Selecting an appropriate framework for value-based requirements prioritization

Kukreja, Nupul; Payyavula, Sheetal Swaroop; Boehm, Barry; Padmanabhuni, Srinivas

doi:10.1109/re.2012.6345819

Cited by 24 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We were involved in an industrial case study where we evaluated seventeen different prioritization frameworks against the criteria put forth by the project sponsors [3]. After a rigorous analysis TOPSIS was selected as the framework of choice (over other popular frameworks like AHP [11] and QFD [15]; see [3]).…”

Section: Background and Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Integrating collaborative requirements negotiation and prioritization processes: a match made in heaven

Kukreja

Boehm

2013

Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Software and System Process

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Background and Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…After a rigorous analysis TOPSIS was selected as the framework of choice (over other popular frameworks like AHP [11] and QFD [15]; see [3]). A tool based on TOPSIS was developed and successfully deployed for company-wide use with positive results [4].…”

Section: Background and Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrating collaborative requirements negotiation and prioritization processes: a match made in heaven

Kukreja

Boehm

2013

Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Software and System Process

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…I was involved in a related case-study [6] where we looked at selecting the most appropriate value-based requirements prioritization framework for company-wide use at a premier IT organization in India. We compared 17 prioritization frameworks against 17 distinct criteria as put forth by our stakeholders.…”

Section: Background and Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We compared 17 prioritization frameworks against 17 distinct criteria as put forth by our stakeholders. TOPSIS was selected as the framework of choice and deployed for company-wide use and was extended to handle the need for hierarchical prioritization [6].Other popular prioritization methods such as AHP [11] and QFD [12] were ranked considerably lower with respect to the criteria by the stakeholders; see [6] Hierarchical prioritization was implemented using mathematical normalization i.e. prioritizing a 'child-level' requirement and scaling its priority by that of its parent (that are themselves prioritized using TOPSIS against the same or additional criteria).…”

Section: Background and Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Decision theoretic requirements prioritization A two-step approach for sliding towards value realization

Kukreja¹

2013

2013 35th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Budget and schedule constraints limit the number of requirements that can be worked on for a software system and is thus necessary to select the most valuable requirements for implementation. However, selecting from a large number of requirements is a decision problem that requires negotiating with multiple stakeholders and satisficing their value propositions. In this paper I present a two-step value-based requirements prioritization approach based on TOPSIS, a decision analysis framework that tightly integrates decision theory with the process of requirements prioritization. In this two-step approach the software system is initially decomposed into high-level Minimal Marketable Features (MMFs) which the business stakeholders prioritize against business goals. Each individual MMF is further decomposed into low-level requirements/features that are primarily prioritized by the technical stakeholders. The priorities of the low-level requirements are influenced by the MMFs they belong to. This approach has been integrated intoWinbook, a social-networking influenced collaborative requirements management framework and deployed for use by 10 real-client project teams for the Software Engineering project course at the University of Southern California in Fall 2012. This model allowed the clients and project teams to effectively gauge the importance of each MMF and low-level requirement and perform various sensitivity analyses and take value-informed decisions when selecting requirements for implementation.

show abstract

“…Researchers discussed about several stakeholder prioritization concepts for requirements prioritization: exploring collaboration [9], risks of stakeholders' being negatively effected by project outcome [10], pairwise comparison [11], etc. The authors in [12] used House of Quality (HoQ) framework [13] for comparative analysis of 17 requirements prioritization frameworks but none of these frameworks addressed the rank reversal problem. The authors in [7] used k-means algorithm to solve rank reversal in requirements prioritization but failed to account for the stakeholder prioritization.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

SAFFRON: A Semi-Automated Framework for Software Requirements Prioritization

Asif¹,

Masud²,

Easmin³

et al. 2017

ijacsa

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-Due to dynamic nature of current software development methods, changes in requirements are embraced and given proper consideration. However, this triggers the rank reversal problem which involves re-prioritizing requirements based on stakeholders' feedback. It incurs significant cost because of time elapsed in large number of human interactions. To solve this issue, a Semi-Automated Framework for soFtware Requirements priOritizatioN (SAFFRON) is presented in this paper. For a particular requirement, SAFFRON predicts appropriate stakeholders' ratings to reduce human interactions. Initially, item-item collaborative filtering is utilized to estimate similarity between new and previously elicited requirements. Using this similarity, stakeholders who are most likely to rate requirements are determined. Afterwards, collaborative filtering based on latent factor model is used to predict ratings of those stakeholders. The proposed approach is implemented and tested on RALIC dataset. The results illustrate consistent correlation, similar to state of the art approaches, with the ground truth. In addition, SAFFRON requires 13.5-27% less human interaction for reprioritizing requirements.

show abstract

Selecting an appropriate framework for value-based requirements prioritization

Cited by 24 publications

References 16 publications

Integrating collaborative requirements negotiation and prioritization processes: a match made in heaven

Integrating collaborative requirements negotiation and prioritization processes: a match made in heaven

Decision theoretic requirements prioritization A two-step approach for sliding towards value realization

SAFFRON: A Semi-Automated Framework for Software Requirements Prioritization

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About