Ändra sökning
RefereraExporteraLänk till posten
Permanent länk

Direktlänk
Referera
Referensformat
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Annat format
Fler format
Språk
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Annat språk
Fler språk
Utmatningsformat
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
An experimental comparison of five prioritization methods: Investigating ease of use, accuracy and scalability
Blekinge Tekniska Högskola, Sektionen för teknik, Avdelningen för programvarusystem.
2005 (Engelska)Självständigt arbete på avancerad nivå (magisterexamen)Studentuppsats (Examensarbete)
Abstract [en]

Requirements prioritization is an important part of developing the right product in the right time. There are different ideas about which method is the best to use when prioritizing requirements. This thesis takes a closer look at five different methods and then put them into an controlled experiment, in order to find out which of the methods that would be the best method to use. The experiment was designed to find out which method yields the most accurate result, the method’s ability to scale up to many more requirements, what time it took to prioritize with the method, and finally how easy the method was to use. These four criteria combined will indicate which method is more suitable, i.e. be the best method, to use in prioritizing of requirements. The chosen methods are the well-known analytic hierarchy process, the computer algorithm binary search tree, and from the ideas of extreme programming come planning game. The fourth method is an old but well used method, the 100 points method. The last method is a new method, which combines planning game with the analytic hierarchy process. Analysis of the data from the experiment indicates that the planning game combined with analytic hierarchy process could be a good candidate. However, the result from the experiment clearly indicates that the binary search tree yields accurate result, is able to scale up and was the easiest method to use. For these three reasons the binary search tree clearly is the better method to use for prioritizing requirements

Ort, förlag, år, upplaga, sidor
2005. , s. 101
Nyckelord [en]
Prioritization methods, scalability, accuracy, time per comparison.
Nationell ämneskategori
Datavetenskap (datalogi) Programvaruteknik
Identifikatorer
URN: urn:nbn:se:bth-6182Lokalt ID: oai:bth.se:arkivex86A759A57C335911C1257088005E42BCOAI: oai:DiVA.org:bth-6182DiVA, id: diva2:833611
Uppsök
teknik
Handledare
Tillgänglig från: 2015-04-22 Skapad: 2005-09-26 Senast uppdaterad: 2018-01-11Bibliografiskt granskad

Open Access i DiVA

fulltext(2710 kB)1022 nedladdningar
Filinformation
Filnamn FULLTEXT01.pdfFilstorlek 2710 kBChecksumma SHA-512
6ffcefd1425902d3f1fe3cb009458dcb5da479f3a4ec17110ecc8f0183b580172db7c970e15a1a01a939882f214be2ebb68775049db7fb4b639f4ee1b75ca1c5
Typ fulltextMimetyp application/pdf

Av organisationen
Avdelningen för programvarusystem
Datavetenskap (datalogi)Programvaruteknik

Sök vidare utanför DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Totalt: 1022 nedladdningar
Antalet nedladdningar är summan av nedladdningar för alla fulltexter. Det kan inkludera t.ex tidigare versioner som nu inte längre är tillgängliga.

urn-nbn

Altmetricpoäng

urn-nbn
Totalt: 3251 träffar
RefereraExporteraLänk till posten
Permanent länk

Direktlänk
Referera
Referensformat
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Annat format
Fler format
Språk
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Annat språk
Fler språk
Utmatningsformat
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf