International Journal of Systems Science, 2013

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207721.2013.791001

A structure-based software reliability allocation using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process

Subhashis Chatterjee , Jeetendra B. Singh and Arunava Roy
Department of Applied Mathematics, Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad, India
(Received 27 August 2012; final version received 2 March 2013)

During the design phase of a software, it is often required to evaluate the reliability of the software system. At this stage of
development, one crucial question arises how to achieve a target reliability of the software? Reliability allocation methods
can be used to set reliability goals for individual components. In this paper, a software reliability allocation model has been
proposed incorporating the user view point about various functions of a software. Proposed reliability allocation method
attempts to answer the question how reliable should the system components be? The proposed model will be useful for
determining the reliability goal at the planning and design phase of a software project, hence making reliability a singular
measure for performance evaluation. Proposed model requires a systematic formulation of user requirements and preference
Downloaded by [Indian School of Mines] at 06:38 03 June 2013

into the technical design and reliability of the software. To accomplish this task, a system hierarchy has been established, which
combines the users view of the system with that of the software manager and the programmer. Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process
(FAHP) has been used to derive the required model parameters from the hierarchy. Sensitivity analysis has also been carried
out in this paper. Finally, an example has been given to illustrate the effectiveness and feasibility of the proposed method.
Keywords: reliability; software reliability; reliability allocation; system hierarchy; fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP)

1. Introduction 2012; Kapur, Pham, Aggarwal, and Kaur 2012; Pievatolo,

Computer systems have gradually become an important at-
tribute in many aspects of our daily life and it is used in
many areas like: nuclear power plant, safety critical sys-
tems, air traffic control system, communication, defence,
medical science, etc. Failure of these systems can lead to
big losses. Many examples of spectacular software fail-
ures are available in literature (Pham 2006) which have
caused calamitous loss of life and property. Some of them
are: the crash of a Boeing 727 Mexicana airlines, over-
dose given to cancer patients by the massive Therac-25
radiation machine in Marietta, Apollo mission problems
in the 1970s, AT & T long-distance telephone switching
network failure in 1990, etc. Therefore, it is necessary for
a software system to work with an acceptable degree of
reliability.
The standard definition of software reliability is the
probability of execution of software without failure under
specified environment for a specified period of time (Pham
2006). Software failures are the manifestation of software
errors, which are introduced into the system by the soft-
ware developers during its development phase. In the liter-
ature, various software reliability growth models (SRGMs)
(Xie 1991; Yamada, Tokuno, and Osaki 1992; Lyu 1996;
Pham 1996, 2006; Chatterjee, Misra, and Alam 1997;
Kapur, Garg, and Kuamr 1999; Zhang and Pham 2000) are
available. Some recent studies (Ishii, Dohi, and Okamura
Ruggeri, and Soyer 2012) have been done to achieve the
reliability goal of software. To apply these models, it is
necessary to know how well the models suit an actual fail-
ure data. Accurate software reliability estimation requires
a large number of failure data, which are not usually avail-
able until the system has been tested for a longer period of
time. Software reliability engineers are more interested in
estimating the reliability of a software as early as possible
(Junhong, Xiaozong, and Hongwei 2005).
In recent years, a major concern of software developers
is how to use an effective, controlled and planned software
development process to produce highly reliable software.
Reliability allocation technique plays an important role
during the design phase of software in fixing and allocating
a target reliability. Reliability allocation is a method
of allocating a target reliability among subsystem and
components. Since, software development is a major cost
element of computerised application systems, obtaining
an accurate reliability allocation during the early phase of
development is an important requirement for achieving an
optimal system reliability goal. Software managers must
be able to estimate the resource required for alternative
system designs during the design phase of the project.
Failure to do so may result in a significant waste of resource
and perhaps even in the failure to deliver a completed
system (Aggarwal and Singh 1995).

Corresponding author. Email: chatterjee_subhshis@rediffmail.com


C 2013 Taylor & Francis
 2 S. Chatterjee et al.
Initially, research related to the reliability allocation
problem was confined to the hardware system (Tillman,
Hwang, and Kuo 1977; Nakagawa and Miyazaki 1981;
Painton and Campbell 1995). Later, software reliability al-
location has received attention (Kubat 1989; Zahedi and
Ashrafi 1991; Lee 1991; Poore, Mills, and Mutchler 1993;
Poore and Trammell 1995; Leung 1997; Lyu, Rangarajan,
and van Moorsel 1997; Helander, Zhao, and Ohlsson 1998;
Leung 2004). Poore et al. (1993) and Poore and Trammell
(1995) used a spreadsheet approach to consider various
strategies for allocating reliability to software modules. Za-
hedi and Ashrafi (1991) adopted analytic hierarchy process
(AHP) for modelling the software architecture with cost
as the constraints and proposed a method for the system
reliability maximisation. For reliability allocation problem,
Leung (1997) has used the operational profile to define
a software utility function, that reflects a weighted sum
Downloaded by [Indian School of Mines] at 06:38 03 June 2013
of reliability-like measures based on the same AHP pro-
cess used by Zahedi and Ashrafi. Kubat (1989) presented
a stochastic model to minimise cost subject to an over-
all system failure intensity goal. Helander et al. (1998)
described a reliability allocation model called RCCM
(Reliability Constrained Cost Minimisation), which is used
to assign the reliability. Rani and Misra (2005) proposed an
economic model to allocate reliabilities during the design
phase by minimising a cost function, which depends on
fixed development costs and on a previously experienced
failure decrease cost. Some architecture-based approach
(Guan, Wang, and Chen 2009; Pietrantuono, Russo, and
Trivedi 2010) for software reliability allocation has also
been proposed in literature. In 2009, Guan et al. formu-
lated an architecture-based model to optimise software re-
liability. They have used dynamic programming algorithm
to allocate the reliability to each component such that the
software attains the desired reliability with minimum design
cost. In 2010, Pietrantuono et al. suggested an architecture-
based approach to allocate software reliability and test-
ing time. For modelling the architecture, they have used a
Discrete Time Markov Chain (DTMC). Kubat (1989)
adopted a software reliability model to characterise the
software operational profile and formulated the problem
of minimising the total development cost subject to a given
requirement on the software failure rate. Tamura and Ya-
mada (2009) formulated the maintenance effort model to
control the software development process in terms of re-
liability, development effort and version-upgrade time for
open source software. Also, some optimal resource alloca-
tion problems (Huang and Lyu 2005; Huang and Lo 2006)
have been discussed to minimise the cost of software de-
velopment when the fixed amount of testing-effort and a
desired reliability objective are given.
Starting from requirement analysis to design, coding
and maintenance activities of a software development pro-
cess are performed by human being and human behaviour
is fuzzy. Also, the environment of software is fuzzy. Hence,
the concept of fuzzy set theory is applicable in developing
software reliability models. Cai, Wen, and Zhang (1991,
1993) have discussed about the applicability of fuzzy set
theory in software reliability modelling. Software reliability
allocation problem is a decision-making and optimisation
problem in nature. There are many factors which influence
the reliability allocation. These factors include many un-
certain fuzzy characteristics, and it is difficult to establish
by specific mathematical model (Yi and Chengwen 2009).
In this paper AHP with the fuzzy decision (FAHP) has been
applied to optimise reliability allocation problem for soft-
ware system. Proposed model provides a unified approach
in which the users requirements and preferences are for-
mally integrated with the technical structure of the soft-
ware, its modules and programme reliabilities. Proposed
model determines reliability goal at the planning and de-
sign phase of a software project. Hence, making reliability
a singular measure for performance evaluation and project
control. Reliability allocation makes it possible to plan for
system reliability growth realistically. It helps in designing
schemes for achieving the target reliability, and it provides
a guideline for the allocation of programming talents and
control scrutiny in the implementation stage. During the
testing stage, the reliability allocations provide the target
value against which the software performance should be
tested. In this proposed model, a hierarchy has been con-
structed, which links users view about reliability to the
software managers and programmers view of the software.
The ultimate goal of this structure is to derive parameters
needed for the formulation of a reliability allocation model.
The proposed method will be best suited for the reliability
allocation problem of those softwares which can be decom-
posed into hierarchical way. The proposed FAHP approach
has been compared with AHP using consistency ratio. Also,
the performance of the proposed model has been tested us-
ing sensitivity analysis.
The remaining part of this paper is organised as fol-
lows: Section 2 describes some basic definition about the
fuzzy set and fuzzy number. In Section 3, the FAHP has
been discussed. Section 4 describes the proposed reliability
allocation model based on a hierarchical structure. Section
5 illustrates model validation. Section 6 describes the com-
parative study between the proposed method and AHP, as
well as sensitivity analysis. Finally, Section 7 concludes the
paper.
2. Fuzzy sets and fuzzy number
The concept of fuzzy set theory has been introduced by
Zadeh (1965) to deal with the uncertainty due to impreci-
sion in data or system. Fuzzy set theory includes fuzzy set,
membership function and fuzzy number to change vague
data into useful data efficiently.
Definition 2.1 (Fuzzy set): Let X be a universe of dis-
course, A is a fuzzy subset of X for all x X. There is a
 International Journal of Systems Science 3

constituent parts. The traditional AHP requires crisp judge-

Figure 1. A triangular fuzzy number.
number A (x) [0, 1] which is assigned to represent the
membership of x to A and A (x) is called the membership
function of A (Zadeh 1965).
Definition 2.2 (Fuzzy number): A fuzzy number A is a
normal and convex fuzzy subset of X . Here, the convex
Downloaded by [Indian School of Mines] at 06:38 03 June 2013
ment. However, due to the complexity and uncertainty in-
volved in real-world decision problems, a decision-maker
may sometimes feel more confident to provide fuzzy judge-
ments than crisp comparisons (Van Laarhoven and Pedrycz
1983; Buckely 1985; Chang 1996; Wang, Chu, and Wu
2007). The fuzzy AHP methodology extends Saatys AHP
by combining it with fuzzy set theory. The procedures of
the fuzzy AHP involve three essential steps (Buckely 1985;
Chang 1996):
(i) Define your goal and decompose the unstructured
problem into a hierarchical structure with decision
elements (criteria and alternatives).
(ii) Employ pairwise comparisons among decision ele-
ments to establish the fuzzy judgement matrix and
a fuzzy weight vector.
(iii) Aggregate the relative weights of decision elements

set implies that to obtain an overall rating for the alternatives and
x1 , x2 X and [0, 1], select the optimal one.
A (x1 + (1 )x2 ) min(A (x1 ), A (x2 )) (Zadeh
1965). There are different fuzzy AHP approaches proposed by
various authors for alternative selection and justification
Definition 2.3 (Triangular fuzzy number): A triangular problem (Van Laarhoven and Pedrycz 1983; Buckely 1985;
fuzzy number (TFN), defined to be a normal and convex Chang 1996; Mikhailov 2003; Mikhailov 2004; Wang, El-
fuzzy subset of X and denoted as A = (a, b, c), has the hag, and Hua 2006). Chang (1996) extent analysis method
following membership function (graphically represented in has been used in this paper since, the steps of this ap-
Figure 1) (Kaufmann and Gupta 1991): proach are similar to the conventional AHP and rela-
tively easier than the other fuzzy approaches (Lee 2010).
xa Various applications of FAHP based on Changs extent

, a x b,

ba analysis in different areas are available in literature (Ce-


lik, Er, and Ozok 2009; Lee 2010; Mikaeil, Yousefi,
A (x) = cx (1)
, bxc and Ataei 2011; Reza, Mohammad, and Reza 2011). In

cb

this section, the outline of Chang (1996) extent analy-


sis method on fuzzy AHP has been described. Let X
0, otherwise
= {x1 , x2 , . . . , xn } be an object set, and U = {u1 ,
u2 , . . . , um } be a goal set. According to the princi-
The operation laws on a TFN are as follows ples of Changs extent analysis, each object is consid-
(Zimmermann 1991): ered correspondingly and extent analysis for each of
the goal gi is executed. It implies that it is possi-
(a1 , b1 , c1 ) (a2 , b2 , c2 ) = (a1 + a2 , b1 + b2 , c1 + c2 ) ble to obtain the values of m extent analysis that can
(2) be demonstrated as Mg1i , Mg2i , . . . , Mgmi , i = 1, 2, . . . , n,
j
where Mgi (j = 1, 2, . . . , m) are TFNs. The steps of
(a1 , b1 , c1 ) (a2 , b2 , c2 ) = (a1 a2 , b1 b2 , c1 c2 ) Changs extent analysis are as follows:
(3) Step 1. The value of the fuzzy synthetic extent with respect
  to the ith object is defined as
1 1 1 1
(a, b, c)1 = , , (4) m 
n m
a b c
Si = Mgji Mgji (5)
j =1 i=1 j =1

3. Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) j

AHP was first described by Thomas Saaty (1980) and has To obtain m j =1 Mgi , perform the fuzzy addition operation
since been used in numerous applications as a decision- of extent values for a particular matrix such that

making framework that organises the dimensions of a com- m m 
m 
m
plex system into a hierarchical structure. It provides a sys- Mgji = lj , mj , uj (6)
tematic procedure to decompose a problem into smaller j =1 j =1 j =1 j =1
 4 S. Chatterjee et al.
 n m j 1
To obtain i=1 j =1 Mgi , perform the fuzzy addition Assume that d (Ai ) = minV (Si Sk ) for k = 1, 2, . . . , n;
operation of
j
Mgi , j = 1, 2, , m such that k = i, then the weight vector is given by

 n  W = (d (A1 ), d (A2 ), . . . , d (An ))T , (12)


n 
m  
n 
n
Mgji = lj , mj , uj (7)
i=1 j =1 i=1 i=1 i=1 where Ai (i = 1, 2, . . . , n) are n elements.
Step 4. Via normalisation, the normalised weight vectors
Compute the inverse of the vector in Equation (7) such that
are
1

n 
m  
1 1 1 W = (d(A1 ), d(A2 ), . . . , d(An ))T , (13)
Mgji = n , n , n
i=1 j =1 i=1 ui i=1 mi i=1 li
where W is a non-fuzzy number.
(8)
Step 2. The degree of possibility of M2 = (l2 , m2 , n2 ) =
M1 = (l1 , m1 , n1 ) is defined as 4. Software reliability allocation model
User is the ultimate judge of systems quality and reliability.
V (M2 M1 ) = sup
min(M1 (x), M2 (y))
Downloaded by [Indian School of Mines] at 06:38 03 June 2013

