Interval Evidential Reasoning Algorithm for Requirements Prioritization

  • Persis Voola
  • A. Vinaya Babu
Part of the Advances in Intelligent and Soft Computing book series (AINSC, volume 132)

Abstract

A good requirements prioritization technique is one which involves all the relevant stakeholders, provides them the flexibility of assessing a requirement by means of subjective and uncertain inputs, and aggregates these assessments to produce reliable requirements priorities. This paper addresses this by applying Interval Evidential Reasoning (IER) algorithm. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is employed to determine the varying contribution of stakeholders. The degree of satisfaction with the requirements priorities will be obtained by following the same procedure followed for requirements assessment and aggregation.

Keywords

Analytic Hierarchy Process Relevant Stakeholder Requirement Engineer Combine Degree IEEE Software 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Donald, G.: Fire Smith Prioritising Requirements. Journal of Object Technology 3(8) (September-October 2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hermann, A., Daneva: Requirements Prioritization Based on Benefit and Cost Prediction: An agenda for Future Research. In: Proc. of the Intl. Conf. Requirements Engineering (RE 2008), pp. 125–134 (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Glinz, M.: Stakeholders in Requirements Engineering. IEEE Software 28(1), 18–20, ISSN 0740-7459Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Damian, D.: Stakeholders in Global Requirements Engineering:Lessons Learned from Practice. IEEE Software 24(2), 21–27 (2007), doi:10.1109/MS.2007.55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mendelow, A.: Stakeholder Mapping. In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Information Systems, Cambridge, MA (1991)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mc Geeu, R.A.: Stakeholder Identification and Quality Attribute Prioritisation for a Global Vehicle Control System. In: Proc. of the Fourth European Conference on Software Architecture, ISBN/ISSN: 978-1-4503-0179-4Google Scholar
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
    Freeman, R.E., Reed, D.L.: Stockholders and stakeholders: A new perspective on Corporate Governance. Calfornia Management Review 25(3), 88–106 (1983)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Saaty, T.: The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation. McGraw-Hill (1980)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Voola, P., Vinaya Babu, A.: Quality Case and A Simplified Approach to Quality Attributes Prioritization. In: Proc. of the International Conference on Frontiers of Computer Science., IISc, Bangalore, India, ISBN: 978-81-921929-0-1Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Regnell, B., Host, M., et al.: An Industrial Case Study on Distributed Prioritisation in Market Driven Requirements Engineering for Packaged Software. Requiremnets Eng. 6(1), 51–62 (2001) ISSN:09473602 CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Boehm, B.W., Fairley, R.E.: Software Estimation Perspectives. IEEE Software, 22–26 (November/December)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Xu, D.-L., Yang, J.-B., Wang, Y.-M.: The evidential reasoning approach for multi-attribute decision analysis under interval uncertainty. European Journal of Operational Research 174, 1914–1943 (2006), doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2005.02.064CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nguyen, H.T., Kreinovich, V., Zuo, Q.: Interval Valued Degrees of Belief: Applications of Interval Computations to Expert Systems and Intelligent Control. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems 5(3), 317–358 (1997)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Karlsson, J., Ryan, K.: A Cost Value Approach for Prioritising Requirements. IEEE Software 14(5), 67–74Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wiegers, K.: First Things First: Prioritizing Requirements. Software Development 7(9) (September 1999)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
  18. 18.
    Xu, D.-L., Yang, J.-B.: Intelligent Decision System for Self –Assessment. Journal of Multi Criteria Decision Analysis 12, 43–60 (2003), doi:10.1002/media.343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yang, J., Xu, D.L.: Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis Applied to Safety and Cost Synthesis. Journal of UK Safety and Reliability Society 21(2) ISSN: 0961-7353Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Huynh, V.-N.: Multiple Attribute Decision Making Under Uncertainty: The Evidential Reasoning Approach Revisited. IEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics, http://hdl.handle.net/2115/14531
  21. 21.
    Chin, K.-S., Yang, J.-B., et al.: An Evidential Reasoning Interval Based Method for New Product Design Assessment. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 56(1), doi:10.1109/TEM.2008.2009792Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wang, Y.-M., Yang, J.-B., et al.: Environmental Impact Assessment using the Evidential Reasoning Approach. European Journal of Operational Research 174 (2006), doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2004.09.059Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Persis Voola
    • 1
  • A. Vinaya Babu
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceAdikavi Nannaya UniversityRajahmundryIndia
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceJNT UniversityHyderabadIndia

Personalised recommendations