Exploring the Landscape of Multicriteria Decision Making in Software Project Management: Trends, Challenges, and Future Directions

Mitra Madanchian; Hamed Taherdoost

doi:10.4108/eetsis.6061

Authors

Mitra Madanchian University Canada West https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0664-5865
Hamed Taherdoost University Canada West https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6503-6739

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.4108/eetsis.6061

Keywords:

Multicriteria Decision Making, MCDM, Software Project Management, Implementation Challenges

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: This critical review investigates the utilization trends of Multicriteria Decision Making (MCDM) in software project management, emphasizing its applications, implementation challenges, and emerging trends.

OBJECTIVES: The study explores recent literature published between 2019 and 2024, utilizing a systematic methodology to analyze the effectiveness and limitations of MCDM techniques in software project planning, selection, and execution.

METHODS: A Boolean search strategy on Scopus was employed to identify relevant literature. The systematic methodology involved analyzing the identified literature to discern patterns, gaps, and recommendations for integrating MCDM methodologies within software engineering projects.

RESULTS: The review identifies key patterns, challenges, and emerging trends in adopting MCDM techniques in software project management, providing insights and recommendations for future research and practice.

CONCLUSION: This critical review offers valuable insights into the landscape of MCDM utilization in software project management, highlighting areas for improvement and future exploration.

References

[1] Sahoo, S.K. and S.S. Goswami, A comprehensive review of multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) Methods: advancements, applications, and future directions. Decision Making Advances, 2023. 1(1): p. 25-48.

[2] Mardani, A., et al., Determining the utility in management by using multi-criteria decision support tools: a review. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 2018. 31(1): p. 1666-1716.

[3] Zakeri, S.M.H., et al., Developing an MCDM model for the benefits, opportunities, costs and risks of BIM adoption. Sustainability, 2023. 15(5): p. 4035.

[4] Azhar, N.A., N.A. Radzi, and W.S.H.M. Wan Ahmad, Multi-criteria decision making: a systematic review. Recent Advances in Electrical & Electronic Engineering (Formerly Recent Patents on Electrical & Electronic Engineering), 2021. 14(8): p. 779-801.

[5] Falessi, D., et al., Decision-making techniques for software architecture design: A comparative survey. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 2011. 43(4): p. 1-28.

[6] Stojčić, M., et al., Application of MCDM methods in sustainability engineering: A literature review 2008–2018. Symmetry, 2019. 11(3): p. 350.

[7] Bhole, G.P. and T. Deshmukh, Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods and its applications. International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET), 2018. 6(5): p. 899-915.

[8] Sałabun, W., J. Wątróbski, and A. Shekhovtsov, Are mcda methods benchmarkable? a comparative study of topsis, vikor, copras, and promethee ii methods. Symmetry, 2020. 12(9): p. 1549.

[9] Toloie-Eshlaghy, A. and M. Homayonfar, MCDM methodologies and applications: a literature review from 1999 to 2009. Research Journal of International Studies, 2011. 21: p. 86-137.

[10] Nayak, M.V. and R. D’Souza, A survey on multi-criteria decision making methods in software engineering. Project management, 2001. 10(4).

[11] Jafarzadeh, H., et al., A project prioritization approach considering uncertainty, reliability, criteria prioritization, and robustness. Decision Support Systems, 2022. 156: p. 113731.

[12] Ayan, B., S. Abacıoğlu, and M.P. Basilio, A comprehensive review of the novel weighting methods for multi-criteria decision-making. Information, 2023. 14(5): p. 285.

[13] Darko, A., et al., Review of application of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in construction. International journal of construction management, 2019. 19(5): p. 436-452.

[14] Li, Y., et al., A Survey of Fuzzy Best-Worst Group DecisionMaking Process towards Human Centricity. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 2024.

[15] Selvachandran, G., et al., An extended technique for order preference by similarity to an ideal solution (TOPSIS) with maximizing deviation method based on integrated weight measure for single-valued neutrosophic sets. Symmetry, 2018. 10(7): p. 236.

[16] Lourenzutti, R. and R.A. Krohling, A generalized TOPSIS method for group decision making with heterogeneous information in a dynamic environment. Information Sciences, 2016. 330: p. 1-18.

[17] Chinnasamy, S., M. Ramachandran, and P.A. Kurinjimalar Ramu, Study on Fuzzy ELECTRE Method with Various Methodologies. REST Journal on Emerging trends in Modelling and Manufacturing, 2022. 7(4): p. 108-115.

[18] de Brito, M.M., A. Almoradie, and M. Evers, Spatially-explicit sensitivity and uncertainty analysis in a MCDA-based flood vulnerability model. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 2019. 33(9): p. 1788-1806.

[19] Chakraborty, S., P. Chatterjee, and P.P. Das, Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluation (Promethee), in Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods in Manufacturing Environments. 2024, Apple Academic Press. p. 123-145.

[20] Shih, H.-S., Threshold-enhanced PROMETHEE group decision support under uncertainties. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2021. 2021: p. 1-21.

[21] Jakeri, M.M. and M.F. Hassan. Criteria Prioritization in Adaptive Security Activities Selection, ASAS Model Using Analytic Network Process, ANP. in 2019 IEEE Conference on Application, Information and Network Security (AINS). 2019. IEEE.

[22] de Andrade, J., et al. Solving the software project scheduling problem with hyper-heuristics. in Artificial Intelligence and Soft Computing: 18th International Conference, ICAISC 2019, Zakopane, Poland, June 16–20, 2019, Proceedings, Part I 18. 2019. Springer.

[23] Silva, G.F.d., L. Silva, and A. Britto. Dynamic Software Project Scheduling Problem with PSO and Dynamic Strategies Based on Memory. in Intelligent Systems: 9th Brazilian Conference, BRACIS 2020, Rio Grande, Brazil, October 20–23, 2020, Proceedings, Part I 9. 2020. Springer.

[24] Zandi, P., et al., Agricultural risk management using fuzzy TOPSIS analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA). Agriculture, 2020. 10(11): p. 504.

[25] Albawab, M., et al., Sustainability performance index for ranking energy storage technologies using multi-criteria decision-making model and hybrid computational method. Journal of Energy Storage, 2020. 32: p. 101820.

[26] Puška, A., et al., Project management software evaluation by using the measurement of alternatives and ranking according to compromise solution (MARCOS) method. Operational Research in Engineering Sciences: Theory and Applications, 2020. 3(1): p. 89-102.

[27] Masood, Z., R. Hoda, and K. Blincoe, How agile teams make self-assignment work: a grounded theory study. Empirical Software Engineering, 2020. 25: p. 4962-5005.

[28] Costa, A., et al., Team formation in software engineering: a systematic mapping study. Ieee Access, 2020. 8: p. 145687-145712.

[29] Suresh, K. and R. Dillibabu, An integrated approach using IF-TOPSIS, fuzzy DEMATEL, and enhanced CSA optimized ANFIS for software risk prediction. Knowledge and Information Systems, 2021. 63(7): p. 1909-1934.

[30] Rezk, H., et al., Multicriteria decision-making to determine the optimal energy management strategy of hybrid PV–diesel battery-based desalination system. Sustainability, 2021. 13(8): p. 4202.

[31] Hussain, M., et al., Prioritizing the issues extracted for getting right people on right project in software project management from vendors’ perspective. IEEE Access, 2021. 9: p. 8718-8732.

[32] Siksnelyte-Butkiene, I., et al., A systematic literature review of multi-criteria decision-making methods for sustainable selection of insulation materials in buildings. Sustainability, 2021. 13(2): p. 737.

[33] Kumar, A. and K. Kaur. MCDM-Based Framework to Solve Decision Making Problems in Software Engineering. in 2022 3rd International Conference on Issues and Challenges in Intelligent Computing Techniques (ICICT). 2022. IEEE.

[34] Liu, Y., C. Mei, and J. Hao, Programming Models for Determining Optimal R&D Arrangement in Mobile Application Development Process. IEEE Access, 2022. 10: p. 133945-133957.

[35] Nigar, N., et al., Modeling human resource experience evolution for multiobjective project scheduling in large scale software projects. IEEE Access, 2022. 10: p. 44677-44690.

[36] Rezk, H., et al., Multi-criteria decision making for different concentrated solar thermal power technologies. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 2022. 52: p. 102118.

[37] Baninemeh, E., S. Farshidi, and S. Jansen, A decision model for decentralized autonomous organization platform selection: Three industry case studies. Blockchain: Research and Applications, 2023. 4(2): p. 100127.

[38] Fagarasan, C., et al., Integrating Sustainability Metrics into Project and Portfolio Performance Assessment in Agile Software Development: A Data-Driven Scoring Model. Sustainability, 2023. 15(17): p. 13139.

[39] Bugayenko, Y., et al., Automatically Prioritizing Tasks in Software Development. IEEE Access, 2023.

[40] Yel, İ., M.E. Baysal, and A. Sarucan, A new approach to developing software projects by assigning teams to projects with interval-valued neutrosophic Z numbers. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 2023. 126: p. 106984.

[41] Yaşar, M.Ş. and N. Yıldırım, REVISITING THE R&D PROJECT MANAGEMENT METHODOLOGIES FOR DEFENSE R&D PROJECTS: AN AHP-BASED MULTI-CRITERIA METHODOLOGY SELECTION MODEL PROPOSAL, in 2023 International Annual Conference of the American Society for Engineering Management and 44th Annual Meeting, ASEM 202. 2023: The Curtis Hotel Denver; United States.

[42] Schramm, V.B., A.C. Damasceno, and F. Schramm, SUPPORTING THE CHOICE OF THE BEST-FIT AGILE MODEL USING FITRADEOFF. Pesquisa Operacional, 2023. 43: p. e264750.

[43] Mahasantipiya, P. and N. Tuaycharoen. Project Management Tools Selection Using BWM TOPSIS. in International Conference on Computing and Information Technology. 2023. Springer.

[44] Bisht, A.S. and N.S. Thakur, A Decision-making Framework to Evaluate and Select Optimal Biomass Gasification Plant Size for Sustainable Regional Bioenergy Development. Process Integration and Optimization for Sustainability, 2023. 7(1): p. 215-233.

[45] El-Douh, A.A., et al., Neutrosophic Model for Evaluation Healthcare Security Criteria for Powerful and Lightweight Secure Storage System in Cloud-Based EHealthcare Services. Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, 2023. 58(1): p. 22.

[46] Uluskan, M. and B. Beki, PROJECT SELECTION REVISITED: CUSTOMIZED TYPE-2 FUZZY ORESTE APPROACH FOR PROJECT PRIORITIZATION. International Journal of Industrial Engineering: Theory, Applications and Practice, 2024. 31(2).

[47] Alqahtani, J., et al., Evaluating Success Factors of Software Project Management in Global Software Development. IEEE Access, 2024.

[48] dos Santos, E.A., D.G.B. de Souza, and C.E.S. da Silva, What Matters in Hiring Professionals for Global Software Development? A SLR and NLP Criteria Clustering. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 2023.