#Use case priority matrix for system software

The team provided brief instructions for using the AHP method to the participants.

In this step, the stakeholders implemented the pair-wise comparison method of AHP. After meeting with the client, the team revised the requirements based on the feedback received. The team reviewed and reanalyzed the security requirements to ensure they were correct, complete, and clear. Review Candidate Requirements for Completeness In this step, the team held one meeting to give instructions and a follow-up meeting to clarify some ambiguous parts of the AHP method. Three stakeholders were involved in the AHP prioritization process. The team followed the five steps of the AHP method to prioritize the security requirements. Factoring into the rationale behind choosing AHP were the team members' familiarity with the method, its quantitative outputs, and its structure in providing definite steps for implementation. This was done on the basis of the above comparison, recognizing that the rankings are subjective. We decided to use AHP as a prioritizing method. shallow learning curve: The requirements engineers and stakeholders can fully comprehend the method within a reasonable length of time.low labor-intensity: A reasonable number of hours are needed to properly execute the prioritization method.high maturity: The method has had considerable exposure and analysis in the requirements engineering community.quantitative measurement: The prioritization method's numerical output clearly displays the clients' priorities for all requirements.clear-cut steps: There is clear definition between stages or steps within the prioritization method.In this article, we have filled in values for the various methods however, we recognize that this sort of evaluation is subjective, particularly since it was done by students with limited time constraints and no prior experience, so results may vary from one organization to another. The comparison matrix is shown in Table 1. We recommend that each organization develop its own matrix of desirable features. For this case study, a comparison matrix of desirable features was developed by the student team. We recommend that candidate prioritization methods be compared so that a suitable method can be selected. Use the cost-value diagram as a map for analyzing the candidate requirements.Calculate each candidate requirement's relative value and implementation cost, and plot each on a cost-value diagram.Apply the pair-wise comparison method to assess the relative cost of implementing each candidate requirement.Apply the pair-wise comparison method to assess the relative value of the candidate requirements.Review candidate requirements for completeness.AHP can prevent subjective judgment errors and increase the likelihood that the results are reliable. By using AHP, the requirements engineer can also confirm the consistency of the result. This method uses a pair-wise comparison matrix to calculate the relative value and costs of security requirements. AHP is a method for decision making in situations where multiple objectives are present.

#Use case priority matrix for system software

AHPĪHP was developed by Thomas Saaty and applied to software engineering by Joachim Karlsson and Kevin Ryan in 1997, , and. We briefly discuss AHP, which was selected for this case study. The results of the comparison are summarized in Table 1. Each method was ranked according to the factors identified below. Identify Candidate Prioritization Methodsįor this case study, we considered the Numeral Assignment Technique, Theory-W, and AHP. While results may vary from one organization to another, the discussion of how we applied the method should be of general interest. The tradeoff analysis and case study were conducted by a team of Carnegie Mellon graduate students under my supervision during a full-time semester-long project.