Towards a Research Framework on Requirements Prioritization

There exist a large number of approaches for prioritization of software requirements. Despite of several empirical studies, there is still a lack of evidence of which approaches that are to prefer, since different studies have resulted in different conclusions. Reasons may be due to differences in contexts, variables measured, and data sets used. This paper presents a research framework for studies about requirements prioritization, which aims to enable building a more consistent knowledge base and stronger evidence. The framework facilitates comparison, replication, and high-level analysis of prioritization approaches by proposing suitable variables to measure. The basis of the framework comes from a systematic review conducted on requirements prioritization techniques, and is further refined through literature studies of similar frameworks in related areas, and in a research workshop. The framework supports researchers in conducting and reporting prioritization studies, and supports practitioners in getting information about different approaches.

[1]  Joachim Karlsson,et al.  Software requirements prioritizing , 1996, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Requirements Engineering.

[2]  Joachim Karlsson,et al.  A Cost-Value Approach for Prioritizing Requirements , 1997, IEEE Softw..

[3]  Suzanne Robertson,et al.  Mastering the Requirements Process , 1999 .

[4]  Dietmar Pfahl,et al.  Reporting guidelines for controlled experiments in software engineering , 2005, 2005 International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering, 2005..

[5]  Patrik Berander,et al.  Using students as subjects in requirements prioritization , 2004, Proceedings. 2004 International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering, 2004. ISESE '04..

[6]  Tore Dybå,et al.  A systematic review of statistical power in software engineering experiments , 2006, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[7]  Claes Wohlin,et al.  Pair-wise comparisons versus planning game partitioning—experiments on requirements prioritisation techniques , 2007, Empirical Software Engineering.

[8]  Barbara Kitchenham,et al.  Procedures for Performing Systematic Reviews , 2004 .

[9]  Natalia Juristo Juzgado,et al.  Analysis of the influence of communication between researchers on experiment replication , 2006, ISESE '06.

[10]  M. Host,et al.  Experimental context classification: incentives and experience of subjects , 2005, Proceedings. 27th International Conference on Software Engineering, 2005. ICSE 2005..

[11]  Liming Zhu,et al.  Evaluating guidelines for empirical software engineering studies , 2006, ISESE '06.

[12]  Charles Richter,et al.  A review of the state of the practice in requirements modeling , 1993, [1993] Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering.

[13]  Nicolas Moussiopoulos,et al.  Identification of major components for integrated urban air quality management and information systems via user requirements prioritisation , 2003, Environ. Model. Softw..

[14]  Mehdi T. Harandi,et al.  Workshop on software specification and design , 1988, SOEN.

[15]  Tore Dybå,et al.  An initial framework for research on pair programming , 2003, 2003 International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering, 2003. ISESE 2003. Proceedings..

[16]  Marjo Kauppinen,et al.  Empirical Evaluation of Two Requirements Prioritization Methods in Product Development Projects , 2004, EuroSPI.

[17]  Dietmar Pfahl,et al.  Quantitative WinWin: a new method for decision support in requirements negotiation , 2002, SEKE '02.

[18]  Martin Höst,et al.  An Industrial Case Study on Distributed Prioritisation in Market-Driven Requirements Engineering for Packaged Software , 2001, Requirements Engineering.

[19]  Claes Wohlin,et al.  An evaluation of methods for prioritizing software requirements , 1998, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[20]  Jawed I. A. Siddiqi,et al.  Requirements Engineering: The Emerging Wisdom , 1996, IEEE Softw..

[21]  Claes Wohlin,et al.  A Classification Scheme for Studies on Fault-Prone Components , 2001, PROFES.

[22]  Shari Lawrence Pfleeger,et al.  Software Engineering Decision Support , 2007, 2007 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'07).

[23]  Pär Carlshamre,et al.  Release Planning in Market-Driven Software Product Development: Provoking an Understanding , 2002, Requirements Engineering.

[24]  Joachim Karlsson,et al.  Supporting the selection of software requirements , 1996, Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Software Specification and Design.

[25]  Emilia Mendes,et al.  A systematic review of Web engineering research , 2005, 2005 International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering, 2005..

[26]  Günther Ruhe,et al.  Decision Support in Requirements Engineering , 2005 .

[27]  T. Saaty,et al.  The Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1985 .

[28]  Joachim Karlsson,et al.  Improved practical support for large-scale requirements prioritising , 1997, Requirements Engineering.

[29]  Karl E. Wiegers,et al.  Software Requirements , 1999 .

[30]  Marjo Kauppinen,et al.  Requirements Prioritization Challenges in Practice , 2004, PROFES.

[31]  Paula Gomes Mian,et al.  Systematic Review in Software Engineering , 2005 .

[32]  Miguel P Caldas,et al.  Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches , 2003 .

[33]  Des Greer,et al.  Software release planning: an evolutionary and iterative approach , 2004, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[34]  Claes Wohlin,et al.  Requirements prioritisation: an experiment on exhaustive pair-wise comparisons versus planning game partitioning , 2004, ICSE 2004.

[35]  Patrik Berander,et al.  Hierarchical Cumulative Voting (hcv) - Prioritization of Requirements in Hierarchies , 2006, Int. J. Softw. Eng. Knowl. Eng..