Prioritization of Product Requirements using the Analytic Hierarchy Process

Thomas Reichel, Gudula Rünger

2012

Abstract

The prioritization of product requirements is an essential task during the early phases of product development, which copes with time-to-market deadlines, budgetary constraints, and personnel restrictions. Since several decision criteria, such as cost, time, and risk, as well as the customer’s point of view and different company divisions have to be taken into account, the prioritization of requirements corresponds to a multi-criteria, multi-stakeholder decision problem. In this article, we propose a prioritization approach based on the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) that creates a ranking of requirements with respect to multiple (maybe conflicting) decision criteria and incorporates assessments of multiple stakeholders. The proposed approach overcomes the scalability problem of AHP by using hierarchic checklists and an efficient partitioning strategy.

References

  1. Ahl, V. (2005). An experimental comparison of five prioritization methods - investigating ease of use, accuracy and scalability. Master's thesis, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Ronneby, Sweden.
  2. Azani, H. and Khorramshahgol, R. (1990). Analytic Delphi Method (ADM): A strategic decision making model applied to location planning. Engineering Costs and Production Economics, 20(1):23 - 28.
  3. Azar, J., Smith, R., and Cordes, D. (2007). Value-oriented requirements prioritization in a small development organization. Software, IEEE, 24(1):32 -37.
  4. Boehm, B. (1979). Guidelines for verifying and validating software requirements and design specifications. In Proc. of European Conf. of Applied Information Technology, pages 711-719.
  5. Duan, C., Laurent, P., Cleland-Huang, J., and Kwiatkowski, C. (2009). Towards automated requirements prioritization and triage. Requirements Engineering, 14(2):73-89.
  6. Ehrlenspiel, K. (2009). Integrierte Produktentwicklung. Denkabläufe, Methodeneinsatz, Zusammenarbeit. Hanser Fachbuch, 4th edition.
  7. Forman, E. and Gass, S. (2001). The analytic hierarchy process - an exposition. Operations Research, 49(4):469- 486.
  8. Gumienny, R., Lindberg, T., and Meinel, C. (2011). Exploring the synthesis of information in design processes - opening the black-box. In Proc. of the 18th Int. Conf. on Engineering Design (ICED2011), pages 446-455.
  9. Harker, P. T. (1987). Incomplete pairwise comparisons in the analytic hierarchy process. Mathematical Modelling, 9(11):837 - 848.
  10. Janis, I. (1989). Crucial Decisions: Leadership in Policymaking and Crisis Management. Free Press.
  11. Jiang, L. and Eberlein, A. (2006). Analysis of requirements engineering techniques using clustering. In Proc. of the 13th IEEE Int. Conf. on the Engineering of Computer-Based Systems (ECBS 2006).
  12. Karlsson, J., Olsson, S., and Ryan, K. (1997). Improved practical support for large-scale requirements prioritising. Requirements Engineering, 2(1):51-60.
  13. Karlsson, J. and Ryan, K. (1997). A cost-value approach for prioritizing requirements. Software, IEEE, 14(5):67- 74.
  14. Kruchten, P. (2003). Rational Unified Process: An Introduction. Addison-Wesley Longman, Amsterdam.
  15. McCarthy, K. (1992). Comment on the analytic delphi method. Int. Journal of Production Economics, 27(2):135-136.
  16. Mead, N. (2008). Requirements prioritization introduction. Technical report, Carnegie Mellon University, Software Engineering Institute.
  17. Mendoza, G. and Prabhu, R. (2009). Evaluating multistakeholder perceptions of project impacts: a participatory value-based multi-criteria approach. Int. Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 16(3):177-190.
  18. Millet, I. and Harker, P. (1990). Globally effective questioning in the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1):88 - 97.
  19. Pahl, G., Beitz, W., Feldhusen, J., and Grote, K.-H. (2007). Engineering Design. A Systematic Approach. Springer London.
  20. Perini, A., Ricca, F., and Susi, A. (2009). Tool-supported requirements prioritization: Comparing the AHP and CBRank methods. Information and Software Technology, 51(6):1021 - 1032.
  21. Ramanathan, R. (2001). A note on the use of the analytic hierarchy process for environmental impact assessment. Environmental Management, 63(1):27 - 35.
  22. Regnell, B., Hst, M., och Dag, J., Beremark, P., and Hjelm, T. (2001). An industrial case study on distributed prioritisation in market-driven requirements engineering for packaged software. Requirements Engineering, 6(1):51-62.
  23. Reichel, T., R ünger, G., Steger, D., and Xu, H. (2011). IT support for the creation and validation of requirements specifications - with a case study for energy efficiency. In Proc. of the 18th Int. Conf. on Engineering Design (ICED2011), volume 10, pages 167-177.
  24. Saaty, T. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGrawHill, New York.
  25. Schoner, B. and Wedley, W. (1989). Ambiguous criteria weights in AHP: consequences and solutions. Decision Sciences, 20(3):462-475.
  26. Shen, Y., Hoerl, A., and McConnell, W. (1992). An incomplete design in the analytic hierarchy process. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 16(5):121 - 129.
  27. Suh, P. (2001). Axiomatic Design. Advances and Applications. Oxford University Press, New York.
  28. VDI (1993). VDI 2221 - Systematic approach to the development and design of technical systems and products. Beuth Verlag Berlin.
  29. VDI (2004). VDI 2206, Design methodology for mechatronic systems. Beuth Verlag Berlin.
  30. Wassermann, G. (1993). On how to prioritize design requirements during the QFD planning process. IIE Transactions, 25(3):59-65.
  31. Wedley, W., Schoner, B., and Tang, T. (1993). Starting rules for incomplete comparisons in the analytic hierarchy process. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 17(4-5):93 - 100.
  32. Weiss, E. and Rao, V. (1987). AHP design issues for largescale systems. Decision Sciences, 18(1):43-57.
  33. Wiegers, K. (2003). Software Requirements. Press, 2nd edition.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Reichel T. and Rünger G. (2012). Prioritization of Product Requirements using the Analytic Hierarchy Process . In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 2: ICEIS, ISBN 978-989-8565-11-2, pages 70-76. DOI: 10.5220/0003969600700076


in Bibtex Style

@conference{iceis12,
author={Thomas Reichel and Gudula Rünger},
title={Prioritization of Product Requirements using the Analytic Hierarchy Process},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 2: ICEIS,},
year={2012},
pages={70-76},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0003969600700076},
isbn={978-989-8565-11-2},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 2: ICEIS,
TI - Prioritization of Product Requirements using the Analytic Hierarchy Process
SN - 978-989-8565-11-2
AU - Reichel T.
AU - Rünger G.
PY - 2012
SP - 70
EP - 76
DO - 10.5220/0003969600700076