International Journal of Information Technology and Computer Science(IJITCS)

ISSN: 2074-9007 (Print), ISSN: 2074-9015 (Online)

Published By: MECS Press

IJITCS Vol.10, No.4, Apr. 2018

A Comparative Analysis and Proposing ‘ANN Fuzzy AHP Model’ for Requirements Prioritization

Full Text (PDF, 837KB), PP.55-65

Views:71   Downloads:3


Yash Veer Singh, Bijendra Kumar, Satish Chand, Jitendra Kumar

Index Terms

Requirements Prioritization;ANN Fuzzy AHP;Requirement Engineering;Supplier Selection


Requirements prioritization is an essential component of software release planning and requirement engineering. In requirement engineering the requirements are arranged as per their priority using prioritization techniques to develop high-quality software’s. It also helps to the decision makers for making good decisions about, which set of requirements should be executed first. In any software development industry a ‘software project’ may have a larger number of requirements and then it is very difficult to prioritize such type of larger number of requirements as per their priority when stakeholder’s priorities are in the form of linguistic variables. This paper presents a comparative analysis of existing seven techniques based on various aspects like: scale of prioritization, scalability, time complexity, easy to use, accuracy, and decision making, etc. It was found from literature survey none of the techniques can be considered as the best one. These techniques undergo from a number of drawbacks like: time complexity, lack of scalability, Negative degree of membership function, inconsistency ratio, rank updates during requirement development, and conflicts among stakeholders. This paper proposed a model called ‘ANN Fuzzy AHP model’ for requirements prioritization that will overcome these limitations and drawbacks. In the investigation of this proposed model, a case study is implemented. Ozcan et al [31] using a FAHP (Fuzzy AHP) with ANN based technique to choose the best supplier based on the multiple criteria. The examination on ANN with FAHP is performed on MATLAB software and outcome evaluated by fuzzy pair-wise comparison matrix with three supplier selection criteria states that the requirements prioritization outcome is better from existing techniques.with higher priority.

Cite This Paper

Yash Veer Singh, Bijendra Kumar, Satish Chand, Jitendra Kumar, "A Comparative Analysis and Proposing ‘ANN Fuzzy AHP Model’ for Requirements Prioritization", International Journal of Information Technology and Computer Science(IJITCS), Vol.10, No.4, pp.55-65, 2018. DOI: 10.5815/ijitcs.2018.04.06


[1]Leffingwell, Dean, and Don Widrig. Managing software requirements: a unified approach. Addison- Wesley Professional, 2000.

[2]Barney, Sebastian, Aybüke Aurum, and Claes Wohlin. "A product management challenge: Creating software  product value through requirements  selection." Journal of Systems Architecture 54.6 (2008): 576-593.

[3]Karlsson, Joachim, Claes Wohlin, and Björn Regnell. "An evaluation of methods for prioritizing software  requirements." Information and Software  Technology 39.14 (1998): 939-947.

[4]Keele, Staffs. "Guidelines for performing systematic  literature reviews in software engineering." Technical report, Ver. 2.3 EBSE Technical Report. EBSE. 2007.

[5]Finkelstein, Anthony, et al. "A search based approach to fairness analysis in requirement assignments to aid negotiation, mediation and decision making."Requirements Engineering 14.4 (2009):231-245.

[6]Ma, Qiao. The effectiveness of requirements prioritization techniques for a medium to large number of requirements: a systematic literature review. Diss. Auckland University of Technology, 2009.

[7]Sadiq, Mohd, and S. K. Jain. "Applying fuzzy preference relation for requirements prioritization in goal oriented requirements elicitation process."International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management 5.4   (2014): 711-723.

[8]Ghodsypour, S. H., & O’Brien, C. (1998). A decision support system for supplier selection using an integrated analytic hierarchy process and linearprogramming. International Journal of Production Economics, 56(57), 199–212.

[9]Chan, F. T. S., & Kumar, N. (2007). Global supplier development considering riskfactors using fuzzy extended AHP-based approach. Omega, 35, 417–431.

[10]Aasem, Muhammad, Muhammad Ramzan, and Arfan Jaffar. "Analysis and optimization of software requirements prioritization techniques." Information and Emerging Technologies (ICIET), 2010 International Conference on.  IEEE, 2010.

[11]Voola, Persis, and A. Vinaya Babu. "Requirements uncertainty prioritization approach: a novel approach for requirements prioritization." Softw Eng Int J (SEIJ) 2 (2012): 37-49

[12]Karlsson, Lena, Martin Höst, and Björn Regnell. "Evaluating the practical use of different measurement scales in  requirements prioritisation." Proceedings of the 2006 ACM/IEEE international symposium on Empirical software engineering. ACM, 2006.

[13]Berander, Patrik, and Anneliese Andrews. "Requirements prioritization."Engineering and managing software requirements. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2005. 69-94.

[14]Essaid, E. L., Abdellah Azmani, and Mohamed El Harzli. "Using AHP Method for Educational and Vocational Guidance." (2017).

[15]Wind, Yoram, and Thomas L. Saaty. "Marketing applications of the analytic hierarchy process." Management science 26.7 (1980): 641-658. 

[16]Lehtola, Laura, and Marjo Kauppinen. "Empirical evaluation of two requirements prioritization methods  in product development projects."European  Conference on Software Process Improvement.   Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2004. 

[17]Maiden, Neil A., and Cornelius Ncube. "Acquiring COTS software selection requirements." IEEE software 15.2 (1998): 46-56. 

[18]Vaishnavi, B., Yarrakula, K., Karthikeyan, J., & Thirumalai, C. (2017, January). An assessment framework for Precipitation decision making using AHP. In Intelligent Systems and Control (ISCO), 2017 11th International Conference on (pp. 418-421). IEEE.

[19]Beck, Kent, and Martin Fowler. Planning extreme programming. Addison-Wesley Professional, 2001.

[20]Khan, Javed Ali, et al. "Comparison of Requirement Prioritization Techniques to Find Best Prioritization Technique." International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science 7.11 (2015): 53.

[21]Karlsson, Joachim, and Kevin Ryan. "A cost-value approach for prioritizing requirements." IEEE  software 14.5  (1997): 67-74.

[22]Ma, Qiao. The effectiveness of requirements prioritization techniques for a medium to large number of requirements: a systematic literature review. Diss. Auckland University of Technology, 2009.

[23]Leffingwell, D., and D. Widrig. "Management Software Requirements: a Use Case approach." (2003). 

[24]Aho, A. V., & Ullman, J. D. (1983). Data structures and algorithms. Pearson.

[25]Avesani, Paolo, et al. "Facing scalability issues in requirements prioritization with machine learning techniques." 13th IEEE International Conference on  Requirements Engineering (RE'05). IEEE, 2005.

[26]Gaur, Vibha, and Anuja Soni. "Evaluating degree of dependency from domain knowledge using fuzzy inference system." Trends in Computer Science, Engineering and Information Technology. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2011. 101-111.

[27]Regnell, Björn, et al. "An industrial case study on distributed prioritisation in market-driven requirements  engineering for packaged software."Requirements Engineering 6.1 (2001): 51-62.

[28]Khari, Manju, and Nikunj Kumar. "Comparison of six prioritization techniques for software requirements." Journal of   Global Research in Computer Science4.1 (2013): 38-43.

[29]Wang, Qiaoxiu, Hong Wang, and Zuoqiu Qi. "An application of nonlinear fuzzy analytic hierarchy process in safety evaluation of coal mine." Safety science 86 (2016): 78-87.

[30]Renuka Nagpal, Deepti Mehrotra, Pradeep Kumar Bhatia, Arun Sharma,"Rank University Websites Using Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS Approach on Usability", IJIEEB, vol.7, no.1, pp.29-36, 2015. DOI: 10.5815/ijieeb.2015.01.04

[31]Ozcan Kilincci , Suzan Aslı Onal,” Fuzzy AHP approach for supplier selection in a washing machine company”, Expert Systems with Applications 38 (2011) 9656–9664