Journal "Software Engineering"
a journal on theoretical and applied science and technology
ISSN 2220-3397

Issue N11 2025 year

DOI: 10.17587/prin.16.570-582
Application of the TOPSIS Group Fuzzy Multicriteria Analysis Method for Selecting a Graphical User Interface Framework
R. V. Shershnev, Senior Lecturer, rvshershnev@yandex.ru, A. R. Teplyakova, Postgraduate Student, Senior Lecturer, anastasija-t23@mail.ru, Obninsk Institute for Nuclear Power Engineering of the National Research Nuclear University "MEPhI", Obninsk, 249040, Russian Federation
Corresponding author: Roman V. Shershnev, Senior Lecturer, Obninsk Institute for Nuclear Power Engineering of the National Research Nuclear University "MEPhI", Obninsk, 249040, Russian Federation, E-mail: rvshershnev@yandex.ru
Received on May 13, 2025
Accepted on July 08, 2025

One of the stages of software development is architecture design. Software architecture should be easily adaptable to requirements that may change over time. Over the years of research, various approaches have been created to simplify the architecture design process. This paper describes the application of the TOPSIS group fuzzy decision analysis method taking into account consensus in the development of the program for viewing DICOM files, which are widely used to store and transmit medical research data. The method is used to rank software frameworks for implementing a graphical user interface. From the generated set of acceptable alternatives, the frameworks Avalonia UI, Eto, Uno Platform, .NET Multi-platform App UI were selected for analysis. During the brainstorming process, the involved experts formed the following criteria for evaluating the selected frameworks: platform support, performance, community and support, custom component libraries, flexibility. The Avalonia UI framework was chosen as the best alternative with a score of 0.768 and a consensus of 0.06. The practical significance of the work lies in demonstrating a way to solve an important problem that arises at one of the stages of software development. By using the TOPSIS group fuzzy decision analysis method, a number of advantages are achieved, including taking into account uncertainty, taking into account several criteria, integrating different opinions, and distributing responsibility. It is also worth noting the disadvantages, which include the need to involve a specialist competent in conducting the decision analysis process and processing its results, as well as additional time costs.

