77:. Its basic idea is that for all pairs of (candidate) requirements a person assesses a value or a cost comparing the one requirement of a pair with the other. For example, a value of 3 for (Req1, Req2) indicates that requirement 1 is valued three times as high as requirement 2. Trivially, this indicates that (Req2, Req1) has value ⅓. In the approach of Karlsson and Ryan, five steps for reviewing candidate requirements and determining a priority among them are identified. These are summed up below.
49:
candidate software requirements for a product are gathered and organized. Finally, in the release planning activity, these requirements are prioritized and selected for a release, after which the launch of the software product can be prepared. Thus, one of the key steps in release planning is
27:
of a software product should be included in a certain release. Requirements are also prioritized to minimize risk during development so that the most important or high risk requirements are implemented first. Several methods for assessing a prioritization of software requirements exist.
94:
A software engineer uses AHP to calculate each candidate requirement’s relative value and implementation cost, and plots these on a cost-value diagram. Value is depicted on the y axis of this diagram and estimated cost on the
40:
there exist several sub processes. First of all there is portfolio management where a product development strategy is defined based on information from the market and partner companies. In product roadmapping (or
98:
The stakeholders use the cost-value diagram as a conceptual map for analyzing and discussing the candidate requirements. Now software managers prioritize the requirements and decide which will be implemented.
62:
is the cost-value approach. This approach was created by
Joachim Karlsson and Kevin Ryan. The approach was then further developed and commercialized in the company Focal Point (that was acquired by
66:
in 2005). Their basic idea was to determine for each individual candidate requirement what the cost of implementing the requirement would be and how much value the requirement has.
230:
283:
A Reference
Framework for Software Product Management. Scientific Report. Department of Information and Computing Sciences, Utrecht University, The Netherlands, 2006
217:
106:. As mentioned earlier, release planning is part of this process. Prioritization of software requirements is a sub process of the release planning process.
81:
Requirement engineers carefully review candidate requirements for completeness and to ensure that they are stated in an unambiguous way.
91:
Experienced software engineers use AHP’s pairwise comparison to estimate the relative cost of implementing each candidate requirement.
45:), themes and core assets of products in the portfolio are identified and roadmap constructions are created. In
303:
260:
102:
Now, the cost-value approach and the prioritizing of requirements in general can be placed in its context of
298:
135:
103:
37:
20:
85:
70:
147:
84:
Customers and users (or suitable substitutes) apply AHP’s pairwise comparison method to assess the
181:
RICE Scoring Model for quick prioritization (RICE score = (Reach * Impact * Confidence) / Effort)
46:
42:
220:." Product focused software process improvement. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2004. 497-508.
8:
246:
Karlsson, J. & Ryan, K. (1997). A Cost-Value
Approach for Prioritizing Requirements,
141:
278:
165:
178:
ICE Scoring Model for quick prioritization (ICE score = Impact * Confidence * Ease)
69:
The assessment of values and costs for the requirements was performed using the
292:
173:
153:
74:
58:
A good and relatively easy to use method for prioritizing software product
24:
59:
159:
63:
184:
Software
Engineering Risk: Understanding and Management (SERUM)
109:
The release planning process consists of the sub processes:
281:, R. Nieuwenhuis, J. Versendaal and L. Bijlsma (2006).
216:
Lehtola, Laura, Marjo
Kauppinen, and Sari Kujala. "
218:Requirements prioritization challenges in practice
129:
290:
235:Engineering and managing software requirements.
229:Berander, Patrik, and Anneliese Andrews. "
190:Value Oriented Prioritization Method (VOP)
237:Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2005. 69-94.
170:Planning Game combined with AHP (PGcAHP)
291:
261:"ICE Scoring Model for Prioritization"
164:100-point method (100P) also known as
53:
248:IEEE Software September/October 1997
13:
271:
73:(AHP). This method was created by
14:
315:
23:for determining which candidate
130:Other prioritization techniques
31:
253:
240:
223:
210:
88:of the candidate requirements.
1:
203:
122:Validate release requirements
50:requirements prioritization.
285:. Submitted for publication.
193:Minimal Spanning Tree (MST),
7:
231:Requirements prioritization
136:Quality Function Deployment
119:Define release requirements
104:Software product management
38:Software product management
21:Software product management
10:
320:
71:Analytic Hierarchy Process
17:Requirement prioritization
148:Ordinal priority approach
113:Prioritize requirements
47:requirements management
43:technology roadmapping
304:Software requirements
116:Select requirements
54:Cost-value approach
299:Product management
199:Numeral Assignment
142:Binary Search Tree
279:Sjaak Brinkkemper
277:I. van de Weerd,
196:Bubble Sort (BS),
166:Cumulative voting
311:
265:
264:
257:
251:
244:
238:
227:
221:
214:
319:
318:
314:
313:
312:
310:
309:
308:
289:
288:
274:
272:Further reading
269:
268:
259:
258:
254:
245:
241:
228:
224:
215:
211:
206:
132:
56:
34:
19:is used in the
12:
11:
5:
317:
307:
306:
301:
287:
286:
273:
270:
267:
266:
252:
239:
222:
208:
207:
205:
202:
201:
200:
197:
194:
191:
188:
185:
182:
179:
176:
171:
168:
162:
157:
151:
145:
139:
131:
128:
127:
126:
125:Prepare launch
123:
120:
117:
114:
100:
99:
96:
92:
89:
86:relative value
82:
55:
52:
33:
30:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
316:
305:
302:
300:
297:
296:
294:
284:
280:
276:
275:
262:
256:
249:
243:
236:
232:
226:
219:
213:
209:
198:
195:
192:
189:
186:
183:
180:
177:
175:
174:MoSCoW Method
172:
169:
167:
163:
161:
158:
155:
154:Planning game
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
133:
124:
121:
118:
115:
112:
111:
110:
107:
105:
97:
93:
90:
87:
83:
80:
79:
78:
76:
72:
67:
65:
61:
51:
48:
44:
39:
29:
26:
22:
18:
282:
255:
247:
242:
234:
225:
212:
108:
101:
75:Thomas Saaty
68:
60:requirements
57:
35:
32:Introduction
25:requirements
16:
15:
293:Categories
204:References
160:PROMETHEE
64:Telelogic
250:, 67-74.
95:x-axis.
187:EVOLVE
150:(OPA)
144:(BST)
138:(QFD)
156:(PG)
233:."
36:In
295::
263:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.