Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A novel framework for risk management of software projects by integrating a new COPRAS method under cloud model and machine learning algorithms

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Annals of Operations Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Project risk management which has been rarely considered, especially in software projects, is a crucial process to complete projects successfully. This paper aims to propose a novel project risk management framework both to evaluate the project risks and to predict the success or failure of software projects based on their risk. This new framework uses Machine Learning (ML) and Multi-Attribute Decision-Making under a cloud model to effectively manage uncertainty. Based on the proposed framework, in the first stage, the important risks of the software projects are identified by an organized approach. Then, the risks are evaluated based on their probability and impacts on time, cost, and quality. In the second stage, the obtained results of the previous stage are entered into a new COPRAS method under the cloud model to rank the risks. Then, the risks are classified into various groups according to their rank. It helps project managers to gain a profound awareness of their high-priority project risks. In this paper, data on risks for fifty software projects has been collected. All the steps of the second stage are implemented on these projects in order to assess their risks. As a result, a data set whose features are nine types of software project risks and the label of success or failure of the projects is created. To recognize the pattern between risks’ values and the success or failure of the projects, various efficient ML algorithms such as Naive Bayes, Logistic regression, Decision Tree, Bagging, Random Forest, and AdaBoost are applied. This framework can predict the success or failure of software projects based on their risks with good accuracy. The results depict that the Naive Bayes algorithm has the best results compared to others.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aghdaie, M. H., Zolfani, S. H., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2013). Decision making in machine tool selection: An integrated approach with SWARA and COPRAS-G methods. Engineering Economics, 24(1), 5–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aksoy, E., Ömürbek, N., & Karaatli, M. (2015). AHP temelli MULTIMOORA ve COPRAS yöntemi ile Türkiye Kömür Ä°ÅŸletmeleri’nin performans deÄŸerlendirmesi. Hacettepe Ãœniversitesi Iktisadi Ve Idari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 33(4), 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alvand, A., Mirhosseini, S. M., Ehsanifar, M., Zeighami, E., & Mohammadi, A. (2023). Identification and assessment of risk in construction projects using the integrated FMEA-SWARA-WASPAS model under fuzzy environment: A case study of a construction project in Iran. International Journal of Construction Management, 23(3), 392–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arafeh, H., El-Ahmad, A., & Pierce, P. (2017). The influence of software risk management on software project success. Lund University School of Economics and Management.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banerjee Chattapadhyay, D., Putta, J., & Rama Mohan Rao, P. (2021). Risk identification, assessments, and prediction for mega construction projects: A risk prediction paradigm based on cross analytical-machine learning model. Buildings, 11(4), 172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breiman, L. (1996). Bagging Predictors. Machine Learning, 24, 123–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cekirge, H. M. (2015). Quantitative risk assessment for crude oil pipelines. International Journal of Environmental Monitoring and Analysis., 3(3), 147–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Celik, E., & Gul, M. (2021). Hazard identification, risk assessment and control for dam construction safety using an integrated BWM and MARCOS approach under interval type-2 fuzzy sets environment. Automation in Construction, 127, 103699.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elmousalami, H. H. (2020). Comparison of artificial intelligence techniques for project conceptual cost prediction: A case study and comparative analysis. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 68(1), 183–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • El-Sayegh, S. M., Manjikian, S., Ibrahim, A., Abouelyousr, A., & Jabbour, R. (2021). Risk identification and assessment in sustainable construction projects in the UAE. International Journal of Construction Management, 21(4), 327–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Filippetto, A. S., Lima, R., & Barbosa, J. L. V. (2021). A risk prediction model for software project management based on similarity analysis of context histories. Information and Software Technology, 131, 106497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gondia, A., Siam, A., El-Dakhakhni, W., & Nassar, A. H. (2020). Machine learning algorithms for construction projects delay risk prediction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 146(1), 04019085.