A cost-value approach for prioritizing requirements

Karlsson, Jenny; Ryan, Kevin

doi:10.1109/52.605933

Cited by 541 publications

(333 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

327

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Recently, Johansson et al [11] stressed the importance of complementing the qualitative customer feedback with quantitative input by showing its implications on the product managers prioritization decisions. Moreover, and in order to further develop only those requirements that will deliver the most business value, various prioritization techniques have been introduced in requirement engineering and product development literature [12] [13], [13], [14], [15], [16]. However, these do not consider market factors such as the availability of the features being assessed in competitors' products [17].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Commodity Eats Innovation for Breakfast: A Model for Differentiating Feature Realization

Fabijan

Olsson

Bosch

2016

Product-Focused Software Process Improvement

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Once supporting the electrical and mechanical functionality, software today became the main competitive advantage in products. However, in the companies that we study, the way in which software features are developed still reflects the traditional 'requirements over the wall' approach. As a consequence, individual departments prioritize what they believe is the most important and are unable to identify which features are regularly used -'flow', there to be bought -'wow', differentiating and that add value to customers, or which are regarded commodity. In this paper, and based on case study research in three large software-intensive companies, we (1) provide empirical evidence that companies do not distinguish between different types of features, which causes poor allocation of R&D efforts and suppresses innovation, and (2) develop a model in which we depict the activities for differentiating and working with different types of features and stakeholders.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Commodity Eats Innovation for Breakfast: A Model for Differentiating Feature Realization

Fabijan

Olsson

Bosch

2016

Product-Focused Software Process Improvement

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Implemented capabilities Binary Priority List [14] A B WinWin requirements negotiation model [15] A B C Integer linear programming approach [16] A B C D E Requirements Triage [17] A B C E MOSCOW [18] A B C D Cost Value Approach [19] A B C D Quality Function Deployment [20] A B C Features Prioritization Matrix [21] A B C D E…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Incremental Method Engineering for Process Improvement - A Case Study

Mirandolle

Weerd

Brinkkemper

2011

IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. In order for companies to improve the maturity level of their development process, they need to design new methods or adapt the existing ones. This research aims to deliver a proof of concept of how incremental method engineering supports the maturation of methods in a product software company. We show how the adaptation of a method can lead to a higher maturity level.We assessed the method of a case company by means of the situational assessment method, resulting into the maturity level and situational factors. We also modeled eight different prioritization methods according to their maturity level and situational factors to find out which of these could be implemented into the case company's method in order to evolve to a higher maturity level. After matching the situational factors of the available methods with the company factors we find one method that is suitable to implement into the existing method at the case company. We explain how the implementation can take place and how this would evolve the method to full maturity.

show abstract

“…They require a complete catalogue of comparable requirements that are evaluated, prioritized, and selected for implementation [20]. Known prioritization approaches include manual techniques such as top ten, numerical assignment, ranking, and 100$-test [5], and computer-based techniques such as Integer Linear Programming [21,22] and the Analytical Hierarchy Process [23].…”

Section: Background and Motivationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Release Planning with Feature Trees: Industrial Case

Fricker

Schumacher

2012

Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. [Context and motivation] Requirements catalogues for software release planning are often not complete and homogeneous. Current release planning approaches, however, assume such commitment to detail -at least implicitly. [Question/problem] We evaluate how to relax these expectations, while at the same time reducing release planning effort and increasing decisionmaking flexibility. [Principal ideas/results] Feature trees capture AND, OR, and REQUIRES relationships between requirements. Such requirements structuring can be used to hide incompleteness and to support abstraction. [Contribution] The paper describes how to utilize feature trees for planning the releases of an evolving software solution and evaluates the effects of the approach on effort, decision-making, and trust with an industrial case.Keywords: features, abstraction, release planning, roadmapping, case study. IntroductionSoftware releases are planned by allocating requirements to development projects [1]. A strategic release plan aligns the development of an evolving software solution with market and stakeholder needs, company objectives, and constraints such as time and resources. Release planning is a central concern in iterative development, where multiple iterations, rather than a single project, are defined [2]. Release planning involves the following steps [3]. Requirements are elicited and specified. Criteria [4] are defined to evaluate and prioritize requirements [5]. Releases are then scoped by allocating the prioritized requirements to development projects. The resulting release plans are implemented, delivered, and analyzed with post-release reflections [6].Requirements that enter release planning are often of low quality [7]. Their homogeneity [8], completeness, and understanding [9] are hard to ensure due to the limited effort invested before a development project is funded. This situation contradicts with the assumptions of release planning approaches that scope projects simply by prioritizing and allocating available requirements. Consequently, the results are not trusted and not used for guiding ensuing development steps [10].Release Planning with Feature Trees: Industrial Case 289 This paper describes in detail how to hide the requirements-related problems by structuring the release planning inputs. The approach, whose initial ideas were introduced in an earlier position paper [11], is based on variability modeling [12] that allows abstracting from requirements with AND, OR, and REQUIRES relationships [13]. Variability is here used to structure decision options [14] for product evolution. This paper then introduces an industrial case [15] to understand how to use variability modeling in a real-world context of continuous agile product management [16]. Evaluated were feasibility of the approach and its effects on effort, decision-making, and trust were evaluated.The paper is structured as follows. Section 2 describes background and motivation. Section 3 introduces variability-based release planning. Section 4 describe...

show abstract

A cost-value approach for prioritizing requirements

Cited by 541 publications

References 8 publications

Commodity Eats Innovation for Breakfast: A Model for Differentiating Feature Realization

Commodity Eats Innovation for Breakfast: A Model for Differentiating Feature Realization

Incremental Method Engineering for Process Improvement - A Case Study

Release Planning with Feature Trees: Industrial Case

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About