Quality assessment of measurement instrument software with analytic hierarchy process

Authors

  • Oleh Velychko State Enterprise “All-Ukrainian State Scientific and Production Centre for Standardization, Metrology, Certification and Protection of Consumer”, (SE “Ukrmetrteststandard”) Metrolohychna str., 4, Kyiv, Ukraine, 03143, Ukraine https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6564-4144
  • Oleh Hrabovskyi Odessa State Academy of Technical Regulation and Quality Kovalska str., 15, Odessa, Ukraine, 65020, Ukraine https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7134-3682
  • Tetyana Gordiyenko Odessa State Academy of Technical Regulation and Quality Kovalska str., 15, Odessa, Ukraine, 65020, Ukraine https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0324-9672

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15587/1729-4061.2019.175811

Keywords:

software, measuring instrument, quality assessment, analytical hierarchy process

Abstract

A comparative analysis of the results of conformity assessment of software for measuring instruments (MI) was carried out. For comparative evaluation, eight MI software with built-in and universal computers were selected. Selected MI software was preliminarily evaluated by methods and algorithms that are based on the requirements of national standards and documents of international and regional legal metrology organizations OIML and WELMEC. Based on the results of the analysis of the requirements of the WELMEC guidelines for testing MI software, generalized and particular indicators were selected for assessing the quality of MI software. Expressions to obtain the numerical value of each partial indicator for each generalized indicator was generated.

For comparative evaluation, the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was chosen, since it allows comparing and quantifying alternative solutions. For the purpose of relevant comparison, when evaluating a specific MI software, all compared elements were taken into account. The latter were grouped into generalized indicators, each of which was evaluated separately. Pairwise comparisons and all other stages of assessment using AHP were carried out on the basis of generalized indicators. For pairwise comparison of all quantitative and qualitative indicators with the presentation of the equation in a quantitative form, the Saati scale was used. The weight coefficients of each partial indicator were determined by the expert method.

The main indicators for MI software with a built-in and universal computer were determined, which have the greatest impact on the results of conformity assessment. It was found that without the presentation of documentation and identification of MI software with built-in and universal computers, it is impossible to begin the conformity assessment procedure in accordance with the requirements. The test indicator of storage devices and the special test indicator of software for particular MI are some of the significant indicators. At the same time, the reading test indicator and the test indicator of software separation levels are practically not applicable and can be neglected.

Author Biographies

Oleh Velychko, State Enterprise “All-Ukrainian State Scientific and Production Centre for Standardization, Metrology, Certification and Protection of Consumer”, (SE “Ukrmetrteststandard”) Metrolohychna str., 4, Kyiv, Ukraine, 03143

Doctor of Technical Sciences, Professor, Director

Scientific and Production Institute of Electromagnetic Measurements

Oleh Hrabovskyi, Odessa State Academy of Technical Regulation and Quality Kovalska str., 15, Odessa, Ukraine, 65020

PhD, Associate Professor, Director

Educational and Scientific Institute of Metrology, Automation, Intellectual Technologies and Electronics

Tetyana Gordiyenko, Odessa State Academy of Technical Regulation and Quality Kovalska str., 15, Odessa, Ukraine, 65020

Doctor of Technical Sciences, Associate Professor, Head of Department

Department of Standardization, Conformity Assessment and Educational Measurements

