Novel Multi-Perspective Usability Evaluation Framework for Selection of Open Source Software Based on BWM and Group VIKOR Techniques

Abstract

Increasing demand for open-source software (OSS) has raised the value of efficient selection in terms of quality; usability is an essential quality factor that significantly affects system acceptability and sustainability. Most large and complex software packages partitioned across multiple portals and involve many users — each with their role in the software package; those users have different perspectives on the software package, defined by their knowledge, responsibilities, and commitments. Thus, a multi-perspective approach has been used in usability evaluation to overcome the challenge of inconsistency between users’ perspectives; the inconsistency challenge would lead to an ill-advised decision on the selection of a suitable OSS. This study aimed to assist the public and private organizations in evaluating and selecting the most suitable OSS. The evaluation of the OSS software packages to choose the best one is a challenging task owing to (a) multiple evaluation criteria, (b) criteria importance, and (c) data variation; thus, it is considered a sophisticated multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) problem; moreover, the multi-perspective usability evaluation framework for OSS selection lacks in the current literature. Hence, this study proposes a novel multi-perspective usability evaluation framework for the selection of OSS based on the multi-criteria analysis. Integration of best-worst method (BWM) and VIKOR MCDM techniques has been used for weighting and ranking OSS alternatives. BWM is utilized for weighting of evaluation criteria, whereas VIKOR is applied to rank OSS-LMS alternatives. Individual and group decision-making contexts, and the internal and external groups aggregation were used to demonstrate the efficiency of the proposed framework. A well-organized algorithmic procedure is presented in detail, and a case study was examined to illustrate the validity and feasibility of the proposed framework. The results demonstrated that BWM and VIKOR integration works effectively to solve the OSS software package benchmarking/selection problems. Furthermore, the ranks of OSS software packages obtained from the VIKOR internal and external group decision making were similar; the best OSS-LMS based on the two ways was ‘Moodle’ software package. Among the scores of groups in the objective validation, significant differences were identified; this indicated that the ranking results of internal and external VIKOR group decision making were valid, which pointed to the validation of the framework.

The Use of The Flipped Classroom Strategy in Learning Arabic Literature Among Non-Arabic Speaking Students

“…Choosing one group of students is the appropriate method for designing the study, which has benefits in terms of cost and effort, ease of work, is not restricted to a certain period and does not take a long time to obtain valid results (Mairing et al, 2021;Dawood et al, 2021). The step begins with identifying and defining the target group of users.…”

Development of IoT-based mhealth framework for various cases of heart disease patients

“…Therefore, weighting is needed by experts to provide a specified weight for MLAHP and GCI and via a set of six experts in heart diseases (cardiologists) with more than 10 years of experience. The development of the decisionmaking solution for hospital selection is presented based on MCDM approach [94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107][108][109][110][111][112][113]. A pairwise comparison is conducted through a mathematical calculation to convert the expert's judgement to the MLAHP and CGI weights [114][115][116][117][118][119][120][121][122][123][124][125][126].…”

Integration of fuzzy-weighted zero-inconsistency and fuzzy decision by opinion score methods under a q-rung orthopair environment: A distribution case study of COVID-19 vaccine doses

“…Decision-making techniques are gaining wide attention, of which the multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) is the most vital [1] , [2] , [3] , [4] , [5] , [6] , [7] , [8] , [9] , [10] , [11] , [12] , [13] , [14] , [15] , [16] , [17] , [18] , [19] . MCDM is one of the most common real-life behaviours that can be represented as the outcomes of mental and reasoning processes for the identification of the most suitable alternatives concerning predefined attributes or criteria [20] , [21] , [22] , [23] , [24] , [25] , [26] , [27] , [28] , [29] , [30] , [31] , [32] , [33] , [34] , [35] , [36] , [37] , [38] , [39] , [40] . In several cases, decision makers (DMs) have difficulty in expressing a specific preference and precise evaluation values accurately when case studies rely on unreliable, ambiguous or incomplete information [41] , [42] , [43] , [44] , [45] , [46] , [47] , [48] , [49] .…”