Trade-off analysis for requirements selection

被引:46
|
作者
Ruhe, G
Eberlein, A
Pfahl, D
机构
[1] Univ Calgary, Software Engn Decis Support Lab, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada
[2] Fraunhofer Inst Expt Software Engn, D-67661 Kaiserslautern, Germany
关键词
requirements selection; decision support; trade-off analysis; resource constraints; Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP); simulation;
D O I
10.1142/S0218194003001378
中图分类号
TP18 [人工智能理论];
学科分类号
081104 ; 0812 ; 0835 ; 1405 ;
摘要
Evaluation, prioritization and selection of candidate requirements are of tremendous importance and impact for subsequent software development. Effort, time as well as quality constraints have to be taken into account. Typically, different stakeholders have conflicting priorities and the requirements of all these stakeholders have to be balanced in an appropriate way to ensure maximum value of the final set of requirements. Tradeoff analysis is needed to proactively explore the impact of certain decisions in terms of all the criteria and constraints. The proposed method called Quantitative WinWin uses an evolutionary approach to provide support for requirements negotiations. The novelty of the presented idea is four-fold. Firstly, it iteratively uses the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) for a step-wise analysis with the aim to balance the stakeholders' preferences related to different classes of requirements. Secondly, requirements selection is based on predicting and rebalancing its impact on effort, time and quality. Both prediction and rebalancing uses the simulation model prototype GENSIM. Thirdly, alternative solution sets offered for decision-making are developed incrementally based on thresholds for the degree of importance of requirements and heuristics to find a best fit to constraints. Finally, trade-off analysis is used to determine non-dominated extensions of the maximum value that is achievable under resource and quality constraints. As a main result, quantitative WinWin proposes a small number of possible sets of requirements from which the actual decision-maker can finally select the most appropriate solution.
引用
收藏
页码:345 / 366
页数:22
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Automating trade-off analysis of security requirements
    Liliana Pasquale
    Paola Spoletini
    Mazeiar Salehie
    Luca Cavallaro
    Bashar Nuseibeh
    [J]. Requirements Engineering, 2016, 21 : 481 - 504
  • [2] Automating trade-off analysis of security requirements
    Pasquale, Liliana
    Spoletini, Paola
    Salehie, Mazeiar
    Cavallaro, Luca
    Nuseibeh, Bashar
    [J]. REQUIREMENTS ENGINEERING, 2016, 21 (04) : 481 - 504
  • [3] Trust Trade-off Analysis for Security Requirements Engineering
    Elahi, Golnaz
    Yu, Eric
    [J]. PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2009 17TH IEEE INTERNATIONAL REQUIREMENTS ENGINEERING CONFERENCE, 2009, : 243 - +
  • [4] New approach to requirements trade-off analysis for complex systems
    Natl Central Univ, Chungli, Taiwan
    [J]. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng, 4 (551-562):
  • [5] New approach to requirements trade-off analysis for complex systems
    Lee, J
    Kuo, JY
    [J]. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON KNOWLEDGE AND DATA ENGINEERING, 1998, 10 (04) : 551 - 562
  • [6] Robust trade-off portfolio selection
    Joong-Ho Won
    Seung-Jean Kim
    [J]. Optimization and Engineering, 2020, 21 : 867 - 904
  • [7] Robust trade-off portfolio selection
    Won, Joong-Ho
    Kim, Seung-Jean
    [J]. OPTIMIZATION AND ENGINEERING, 2020, 21 (03) : 867 - 904
  • [8] Systems Engineering requirements Analysis and Trade-off for Trusted Systems and Networks
    Popick, Paul
    Miller, John
    [J]. INCOSE International Symposium, 2013, 23 (01)
  • [9] FORECASTING WITH TRADE-OFF ANALYSIS
    PERHAM, JC
    [J]. DUNS REVIEW, 1977, 109 (03): : 87 - &
  • [10] Principal trade-off analysis
    Strang, Alexander
    Sewell, David
    Kim, Alexander
    Alcedo, Kevin
    Rosenbluth, David
    [J]. INFORMATION VISUALIZATION, 2024, 23 (03) : 258 - 271