Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Understanding requirement prioritization artifacts: a systematic mapping study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Requirements Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The importance of prioritizing requirements stems from the fact that not all requirements can usually be met with available time and resource constraints. Efficient and trustworthy methods for prioritizing requirements are therefore in high demand. In this article, we present results of a systematic mapping study in order to appreciate the different considerations that have influenced prioritization of software requirements, identify the various types of artifacts proposed toward prioritizing software requirements, and examine certain characterizations of these artifacts. The results emphasize the heightened attention the domain of requirement prioritization has received in recent years. On the basis of this study, we are able to provide the following inferences regarding possible future research trajectories in software requirement prioritization artifacts: (1) focus on frameworks and tools; (2) emphasis on specialization; and (3) proposition of theory-based artifacts. Additional research possibilities are also pointed out at the end and are expected to stimulate further research on the topic.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Accuracy can be a measure of how much the ranking computed while using a given prioritization approach is close to the ideal target ranking (conceived as the ranking the decision maker has in mind as a result of some implicit considerations or based on negotiations) [11].

  2. Both are PhD students (one male and one female) with five or more years of work experience in information technology and with research interests in software engineering and project management.

  3. Instantiation is the creation of a real instance or realization of an abstraction or template. This has been broadly classified into two types, viz. physical and conceptual (explained in the “Appendix”).

  4. Weakness of AHP is the number of pairwise comparisons necessary with increasing requirement size, and CV does not support hierarchical requirement structures.

References

  1. Herrmann A, Daneva M (2008) Requirements prioritization based on benefit and cost prediction: an agenda for future research. In: 16th IEEE international requirements engineering (RE’08). IEEE, pp 125–134

  2. Kotonya G, Sommerville I (1998) Requirements engineering: processes and techniques. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  3. Committee ICSSES, Electronics Engineers I, Board I-SS (1998) IEEE recommended practice for software requirements specifications: approved 25 June 1998, vol 830. IEEE

  4. Karlsson J, Wohlin C, Regnell B (1998) An evaluation of methods for prioritizing software requirements. Inf Softw Technol 39(14):939–947

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Achimugu P, Selamat A, Ibrahim R, Mahrin MNR (2014) A systematic literature review of software requirements prioritization research. Inf Softw Technol 56(6):568–585

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kukreja N, Payyavula SS, Boehm B, Padmanabhuni S (2012) Selecting an appropriate framework for value-based requirements prioritization: a case study. In: 20th IEEE international requirements engineering conference, Chicago, IL, USA

  7. March ST, Smith GF (1995) Design and natural science research on information technology. Decis Support Syst 15(4):251–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Khan KA (2006) A systematic review of software requirements prioritization. Blekinge Institute of Technology, Ronneby

    Google Scholar 

  9. Babar MI, Ramzan M, Ghayyur SAK (2011) Challenges and future trends in software requirements prioritization. In: International conference on computer networks and information technology (ICCNIT). IEEE, pp 319–324

  10. Pergher M, Rossi B (2013) Requirements prioritization in software engineering: a systematic mapping study. In: IEEE, pp 40–44

  11. Perini A, Susi A, Ricca F, Bazzanella C (2007) An empirical study to compare the accuracy of AHP and CBRanking techniques for requirements prioritization. In: Fifth international workshop on comparative evaluation in requirements engineering. IEEE, pp 23–35

  12. Pitangueira AM, Maciel RSP, Barros M (2015) Software requirements selection and prioritization using SBSE approaches: a systematic review and mapping of the literature. J Syst Softw 103(May):267–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Riegel N, Doerr J (2015) A systematic literature review of requirements prioritization criteria. In: Fricker SA, Schneider K (eds) Requirements engineering: foundation for software quality. Springer, Berlin, pp 300–317

    Google Scholar 

  14. Sher F, Jawawi DNA, Mohamad R, Babar MI (2014) Requirements prioritization techniques and different aspects for prioritization a systematic literature review protocol. In: 8th Malaysian software engineering conference. IEEE, pp 31–36

  15. Budgen D, Turner M, Brereton P, Kitchenham B (2008) Using mapping studies in software engineering. In: Proceedings of the PPIG. Lancaster University, pp 195–204

  16. Petersen K, Feldt R, Mujtaba S, Mattsson M (2008) Systematic mapping studies in software engineering. In: 12th International conference on evaluation and assessment in software engineering (EASE), p 1

  17. Downeâ-Wamboldt B (1992) Content analysis: method, applications, and issues. Health Care Women Int 13(3):313–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Higgins JPT, Green S (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1. 0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration

  19. Kitchenham B, Pretorius R, Budgen D, Pearl Brereton O, Turner M, Niazi M, Linkman S (2010) Systematic literature reviews in software engineering: a tertiary study. Inf Softw Technol 52(8):792–805

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Berander P, Andrews A (2005) Requirements prioritization. In: Aurum A, Wohlin C (eds) Engineering and managing software requirements. Springer, Berlin, pp 69–94

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Cavanagh S (1997) Content analysis: concepts, methods and applications. Nurse Res 4(3):5–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Miles MB, Huberman AM (1994) Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hevner AR, March ST, Park J, Ram S (2004) Design science in information systems research. MIS Q 28(1):75–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Offermann P, Blom S, Schönherr M, Bub U (2010) Artifact types in information systems design science—a literature review. In: Winter R, Zhao JL, Aier S (eds) Global perspectives on design science research. Springer, Berlin, pp 77–92

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. Berge C (1958) La theorie des graphes, vol II. Collection Universitaire de Mathématiques. Dunod, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  26. Köksalan MM, Wallenius J, Zionts S (2011) Multiple criteria decision making: from early history to the 21st century. World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., Singapore

    Book  Google Scholar 

  27. Xu D-L, Yang J-B, Wang Y-M (2006) The evidential reasoning approach for multi-attribute decision analysis under interval uncertainty. Eur J Oper Res 174(3):1914–1943

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Aasem M, Ramzan M, Jaffar A (2010) Analysis and optimization of software requirements prioritization techniques. In: International conference on information and emerging technologies (ICIET). IEEE, pp 1–6

  29. Moisiadis F (2002) The fundamentals of prioritising requirements. In: Proceedings of the systems engineering, test and evaluation conference (SETE’2002). Citeseer, pp 108–119

  30. Svensson RB, Gorschek T, Regnell Br, Torkar R, Shahrokni A, Feldt R, Aurum AK (2011) Prioritization of quality requirements: state of practice in eleven companies. In: IEEE, pp 69–78

  31. Gregor S (2009) Building theory in the sciences of the artificial. Paper presented at the 4th international conference on design science research in information systems and technology, Philadelphia, PA, USA, May 7–8, 2009

  32. Riedl C (2011) Tool-supported innovation management in service ecosystems. Gabler Verlag, Wiesbaden

    Book  Google Scholar 

  33. Davis A (2013) Just enough requirements management: where software development meets marketing. Addison-Wesley, New York

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Information Systems Department, Xavier Institute of Management (XIMB), Xavier Square, Bhubaneswar, 751 013, India

    Rahul Thakurta

Authors
  1. Rahul Thakurta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rahul Thakurta.

Appendix

Appendix

Tables 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20.

Table 14 Description of the categories
Full size table
Table 15 Studies included in the review
Full size table
Table 16 Article focus areas
Full size table
Table 17 Requirement prioritization objectives
Full size table
Table 18 Requirement prioritization artifacts
Full size table
Table 19 Description of factors influencing software requirement prioritization
Full size table
Table 20 List of journals, conferences, and symposiums covered in the review
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Thakurta, R. Understanding requirement prioritization artifacts: a systematic mapping study. Requirements Eng 22, 491–526 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-016-0253-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-016-0253-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation