Software Risk Assessment and Management with Rules Based on Fuzzy Approach

Up to now, several software risk parameters have been determined in order to assess and managesoftware development projects: Productivity, Engagement, Attention to Quality, Code BasedKnowledge and Management, Adherence to Coding Guidelines and Techniques, Learning and Skills,Personal Responsibility and etc. However, there isn’t any universally accepted methodology to applysoftware risk assessment and management. There are three main reasons of this situation: Firstly,each part of software creation is unique. There is no compelling reason to assemble two times thesame parts of software as it might be duplicated by copying it. This makes it truly difficult to make aformal and thorough correlation between two parts of software. Secondly, the current technology issomething that changes at a truly fast phase. So, each time a methodology in respect to a certain waveof technology is dependable enough, it is for the most part as of recently old. Thirdly, there is a giganticzone for innovativeness in discovering the diverse answers for a unique issue. Because of thesereasons, the technique “Fuzzy Approach” has a very convenient and proper process for definingsoftware risks due to their nature that has no certainty – uncertainty – structure and principle. Also,software risks are defined as the probability and the severity of damages that are caused by occurringof bad or undesirable events in a system. Thus, the system suffers from strategic, financial,operational, structural or integrity loss and damage. So, there is need to apply and carry out anefficient “Software Risk Assessment and Management” in order to determine and recognize softwarerisks on time before causing problems and troubles into software projects for providing successfullyaccomplishment in software development process. In this paper, usability and efficiency of “FuzzyApproached” linguistic and logical rules based on “Fuzzy Logic” in “Software Risk Assessment andManagement” have been shown and expressed in detail.

PDF

___

1] Smith, M. 1989. The people risks, Computer Law & Security Review, vol. 4, p. 2-6. DOI: 10.1016/0267- 3649(89)90002-2

[2] Renn, O. 2004. Perception of risks, Toxicology Letters, vol. 149, p. 405-413. DOI: 10.1016/j.toxlet.2003.12.051

[3] Lezzoni, L. K. 1997. The risks of risk adjustment, JAMA Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 278, p. 1600-1607. DOI: 10.1001/jama.278.19.1600

[4] Arnuphaptrairong, T. 2011. Top ten lists of software project risks: Evidence from the literature survey. International MultiConference of Engineers and Computer Scientists, 16-18 March, Hong Kong, 1-6.

[5] Dey, P. K., Kinch, J., Ogunlana, S. O. 2007. Managing risk in software development projects: A case study, Industrial Management & Data Systems, vol. 107, p. 284-303. DOI: 10.1108/02635570710723859

[6] Gallivan, M. J. 1998. The influence of system developers’ creative style on their attitudes toward and assimilation of a software process innovation. Thirty-First Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 6-9 January, Kohala Coast, 435-444.

[7] Sawyer, S., Guinan P. J. 1998. Software development: Processes and performance, IBM Systems Journal, vol. 37, p. 552-569. DOI: 10.1147/sj.374.0552

[8] Hall, T., Wilson, D., Rainer, A., Jagielska, D. 2007. The neglected technical skill? ACM SIGMIS CPR Conference on Computer Personnel Research: The Global Information Technology Workforce, 19-21 April, St. Louis Missouri, 196-202.

[9] Baggelaar, H. 2008. Evaluating programmer performance visualizing the impact of programmers on project goals. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Amsterdam.

[10] Lee, K., Joshi, K., Kim, Y. 2008. Person-job fit as a moderator of the relationship between emotional intelligence and job performance. ACM SIGMIS CPR Conference on Computer Personnel Doctoral Consortium and Research, 3-5 April, Charlottesville VA, 70-75.

[11] Thing, C. 2008. The application of the function point analysis in software developers’ performance evaluation. 4th International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, 12-17 October, China, 1-4.

[12] Zhang, S., Wang, Y., Xiao, J. 2008. Mining individual performance indicators in collaborative development using software repositories. 15th AsiaPacific Software Engineering Conference, 3-5 December, China, 247-254.

[13] Calikli, G., Bener, A. 2010. Empirical analyses of the factors affecting confirmation bias and the effects of confirmation bias on software developer/tester performance. 6th International Conference on Predictive Models in Software Engineering, 12-13 September, Romania, no. 10.

[14] Chilton, M. A., Hardgrave, B. C., Armstrong, D. J. 2010. Performance and strain levels of it workers engaged in rapidly changing environments: A person-job fit perspective, ACM SIGMIS Database, vol. 41, p. 8-35. DOI: 10.1145/1719051.1719053

[15] Ramler, R., Klammer, C., Natschläger, T. 2010. The usual suspects: A case study on delivered defects per developer. ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, 16-17 September, Italy, no. 48.

[16] Wang, Y., Zhang, M. 2010. Penalty policies in professional software development practice: A multi-method field study. 32nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering, 1 May, Cape Town South Africa, 39-47.

[17] Balijepally, V., Nerur, S., Mahapatra, R. 2012. Effect of task mental models on software developer’s performance: An experimental investigation. 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Science, 4-7 January, Hawaii, 5442-5451.

[18] Duarte, C. B., Faria, J. P., Raza, M. 2012. PSP PAIR: Automated personal software process performance analysis and improvement recommendation. Eighth International Conference on the Quality of Information and Communications Technology, 3-6 September, Portugal, 131-136.

[19] Ehrlich, K., Cataldo, M. 2012. All-for-one and one-forall?: A multi-level analysis of communication patterns and individual performance in geographically distributed software development. ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 11-15 February, Washington, 945-954.

[20] Kelly, B., Haddad, H. M. 2012. Metric techniques for maintenance programmers in a maintenance ticket environment, Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, vol. 28, p. 170-178. DOI: 10.5555/2382887.2382915

[21] Schröter, A., Aranda, J., Damian, D., Kwan, I. 2012. To talk or not to talk: Factors that influence communication around changesets. ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 11-15 February, Washington, 1317-1326.

[22] Westermann, D. 2012. A generic methodology to derive domain-specific performance feedback for developers. 34th International Conference on Software Engineering, 2-9 June, Zurich, 1527-1530.

[23] Calikli, G., Bener, A. 2013. An algorithmic approach to missing data problem in modeling human aspects in software development. 9th International Conference on Predictive Models in Software Engineering, 9 October, Baltimore Maryland, no. 10.

[24] Kumar, C., Yadav, D. K. 2015. A probabilistic software risk assessment and estimation model for software projects, Procedia Computer Science, vol. 54, p. 353- 361. DOI: 10.1016/j.procs.2015.06.041

[25] Lyytinen, K., Mathiassen, L., Ropponen, J. 1996. A framework for software risk management, Journal of Information Technology, vol. 11, p. 275-285. DOI:10.1057/jit.1996.2

[26] Ross, T. J. 2016. Fuzzy Logic with Engineering Applications. 4th edition. John Wiley & Sons Inc., United Kingdom, 580p.

[27] Hájek, P. 1998. Metamathematics of Fuzzy Logic. TREN, vol. 4, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Springer, Dordrecht, 299p.

[28] Carlsson, C., Fuller, R. 2003. A fuzzy approach to real option valuation, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 139 p. 297-312. DOI: 10.1016/S0165-0114(02)00591-2

[29] Shen, Q., Chouchoulas, A. 2002. A rough-fuzzy approach for generating classification rules, Pattern Recognition, vol. 35, p. 2425-2438. DOI: 10.1016/S0031-3203(01)00229-1

[30] Boehm, B. W. 1989. Software Risk Management. IEEE Press, New York, 455p.

[31] Boehm, B. W. 1991. Software risk management: principles and practices, IEEE Software, vol. 8, p. 32- 41. DOI: 10.1109/52.62930