Designing an Evaluation model of Performance based Budgeting Software through fuzzy Dematel and Analytic Hierarchical Process

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Masrer of Industrial management, Faculty of Management and Economics, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.

2 Professor, Industrial management Department, Faculty of Management and Economics, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.

3 Assistant Professor, Technology Development Management and Center of Studies , Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Extended Abstract
Abstract
Performance-based budgeting is an integral part of government organizations, whose goal is to achieve more efficient and effective implementation than management and performance budgeting in line with public duties, higher quality of public services, reduction of government and staff costs. is. It is necessary to reform the budget process towards performance-based budgeting, selecting software based on strategic planning, measuring performance and aligning with the long-term goals of the organization. Performance-based budgeting software is one of the few rare softwares in the country, so the lack of effective criteria in choosing software makes it difficult for government agencies to waste a huge amount of money. Therefore, the need to develop and successfully implement criteria in this system can improve the efficiency of the organization, manage effective budget expenditures and make it a competitive advantage for the organization by providing a basic for better software selection. This article, by studying the subject literature and software evaluation, the effective criteria for the performance-based budgeting software system with a qualitative-quantitative approach in the form of descriptive-applied research and the participation of several experts in the process of determining the criteria, 11 main criteria and 46 indicators were extracted. A conceptual model has been proposed using fuzzy dematel technique and hierarchical analysis to identify, rank, measure the importance and effectiveness of software criteria. The results indicate that the criteria for producing software, budget, security, and budget and performance reporting are of the importance and have the highest impact on other criteria. Therefore, in order to make optimal decisions and help managers and organizations in order to improve performance, special attention should be paid to these criteria.
Introduction
At present, competition for quality in the software market has become more important. Quality assessment plays an essential role in all aspects of software development. Better programming using budgeting allows managers to improve the financial health of their business (Foster, 2017). Performance in organizations follows a function beyond simple software, because it establishes the theory, model, processes, concepts, and goals of performance-based budgeting in organizations. One of the most important measures for the success of budgeting software is based on the performance measurement of software quality
The purpose of this study is to identify effective criteria in implementing performance-based budgeting software in organizations. Since this is the first time this research has been done, it is considered a new topic.
Theoretical framework
Evaluating and selecting a software system that meets an organization's needs is a complex aspect of the software engineering process (Wolski, Walter, Kupiński, Chojnacki, 2018). There are many software evaluation models. One of the factors influencing the implementation of performance-based budgeting is information technology. This factor alone is affected by the organization's obligation to implement performance-based budgeting (Azar & Amirkhani, 2014).
PBB software, in addition to helping managers evaluate performance and control resources and costs in the organization can help measure the achievement of organizational strategies and long-term and short-term goals. PBB software as a set of support capabilities Operational tasks, including budgeting and planning, performance measurement, and appropriate reporting, are considered
Methodology
The present research is applied in terms of purpose and descriptive and causal in terms of method. The statistical population of this study includes experts and professors in two groups: policymakers and developers, who were selected by snowball sampling.
 The number of statistical sample members is 4 of these people who have relevant technical knowledge, doctoral degree and also have more than 5 years of work experience in the field of performance-based budgeting software system.
Data collection has been collected through library studies, searching on scientific sites and reviewing existing scientific texts on software evaluation methods and decision-making techniques.
Discussion and Results
Findings based on Demtel's technique include 11 main criteria of performance-based budgeting software calculated by Excel software: Flexibility, maintenance, efficiency, performance management, budget, budget reporting, reliability, price Finished, usable, secure and software manufacturer
The weights obtained in relation to software indicators such as integration and smooth communication between software modules, software upgrade capability, observance of user access levels and software encryption and related documents indicate more importance than other indicators.
Conclusion
Criteria for reporting budget, budget, usability and security are the most important. Software manufacturers, budget, security, and budget reporting have the most effective indicators and the strongest relationshp with other metrics. The most influential indicators were flexibility, maintenance capability and efficiency.
Managers need to identify the current budget, capital budget, and assets to determine their expectations of the software and make the budget as transparent as possible. Software security is the Achilles heel of software systems. To reduce the security risks posed by software, engineers need to take a disciplinary approach based on infrastructure, levels of access to information, accuracy and integrity of information, and confidentiality of information. Security is one of the most important concerns of managers.
Manufacturers should prioritize software upgrades according to the organization's needs and ensure smooth integration and communication between modules.
 

