##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##
Abstract
Requirements prioritization is used to minimize risk during development of the software project, so that the most important requirements are implemented first. There are many prioritization techniques are available to prioritize the requirements, but the problem relies on choosing an appropriate technique that are suitable for people to prioritize medium to large numbers of requirements. Value Based Requirement Prioritization (VBRP) is one of the most widely used technique in the industry since it yields an accurate result and requires less sum of instance. To execute VBRP, the method of arrange Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) is used as a framework. The project may contain hundreds or even thousands of requirements. Generally, all the requirements do not contain equal user satisfaction. The requirement prioritization is the process of managing the relative importance and urgency of different requirement based on the multi-criteria decision making method. In this project multi-criteria decision making techniques through the integration of Real-code population –based incremental learning (RPBIL) algorithm with AHP and TOPSIS. In which the weights of each criteria are calculated by analytical hierarchical process (AHP) and the final ranking is achieved by Technique For Order Preference By Similarity To An Ideal Solution (TOPSIS)
##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##
How to Cite
M, A., & Sathiya, M. (2015). Improved Technique by Integrating AHP-TOPSIS for Prioritization. International Journal of Emerging Trends in Science and Technology, 2(02). Retrieved from http://igmpublication.org/ijetst.in/index.php/ijetst/article/view/509
References
1. Yue, Z. 2011 A method for group decision-making based on determining weights of decision makers using TOPSIS, Applied Mathematical Modeling 35, 1926–1936 .
2. .DSDM Consortium. (2009)DSDM public version 4.2. Retrieved 6 Jan, 2009, from www.dsdm.org.
3. Hatton, S. (2008) Choosing the right prio-ritisation method. 19th Australian Conference on Software Engineering, 517 – 526.
4. Saaty, T. L.,(2008) Decision Making With The Analytic Hierarchy Process. Int. J. Services Sciences, 1 (1), 83.
5. Karlsson, L., Host, M., &Regnell, B. (2006) Evaluating the practical use of different measurement scales in requirements prioritisation. Proceedings of the 2006 ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering (ISESE’06), 326-335.
6. Berander, P., & Andrews, A. (2005) Requirements prioritization. In A. Aurum C. Wohlin (Eds.), Engineering and managing software requirements (pp. 69-94): Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
7. Karlsson, L., Berander, P., Regnell, B., &Wohlin, C. (2004)Requirements priorit-isation: An experiment on exhaustive pair-wise comparisons versus planning game partitioning. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Empirical Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE 2004), 145-154.
8. Reifer, D. J. (2003)Is the software engineering state of the practice getting closer to the state of the art? IEEE Software, 20(6), 78-83.
9. Pressman, R. S. (2001) Software engineering: A practitioners approach. (Fifth ed.): Mac Graw-Hill
10. Leffingwell, D., &Widrig, D. (2000). Manag-ing software requirements - A unified appro-ach. Upper Saddle River: Addison-Wesley.
11. ZaveP. (1997) Classification of research efforts in requirements engineering. ACM Computing Surveys, 29(4), 315-321
12. Sommerville, I., & Sawyer, P. (1997) Requirements engineering - A good practice guide. Chichester: John Wiley and Son
13. Hwang, C.L., Yoon, K., 1981. Multiple Attribute Decision Making. In: Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems 186 Springer-Verlag.
14. Chen, S.J., Hwang, C.L., 1992 Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
15. Saaty, T. L. (1980)The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New York.Zhong, Rebecca N. Wright.
2. .DSDM Consortium. (2009)DSDM public version 4.2. Retrieved 6 Jan, 2009, from www.dsdm.org.
3. Hatton, S. (2008) Choosing the right prio-ritisation method. 19th Australian Conference on Software Engineering, 517 – 526.
4. Saaty, T. L.,(2008) Decision Making With The Analytic Hierarchy Process. Int. J. Services Sciences, 1 (1), 83.
5. Karlsson, L., Host, M., &Regnell, B. (2006) Evaluating the practical use of different measurement scales in requirements prioritisation. Proceedings of the 2006 ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering (ISESE’06), 326-335.
6. Berander, P., & Andrews, A. (2005) Requirements prioritization. In A. Aurum C. Wohlin (Eds.), Engineering and managing software requirements (pp. 69-94): Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
7. Karlsson, L., Berander, P., Regnell, B., &Wohlin, C. (2004)Requirements priorit-isation: An experiment on exhaustive pair-wise comparisons versus planning game partitioning. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Empirical Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE 2004), 145-154.
8. Reifer, D. J. (2003)Is the software engineering state of the practice getting closer to the state of the art? IEEE Software, 20(6), 78-83.
9. Pressman, R. S. (2001) Software engineering: A practitioners approach. (Fifth ed.): Mac Graw-Hill
10. Leffingwell, D., &Widrig, D. (2000). Manag-ing software requirements - A unified appro-ach. Upper Saddle River: Addison-Wesley.
11. ZaveP. (1997) Classification of research efforts in requirements engineering. ACM Computing Surveys, 29(4), 315-321
12. Sommerville, I., & Sawyer, P. (1997) Requirements engineering - A good practice guide. Chichester: John Wiley and Son
13. Hwang, C.L., Yoon, K., 1981. Multiple Attribute Decision Making. In: Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems 186 Springer-Verlag.
14. Chen, S.J., Hwang, C.L., 1992 Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
15. Saaty, T. L. (1980)The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New York.Zhong, Rebecca N. Wright.