Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

RePizer: a framework for prioritization of software requirements

  • Published:
Frontiers of Information Technology & Electronic Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The standard software development life cycle heavily depends on requirements elicited from stakeholders. Based on those requirements, software development is planned and managed from its inception phase to closure. Due to time and resource constraints, it is imperative to identify the high-priority requirements that need to be considered first during the software development process. Moreover, existing prioritization frameworks lack a store of historical data useful for selecting the most suitable prioritization technique of any similar project domain. In this paper, we propose a framework for prioritization of software requirements, called RePizer, to be used in conjunction with a selected prioritization technique to rank software requirements based on defined criteria such as implementation cost. RePizer assists requirements engineers in a decision-making process by retrieving historical data from a requirements repository. RePizer also provides a panoramic view of the entire project to ensure the judicious use of software development resources. We compared the performance of RePizer in terms of expected accuracy and ease of use while separately adopting two different prioritization techniques, planning game (PG) and analytical hierarchy process (AHP). The results showed that RePizer performed better when used in conjunction with the PG technique.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Achimugu, P., Selamat, A., Ibrahim, R., et al., 2014. A systematic literature review of software requirements prioritization research. Inform. Softw. Technol., 56(6):568–585. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2014.02.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahl, V., 2005. An Experimental Comparison of Five Prioritization Methods—Investigating Ease of Use, Accuracy and Scalability. MS Thesis, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Ronneby, Sweden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arias, T.B.C., America, P., Avgeriou, P., 2011. Defining and documenting execution viewpoints for a large and complex software-intensive system. J. Syst. Softw., 84(9):1447–1461. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2010.11.908

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avesani, P., Bazzanella, C., Perini, A., et al., 2004. Supporting the requirements prioritization process: a machine learning approach. Proc. 16th Int. Conf. on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, p.306–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bebensee, T., van de Weerd, I., Brinkkemper, S., 2010. Binary priority list for prioritizing software requirements. LNCS, 6182:67–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14192-8_8

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, K., 2000. Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berander, P., 2007. Evolving Prioritization for Software Product Management. PhD Thesis, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Sweden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berander, P., Andrews, A., 2005. Requirements prioritization. In: Aurum, A., Wohlin, C. (Eds.), Engineering and Managing Software Requirements. Springer, p.69–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/3-540-28244-0_4

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Berander, P., Jönsson, P., 2006. Hierarchical cumulative voting (HCV)—prioritization of requirements in hierarchies. Int. J. Softw. Eng. Knowl. Eng., 16(6):819–849. http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0218194006003026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourque, P., Fairley, R.E., 2014. Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK®), Version 3.0. IEEE Computer Society Press, Piscataway, New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brackett, J.W., 1990. Software Requirements. Technical Report, No. SEI-CM-19-1.2. Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J.W., 2013. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (4th Ed.). Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dabbagh, M., Lee, S.P., 2013. A consistent approach for prioritizing system quality attributes. Proc. 14th ACIS Int. Conf. on Software Engineering, Artificial Intelligence, Networking and Parallel/Distributed Computing, p.317–322. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/SNPD.2013.9

    Google Scholar 

  • Dabbagh, M., Lee, S.P., 2014. An approach for integrating the prioritization of functional and nonfunctional requirements. Sci. World J., Article ID 737626. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/737626

    Google Scholar 

  • Dabbagh, M., Lee, S.P., 2015. An approach for prioritizing NFRs according to their relationship with FRs. Lect. Notes Softw. Eng., 3(1):1–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.7763/LNSE.2015.V3.154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dabbagh, M., Lee, S.P., Parizi, R.M., 2014. Application of hybrid assessment method for priority assessment of functional and non-functional requirements. Proc. Int. Conf. on Information Science and Applications, p.1–4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICISA.2014.6847365

    Google Scholar 

  • Danesh, A.S., Mortazavi, S.M., Danesh, S.Y.S., 2009. Requirements prioritization in on-line banking systems using value-oriented framework. Int. Conf. on Computer Technology and Development, p.158–161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICCTD.2009.41

    Google Scholar 

  • Daneva, M., Damian, D., Marchetto, A., et al., 2014. Empirical research methodologies and studies in requirements engineering: how far did we come? J. Syst. Softw., 95:1–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2014.06.035

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dominguez, J., 2009. The Curious Case of the Chaos Report 2009. Available from http://www.projectsmart.co.uk/thecurious-case-of-the-chaos-report-2009.html

    Google Scholar 

  • Firesmith, D., 2004. Prioritizing requirements. J. Obj. Technol., 3(8):35–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.5381/jot.2004.3.8.c4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorschek, T., 2006. Requirements Engineering Supporting Technical Product Management. PhD Thesis, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Sweden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karlsson, J., Ryan, K., 1997. A cost-value approach for prioritizing requirements. IEEE Softw., 14(5):67–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/52.605933

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khan, S.U.R., Rehman, I.U., Malik, S.U.R., 2009. The impact of test case reduction and prioritization on software testing effectiveness. Int. Conf. on Emerging Technologies, p.416–421. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICET.2009.5353136

