Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effect of Contribution Links on Choosing Hard Goals in GORE Using AHP and TOPSIS

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Emerging Research in Electronics, Computer Science and Technology

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering ((LNEE,volume 248))

Abstract

Decision support system in requirements engineering plays an important role in software development life cycle. The relationship between functional and non-functional requirements is the key in resolving conflicts in requirements gathering phase. In this paper, we discuss the effect of nonlinearity rating while converting the contribution links to quantitative values. We use our goal-oriented requirements engineering (GORE) method to identify the soft goals. Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is then used to prioritize the soft goals. The output of AHP is used as input to technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) which produces a metric which decides the best alternative among the candidates. We illustrate the process and analyze the nonlinearity effect for meeting scheduler application.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Doerr J, Kerkow D, Koenig T, Olsson T, Suzuki T (1995) Non-functional requirements in industry: three case studies adopting an experience-based NFR method. In: Proceedings of the 2005 13th IEEE international conference on requirements engineering

    Google Scholar 

  2. Mylopoulos J, Chung L, Nixon B (1992) Representing and using nonfunctional requirements: a process-oriented approach. IEEE Trans Software Eng 18(6):483–497

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. van Lamsweerde A (2001) Goal-oriented requirements engineering: a guided tour. In: Proceedings of the 5th IEEE international symposium on requirements engineering. IEEE computer society, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ruhe G (2003) Software engineering decision support and empirical investigations––a proposed marriage. Workshop Empirical Stud Softw Eng (WSESE), 2: 25–34

    Google Scholar 

  5. Omasreiter H (2007) Balanced decision making in software engineering: general thoughts and a concrete example from industry. In: First international workshop on the economics of software and computation (ESC), 2007

    Google Scholar 

  6. Easterbrook S, Singer J, Storey M-A, Damian D (2008) Selecting empirical methods for software engineering research. In: Guide to advanced empirical software engineering, Section III, 285–311

    Google Scholar 

  7. Hannay JE, Sjøberg DIK, Dyba T (2007) A systematic review of theory use in software engineering experiments. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 33(2):87–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Price J, Cybulski J (2006) The importance of IS stakeholder perspectives and perceptions to requirements negotiation. In: AWR. Adelaide, Australia

    Google Scholar 

  9. Ivanović A, America P (2010) Information needed for architecture decision making. In: Proceedings of the ICSE workshop on product line approaches in software engineering

    Google Scholar 

  10. Lakshminarayanan V, Liu WQ, Chen CL, Easterbrook S, Perry DE (2006) Software architects in practice: handling requirements. In: Proceedings of the conference of the center for advanced studies on collaborative research (CASCON)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hasan MS, Mahmood AA, Alam MJ, Hasan SN, Rahman F (2010) An evaluation of software requirement prioritization techniques. Int J Comp Sci Inf Security (IJCSIS), 8(9)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Saaty TL (2008) Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int J Services Sci, 1(1),83–98

    Google Scholar 

  13. Chen SJ, Hwang CL (1992) Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications. Springer, Berlin

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Hwang CL, Yoon K (1981) Multiple attribute decision making. in: lecture notes in economics and mathematical systems, 186. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  15. Vinay S, Aithal S, Sudhakara A (2012) A quantitative approach using goal-oriented requirements engineering methodology and analytic hierarchy process in selecting the best alternative. In: Proceedings of international conference on advances in computing, advances in intelligent systems and computing, 174, pp 441–454

    Google Scholar 

  16. Vinay S, Aithal S, Sudhakara A (2012) Integrating TOPSIS and AHP into GORE decision support system. Int J Comp Appl, 56(17): 46–53

    Google Scholar 

  17. van Lamsweerde A (2004) Goal-oriented requirements engineering: a roundtrip from research to practice. In: Proceedings of RE ’04

    Google Scholar 

  18. van Lamsweerde A (2009) Reasoning about alternative requirements options, in conceptual modeling: foundations and applications. In: Borgida A, Chaudhri V, Giorgini P, Yu E (eds) Essays in Honor of John Mylopoulos, Springer LNCS 5600, 380–397

    Google Scholar 

  19. Castro J, Kolp M, Mylopoulos J (2002) Towards requirements-driven information systems engineering: the Tropos project. Inf Syst, 27(6): 365–389

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kaiya H et al. (2004) Identifying stakeholders and their preferences about NFR by comparing use case diagrams of several existing systems. 12th IEEE international requirements engineering conference (RE’04)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Vinay S, Aithal S, Sudhakar G (2011) A goal-oriented requirements engineering method for analysing conflicts, ICCANA, Nitte, Jan 2011

    Google Scholar 

  22. Akao Y (1994) Development history of quality function deployment. The customer driven approach to quality planning and deployment. Minato, Tokyo 107 Japan: Asian Productivity Organization, pp 339–351

    Google Scholar 

  23. Herzwurm G et al. (2003) QFD for customer focused requirements engineering. In: 11th IEEE international requirements engineering conference, 2003

    Google Scholar 

  24. Hierholzer A, Herzwurm G, Schlang H (2003) Applying QFD for software process improvement at SAP AG, Walldorf, Germany. In: Proceedings of the third workshop on software quality, ACM, 2003

    Google Scholar 

  25. de Felice F, Petrillo A (2010) A multiple choice decision analysis: an integrated QFD: AHP model for the assessment of customer needs. Int J Eng Sci Technol 2(9):25–38

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kaiya H, Nagano Horai H, Saeki M (2002) AGORA: attributed goal-oriented requirements analysis method. In: International conference on requirements engineering, 2002 proceedings

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. PESITM, Shivamogga, India

    S. Vinay

  2. TAPMI, Manipal, India

    Shridhar Aithal

  3. MIT, Manipal, India

    G. Sudhakara

Authors
  1. S. Vinay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shridhar Aithal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. G. Sudhakara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Vinay .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of E & C Engineering, PES College of Engineering, Mandya, Karnataka, India

    V Sridhar

  2. Department of E & C Engineering, PES College of Engineering, Mandya, Karnataka, India

    Holalu Seenappa Sheshadri

  3. Department of Computer Science, PES College of Engineering, Mandya, Karnataka, India

    M C Padma

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer India

About this paper

Cite this paper

Vinay, S., Aithal, S., Sudhakara, G. (2014). Effect of Contribution Links on Choosing Hard Goals in GORE Using AHP and TOPSIS. In: Sridhar, V., Sheshadri, H., Padma, M. (eds) Emerging Research in Electronics, Computer Science and Technology. Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering, vol 248. Springer, New Delhi. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-1157-0_75

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-1157-0_75

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New Delhi

  • Print ISBN: 978-81-322-1156-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-81-322-1157-0

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation