JOURNAL OF COMPUTER SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING, VOLUME 12, ISSUE 2, APRIL 2012 16

Qualitative Evaluation of Usability Model for Object Oriented Software System

Sanjay Kumar Dubey, Ankita Madan and Prof. (Dr.) Ajay Rana
Abstract The Usability plays an important role to assess the quality of software system. Object-oriented technology showed
its importance to develop quality. There is a lack of usability models based on object-oriented technology during the development. Also, there are few efforts to evaluate usability qualitatively. This paper evaluates the qualitative nature of usability of object-oriented usability model by using AHP and fuzzy evaluation matrix method. Results show that the qualitative nature of proposed model is better than the existing usability model. Index TermsUsability, model, AHP, fuzzy, system.

1 INTRODUCTION

sability has been included as a factor in almost all quality model proposed so far. It is an important concept of software engineering which determines the usefulness of a software system. The usability helps to build an efficient and effective software system. There is a need to evaluate usability as it reduces cost and increases productivity. In the year 1993, Nielsen gave the definition of usability as, Usability of a system is a multi-faceted and consists of five properties: easy to learn; efficient to use; easy to remember; low error rate; and meets user satisfaction [11]. The usability and its specifications measurement has been one of the aims of development of ISO 9241-11 [9]. They defined usability as, The extent to which a product can be used by specified users to achieve specified goals with effectiveness, efficiency and satisfac- tion in a specified context of use. In software develop- ment environment, object-oriented is the mostly and popularly used concept. In context to this, experts have developed various design metrics systems to aid in keep- ing track of the status of software system. The software metric systems are well established concepts and are means for evaluating a developed products usability. Chidamber and Kemerer [22] efforts have given a set of metrics to help in assessing the usefulness for managers and developers. These design metrics evaluates one of the major influence of quality i.e. design complexity of object- oriented systems [22]. The CK metric suite is related to the internal structural analysis of object-oriented compo- nents such as inheritance, coupling, cohesion, method invocation, and association [13], [21], [23]. A relationship has been established between the factors of usability and the design metric system that leads to the evaluation of software systems usability.

Usability depends on various factors, but due to impre- cise concepts and linguistic term involved in usability concept, it is difficult to measure and quantify [6]. This paper evaluates the quality nature of two object-oriented usability models. Each of the factors identified is charac- terized by fuzzy aspect. It uses the AHP technique for the evaluation of the proposed model and the fuzzy Index method [5] for the analysis and comparative study of both the models. The result shows that qualitative nature of proposed object-oriented usability model is better than the existing model. Index system method uses bottom to top approach for the software elements. It begins by con- sidering the simple measurable data and moves upward analyzing the softwares usability.

2 MODEL FOR USABILITY

The object-oriented environment for software develop- ment has provided the key for solving software crises problem. The past few years have witnessed the wide use and availability of object-oriented design and analysis methodologies and languages. The works are being car- ried out in the area of management of object-oriented software development. Object-oriented development has proved its value for systems that must be maintained and modified [14]. On the basis of thorough and detail study of its literature and guidelines [2], we have concised the factors keeping Effectiviness, Efficiency, Satisfaction, and Learnability [20]. We have broadly taken all these factors which incorporate various sub-factors to build a useful software system interface.

2.1 Effectiveness Effectiveness is defined as the accuracy and and com Sanjay Kr. Dubey is with Amity University, sec-125, Noida (U.P.), India- pleteness with which users achieve specified goals [9]. 201303. Effectiveness of an object oriented software system can Ankita Madan is with Amity University, sec-125, Noida (U.P.), Indiafurther be characterized by [4]: 201303. 1. Speed: Speed is rate at which the specified task or Ajay Rana is with Amity University, sec-125, Noida (U.P.), India-201303.
function by a software system is completed. It

17

2.

leads to the time required to finish a task which is relevant for usefulness of a software system. Error: Error could be explained as how well the the task by a software sytem can be completed when it is in practice. A good usable software sytem should have minimum number of errors for maximum functionality. Also, the system should easily recover from them. It provides a scope of better performance and flexibility of the sytem.

thetics.

2.2 Efficiency It can be defined as the, resources expended in relation to the accuracy and completeness with which users achieve specified goals [9]. It is directly related to performance of the system. Efficiency involves [10]: 1. Resource utilization: An efficient system should complete the task in appropriate time with no resource wastage. Resource utilization is the appropriate amount of resources and complete utilization of resources in accurate amount of time with minimum or no wastage. 2. Time Utilization: It is the duration of time elapsed in fruitful or useful job. 3. Efficiency Compliance: It basically describes whether the software adheres to the standards of efficiency. 4. Scalability: Scalability of a system is defined as ease of use for multiple users for a system. Performance and efficiency have a number of compo- nents, and these are as follows [6]: 1. The number of goals/tasks not done successfully; 2. The duration of time taken for task completion; 3. The duration of unproductive time; and 4. Percentage of task not completed. 2.3 Satisfaction Satisfaction depends upon the positive response of users experience. Satisfaction means that the software system has been successful in meeting the users expectations [3]. Satisfaction is defined in ISO 9241-11 in terms of comfort and acceptability of use [9]. According to the various definitions, it provides the comfort and positive attitude towards the software system. It is the user's perceived acceptability of the system. It can be illustrated as subjec- tive satisfaction and objective satisfaction. According to D. Alonso-Rios et al. [12], subjective satisfaction is the ca- pacity of the system to produce feelings of pleasure and interest in user. It can be further categorized into two sub attributes: 1. Interest: defined as the capacity of the system to capture and maintain the attention and intellectual curiosity of the user. 2. Aesthetics: defined as the capacity of the system to attract its user in sensorial terms. This consists of visual, acoustic, tangible, olfactory, gustatory aes-

2.4 Learnability ISO 9126-1[10] defines learnability as the capability of the software sytem to enable the user to learn its application. It should help the user to rapidly get acquaintance with the system to get the work done. It leads to an effective interaction to achieve maximum usability. There exist specific features that relate to learnability: 1. Predictability: It refers to the knowledge of the user and system interaction history that is sufficient to determine the result of his future interaction. 2. Snythesizability: It refers to the users ability to assess the effect of past operations on the current situation. 3. Familiarity: It is the extent to which a users experience and knowledge and experience in real world or computer based fields can be applied while interacting with a new system. 4. Generalizability: It refers to the support for the user to expand knowledge of specific interaction within and across applications to other similar situation 5. Consistency: It refers to the likeness in behavior arising from similar situations. A user looks forward for a consistent user interface. These factors can be evaluated using the object-oriented metrics system [15]. Hence we can relate object-oriented metrics as the third level of the usability concept and the factors as second level. Refer Fig 1.

3 OBJECT ORIENTED METRICS

The literature has provided with various metric suite which depends on the internal structural analysis of ob- ject-oriented components [13], [21], [23]. The metric result provides with knowledge and detailed explanation for varying economic variables, traditional measures, such as evaluation of lines of code, which are helpful to develop- ers in controlling the software. This research analysis uses a set of metrics proposed by Chidamber and Kemere [22] for the evaluation of usability of object oriented software systems. This is precisely known as CK metric suite which is a design complexity measurement system of the external quality parameters that exists in a software pack- age. Complexity leads instability in the software system which further indicates fault-prone system. Mostly, the software build today are based on object-oriented technology. Ob- ject-oriented technology has been programmers favourite as it uses objects as data structures and methods together with their interactions, which provides an ease to design applications and computer programs. The CK metric suite considers object-oriented features like coupling, cohesion, method invocation, classes, methods, objects, and inher- itance for evaluation [7], [14], [19]. The definition and re- lation of CK metric suite with usability is described be-

2012 JCSE www.journalcse.co.uk

18

low: 1. Weighted Methods per Class (WMC): It is the count of methods implemented within a class or the sum of complexities of the methods. Higher number of methods in a class leads to higher impact on children as they inherit all the methods of that class. Higher application specific leads to lower possibility of reuse. Usability is inversely proportional to WMC [19] 2. Depth of Inheritance (DIT): It is the number of steps from the class node to the root of the tree and is measured by number of ancestor classes. Higher the inheritance (deeper classes) leads high- er complexity. Usability is inversely proportional to DIT [19] 3. Coupling between Object Classes (CBO): It is a count of number of other classes to which class is coupled. It is measured by number of distinct non- inheritance related class hierarchies on which a class depends. Higher coupling leads to higher complexity, higher and difficulty in maintainance. Usability is inversely proportional to CBO [19] 4. Response for a Class (RFC): It is the count of the set of all the methods that can be invoked in re- sponse to a message to an object of the class or by some method of the class. Higher no. of methods invoked from a class leads to higher the complexity of the class. Usability is inversely proportional to RFC [19] 5. Lack of Cohesion in Methods (LCOM): It is the degree to which the methods in a class are related to one another. LCOM measures the dissimilarity of methods in a class by instance variable or at- tributes. Higher cohesive module leads to standalone, in- creases simplicity whereas, lower cohesion in- creases complexity errors. Usability is inversely proportional to LCOM [19] 6. Number of Children (NOC): It is the number of immediate sub-classes subordinated to a class in a class hierarchy. The greater the numbers of chil- dren leads to greater likelihood of improper ab- straction of parent. Usability is inversely proportional to NOC [19]

4 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
In this paper we have performed a qualitative analysis of the software systems by using index system and fuzzy evaluation matrix [5] based in the model shown in Fig.1.

Fig. 1. Usability Model

4.1 Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) AHP method has been widely used in the decision mak- ing application in various fields such as government, business, industry, healthcare, and education. It provides the user with comprehensive and rational framework for such problems and quantifies the problem elements and relating it with the overall goal [18]. It represents a com- plicated problem into a hierarchy, which incorporates all the factors of that problem. It is a systematic process which provides logical and organized form of problem representation [8]. The following steps are mentioned for the evaluation of model: 1. The pairwise comparison method uses A= [aij] ma- trix to represent the intensities of experts prefer- ence between individual pairs of alternatives (Ai versus Aj, for all i, j= 1, 2,n). 2. Determine the weight values for each factor and sub-factors of usability using AHP method [18] on the basis of the survey conducted for the factors as well as for sub-factors. 3. Now, the consistency Index (C.I.) consistency ratio (C.R.) was calculated for the verification of the comparison matrix. C.I. and C.R. can be formulat- ed as follows where max is mean of eigen values C.I. = max - n ; C.R. = C.I. n - 1 R.I Where, R.I. is the average consistency index over numer- ous C.I. random entries of the same order reciprocal ma- Hence we infer that CK metrics are inversely proportional trices [18]. If C.R. < 0.1, then Aij is acceptable and correct. to the usability concept. If the C.R. > 0.1 the values are inconsistent and not ac- ceptable.

19

4.2 Fuzzy Evaluation method The fuzzy evaluation technology is adopted from the fuzzy technique and is helpful in overcoming imprecision in inputs and outputs [5]. Also, it provides a more expert knowledge for model building. This can be extended to allow for fuzzy premises which are used to draw conclu- sion. The evaluation level is supposed to be F = {F1, F2, F3, F4} = {poor, fair, good, excellent}. This paper adopts semi trapezoidal distribution and the trapezoidal distri- bution [5] in assessing membership functions. If the threshold of the index obtained through the expert meth- od is (v1, v2, v3, v4, v5), then we can get the membership functions [5]. The T1, T2, T3, T4 evaluated for each v i.e.v1, v2, v3, v4, and v5 constructs the fuzzy evaluation matrix.

to give preferences to the factors identified and their rela- tionship with the sub factors keeping in mind the usabil- ity concept. This was done for the evaluation of eigen vectors and eigen values of the proposed model.

5.1 Project Evaluation I On the basis of different projects available we have considered an under developed object-oriented project by the B.Tech students in java language. The project is about payroll detail. The project was selected on the basis, that it lacks the feature of Learnabilty. Being an under developed project it does not contain any feature of help, wizard, next step prompt, documentation that can aid in learnabilty. The project code was passed under the software tool analyst 4j [24] which gave the values of the CK metrics which was tested against the threshold values [16], [17] as mentioned in Table 1. The values represent whether the value is within the range (0 represents Boole1 v1v v2 an value not in range and 1 represents Boolean value in T1(v) = v - m2 v1<v<m2 range). v2 - m2 TABLE 1 0 else (1) BOOLEAN VALUES OF THE CK METRICS
3 Level Index WMC RFC LCOM DIT NOC CBO
rd

1 v2vv3 v m1 m1<v<v2 T2(v) = v2 m1 v m3 v3<v<m3 v3 m3 0 else (2)

Low-High[16], [17] 0-20 50-100 0-1 0-3 0-1 0-5

Current 4 172 0.8 1 0 18

Boolean Value 1 0 1 1 1 0

Satisfaction 0.7 0.5 1 NOC 3 1.7 4.4 2 1 0.775

2 Level Index

nd

Effectiveness Efficiency Satisfaction

1 0.455 1.429

2.2 1 2

0.362 0.192 0.446

1 v4 v v5 T4(v) = v m3 m3 < v < v4 v4 m3 0 else (4)

The threshold obtained through expert method is (v1, v2, v3, v4, v5) = (0, 0.5, 0.75, 0.9, 1) and (m1, m2, m3, m4) = (0.25, 0.625, 0.825, 0.95) which denotes the median of (v1, v2) (v2, v3), (v3, v4) and (v4, v5) respectively.

max= 3.023 ; C.I.= 0.012 ; C.R.= 0.021 Now, we calculate the weight of each CK metric under each usability factor Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Satisfaction. These are described in Table 3, 4, 5 respectively. TABLE 3 EFFECTIVENESS
3 Level WMC RFC LCOM DIT NOC CBO
rd

WMC 1 0.357 1.364 0.417 0.333 0.5

RFC 2.8 1 2.732 0.455 0.588 0.517

LCOM 0.733 0.366 1 0.277 0.227 0.775

DIT 2.4 2.2 3.6 1 0.5 0.536

Weight () CBO 2 1.933 1.866 1.29 0.467 2.141

Efficiency

Effective- ness

1 v3 v v4 v m2 m2 < v< v3 T3(v) = v3 m2 v m4 v4 < v < m4 v4 m4 0 else (3)

According to the survey conducted we calculate the mean [1] of the sample collected from the survey of each level index as shown in Table 2. TABLE 2 PAIR WISE COMPARISON BASED ON ISO 9241-98 MODEL

Weig- ht() 0.255 0.143 0.317 0.104 0.068 0.113

5 CASE STUDY
A survey was conducted on the experts to get the com- parison values based on the ISO-9241-98 [9]. They were asked

20

max= 6.206 ; C.I.= 0.041 ; C.R.= 0.03 TABLE 4 EFFICIENCY

3 Level WMC RFC LCOM DIT NOC CBO
rd

WMC 1 0.455 3.13 0.417 0.105 0.417

RFC 2.2 1 0.476 0.333 0.455 2

LCOM 3.2 2.1 1 0.455 0.333 2.732

DIT 2.4 3 2.2 1 0.333 3.164

NOC 9.5 2.2 3 3 1 3.745

CBO 2.4 0.5 0.366 0.316 0.267 1

Weig- ht() 0.362 0.163 0.113 0.084 0.045 0.233

max= 6.334 ; C.I.= 0.067 ; C.R.= 0.053 TABLE 5 SATISFACTION

3 Level WMC RFC LCOM DIT NOC CBO
rd

WMC 1 0.769 2 0.294 0.5 0.294

RFC 1.3 1 2 0.5 1.303 0.417

LCOM 0.5 0.4 1 0.333 0.455 0.333

DIT 3.4 2 3 1 3 0.588

NOC 2 0.767 2.2 0.333 1 0.5

CBO 3.4 2.4 3 1.7 2 1

Weig- ht() 0.23 0.155 0.303 0.081 0.161 0.07

For the evaluation of 1st Level Index is obtain we use the formula, U1 = R2 * W2, where U1 is the usability of Project I W2 is the matrix of the weight values of pairwise comparison obtained by survey analysis W2 = [0.362 0.192 0.446 0]T Therefore, U1= (0.032 0.851 0.791 0)T U1 shows the usability of 1st Level Index.These values describe the fuzzy membership function. The membership function in poor case is 0.032, for fair case is 0.851, for good case is 0.791., for excellent case is 0. The maximum value of from the set is chosen [5]. Therefore, the usability of Project I is of fair the category.

max= 6.174 ; C.I.= 0.0347 ; C.R.= 0.028 The values obtained are consistent as C.I. and C.R. are less than 0.1 as mentioned earlier. The weight values obtained from analysis of the code is used to calculate the value vector VT of 2nd Level Index with the values of the 3rd level Index W3 obtained from the survey report as in Fig. 2.

5.2 Project Evaluation II Now, the second Project chosen is the advanced and upgraded version of the previous project. It is in java language and has been analysed by the tool analyst 4j. It is the payroll management system which incorporates all the factors of the object-oriented usability model .This system is not devoid of Learnability factor. The project is evaluated in the same way [5] as the previous project but here we have taken into consideration the weight values of Learnability factor. Therefore, we have new set of survey analysis for pairwise comparison as shown in Table 6, 7, 8. TABLE 6 BOOLEAN VALUES OF THE CK METRICS
3 Level Index WMC RFC LCOM DIT NOC CBO
RD

Low-High[16], [17] 0-20 50-100 0-1 0-3 0-1 0-5

Current 4 75.3 0.7 1.1 0 18

Boolean Value 1 1 1 1 1 0

Fig. 2. Weight values of the 3 excluding Learnability.

rd

Level Index

TABLE 7 PAIR WISE COMPARISON BASED ON PROPOSED MODEL[20]

Effectiveness Learnability 1.667 1.367 2.5 1 Satisfaction Weight () 0.252 0.161 0.441 0.146

2 Level Index

nd

Now, we use the experts formulae (1), (2), (3), (4) on the calculated 2nd Level Index VT to obtain the fuzzy evaluation matrix R2. Thus we obtain the membership function which gives the matrix system for the same.

Effectiveness Efficiency satisfaction Learnability

1 0.435 2.5 0.599

2.3 1 2.309 0.732

Efficiency

0.4 0.433 1 0.4

max= 4.097 ; C.I.= 0.032 ; C.R.= 0.0359

21

The survey for learnability with relation to CK metrics is added and the rest of the survey of CK metrics with respect to Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Learnability remains the same. TABLE 8 LEARNABILITY
3 Level WMC RFC LCOM DIT NOC CBO
rd

WMC 1 0.263 0.455 0.556 0.732 0.732

RFC 3.8 1 2.309 0.508 1.111 3.003

LCOM 2.2 0.433 1 0.732 1.395 2.5

DIT 1.8 1.967 1.367 1 0.909 1.464

NOC 1.367 0.9 0.717 1.1 1 2.857

CBO 1.367 0.333 0.4 0.683 0.35 1

Weig- ht() 0.264 0.112 0.131 0.111 0.127 0.255

W2= [0.252 0.162 0.441 0.146]T Therefore, U2 = (0 0.271 0.730 0.649) T Here, the membership function in poor case is 0, for fair case is 0.271, for good case is 0.730., for excellent case is 0.649. The maximum value from the set defines the qualitative value of the project [5]. Therefore, the usability of Project II is of good category.

6 RESULT AND CONCLUSION

This paper qualitatively evaluates the usability of two software systems. First software system is based on ISO- 9241 model and the second software system is based on the model proposed by the authors. The method of evalu- ation and comparative study has shown that the Project II with an additional Learnability feature is more usable as compared to Project I which is without Learnability fea- ture. Therefore, we can conclude that a software system design features and attributes are measurable and they contrib- ute in improving its quality. The attention has to be paid to usability features which impact on the development process to produce highly usable software system inter- faces. The result presented in this paper is qualitative. Also, this kind of comparison can be carried out on real life projects from industry to evaluate their usability.

max= 6.110 ; C.I.= 0.022 ; C.R.= 0.017 The W3 matrix obtained from the survey includes the weight values for learnability as in Fig. 3.

REFERENCES
[1] Fig. 3. Weight values of the 3 Learnability.
rd

Level Index including

[2]

Following the similar procedure we calculate 2nd Level index VT

[3] [4]

Using the experts formula as done previously we obtain the fuzzy evaluation matrix R2.

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8] [9] .

We, know U2 = R2 * W2, where U2 is the usability of Project II

A. Kumar, P.S. Grover, R. Kumar, A Quantitative Evaluation of Aspect-Oriented Software Quality Model: (AOSQUAMO), ACM SIGSOFT, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 1-9, September 2009. A. Madan, S. K. Dubey, Usability evaluation Methods: A Lit- erature Review, International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology vol. 4, no.02, pp.590-599, 2012. Bevan, Measuring usability as quality of use, Software Quality Journal vol.4, pp. 115130, 1995. B. Shackel , UsabilityContext, framework, definition, design and evaluation, in B. Shackel and S. Richardson, Human Factors for In- formatics Usability, Cambridge, MA: University Press, pp. 21 38, 1991. C. Jing, L. Xuyan, Software Maintainability Metrics Based on the Index System and Fuzzy Method, 1st International Confer- ence on Science and Engineering, IEEE, 2009. E. Chang, and T. S. Dillon, A Usability-Evaluation Metric Based on a Soft-Computing Approach, IEEE Transactions On System, Man and Cybernetics- Part A: Systems and Humans, vol. 36, no. 2, march 2006. F. B. Abreu, and R. Carapua , Candidate Metric for OOS with- in taxonomy framework, In Journal of System & Software, North-Holland, Elsevier Science, vol.26, no.1, July 1994. G. Coyle, Practical Strategy, Open Access Material. AHP, Pear- son Education Limited, pp. 1-10 2004. ISO 9241, Ergonomics requirements for office work with visu- al display terminals (VDTs) Part 11: Guidance on usability, 1998.

22

[10] ISO/IEC 9126-1, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engi- neers, Part 1, 2, 3: Quality model, 2001. [11] J. Nielsen, Usability Engineering. Academic press, San Diego, CA, 1993. [12] J. A. Alonso, T. Lamata, Consistency in the Analytic hierarchy Process: A New approach, Received: 30 October 2005, Revised: 15 May, 2006. [13] K. Emam, W. Melo, and J.C. Machado, The Prediction of Faulty Classes Using Object-Oriented Design Metrics, J.Systems and Software, vol. 56, pp. 63-75, 2OO1. (6) [14] K. K.Aggarwal, Y. Singh, A. Kaur, and R. Malhotra, Empirical Study of Object-Oriented Metrics, Journal of Object technolo- gy, Vol. 5, No. 8, pp. 149-173 November-December 2006. [15] L.H. Rosenberg and L. Hyatt, Software Quality Metrics for Object Oriented Environments, SATC, NASA, Technical Re- port SATC-TR-95-1001, 1995. [16] R. Selvarani, T. R. Gopalakrishnan Nair, and V. K. Prasad, Es- timation of Defects Proneness Using Design complexity Meas- urement in Object-Oriented Software, International Conference on Signal Processing Systems, pp. 766- 770, 2009. [17] R. Shatnawi, An Investigation of CK Metric Thresholds, ISSRE Supplementary Conference Proceedings, Chillarege Press, 2006. [18] Saaty, T .L, The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw Hill International, 1980. [19] S. K. Dubey, A. Rana. Assessment of Usability Metrics for Object-Oriented Software System, ACM SIGSOFT, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 1-4, 2010. [20] S. K. Dubey, A. Rana, A. Sharma, Usability Evaluation in Ob- ject Oriented software system using Fuzzy logic Approach, In- ternational Journal of Computer Application,vol. 43, No. 19, pp. 1-6, 2012

[21] Subramanyam, R. Krishnan, M.S. Empirical analysis of CK metrics for object-oriented design complexity: implications for software defects Software Engineering, TEEE Transactions on software Engineering, vol. 29, issue: 4, pp. 297- 31O, April 2OO3 [22] S. Chidamber, and C. Kemerer, A Metrics Suite for Object Oriented Design, TEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 2O, no. 6, pp. 476-493, 1994. [23] V.R. Basili and B.R. Perricone, Software Errors and Complexi- ty, Comm. ACM, vol. 27, pp. 42-52, 1984. [24] www.codeSWAT.com Accessed date: 23rd Jan2012. Sanjay Kumar Dubey is an Assistant Professor in Amity University Uttar Pradesh, India. His research area includes Human Computer Interaction, Software Engineering, and Usability Engineering. He is pursuing his Ph.D. in Computer Science and Engineering from Amity University.

Ankita Madan is a B.Tech student of Computer Science & Engineering Department from Amity University, Noida. Her area of interest is Software Engineering. Ajay Rana is a Professor and Director, Amity University, Noida. He is Ph. D. (2005) in Computer Science and Engineering from U.P. Technical University, India. His research area includes Software Engineering. He has published number of research papers in reputed National & International Journals. He has received numbers of best paper/case studies medals and prizes for his work.