Commenced in January 2007
Frequency: Monthly
Edition: International
Paper Count: 30184
Limitations of the Analytic Hierarchy Process Technique with Respect to Geographically Distributed Stakeholders

Authors: Azeem Ahmad, Magnus Goransson, Aamir Shahzad

Abstract:

The selection of appropriate requirements for product releases can make a big difference in a product success. The selection of requirements is done by different requirements prioritization techniques. These techniques are based on pre-defined and systematic steps to calculate the requirements relative weight. Prioritization is complicated by new development settings, shifting from traditional co-located development to geographically distributed development. Stakeholders, connected to a project, are distributed all over the world. These geographically distributions of stakeholders make it hard to prioritize requirements as each stakeholder have their own perception and expectations of the requirements in a software project. This paper discusses limitations of the Analytical Hierarchy Process with respect to geographically distributed stakeholders- (GDS) prioritization of requirements. This paper also provides a solution, in the form of a modified AHP, in order to prioritize requirements for GDS. We will conduct two experiments in this paper and will analyze the results in order to discuss AHP limitations with respect to GDS. The modified AHP variant is also validated in this paper.

Keywords: Requirements Prioritization, GeographicallyDistributed Stakeholders, AHP, Modified AHP.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1071534

Procedia APA BibTeX Chicago EndNote Harvard JSON MLA RIS XML ISO 690 PDF Downloads 2064

References:


[1] Daniela E. Damian , Didar Zowghi, "The impact of stakeholders- geographical distribution on managing requirements in a multi-site organization" University of Technology, Sydney PO Box 123, Broadway, NSW 2007, Australia.
[2] V. Basili, "The role of controlled experiments in software engineering research," Empirical Software Engineering Issues. Critical Assessment and Future Directions, 2007, pp. 33-37.
[3] L. Lehtola, Providing value by prioritizing requirements throughout product development: state of practice and suitability of prioritization methods. Ph.D. Thesis. HUT/Departure of Computer Science, 2006.
[4] F. Moisiadis, A framework for prioritizing software requirements, Ph.D. thesis, Macquarie University, Australia, July 2003.
[5] V.Basili et al.(Eds.), " The Role of Controlled Experiments in Software Engineering Research, Empirical Software Engineering Issues, LNCS 4336, p33-37, 2007 ┬® Spinger Verlag Berline Heidelberg 2007Issues
[6] J.W.Creswell, " Research Design: Qualitativ, Quntative and Mixed Method Approaches", 2nd edition, Sage Publication , 2002
[7] Liming Zhu, Aybu¨ Ke Aurum, Ian Gorton, Ross Jeffery , " Tradeoff and Sensitivity Analysis in Software Architecture Evaluation Using Analytic Hierarchy Process", Software Quality Journal, 13, 357-375, 2005, Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. Manufactured in The Netherlands.
[8] Zhu Xiwang, Li Congdong, Wang Bo, Hu Xinyue, "Public Project Evaluation From the Perspectives of the Stakeholders Satisfaction and Social Environmental Impacts", 2008 IEEE.
[9] Betty H.C Cheng and Joanne M.Atlee," Research Directions in Requirements Engineering", Future of Software Engineering (FOSE'07) , ┬®2007 IEEE.
[10] Anna Perini , Filippo Ricca , Angelo Susi, "Tool-supported requirements prioritization: Comparing the AHP and CBRank methods", Information and Software Technology 51 (2009) 1021-1032.
[11] Andrzej Sobczak a, Daniel M. Berry," Distributed priority ranking of strategic preliminary requirements for management information systems in economic organizations", Information and Software Technology 49 (2007) 960-984.
[12] Daniela E. Damian Æ Didar Zowghi," RE challenges in multi-site software development organizations", Springer-Verlag London Limited 2003.
[13] James D. Herbsleb , "Global Software Engineering:The Future of Sociotechnical Coordination", Future of Software Engineering(FOSE'07) , ┬®2007 IEEE.
[14] Zhu Xiwang, Li Congdong, Wang Bo, Hu Xinyue, Cheng Jiangang, " Social And Environmental Impacts Evaluation Of Henan Tv Tower Involving Multiple Stakeholders", IEEE Int. Conference Neural Networks & Signal Processing Zhenjiang, China, June 8~10, 2008
[15] Helena Holmstrom, Eoin ├ô Conch├║ir, P├ñr J Ågerfalk, Brian Fitzgerald, " Global Software Development Challenges: A Case Study on Temporal,Geographical and Socio-Cultural Distance", IEEE International Conference on Global Software Engineering (ICGSE'06) ┬®2006IEEE
[16] Chunhao Li ,Yonghe Sun , Yanhui Jia , Hui Li , "An Improved Ranking Approach to AHP Alternatives Based on Variable Weights", 2008 IEEE.
[17] Daniela Carlucci, Giovanni Schiuma," Knowledge assets value creation map Assessing knowledge assets value drivers using AHP", Expert Systems with Applications 32 (2007) 814-821
[18] Joachim Karlsson, Claes Wohlin, Bjijrn Regnell, " An evaluation of methods for prioritizing software requirements", Information and Software Technology 39 (1998) 939-947
[19] Xiaoqing (Frank) Liu , Yan Sun , Chandra Sekhar Veera ,Yuji Kyoya b, Kunio Noguchi,"Priority assessment of software process requirements from multiple perspectives", The Journal of Systems and Software 79 (2006) 1649-1660
[20] Georgios N. Angelou 1, Anastasios A. Economides, "A compound real option and AHP methodology for evaluating ICT business alternatives", Telematics and Informatics 26 (2009) 353-374
[21] http://www.forensic.cc/newsletter/power-failures visited on July 5, 2010