An evaluation of methods for prioritizing software requirements

Abstract

This article describes an evaluation of six different methods for prioritizing software requirements. Based on the quality requirements for a telephony system, the authors individually used all six methods on separate occasions to prioritize the requirements. The methods were then characterized according to a number of criteria from a user's perspective. We found the analytic hierarchy process to be the most promising method, although it may be problematic to scale-up. In an industrial follow-up study we used the analytic hierarchy process to further investigate its applicability. We found that the process is demanding but worth the effort because of its ability to provide reliable results, promote knowledge transfer and create consensus among project members. ᭧ 1998 Elsevier Science B.V.

Adaptive Regression Testing Strategy: An Empirical Study

“…They develop a multi-criteria decision model to support the distributed team work allocation decision by using decision conferencing and multi-attribute value analysis. Finnie et al [26] use AHP to prioritize software development productivity factors, and Karlsson et al [9] and Perini et al [27] compare AHP with other alternative method in prioritizing software requirements. Yoo et al [11] use AHP to improve test case prioritization techniques by employing expert knowledge, and compare the proposed approach with the conventional coverage-based test case prioritization technique.…”

“…To date, many MCDM approaches have been proposed including the Weighted Sum Model (WSM), the Weighted Product Model (WPM), the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), and other variants. Among these MCDM methods, AHP has been one of the more popular methods, having been used by researchers and practitioners in various areas including software engineering [9], [10], [11].…”

An Approach towards Enterprise Architecture Analysis using AHP and Fuzzy AHP

“…One such MCDM technique, AHP [4,5], is leveraged in this method for prioritizing and selecting a desired architecture scenario among candidates. Different methods may be applied for prioritization [6]. This includes subjective judgment with or without consensus building and methods such as providing a total sum of points to be divided between the items or aspects you would like to prioritize.…”

Comparing the performance of metaheuristics for the analysis of multi-stakeholder tradeoffs in requirements optimisation

“…There has been much recent work on search based optimisation for requirements engineering problems [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8]. This work has traditionally considered objectives such as cost and value of requirements and sought to maximise the value of the requirements delivered, while minimising the cost [2,5,7].…”