Increasing demand for open-source software (OSS) has raised the value of efficient selection in terms of quality; usability is an essential quality factor that significantly affects system acceptability and sustainability. Most large and complex software packages partitioned across multiple portals and involve many users — each with their role in the software package; those users have different perspectives on the software package, defined by their knowledge, responsibilities, and commitments. Thus, a multi-perspective approach has been used in usability evaluation to overcome the challenge of inconsistency between users’ perspectives; the inconsistency challenge would lead to an ill-advised decision on the selection of a suitable OSS. This study aimed to assist the public and private organizations in evaluating and selecting the most suitable OSS. The evaluation of the OSS software packages to choose the best one is a challenging task owing to (a) multiple evaluation criteria, (b) criteria importance, and (c) data variation; thus, it is considered a sophisticated multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) problem; moreover, the multi-perspective usability evaluation framework for OSS selection lacks in the current literature. Hence, this study proposes a novel multi-perspective usability evaluation framework for the selection of OSS based on the multi-criteria analysis. Integration of best-worst method (BWM) and VIKOR MCDM techniques has been used for weighting and ranking OSS alternatives. BWM is utilized for weighting of evaluation criteria, whereas VIKOR is applied to rank OSS-LMS alternatives. Individual and group decision-making contexts, and the internal and external groups aggregation were used to demonstrate the efficiency of the proposed framework. A well-organized algorithmic procedure is presented in detail, and a case study was examined to illustrate the validity and feasibility of the proposed framework. The results demonstrated that BWM and VIKOR integration works effectively to solve the OSS software package benchmarking/selection problems. Furthermore, the ranks of OSS software packages obtained from the VIKOR internal and external group decision making were similar; the best OSS-LMS based on the two ways was ‘Moodle’ software package. Among the scores of groups in the objective validation, significant differences were identified; this indicated that the ranking results of internal and external VIKOR group decision making were valid, which pointed to the validation of the framework.

对开源软件 (OSS) 需求的增加提高了有效选择质量的价值；可用性是一个重要的质量因素，它会显着影响系统的可接受性和可持续性。大多数大型和复杂的软件包跨多个门户分区并涉及许多用户——每个用户在软件包中都有自己的角色；这些用户对软件包有不同的看法，由他们的知识、责任和承诺来定义。因此，在可用性评估中使用了多视角方法来克服用户视角之间不一致的挑战；不一致的挑战将导致在选择合适的 OSS 时做出不明智的决定。本研究旨在协助公共和私人组织评估和选择最合适的开放源码软件。评估 OSS 软件包以选择最佳软件包是一项具有挑战性的任务，因为 (a) 多个评估标准，(b) 标准重要性，以及 (c) 数据变化；因此，它被认为是一个复杂的多标准决策（MCDM）问题；此外，目前的文献缺乏用于OSS选择的多视角可用性评估框架。因此，本研究提出了一种基于多标准分析的新型多视角可用性评估框架，用于选择 OSS。最佳最差方法 (BWM) 和 VIKOR MCDM 技术的集成已用于对 OSS 替代方案进行加权和排名。BWM 用于评估标准的加权，而 VIKOR 用于对 OSS-LMS 备选方案进行排名。个人和团体决策环境，并且使用内部和外部组聚合来证明所提出框架的效率。详细介绍了组织良好的算法程序，并检查了案例研究以说明所提出框架的有效性和可行性。结果表明，BWM 和 VIKOR 集成有效地解决了 OSS 软件包基准测试/选择问题。此外，从 VIKOR 内部和外部群体决策中获得的 OSS 软件包的排名是相似的；基于这两种方式的最佳 OSS-LMS 是“Moodle”软件包。在客观验证的各组分数中，发现了显着差异；这表明VIKOR内部和外部群体决策的排名结果是有效的，