4
6. Lack
of Cohesion
Methods LCOM
LCOM measures the dissimilarity of methods in a class instance variables or
attributes. With high cohesion means indicates
the better
class. So much simpler and have a high
reusability properties. Meanwhile, the lower the cohesion or lack of cohesion,
the more
complex class.
1.4.2. PROPERTY
QUALITY SOFTWARE
DESIGN
The quality of design in aspects of object-oriented software and adapted to
OO Metric
then only
a few
characteristics or properties of quality which can be evaluated to measure the
quality of code and design is efficiency, complexity,
Understandability, reusability, maintainability testability.
1. Efficiency:
Is the design and software implementation has been done
efficiently? 2. Complexity:
Can the software implementation is used more effectively
so that the lower level of complexity? 3. Understandability:
Is the design of the software easier to understand?
4. Reusability: Is the quality of software design to support reuse reuse?
5. Maintainability Testability: Is the design of software support for easy
testing
and changes?
1. Property Relations Quality Design Software and Parameter Moose CK
Table 1. Property Relations and Parameters Software Quality Metric
Properti Kualitas
Software Parameter
Metric
Efficiency LCOM, CBO, DIT, NOC
Complexity CC Traditional Metric
Understandabili ty
WMC, RFC, DIT Reusability
WMC, LCOM, CBO, DIT, NOC Maintainability
Testability WMC, RFC, DIT, NOC
In table 1 above it appears that research Linda H. Rosenberg and Lawrence E
Hyaat in 2003, shows the complexity properties Moose CK does not use
parameters, but using the cyclomatic Complexity CC. In another research
in 1993,
mainly property
maintainability testability
using similar parameters, DIT, NOC, RFC,
LCOM, WMC, DAC, NOM, SIZE1, SIZE2, MPC
. Meanwhile, according Magiel and Arie Van Deursen Bruntink
in the Journal of MTI UI, 2007: 13, DIT, LCOM, NOC, RFC, WMC,
FOUT, LOCC,
NOF, NOM
, parameters in bold are not included
moose CK.
2. Effect of Parameters on the Properties
Moose CK
Design Software
Quality
Research Linda
Rosenberg and
Lawrence H E Hyatt on the relationship and influence between the parameters
and properties Metric OO software design quality shows that parameter
values inversely Moose CK-quality software
design 1.4.3. Analytic Hierarchy Process
AHP Method of Analytic Hierarchy Process
AHP was developed by Thomas L. Saaty in the 70s when the Warston
School. AHP is one method that can be used in the decision system by
observing the factors of perception, preference, experience and intuition.
AHP
incorporates judgments
and personal values into a single logical
way. Analytic Hierarchy Process AHP to
solve the complex problem of multiple criteria into a hierarchy. Complex
problem can be interpreted that the criteria of a problem that so many
multiple criteria, the structure of the problem
is unclear,
uncertainty opinions of decision makers, decision
makers more than one person, and inaccuracies
of data
available. According to Saaty, the hierarchy is
defined as a representation of a complex problem in a multi-level
structure where the first level is the goal, which followed the level of
factors, criteria, sub criteria, and so on down to the last level of the alternative.
5
With a hierarchy, a complex problem can be decomposed into group-the
group who then arranged into a form of hierarchy so that the problem would
seem more structured and systematic. Analytic Hierarchy Process AHP has
an axiomatic foundation that consists of:
1. Reciprocal Comparison,
which means the decision makers must be able
to make comparisons and express preferences. Preference itself should
qualify reciprocal ie if A is more preferable than B with a scale of x, then
B is more preferred than A with a scale of
1: x.
2. Homogenity, which mean a persons preference should be expressed in a
limited scale or in other words, the elements can be compared with each
other. If this axiom can not be met then the elements being compared are not
homogenous and have formed a cluster group
elements is
new. 3. Independence, which means the
preference expressed by assuming that the criteria are not influenced by the
existing alternatives but the overall objective. This shows that the pattern of
dependence or influence in the AHP model is the direction upwards,
meaning the ratio between the elements in one level are influenced by or
dependent elements in the above level. 4. Expectations, it means for the
purpose
of decision
making, hierarchical
structure is
assumed complete. If this assumption is not
fulfilled then the decision maker does not use all or objective criteria and the
available or required so that decisions taken
are considered
incomplete. 1. Basic Principles Hierarcy Analytic
Process AHP
1. Decomposition Definition of decomposition is to solve
problems or divide the elements into a hierarchical model intact into the
process of making a decision element, in which each element or elements are
interconnected. Figure
1. Structure
Hierarchy Source: Journal of Public Universities
of North
Sumatra 2. Comparative
Judgement Comparative judgment conducted an
assessment of the relative importance of two elements at a certain level in
relation to the level above it. This assessment is the core of AHP because
it will affect the priority order of the elements
of its
elements. 3. Synthesis
of Priority
Synthesis of priority is done by using the eigen vector method to obtain the
relative weights of decision elements. 4. Logical
Consistency Logical consistency is an important
characteristic of AHP. This is achieved by mengagresikan all eigen vector
obtained from various levels of
hierarchy and subsequently obtained a weighted
composite vector
that produces the sequence of decision
making. Table 2 this is Saathy scale used in the
implementation of the AHP method. As in the previous explanation, the
description column to change the words for in accordance with the subject
issues. In the last line is the opposite of the value comparison. So as in the
example above, if the object A has a value of 3 than the value of B, then the
value of B has a value of 1 3 compared to the object A
Tujuan
Kriteria 1
Alternatif 2 Alternatif 1
Kriteria 2 Kriteria 3
Kriteria 4
Alternatif 3
Kategori