Advertisement

A Quantitative Approach Using Goal-Oriented Requirements Engineering Methodology and Analytic Hierarchy Process in Selecting the Best Alternative

  • S. Vinay
  • Shridhar Aithal
  • G. Sudhakara
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 174)

Abstract

Decision making in Software Engineering plays an important role at different stages of Software development life cycle. In this paper we consider the case study of selecting one among the three Content Management Systems (CMS) for a university website. We use our Goal-Oriented Requirements Engineering (GORE) method to identify the soft goals which play a vital role in deciding which CMS is chosen. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is then used to prioritize the soft goals. The output of GORE and AHP are combined in order to produce a metric which decides the best alternative among the candidates.

Keywords

GoalOriented Requirements Engineering Analytic Hierarchy Process Soft goals 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Doerr, J., Kerkow, D., Koenig, T., Olsson, T., Suzuki, T.: Non-Functional Requirements in Industry–Three Case Studies Adopting an Experience-based NFR Method. In: Proceedings of the 2005 13th IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering (1995)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mylopoulos, J., Chung, L., Nixon, B.: Representing and Using Nonfunctional Requirements: A Process-Oriented Approach. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 18(6), 483–497 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Van Lamsweerde, A.: Goal-Oriented Requirements Engineering: A Guided Tour. In: Proceedings of the 5th IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering. IEEE Computer Society, Washington (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ruhe, G.: Software Engineering Decision Support and Empirical Investigations–A Proposed Marriage. In: Workshop on Empirical Studies in Software Engineering, WSESE (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Omasreiter, H.: Balanced Decision Making in Software Engineering–General Thoughts and a Concrete Example from Industry. In: First International Workshop on the Economics of Software and Computation, ESC (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Easterbrook, S., Singer, J., Storey, M.-A., Damian, D.: Selecting Empirical Methods for Software Engineering Research. In: Guide to Advanced Empirical Software Engineering, Section III, pp. 285–311 (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hannay, J.E., Sjøberg, D.I.K., Dyba, T.: A Systematic Review of Theory Use in Software Engineering Experiments. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 33(2) (February 2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Price, J., Cybulski, J.: The Importance of IS Stakeholder Perspectives and Perceptions to Requirements Negotiation. In: AWR, Adelaide, Australia (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ivanović, A., America, P.: Information Needed for Architecture Decision Making. In: Proceedings of the ICSE Workshop on Product Line Approaches in Software Engineering (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lakshminarayanan, V., Liu, W., Chen, C.L., Easterbrook, S., Perry, D.E.: Software Architects in Practice: Handling Requirements. In: Proceedings of the Conference of the Center for Advanced Studies on Collaborative Research, CASCON (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hasan, M.S., Mahmood, A.A., Alam, M.J., Hasan, S.N., Rahman, F.: An Evaluation of Software Requirement Prioritization Techniques. International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security (IJCSIS) 8(9) (December 2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Saaty, T.L.: Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int. J. Services Sciences 1(1) (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Haag, S.E., Hogan, P.: Research issues in software quality function deployment: A new beginning for software engineering methodologies. In: Proceedings of Decision Sciences Institute 1992, San Francisco, California, DSI, Atlanta, Ga, November 23-25, pp. 926–928 (1992)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Castro, J., Kolp, M., Mylopoulos, J.: Towards Requirements-Driven Information Systems Engineering: The Tropos Project. Information Systems 27(6) (September 2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kaiya, H., et al.: Identifying Stakeholders and Their Preferences about NFR by Comparing Use Case Diagrams of Several Existing Systems. In: 12th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference, RE 2004 (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vinay, S., Aithal, S., Adiga, S.: A Goal-Oriented Requirements Engineering Method for Analysing Conflicts. In: ICCANA, Nitte (January 2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Akao, Y.: Development History of Quality Function Deployment. In: The Customer Driven Approach to Quality Planning and Deployment, Asian Productivity Organization, Minato, Tokyo 107 Japan, p. 339Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Herzwurm, G., et al.: QFD for customer focused Requirements Engineering. In: 11th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (2003)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hierholzer, A., Herzwurm, G., Schlang, H.: Applying QFD for Software Process Improvement at SAP AG, Walldorf, Germany. In: Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Software Quality. ACM (2003)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    De Felice, F., Petrillo, A.: A multiple choice decision analysis: an integrated QFD–AHP Model for the Assessment of Customer Needs. International Journal of Engineering, Science and Technology 2(9), 25–38 (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.NMAMITNitteIndia
  2. 2.TAPMIManipalIndia
  3. 3.MITManipalIndia

Personalised recommendations