(9) Their opinion and perceptions about reliability of various

yx
functions must be used as a keystone before developing
any scheme. Users opinion may be different from that of
and can be equivalently expressed as follows:
software manager and programmer. To achieve the goal, one
V (M2 M1 ) = hgt(M1 M2 ) = M2 (d)
must find a way to combine all view points for allocating
the reliability values to various modules, programmes and
1 if m2 m 1

functions of the software.



0 if l2 u1
= (10)



l1 u2
4.1. Hierarchy of software system

, otherwise In this subsection, a structure of the hierarchy has been set
(m2 u2 ) (m1 l1 )
up, which links the users view about reliability to the soft-
Figure 2 illustrates Equation (10), where d is the ordinate ware managers and programmers view of the software.
of the highest intersection point D between M1 and M2 . The ultimate goal of this structure is to derive parame-
To compare M1 and M2 , both the values V(M1 M2 ) and ters needed for the formulation of the reliability allocation
V(M1 M2 ) are required. model. In AHP, there is a top-down approach using which
the problem is structured into a hierarchy. A bottom-up ap-
Step 3. The degree of possibility for a convex fuzzy number proach mathematically combines the levels of the hierarchy
to be greater than k convex fuzzy numbers Mi (i = 1, 2, . . . , (Zahedi and Ashrafi 1991; Lee 1993; Aggarwal and Singh
k) can be defined by 1995). In the proposed model, the hierarchy starts from the
top with the users view, which has been defined as the over-
V (M M1 , M2 , . . . , Mk ) = minV (M Mi ), all software reliability or system reliability goal, denoted by
i = 1, 2, . . . , k. (11) R.
The user bases his assessment on the functionality and
attributes of the software, which are represented at the sec-
ond level of the hierarchy. The user expects the software to
perform a set of functions and produce the desired result.
This is the users view about software. Assume that a typical
user enumerates f such function and denotes them by F1 ,
F2 , . . . , Ff .
The third level of the hierarchy represents the computer
programme written to accommodate the functions specified
by the user. This level denotes the software engineers (SE)
view of the software. There is no reason to believe that each
user-specified function would be programmed into only one
programme, i.e., a one-to-one mapping from function to
programmes could be inefficient and unrealistic (Zahedi
Figure 2. The intersection between M1 and M2 . and Ashrafi 1991). Therefore, each function may use more
 International Journal of Systems Science
Figure 3. The hierarchy of software reliability.
than one programme as shown in Figure 3. Denote the
software programmes at the third level by P1 , P2 , . . . , Pn .
Downloaded by [Indian School of Mines] at 06:38 03 June 2013
The fourth level of hierarchy contains the independent
modules of which the programmes are composed. In the
formulation, it is assumed that SE adheres strictly to the
concept of structured programming, which has become an
inevitable programming approach for medium and large
systems, which in turn, are prime candidates for using
a reliability allocation model (Zahedi and Ashrafi 1991;
Aggarwal and Singh 1995). In this paper, it is assumed
that the modules are independent units which themselves
may have submodules, but each submodule belongs to only
one module. Furthermore, assume that the software uses
m modules denoted by M1 , M2 , . . . , Mm . Stop hierarchical
structure at the level of the independent modules.
4.2. Relative reliability weights
In this subsection, a methodology has been proposed to
show how one can determine the relative weights of the
modules using FAHP. Here the goal is to identify the relative
weights of each programme Pi at the third level and each
module Mi at the fourth level of the hierarchy, from the
knowledge of the users reliability goal R at the first level.
Obviously, one is unable to ask directly the user to express
his preference for each programme and module because
his view of the software is external one, that ends at the
functional level (Fi s) of the hierarchy. The programmer too
has only a partial view of the system because he can see
only the third and fourth levels ( Pi s and Mi s). Hence, to
achieve the goal, one must find a way to combine the two
views for identifying the relative reliability weights of the
programme and their modules with the users assessment
about the software. To accomplish this task FAHP method
has been used hare. The procedures of the FAHP involve
three essential steps:
(i) Define your goal and decompose the unstructured
problem into a hierarchical structure with decision
elements (criteria and alternatives).
5
(ii) Employ pairwise comparisons among decision ele-
ments and establish the fuzzy judgement matrix and
a fuzzy weight vector.
(iii) Aggregate the relative weights of decision elements
to obtain an overall rating for the alternatives and
select the optimal one.
The first step is already completed by Figure 3. In the
second step, collect the data in the form of a pairwise com-
parison fuzzy judgement matrix expressed as
(1, 1, 1) (l12 , m12 , u12 ) (l1n , m1n , u1n )
(l21 , m21 , u21 ) (1, 1, 1) (l2n , m2n , u2n )
.. .. ..
. . .
(ln1 , mn1 , un1 ) (ln2 , mn2 , un2 ) (1, 1, 1)
(14)
 