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haghighi, M. H., & Ashrafi, M. (2022). A new qualitative and quantitative analytical approach for risk management in energy project time-cost trade-off problem under interval type-2 fuzzy uncertainty: A case study in the gas industry. Energy Reports, 8, 12668–12685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haghighi, M. H., & Mousavi, S. M. (2022). A mathematical model and two fuzzy approaches based on credibility and expected interval for project cost-quality-risk trade-off problem in time-constrained conditions. Algorithms, 15(7), 226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haghighi, M. H., Mousavi, S. M., & Rajabzadeh, M. (2023). An optimization model for energy project scheduling problem with cost-risk-quality-social consideration trade-off under uncertainty: A real-world application. Energy Strategy Reviews, 50, 101189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han, W., Jiang, L., Lu, T., & Zhang, X. (2015). Comparison of machine learning algorithms for software project time prediction. International Journal of Multimedia and Ubiquitous Engineering, 10(9), 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hasher, M., & Shafiq, M. (2022). Software project risk management practices and their effects on project success. Journal of Innovation and Emerging Technologies, 2(1), 9–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hezam, I. M., Mishra, A. R., Rani, P., Saha, A., Smarandache, F., & Pamucar, D. (2023). An integrated decision support framework using single-valued neutrosophic-MASWIP-COPRAS for sustainability assessment of bioenergy production technologies. Expert Systems with Applications, 211, 118674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hezer, S., Gelmez, E., & Özceylan, E. (2021). Comparative analysis of TOPSIS, VIKOR and COPRAS methods for the COVID-19 regional safety assessment. Journal of Infection and Public Health, 14(6), 775–786.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh, M. Y., Hsu, Y. C., & Lin, C. T. (2018). Risk assessment in new software development projects at the front end: A fuzzy logic approach. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing, 9, 295–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jianxing, Y., Shibo, W., Haicheng, C., Yang, Y., Haizhao, F., & Jiahao, L. (2021). Risk assessment of submarine pipelines using modified FMEA approach based on cloud model and extended VIKOR method. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 155, 555–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kayapinar Kaya, S., & Aycin, E. (2021). An integrated interval type 2 fuzzy AHP and COPRAS-G methodologies for supplier selection in the era of Industry 4.0. Neural Computing and Applications, 33(16), 10515–10535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J., Kang, C., & Hwang, I. (2012). A practical approach to project scheduling: Considering the potential quality loss cost in the time–cost tradeoff problem. International Journal of Project Management, 30(2), 264–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leo, M., Sharma, S., & Maddulety, K. (2019). Machine learning in banking risk management: A literature review. Risks, 7(1), 29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, D., Liu, C., & Gan, W. (2009). A new cognitive model: Cloud model. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 24(3), 357–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, F., Phoon, K. K., Du, X., & Zhang, M. (2013). Improved AHP method and its application in risk identification. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 139(3), 312–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, J., & Xu, K. (2021). A combined fuzzy DEMATEL and cloud model approach for risk assessment in process industries to improve system reliability. Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 37(5), 2110–2133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, S. S., Shen, S. L., Zhou, A., & Xu, Y. S. (2021). Risk assessment and management of excavation system based on fuzzy set theory and machine learning methods. Automation in Construction, 122, 103490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, H. C., Li, Z., Song, W., & Su, Q. (2017). Failure mode and effect analysis using cloud model theory and PROMETHEE method. IEEE Transactions on Reliability, 66(4), 1058–1072.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Y., Chen, H., & Wang, X. J. (2021). Research on green renovations of existing public buildings based on a cloud model–TOPSIS method. Journal of Building Engineering, 34, 101930.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Z., Wang, X., Wang, W., Wang, D., & Liu, P. (2022). An integrated TOPSIS–ORESTE-based decision-making framework for new energy investment assessment with cloud model. Computational and Applied Mathematics, 41(1), 1–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu, J., Zhang, S., Wu, J., & Wei, Y. (2021). COPRAS method for multiple attribute group decision making under picture fuzzy environment and their application to green supplier selection. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 27(2), 369–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyu, H. M., Sun, W. J., Shen, S. L., & Zhou, A. N. (2020). Risk assessment using a new consulting process in fuzzy AHP. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 146(3), 04019112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahmoodzadeh, A., Mohammadi, M., Daraei, A., Farid Hama Ali, H., Ismail Abdullah, A., & Kameran Al-Salihi, N. (2021). Forecasting tunnel geology, construction time and costs using machine learning methods. Neural Computing and Applications, 33, 321–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mardani, A., Jusoh, A., Nor, K., Khalifah, Z., Zakwan, N., & Valipour, A. (2015). Multiple criteria decision-making techniques and their applications–a review of the literature from 2000 to 2014. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 28(1), 516–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menezes, J., Gusmão, C., & Moura, H. (2019). Risk factors in software development projects: A systematic literature review. Software Quality Journal, 27, 1149–1174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, A. R., Liu, P., & Rani, P. (2022). COPRAS method based on interval-valued hesitant Fermatean fuzzy sets and its application in selecting desalination technology. Applied Soft Computing, 119, 108570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohammadipour, F., & Sadjadi, S. J. (2016). Project cost–quality–risk tradeoff analysis in a time-constrained problem. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 95, 111–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mrad, M., Al-Gahtani, K. S., Hulchafo, R., Souayah, N., & Bamatraf, K. (2019). Risk assessment for discrete stochastic time-cost-quality trade-off problem using simulation-based integer linear programming approach. IEEE Access., 7, 32453–32463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sajedi-Hosseini, F., Malekian, A., Choubin, B., Rahmati, O., Cipullo, S., Coulon, F., & Pradhan, B. (2018). A novel machine learning-based approach for the risk assessment of nitrate groundwater contamination. Science of the Total Environment, 644, 954–962.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanni-Anibire, M. O., Zin, R. M., & Olatunji, S. O. (2022). Machine learning model for delay risk assessment in tall building projects. International Journal of Construction Management, 22(11), 2134–2143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder, M., & Lodemann, S. (2021). A systematic investigation of the integration of machine learning into supply chain risk management. Logistics, 5(3), 62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Serpell, A. F., Ferrada, X., & Rubio, L. (2019). Measuring the performance of project risk management: A preliminary model. Organization, Technology & Management in Construction: An International Journal., 11(1), 1984–1991.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shen, S. L., Zhang, N., Zhou, A., & Yin, Z. Y. (2022). Enhancement of neural networks with an alternative activation function tanhLU. Expert Systems with Applications, 199, 117181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sols, A. (2018). A comprehensive approach to dynamic project risk management. Engineering Management Journal., 30(2), 128–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suresh, K., & Dillibabu, R. (2020). A novel fuzzy mechanism for risk assessment in software projects. Soft Computing, 24, 1683–1705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tavares, B. G., Keil, M., Sanches da Silva, C. E., & de Souza, A. D. (2021). A risk management tool for agile software development. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 61(6), 561–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J. Q., Peng, L., Zhang, H. Y., & Chen, X. H. (2014). Method of multi-criteria group decision-making based on cloud aggregation operators with linguistic information. Information Sciences, 274, 177–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, K. Q., Liu, H. C., Liu, L., & Huang, J. (2017). Green supplier evaluation and selection using cloud model theory and the QUALIFLEX method. Sustainability, 9(5), 688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wauters, M., & Vanhoucke, M. (2014). Support vector machine regression for project control forecasting. Automation in Construction, 47, 92–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wauters, M., & Vanhoucke, M. (2017). A nearest neighbour extension to project duration forecasting with artificial intelligence. European Journal of Operational Research, 259(3), 1097–1111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, D., Zhu, X., Wan, J., Bao, C., & Li, J. (2019). A multiobjective optimization approach for selecting risk response strategies of software project: From the perspective of risk correlations. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 18(01), 339–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yilmaz, I. (2023). A hybrid DEA–fuzzy COPRAS approach to the evaluation of renewable energy: A case of wind farms in Turkey. Sustainability, 15(14), 11267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zavadskas, E., Kaklauskas, A., & Sarka, V. (1994). The new method of multi-criteria complex proportional assessment of projects. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 1, 131–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, D., Li, C., Wang, Q., & Yuan, J. (2020). Comprehensive evaluation of national electric power development based on cloud model and entropy method and TOPSIS: A case study in 11 countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 277, 123190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, S., & Yang, P. (2020). Risk management in distributed wind energy implementing analytic hierarchy process. Renewable Energy, 150, 616–623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding was received for conducting this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Industrial Engineering & Management Systems, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

    Mohammad Hossein Haghighi & Maryam Ashrafi

Authors
  1. Mohammad Hossein Haghighi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maryam Ashrafi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maryam Ashrafi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix 1: The file about data of risks has been attached.

Appendix 1: The file about data of risks has been attached.

Pro. No

Risk 1

Risk 2

Risk 3

Risk 4

Risk 5

Successful or Failed

P

TI

CI

QI

P

TI

CI

QI

P

TI

CI

QI

P

TI

CI

QI

P

TI

CI

QI

1

H

M

H

MH

M

L

H

M

MH

H

H

M

H

H

H

VH

L

M

MH

ML

F

2

VL

MH

H

MH

L

M

MH

M

M

MH

MH

H

L

M

M

ML

L

M

MH

ML

F

3

MH

H

H

VH

MH

H

H

M

M

MH

MH

ML

MH

H

H

ML

L

M

MH

ML

F

4

VL

M

MH

VL

L

MH

H

ML

MH

H

H

M

M

H

H

MH

L

MH

H

M

S

5

VL

M

H

M

M

MH

H

MH

M

M

MH

M

L

MH

M

ML

M

MH

H

L

S

6

L

MH

H

VL

VL

M

M

L

M

M

MH

MH

L

MH

MH

M

M

MH

H

M

S

7

L

M

MH

M

L

M

MH

MH

L

MH

H

M

L

H

H

MH

MH

MH

H

VH

S

8

M

MH

H

H

MH

H

H

VL

MH

H

H

M

M

MH

H

ML

MH

H

H

ML

F

9

VL

MH

M

MH

L

MH

H

H

MH

H

H

VH

M

MH

M

MH

VL

MH

H

M

S

10

L

MH

MH

ML

L

M

M

M

M

M

MH

M

L

M

M

MH

M

M

M

VL

S

11

M

MH

M

VL

M

L

L

ML

M

M

MH

VH

L

M

M

ML

L

M

L

VL

S

12

H

H

H

M

M

L

L

M

H

M

M

VL

L

M

M

L

L

M

L

ML

S

13

L

L

L

VL

L

M

L

VH

H

M

M

H

L

M

M

M

L

M

L

M

S

14

VL

MH

MH

MH

VL

H

H

MH

L

M

M

ML

M

M

M

M

VL

MH

MH

L

S

15

M

H

H

ML

M

H

H

M

MH

H

H

M

MH

M

M

MH

VL

MH

MH

M

F

16

VL

MH

MH

H

VL

H

H

H

VL

H

H

VH

VL

L

L

M

VL

M

M

M

S

17

M

MH

MH

M

VL

H

H

M

L

M

M

M

MH

MH

MH

H

VL

M

M

L

S

18

VL

L

L

ML

VL

L

L

ML

VL

MH

MH

VH

VL

L

L

M

M

MH

MH

M

F

19

L

M

M

M

M

MH

MH

VH

H

L

L

H

M

M

M

M

VL

L

L

L

S

20

H

M

M

ML

VL

M

M

ML

H

H

H

MH

H

M

M

M

VL

L

L

M

F

21

VL

VL

VL

VL

M

MH

MH

VH

MH

MH

MH

H

M

MH

M

M

L

L

L

L

S

22

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

MH

MH

MH

M

M

M

M

ML

L

L

L

ML

S

23

H

MH

MH

M

L

L

L

M

MH

MH

MH

M

L

L

L

ML

L

L

L

ML

S

24

VL

VL

VL

L

L

L

L

ML

MH

MH

MH

MH

L

L

L

M

L

L

L

M

S

25

H

H

H

VH

VL

VL

VL

L

MH

MH

MH

VH

L

L

L

H

L

L

L

M

S

26

H

H

H

H

M

M

M

H

MH

MH

MH

H

L

L

L

M

L

L

L

M

S

27

MH

MH

MH

ML

M

M

M

ML

MH

MH

MH

ML

L

L

L

M

L

L

L

L

S

28

H

H

H

H

MH

MH

MH

H

MH

MH

MH

H

H

H

H

H

VL

VL

VL

L

