More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/

Article

Evaluating the practical use of different measurement scales in requirements prioritisation

Authors:

Björn RegnellAuthors Info & Claims

ISESE '06: Proceedings of the 2006 ACM/IEEE international symposium on Empirical software engineering

Pages 326 - 335

https://doi.org/10.1145/1159733.1159782

Published: 21 September 2006 Publication History

Abstract

The importance of prioritising requirements is widely recognised. A number of different techniques for prioritising requirements have been proposed, some based on an ordinal scale, others on a ratio scale. Some measurement scales provide more information than others, i.e. the ratio scale is richer than the ordinal scale. This paper aims to investigate the differences between the scales used in prioritisation. This is important since techniques using a richer scale tend to be more time-consuming and complex to use. Thus, there is a trade-off between simple techniques only providing ranks and complex techniques providing information about the relative distance between requirements priorities. The paper suggests an approach to measure the skewness of the ratio distribution and a way to use the cost-value approach on ordinal scale data. Four different empirical data sets were used to verify the suggested approaches. The skewness measure seems feasible to determine in which cases the ratio scale is valuable. It indicates that some of our subjects tend to use the extreme values of the scale while others are more modest. The cost-value approach based on ordinal scale data also seems feasible. The requirements selection decisions based on ordinal scale data agree substantially with the decisions based on ratio scale data.

References

[1]

Beck, K., Extreme Programming Explained, Addison-Wesley, 1999.

Digital Library

[2]

Carmone, F.J., Kara, A., and Zanakis, S.H., A Monte Carlo Investigation of Incomplete Pairwise Comparison Matrices in AHP, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol 102, pp. 538--553, 1997.

[3]

Fenton, N.E., and Pfleeger, S.L., Software Metrics - A Rigorous and Practical Approach, PWS Publishing Company, 1997.

Digital Library

[4]

Harker, P.T., Incomplete Pairwise Comparisons in the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Mathl. Modelling, Vol 9, pp. 837--848, 1987.

[5]

IEEE Std. 830-1998, IEEE Recommended Practice for Software Requirements Specifications, 1998.

[6]

Karlsson, J., Software Requirements Prioritizing, Proceedings of the International Conference of Requirements Engineering (ICRE'96), pp. 110--116, 1996.

Digital Library

[7]

Karlsson, J., and Ryan, K., Supporting the Selection of Software Requirements, Proceedings of the 8th workshop on Software Specification and Design, pp. 146--149, 1996.

Digital Library

[8]

Karlsson, J., and Ryan, K., A Cost-Value Approach for Prioritizing Requirements, IEEE Software, pp. 67--74, 1997.

Digital Library

[9]

Karlsson, J., Wohlin, C., and Regnell, B., An Evaluation of Methods for Prioritizing Software Requirements, Information and Software Technology, pp. 939--947, 1998.

[10]

Karlsson, L., Berander, P., Regnell, B., and Wohlin, C., Requirements Prioritisation: An Experiment on Exhaustive Pair-Wise Comparisons versus Planning Game Partitioning, Proceedings of the 8th Int. Conference on Empirical Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE'04), Edinburgh, Scotland, 2004.

[11]

Karlsson, L., Regnell, B., Comparing Ordinal and Ratio Scale Data in Requirements Prioritisation, Proceedings of the 3rd Int. Workshop on Comparative Evaluation in Requirements Engineering (CERE'05), Paris, France, 2005.

[12]

Landis, J.R., Koch, G.G., The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data, Biometrics, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 159--174, 1977.

[13]

Leffingwell, D., and Widrig, D., Managing Software Requirements - A Unified Approach, Addison-Wesley, 2000.

Digital Library

[14]

Lehtola, L., and Kauppinen, M., Empirical Evaluation of Two Requirements Prioritization Methods in Product Development Projects, Proceedings of European Software Process Improvement Conference, Trondheim, Norway, 2004.

[15]

Newkirk, J. W., and Martin, R. C., Extreme Programming in Practice, Addison-Wesley, 2001.

Digital Library

[16]

Phillips-Donaldsson, D., 100 Years of Duran, Quality Progress, Vol. 37, pp. 25--39, 2004.

[17]

Robson, C., Real World Research, Blackwell, 1997.

[18]

Saaty, T. L., The Analytical Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill, 1980.

[19]

Siegel, S., and Castellan, J.N., Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, Second Edition, McGraw-Hill, 2000.

[20]

Wiegers, K., Software Requirements, Microsoft Press, 1999.

Digital Library

[21]

http://www.telelogic.com/corp/products/focalpoint/index.cfm (visited February 28th, 2006).

[22]

Zave, P., Classification of Research Efforts in Requirements Engineering, Proceedings of the 2nd Int. Symposium of Requirements Engineering, pp. 214--216, 1995.

Digital Library

Cited By

Wohlrab RGarlan D(2022)A negotiation support system for defining utility functions for multi-stakeholder self-adaptive systemsRequirements Engineering10.1007/s00766-021-00368-yOnline publication date: 11-Jan-2022
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-021-00368-y
Singh SBajwa MKaur RKaur AVats PKaur S(2022)A Novel Approach for Implementation of Software Requirement Specifications Using the Humpback Whale Optimization ModelICT Systems and Sustainability10.1007/978-981-19-5221-0_13(123-132)Online publication date: 1-Nov-2022
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5221-0_13
DePalmer DSchuldt SDelorit J(2021)Prioritizing facilities linked to corporate strategic objectives using a fuzzy modelJournal of Facilities Management10.1108/JFM-12-2020-0091ahead-of-print:ahead-of-printOnline publication date: 13-May-2021
https://doi.org/10.1108/JFM-12-2020-0091
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Evaluating the practical use of different measurement scales in requirements prioritisation
1. Software and its engineering
  1. Software creation and management
    1. Software verification and validation
      1. Process validation

Recommendations

Comparison of requirements prioritization techniques employing different scales of measurement

The objective of this paper is to conduct a controlled experiment with the three requirements prioritization techniques: Numerical Assignment (NA), Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Extensive Numerical Assignment (ENA), each based on ordinal, ratio ...
Choosing the Right Prioritisation Method
ASWEC '08: Proceedings of the 19th Australian Conference on Software Engineering

There are many methods available for prioritising software requirements. Choosing the most suitable one can often be quite difficult. A number of factors need to be considered such as the project development methodology being used, the amount of time ...
Prioritising mobile learning application requirements

Mobile technology has become an integral part of human life. Nowadays, people have started using mobile devices and communication network in educational, commerce, and health domain. Mobile learning (M-learning i.e., learning using portable devices) ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

ISESE '06: Proceedings of the 2006 ACM/IEEE international symposium on Empirical software engineering

September 2006

388 pages

ISBN:1595932186

DOI:10.1145/1159733

General Chair:
Guilherme Horta Travassos
COPPE/UFRJ, Brazil
,
Program Chairs:
José Carlos Maldonado
ICMC-USP, Brazil
,
Claes Wohlin
Blekinge Institute of Technology, Sweden

Copyright © 2006 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 21 September 2006

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Article

Conference

ISESE06

Sponsor:

ISESE06: ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering 2006

September 21 - 22, 2006

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

16
Total Citations
View Citations
907
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)11
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)2

Reflects downloads up to 11 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Wohlrab RGarlan D(2022)A negotiation support system for defining utility functions for multi-stakeholder self-adaptive systemsRequirements Engineering10.1007/s00766-021-00368-yOnline publication date: 11-Jan-2022
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-021-00368-y
Singh SBajwa MKaur RKaur AVats PKaur S(2022)A Novel Approach for Implementation of Software Requirement Specifications Using the Humpback Whale Optimization ModelICT Systems and Sustainability10.1007/978-981-19-5221-0_13(123-132)Online publication date: 1-Nov-2022
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5221-0_13
DePalmer DSchuldt SDelorit J(2021)Prioritizing facilities linked to corporate strategic objectives using a fuzzy modelJournal of Facilities Management10.1108/JFM-12-2020-0091ahead-of-print:ahead-of-printOnline publication date: 13-May-2021
https://doi.org/10.1108/JFM-12-2020-0091
Nurrifqhi AWidowati SImrona M(2019)Agricultural Information Application Design using User Centered Requirements EngineeringJournal of Physics: Conference Series10.1088/1742-6596/1367/1/0120171367(012017)Online publication date: 11-Nov-2019
https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1367/1/012017
Alzaqebah AMasadeh RHudaib A(2018)Whale optimization algorithm for requirements prioritization2018 9th International Conference on Information and Communication Systems (ICICS)10.1109/IACS.2018.8355446(84-89)Online publication date: Apr-2018
https://doi.org/10.1109/IACS.2018.8355446
Hujainah FBakar RAbdulgabber MZamli K(2018)Software Requirements Prioritisation: A Systematic Literature Review on Significance, Stakeholders, Techniques and ChallengesIEEE Access10.1109/ACCESS.2018.28817556(71497-71523)Online publication date: 2018
https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2881755
Achimugu PSelamat AIbrahim RMahrin M(2014)A systematic literature review of software requirements prioritization researchInformation and Software Technology10.1016/j.infsof.2014.02.00156:6(568-585)Online publication date: 1-Jun-2014
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.infsof.2014.02.001
Benestad HHannay JRuneson PHöst MMendes EAndrews AHarrison R(2012)Does the prioritization technique affect stakeholders' selection of essential software product features?Proceedings of the ACM-IEEE international symposium on Empirical software engineering and measurement10.1145/2372251.2372300(261-270)Online publication date: 19-Sep-2012
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2372251.2372300
Falessi DCantone GKazman RKruchten P(2011)Decision-making techniques for software architecture designACM Computing Surveys10.1145/1978802.197881243:4(1-28)Online publication date: 18-Oct-2011
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1978802.1978812
Leppänen MLamminen JSaariluoma P(2011)A Framework for Intention-Driven Requirements Engineering of Innovative Software ProductsInformation Systems Development10.1007/978-1-4419-9790-6_33(417-428)Online publication date: 1-Sep-2011
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-9790-6_33
Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents