Hierarchical Cumulative Voting (HCV) prioritization of requirements in hierarchies

International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering

Volumn 16, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 819-849

  Berander, Patrik ^a   Jönsson, Per ^a  

^a BLEKINGE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Analytical hierarchy process; Cumulative voting; Decision support; Hierarchical cumulative voting; Hundred dollar test; Requirements prioritization

Indexed keywords

DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS; HIERARCHICAL SYSTEMS; INDUSTRIAL MANAGEMENT; SOFTWARE ENGINEERING; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT;

ANALYTICAL HIERARCHY PROCESSES; HIERARCHICAL CUMULATIVE VOTING; HIERARCHICAL CUMULATIVE VOTING (HCV); HUNDRED DOLLAR TESTS; REQUIREMENTS PRIORITIZATION;

REQUIREMENTS ENGINEERING;

EID: 33846620519     PISSN: 02181940     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1142/S0218194006003026     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. th Workshop on Advances in Learning Software Organizations, Chicago, IL, 2002, pp. 104-113.
2. A. Ngo-The and G. Ruhe, Decision support in requirements engineering, in Engineering and Managing Software Requirements, eds. A. Aurum and C. Wohlin (Springer Verlag, Berlin, 2005), pp. 267-286.
3. B. Boehm and L. G. Huang, Value-based software engineering: A case study, IEEE Computer 36(3) (2003) 22-41.
4. B. Bergman and B. Klefsjö, Quality from Customer Needs to Customer Satisfaction, 2nd edn. (Studentlitteratur, Lund, 2003).
5. G. G. Schulmeyer and J. I. McManus, Handbook of Software Quality Assurance, 3rd edn. (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1999).
6. P. Berander and A. Andrews, Requirements prioritization, in Engineering and Managing Software Requirements, eds. A. Aurum and C. Wohlin (Springer Verlag, Berlin, 2005), pp. 69-94.
7. G. Ruhe, A. Eberlein, and D. Pfahl, Quantitative WinWin -A new method for decision support in requirements negotiation, in Proc. 14th Int. Conf. on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (SEKE'02), Ischia, Italy, 2002, pp. 159-166.
8. P. Jönsson and C. Wohlin, Understanding impact analysis: An empirical study to capture knowledge on different organisational levels, in Proc. 17th Int. Conf., on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (SEKE'OS), Taipei, Taiwan, 2005, pp. 707712.
9. G. R.uhe and M. O. Saliu, The art and science of software release planning, IEEE Software 22(6) (2005) 47-54.
10. B. Regnell, M. Höst, J. Natt och Dag, P. Beremark, and T. Hjelm, An industrial case study on distributed prioritization in market-driven requirements engineering for packaged software, Requirements Engineering 6(1) (2001) 51-62.
11. N. E. Fenton and S. L. Pfleeger, Software Metrics - A Rigorous and Practical Approach, 2nd edn. (PWS Publishing Co., Boston, 1997).
12. J. Karlsson, Software requirements prioritizing, in Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Requirements Engineering (ICRE'96), Colorado Springs, CO, 1996, pp. 110-116.
13. S. Bradner, RFC 2119, 199T, 〈http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119. txt〉 (31 May 2006).
14. IEEE Std 830-1998, IEEE Recommended Practice for Software Requirements Specifications (IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, 1998).
15. J. Karlsson, C. Wohlin, and B. Regnell, An evaluation of methods for prioritizing software requirements, Information and Software Technology 39(14-15) (1998) 939-947.
16. J. Karlsson and K. Ryan, A cost-value approach for prioritizing requirements, IEEE Software. 14(5) (199T) 67-74.
17. L. Karlsson and B. Regnell, Comparing ordinal and ratio scale data in requirements prioritization, in Proc. 3rd Int. Workshop on Comparative Evaluation in Requirements Engineering (CERE'05), Paris, France, 2005, pp. 21-29.
18. T. L. Saaty, The Analytic Hierarchy Process (McGraw-Hill, NY, 1980).
19. T. L. Saaty and L. G. Vargas, Models, Methods, Concepts & Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, 2001).
20. D. R. Anderson, D. J. Sweeney, and T. A. Williams, An Introduction to Management Science - Quantitative Approaches to Decision Making, 9th edn. (South-Western Educational Publishing, 2000).
21. P. Tomaszewski and L. Lundberg, Software development productivity on a new platform - An industrial case study, Information and Software Technology 47(4) (2005) 257-269.
22. G. M. Marakas, Decision Support Systems in the 21st Century, 2nd edn. (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2003).
23. P. T. Harker, Incomplete pairwise comparisons in the analytical hierarchy process, Mathematical Modelling 9(11) (1987) 837-848.
24. Y. Shen, A. E. Hoerl, and W. McConnell, An incomplete design in the analytical hierarchy process, Mathematical Computer Modelling 16(5) (1992) 121-129.
25. J. Karlsson, S. Olsson, and K. Ryan, Improved practical support for large-scale requirements prioritizing, Requirements Engineering 2(1) (1997) 51-60.
26. L. Lehtola and M. Kauppinen, Suitability of requirements prioritization methods for market-driven software product development, Software Process Improvement and Practice (SPIP) 11 (2006) 7-19.
27. L. Karlsson, T. Thelin, B. Regnell, P. Berander, and C. Wohlin, Pairwise comparisons versus planning game partitioning - Experiments on requirements prioritization techniques, Empirical Software Engineering (EMSE) (2006), 〈http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/sl0664-006-7240-4〉 (31 May 2006).
28. Focal Point tool, 〈http://www.telelogic.com/corp/products/ focalpoint/index.cfm〉 (31 May 2006).
29. D. Greer and G. Ruhe, Software release planning: An evolutionary and iterative approach, Information and Software Technology 46(4) (2004) 243-253.
30. L. Karlsson, P. Berander, B. Regnell, and C. Wohlin, Requirements prioritization: An experiment on exhaustive pairwise comparisons versus planning game partitioning in Proc. 8th Int. Conf. on Empirical Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE 2004), Edinburgh, Scotland, 2004, pp. 145-154.
31. D. Leffingwell and D. Widrig, Managing Software Requirements - A Unified Approach (Addison-Wesley, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2000).
32. Investopedia.com, 〈http://www.investopedia.eom/terms/c/ cuniulativevoting.asp〉 (31 May 2006).
33. S. Bowler, T. Donovan, and D. M. Farrell, Party strategy and voter organization under cumulative voting in Victorian England, Political Studies 47(5) (1999) 906-918.
34. L. Lehtola and M. Kauppinen, Empirical evaluation of two requirements prioritization methods in product development projects, in Proc. European Software Process Improvement Conference. (EuroSPI 2004), Trondheim, Norway, 2004, pp. 161-170.
35. N. A. M. Maiden and C. Ncube, Acquiring COTS software selection requirements, IEEE Software 15(2) (1998) 46-56.
36. K. Wiegers, Software Requirements (Microsoft Press, Redmond, WA, 1999).
37. P. Jönsson and C. Wohlin, A study on prioritization of impact analysis: A comparison between perspectives, in Proc. Fifth Conf. on Software Engineering Research and Practice in Sweden (SERPS'05), Mälardalen University, Vasteras, Sweden, 2005, pp. 11-19.
38. P. Berander and C. Wohlin, Differences in views between development roles in software process improvement - A quantitative comparison, in Proc. 8th Int. Conf. on Empirical Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE 2004), Edinburgh, Scotland, 2004, pp. 57-66.
39. V. Ahl, An Experimental Comparison of Five Prioritization Techniques -Investigating Ease of Use, Accuracy, and Scalability, Master Thesis No. MSE-2005-11, School of Engineering, Blekinge Institute of Technology, 2005.
40. A. G. Dahlstedt and A. Persson, Requirements interdependencies: State of the art and future challenges, Engineering and Managing Software Requirements, eds. A. Aurum and C. Wohlin (Springer Verlag, Berlin, 2005), pp. 95-116.
41. C. Rolland and C. Salinesi, Modeling goals and reasoning with them, in Engineering and Managing Software Requirements, eds. A. Aurum and C. Wohlin (Springer Verlag, Berlin, 2005), pp. 189-217.
42. T. Gorschek and C. Wohlin, Requirements abstraction model, Requirements Engineering 11(1) (2006) 79-101.
43. A. Davis, Software Requirements: Objects, Functions and States (Prentice Hall International, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1993).
44. T. Gorschek, Supporting Requirements Engineering in Technical Product Management, Ph.D. Thesis, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Doctoral Dissertation Series No. 2006:01, School of Engineering, Ronneby, Sweden.
45. R. Van Soligen and E. Berghout, Goal/Question/Metric Method: A Practiced Guide for Quality Improvement of Software Development (McGraw-Hill Education, London, 1999).
46. P. Berander, Using students as subjects in requirements prioritization, in Proc. 2004 Int. Symp. on Empirical Software Engineering (ISESE'04), Redondo Beach, CA, 2004, pp. 167-176.
47. G. A. Miller, The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information, Psychological Review 63 (1956) 81-97.
48. J. Doumont, Magical numbers: The seven-plus-minus-two myth, IEEE Trans, on Professional Communication 45(2) (2002) 123-127.
49. K. Schmid, A comprehensive product line scoping and its validation, in Proc. 24th Int. Conf. on Software Engineering (ICSE'02), Orlando, FL, 2002, pp. 593-603.
50. P. Carlshamre, Release planning in market-driven software product development: Provoking an understanding, Requirements Engineering 7(3) (2002) 139-151.
51. R. Dawson and M. de Chazal, Forget statistics -Draw a graph instead, in Proc. 8th Int. Conf. on Empirical Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE 2004), Edinburgh, Scotland, 2004, pp. 67-75.
52. C. Wohlin and A. Aurum, Criteria for selecting software requirements to create product value: An industrial empirical study, in Value-Based Software Engineering, eds. S. Biffl, A. Aurum, B. Boehm, H. Erdogmus, and P. Grünbacher (Springer Verlag, Berlin, 2006), pp. 179-200.
53. P. Berander and C. Wohlin, Identification of key factors in software process management -A case study, in Proc. 2003 Int. Symp. on Empirical Software Engineering (ISESE'OS), Rome, Italy, 2003, pp. 316-325.
54. P. Berander and P. Jönsson, A goal question metric based approach for efficient measurement framework definition, in Proc. 2006 Int. Symp. on Empirical Software Engineering (ISESE'06), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2006, pp. 316-325.