An Expert System Methodology for Planning IT Projects with Hesitant Fuzzy Effort: An Application

  • Ayfer BasarEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Management and Industrial Engineering book series (LNMIE)


Delivering the projects on time and in accordance with the customer requirements is a crucial process for almost all software companies due to the budget and schedule constraints. Effective time planning provides optimum usage of all resources (i.e., people, time, budget, etc.). This study presents a new integrated decision support methodology for planning software projects. For this purpose, we identify the most important factors by expert judgments and literature review, find priorities of factors by Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic Term Pairwise Comparison, and estimate time effort (duration) for the projects, respectively. Subsequently, we develop a hybrid metaheuristic by using the priorities of factors and estimated time efforts of the projects. As an experimental study, we apply this methodology to determine time planning of software projects in a Turkish company. We analyze that the proposed methodology gives very efficient plans with less delayed projects and higher award in comparison with the initial solutions.


Time effort estimation Time planning Hesitant fuzzy weighting Hybrid metaheuristic Case study 


  1. Aguilar-Ruiz, J. S., Ramos, I., Riquelme, J. C., & Toro, M. (2001). An evolutionary approach to estimating software development projects. Information and Software Technology, 43(14), 875–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Antoniol, G., Fiutem, R., & Lokan, C (2003). Object-oriented function points: An empirical validation. Empirical Software Engineering, 8(3), 225–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Basar, A., Kabak, O., & Topcu, Y. I. (2016). A decision support methodology for locating bank branches: A case study in turkey. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 16(1), 59–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bilgaiyan, S., & Mishra, M. D. (2016). A review of software cost estimation in agile software development using soft computing techniques. In 2nd International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Networks (CINE). Bhubaneswar (pp. 112–117).Google Scholar
  5. Boehm, B. W. (1996). The COCOMO 2.0 software cost estimation model. American Programmer, 2–17.Google Scholar
  6. Buckley, J. J. (1985). Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 17, 233–247.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Costagliola, G., Ferrucci, F., Tortora, G., & Vitiello, G. (2000). A metric for the size estimation of object-oriented graphical user interfaces. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, 10(5), 581–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dave, V. S., & Dutta, K. (2011). Comparison of regression model, feed-forward neural network and radial basis neural network for software development effort estimation. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 36(5), 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Filev, D., & Yager, R. R. (1998). On the issue of obtaining OWA operator weights. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 94(2), 157–169.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Glover, F. (1977). Heuristics for integer programming using surrogate constraints. Decision Sciences, 8, 156–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goldberg, D. E. (1989). Genetic algorithms in search, optimization and machine learning. Massachusetts: Addisson-Wesley.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Heemstra, F. J. (1992). Software cost estimation. Information and Software Technology, 34(10), 627–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Huang, S. J., & Chiu, N. H. (2006). Optimization of analogy weights by genetic algorithm for software effort estimation. Information and Software Technology, 48(11), 1034–1045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kerzner, H., & Kerzner, H. R. (2017). Project management: A systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling. Berlin: Wiley.Google Scholar
  15. Liu, H., & Rodriguez, R. M. (2014). A fuzzy envelope for hesitant fuzzy linguistic term set and its application to multi-criteria decision making. Information Sciences, 258, 220–238.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Miranda, E. (2001). Improving subjective estimates using paired comparisons. IEEE Software, 18(1), 87–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Oztaysi, B., Onar, S. C., Bolturk, E., & Kahraman, C. (2015). Hesitant fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. In Fuzzy Systems (IEEE) (pp. 1–7).Google Scholar
  18. Réveillac, J. M. (2015). Scheduling with PERT and MPM. Optimization Tools for Logistics, 77–141.Google Scholar
  19. Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. New York, NY, USA: McGraw-Hill Inc.Google Scholar
  20. Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48, 9–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Srinivasan, K., & Fisher, D. (1995). Machine learning approaches to estimating software development effort. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 21, 126–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Torra, V. (2010). Hesitant fuzzy sets. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 25(6), 529–539.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. Turan, E., & Guner, M. A. (2013). Critical path method approach to a green platform supply vessel hull construction. International Journal of Industrial Engineering: Theory Applications and Practice, 20(7–8), 515–525.Google Scholar
  24. Wang, Y. J., Han, T. C., & Chou, M. T. (2016). Applying fuzzy AHP in selection of transport modes for Kinmen military logistics. Journal of Marine Science and Technology, 24(2), 222–232.Google Scholar
  25. Wei, G., Alsaadi, F. E., Hayat, T., & Alsaedi, A. (2016). Hesitant fuzzy linguistic arithmetic aggregation operators in multiple attribute decision making. Iranian Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 13(4), 1–16.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. Zadeh, L. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8(3), 338–353.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Zhu, B., & Xu, Z. (2014). Analytic hierarchy process-hesitant group decision making. European Journal of Operational Research, 239(3), 794–801.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zwikael, O., Chih, Y., & Meredith, J. R. (2018). Project benefit management: Setting effective target benefits. International Journal of Project Management, 36(4), 650–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Industrial Engineering Department, Management FacultyIstanbul Technical UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations