Email this article 
Open Access
Subscription or Fee Access
Comparison of Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods Used In Requirement Engineering
Abstract
This article evaluates six different multi-criteria decision-making methods used for prioritizing software requirements to attain efficient and consistent results. This includes the detailed study of AHP, FAHP, ANP, TOPSIS and SMARTER methods. These methods compared with an aim of understanding the differences based on their performance criteria such as complexity, ease of use, consistency, accountability, processing time and the number of requirements. These criteria’s represents the uniqueness of the methods and its resilient features for solving the complex problem. The literature shows that AHP is the best prioritization technique used in most of the applications. It results in trustworthy results from the ratio scale and includes a consistency check. In the AHP method as weight assignments to the alternatives are relative; any change in the values may affect the weights of the other alternatives resulting in uncertainty. This drawback is overcome by including fuzzy concepts in AHP. The conventional fuzzy environment helps the decision maker to make a better decision with tangible and intangible criteria.
Keywords
References
Wang, H., Xie, M., & Goh, T. N. (1998). A comparative study of the prioritization matrix method and the analytic hierarchy process technique in quality function deployment. Total Quality Management, 9(6), 421-430.
Karlsson, J., Wohlin, C., & Regnell, B. (1998). An evaluation of methods for prioritizing software requirements. Information and software technology, 39(14-15), 939-947.
Hatton, S. (2007, November). Early prioritization of goals. In International Conference on Conceptual Modeling (pp. 235-244). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Perini, A., Ricca, F., & Susi, A. (2009). Tool-supported requirements prioritization: Comparing the AHP and CBRank methods. Information and Software Technology, 51(6), 1021-1032.
Aasem, M., Ramzan, M., & Jaffar, A. (2010, June). Analysis and optimization of software requirements prioritization techniques. In Information and Emerging Technologies (ICIET), 2010 International Conference on (pp. 1-6). IEEE.
Khari, M., & Kumar, N. (2013). Comparison of six prioritization techniques for software requirements. Journal of Global Research in Computer Science, 4(1), 38-43.
Achimugu, P., Selamat, A., Ibrahim, R. and Mahrin, M.N. (2014) A Systematic Literature Review of Software Requirements Prioritization Research. Information and Software Technology, 56,568-585. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2014.02.001.
Khan, J. A., Rehman, I. U., Khan, Y. H., Khan, I. J., & Rashid, S. (2015). Comparison of requirement prioritization techniques to find best prioritization technique. International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science, 7(11), 53.
Qaddoura, Raneem & Abu-Srhan, Alaa & Haj Qasem, Mais & Hudaib, Amjad. (2017). Requirements Prioritization Techniques Review and Analysis. 258263. 10.1109/ICTCS.2017.55.
Guitouni A, Martel JM. Tentative guidelines to help choosing an appropriate MCDA method. European Journal of Operational Research 1998; 109:501–21.
Roy B, Słowinski R. Questions guiding the choice of a multicriteria decision aiding method. EURO Journal on Decision Processes 2013; 1:69–97.
Zanakis SH, Solomon A, Wishart N, Dublish S. Multi-attribute decision making: a simulation comparison of select methods. European Journal of Operations Research 1998; 107:507–29.
Mahmoud MR, Garcia LA. Comparison of different multicriteria evaluation methods for the Red Bluff diversion dam. Environmental Modelling and Software 2000; 15:471–8.
Mulliner, Emma & Malys, Naglis & Maliene, Vida. (2016). Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of sustainable housing affordability. Omega. 59. 10.1016/j.omega.2015.05.013i.
Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process: Planning, priority setting, resources allocation. New York, NY: McGraw.
Al-Harbi, K. M. (2001). Application of the AHP in project management. International Journal of Project Management, 19, 19 –27.
Sumeet Kaur Sehra, Yadwinder Singh Brar and Navdeep Kaur "Applications of Multi-criteria Decision Making in Software Engineering", (IJACSA) International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, Vol. 7, No. 7, 2016.
L. Zadeh: Fuzzy sets, Information and Control, 8, 338-353, 1965.
Ying-Ming Wang, Kwai-Sang Chin “Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process: A logarithmic Fuzzy performance Programming Methodology “International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 52(2011)541-553
Saaty, T. L. (1996). Decision making with dependence and feedback: the analytic network process: The organization and prioritization of complexity. Pittsburgh: Rws Publications.
Khan, Javed. (2016). Requirements Prioritization Using Analytic Network Process (ANP). International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 7, Issue 11, November-2016 ISSN 2229-5518.
C.-L. Hwang and K. Yoon, Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Application- A State of The Art Survey, lecture no ed., M. Beckmann and H. P. Kunzi, Eds. Springer Berlin Heidelberg New York, 1981.
S. Mahmoodzadeh, J. Shahrabi, M. Pariazar, and M. S. Zaeri, “Project selection by using fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS technique,” International Journal of Human and social sciences, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 135–140, 2007. Available: http://www.waset.org/publications/128
W. Edwards, and F.H. Barron, “SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved simple methods for multiattribute utility measurement,” Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 60, pp. 306-325, 1994.
Vanessa B.S.Silva et al. A multicriteria approach for selection of agile methodologies in software development projects, 2016 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics • SMC 2016 | October 9-12, 2016 • Budapest, Hungary.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.