Tool-supported requirements prioritization: Comparing the AHP and CBRank methods
Tool-supported requirements prioritization: Comparing the AHP and CBRank methods
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.infsof.2008.12.001
复制
发表时间：
2009-06-01
影响因子：
3.9
通讯作者：
Susi, Angelo
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Perini, Anna;Ricca, Filippo;Susi, Angelo
需求优先级旨在确定软件系统最重要的需求，这是规划系统版本并决定每个版本实现哪些需求的关键步骤。到目前为止，已经提出了几种确定优先次序的方法和支持工具。如何评估他们的属性，以支持选择最合适的方法为一个特定的project.In本文中，我们提出了一个实证研究，旨在评估两个国家的最先进的工具支持的需求优先级的方法，层次分析法和CBRank的目的是一个相关的问题。我们关注三个衡量标准：易用性、耗时和准确性。该实验是在一个真实的项目的20个需求上进行的，有23个经验丰富的受试者。结果表明，对于前两个特性，CBRank优于AHP，而对于准确性，AHP的表现优于CBRank，即使从两种方法得到的排名非常相似。大多数用户认为CBRank是“总体最佳”方法。(C)2008 Elsevier B.V.保留所有权利。
Requirements prioritization aims at identifying the most important requirements for a software system, a crucial step when planning for system releases and deciding which requirements to implement it) each release. Several prioritization methods and supporting tools have been proposed so far. How to evaluate their properties, with the aim of supporting the selection of the most appropriate method for a specific project, is considered a relevant question.In this paper, we present an empirical study aiming at evaluating two state-of-the art tool-supported requirements prioritization methods, AHP and CBRank. We focus on three measures: the ease of use, the time-consumption and the accuracy. The experiment has been conducted with 23 experienced subjects on a set of 20 requirements from a real project. Results indicate that for the first two characteristics CBRank overcomes AHP while for the accuracy AHP performs better than CBRank, even if the resulting ranks from the two methods are very similar. The majority of the users found CBRank the "overall best" method. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.