International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science (IJMECS)
IJMECS Vol. 7, No. 11, 8 Nov. 2015
Cover page and Table of Contents: PDF (size: 267KB)
Comparison of Requirement Prioritization Techniques to Find Best Prioritization Technique
Full Text (PDF, 267KB), PP.53-59
Views: 0 Downloads: 0
Author(s)
Javed Ali Khan
1,*
Izaz Ur Rehman
1
Yawar Hayat Khan
2
Iftikhar Javed Khan
2
Salman Rashid
2
Index Terms
Requirement prioritization, Comparisons of requirement prioritization, AHP, Software engineering
Abstract
This paper describes an assessment of different requirement prioritization techniques (binary search tree, AHP, hierarchy AHP, spanning tree matrix, priority group/Numerical Analysis, bubble sort, MoSoW, simple ranking and Planning Game) on the basis of previous literature. Five research papers and thesis are critically reviewed, in order to select best requirement prioritization method. The study of literature shows that AHP is the best requirements prioritization technique amongst all the requirements prioritization techniques. It provides the most efficient and reliable results which are on ratio scale. It is fault- tolerant and provides a consistency check.
Cite This Paper
Javed Ali Khan, Izaz Ur Rehman, Yawar Hayat Khan, Iftikhar Javed Khan, Salman Rashid, "Comparison of Requirement Prioritization Techniques to Find Best Prioritization Technique", International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science (IJMECS), vol.7, no.11, pp.53-59, 2015. DOI:10.5815/ijmecs.2015.11.06
Reference
[1]Firesmith, prioritizing requirement, journal of object technology ed. Berlin, Germany: Springer-verlag, 2004.
[2]Ngo and G.Rhue, Decision Support in requirement engineering, In a Anrum and C. Wohilin (Eds). Engineering and managing software requirements (pp.267-286), Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2005.
[3]H. Goldstein, Who killed the virtual case file?, IEEE spectrum, Tech Rep. 42, Sept 2005.
[4]C.Huang and Mobasher, Using data mining and recommender to scale up the requirement pro cess, Proceedings of the 2nd International workshop on ultra large scale software intensive system, 2008.
[5]J.karlsson, C.Wolin and B. Regnell, An evaluation of methods for prioritizing software requirements, information and software technology, pp 939-947,2007.
[6]IEEE-STD 830-1998, “IEEE recommended practice for software requirement specifications.”, IEEE computer society.
[7]S. Brender, Key words for use in RFC’s to indicate requirements levels, RFC 2119.
[8]D. Leffingwell & D. widring, managing software requirements - A unified approach, upper Saddle River: Addison- Wesley.
[9]I. Sommerville & P. Sawyer, Requirements engineering, A good practice guide, Vhichester: John wiley and sons, May 5, 1997.
[10]S. Hatton, Early prioritization of goals, M.K Jean-Luchainaut, Elke A. Rundensteiner Ed., Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2007.
[11]Dsdm Public version 4.2, from www.dsdm.org, Tech. Rep., Retrieved, 6 June, 2009.
[12]A.V. Aho, J.D. Ullman & J.E.Hopcroft, data structure and algrithems, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, January 11, 1983.
[13]New dawn technologies. Beat the oods, maiking IT projects a sucess, Retrieved 02 Aug 2009, form http://newdawntech.com/webinar/beattheoddspsf.pdf.
[14]J.Karlsson & K. Ryan, A Cost- Value approach for prioritizing requirements, IEEE Software, 14(5), 67-74.
[15]K. Beck, Extreme Programming explained, Reading, MA:Addison Wesley,1999.
[16]Saaty, The analytic hierarchy process, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980.
[17]Ahl, “An experimental comparison of five prioritization methods - investigating ease of use, accuracy and scalability, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Master’s thesis ,Ronneby, Sweden, 2005.
[18]Amir Seyed Danesh, Rodina Ahmad, Study of Prioritization Techniques using Students as subjects, 2009 International Conference on Information Management and Engineering, IEEE, 2009.
[19]Nilofar Mulla, Sheetal Girase, Comparison of various Elicitation Techniques and Requirement Prioritization Techniques , International Journal of engineering Research & Technology (IJERT), Vol. 1 Issue 3, May – 2012, ISSN: 2278-0181.