## 2 Literature Review
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline
**Author(s)** & **Scope of Application** & **Technique** \\ \hline [PERSON] and [PERSON] [16] & Selection of cloud network services & AHP, TOPSIS \\ [PERSON] et al. [17] & Prioritize and rank software requirements & AHP, TOPSIS \\ [PERSON] et al. [18] & Project portfolio selection & Fuzzy AHP, TOPSIS \\ [PERSON] and [PERSON] [19] & Supplier selection & SWARA, WASP \\ [PERSON] et al. [20] & Dispute problems & SWARA \\ [PERSON] et al. [21] & Selecting R\&D projects & SWARA \\ [PERSON] et al. [22] & Supplier selection in agile environment & SWARA, VIKOR \\ [PERSON] and [PERSON] [23] & Choosing lean production tools & TOPSIS, BWM \\ [PERSON] et al. [24] & Renewable energy sources optimization & MOORA, TOPSIS, COPRAS \\ [PERSON] [25] & Sustainable waste-management assessment & RFID, GIS, GPRS \\ [PERSON] et al. [26] & Material selection & AHP \\ [PERSON] et al. [27] & Basin prioritization & AHP, TOPSIS, VIKOR \\ [PERSON] et al. [28] & Welding-robot selection & TOPSIS, Entropy \\ [PERSON] et al. [29] & Sustainable supplier evaluation & AHP, BWM \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline AHP: Analytical Hierarchy Process, TOPSIS; Technique for Order Preference by Similarity, WASPAS: Weighted Aggregated Sum Product Assessment, VIKOR: VlesKriterjumska Optimizacaja I Kompromison Resenig, BWM: Best worst method, MOORA: Multi-Objective Optimization on the basis of Ratio Analysis, COPRAS: COmplex PRoportional Assessment, RFID: Radio Frequency Identification, GIS: Geographical Information Systems, GPRS: General Packet Radio Service. \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Studies using MCDM techniques. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline
**Author(s)** & **Scope of Application** & **Technique** \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. [1] & Prioritize and rank software & Fuzzy AHP, TOPSIS \\ [PERSON] et al. [1] & testing-process parameters & Fuzzy AHP, TOPSIS \\ [PERSON] and [PERSON] [30] & Evaluate the geoheritage potential of & Fuzzy SWARA \\ [PERSON] and [PERSON] [31] & Evaluation criteria of wage management & Fuzzy SWARA, AHP \\ [PERSON] and [PERSON] [32] & Personnel selection & Fuzzy DEMATEL, fuzzy VIKOR \\ [PERSON] et al. [18] & Project management & Fuzzy AHP, TOPSIS \\ [PERSON] et al. [1] & Software test management & Fuzzy AHP, fuzzy TOPSIS \\ [PERSON] et al. [33] & Remanufacturing supply chain & Fuzzy SWARA, COPRAS \\ [PERSON] et al. [34] & Nuclear power plant selection & Fuzzy AHP \\ [PERSON] and [PERSON] [35] & Simulation study in freight transportation & Intuitionistic fuzzy AHP \\ [PERSON] et al. [36] & Prioritization of cost factors & Fuzzy AHP \\ [PERSON] et al. [37] & Sustainable production practice & Fuzzy AHP, fuzzy TOPSIS \\ [PERSON] et al. [38] & Selection of strategic alliances & Fuzzy SWARA \\ [PERSON] et al. [39] & Green supplier selection in the food industry & Fuzzy TOPSIS \\ [PERSON] et al. [40] & Prioritization of entrepreneur barriers & Fuzzy AHP \\ [PERSON] and [PERSON] [41] & Selection of warehouse management system & Pythagorean fuzzy SWARA \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Studies using fuzzy MCDM techniques. software tests are prioritized, and the different severity sizes that may have on the project are divided into subcomponents and evaluated with different weights. This study makes significant contributions to the literature in evaluating software testing risks and ensuring that different severity dimensions of the risk are included in the evaluation. The study applies a new weighted FMEA model to prioritize the most recurring errors in software testing processes according to their severity on the project.