3.9 Article

Application of Fuzzy DEMATEL Approach in Analyzing Mobile App Issues

期刊

PROGRAMMING AND COMPUTER SOFTWARE
卷 45, 期 5, 页码 268-287

出版社

PLEIADES PUBLISHING INC
DOI: 10.1134/S0361768819050050

关键词

mobile app; app issues; multi-criteria decision making; Fuzzy-DEMATEL

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the current scenario, the popularity of smartphones has led to the emergence of an ample collection of mobile applications (apps). Mobile apps are dynamic in nature; therefore, classical software development approaches are not suitable. Individual needs of the customer, new technology, battery consumption, and many more issues force app developers regularly introduce new apps to the market. But due to the unavailability of any formal and customized practices of app development, various issues occur in mobile apps. These issues may adversely affect the application and user acceptance of the end product. In this paper, fifteen issues in mobile apps have been identified. Then we applied Fuzzy-DEMATEL (Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory) method to analyze the critical mobile issues (CMIs) and divide these issues into cause and effect groups. Firstly, multiple experts evaluate the direct relations of influential issues in mobile apps. The evaluation results are presented in triangular fuzzy numbers (TFN). Secondly, convert the linguistic terms into TFN. Thirdly, based on DEMATEL, the cause-effect classifications of issues are obtained. Finally, the issues in the cause category are identified as CMIs in mobile apps. The outcome of the research is compared with the other variants of DEMATEL like G-DEMATEL and E-DEMATEL and the comparative results suggest that fuzzy-DEMATEL is the most fitting method to analyze the interrelationship of different issues in mobile apps development. The outcome of this work definitely assists the mobile apps development industry to successful identification of the serious issues where professionals and project managers could really focus on.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据