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauesen, S., 2002. Software Requirements: Styles and Techniques. Addison-Wesley Professional.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leffingwell, D., Widrig, D., 2003. Managing Software Requirements: a Unified Approach. Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehtola, L., 2006. Providing Value by Prioritizing Requirements Throughout Product Development: State of Practice and Suitability of Prioritization Methods. PhD Thesis, Helsinki University of Technology, Finland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehtola, L., Kauppinen, M., 2006. Suitability of requirements prioritization methods for market-driven software product development. Softw. Process Improv. Pract., 11(1):7–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/spip.249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Library of Congress Portals Applications Interest Group (LCPAIG), 2003. Functional Requirements for an Open-URL Resolver for the Library of Congress. Available from http://www.loc.gov/catdir/lcpaig/openurl_requirements_20031104.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Likert, R., 1932. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch. Psychol., 22:1–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, X.Q., Veera, C.S., Sun, Y., et al., 2004. Priority assessment of software requirements from multiple perspectives. 28th Annual Int. Computer Software and Applications Conf., p.410–415. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/CMPSAC.2004.1342872

    Google Scholar 

  • Mead, N., 2006. Requirements Prioritization Introduction. Software Engineering Institute Web Publication, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohammadi, S., Nikkhahan, B., Sohrabi, S., 2008. An analytical survey of “on-site customer” practice in extreme programming. Int. Symp. on Computer Science and Its Applications, p.1–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/CSA.2008.72

    Google Scholar 

  • Moisiadis, F., 2002. The fundamentals of prioritising requirements. Proc. Systems Engineering, Test and Evaluation Conf., p.109–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Otero, C.E., Dell, E., Qureshi, A., et al., 2010. A quality-based requirement prioritization framework using binary inputs. 4th Asia Int. Conf. on Mathematical/Analytical Modelling and Computer Simulation, p.187–192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/AMS.2010.48

    Google Scholar 

  • Perini, A., Ricca, F., Susi, A., 2009. Tool-supported requirements prioritization: comparing the AHP and CBRank methods. Inform. Softw. Technol., 51(6):1021–1032. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2008.12.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perini, A., Susi, A., Avesani, P., 2013. A machine learning approach to software requirements prioritization. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., 39(4):445–461. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2012.52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramzan, M., Jaffar, M.A., Iqbal, M.A., et al., 2009. Value based fuzzy requirement prioritization and its evaluation framework. Proc. 4th IEEE Int. Conf. on Innovative Computing, Information and Control, p.1464–1468. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICICIC.2009.375

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramzan, M., Jaffar, M.A., Shahid, A.A., 2011. Value based intelligent requirement prioritization (VIRP): expert driven fuzzy logic based prioritization technique. Int. J. Innov. Comput. Inform. Contr., 7(3):1017–1038.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ribeiro, R.A., Moreira, A.M., van den Broek, P., et al., 2011. Hybrid assessment method for software engineering decisions. Dec. Supp. Syst., 51(1):208–219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2010.12.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T.L., 2008. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int. J. Serv. Sci., 1(1):83–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJSSCI.2008.017590

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadiq, M., Shahid, M., Ahmad, S., 2010. Adding threat during software requirements elicitation and prioritization. Int. J. Comput. Appl., 1(9):50–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.5120/200-339

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, S., Castellan, N.J., 1988. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd Ed.). McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sommerville, I., 2010. Software Engineering (9th Ed.). Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tahriri, F., Dabbagh, M., Ale Ebrahim, N., 2014. Supplier assessment and selection using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process in a steel manufacturing company. J. Sci. Res. Rep., 3(10):1319–1338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiegers, K., Beatty, J., 2013. Software Requirements (3rd Ed.). Microsoft Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., et al., 2012. Experimentation in Software Engineering. Springer Science & Business Media. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29044-2

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Young, R.R., 2004. The Requirements Engineering Handbook. Artech House, Norwood, MA, USA.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Software Engineering, Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, 50603, Malaysia

    Saif Ur Rehman Khan, Sai Peck Lee & Mohammad Dabbagh

  2. Faculty of Computing and Information Technology, University of Jeddah, Jeddah, 21589, Saudi Arabia

    Muhammad Tahir

  3. College of Computer and Information Sciences (Muzahmiyah Branch), King Saud University, Riyadh, 11362, Saudi Arabia

    Muzafar Khan

  4. Department of Computer Science, University of Gujrat, Gujrat, 50700, Pakistan

    Muhammad Arif

Authors
  1. Saif Ur Rehman Khan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sai Peck Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mohammad Dabbagh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Muhammad Tahir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Muzafar Khan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Muhammad Arif
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Saif Ur Rehman Khan.

Additional information

Project supported by the Ministry of Education, Malaysia (No. UM.C/625/1/HIR/MOHE/FCSIT/13) and the Bright Sparks Program of University of Malaya, Malaysia (No. BSP-151(3)11)

ORCID: Saif Ur Rehman KHAN, http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9643-6858

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Khan, S.U.R., Lee, S.P., Dabbagh, M. et al. RePizer: a framework for prioritization of software requirements. Frontiers Inf Technol Electronic Eng 17, 750–765 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1631/FITEE.1500162

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1631/FITEE.1500162

Keywords

CLC number

Search

Navigation