CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 126Software Engineering Techniques and PracticesMulti-Criteria Decision MakingAdvanced Software Engineering Methodologies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 72 of the 76 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Fuzzy AHP based prioritization and taxonomy of software process improvement success factors in global software development

Khan, Arif Ali, Shameem, Mohammad, Kumar, Rakesh Ranjan, Hussain, Shahid, Yan, Xuefeng·2019·Applied Soft Computing
DOI 10.1016/j.asoc.2019.105648
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.asoc.2019.105648

Cites

72 of 72 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 76 references

4 of the 76 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. M. Kuhrmann, C. Konopka, P. Nellemann, P. Diebold, J. Münch, Software process improvement: where is the evidence?: initial findings from a systematic mapping study, in: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software and System Process.
  2. P. Abrahamsson, Measuring the success of software process improvement: the dimensions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1309.4645, 2013. · arXiv
  3. M. Bano, N. Ikram, Software process improvement: A systematic literature review, in: 15th International Multitopic Conference, INMIC, 2012, pp. 459–464. · DOI
  4. Ayhan, 2013, Fuzzy topsis application for supplier selection problem, Int. J. Inf. Bus. Manag., 5, 159
  5. IEEE, 1991, Standards coordinating committee of the IEEE Computer Society
  6. N. Baddoo, T. Hall, D. Wilson, Implementing a people focused SPI programme, in: 11th European Software Control and Metrics Conference, 2000, pp. 373–382.
  7. N. Bunditwongrat, T. Mathupayas, N. Atcharawan, An empirical framework of key success factors for software process improvement, in: Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Management & Evaluation, 2011, pp. 82–90.
  8. Kabir, 2011, Comparative analysis of AHP and fuzzy AHP models for multicriteria inventory classification, Int. J. Fuzzy Log. Syst., 1, 1

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–126 of 126

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Khan, A. A., Shameem, M., Kumar, R. R., Hussain, S., & Yan, X.
Affiliations
  • Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics (CN)
  • Indian Institute of Technology Dhanbad (IN)
  • COMSATS University Islamabad (PK)
Corresponding author
Khan, Arif Ali
ORCID
Venue
Applied Soft Computing
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-10
Volume
83
Pages
105648
ISSN
1568-4946 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.asoc.2019.105648
OpenAlex
W2965033383
Cited by
126
References
76
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 1
FWCI
26.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
Applied Soft Computing (publishedVersion)
Funders
Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics (1015-YAH18056, 41401010201, 41401010401)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Multi-Criteria Decision Making
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Advanced Software Engineering Methodologies
Keywords
distributed software development, software process improvement, success factors, fuzzy analytic hierarchy process, factor prioritization, taxonomy (general classification scheme), multi-criteria decision making, expert opinion

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review