Keywords: group decision analysis, MCDA, fuzzy number, group fuzzy TOPSIS, software architecture, DICOM, DICOM viewer, medical images
pp. 570—582
For citation:
Shershnev R. V., Teplyakova A. R. Application of the TOPSIS Group Fuzzy Multicriteria Analysis Method for Selecting a Graphical User Interface Framework, Programmnaya Ingeneria, 2025, vol. 16, no. 11, pp. 570—582. DOI: 10.17587/prin.16.570-582. (in Russian).
References:
  1. GOST R 57100-2016/ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010:2011. Systems and software engineering. Architecture description. Introduction date 01.09.2017 (in Russian).
  2. Richards M., Ford N. Fundamentals of Software Architecture: An Engineering Approach, Sebastopol, O'Reilly Media, Inc, 2020, 448 p.
  3. Ford N., Richards M., Sadalage P., Dehghani Z. Software Architecture: The Hard Parts: Modern Tradeoff Analysis, Sebastopol, O'Reilly Media, Inc, 2022, 480 p.
  4. Tang A., Razavian M., Paech B., Hesse T-M. Human Aspects in Software Architecture Decision Making — A Literature Re­view, IEEE ICSA, 2017, pp. 307—116. DOI: 10.1109/ICSA.2017.15.
  5. Pandey V., Komal K., Dincer H. A review on TOPSIS method and its extensions for different applications with recent development, Soft Computing, 2023, vol. 27, no. 23, pp. 18011—18039. DOI: 10.1007/s00500-023-09011-0.
  6. Palczewski K., Salabun W. The fuzzy TOPSIS applications in the last decade, Procedia Computer Science, 2019, vol. 159, pp. 2294—2303. DOI: 10.1016/j.procs.2019.09.404.
  7. Rajak M., Shaw K. Evaluation and selection of mobile health (mHealth) applications using AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS, Technology in Society, 2019, vol. 59, article 101186. DOI: 10.1016/j. techsoc.2019.101186.
  8. Afrin A., Sadiq M. An integrated approach for the selection of software requirements using fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOP-SIS method, ICICICT, 2017, pp. 1094—1100. DOI: 10.1109/ICICICT1.2017.8342722.
  9. Kumar R., Khan A., Abushark Y. et al. An Integrated Approach of Fuzzy Logic, AHP and TOPSIS for Estimating Usable-Security of Web Applications, IEEE Access, 2020, vol. 8, pp. 50944—50957. DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2970245.
  10. Abushark Y., Khan A., Alsolami F. et al. Usability Evaluation Through Fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS Approach: Security Requirement Perspective, CMC, 2021, vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 1203—1218. DOI: 10.32604/cmc.2021.016610.
  11. Mahmudova S. Application of the TOPSIS method to improve software efficiency and to optimize its management, Soft Computing, 2020, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 697—708. DOI: 10.1007/s00500-019-04549-4.
  12. Salimov V. Selection of software on base of fuzzy topsis method, World Science, 2022, no. 3 (75), pp. 1—5. DOI: 10.31435/rsglobal_ws/30042022/7799.
  13. Vysochan O., Vysochan O., Yasinska A., Hyk V. Selection of Accounting Software for Small and Medium Enterprises Using the Fuzzy Topsis Method, TEM Journal, 2021, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 1348—1356. DOI: 10.18421/TEM103-43.
  14. Mercy A., Agbele K. Selection of Educational Software Tools based on AHP and TOPSIS-Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), School Management Software (SMS), Multicriteria Decision Making (MCDM), IJETR, 2022, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 648—651.
  15. Zare A., Feylizadeh M., Mahmoudi D. et al. Suitable computerized maintenance management system selection using grey group TOPSIS and fuzzy group VIKOR: A case study, Decision Science Letters, 2018, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 341—358. DOI: 10.5267/j.dsl.2018.3.002.
  16. Cabrerizo F., Perez I., Chiclana F., Enrique H.-V. Group Decision Making: Consensus Approaches Based on Soft Consensus Measures, Fuzzy Sets, Rough Sets. Multisets and Clustering, Springer, Cham, 2017, pp. 307—321. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-47557-8_18.
  17. Ding R.-X., Palomares I., Wang X. et al. Large-scale decision-making: characterization, taxonomy, challenges and future directions from an artificial intelligence and applications perspective, Inf. Fusion, 2020, vol. 59, pp. 84—102. DOI: 10.1016/j. inffus.2020.01.006.
  18. Tran T., Felfernig A., Le V. An overview of consensus models for group decision-making and group recommender systems, User Model User-Adap Inter, 2024, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 489-547. DOI: 10.1007/s11257-023-09380-z.
  19. Shershnev R. V., Teplyakova A. R. Program for visualization and analysis of DICOM medical files, 2024. Pat. RF, № 2024617422 (in Russian).
  20. Bustince H., Barrenechea E., Pagola M. et al. A historical account of types of fuzzy sets and their relationships, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 2016, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 179—194. DOI: 10.1109/TFUZZ.2015.2451692.
  21. Wang X., Ruan D., Kerre E. E. Mathematics of Fuzziness — Basic Issues, Berlin, Springer, 2009, 219 p.
  22. Yatsalo B., Korobov A., Oztaysi B. et al. A general approach to Fuzzy TOPSIS based on the concept of Fuzzy Multicriteria Acceptability Analysis, Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, 2020, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 979—995. DOI: 10.3233/JIFS-179463.
  23. Yatsalo B., Radaev A., Martinez L. From MCDA to fuzzy MCDA: Presumption of model adequacy or is every fuzzification of an mCDA method justified?, Information Sciences, 2022, vol. 587, pp. 371—392. DOI: 10.1016/j.ins.2021.12.051.
  24. Shershnev R. V., Radaev A. V., Korobov A. V., Yatsalo B. I. A group multicriteria decision analysis module based on fuzzy extension of TOPSIS method, Software & Systems, 2022, no. 2, pp. 160— 170. DOI: 10.15827/0236-235X.138.160-170 (in Russian).
  25. Aceto G., Persico V., Pescape A. Industry 4.0 and Health: Internet of Things, Big Data, and Cloud Computing for Healthcare 4.0, Journal of Industrial Information Integration, 2020, vol. 18, no. 1, arctilce 100129. DOI: 10.1016/j.jii.2020.100129.
  26. Masood A., Naseem U., Rashid J. et al. Review on enhancing clinical decision support system using machine learning, CAAI Transactions on Intelligence Technology, 2024. DOI: 10.1049/cit2.12286.
  27. van Leeuwen K. G., Schalekamp S., Rutten M. J. C. M. et al. Artificial intelligence in radiology: 100 commercially available products and their scientific evidence, Eur Radiol, 2021, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 3797—3804. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-021-07892-z.
  28. Wadali J. S., Sood S. P., Kaushish R. et al. Evaluation of Free, Open-source, Web-based DICOM Viewers for the Indian National Telemedicine Service (eSanjeevani), J Digit Imaging, 2020, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 1499—1513. DOI: 10.1007/s10278-020-00368-4.
  29. Ruiz M., Julia A., Boada I. Starviewer and its comparison with other open-source DICOM viewers using a novel hierarchical evaluation framework, Int J Med Inform, 2020, vol. 137, no. 3, article 104098. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2020.104098.
  30. Tomczak K., Czerwinska P., Wiznerowicz M. The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA): an immeasurable source of knowledge, Contemp Oncol (Pozn), 2015, vol. 19, no. 1A, pp. A68— A77. DOI: 10.5114/wo.2014.47136.
  31. Teplyakova A. R., Shershnev R. V. Program for training models of muscle tissue segmentation on computed tomography images, 2024, Pat. RF, no. 2024612322 (in Russian).
  32. Takahashi N., Sugimoto M., Psutka S. P. et al. Validation study of a new semi-automated software program for CT body composition analysis, Abdominal Radiology, 2017, vol. 42, no. 9, pp. 2369—2375. DOI: 10.1007/s00261-017-1123-6.