A Systematic Review of Software Requirements Selection and Prioritization Using SBSE Approaches

Pitangueira, Antonio Mauricio; Maciel, Rita Suzana Pitangueira; Barros, Márcio de Oliveira; Andrade, Aline Santos

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-39742-4_15

Cited by 24 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Table 3 also shows that the following topics are addressed in two studies each: user participation, stakeholder identification, goal-oriented RE, and requirements elicitation while all other topics were addressed in only one study each. (Herrmann & Daneva, 2008;Pitangueira et al, 2013;Rinkelevic et al, 2013;Pergher & Rossi, 2013) 4 Requirements specification techniques/notations (Teka et al, 2012;Da Silva et al, 2011;Condori-Fernandez et al, 2009;Amyot & Mussbacher, 2011) 4 Security requirements (Iankoulova & Daneva, 2012;Souag et al, 2012;Mellado, 2009;Goudarzi et al, 2013;) M a n u s c r i p t Creativity techniques for RE (Saha et al, 2012;Lemos et al, 2012;Nguyen, 2009) 3 User participation and client involvement (Bano & Zowghi, 2013;Abelein & Paech, 2013) 2 Stakeholder identification (Pecheco & Garcia, 2012;Cala & Ivan, 2008) 2 Goal-oriented RE frameworks (Ghanavati et al, 2011;Horkoff et al, 2014) 2 Requirements triage and selection (Khurumet et al, 2012) 2 Requirements elicitation techniques (Davis et al, 2006;Ouhbi et al, 2013) 2 Requirements analysis techniques (Yue et al, 2011;Aguilar et al, 2010) 2 Automated requirements elicitation techniques (Meth et al, 2013) 1 Requirements modelling and analysis techniques for self-adaptive systems (Yang et al, 2014) 1 Tracing techniques (Torkar et al, 2012) 1 Generation of requirements specification from SE models (Nicolas & Toral, 2009) (Yang et al, 2014), cloud systems in two reviews (Mellado, 2009;Iankoulova & Daneva, 2012), service-...…”

Section: Topics and Theoretical Perspectivesmentioning

confidence: 98%

Empirical research methodologies and studies in Requirements Engineering: How far did we come?

Daneva

Damian

Marchetto³

et al. 2014

Journal of Systems and Software

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Topics and Theoretical Perspectivesmentioning

confidence: 98%

Empirical research methodologies and studies in Requirements Engineering: How far did we come?

Daneva

Damian

Marchetto³

et al. 2014

Journal of Systems and Software

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…We describe a systematic literature review and, as a result, present a consolidated prioritization criteria model which consists of around 280 criteria. Several systematic literature reviews have already been performed in the context of requirements prioritization (e.g., [6] [7][8] [9]). In contrast to these studies, the goal of our work is not to identify certain prioritization approaches but to identify the criteria that are discussed in the prioritization literature.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Literature Review of Requirements Prioritization Criteria

Riegel

Doerr

2015

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. [Context & motivation]Requirements prioritization is typically applied in order to determine which requirements or features should be included in a certain release or implemented first. While most requirements prioritization approaches prescribe a fixed set of prioritization criteria that have to be assessed during the prioritization process, there is often a need for criteria that are customized to the specific project situation. [Question/problem] However, determining customized prioritization criteria is a time-consuming and laborious task. Instead of an in-depth analysis, criteria are often identified by gut feeling, which is error-prone and bears the risk of choosing misleading criteria. [Principal ideas/results] This paper aims at identifying and categorizing prioritization criteria discussed in the vast body of prioritization literature for software development. We describe a systematic literature review and, as a result, present a consolidated prioritization criteria model. [Contribution] Besides a comprehensive overview of prioritization criteria discussed in the literature, this paper introduces a classification schema that allows researchers and practitioners to identify prioritization criteria and related literature in a time-saving manner.

show abstract

“…This means that there exists no polynomial time algorithm to solve this problem unless P ¼ NP. Consequently several papers have investigated the use of heuristic methods to address the single-objective NRP [4]. Of course, the probable non-existence of a polynomial time algorithm does not imply that exact methods cannot perform well in practice.…”

Section: The Nrp With One Objectivementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Research on the NRP has mainly been concerned with search based software engineering approaches [4] probably because initial efforts to use Integer Linear Programming (ILP), which is an exact approach, proved inconclusive beyond small problem instances because of large run times [1]. In this paper we revisit ILP in the light of much improved solvers to see if, and how, it can be used to address the NRP with one and two objectives.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

An Integer Linear Programming approach to the single and bi-objective Next Release Problem

Veerapen

Ochoa

Harman

et al. 2015

Information and Software Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context The Next Release Problem involves determining the set of requirements to implement in the next release of a software project. When the problem was first formulated in 2001, Integer Linear Programming, an exact method, was found to be impractical because of large execution times. Since then, the problem has mainly been addressed by employing metaheuristic techniques. Objective In this paper, we investigate if the single-objective and bi-objective Next Release Problem can be solved exactly and how to better approximate the results when exact resolution is costly. Methods We revisit Integer Linear Programming for the single-objective version of the problem. In addition, we integrate it within the Epsilon-constraint method to address the bi-objective problem. We also investigate how the Pareto front of the bi-objective problem can be approximated through an anytime deterministic Integer Linear Programming-based algorithm when results are required within strict runtime constraints. Comparisons are carried out against NSGA-II. Experiments are performed on a combination of synthetic and real-world datasets. Findings We show that a modern Integer Linear Programming solver is now a viable method for this problem. Large single objective instances and small bi-objective instances can be solved exactly very quickly. On large bi-objective instances, execution times can be significant when calculating the complete Pareto front. However, good approximations can be found effectively. Conclusion This study suggests that (1) approximation algorithms can be discarded in favor of the exact method for the single-objective instances and small bi-objective instances, (2) the Integer Linear Programming-based approximate algorithm outperforms the NSGA-II genetic approach on large bi-objective instances, and (3) the run times for both methods are low enough to be used in real-world situations

show abstract

A Systematic Review of Software Requirements Selection and Prioritization Using SBSE Approaches

Cited by 24 publications

References 46 publications

Empirical research methodologies and studies in Requirements Engineering: How far did we come?

Empirical research methodologies and studies in Requirements Engineering: How far did we come?

A Systematic Literature Review of Requirements Prioritization Criteria

An Integer Linear Programming approach to the single and bi-objective Next Release Problem

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About