Search results

This study aims to develop a software risk prioritization model using analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and further validate the usability attributes of the model in prioritizing operational, technical, technological, strategic and environmental software risks.

Questionnaire was used to collect data from software practitioners to evaluate the usability attributes of the AHP-software risk prioritization model. Accordingly, partial least square-structural equation modeling was used to analyze the collected data.

Results reveal that the developed AHP-software risk prioritization model is efficient and effective in facilitating software risk factor prioritization. In addition, results suggest that the experts are satisfied with the learnability, accessibility and navigation capability of the model. Besides, results indicate that the model provides a useable interface and system design for content availability of information needed by software practitioners in evaluating and prioritizing operational, technical, technological, strategic and environmental risk. Furthermore, results show that the experts intend to adopt the model to prioritize identified software risk in their firm.

Methodologically, the developed AHP-software risk prioritization model is faced with issues such as inconsistency in judgments, weakness of confronting ambiguities and uncertainties of high complexity. Empirically, data were collected from software practitioners in Malaysia to validate the AHP-software risk prioritization model. Hence, results from this study cannot be generalized to other software practitioners in different countries.

This study developed a software risk prioritization model to evaluate and prioritize software risks that occur in software organizations by deploying AHP to carryout risk factor priority selection. Moreover, the model provides risk knowledge as guidelines for evaluating software risks in software organizations.

The developed AHP-software risk prioritization model computes risk prioritization factor priority selection and further supports software practitioners and evaluates risks and associated risk factors. Besides, this study develops an instrument that can be used in project risk management to validate the usability attributes of software risk approaches.

This research designs use case and class diagram to show how the AHP-software risk prioritization model evaluates and prioritizes software risks factors by using risk evaluation questions. Additionally, the AHP-software risk prioritization model computes, evaluates and prioritizes software risk factors using risk factor priority selection for software project management.

Summarization of an entire web site with diverse content may lead to a summary heavily biased towards the site's dominant topics. The purpose of this paper is to present a novel topic‐based framework to address this problem.

A two‐stage framework is proposed. The first stage identifies the main topics covered in a web site via clustering and the second stage summarizes each topic separately. The proposed system is evaluated by a user study and compared with the single‐topic summarization approach.

The user study demonstrates that the clustering‐summarization approach statistically significantly outperforms the plain summarization approach in the multi‐topic web site summarization task. Text‐based clustering based on selecting features with high variance over web pages is reliable; outgoing links are useful if a rich set of cross links is available.

More sophisticated clustering methods than those used in this study are worth investigating. The proposed method should be tested on web content that is less structured than organizational web sites, for example blogs.

The proposed summarization framework can be applied to the effective organization of search engine results and faceted or topical browsing of large web sites.

Several key components are integrated for web site summarization for the first time, including feature selection and link analysis, key phrase and key sentence extraction. Insight into the contributions of links and content to topic‐based summarization was gained. A classification approach is used to minimize the number of parameters.

Taking a co-creation perspective and integrating knowledge-based and resource-based perspectives, the authors examine the role of customer participation in organizational performance and project success. The authors also investigate the mediating role of knowledge integration and the moderating role of requirement risk for these relationships in uncertain contexts.

The authors undertook two studies. The first study was carried out in 2018 in which the authors drew on survey data from 150 information technology (IT) sector employees and examined the mediating role of knowledge integration in the relationship of customer participation with organizational performance and project success. In the second study undertaken in 2020, the authors drew on data from 92 IT and telecom sector employees and examined the moderating role of requirement risk in the relationship between customer participation and knowledge integration. Study 2 was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic when employees were largely working from home and were more sensitive to risks and uncertainty about the scope and system requirements. Both studies were survey-based, and analysis was carried out using structural equation modeling.

The authors’ two-study examination indicated that knowledge integration positively mediates the relationship of customer participation with organizational performance and project success during the co-creation process. Furthermore, the authors demonstrate that when requirement risks are high, customer participation relationship with knowledge integration is weaker.

The authors show that integrating customer knowledge is critical to project success and organizational performance. By identifying risk uncertainties and environmental contingencies, the authors highlight the constraints of customer participation for knowledge integration, organizational performance and project success. The authors provide some key study findings based on survey data obtained from project teams during two periods (normal and pandemic).

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Index by subjects, compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Index by subjects, compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.