial sectors. Int J Lean Six Sigma 10(2):622–664

    Google Scholar 

  54. Singh K, Swarnakar V, Singh AR (2021) Lean six sigma project selection using best worst method. Mater Today Proc 47:5766–5770

    Google Scholar 

  55. Snee R, Rodebaugh WF Jr (2002) The project selection process. Qual Prog 35(9):78–80

    Google Scholar 

  56. Su CT, Chou CJ (2008) A systematic methodology for the creation of six sigma projects: a case study of semiconductor foundry. Expert Syst Appl 34(4):2693–2703

    Google Scholar 

  57. Subramanyam R, Krishnan MS (2003) Empirical analysis of CK metrics for object-oriented design complexity: implications for software defects. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 29(4):297–310. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2003.1191795

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Thapaliyal MP, Verma G (2010) Software defects and object-oriented metrics—an empirical analysis. Int J Comput Appl. https://doi.org/10.5120/1379-1859

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Tiwari S, Rathore SS (2018) Coupling and cohesion metrics for object-oriented software: a systematic mapping study. In: Proceedings of the 11th Innovations in Software Engineering Conference, Hyderabad, India, 9–11 February 2018

  60. Tuş A, Aytaç Adalı E (2019) The new combination with CRITIC and WASPAS methods for the time and attendance software selection problem. Opsearch 56(2):528–538

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  61. Understand User Guide and Reference Manual (2021) Available at: https://documentation.scitools.com/pdf/understand.pdf. Accessed 29 Nov 2021

  62. Vinodh S, Swarnakar V (2015) Lean six sigma project selection using hybrid approach based on fuzzy DEMATEL–ANP–TOPSIS. Int J Lean Six Sigma 6(4):313–338

    Google Scholar 

  63. Wang FK, Hsu CH, Tzeng GH (2014) Applying a hybrid MCDM model for six sigma project selection. Math Probl Eng 2014:1–13

    Google Scholar 

  64. Wei CC, Cheng YL (2020) Six sigma project selection using fuzzy multiple attribute decision-making method. Total Qual Manag Bus Excell 31(11/12):1266–1289

    Google Scholar 

  65. Wen Y, An Q, Xu X, Chen Y (2018) Selection of six sigma project with interval data: common weight DEA model. Kybernetes 47(7):1307–1324

    Google Scholar 

  66. Yousefi A, Hadi-Vencheh A (2016) Selecting six sigma projects: MCDM or DEA? J Model Manag 11(1):309–325

    Google Scholar 

  67. Zahedi F (1995) Quality information systems. Danvers, MA, Boyd and Praser

  68. Zardari NH, Ahmed K, Shirazi SM, Yusop ZB (2015) Weighting methods and their effects on multi-criteria decision making model outcomes in water resources management. Springer, Cham

    Google Scholar 

  69. Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z (2010) A new additive ratio assessment (ARAS) method in multicriteria decision-making. Technol Econ Dev Econ 16(2):159–172

    Google Scholar 

  70. Zeleny M (1982) Multiple criteria decision making. McGraw-Hill, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  71. Zhao L, Hayes JH (2006) Predicting classes in need of refactoring: an application of static metrics. In: 2nd International PROMISE Workshop, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania USA

  72. Zhou Y, Leung H (2006) Empirical analysis of object-oriented design metrics for predicting high and low severity faults. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 32(10):771–789. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2006.102

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Computer Engineering Department, Başkent University, Ankara, Turkey

    Tülin Erçelebi Ayyıldız & Elmas Burcu Mamak Ekinci

Authors
  1. Tülin Erçelebi Ayyıldız
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elmas Burcu Mamak Ekinci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Both authors equally contributed their skills and effort to produce this article.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tülin Erçelebi Ayyıldız.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ayyıldız, T.E., Ekinci, E.B.M. Selection of Six Sigma projects based on integrated multi-criteria decision-making methods: the case of the software development industry. J Supercomput 79, 14981–15003 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-023-05250-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-023-05250-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation