Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Applying analytical hierarchy process to system quality requirements prioritization

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Innovations in Systems and Software Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The order in which design decisions or tactics are incorporated within a system architecture has a significant impact on how well quality requirements are addressed in the architecture solution. Quality attributes are most often correlated; attempts to achieve one quality attribute can help or hinder the achievement of another quality relevant for the system. Thus, prioritization of quality requirements and design tactics to address these quality requirements is a useful guide for system architects. Conventional techniques of quality attribute prioritization are qualitative in nature and trade-off among design tactics are not addressed during prioritization. In this paper, analytic hierarchy process (AHP) technique is proposed to quantitatively rank design decisions and tactics while at the same time taking into consideration the interrelationships between system quality requirements and design tactics and principles. The approach is demonstrated on remote monitoring system for medical patients. The approach facilitates an objective ranking of tactics and design principles and eliminates inconsistencies between business and technical stakeholder valuation.

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

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bass L, Clements P, Kazman R (2003) Software architecture in practice. Addison-Wesley, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bachmann F, Bass L, Nord R (2007) Modifiability tactics. Technical report, SEI, CMU/SEI 2007-TR-002, Sept 2007

  3. Jansen J, van der Ven J, Avgeriou P, Hammer D K (2007) Tool Support for using architectural decisions. In: Proceedings of the 6th working IEEE/IFIP WICSA’07

  4. Chung L, Nixon BA, Yu E, Mylopoulos J (2000) Non-functional requirements in software engineering. Kluwer Academic Publishing, Boston

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Lundberg L, Mattsson M, Wohlin C (2005) Software quality attributes and trade-offs. Blekinge Institute of Technology, Karlskrona

    Google Scholar 

  6. Pfleeger SL (1998) Software engineering: theory and practice. Prentice-Hall, Norwell, MA

    Google Scholar 

  7. Saaty TL, Vargas LG (2001) Models, methods, concepts and applications of the analytic hierarchy process. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston

    Book  Google Scholar 

  8. Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Saaty TL (1985) Decision making for leaders. LifeTime Leaning Publications, Belmont

    Google Scholar 

  10. Saaty TL (1994) How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. In: European Journal of Operational Research, North-Holland

  11. Saaty TL, Kearns KP (1991) Analytical planning: the organization of systems, the analytic hierarchy process series, vol 4. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kan SH (1995) Metrics and models in software quality engineering. Addison-Wesley, Reading

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. International Standard ISO/IEC 9126–1 (2001) Software engineering–product quality–part 1: quality model. ISO/IEC 9126–1:2001

    Google Scholar 

  14. Agarwal S, Lau CT (2010) Remote health monitoring using mobile phones and web services. Telemed E-Health 16(5):603–607

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Moehrle M (2005) What is TRIZ? From conceptual basics to a framework for research. Creat Innov Manag 14(1):1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Altshuller G, Shulyak L, Rodman S, Fedoseev U (2002) 40 principles: TRIZ keys to innovation, 3rd edn. Technical Innovation Center Inc., Boston

    Google Scholar 

  17. Fricke E, Schultz A (2005) Design for changeability: principles to enable changes in systems throughout their entire lifecycle. Syst Eng 8(4):342–359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Karlsson J, Wohlin C, Regnell B (1997–1998) An evaluation of methods for prioritizing software requirements. Inf Softw Technol 39(14–15):939–947

  19. Elahi G, Yu ESK (2011) A semi-automated tool for requirements trade-off analysis. CAiSE Forum

  20. Hammond JS, Keeney RL, Raiffa H (2002) Smart choices: a practical guide to making better life decisions. Broadway Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  21. Andrew J (2000) An approach to quantitative non-functional requirements in software development. In: Proceedings of the 34th annual Government Electronics and Information Association conference, Dallas, USA

  22. In HP, Olson D, Rodgers T (2002) Multi-criteria preference analysis for systematic requirements negotiation. In: Proceedings of the 26th annual international computer software and applications conference (COMPSAC’02), pp 887–892

  23. Bendjenna H, Charrel PJ, Zarour NE (2012) Using AHP method to resolve conflicts between non-functional concerns. In: International conference on education, applied sciences and management (ICEASM’2012), 26–27 Dec, Dubai, U.A.E

  24. Yen J, Tiao WA (1997) A systematic trade-off analysis for conflicting imprecise requirements. In: 3rd IEEE international symposium on RE

  25. Brito I, Moreira A (2003) Towards a composition process for aspectoriented requirements. In: Early aspects workshop at AOSD conference, Boston, USA

  26. Moreira A, Rashid A, Araújo J (2005) Multi-dimensional separation of concerns in requirements engineering. In: 13th IEEE international conference on RE, Paris, France, Aug 2005

  27. Rashid A, Moreira A, Araújo J (2003) Modularization and composition of aspectual requirements. In: AOSD 2003 conference, March 2003. ACM Press, Boston

  28. Brito I, Moreira A (2004) Integrating the NFR framework in a RE model. In: Proceedings of a workshop on early aspects in conjunction with 3rd international conference on aspect oriented software development, Lancaster, UK

  29. Salado A, Nilchiani R (2014) A categorization model of requirements based on Max-Neef’s model of human needs. Syst Eng 17(3):348–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Boegh J (2008) A new standard for quality requirements. IEEE Softw 25(2):57–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Engineering Division, The Pennsylvania State University, 30 E Swedesford Rd, Malvern, PA, 19355, USA

    Mohamad Kassab & Nil Kilicay-Ergin

Authors
  1. Mohamad Kassab
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nil Kilicay-Ergin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohamad Kassab.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kassab, M., Kilicay-Ergin, N. Applying analytical hierarchy process to system quality requirements prioritization. Innovations Syst Softw Eng 11, 303–312 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11334-015-0260-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11334-015-0260-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation