Prioritizing software development productivity factors using the analytic hierarchy process

Finnie, Gavin; Wittig, G. E.; Petkov, Doncho

doi:10.1016/0164-1212(93)90091-b

Cited by 44 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Finnie et al [6], for example, used AHP to prioritize software development factors. They found AHP to be relatively easy to apply, but do not elaborate on the problems arising if the number of prioritizing objects grows.…”

Section: Motivationmentioning

confidence: 99%

An evaluation of methods for prioritizing software requirements

Karlsson¹,

Wohlin²,

Regnell³

1998

Information and Software Technology

321

266

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Motivationmentioning

confidence: 99%

An evaluation of methods for prioritizing software requirements

Karlsson¹,

Wohlin²,

Regnell³

1998

Information and Software Technology

321

266

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The result is given as a numerical value in order to give a clear hierarchy of relative importance between factors and also to construct a weight system to use on resource distribution, investment combinations and predictions. For example, the AHP is used on selecting machines for flexible manufacturing systems (Tabucanon et al, 1994), evaluating human sensitivity to chromatic light (Wang and Lee, 1997) and the analysis of information systems (Finnie et al, 1993;Mitta, 1993).…”

Section: Analytic Hierarchy Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process on optimum spatial allocation

Wu¹,

Lee²,

Lin³

2004

International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…To get a better insight into the background of the proposed approach, research led to the works of many authors involving AHP in software engineering. As a good reference to the present research, emphasis was given to approaches presented in [2,7,9,17,19,23]. Another relevant paper to the present research is [30], which examines some of the practical and computational issues involved when the AHP method is used in engineering applications, especially in industrial engineering.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analytic hierarchy process-based group assessment of quality-in-use model characteristics

SrăźEvić

Pipan

Melo

et al. 2015

Univ Access Inf Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While the characteristics related to the qualities of software in use have been standardized, people managing software development processes still have to combine and prioritize attainment levels for such characteristics. Ranking them can therefore be considered a decision problem that should be solved not only in accordance with the preferences of the stakeholders involved in the decision-making process, but also by following multi-part standards, e.g., that the relative importance of quality characteristics should depend on the high-level goals and objectives for the project. This paper presents an example guide for creating such a ranking for a group of experts coming from different domains using a decision-support inspired approach. Five important quality-in-use characteristics are evaluated by sixteen experts with the analytic hierarchy process. Obtained individual preferences were aggregated by two procedures, and achieved group results were analyzed, of which one analysis included testing of their conformity to individual results. For this case study, the group opinions indicated the top-valued quality in use was effectiveness, followed by satisfaction, freedom from risk, efficiency and context coverage in this ranked order (freedom from risk and efficiency were of nearly equal importance). Implications for the future work of applying different decision-making models such as social choice theory for studying quality attributes are also discussed.

show abstract

Prioritizing software development productivity factors using the analytic hierarchy process

Cited by 44 publications

References 16 publications

An evaluation of methods for prioritizing software requirements

An evaluation of methods for prioritizing software requirements

Using the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process on optimum spatial allocation

Analytic hierarchy process-based group assessment of quality-in-use model characteristics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About