where aij = (lij , mij , nij ) = 1/uj i , 1/mj i , 1/ lj i for i, j =
1, 2, n and n = j. To calculate a priority vector of the above
triangular comparison matrix, Chang (1996) suggested an
extent analysis method, which has already been discussed
in Section 2.
At the second level, users asked to compare the func-
tions (Fi s) pairwise. This is required to determine relative
importance of the functions in the total assessment of the
software reliability goal. The relative importance of each
function can be evaluated by pairwise comparisons. The ba-
sic premise of pairwise comparisons is that two alternatives
are compared at a time until all combinations of comparison
are considered. Thus, the total number of pairwise evalu-
ation is 2(ff !2)! , where f is the total number of functions
involved in the assessment of the software. Input matrix is
constructed by asking users reliability requirements. User
might ask that function F1 is more important than F2 and
extremely important than F3 , the answer is based on TFN
(Kaufmann and Gupta 1991). The results of all pairwise
comparisons are stored in an input matrix Af = [afij ] a
f f matrix. The element afij states the importance of alter-
native i compared to alternative j. Obviously, the diagonal
of the matrix is always 1, and the elements of the lower
triangle are the inverse of the corresponding elements at
the upper triangle of the matrix. The relative importance of
each function in determining the software reliability goals
is elicited using Changs extent analysis method (Chang
1996). A vector Wi of relative weight has been derived
using extent analysis method. Since there are f such func-
tions at second level the number of Wi s will be f. These
are called relative weights for functions and represented
as (WF1 , WF2 , . . . , WFf ). Next step is to combine these
weights to arrive at the relative reliability requirements of
programmes and achieve the system reliability goal. Input
matrix is constructed by asking users reliability require-
ments. Input matrices Aip , Aim are constructed by pairwise
questioning process and relative weights are calculated. A
 6 S. Chatterjee et al.
matrix of relative weights for the programmes may look
like:
WP 11 WP 12 WP 1n
WP 21 WP 22 1
WP n
.. .. .. .. .
. . . .
f f
WP 1 WP 2 WP fn
WPi s are the relative weights at the programme level.
A superscript on a weight vector indicates that it is a lo-
cal relative weight of the programme j corresponding to
function i. Allocated reliability RFi , for function i will be
RF i = (R)W Fi provided all the functions are executed al-
ways.
For third level one must produce f matrices of pairwise
comparisons. This is because, the programmes may play
Downloaded by [Indian School of Mines] at 06:38 03 June 2013
different roles in accomplishing functions F1 through Ff .
Take function Fi , one input matrix of comparisons of pro-
grammes P1 , P2 , . . . , Pn in accomplishing the mission of
the function Fi . This procedure produces a n n matrix
Ai , the superscript i signifies that the input matrix is for
accomplishing function Fi which is at one higher level.
The reliability goal for the programme level will be
RFi for the programmes which are connected to function
i. To accomplish function i, an input matrix Ap i using the
superscript i is available to signify that the input matrix is
for accomplishing function Fi , which is at one level higher.
Relative reliability weights are calculated using method
discussed in Section 2. For function i, relative weights of
the programme which belong to function i are
WP i = (WP ij ) i = 1, 2, . . . , f
j S {1, 2, . . . , n| for the programme connected to Fi }
where j takes the values in a set S which is a subset of {1,
2, . . . , n}. Therefore, the allocated reliability will be
RP ij = (RF i )WP j i = 1, 2, . . . , f
i
j S {1, 2, . . .n| for programmes connected to Fi }.
The programme j will have different values of reliabil-
ity corresponding to different functions. If the programme
j is connected to three functions, then three values of reli-
abilities with respect to each function are available. To be
on safest side, highest value of reliability is chosen.
RP j = Maximum (RP ij ) j = 1, 2, . . . , n
i X {1, 2, . . . , f| for all functions in which programme
j is called RPj is the reliability of programme j j = 1,
2, . . . , n.
At the next level, similar approach is used for the cal-
culation of reliability of various modules. For developing
programmes, use input matrix Am j where j signifies that
input matrix is for programme Pj where j = 1, 2, . . . , n.
For programme j, weights are calculated using the
method described in Section 2 as follows:
j
WMj = (WM k )j = 1, 2, . . . , n
k Q {1, 2, . . . , m| for all modules connected to Pj },
where k takes values in a set Q which is a subset of {1, 2,
. . . , m}.
Hence, allocated reliability will be
j
RM k = (RP j )WM k j = 1, 2, . . . , n
j
j
RM k = Maximum(RM k ) k = 1, 2, . . . , m
j Y {1, 2, . . . , n| for all programmes in which the module
k is called}, where j takes values in a set Y which is the subset
of {1, 2, . . . , n}. RMk is the reliability of module k, k = 1,
2, . . . , m. Hence, RFi , RPj , RMk are the allocated reliability
values.
5. Example of proposed software reliability model
In this section, the application of the proposed method in
reliability allocation problem has been demonstrated with
a simple example. The hierarchical structure of software
reliability has been shown in Figure 4.
Assume that a software has been developed with three
function F1 , F2 , F3 for various applications. Furthermore, it
is assumed that users requirement of system reliability goal
is 0.95. The users have been asked to compare the functions
Fi s pairwise. Since, there are three alternatives at this level,
the total number of pairwise comparisons are three.
Fuzzy scale for pairwise comparisons of one attribute
over another has been shown in Table 1. The fuzzy scale
has been used when decision-makers make pairwise com-
parisons. While collecting the experts opinions instead of
crisp ratio, linguistic statement has been used for pairwise
comparison. In this study, TFNs have been used as the
membership function.
The relative importance of the function in the software
reliability goal can be determined by pairwise comparison.
The matrix obtained from pairwise questioning process may
be as follows:
F1 F2 F3
F1 (1, 1, 1) (3/2, 2, 5/2)
(3/2, 2, 5/2)
F2 (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (1, 1, 1) (2/3, 1, 2) .
F3 (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (1/2, 1, 3/2) (1, 1, 1)
(15)
Based on the method discussed in Section 2, Si can be
obtained using Equation (5) as follows:
 International Journal of Systems Science 7
Downloaded by [Indian School of Mines] at 06:38 03 June 2013

Figure 4. The software hierarchy of the simple project.

  0.31 0.46
1 1 1 V (SF 2 SF 1 ) = = 0.38
SF 1 = (4, 5, 6)  , , (0.25 0.46) (0.5 0.31)
12.84 10 7.97
0.14 0.46
= (0.31, 0.50, 0.75) V (SF 2 SF 3 ) = =1
  (0.25 0.46) (0.25 0.14)
1 1 1
SF 2 = (2.07, 2.5, 3.67)  , , 0.31 0.40
12.84 10 7.97 V (SF 3 SF 1 = 0.26
(0.25 0.46) (0.5 0.31)
= (0.16, 0.25, 0.46)
  V (SF 3 SF 2 ) = 1.
1 1 1
SF 3 = (1.9, 2.5, 3.17)  , ,
12.84 10 7.97 Finally, using the formula given in Equation (11)
= (0.14, 0.25, 0.40).
d (F1 ) = V (SF 1 SF 2 , SF 3 ) = min (1, 1) = 1
The degree of possibility (Si Sj ) (i = j) can be determined d (F2 ) = V (SF 2 SF 1 , SF 3 ) = min (0.38, 1) = 0.38
by Equations (9) and (10) as follows:
d (F3 ) = V (SF 3 SF 1 , SF 2 ) = min (0.26, 1) = 0.26.
V (SF 1 SF 2 ) = 1
Therefore
V (SF 1 SF 3 ) = 1
W (F ) = (1, 0.38, 0.26).
Table 1. Fuzzy scale.
Via normalisation W(F) will be as follows:
Triangular Triangular fuzzy
Linguistic scale scale reciprocal scale W (F ) = (0.61, 0.23, 0.16).
Just equal (1,1,1) (1,1,1)
Equally important (1/2,1,3/2) (2/3,1,2) The reliability allocation RF i = R W Fi (i = 1, 2, . . . , f ).
Weakly important (1,3/2,2) (1/2,2/3,1 ) Therefore, allocated reliability to the function F1 , F2 , F3
Moderately more important (3/2,2,5/2) (2/5,1/2,2/3) will be
More important (2,5/2,3) (1/3,2/5,1/2)
Strongly more important (5/2,3,7/2) (2/7,1/3,2/5)
RF 1 = (R)W F1 = (0.95)0.61 = 0.969
 8 S. Chatterjee et al.

RF 2 = (R)W F2 = (0.95)0.23 = 0.988 = Maximum (0.978, 0.995) = 0.995

RF 3 = (R)W F3 = (0.95)0.16 = 0.991.
Relative weights of the programmes for reliability require-
ments are computed for accommodating the needs of each
function.
For function F1 , programme P1 and programme P2 are
required as shown in Figure 4. To accomplish function 1
RP 2 = Maximum (RP 12 , RP 22 , RP 32 )
= Maximum (0.989, 0.988, 0.995) = 0.995.
The relative reliability requirement of modules in the de-
velopment of each programme is as follows.
For developing programme 1, the pairwise comparison
matrix may be

M1 M2 M3

M1 (1, 1, 1) (3/2, 2, 5/2) (2/7, 1/3, 2/5)
AM1 = M2 (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (1, 1, 1) (5/2, 3, 7/2) (19)
M3 (5/2, 3, 7/2) (2/7, 1/3, 2/5) (1, 1, 1)

The estimated relative weights according to this matrix are

the comparison matrix may be as follows:
WM1 = (WM 11 , WM 12 , WM 13 ) = (0.20, 0.42, 0.38)
Downloaded by [Indian School of Mines] at 06:38 03 June 2013

P1 P2
  RM 11 = (RP 1 )WM 1 = (0.995)0.20 = 0.999
1

P (1, 1, 1) (1, 3/2, 2)

AP1 = 1 (16)
RM 12 = (RP 1 )WM 2 = (0.995)0.42 = 0.997
1
P2 (1/2, 2/3, 1) (1, 1, 1)
RM 13 = (RP 1 )WM 3 = (0.995)0.38 = 0.998.
1

According to the method discussed in Section 2, the esti-

mated relative weights using the matrix given in Equation
(16) is as follows: For developing programme 2, the pairwise matrix may be
WP 1 = (WP 11 , WP 12 ) = (0.68, 0.32). Allocated relia-
bility will be
M1 M2 M3

M1 (1, 1, 1) (2/3, 1, 2) (2/3, 1, 2)
RP 11 = (0.969)0.68 = 0.978
AM2 = M2 (1/2, 1, 3/2) (1, 1, 1)

(3/2, 2, 5/2)
RP 12 = (0.969)0.32 = 0.989. M3 (1/2, 1, 3/2) (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (1, 1, 1)
(20)
For accomplishing function 2, pairwise comparison matrix The estimated relative weights according to this matrix are
may be
P2 WM2 = (WM 21 , WM 22 , WM 23 ) = (0.34, 0.42, 0.24)
 
AP2 = P2 (1, 1, 1) (17)
RM 21 = (RP 2 )WM 1 = (0.995)0.34 = 0.998
2

WP 2 = (WP 22 ) = 1
RM 22 = (RP 2 )WM 2 = (0.995)0.42 = 0.997
2

WP 22
RP 22 = (RF 2 ) = (0.988) = 0.988.
1

RM 23 = (RP 2 )WM 3 = (0.995)0.24 = 0.999.

2

For accomplishing function 3, pairwise comparison matrix

may be
Therefore
P1 P2
  RM 1 = Maximum (RM 11 , RM 21 )
P (1, 1, 1) (1/2, 1, 3/2)
AP3 = 1 (18)
P2 (2/3, 1, 2) (1, 1, 1) = Maximum (0.999, 0.998) = 0.999

The estimated relative weights according to this matrix are RM 2 = Maximum (RM 12 , RM 22 )
= Maximum (0.997, 0.997) = 0.997
WP 3 = (WP 31 , WP 32 ) = (0.5, 0.5)
RP 31 = (RF 3 )WP 1 = (0.991)0.5 = 0.995
3
RM 3 = Maximum (RM 13 , RM 23 )
WP 32 = Maximum (0.998, 0.999) = 0.999.
RP 32 = (RF 3 ) = (0.991)0.5 = 0.995.

Hence Using this allocation method the reliability goals are set for
all component of the software before designing the actual
RP 1 = Maximum (RP 11 , RP 31 ) system. For these goals to be realistic and meaningful, one
 International Journal of Systems Science
must encompass the typical user requirements and specifi-
cation about the reliability and the structure of the software.
This method improves communication among users, soft-
ware managers and programmers for software reliability
allocation.
6. Comparison
In this subsection, a comparison has been carried out with
the method used in Zahedi and Ashrafi (1991) and Aggar-
wal and Singh (1995). In Zahedi and Ashrafi (1991) and
Aggarwal and Singh (1995), AHP method has been used
for reliability allocation. AHP enables the decision-makers
to structure a complex problem in the form of a simple
hierarchy and to evaluate a large number of quantitative
as well as qualitative factors in a systematic manner under
conflicting multiple criteria. The application of AHP to the
complex problem usually involves four major steps (Cheng,
Downloaded by [Indian School of Mines] at 06:38 03 June 2013
Yang, and Hwang 1999):
(1) Break down the complex problem into a number of
small constituent elements and then structure the
elements in a hierarchical form.
(2) Make a series of pairwise comparisons among the
elements according to a ratio scale 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9.
(3) Use the eigenvalue method to estimate the relative
weights of the elements.
(4) Aggregate these relative weights and synthesise
them for the final measurement of given decision
alternatives.
However, in complex systems, the experiences and
judgements of humans are represented by linguistic and
vague patterns, and it is not quantitatively defined. There-
fore, by fuzzy set theory, one can give a much better repre-
sentation of these linguistic data.
The AHP has some shortcomings as shown below
(Cheng et al. 1999):
(1) The AHP method is mainly used in nearly crisp
(non-fuzzy) decision applications.
(2) The AHP method creates and deals with a very
unbalanced scale of judgement.
(3) The AHP method does not take into account the
uncertainty associated with the mapping of ones
judgement to a number.
(4) Ranking of the AHP method is rather imprecise.
(5) The subjective judgement, selection and preference
of decision-makers have great influence on the AHP
method.
Therefore, in the proposed model of allocating reliabil-
ity at design phase, AHP based on linguistic variable weight
method has been used to overcome some of the above short-
comings. Proposed method combines the spirit of AHP with
9
Table 2. Randomly generated consistency index for different
size of matrix.
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
RI 0 0 0.58 0.9 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49
linguistic weight variable to respond to attributes of soft-
ware systems and expectation of the decision-maker.
6.1. Numerical example
In this section, a numerical example has been given, which
demonstrates the comparison between FAHP and AHP. To
compare between these two approaches consistency index
proposed by Saaty (1980) has been used here. Saaty (1980)
measure of consistency is given as consistency index (CI),
n
where CI = max n1
. Consistency ratio = consistency index
/ randomly generated consistency index. Randomly gener-
ated CI represents the average CI over numerous random
entries of same order reciprocal matrices. Table 2 shows
different randomly generated CI of matrices having orders
n n.
The acceptable CR range varies according to the size
of matrix, i.e., 0.05 for a 3 3 matrix, 0.08 for a 4 4 ma-
trix and 0.1 for all larger matrices, n 5. If the value of
CR is equal to or less than the above values, it implies that
the evaluation within the matrix is acceptable or indicates
a good level of consistency in the comparative judgements
represented in that matrix. In contrast, if CR is more than the
acceptable value then, inconsistency of judgements within
that matrix has occurred and the evaluation process should
therefore be reviewed, reconsidered and improved. An ac-
ceptable consistency ratio helps to ensure decision-maker
reliability in determining the priorities of a set of criteria
(Saaty 1980).
Case A: Let, for the software cited in Section 5, each
module has five quality criteria, viz., the development cost
of a module (DC), demand of a module (DM), degree of
importance of a module (DI), last date of use of a mod-
ule (LM) and effectiveness of a module (EM). The fuzzy
comparison or the judgement matrix among those criteria
is given in Table 3.
To find the inconsistency of the information stored in
the judgement matrix, its consistency ratio (CR) has to
be calculated. The largest eigenvalue corresponding to the
matrix given in Table 3 is max = 5.33 (approximately). Its
Consistency Index, CI = 0.0825. The randomly generated
CI RI = 1.12 given in Table 2. Hence, the Consistency
Ratio, CR = 0.074. As CR < 0.1 the level of inconsistency
present in the information stored in comparison matrix is
satisfactory.
 
1 1 1
SDC = (4.05, 6.59, 11.2)  , ,
47.46 31.2 28.8
= (0.09, 0.23, 0.58)
 10 S. Chatterjee et al.

Table 3. Aggregated fuzzy comparison matrix of the attributes for fuzzy AHP model.

Attributes DC DM DI LM EM

DC (1,1,1) (0.8,1.6,2.3) (0.65,1.09,1.9) (0.8,1.5,2.8) (0.8,1.4,3.2)

DM (0.44,0.6,1.12) (1,1,1) (2.02,3.1,4.7) (0.8,1,1.5) (1.2,2.36,4.5)
DI (3.23,4.4,6.4) (0.22,0.34,0.6) (1,1,1) (0.68,1.11,1.7) (0.8,1,1.72)
LM (0.36,0.7,1.21) (0.68,1,1.3) (0.6,0.9,1.5) (1,1,1) (0.76,0.93,1.25)
EM (0.31,0.73,1.3) (0.22,0.42,0.49) (0.6,1,1.26) (0.8,1.1,1.3) (1,1,1)

 
1 1 1 The minimum degree of possibility of superiority of each
SDM = (5.46, 8.06, 12.82)  , , criterion over another is obtained. This further decides the
47.46 31.2 28.8
= (0.11, 0.26, 0.45) weight vectors of the criteria. Therefore, the weight vector
  is given as:
1 1 1
SDI = (5.93, 7.85, 11.42)  , ,
47.46 31.2 28.8
W = (0.86, 1, 0.96, 0.41, 0.41),
= (0.123, 0.252, 0.396)
 
Downloaded by [Indian School of Mines] at 06:38 03 June 2013

1 1 1 and the normalised weight vector can be given as:

SLM = (3.4, 4.53, 6.26)  , ,
47.46 31.2 28.8
= (0.072, 0.145, 0.217) W = (0.260, 0.285, 0.155, 0.158, 0.142).
 
1 1 1
SEM = (2.93, 4.25, 5.76)  , ,
47.46 31.2 28.8 The global weight of each criterion is 0.2.
= (0.062, 0.132, 0.2). Case B:The procedure for the AHP is given as follows:
Let, (aij )n n be the aggregated comparison or a judge-

The degree of possibility of superiority of DC can be cal- ment matrix with entries aij = 1/aji . Then, yk = i aij .
culated as follows: The geometric mean of the elements of each row can be
1
constructed bk = [(ak1 ).(ak2 ) . . . (akn )] n and Xk = bkbk .
k
V (SDC SDM ) = 0.90, V (SDC SDI ) = 0.0.86, Hence, the normalised weight vector is given as W = (X1 ,
V (SDC SLM ) = 1, and V (SDC SEM ) = 1. X2 , . . .Xn ).
The aggregated pairwise crisp comparison matrix in
The degree of possibility of superiority of DM can be cal- case of AHP is given in Table 4.
culated as follows: The maximum value of eigenvector for the above ma-
n)
trix is max = 5.0527. Consistency index, CI = (max n1
=
V (SDM SDI ) = 1, V (SDM SLM ) = 1, 0.013. Random Index for the matrix of order 5 is RI = 1.12.
V (SDM SEM ) = 1, and V (SDM SDC ) = 1. Consistency Ratio, CR = CI/RI = 0.012.CR < 0.1, i.e., the
level of inconsistency present in the information stored in
The degree of possibility of superiority of DI can be calcu- comparison matrix is satisfactory (Saaty 1980). Now, y1 =
lated as follows: 3.713, y2 = 3.901, y3 = 6.938, y4 = 5.79 and y5 = 7.857.
Hence
V (SDI SDC ) = 1, V (SDI SDM ) = 0.96,
b1 = [1 1.58 1.076 1.626 1.843]1/5 = 1.385
V (SDI SLM ) = 1, and V (SDI SEM ) = 1.
b2 = [0.625 1 3.294 1.104 2.784]1/5 = 1.445
The degree of possibility of superiority of LM can be cal-
culated as follows:
Table 4. Aggregated comparison matrix of the attributes for
V (SLM SDC ) = 0.6, V (SLM SDM ) = 0.41, AHP model.
V (SLM SDI ) = 0.71, and V (SLM SEM ) = 1. Attributes DC DM DI LM EM Weight

The degree of possibility of superiority of EM can be cal- DC 1 1.58 1.076 1.626 1.843 0.271
culated as follows: DM 0.625 1 3.294 1.104 2.784 0.283
DI 0.93 0.242 1 1.116 1.17 0.153
LM 0.615 0.72 0.713 1 1.06 0.157
V (SEM SDC ) = 0.53, V (SEM SDM ) = 0.41, EM 0.543 0.359 0.855 0.944 1 0.135
V (SEM SDI ) = 0.55, and V (SEM SLM ) = 0.90.
 International Journal of Systems Science
b3 = [0.93 0.242 1 1.116 1.17]1/5 = 0.783
b4 = [0.615 0.72 0.713 1 1.06]1/5 = 0.803
b5 = [0.543 0.359 0.855 0.944 1]1/5 = 0.691.
Using the above values of bi , i = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, the com-
puted values of Xi are: X1 = 1.385/5.107 = 0.271, X2 =
1.445/5.107 = 0.283, X3 = 0.783/5.107 = 0.153, X4 =
0.803/5.107 = 0.157, X5 = 0.691/5.107 = 0.135. The nor-
malised weight vector is given as:
W = (0.271, 0.283, 0.153, 0.157, 0.135).
The weights of the criteria represent the ratio of how
much more important one criterion is than another, with
respect to the goal or criterion at a higher level.
Downloaded by [Indian School of Mines] at 06:38 03 June 2013
6.1.1. Decision
Comparing the weight vectors of the FAHP and AHP, it has
been found that DM is the component of highest priority in
both the cases. The result depicts that the classical and the
fuzzy methods are not the competitors to each others under
the same conditions. Most importantly, if the information is
certain, i.e., the consistency ratio (CR) or the level of incon-
sistency present in the information stored in the comparison
matrix is less, classical method should be preferred. If the
level of inconsistency present in the information stored in
comparison matrix is high, i.e., the consistency ration is
large, fuzzy method should be preferred.
6.1.2. Sensitivity analysis
From the numerical example given in Section 6.1, it is
clear that the quality of a module is highly dependent on
the different given quality criteria. Small changes in the
relative weights can therefore cause major changes in the
final ranking. Since, these weights are usually based on
highly subjective judgements, the stability of the ranking
under varying criteria weights has to be tested. For this
purpose, sensitivity analysis can be performed based on
scenarios that reflect alternative future developments or
different views on the relative importance of the criteria.
From the normalised weight vector of different criteria of
a module of the software proposed in the example, i.e., W
= (0.260, 0.285, 0.155, 0.158, 0.142), it can be observed
that the priority of the second criterion DM is highest. If its
weight increases by 30%, the global weight of each module
will increase from 0.2 to 0.2168. It indicates that when the
demand of the modules increases, their global weight also
increases. Similarly, if the weight of DC is increased by
30%, the global weight increases from 0.2 to 0.2156, which
signifies that, if the development cost increases, the global
weight of the modules increases.
11
7. Conclusion
In this paper, the software reliability allocation problem at
the planning and design stage of a software has been dis-
cussed. The users views about the software functions and
their relative importance to the user have been integrated
with the software engineers and programmers view about
software in terms of programmes and module. A hierarchi-
cal structure has been set up to break down the problem
from top to bottom. Then the fuzzy analytic hierarchy pro-
cess (FAHP) has been applied to derive the required pa-
rameters from this hierarchy. A comparison between AHP
and FAHP has been carried out based on consistency ratio.
Also, sensitivity analysis has been performed to demon-
strate the performance of the proposed approach. The re-
liability allocation model presented in this paper guaran-
tees about the achievement of software system reliability
goal. This method improves communication among users,
software engineers and programmers for reliability allo-
cation. For the software having complex architecture, the
proposed method can be modified and used for its reliability
allocation.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad, In-
dia, for providing necessary facilities for completion of this work.
Also, the authors are very much thankful to the reviewers and
Editor-in-Chief for their valuable comments in improving the
paper.
Notes on contributors
Subhashis Chaterjee obtained his BSc
(Mathematics) from TDB College,
Raniganj, The University of Burdwan,
India. He obtained MSc (Mathematics)
and PhD from IIT Kharagpur, India. His
area of research is software reliability
modelling. Presently Dr. Chatterjee is
working as Associate Professor, in the
Dept. of Applied Mathematics, Indian
School of Mines (ISM), Dhanbad, India. He has served GIET,
Orissa and SMIT, Sikkim, India, as a faculty. He has total 11 years
of teaching and research experience. He has quite a good number
of international and national publications. He has reviewed
papers for various national and international journals. His areas
of interest are software reliability, web software reliability, or,
stochastic process and fuzzy set.
Jeetendra B. Singh received his MSc de-
gree in Mathematics in 2007 from Banaras
Hindu University, Varanasi, India. He has
obtained his PhD degree in Applied Mathe-
matics from Indian School of Mines, Dhan-
bad, India. His research interests include
software reliability modelling, time series,
fuzzy time series, genetic algorithm and ar-
tificial neural network.
 12 S. Chatterjee et al.
Arunava Roy is currently working as a Se-
nior Research Fellow in the Department
of Applied Mathematics, Indian school of
Mines, Dhanbad. He did his MSc in Mathe-
matics and Computing from Indian School
of Mines Dhanbad in 2010. He was a
gold medallist in MSc. His areas of in-
terest are web software reliability, algo-
rithm design and analysis, data structure and
programming.
References
Aggarwal, K.K., and Singh, Y. (1995), Software Reliability Ap-
portionment Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process, ACM
SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 20(5), 5661.
Buckley, J.J. (1985), Fuzzy Hierarchical Analysis, Fuzzy Sets
and Systems, 17, 233247.
Cai, K.Y., Wen, C.Y., and Zhang, M.L. (1991), A Critical Review
of Software Reliability Modeling, Reliability Engineering
Downloaded by [Indian School of Mines] at 06:38 03 June 2013
and System Safety, 32, 357371.
Cai, K.Y., Wen, C.Y., and Zhang, M.L. (1993), A Novel Approach
to Software Reliability Modeling, Microelectronic and Reli-
ability, 33, 22562267.
Celik, M., Er, I.D., and Ozok, A.F. (2009), Application of Fuzzy
Extended AHP Methodology on Shipping Registry Selection:
The Case of Turkish Maritime Industry, Expert Systems with
Applications, 36, 190198.
Chang, D.Y. (1996), Applications of Extent Analysis Method on
Fuzzy AHP, European Journal of Operational Research, 95,
649655.
Chatterjee, S., Misra, R.B., and Alam, S.S. (1997), Prediction
of Software Reliability Using an Auto Regressive Process,
International Journal of Systems Science, 28, 205211.
Cheng, C.H., Yang, K.L., and Hwang, C.L. (1999), Evaluating
Attack Helicopters by AHP Based on Linguistic Variable
Weight, European Journal of Operational Research, 116,
423435.
Guan, H., Wang, T., and Chen, W. (2009), Exploring Architecture-
Based Software Reliability Allocation Using a Dynamic Pro-
gramming Algorithm, in Proceedings of the Second Sym-
posium International Computer Science and Computational
Technology (ISCSCT 09), Huangshan, P. R. China, pp. 106
109.
Helander, M.E., Zhao, M., and Ohlsson, N. (1998), Planning
Models for Software Reliability and Cost, IEEE Transactions
on Software Engineering, 24(6), 424434.
Huang, C.Y., and Lo, J.H. (2006), Optimal Resource Allocation
for Cost and Reliability of Modular Software Systems in the
Testing Phase, Journal of Systems and Software, 79(5), 653
664.
Huang, C.Y., and Lyu, M.R. (2005), Optimal Testing Resource
Allocation and Sensitivity Analysis in Software Develop-
ment, IEEE Transactions on Reliability, 54(4), 592603.
Ishii, T., Dohi, T., and Okamura, H. (2012), Software Reliabil-
ity Prediction Based on Least Squares Estimation, Quality
Technology and Quantitative Management, 9(3), 243264.
Junhong, G., Xiaozong Y., and Hongwei, L. (2005), Software
Reliability Nonlinear Modeling and Its Fuzzy Evaluation, in
4th WSEAS International Conference on Non-Linear Analy-
sis, Non-Linear Systems and Chaos, Sofia, Bulgaria, October
2729, 2005, pp. 4954.
Kapur, P.K., Garg, R.B., and Kuamr, S. (1999), Contribution to
Hardware and Software reliability, Singapore: World Scien-
tific Press.
Kapur, P.K., Pham, H., Aggarwal, A.G., and Kaur, G. (2012),
Two Dimensional Multi-Release Software Reliability Mod-
eling and Optimal Release Planning, IEEE Transactions on
Reliability, 61(3), 758768.
Kaufmann, A., and Gupta, M.M. (1991), Introduction to Fuzzy
Arithmetic Theory and Applications, New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold.
Kubat, P. (1989), Assessing Reliability of Modular Software,
Operations Research Letters, 8, 3541.
Lee, H. (1993), A Structure Methodology for Software Develop-
ment Effort Prediction Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process,
Journal of System and Software, 21, 179186.
Lee, S.H. (2010), Using Fuzzy AHP to Develop Intellectual Cap-
ital Evaluation Model for Assessing Their Performance Con-
tribution in a University, Expert Systems with Applications,
37, 49414947.
Leung, Y.W. (1997), Software Reliability Allocation Under an
Uncertain Operational Profile, Journal of the Operational
Research Society, 48, 401411.
Leung, Y.W. (2004), Optimal Reliability Allocation for Modu-
lar Software Systems Designed for Multiple Customers, IE-
ICE Transactions on Information and Systems, 12(79), 1655
1662.
Lyu, M.R. (1996), Handbook of Software Reliability Engineering,
New York: IEEE Computer Society Press McGraw Hill.
Lyu, M.R., Rangarajan, S., and van Moorsel, A.P.A. (1997). Op-
timization of Reliability Allocation and Testing Schedule
for Software Systems, in Proceedings of the 1997 Interna-
tional Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering, Nov.,
pp. 336346.
Mikaeil, R., Yousefi, R., and Ataei, M. (2011), Sawability Rank-
ing of Carbonate Rock Using Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Pro-
cess and TOPSIS Approaches, Scientia Iranica, 18(5), 1106
1115.
Mikhailov, L. (2003), Deriving Priorities From Fuzzy Pairwise
Comparison Judgements, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 134, 365
385.
Mikhailov, L. (2004), A Fuzzy Approach to Deriving Priorities
From Interval Pairwise Comparison Judgments, European
Journal of Operational Research, 159(3), 687704.
Nakagawa, Y., and Miyazaki, S. (1981), Surrogate Constraints
Algorithm for Reliability Optimization Problems With Two
Constraints, IEEE Transactions on Reliability, 30(2), 175
181.
Painton L., and Campbell, J. (1995), Genetic Algorithms in Op-
timization of System Reliability, IEEE Transactions on Re-
liability, 44(2), 172178.
Pham, H. (1996), A Software Cost Model With Imperfect De-
bugging, Random Life Cycle and Penalty Cost, International
Journal of Systems Science, 27(5), 455463.
Pham, H. (2006), System Software Reliability, London: Springer.
Pietrantuono, R., Russo, S., and Trivedi, K.S. (2010), Software
Reliability and Testing Time Allocation: An Architecture-
Based Approach, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineer-
ing, 36(3), 323337.
Pievatolo, A., Ruggeri, F., and Soyer, R. (2012), A Bayesian
Hidden Markov Model for Imperfect Debugging, Reliability
Engineering & System Safety, 103, 1121.
Poore, J.H., Mills, H.D., and Mutchler, D. (1993), Planning
and Certifying Software System Reliability, IEEE Software,
10(1), 8899.
Poore, J.H., and Trammell, C.J. (1995), Cleanroom Software En-
gineering: A Reader, Oxford: Blackwell.
Rani, I., and Misra, R.B. (2005), Economic Allocation of Tar-
get Reliability in Modular Software Systems, in Proceed-
 International Journal of Systems Science
ings of the Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium,
pp. 428432.
Reza, M., Mohammad, A., and Reza, Y. (2011), Application of
a Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process to the Prediction of
Vibration During Rock Sawing, Mining Science and Tech-
nology (China), 21, 611619.
Saaty, T.L. (1980), The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Pri-
ority Setting, Resources Allocation, London: McGraw-Hill.
Tamura, Y., and Yamada, S. (2009), Optimisation Analysis for Re-
liability Assessment Based on Stochastic Differential Equa-
tion Modelling for Open Source Software, International
Journal of Systems Science, 40(4), 429438.
Tillman, F.A., Hwang, C.L., and Kuo, W. (1977), Determining
Component Reliability and Redundancy for Optimum System
Reliability, IEEE Transactions on Reliability, 26, 162165.
Van Laarhoven, P.J.M., and Pedrycz, W. (1983), A Fuzzy Ex-
tension of Saatys Priority Theory, Fuzzy Sets and Systems,
11(13), 229241.
Wang, L., Chu, J., and Wu, J. (2007), Selection of Optimum Main-
tenance Strategies Based on a Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Pro-
cess, International Journal of Production Economics, 107,
Downloaded by [Indian School of Mines] at 06:38 03 June 2013
151163.
Wang, Y.M., Elhag, T.M.S., and Hua, Z.S. (2006), A Mod-
ified Fuzzy Logarithmic Least Squares Method for Fuzzy
View publication stats
13
Analytic Hierarchy Process, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 157,
30553071.
Xie, M. (1991), Software Reliability Modelling, Singapore: World
Scientific Press.
Yamada, S., Tokuno, K., and Osaki, S. (1992), Imperfect Debug-
ging Models With Fault Introduction Rate for Software Relia-
bility Assessment, International Journal of Systems Science,
23(12), 22412252.
Yi, W., and Chengwen, W.U. ( 2009), Optimal Reliability Alloca-
tion for Modular Software Systems Basis on Support Vector
Clustering and Fuzzy Decision, in International Conference
on Artificial Intelligence and Computational Intelligence, pp.
515519.
Zadeh, L.A. (1965), Fuzzy Sets, Information Control, 8, 338
353.
Zahedi, F., and Ashrafi, N. (1991), Software Reliability Allo-
cation Based on Structure, Utility, Price, and Cost, IEEE
Transactions on Software Engineering, 17(4), 345356.
Zhang, X., and Pham, H. (2000), Comparisons of Nonhomo-
geneous Poisson Process Software Reliability Models and
Its Applications, International Journal of Systems Science,
31(9), 11151123.
Zimmermann, H.J. (1991), Fuzzy Set Theory and Its Applications,
Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.