References

  1. Directive 2014/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making available on the market of measuring instruments (recast) // Official Journal of the European Union, 2004. L96/149. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32014L0032
  2. OIML D 31:2008. General Requirements for Software Controlled Measuring Instruments (2008). OIML. Paris, 53.
  3. COOMET R/LM/10:2004. COOMET Recommendation: Software for Measuring Instruments: General Technical Specifications (2004). COOMET, 10.
  4. WELMEC 7.1. Informative Document: Development of Software Requirements. Available at: http://www.welmec.org/fileadmin/user_files/publications/WG_07/7-1_FRPO.pdf
  5. WELMEC 7.2. Software Guide (Measuring Instruments Directive 2014/32/EU1). Available at: http://www.welmec.org/fileadmin/user_files/publications/WG_07/Guide_7.2_2015__Software.pdf
  6. WELMEC 2.3. Guide for Examining Software (Non-automatic Weighing Instruments). Available at: http://www.welmec.org/fileadmin/user_files/publications/2-3.pdf
  7. Velichko, O. N. (2007). Normative base for certification of measurement provision software. Measurement Techniques, 50 (4), 364–371. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11018-007-0076-5
  8. Velichko, O. N. (2009). Basic tests, stages, and features in monitoring measuring instrument software. Measurement Techniques, 52 (6), 566–571. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11018-009-9308-1
  9. Velychko, O., Gordiyenko, T., Hrabovskyi, O. (2018). Testing of measurement instrument software on the national level. Eastern-European Journal of Enterprise Technologies, 2 (9 (92)), 13–20. doi: https://doi.org/10.15587/1729-4061.2018.125994
  10. Velychko, O., Gaman, V., Gordiyenko, T., Hrabovskyi, O. (2019). Testing of measurement instrument software with the purpose of conformity assessment. Eastern-European Journal of Enterprise Technologies, 1 (9 (97)), 19–26. doi: https://doi.org/10.15587/1729-4061.2019.154352
  11. DSTU 7363:2013. Prohramne zabezpechennia zasobiv vymiriuvalnoi tekhniky. Zahalni tekhnichni vymohy (2013). Kyiv: Minekonomrozvytku Ukrainy, 11.
  12. Tasić, T., Grottker, U. (2006). An overview of guidance documents for software in metrological applications. Computer Standards & Interfaces, 28 (3), 256–269. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2005.07.012
  13. Richter, D., Grottker, U., Talebi, D., Schwartz, R. (2006). The new European software guide for legal metrology: Basic principles. Computer Standards & Interfaces, 28 (3), 270–276. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2005.07.005
  14. Jacobson, J. (2006). Validation of software in measuring instruments. Computer Standards & Interfaces, 28 (3), 277–285. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2005.07.006
  15. Esche, M., Thiel, F. (2015). Software Risk Assessment for Measuring Instruments in Legal Metrology. Proceedings of the 2015 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems. doi: https://doi.org/10.15439/2015f127
  16. Sadiq, M., Md. Khalid Imam Rahmani, Mohd. Wazih Ahmad, & Jung, S. (2010). Software risk assessment and evaluation process (SRAEP) using model based approach. 2010 International Conference on Networking and Information Technology. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/icnit.2010.5508535
  17. Peters, D., Grottker, U., Thiel, F., Peter, M., Seifert, J.-P. (2014). Achieving Software Security for Measuring Instruments under Legal Control. Position Papers of the 2014 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems. doi: https://doi.org/10.15439/2014f460
  18. Boccardo, D. R., dos Santos, L. C. G., da Costa Carmo, L. F. R., Dezan, M. H., Machado, R. C. S., de Aguiar Portugal, S. (2010). Software evaluation of smart meters within a Legal Metrology perspective: A Brazilian case. 2010 IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Conference Europe (ISGT Europe). doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/isgteurope.2010.5638881
  19. Peters, D., Peter, M., Seifert, J.-P., Thiel, F. (2015). A Secure System Architecture for Measuring Instruments in Legal Metrology. Computers, 4 (2), 61–86. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/computers4020061
  20. Saaty, T. L. (1992). The Hierarchon: A Dictionary of Hierarchies. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: RWS Publications, 496.
  21. Saati, T. L. (2008). Prinyatie resheniy pri zavisimostyah i obratnyh svyazyah: Analiticheskie seti. Moscow: Izd-vo LKI, 360.
  22. Drake, P. R. (1998). Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process in Engineering Education. International Journal of Engineering Education, 14 (3), 191–196.
  23. Roy, R. (Ed.) (2004). Strategic Decision Making: Applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Springer-Verlag, 170. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/b97668
  24. Longaray, A. A., Gois, J. de D. R., Munhoz, P. R. da S. (2015). Proposal for using AHP Method to Evaluate the Quality of Services Provided by Outsourced Companies. Procedia Computer Science, 55, 715–724. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.07.083
  25. Velychko, O., Gordiyenko, T., Kolomiets, L. (2017). A comparative analysis of the assessment results of the competence of technical experts by different methods. Eastern-European Journal of Enterprise Technologies, 4 (3 (88)), 4–10. doi: https://doi.org/10.15587/1729-4061.2017.106825

Downloads

Published

2019-08-13

How to Cite

Velychko, O., Hrabovskyi, O., & Gordiyenko, T. (2019). Quality assessment of measurement instrument software with analytic hierarchy process. Eastern-European Journal of Enterprise Technologies, 4(9 (100), 35–42. https://doi.org/10.15587/1729-4061.2019.175811

Issue

Vol. 4 No. 9 (100) (2019): Information and controlling system

Section

Information and controlling system

License

Copyright (c) 2019 Oleh Velychko, Oleh Hrabovskyi, Tetyana Gordiyenko

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

The consolidation and conditions for the transfer of copyright (identification of authorship) is carried out in the License Agreement. In particular, the authors reserve the right to the authorship of their manuscript and transfer the first publication of this work to the journal under the terms of the Creative Commons CC BY license. At the same time, they have the right to conclude on their own additional agreements concerning the non-exclusive distribution of the work in the form in which it was published by this journal, but provided that the link to the first publication of the article in this journal is preserved.

A license agreement is a document in which the author warrants that he/she owns all copyright for the work (manuscript, article, etc.).
The authors, signing the License Agreement with TECHNOLOGY CENTER PC, have all rights to the further use of their work, provided that they link to our edition in which the work was published.
According to the terms of the License Agreement, the Publisher TECHNOLOGY CENTER PC does not take away your copyrights and receives permission from the authors to use and dissemination of the publication through the world's scientific resources (own electronic resources, scientometric databases, repositories, libraries, etc.).
In the absence of a signed License Agreement or in the absence of this agreement of identifiers allowing to identify the identity of the author, the editors have no right to work with the manuscript.
It is important to remember that there is another type of agreement between authors and publishers – when copyright is transferred from the authors to the publisher. In this case, the authors lose ownership of their work and may not use it in any way.