=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-344/paper-5
|storemode=property
|title=Using Multicriteria Decision-Making to Take into Account the Situation in System Engineering
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-344/paper5.pdf
|volume=Vol-344
|authors=Elena Kornyshova,Rebecca Deneckere,Camille Salinesi
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/caise/KornyshovaDS08
}}
==Using Multicriteria Decision-Making to Take into Account the Situation in System Engineering==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-344/paper5.pdf
Using Multicriteria Decision-Making to Take into
Account the Situation in System Engineering
Elena Kornyshova, Rébecca Deneckère, Camille Salinesi
CRI, University Paris 1 - Panthéon Sorbonne, 90, rue de Tolbiac,
75013 Paris, France
{elena.kornyshova,rebecca.deneckere,camille.salinesi}@univ-paris1.fr
Abstract. All Software Engineering (SE) processes include steps where several
alternatives call for decisions. However, in many cases, the choice is intuitive
and thereafter hazardous with unpredictable consequences. On the other side,
the operational research domain has produced many methods that could be
adequately used in these situations. Using these methods should facilitate the
decision making activity by considering specific SE situations. However, no
work has been done to understand how, when, or which of these methods could
be used in SE. This paper describes how multicriteria methods could be applied
to consider the situation in the SE.
Keywords: Multicriteria method, Decision making, Software engineering,
Situation
1 Introduction
Information system (IS) conception, development, implementation, and every other
process in Software engineering (SE) includes steps where several alternatives are
considered and a decision must be made. Existing SE methodologies sometimes offer
a way to guide decisions, for instance, in the requirements engineering [1], in the
method engineering [2], or in other contexts. SE-related decisions result from the need
to satisfy practical constraints such as quality, cost or time [3]. However, this field can
be characterized by poor understanding and describing decision problems, a lack of
transparency, of considering decision consequences and stakeholders' interests [3].
Therefore, we believe that an advanced decision aid is needed in the SE context.
On the other hand, the operational research area has developed numerous decision-
making (DM) methods, for instance, multicriteria (MC) methods (a large overview of
MC methods is presented in [4]). However, bibliographic researches show that few
attempts have been conducted to systematically guide the selection of DM methods
[5] and that none was developed to deal with in the IS engineering context.
In this paper, we study the application of MC methods in order to take into account
specific SE situations. The paper is organized as follows. The next section provides an
overview of MC methods application for considering situations in the SE. Related
works and our research perspectives are discussed in the concluding section.
18 Proceedings of CAiSE’08 Forum
2 Multicriteria Method Application in the SE Context
The manner to consider the specific situation in SE using MC methods is threefold: (i)
by structuring specific DM situation, (ii) by considering DM situation specificity, and
(iii) by application of MC method adapted to this concrete situation.
2.1 DM Problem Definition
Many decisions are made in the field of IS. Despite their importance, these decisions
are most often ill-formulated. They are characterized by poor understanding and
describing decision problems, misunderstanding of decision consequences, and by a
lack of transparency. To solve these problems, we investigate the main notions of DM
and introduce two DM levels that help structuring the problem of DM in the SE.
B. Roy defines three basic concepts that play a fundamental role in analysing and
structuring decisions [6]: alternatives (potential actions), criteria family, and decision
problem. The decision problem [6] can be defined by the result expected from a DM.
When the result is a subset of potential alternatives (most often one alternative) then it
is a choice problem. When the result represents the potential alternatives' affectation
to some predefined clusters, then it is a classification problem. When the result
consists in potential alternatives ordered collection then it is a ranking problem. The
concept of alternative designates the decision object. Any decision involves at least
two alternatives that must be identified. A criterion can be any type of information
that enables the alternatives evaluation and comparison. There are many different
kinds of criteria: intrinsic characteristics of artefacts or processes, stakeholders'
opinion, potential consequences and impacts of alternatives etc.
From a DM perspective, we propose considering two decision types: (i) the actual
decision that aims at solving a SE problem and (ii) the decision on selection of a DM
method that matches the situation in the former decision. These two types of decisions
are respectively represented in Fig.1 within the levels 1 and 2. At level 1, an
engineering decision leads to the choice, ranking, or classification of given
alternatives with respect to various criteria defined in the situation. At level 2, a
decision is made on different methods that enable to deal with the first level decisions.
In this case, the MC methods are the alternatives; and the solution is selecting MC
method that shall be used to make the actual level 1 decision.
Fig. 1. Two levels of DM.
Proceedings of CAiSE’08 Forum 19
2.2 DM Situation Specification
The DM situation can be specified accordingly to the characteristics of DM problem
(problem, alternatives, and criteria) and to the specific conditions of MC method
application (usage). These characteristics and possible values are shown in figure 2.
Fig. 2. DM situation specifying.
Several strategies may be applied to specify the characteristics values of alternatives,
criteria, and problem (for instance, retaining the problem type, calculating alternatives
number, retaining criteria measure scale, and so on). By instantiating these
characteristics according to a given need, the engineer takes into account the specific
situation. Additional information may also be required to specify the MC method
usage in the concrete situation: the tool is required or not, the nature of the notation,
the method easiness, and the level of engineer skills required for applying the method.
2.3 Multicriteria Method Selection
The selection of an appropriate MC method is carried out by its interface, which does
not require focusing on the method content. The interface represents situations in which
a given MC method can be used and corresponds to the characteristics described above.
The engineer specifies the values of these characteristics in a given situation. On
this basis, a MC method could be chosen by different strategies. In this paper, we
foresee the following possibilities: by MC search or by weighting.
First, a MC method may be selected by MC search. This means that the engineer
applies a request to MC methods with identified values for obtaining one or several
MC methods corresponding to the situation at hand. If it drives to the selection of
several MC methods, it is possible to choose one of them by weighting. Using this
approach, weights must be given to the characteristics. These weights indicate their
relative importance in the situation at hand. Then, "0" or "1" are given to candidate MC
methods according to each characteristic (in function of their correspondence to the
situation). The method having the highest weighted sum of values is then chosen.
20 Proceedings of CAiSE’08 Forum
3 Related Works and Concluding Remarks
DM is a crucial problem. A poor choice may drive to a loss of time, money, and poor
alignment to the situation. Our purpose is to spread MC methods in the SE. These
methods would allow considering specific situation, better involving stakeholders,
and increasing their confidence in the final decisions in SE.
In SE, the issue of DM was already explored with respect to requirements
engineering [1,7], to method engineering [2,8], and more generally, to systems
engineering [3]. Ruhe emphasized the importance of DM in SE along the whole life
cycle [3]. Several examples of MC methods application can also be mentioned: AHP
for prioritizing requirements [7]. Saeki uses weighting method to deal with software
metrics [2]. The application of two MC methods (outranking and weighting) is
illustrated in the field of method engineering [8]. The examples of selecting an
appropriated MC method for business process prioritization are presented in [9,10].
Our proposal differentiates by focusing on MC decision aiding and MC methods
selection corresponding to the situation.
A few proposals have been made before to help selecting an appropriate MC
method. [5] presents a state of the art of existing approaches on the MC methods
selection. In the SE field, [9,10] suggest constructing an analysis grid used for
selecting a MC method according to the specificity of a given situation.
In the near future, our research perspectives involve: (i) improving the DM
methods signatures to better select the MC methods; (ii) developing a tool supporting
our approach; (iii) defining the MC methods as fragments for their integrating into
existing SE methodologies; and (iv) evaluate our proposal by extensive case studies.
References
1. Karlsson, J., Ryan, K.: A Cost–Value Approach for Prioritizing Requirements, IEEE
Software (1997)
2. Saeki, M.: Embedding Metrics into Information Systems Development Methods: An
Application of Method Engineering Technique. CAISE’03, Austria (2003)
3. Ruhe, G.: Software Engineering Decision Support – Methodology and Applications. In:
Innovations in Decision Support Systems, 3 (2003)
4. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis – State of the Art Survey, Editors: J. Figueira, S. Greco,
M. Ehrgott, Springer (2005)
5. Kornyshova, E., Salinesi, C.: Selecting MCDM Techniques: State of the Art, International
Journal of Information Technology and Intelligent Computing (IT&IC), 2 (2008)
6. Roy, B.: Paradigms and challenges, Book chapter, In Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis -
State of the Art Survey, Springer. editor(s) J. Figueira, S. Greco, M. Ehrgott, (2005)
7. Maiden, N.A.M., Pavan, P., Gizikis, A., Clause, O., Kim, H., Zhu X: Integrating Decision-
Making Techniques into Requirements Engineering, REFSQ'02, Germany (2002)
8. Kornyshova, E., Deneckère, R., Salinesi, C.: Method Chunks Selection by Multicriteria
Techniques: an Extension of the Assembly-based Approach, ME’07, Switzerland (2007)
9. Kornyshova, E., Salinesi, C.: Business Process Priorisation with Multicriteria Methods: Case
of Business Process Reengineering, ICEIS’07, Funchal, Portugal (2007)
10.Salinesi, C., Kornyshova, E.: Choosing a Prioritization Method – Case of IS Security
Improvement. In Forum Proceedings of CAISE'06, Luxembourg (2006)