Endre søk
RefereraExporteraLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Referera
Referensformat
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Annet format
Fler format
Språk
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Annet 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 (engelsk)Independent thesis Advanced level (degree of Master (One Year))Oppgave
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

sted, utgiver, år, opplag, sider
2005. , s. 101
Emneord [en]
Prioritization methods, scalability, accuracy, time per comparison.
HSV kategori
Identifikatorer
URN: urn:nbn:se:bth-6182Lokal ID: oai:bth.se:arkivex86A759A57C335911C1257088005E42BCOAI: oai:DiVA.org:bth-6182DiVA, id: diva2:833611
Uppsök
Technology
Veileder
Tilgjengelig fra: 2015-04-22 Laget: 2005-09-26 Sist oppdatert: 2018-01-11bibliografisk kontrollert

Open Access i DiVA

fulltekst(2710 kB)1005 nedlastinger
Filinformasjon
Fil FULLTEXT01.pdfFilstørrelse 2710 kBChecksum SHA-512
6ffcefd1425902d3f1fe3cb009458dcb5da479f3a4ec17110ecc8f0183b580172db7c970e15a1a01a939882f214be2ebb68775049db7fb4b639f4ee1b75ca1c5
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Av organisasjonen

Søk utenfor DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Totalt: 1005 nedlastinger
Antall nedlastinger er summen av alle nedlastinger av alle fulltekster. Det kan for eksempel være tidligere versjoner som er ikke lenger tilgjengelige

urn-nbn

Altmetric

urn-nbn
Totalt: 3128 treff
RefereraExporteraLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Referera
Referensformat
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Annet format
Fler format
Språk
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Annet språk
Fler språk
Utmatningsformat
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf