Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Software Requirements Selection with Incomplete Linguistic Preference Relations

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Business & Information Systems Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Software requirements (SRs) selection is a multicriteria group decision making (MCGDM) problem whose objective is to select the SRs from the pool of the requirements on the basis of different criteria. In MCGDM, different decision makers have different opinions of the same requirement so it is difficult to decide which set of SRs to implement during the different releases of the software. During the MCGDM process, decision makers may use linguistic variables to specify preferences of requirements over other requirements. In real life applications, it has been observed that sometimes decision makers cannot evaluate the SRs due to their lack of knowledge and limited expertise related to the problem domain. In this situation, incomplete linguistic preference relations (LPRs) are constructed. In literature, SRs selection with incomplete LPRs is still an unresearched problem. Therefore, to address this issue, a method is presented for the selection of SRs with incomplete LPRs. Finally, the applicability of the proposed method is explained with the help of an example.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abdulla MS (2012) Multi-criteria decision making with overlapping criteria. IIMB Manag Rev 24:137–142

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahmad KS, Ahmad N, Tahir H, Khan S (2017) Fuzzy MoSCoW: a fuzzy based MoSCoW method for the prioritization of the software requirements. In: IEEE international conference on intelligent computing, instrumentation, and control technologies, pp 433–437

  • Alshazly AA, Elfatatry AM, Abougabal MS (2014) Detecting defects in software requirements specifications. Alexandria Eng J 53:513–527

    Google Scholar 

  • Ameller D, French X, Cabot J (2010) Dealing with non-functional requirements in model-driven development. In: 18th IEEE international requirements engineering conference, pp 189–198

  • Araujo AA, Paixao MHE (2014) Machine learning for user modeling in an interactive genetic algorithm for next release problem. In: Proceedings of the 6th international symposium on search based software engineering, Springer, pp 228–233

  • Avesani P, Bazzanella C, Perini A, Susi A (2004) Supporting the requirements prioritization process: a machine learning approach. In: Proceedings of the 16th international conference on software engineering and knowledge engineering, pp 306–311

  • Avesani P, Bazzanella C, Perini A, Susi A (2005) Facing scalability issues in requirements prioritization with machine learning techniques. In: Proceedings of the 13th IEEE international conference on requirements engineering, pp 297–306

  • Avesani P, Ferrari S, Susi A (2003) Case-based ranking for decision support systems. In: Proceedings of ICCBR 2003, Springer, pp 35–49

  • Bagnall AJ, Rayward-Smith VJ, Whittley IM (2001) The next release problem. Inf Softw Technol 43(14):883–890

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker P, Harman M, Steinhofel K, Skaliotis A (2006) Search based approaches to component selection and prioritization for the next release problem. In: Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE international conference on software maintenance, pp 176–185

  • Berend D, Sapir A, Sapir L (2017) A decision making approach to the spam problem. INFOR Inf Syst Oper Res 49(1):1–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Botelho G, Rocha A, Britto A, Silva L (2015) Investigating bio-inspired strategies to solve large scale next release problem. In: Proceedings of the CIBSE conference and exhibition, pp 1–14

  • Budak A, Ustundag A (2015) Fuzzy decision making model for selection of real time location systems. Appl Soft Comput 36:177–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Cai X, Wei O (2013) A hybrid of decomposition and domination based evolutionary algorithm for multi-objective software next release problem. In: Proceedings of the 10th IEEE international conference on control and automation, pp 412–417

  • Cai X, Wei O, Huang Z (2012) Evolutionary approaches for multi-objective next release problem. Comput Inform 31:847–875

    Google Scholar 

  • Cerpa N, Verner JM (2009) Why did your project fail? Commun ACM 52(12):130–134

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaves-Gonzalez JM, Perez-Toledano MA, Navasa A (2015a) Teaching learning based optimization with Pareto tournament for the multi-objective software requirements selection. Eng Appl Artif Intell 43:89–101

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaves-Gonzalez JM, Perez-Toledano MA (2015) Differential evolution with Pareto tournament for the multi-objective next release problem. Appl Math Comput 252:1–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaves-Gonzalez JM, Perez-Toledano MA, Navasa A (2015b) Software requirements optimization using multi-objective swarm intelligence evolutionary algorithm. Knowl Based Syst 83(C):105–115

  • Cheng X, Huang Y, Cai X, Wei O (2014) An adaptive Memetic algorithm based on multi-objective optimization for software next release problem. In: Proceedings of the ACM genetic and evolutionary computing conference, pp 185–186

  • Chou CC (2003) The canonical representation of multiplication operation on triangular fuzzy numbers. Comput Math Appl 45(1601):1610

    Google Scholar 

  • Chou CC (2006) The representation of multiplication operation on fuzzy numbers and application to solving fuzzy multiple criteria decision making problem. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 161–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-36668-3_19

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chu T-C, Lin Y (2009) An extension to fuzzy MCDM. Comput Math Appl 57:445–454

    Google Scholar 

  • Chung L, Nixon BA (1995) Dealing with non-functional requirements: three experimental studies of a process-oriented approach. 17th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp 25–37

  • Durillo JJ, Zhang Y, Alba E, Harman M, Nebro AJ (2011) A study of the bi-objective next release problem. Empir Softw Eng 16(1):29–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Dabbagh M, Lee SP (2014) An approach for integrating the prioritization of functional and nonfunctional requirements. Sci World J 2014:1–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Durillo JJ, Zhang Y, Alba E, Nebro AJ (2009) A study of multi-objective next release problem. In: Proceedings of the 1st international symposium on search based software engineering, pp 49–58

  • Farahani RZ, SteadieSeifi M, Asgari N (2010) Multiple-criteria facility location problem. Appl Math Model 34:1689–1709

    Google Scholar 

  • Farzat F, Barros MO (2016) Unit test case selection to evaluate changes in critical time. INFOR: Inf Syst Oper Res 50(4):163–174

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira TN, Araujo AA, Neto ADB, Souza JT (2016) Incorporating user preferences in ant colony optimization for the next release problem. Appl Soft Comput 49:1283–1296

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchshuber R, Barros MO (2014) Improving heuristic for the next release problem through landscape visualization. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on search based software engineering, Springer, pp 222–227

  • Greer D, Ruhe G (2004) Software release planning: an evolutionary and iterative approach. Inf Softw Technol 46(4):243–253

    Google Scholar 

  • Harman M, Krinke J, Medina-Bulo I, Palomo Lozano F, Ren J, Yoo S (2014) Exact scalable sensitivity analysis for the next release problem. ACM Trans Softw Eng Methodol 23(2):1–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrmann A, Daneva M (2008) Requirements prioritization based on benefits and cost prediction: an agenda for future research. 18th IEEE international requirements engineering conference, pp 125–134

  • Ibriwesh I, Ho S-B, Chai I (2018) Overcoming scalability issues in analytic hierarchy process with ReDCCahp: an empirical investigation. Arab J Sci Eng 43:7995–8011

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiang H, Xuan J, Ren Z (2010a) Approximate backbone based multilevel algorithm for the next release problem. In: Proceedings of the 12th annual conference on genetic evolutionary computation, pp 1333–1340

  • Jiang H, Zhang J, Xuan J, Ren Z, Hu Y (2010b) A hybrid ACO algorithm for the next release problem. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on software engineering and data mining, pp 166–171

  • Jung HW (1998) Optimizing value and cost in requirements analysis. IEEE Softw 15(4):74–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Hujainah F, Bakar RBA, Abdulgabber MA, Zamli KZ (2018) Software requirements prioritization: a systematic literature review on significance, stakeholders, techniques and challenges. IEEE Access 6:71497–71523. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2881755

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaiya H, Horai H, Saeki M (2002) AGORA: Attributed goal-oriented requirements analysis method. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on requirements engineering, pp 13–22

  • Kappelman LA, McKeeman R, Zhang L (2006) Early warning signs of IT project failure: the dominant dozen. Inf Syst Manag 23(4):31–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Kar AK (2014) Revisiting the supplier selection problem. An integrated approach for group decision support. Expert Syst Appl 41:2762–2771

    Google Scholar 

  • Karlsson J, Ryan K (1996) Supporting the selection of software requirements. In: Proceedings of the IEEE 8th international workshop on software specification and design, pp 146–149

  • Khurum M, Uppalapati N, Veeramachaneni RC (2012) Software requirements triage and selection: state-of-the-art and state-of-practice. In: Asia Pacific Software Engineering Conference, IEEE Computer Society, pp 416–421

  • Kumari AC, Srinivas K, Gupta MP (2012) Software requirements selection using quantum-inspired multi-objective differential evolution algorithm. In: Proceedings of the CSI 6th international conference on software engineering, pp 1–8

  • Kumari AC, Srinivas K, Gupta MP (2013) Software requirements optimization using multi-objective quantum-inspired hybrid differential evolution. In: Schütze O et al (eds) EVOLVE—a bridge between probability, set oriented numerics, and evolutionary computation. Springer, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31519-0_7

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kumari AC, Srinivas K (2016) Comparing the performance of quantum-inspired evolutionary algorithm for the solution of software requirements selection problem. Inf Softw Technol 76:31–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamsweerde AV, Letier E (2000) Handling obstacles in goal-oriented requirements engineering. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 26(10):978–1005

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehtinen TOA, Mantyla MV, Vanhanen J, Itkonen J, Lassenius C (2014) Perceived causes of software project failure – An analysis of their relationship. Inf Softw Technol 56:623–643

    Google Scholar 

  • Li C, Van Den Akker M, Brinkkemper S, Diepen G (2010) An integrated approach for requirements selection and scheduling in software release planning. Requir Eng 15:375–396

    Google Scholar 

  • Li C, Van Den Akker JM, Brinkkemper S, Diepen G (2007) Integrated requirements selection and scheduling for the release planning of a software product. In: Proceedings of the 13th international working conference on requirements engineering: foundation for software quality, Springer, pp 93–108

  • Li L, Harman M, Letier E, Zhang Y (2014) Robust next release problem: handling uncertainty during optimization. In: Proceedings of the 2014 annual conference on genetic and evolutionary computation, ACM, pp 1247–1254

  • Li L (2016) Exact analysis for next release problem. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on software engineering, pp 438–443

  • Li L, Harman M, Wu F, Zhang Y (2017) The value of the exact analysis in requirements selection. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 43(6):580–596

    Google Scholar 

  • Misaghian N, Motameni H (2018) An approach for requirements prioritization based on tensor decomposition. Requir Eng 23:169–188

    Google Scholar 

  • Mardani A, Jusoh A, Nor KMD, Khalifah Z, Zakwan N, Valipour A (2015) Multiple-criteria decision making techniques and their applications – A review of the literature from 2000 to 2014. Econ Res 28(1):516–571

    Google Scholar 

  • Masmoudi M, Abdelaziz FB (2012) A recourse goal programming approaches for the portfolio selection problem. INFOR: Inf Syst Oper Res 50(3):134–139

    Google Scholar 

  • Mausa G, Grabac TG, Basic BD, Pavcevic MO (2013) Hill climbing and simulated annealing in large scale next release problem. In: Proceedings of IEEE EUROCON, pp 52–459

  • Mendonca DF, Rodrigues GN, Ali R, Alves V, Baresi L (2016) GODA: a goal-oriented requirements engineering framework for runtime dependability analysis. Inf Softw Technol 80:245–264

    Google Scholar 

  • Morente-Molinera JA, Kou G, Gonzalez-Crespo R, Corchado JM, Herrera-Viedma E (2017) Solving multi-criteria group decision making problems under environments with a high number of alternatives using fuzzy ontologies and multi-granular linguistic modelling methods. Knowl-Based Syst 137:54–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2017.09.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naaz S, Mariyam F (2016) A fuzzy based approach for the elicitation of attributed values in goal models. Int J Comput Sci Inf Secur 14(7):525–536

    Google Scholar 

  • Ngo-The A, Ruhe G (2009) Optimized resource allocation for software release planning. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 35(1):109–123

    Google Scholar 

  • Paixao M, Souza J (2015) A robust optimization approach to the next release problem in the presence of uncertainties. J Syst Softw 103:281–295

    Google Scholar 

  • Paixao MHE, De Souza JT (2013a) A scenario based robust model for the next release problem. In: Proceedings of the 15th annual conference on genetic and evolutionary computation, pp 1469–1476

  • Paixao MHE, De Souza JT (2013b) A recoverable robust approach for the next release problem. In: Proceedings of search based software engineering, Vol 8084 of the Series, Lecture notes in computer science, Springer, pp 172–187

  • Perini A, Ricca F, Susi A (2009) Tool supported requirements prioritization: comparing the AHP and CBRank methods. Inf Softw Technol 51(6):1021–1032

    Google Scholar 

  • Perini A, Ricca F, Susi A, Bazzanella C (2007) An empirical study to compare the accuracy of AHP and CBranking techniques for requirements prioritization. In: Proceedings of the 5th IEEE international workshop on comparative evaluation in requirements engineering, pp 23–35

  • 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 103:267–280

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitangueira AM, Maciel RSP, Barros MO, Andrade AS (2013) A systematic review of software requirements selection and prioritization using SBSE approaches. In: Proceedings of search based software engineering, Springer, Heidelberg, pp 188–208

  • Pitangueira AM, Tonella P, Susi A, Maciel RS, Barros M (2016) Risk aware multi-stakeholder next release planning using multi-objective optimization. In: Proceedings of requirements engineering: foundations for software quality, Springer, Heidelberg, pp 3–18

  • Pitangueira AM (2015) Incorporating preferences from multiple stakeholders in software requirements selection: an interactive search-based approach. In: Proceedings of the 23rd IEEE international requirements engineering conference, Ottawa, pp 382–287. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/RE.2015.7320455

  • Rahman MM, Govindarajulu Z (1997) A modification of the test of Shapiro and Wilk for normality. J Appl Stat 24(2):219–236

    Google Scholar 

  • Ranjith N, Marimuthu A (2016) A multi-objective teacher-learning-artificial-bee colony optimization for software requirements selection. Indian J Sci Technol 9(4):1–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruhe G, Greer D (2003) Quantitative studies in software release planning under risk and resources constraints. In: Proceedings of IEEE international symposium on empirical software engineering, Rome, pp 262–270

  • Ruhe G, Eberlein A, Pfahl D (2003) Trade-off analysis for requirements selection. Int J Softw Eng Knowl Eng 13(4):345–366

    Google Scholar 

  • Runeson P, Host M, Rainer AW, Regnell B (2012) Case study research in software engineering. Guidelines and Examples, Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadiq M, Afrin A (2017) An integrated approach for the selection of software requirements using fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS method. In: IEEE international conference on intelligent computing, instrumentation, and control technologies, pp 1094–1100

  • Sadiq M, Jain SK (2012) An insight into requirements engineering processes. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on advances in communication, network, and computing. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 313–318

  • Sadiq M, Jain SK (2014) Applying fuzzy preference relation for requirements prioritization in goal oriented requirements elicitation process. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag 5:711–723

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadiq M, Jain SK (2015) A fuzzy based approach for the selection of goals in goal oriented requirements elicitation process. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag 6:157–164

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadiq M, Nazneen S (2019) Elicitation of software testing requirements from the selected set of software’s requirements in GOREP. Int J Comput Syst Eng 5(3):152–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadiq M, Ghafir S, Shahid M (2009) An approach for eliciting software requirements and its prioritization using analytic hierarchy process. In: Proceedings of IEEE international conference on advances in recent technologies in communication and computing, pp 790–795

  • Sadiq M, Hassan T, Nazneen S (2017) AHP_GORE_PSR: Applying analytic hierarchy process in goal oriented requirements elicitation method for the prioritization of software requirements. In: 3rd international conference on computational intelligence and communication technology, Ghaziabad, IEEE

  • Sadiq M (2017) A fuzzy-set based approach for the prioritization of stakeholders on the basis of the importance of software requirements. IETE J Res 63(5):616–629

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadiq M, Khan S, Mohammad CW (2020) Selection of software requirements using TOPSIS under fuzzy environment. Int J Comput Appl. https://doi.org/10.1080/1206212X.2020.1820689

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sagrado J, Aguila IM, Orellana FJ (2015) Multi-objective ant colony optimization for requirements selection. Empir Softw Eng 20(3):577–610

    Google Scholar 

  • Sagrado J, Del Aguila IM, Orellana FJ, Tunez S (2010a) Requirements selection: knowledge based optimization techniques for solving the next release problem. In: Proceedings of 6th workshop on knowledge engineering and software engineering at 33rd German conference on artificial intelligence, pp 40–51

  • Sagrado J, Aguila IM, Orellana FJ (2010b) Ant colony optimization for the next release problem: a comparative study. In: Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE international symposium on search based software engineering, pp 67–76

  • Sagrado J, Aguila IM (2009) Ant colony optimization for requirements selection in incremental software development. In: Proceedings of the 1st IEEE international symposium on search based software engineering. Windsor

  • Savolainen P, Ahonen JJ, Richardson I (2012) Software development project success and failure from the supplier’s perspective: a systematic literature review. Int J Proj Manag 30(4):458–469

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen CG, Baracli H (2010) Fuzzy quality function deployment based methodology for acquiring enterprise software selection requirements. Expert Syst Appl 37:3415–3426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2009.10.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shadab K, Mohammad CW, Sadiq M (2018) Generating patterns and sub-patterns of pairwise comparison matrices for the selection of software requirements. In: IEEE international conference on advances in computing, communication, control, and networking, Noida

  • Siegel S (1956) Nonparametric statistics for the behavioural sciences. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Silva TGN, Rocha LS, Maia JEB (2014) An effective method for MOGAs initialization to solve the multi-objective next release problem. In: Proceedings of the 13th Mexican international conference on artificial intelligence, Springer, pp 25–37

  • Simoes D, Antunes P, Carrico L (2018) Eliciting and modeling business process stories. Bus Inf Syst Eng 60(2):115–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-017-0475-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Souza JT, Maia CLB, Ferreira TN, Carmo RAF, Brasil MMA (2011) An ant colony optimization approach to the software release planning with dependent requirements. In: Proceedings of search based software engineering, Springer, pp 142–157

  • Sureka A (2014) Requirements prioritization and next release problem under non-additive value candidates. In: Proceedings of the 23rd IEEE Australian software engineering conference, pp 120–123

  • Van den Akker JM, Brinkkemper S, Diepen G, Versendaal J (2008) Software product release planning through optimization and what-if analysis. Inf Softw Technol 50(1–2):101–111

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Den Akker JM, Brinkkemper S, Diepen G, Versendaal J (2005) Determination of the next release of software product: an approach using integer linear programming. CAiSE Short Paper Proceedings 2005:119–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Akker JM, Brinkkemper S, Diepen G (2005b) Flexible release-planning using integer linear programming. In: Proceedings of 11th international workshop on requirements engineering for software quality, pp 247–262

  • Veerapen N, Ochoa G, Harman M, Burke EK (2015) An integer linear programming approach to the single and bi-objective next release problem. Inf Softw Technol 65(C):1–13

  • Wohlin C et al (2012) Experimentation in software engineering. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu Y (2011) On group decision making with four formats of incomplete preference relations. Comput Ind Eng 61:48–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu Z (2006) Incomplete linguistic preference relations and their fusion. Inf Fusion 7:331–337

    Google Scholar 

  • Xuan J, Jiang H, Ren Z, Luo Z (2012) Solving the large scale next release problem with a backbone based multilevel algorithm. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 38(5):1195–1212

    Google Scholar 

  • Zadeh LA (1996) Fuzzy logic=computing with words. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 4(2):103–111

    Google Scholar 

  • Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z, Kildiene S (2014) State of art surveys of overviews on MCDM/MADM methods. Technol Econ Dev Econ 20(1):165–179

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang Y, Harman M, Mansouri SA (2007) The multi-objective next release problem. In: Proceedings of the ACM 9th annual conference on genetic and evolutionary computation, pp 1129–1137

  • Zhang Y, Harman M, Finkelstein A, Mansouri SA (2011) Comparing the performance of Metaheuristic for the analysis of multi-stakeholder trade-offs in requirements optimization. Inf Softw Technol 53(7):761–773

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science and Automation, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, 560012, India

    Mohd. Sadiq

  2. Department of Applied Sciences and Humanities, Faculty of Engineering and Technology, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, 110025, India

    Azra Parveen

  3. Department of Computer Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra, Haryana, 136119, India

    S. K. Jain

Authors
  1. Mohd. Sadiq
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Azra Parveen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. K. Jain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohd. Sadiq.

Additional information

Accepted after three revisions by Matthias Jarke.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sadiq, M., Parveen, A. & Jain, S.K. Software Requirements Selection with Incomplete Linguistic Preference Relations. Bus Inf Syst Eng 63, 669–688 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-021-00696-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-021-00696-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation