Email this article 
Open Access
Subscription or Fee Access
Limitations of AHP as Applied to Requirements Prioritization
Abstract
This paper discusses the extent of the use of Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), one of the multi-criteria decision-making methods, which has certain limitations in prioritizing the requirements, and the use of some simple techniques such as Brainstorming for obtaining relevant information that helps in the process of prioritization. It is concluded that AHP cannot be satisfactorily applied to requirements priority for the simple reason that human views cannot be quantified. It is also concluded that the methods like AHP cannot be of as much use in requirements prioritization as other simple techniques such as Interviewing, Brainstorming etc. The final conclusion is that the best practical method of prioritizing requirements can be only the using of the domain knowledge of the team of the developers after they have had different rounds of discussions with the clients that require the software. Inspite of its limitations, AHP can be used to obtain some ideas about prioritization which can be perfected only by other practical techniques as mentioned in the paper.
Keywords
References
Arun Kumar,S., Arun Kumar, T.(2011). Study the impact of Requirements Management Characteristics in Global Software Development Projects: AN Ontology Based Approach, International Journal of Software Engineering & Applications (IJSEA), Vol.2, No.4, pp. 107-125.
Paolo Avesani, Cinzia Bazzanella, Annaperini, Angelo susi,(2005), Facing Scalability Issues in Requirements priorities with Machine Learning Techniques proceeding of the 13th IEEE international Conference on Requirements Engineering.
Aybuke Aurum and Claes Wohlin,(2005). Engineering and Managing Software Requirements, Springer – Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg.
Donegan, H., Dodd, F., & McMaster, T. (1992). A new approach to AHP decision-making. The Statician 41, pp. 295-302.
Hofmann, H.F; and Lehner, F. (2001). Requirements engineering as a success factor in software Projects, IEEE Software, 18(4) : 58 – 66.
Joachim Karlsson, Claes wohlm, Bjorn Regnell,(1998), An evaluation of methods for prioritizing Software Requirements, Information and Software Technology 39, pp . 939 – 947.
Jones,Capers .(2004).Software Project Management Practices: Failure Versus Success, Software Productivity Research LLC ,The Journal of Defence Software Engineering.
Kaur, Rupinder., Jyotsna Sengupta.(2011). Software Process Models and Analysis on Failure of Software Development Projects, International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Vol. 2, Issue 2, pp.1-4.
Kotonya, G; Sommerville, I,(1998). Requirements engineering – processes and techniques, JohnWiley and Sons UK.
Nadina Martínez Carod and Alejandra Cechich,(2005). ’Classifying Software Requirement Prioritization Approaches’, Red de Universidades con carreras en Informatica..
Suzanne Robertson, James Robertson,(2013).Mastering the Requirements Process, Addison-Wesley.
Mohammed Sadiq, Mohammed Shahid, Shabbir Ahmed,(2010). Adding Threat during Software Requirements Elicitation and Prioritization, International Journal of Computer Applications,vol .1,No.9, pp.50-54.
Mulla, Nilofar., Girase , Sheetal, (2012). A new approach to Requirement Elicitation based on Stakeholder Recommendation and Collaborative Filtering, International Journal of Software Engineering & Applications (IJSEA), Vol.3, No.3, pp. 51-60.
Vanitha Shroff. (2001). Requirements Management Metrics, Master’s in Software Engineering Comprehensive Project Report, University of Calgary, Alberta,Canada.
Paolo Tonella, Angelo Susi, Francis Palma,(2010). Using Interactive GA for Requirements Prioritization, 10th proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Search based Software Engineering, IEEE Computer Society, pp. 57-66.
Evangelos Triantaphyllou, Stuart H.Mann. (1994), 'A Computational Evaluation Of The Original And Revised Analytic Hierarchy Process' , Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 609-618.
VissoAhl ,(2005). An experimental Comparison of five prioritization methods – Investigating ease of use, accuracy and scalability , Master Thesis Software Engineering Thesis no : MSE – 2005 – 11, School of Engineering, Blekinge Institute of Technology , Sweden.
S. Yoo, M. Harman, P. Tonella, and A. Susi, “Clustering test cases to achieve effective and scalable prioritisation incorporating expert knowledge,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Testing and Analysis, Jul. 2009, pp. 201–212.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.