Skip to main content

Stratified Analytic Hierarchy Process: Prioritization and Selection of Software Features

  • Conference paper
Software Product Lines: Going Beyond (SPLC 2010)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 6287))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Product line engineering allows for the rapid development of variants of a domain specific application by using a common set of reusable assets often known as core assets. Variability modeling is a critical issue in product line engineering, where the use of feature modeling is one of most commonly used formalisms. To support an effective and automated derivation of concrete products for a product family, staged configuration has been proposed in the research literature. In this paper, we propose the integration of well-known requirements engineering principles into stage configuration. Being inspired by the well-established Preview requirements engineering framework, we initially propose an extension of feature models with capabilities for capturing business oriented requirements. This representation enables a more effective capturing of stakeholders’ preferences over the business requirements and objectives (e.g.,. implementation costs or security) in the form of fuzzy linguistic variables (e.g., high, medium, and low). On top of this extension, we propose a novel method, the Stratified Analytic Hierarchy process, which first helps to rank and select the most relevant high level business objectives for the target stakeholders (e.g., security over implementation costs), and then helps to rank and select the most relevant features from the feature model to be used as the starting point in the staged configuration process. Besides a complete formalization of the process, we define the place of our proposal in existing software product line lifecycles as well as demonstrate the use of our proposal on the widely-used e-Shop case study. Finally, we report on the results of our user study, which indicates a high appreciation of the proposed method by the participating industrial software developers. The tool support for S-AHP is also introduced.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Clements, P., Northrop, L.: Software product lines: practices and patterns. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing, Amsterdam (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Czarnecki, K., Helsen, S., Eisenecker, U.: Formalizing cardinality-based feature models and their specialization. Soft. Proc. Improv. and Practice 10, 7–29 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Heymans, P., Schobbens, P., Trigaux, J., Bontemps, Y., Matulevicius, R., Classen, A.: Evaluating formal properties of feature diagram languages. IET Soft. 2(3), 281 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. White, J., Dougherty, B., Schmidt, D.C., Benavides, D.: Automated Reasoning for Multi-step Software Product-line Configuration Problems. In: SPLC 2009 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Boskovic, M., Bagheri, E., Gasevic, D., Mohabbati, B., Kavinai, N., Hatala, M.: Automated Staged Configuration with Semantic Web Technologies. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (in press)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Czarnecki, K., Helsen, S., Eisenecker, U.: Staged Configuration Through Specialization and Multi-Level, Dep. of Electrical and Computer Eng., University of Waterloo (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Sommerville, I., Sawyer, P.: Viewpoints: principles, problems and a practical approach to requirements engineering. Annals of Software Engineering 3, 101–130 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Saaty, T.L.: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New York (1980)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Karlsson, J., Olsson, S., Ryan, K.: Improving Practical Support for Large-scale Requirement Prioritising. Requerments Engineering 2 (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Linden, F.J., Schmid, K., Rommes, E.: Software Product Lines in Action: The Best Industrial Practice in Product Line Engineering. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Linden, F., Phol, K., Bockle, G., Sikore, E., Gunter, B.: Software Product Line Engineering: Foundations, Principles, and Techniques. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Batory, D.: Feature models, grammars, and propositional formulas. In: Obbink, H., Pohl, K. (eds.) SPLC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3714, p. 7. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Czarnecki, K., Kim, C.H.: Cardinality-based feature modeling and constraints: A progress report. In: International Workshop on Software Factories (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Batory, D., Benavides, D., Ruiz-Cortes, A.: Automated analysis of feature models: Challenges ahead. Communications of the ACM 49, 47 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bagheri, E., Ghorbani, A.A.: The analysis and management of non-canonical requirement specifications through a belief integration game. Knowledge and Information Systems 22, 27–64 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Perini, A., Ricca, F., Susi, A.: Tool-supported requirements prioritization: Comparing the AHP and CBRank methods. Inform. and Soft. Tech. 51, 1021–1032 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Aurum, A., Wohlin, C.: Eng. and Managing Software Requirements. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  18. Berander, P., Jönsson, P.: Hierarchical Cumulative Voting (HCV) – Prioritization of Requirements in Hierarchies. Int’l. J. Soft. Engi. & Know. Eng. 16, 819–849 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Makki, M., Bagheri, E., Ghorbani, A.A.: Automating Architecture Trade-off Decision Making through a Complex Multi-attribute Decision Process. In: Morrison, R., Balasubramaniam, D., Falkner, K. (eds.) ECSA 2008. LNCS, vol. 5292, pp. 264–272. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Bagheri, E., Asadi, M., Gasevic, D., Soltani, S. (2010). Stratified Analytic Hierarchy Process: Prioritization and Selection of Software Features. In: Bosch, J., Lee, J. (eds) Software Product Lines: Going Beyond. SPLC 2010. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 6287. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15579-6_21

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15579-6_21

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-15578-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-15579-6

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics