Does the prioritization technique affect stakeholders' selection of essential software product features?

International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 261-270

  Benestad, Hans Christian ^a   Hannay, Jo E ^b  

^a ExpertWare AS   (Norway)

^b SIMULA RESEARCH LABORATORY   (Norway)

Author keywords

Essential features; Field experiment; Prioritization techniques; Requirements; Robustness; Stakeholders

Indexed keywords

ESSENTIAL FEATURES; FIELD EXPERIMENT; PRIORITIZATION; REQUIREMENTS; STAKEHOLDERS;

EXPERIMENTS; KNOWLEDGE BASED SYSTEMS; ROBUSTNESS (CONTROL SYSTEMS); SOFTWARE ENGINEERING;

FEATURE EXTRACTION;

EID: 84867517040     PISSN: 19493770     EISSN: 19493789     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/2372251.2372300     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (38)

1. J. S. Armstrong, editor. Principles of Forecasting: A Handbook for Researchers and Practitioners. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2001.
2. H. C. Benestad and J. E. Hannay. A comparison of model-based and judgment-based release planning in incremental software projects. In Proc. 33rd Int'l Conf. Software Engineering (ICSE 2011), pages 766-775. ACM, 2011.
3. P. Berander and A. Andrews. Requirements prioritization. In Engineering and Managing Software Requirements, chapter 4, pages 69-94. Springer, 2005.
4. P. Berander and P. Jönsson. Hierarchical cumulative voting (hcv) prioritization of requirements in hierarchies. Int'l J. Software Engineering & Knowledge Engineering, 16:819-849, 2006.
5. P. Berander, K. A. Khan, and L. Lehtola. Towards a research framework on requirements prioritization. In Proc. 6th Conf. Software Engineering Research and Practice in Sweden, pages 39-48, 2006.
6. A. S. Danesh and R. Ahmad. Study of prioritization techniques using students as subjects. In Int'l Conf. Information Management and Engineering, pages 390-394. IEEE Computer Society, 2009.
7. K. A. Ericsson. The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the development of superior expert performance. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich, and R. R. Hoffman, editors, The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance, chapter 38, pages 683-703. Cambridge Univ. Press, 2006.
8. D. Gentner and A. L. Stevens, editors. Mental Models. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 1983.
9. G. A. Gescheider. Psychophysical scaling. Annual Review of Psychology, 39:169-200, 1988.
10. G. Gigerenzer and P. M. Todd, editors. Simple Heuristics that Make Us Smart. Oxford University Press, 1999.
11. T. Halkjelsvik and M. Jørgensen. From origami to software development: A review of studies on judgment-based predictions of performance time. accepted to Psychological Bulletin, 2011.
12. J. E. Hannay. Better software effort estimation̂aa matter of skill or environment? Submitted to IEEE Trans. Software Engineering; available at simula. no/people/johannay/bibliography, 2012.
13. J. E. Hannay and H. C. Benestad. Perceived productivity threats in large agile development projects. In Proc. 4th Int'l Symp.Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM), pages 1-10. IEEE Computer Society, 2010.
14. J. E. Hannay and M. Jørgensen. The role of deliberate artificial design elements in software engineering experiments. IEEE Trans. Software Eng., 34:242-259, Mar/Apr 2008.
15. P. T. Harker. Incomplete pairwise comparisons in the analytic hierarchy process. Mathematical Modelling, 9(11):837-848, 1987.
16. P. N. Johnson-Laird. Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and Consciousness. Cambridge Univ. Press, 1983.
17. M. Jørgensen and S. Grimstad. The impact of irrelevant and misleading information on software development effort estimates: A randomized controlled field experiment. IEEE Trans. Software Eng., 37(5):695-707, 2011.
18. M. Jørgensen and T. Halkjelsvik. The effects of request formats on judgment-based effort estimation. J. Systems and Software, 83(1):29-36, 2010.
19. D. Kahneman and S. Frederick. A model of heuristic judgment. In K. J. Holyoak and R. G. Morrison, editors, The Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning, pages 267-294. Cambridge Univ. Press, 2004.
20. V. B. Kampenes, T. Dybå, J. E. Hannay, and D. I. K. Sjøberg. A systematic review of effect size in software engineering experiments. Information and Software Technology, 49(11-12):1073-1086, Nov. 2007.
21. J. Karlsson. Software requirements prioritizing. In 2nd Int'l Conf. Requirements Engineering (ICRE'96), pages 110-116. IEEE Computer Society, 1996.
22. J. Karlsson, S. Olsson, and K. Ryan. Improved practical support for large-scale requirements prioritising. Requirements Engineering, 2:51-60, 1997.
23. J. Karlsson, C. Wohlin, and B. Regnell. An evaluation of methods for prioritizing software requirements. Information & Software Technology, 39(14-15):939-947, 1998.
24. L. Karlsson, M. Höst, and B. Regnell. Evaluating the practical use of different measurement scales in requirements prioritisation. In Proc. 2006 ACM/IEEE Int'l Symp. Empirical Software Engineering, ISESE '06, pages 326-335. ACM, 2006.
25. L. Karlsson, T. Thelin, B. Regnell, P. Berander, and C. Wohlin. Pair-wise comparisons versus planning game partitioning-experiments on requirements prioritisation techniques. Empirical Software Engineering, 12:3-33, 2007.
26. G. Klein. Developing expertise in decision making. Thinking & Reasoning, 3(4):337-352, 1997.
27. L. Lehtola and M. Kauppinen. Empirical evaluation of two requirements prioritization methods in product development projects. In T. Dingsøyr, editor, Software Process Improvement, volume 3281 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 161-170. Springer, 2004.
28. L. Lehtola and M. Kauppinen. Suitability of requirements prioritization methods for market-driven software product development. Software Process: Improvement and Practice, 11:7-19, 2006.
29. T. Mussweiler. Comparison processes in social judgment: Mechanisms and consequences. Psych. Review, 110(3):472-489, 2003.
30. A. Parducci and D. H. Wedell. The category effect with rating scales: Number of categories, number of stimuli, and method of presentation. J. Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 12(4):496-516, 1996.
31. A. Perini, F. Ricca, and A. Susi. Tool-supported requirements prioritization: Comparing the ahp and cbrank methods. Information and Software Technology, 51(6):1021-1032, 2009.
32. E. C. Poulton. Behavioral Decision Theory: A New Approach. Cambridge University Press, 1994.
33. T. L. Saaty. The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation. McGraw-Hill, 1990.
34. T. L. Saaty. Multicriteria Decision Making: The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation. RWS Publications, 1990.
35. W. R. Shadish, T. D. Cook, and D. T. Campbell. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Houghton Mifflin, 2002.
36. H. A. Simon. The Sciences of the Artificial. MIT Press, third edition, 1996.
37. F. Strack and T. Mussweiler. Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: Mechanisms of selective accessibility. J. Personality and Social Psychology, 73(3):437-446, 1997.
38. R. K. Yin. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, volume 5 of Applied Social Research Methods Series. Sage Publications, third edition, 2003.