Prioritizing solution-oriented software requirements using the multiple perspective prioritization technique algorithm: An empirical investigation

Abstract

This research proposed an algorithm to enhance the software requirements prioritization activity, called the multiple perspective prioritization technique. This proposed technique (algorithm) attempts to represent three perspectives: the customer, business and technical perspectives. In addition, this technique is designed for a medium to large number of requirements. The effectiveness and efficiency of the proposed multiple perspective prioritization technique were investigated empirically, in order to show whether it is worthy to be adopted in the real working environment. For this reason, a controlled experiment was conducted among 159 participants, where they were asked to prioritize 42 requirements using the three techniques: our proposed technique (multiple perspective prioritization technique), analytical hierarchical process and Wiegers’ technique. The aim of this experiment was to compare and evaluate the multiple perspective prioritization technique with two other techniques, which are among the most widely used prioritization techniques. By this comparison, we would like to show which of these techniques (multiple perspective prioritization technique, analytical hierarchical process and Wiegers) is more efficient, understandable, easy to use, more scalable and less time-consuming by the participants in practice. This will help the software industry and associated experts to improve the quality of their software products. The experiment outcome reveals in general that the multiple perspective prioritization technique is more effective, understandable, less time-consuming, more scalable and easier for prioritizing requirements than the analytical hierarchical process and Wiegers’ techniques. As a conclusion, the multiple perspective prioritization technique is worthy to be implemented in real environments. Our findings reflecting the three perspectives would provide valuable insights into the domain of prioritizing software requirements.

Keywords

requirements engineering software requirements prioritization Multiple Perspective Prioritization Technique algorithm multiple perspectives scalability controlled experiment analytical hierarchical process Wiegers’ technique

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abo Elsood

Hefny

Nasr

(2014) A goal-based technique for requirements prioritization. In: 9th IEEE international conference on informatics and systems (INFOS2014), Cairo, Egypt, 15–17 December, pp. 18–24. New York: IEEE.

Achimugu

Selamat

Ibrahim

et al . (2014) A systematic literature review of software requirements prioritization research. Information and Software Technology 56(6): 568–585.

Berander

(2007) Evolving prioritization for software product management. PhD Thesis, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Karlskrona.

Dabbagh

Lee

Parizi

(2016) Functional and non-functional requirements prioritization: empirical evaluation of IPA, AHP-based, and HAM-based approaches. Soft Computing 20(11): 4497–4520.

Duan

Laurent

Cleland-Huang

et al . (2009) Towards automated requirements prioritization and triage. Requirements Engineering 14(2): 73–89.

Durugbo

Riedel

(2013) Viewpoint-participation-technique: a model of participative requirements elicitation. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications 21(1): 3–12.

Easterbrook

(1991) Elicitation of requirements from multiple perspectives. PhD Thesis, University of London, London.

George

(2014) Total quality function deployment: a case study. International Journal of Latest Trends in Engineering and Technology 3(3): 133–140.

Govers

(2001) QFD not just a tool but a way of quality management. International Journal of Production Economics 69(2): 151–159.

10.

Harding

Popplewell

Fung

R.Y

et al . (2001) An intelligent information framework relating customer requirements and product characteristics. Computers in Industry 44(1): 51–65.

11.

Hatton

(2007) Early prioritisation of goals. In: 26th international conference on conceptual modeling-foundations and applications, Auckland, New Zealand, 5–9 November, pp. 235–244. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

12.

Iqbal

(2012) A hybrid technique for requirements prioritization. Master Thesis, International Islamic University, Islamabad, Pakistan.

13.

Karlsson

Ryan

(1997) A cost-value approach for prioritizing requirements. IEEE Software 14(5): 67–74.

14.

Khan

Rehman

Khan

et al . (2015) Comparison of requirement prioritization techniques to find best prioritization technique. International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science 7(11): 53–59.

15.

Lehtola

Kauppinen

Kujala

(2004) Requirements prioritization challenges in practice. In: 5th international conference on product focused software process improvement (PROFES 2004), Kansai Science City, Japan, 5–8 April, pp. 497–508. New York: Springer.

16.

Liu

Sigman

(1997) Capture software design rationale based on an integrated analysis of both software process and product quality requirements from multiple perspectives. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications 5(2): 123–136.

17.

Liu

Zhang

Chen

(2012) A scenario-based approach for requirements management in engineering design. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications 20(2): 99–109.

18.

(2009) The effectiveness of requirements prioritization techniques for a medium to large number of requirements: a systematic literature review. Master Thesis, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.

19.

Otero

Dell

Qureshi

et al . (2010) A quality-based requirement prioritization framework using binary inputs. In: 4th Asia international conference on mathematical/analytical modelling and computer simulation, Borneo, Malaysia, 26–28 May, pp. 187–192. New York: IEEE.

20.

Pohl

Rupp

(2015) Requirements Engineering Fundamentals: A Study Guide for the Certified Professional for Requirements Engineering Exam Foundation Level-IREB Compliant, 2nd ed.Santa Barbara, CA: Rocky Nook, Inc.

21.

Ruby Balkishan (2015a) Fuzzy logic based requirement prioritization (FLRP) – an approach. International Journal of Computer Science and Technology 6(3): 61–65.

22.

Ruby Balkishan (2015b) Role of fuzzy logic in requirement prioritization. International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology 4(6): 4290–4297.

23.

Seltman

(2015) Chapter 15: mixed models: a flexible approach to correlated data. In: Experimental Design and Analysis. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University, pp. 357–375. Available at: http://www.stat.cmu.edu/~hseltman/309/Book/chapter15.pdf (accessed 26 October 2018).

24.

Shahin

(2005) Quality Function Deployment: A Comprehensive Review. Isfahan, Iran: Department of Management, University of Isfahan.

25.

Sher

Jawawi

Mohamad

et al . (2014) Requirements prioritization techniques and different aspects for prioritization a systematic literature review protocol. In: 8th Malaysian software engineering conference (MySEC 2014), Langkawi, Malaysia, 23–24 September, pp. 31–36. New York: IEEE.

26.

Snijders

Ozum

Brinkkemper

et al . (2015) Crowd-centric requirements engineering: a method based on crowdsourcing and gamification. Technical Report, Utrecht University, Utrecht, March.

27.

Veerappa

Letier

(2011) Understanding clusters of optimal solutions in multi-objective decision problems. In: 19th international requirements engineering conference (RE 2011), Trento, 29 August–02 September, pp. 89–98. Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.

28.

Voola

Babu

(2013) Comparison of requirements prioritization techniques employing different scales of measurement. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 38(4): 1–10.

29.

West

Welch

Gatecki

(2014) Linear Mixed Models: A Practical Guide Using Statistical Software, 2nd ed.Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC.

30.

Wolniak

(2018) The use of QFD method advantages and limitation. Production Engineering Archives 18: 14–17.