Advertisement

Hesitant Fuzzy Evaluation of System Requirements in Job Matching Platform Design

  • Sezi Cevik OnarEmail author
  • Basar Oztaysi
  • Cengiz Kahraman
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 643)

Abstract

System requirements are vital for software development. Defining the appropriate requirements and their importance levels and taking the necessary actions to fulfill the most crucial ones are the keys to a successful software program. However, prioritization of the requirements is a complex problem that involves fuzziness and ambiguities. In this study, we propose a multi-criteria decision-making approach based on HFLTS (Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic Term Sets) to evaluate the system requirements. The proposed method is applied to G@together project that focuses on developing an electronic job-matching platform for disadvantaged people.

Keywords

Hesitant fuzzy sets Requirements prioritization Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic Term Sets 

References

  1. 1.
    Davis, A.M.: The art of requirements triage. Computer 36(3), 42–49 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mead, N.R.: Software Engineering Requirements Prioritization Introduction. Institute Web Publication, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Perini, A., et al.: An empirical study to compare the accuracy of AHP and CBRanking techniques for requirements prioritization. In: Fifth International Workshop on Comparative Evaluation in Requirements Engineering, CERE 2007 (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Achimugu, P., et al.: A systematic literature review of software requirements prioritization research. Inf. Softw. Technol. 56(6), 568–585 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ruhe, G., Eberlein, A., Pfahl, D.: Trade-off analysis for requirements selection. Int. J. Softw. Eng. Knowl. Eng. 13(4), 345–366 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Finkelstein, A., et al.: A search based approach to fairness analysis in requirement assignments to aid negotiation, mediation and decision making. Requirements Eng. 14(4), 231–245 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Barney, S., Aurum, A., Wohlin, C.: A product management challenge: creating software product value through requirements selection. J. Syst. Archit. 54(6), 576–593 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Berander, P., Khan, K.A., Lehtola, L.: Towards a research framework on requirements prioritization. In: Proceedings of Sixth Conference on Software Engineering Research and Practice in Sweden (SERPS 2006) (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Leffingwell, D., Widrig, D.: Managing Software Requirements: A Unified Approach. Addison-Wesley Longman Inc., Reading (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kobayashi, A., Maekawa, M.: Need-based requirements change management. In: Proceedings of the Eighth Annual IEEE International Conference and Workshop on Engineering of Computer Based Systems, ECBS 2001 (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kassel, N.W., Malloy, B.A.: An approach to automate requirements elicitation and specification. In: Proceedings of the 7th IASTED International Conference on Software Engineering and Applications, Marina Del Rey, CA, USA (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zadeh, L.A.: Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control 8(3), 338–353 (1965)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mendel, J.M.: Uncertainty, fuzzy logic, and signal processing. Sig. Process. 80(6), 913–933 (2000)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Torra, V.: Hesitant fuzzy sets. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 25(6), 529–539 (2010)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rodriguez, R.M., Martinez, L., Herrera, F.: Hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets for decision making. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 20(1), 109–119 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Saaty, T.: The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation. McGraw-Hill, New York (1980)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Akao, Y.: Development History of Quality Function Deployment. The Customer Driven Approach to Quality Planning and Deployment. Asian Productivity Organization, Tokyo (1994)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Karlsson, L., et al.: Pair-wise comparisons versus planning game partitioning—experiments on requirements prioritisation techniques. Empirical Softw. Eng. 12(1), 3–33 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rodríguez, R.M., Liu, H., Martínez, L.: A fuzzy representation for the semantics of hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets. Adv. Intell. Syst. Comput. 277, 745–757 (2014)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cevik Onar, S., Büyüközkan, G., Öztayşi, B., Kahraman, C.: A new hesitant fuzzy QFD approach: an application to computer workstation selection. Appl. Soft Comput. J. 46, 1–16 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Filev, D., Yager, R.R.: On the issue of obtaining OWA operator weights. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 94(2), 157–169 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    García-Sánchez, F., et al.: An ontology-based intelligent system for recruitment. Expert Syst. Appl. 31(2), 248–263 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lin, H.T.: A job placement intervention using fuzzy approach for two-way choice. Expert Syst. Appl. 36(2), 2543–2553 (2009). Part 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Faliagka, E., Tsakalidis, A., Tzimas, G.: An integrated e-recruitment system for automated personality mining and applicant ranking. Internet Res. 22(5), 551–568 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Álvarez de Toledo, P., Núñez, F., Usabiaga, C.: An empirical approach on labour segmentation. Applications with individual duration data. Econ. Model. 36, 252–267 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chen, J., et al.: Recommendations for two-way selections using skyline view queries. Knowl. Inf. Syst. 34(2), 1–28 (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sezi Cevik Onar
    • 1
    Email author
  • Basar Oztaysi
    • 1
  • Cengiz Kahraman
    • 1
  1. 1.Industrial Engineering, ITU Management FacultyIstanbul Technical UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations