Selecting a Software Engineering Methodology Using Multiobjective Decision Analysis

With the emergence of agent-oriented software engineering methodologies, software developers have a new set of tools to solve complex software requirements. One problem software developers face is to determine which methodology is the best approach to take to developing a solution. A number of factors go into the decision process. This thesis defines a decision making process that can be used by a software engineer to determine whether or not a software engineering approach is an appropriate system development strategy. This decision analysis process allows the software engineer to classify and evaluate a set of methodologies while specifically considering the software requirement at hand. The decision-making process is developed on a multi-objective decision analysis technique. This type of technique is necessary as there are a number of different, and sometimes conflicting, criterions. The set of criteria used to base the decision was derived from literature sources and validated by an opinion survey conducted to members of the software engineering community. After developing the decision making framework, a number of case studies are examined.

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work.

This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work.

As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.