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 timeconsuming 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.
Software architecture mainly focuses on the high-level structures of the proposed software, and how to document these structures. A documentation method that represents an incomplete picture is one reason for inadequate requirements. This leads to requirements engineers wasting their time arguing over what to do and how to do it. Four documentation methods are frequently used in order to document stakeholders' statements, particularly for representing the functional perspective, namely, Natural Language (NL), Data Flow Diagram (DFD), Use Case Diagram (UCD), and Activity Diagram (AD). This research was carried out using the electronic market application domain as a test context. A controlled experiment was conducted among 158 participants, comparing among NL, DFD, UCD, and AD methods, which aimed to find out which requirements documentation method is more effective, helpful, and easier to comprehend. The results from this empirical study reveal that the AD method is more effective, understandable, and easier to document the software requirements in the functional perspective. Furthermore, AD had better performance in representing the requirements engineering context, system context, and development context than the other functional documentation methods. These empirical results would help software companies and associated experts enhance the quality of their software products, as well as increase the chance of success of software projects.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.