2022
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-09073-8_18
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Ranking Requirements Using MoSCoW Methodology in Practice

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Technical complexity was measured by considering available features, services, development tools, and programming difficulty. With the MoSCoW method [50], requirements were classified on a scale of 1 to 4, where 1 indicates critical elements, and 4 indicates features not included in the current version (see Table 6). This process allowed us to objectively categorize the requirements as essential, necessary, or optional, facilitating the definition of final technical requirements for developing a functional, accessible, and technically feasible interface [51].…”
Section: Requirementsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Technical complexity was measured by considering available features, services, development tools, and programming difficulty. With the MoSCoW method [50], requirements were classified on a scale of 1 to 4, where 1 indicates critical elements, and 4 indicates features not included in the current version (see Table 6). This process allowed us to objectively categorize the requirements as essential, necessary, or optional, facilitating the definition of final technical requirements for developing a functional, accessible, and technically feasible interface [51].…”
Section: Requirementsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Based on these criteria, the priority of each user requirement was rated independently on a 4-point numerical rating scale (see Table 7) according to the Moscow prioritization method [77]:…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%