F

29

MH

MH

MH

M

M

MH

MH

M

MH

MH

MH

M

M

MH

M

M

L

L

L

ML

S

30

MH

L

L

M

MH

L

L

M

L

L

L

M

L

M

M

M

MH

M

M

ML

S

31

MH

M

MH

MH

L

M

MH

MH

M

H

H

MH

MH

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

F

32

L

M

M

ML

L

L

L

MH

M

L

L

ML

L

L

M

ML

MH

MH

H

MH

S

33

H

H

H

H

H

M

M

H

M

M

L

H

L

L

L

M

H

H

H

M

F

34

H

MH

H

M

L

L

M

M

L

L

L

M

H

MH

H

M

M

M

MH

H

F

35

M

M

MH

M

M

MH

MH

M

H

MH

M

M

M

M

M

MH

MH

MH

M

MH

S

36

L

L

M

ML

M

MH

M

ML

MH

L

MH

M

L

M

M

ML

MH

M

MH

ML

S

37

MH

MH

MH

H

M

M

MH

MH

MH

M

M

MH

M

MH

MH

MH

M

M

MH

M

F

38

L

MH

MH

ML

M

M

M

ML

M

MH

M

ML

M

MH

M

ML

L

L

M

M

S

39

L

M

M

ML

L

L

M

M

M

H

MH

M

VL

MH

M

ML

MH

MH

MH

ML

S

40

M

M

L

M

M

MH

M

ML

L

L

L

ML

M

MH

M

ML

M

MH

M

M

S

41

M

H

H

H

L

L

L

H

M

MH

MH

H

L

MH

MH

H

L

MH

MH

M

S

42

M

M

M

M

L

MH

MH

M

M

L

L

M

L

MH

MH

ML

L

H

H

ML

S

43

MH

H

MH

ML

M

MH

MH

ML

M

M

M

ML

M

H

H

M

MH

M

M

M

S

44

L

H

MH

MH

M

MH

MH

MH

M

MH

M

MH

L

H

H

M

H

H

M

M

S

45

MH

H

H

M

M

M

H

M

M

H

H

M

M

H

H

M

M

H

H

M

S

46

MH

H

H

VH

M

M

M

VH

M

M

M

MH

MH

H

H

M

MH

H

H

M

F

47

MH

H

H

M

H

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

MH

H

H

M

MH

H

H

MH

F

48

M

MH

MH

MH

L

MH

H

MH

M

M

MH

MH

H

H

MH

M

M

M

M

M

F

49

H

L

MH

ML

H

L

MH

ML

M

M

M

ML

H

MH

M

M

M

L

L

M

F

50

H

L

MH

M

MH

L

MH

M

M

M

M

M

MH

MH

M

ML

M

L

L

ML

S

Pro. No

Risk 6

Risk 7

Risk 8

Risk 9

Successful or Failed

P

TI

CI

QI

P

TI

CI

QI

P

TI

CI

QI

P

TI

CI

QI

1

M

MH

M

M

MH

L

H

M

VL

M

L

MH

VL

MH

H

ML

F

2

L

MH

MH

H

MH

L

H

M

VL

M

L

ML

MH

M

H

VH

F

3

M

MH

H

L

H

L

H

ML

VL

M

L

H

H

MH

H

L

F

4

M

MH

L

L

MH

L

H

H

VL

MH

H

VH

L

M

M

L

S

5

L

M

L

ML

M

L

MH

VL

L

L

M

MH

L

M

MH

ML

S

6

M

L

M

M

MH

L

MH

ML

L

L

MH

H

L

MH

H

L

S

7

MH

H

M

ML

H

MH

H

L

VL

L

M

L

L

M

MH

L

S

8

L

M

M

L

MH

L

L

VL

VL

M

M

H

H

MH

M

VL

F

9

L

M

MH

M

MH

L

L

ML

VL

M

H

M

L

MH

H

ML

S

10

VL

L

L

H

L

L

L

VH

L

L

L

VH

M

VL

L

VH

S

11

L

L

L

ML

M

L

M

M

L

L

L

M

M

L

L

L

S

12

M

L

L

H

M

L

L

H

L

L

L

VH

H

M

L

VL

S

13

L

L

L

M

L

L

L

ML

L

L

L

ML

M

L

L

ML

S

14

VL

VL

VL

L

H

VL

VL

ML

VL

H

H

VH

M

L

VL

VL

S

15

MH

VL

VL

M

H

VL

VL

L

VL

VL

VL

L

M

M

H

ML

F

16

VL

VL

VL

ML

VL

VL

VL

L

VL

L

L

M

VL

VL

VL

ML

S

17

VL

VL

VL

L

VL

VL

VL

ML

VL

L

L

M

VL

VL

VL

ML

S

18

VL

VL

VL

M

VL

VL

VL

ML

VL

VL

VL

ML

VL

VL

VL

ML

F

19

VL

VL

VL

L

VL

VL

VL

ML

VL

L

L

M

VL

L

L

L

S

20

VL

VL

VL

M

VL

VL

VL

H

VL

VL

VL

ML

VL

VL

VL

L

F

21

MH

MH

MH

ML

M

M

M

ML

H

MH

MH

ML

M

L

L

MH

S

22

M

M

M

ML

VL

VL

VL

L

VL

VL

VL

L

M

M

M

H

S

23

M

M

M

MH

L

L

L

ML

VL

VL

VL

L

M

M

M

L

S

24

M

M

M

M

L

L

L

M

VL

VL

VL

L

M

M

M

VH

S

25

M

M

M

H

H

H

H

MH

MH

MH

MH

H

M

M

M

L

S

26

M

M

M

M

L

L

L

M

MH

MH

MH

L

M

M

M

L

S

27

M

M

M

M

L

L

L

ML

VL

VL

VL

VL

M

M

M

M

S

28

L

L

L

L

VL

VL

VL

ML

VL

VL

VL

M

L

VL

L

L

F

29

MH

MH

MH

H

M

M

M

H

H

MH

MH

H

M

L

L

VL

S

30

L

L

L

ML

L

L

L

MH

L

L

L

M

M

L

L

ML

S

31

H

M

M

M

H

H

H

ML

L

L

L

ML

L

L

L

M

F

32

M

M

M

MH

L

L

L

MH

L

L

L

MH

H

H

H

MH

S

33

M

H

H

M

L

L

L

ML

L

M

L

M

MH

MH

MH

M

F

34

M

MH

MH

H

M

MH

MH

L

L

L

M

ML

L

M

M

ML

F

35

MH

MH

L

MH

M

L

L

M

L

M

M

M

MH

M

MH

M

S

36

L

M

M

ML

VL

L

L

ML

M

L

L

M

M

M

M

L

S

37

M

M

MH

M

M

L

MH

ML

L

M

M

VL

L

M

M

L

F

38

M

L

M

M

L

L

L

ML

VL

M

M

ML

M

M

H

ML

S

39

L

M

M

MH

L

L

L

MH

VL

M

MH

L

L

MH

H

L

S

40

L

M

M

ML

L

MH

L

M

L

MH

M

M

M

M

M

L

S

41

M

MH

H

M

MH

MH

H

M

VL

L

L

VL

L

VL

VL

ML

S

42

L

MH

MH

ML

L

L

H

MH

L

L

L

MH

M

M

H

MH

S

43

M

M

M

MH

M

M

M

MH

L

H

H

MH

MH

H

H

M

S

44

M

L

H

M

M

L

L

ML

L

H

H

ML

MH

H

H

MH

S

45

M

M

M

ML

H

L

H

ML

L

M

H

ML

MH

H

H

ML

S

46

M

M

M

M

L

L

L

ML

L

H

H

VH

MH

H

H

L

F

47

MH

MH

MH

MH

M

H

H

MH

L

H

H

M

MH

H

H

M

F

48

MH

M

M

M

H

M

MH

M

VL

M

MH

M

MH

MH

MH

M

F

49

M

M

M

M

MH

M

MH

ML

M

M

MH

ML

M

L

L

ML

F

50

M

M

M

ML

MH

M

MH

ML

M

M

MH

VL

M

L

L

VL

S

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Haghighi, M.H., Ashrafi, M. A novel framework for risk management of software projects by integrating a new COPRAS method under cloud model and machine learning algorithms. Ann Oper Res (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-023-05653-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-023-05653-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation