Requirements prioritisation: an experiment on exhaustive pair-wise comparisons versus planning game partitioning

The process of selecting the right set of requirements for a product release is highly dependent on how well we succeed in prioritising the requirements candidates. There are different techniques available for requirements prioritisation, some more elaborate than others. In order to compare different techniques, a controlled experiment was conducted with the objective of understanding differences regarding time consumption, ease of use, and accuracy. The requirements prioritisation techniques compared in the experiment are the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and a variation of the planning game (PG), isolated from extreme programming. The subjects were 15 Ph.D. students and one professor, who prioritised mobile phone features using both methods. It was found that the straightforward and intuitive PG was less time consuming, and considered by the subjects as easier to use, and more accurate than AHP (Less)

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

[2]  S. Siegel,et al.  Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences , 2022, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[3]  A. E. Hoerl,et al.  An incomplete design in the analytic hierarchy process , 1992 .

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

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

[6]  Martin Fowler,et al.  Planning Extreme Programming , 2000 .

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

[8]  S. H. Zanakis,et al.  A Monte Carlo investigation of incomplete pairwise comparison matrices in AHP , 1997 .

[9]  Robert C. Martin,et al.  Extreme programming in practice , 2001, OOPSLA '00.

[10]  Galal H Galal,et al.  Requirements engineering: A good practice , 2000 .

[11]  Claes Wohlin,et al.  Using Students as Subjects—A Comparative Study of Students and Professionals in Lead-Time Impact Assessment , 2000, Empirical Software Engineering.

[12]  S. Lauesen.  Software Requirements Styles and Techniques , 2001 .

[13]  Alan M. Davis,et al.  The Art of Requirements Triage , 2003, Computer.

[14]  Galal H. Galal-Edeen,et al.  Requirements engineering: A good practice , 2000, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[15]  Joseph R. Shoenfield,et al.  The Analytical Hierarchy , 1993 .

[16]  Soren Lauesen,et al.  Software Requirements: Styles & Techniques , 2002 .

[17]  K. Beck,et al.  Extreme Programming Explained , 2002 .

[18]  Mark T True,et al.  Software Requirements , 2005 .

[19]  Qi Zhang,et al.  A method of evaluation for scaling in the analytic hierarchy process , 1996, 1996 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics. Information Intelligence and Systems (Cat. No.96CH35929).

[20]  Claes Wohlin,et al.  Experimentation in software engineering: an introduction , 2000 .

[21]  P. Harker.  Incomplete pairwise comparisons in the analytic hierarchy process , 1987 .