Keywords

References

1-Azar, A., Khadivar, A. (2017). Performance based budgeting- Modeling Paradigms. Tehran, Research Center of the Islamic Consultative Assembly, Deputy for Economic Research. (In Persian)
2- Azar, A., khadivar, A., Aminnaseri, M. R., & Anvari rostami, A. R. (2011). Presenting the architecture of the budgeting system based on performance with the intelligent decision support system approach. Management Research in Iran ,15(3), pp.1-22. (In Persian)
3- Azar, A. Rajabzadeh, A. )2014(. Applied Decision MADM Approach Tehran: Negah Danesh Publications. (In Persian)
4- Danaeifard, H., Alvani, M. and Azar, A., (2017). Quantitative Research Methodology in Management: A Comprehensive Approach, Tehran: Saffar Publications – Ishraqi. (In Persian)
5- Azar, A. and Amirkhani, T. (2014). Performance based Budgeting- Theory and implementation model. Tehran, Institute of Management Education and Research and Planning. (In Persian)
6- Abu-Musa, A. A. (2004). The criteria for selecting accounting software: a theoretical framework. Paper presented at the The Second Conference on Administrative Sciences: Meeting the Challenges of the Globalization Age.
7- Andersson, E., Oddsson, L., Grundström, H., Nilsson, J., & Thorstensson, A. J. C. B. (1996). EMG activities of the quadratus lumborum and erector spinae muscles during flexion-relaxation and other motor tasks. 11(7), 392-400 .
8- Arisha, A., & El Baradie, M. (2002). On the selection of simulation software for manufacturing application.
9- Atoum, I., & Bong, C. H. J. a. p. a. (2015). Measuring software quality in use: state-of-the-art and research challenges.
10- Basson, H., Bouneffa, M., Matsuda, M., Ahmad, A., Chung, D., & Arai, E. (2016). Qualitative evaluation of manufacturing software units interoperability using ISO 25000 quality model. In Enterprise interoperability VII (pp. 199-209): Springer.
11- Boehm, B. W., Brown, J. R., & Lipow, M. (1976). Quantitative evaluation of software quality. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Software engineering.
12- Bombardieri, M., & Fontana, F. A. (2009). Software aging assessment through a specialization of the SQuaRE quality model. Paper presented at the 2009 ICSE Workshop on Software Quality.
13- Budiman, E., Wati, M., Widians, J. A., Puspitasari, N., Firdaus, M., Alameka, F. J. P. o. t. E. E. C. S., & Informatics. (2018). ISO/IEC 9126 Quality Model for Evaluation of Student Academic Portal. 5(5), 78-83.
14- Büyüközkan, G., Ruan, D. J. M., & Simulation, C. i. (2008). Evaluation of software development projects using a fuzzy multi-criteria decision approach. 77(5-6), 464-475.
15- Chen-Yi, H., Ke-Ting, C., & Gwo-Hshiung, T. J. I. J. o. F. S. (2007). FMCDM with Fuzzy DEMATEL Approach for Customers' Choice Behavior Model. 9(4).
16- Chua, B. B., & Dyson, L. E. (2004). Applying the ISO 9126 model to the evaluation of an e-learning system. Paper presented at the Proc. of ASCILITE.
17- Colombo, E., & Francalanci, C. J. R. e. (2004). Selecting CRM packages based on architectural, functional, and cost requirements: Empirical validation of a hierarchical ranking model. 9(3), 186-203.
18- Dromey, R. G. J. I. T. o. s. e. (1995). A model for software product quality. 21(2), 146-162.
19- Ferenc, R., Hegedűs, P., & Gyimóthy, T. (2014). Software product quality models. In Evolving software systems (pp. 65-100): Springer.
20- Fitzpatrick, R. (1996). Software quality: definitions and strategic issues.
21- Foster, T. A. (2017). Budget Planning, Budget Control, Business Age, and Financial Performance in Small Businesses.
22- García, M. V. P., Rodríguez, Y. V., Defensa, X., & Ahmad, M. A. Tools to Support the Assesment of the Quality Characteristics Based on ISO/IEC 25000. (2016).
23- Gediga, G., Hamborg, K.-C., Düntsch, I. J. E. o. c. s., & technology. (2002). Evaluation of software systems. 45(supplement 30), 127-153.
24- Illa, X. B., Franch, X., & Pastor, J. A. (2000). Formalising ERP selection criteria. Paper presented at the Tenth International Workshop on Software Specification and Design. IWSSD-10 2000.
25- Karsak, E. E., & Özogul, C. O. J. E. s. w. A. (2009). An integrated decision making approach for ERP system selection. 36(1), 660-667.
26- Lee, K., & Lee, S. J. (2005). A quantitative software quality evaluation model for the artifacts of component based development. Paper presented at the Sixth International Conference on Software Engineering, Artificial Intelligence, Networking and Parallel/Distributed Computing and First ACIS International Workshop on Self-Assembling Wireless Network.
27- Liao, X., Li, Y., & Lu, B. J. I. S. (2007). A model for selecting an ERP system based on linguistic information processing. 32(7), 1005-1017.
28- Lin, H.-Y., Hsu, P.-Y., & Sheen, G.-J. J. E. s. w. a. (2007). A fuzzy-based decision-making procedure for data warehouse system selection. 32(3), 939-953.
29- McCall, J. A., Richards, P. K., & Walters, G. F. (1977). Factors in software quality. volume-iii. preliminary handbook on software quality for an acquisiton manager. Retrieved from
30- Ngai, E. W., & Chan, E. J. E. s. w. a. (2005). Evaluation of knowledge management tools using AHP. 29(4), 889-899.
31- Nikoukaran, J., Hlupic, V., Paul, R. J. J. S. P., & Theory. (1999). A hierarchical framework for evaluating simulation software. 7(3), 219-231.
32- Behboudi asl, M. Rahmani., H, R. Y., Ansari, M., & Mirkazemi, M. M. (2012). Identifying the factors influencing the choice of organizational resource planning systems (ERP) from the perspective of experts. Information Technology Management,4(12), pp.1-22(in persian)                
33- Normalización, O. I. d. (2011). ISO-IEC 25010: 2011 Systems and Software Engineering-Systems and Software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE)-System and Software Quality Models: ISO.
34- Ramos, R. C. B., Villagrán, N. V., Yoo, S. G., & Quiña, G. N. (2018). Software Quality Assessment Applied for the Governmental Organizations using ISO/IEC 25000. Paper presented at the 2018 International Conference on eDemocracy & eGovernment (ICEDEG).
35- Tewoldeberhan, T. W., Verbraeck, A., Valentin, E., & Bardonnet, G. (2002). An evaluation and selection methodology for discrete-event simulation software. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Winter Simulation Conference.
36- Valenti, S., Cucchiarelli, A., & Panti, M. J. J. o. I. T. E. R. (2002). Computer based assessment systems evaluation via the ISO9126 quality model. 1(1), 157-175.
37- Wolski, M., Walter, B., Kupiński, S., Chojnacki, J. J. J. o. S. E., & Process. (2018). Software quality model for a research‐driven organization—An experience report. 30(5), e1911.
38- Zaidan, A., Zaidan, B., Al-Haiqi, A., Kiah, M. L. M., Hussain, M., & Abdulnabi, M. J. J. o. b. i. (2015). Evaluation and selection of open-source EMR software packages based on integrated AHP and TOPSIS. 53, 390-404.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics