Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2402.13149

Choosing a Suitable Requirement Prioritization Method: A Survey

Abstract

Software requirements prioritization plays a crucial role in software development. It can be viewed as the process of ordering requirements by determining which requirements must be done first and which can be done later. Powerful requirements prioritization techniques are of paramount importance to finish the implementation on time and within budget. Many factors affect requirement prioritization such as stakeholder expectations, complexity, dependency, scalability, risk, and cost. Therefore, finding the proper order of requirements is a challenging process. Hence, different types of requirements prioritization techniques have been developed to support this task. In this survey, we propose a novel classification that can classify the prioritization techniques under two major classes: relative and exact prioritization techniques class, where each class is divided into two subclasses. We depend in our classification on the way the value of ranking is given to the requirement, either explicitly as a specific value in the case of the exact prioritization techniques class, or implicitly in the case of the Relative prioritization technique class. An overview of fifteen different requirements prioritization techniques are presented and organized according to the proposed classification criteria's. Moreover, we make a comparison between methods that are related to the same subclass to analyze their strengths and weaknesses. Based on the comparison results, the properties for each proposed subclass of techniques are identified. Depending on these properties, we present some recommendations to help project managers in the process of selecting the most suitable technique to prioritize requirements based on their project characteristics (number of requirements, time, cost, and accuracy).

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Esraa Alhenawi, Shatha Awawdeh, Ruba Abu Khurma, Maribel García-Arenas, Pedro A. Castillo, Amjad Hudaib. 2024-02-20. Choosing a Suitable Requirement Prioritization Method: A Survey. https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.13149

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks

Vibe coding is a new software development paradigm in which human engineers prompt a large language model (LLM) agent to complete complex coding tasks with little supervision. Although vibe coding is increasingly adopted, is the generated code really safe to deploy in production? To investigate this question, we propose SUSVIBES, a benchmark consisting of 186 feature-request software engineering tasks from real-world open-source projects, for which, human programmers committed vulnerable implementations. We evaluate 12 widely used coding agentic settings with frontier models on the benchmark. Disturbingly, all agents perform poorly in terms of software security. Although 57% of the solutions from SWE-Agent with Claude 4 Sonnet are functionally correct, only 11.8% are secure. Further experiments demonstrate that preliminary security strategies, such as augmenting the feature request with vulnerability hints, cannot mitigate these security issues. Our findings raise serious concerns about the widespread adoption of vibe coding, particularly in security-sensitive applications. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/LeiLiLab/susvibes. The leaderboard is at https://leililab.github.io/susvibes-leaderboard.

cs.SE

Why3-py: A Tool for Formal Verification of Hypothesis Testing and Meta-Analysis in Python

The reproducibility crisis in scientific research has received widespread recognition, thereby increasing the importance of meta-analyses that integrate statistical analyses from multiple studies. However, statistical methods often have ambiguous and implicit underlying assumptions, which can lead to their erroneous applications and interpretations. To address this issue, we propose a formal verification framework for statistical Python programs. Specifically, we present Why3-py, a Python front-end for the Why3 verification platform that transforms Python code into verification-oriented WhyML representations, addressing the challenges arising from Python's dynamic typing and runtime polymorphism. Furthermore, we extend the StatWhy tool to support the verification of meta-analysis methods. These tools enable meta-analysts to identify overlooked assumptions and misuse of analyses, and to verify the correct use of hypothesis testing and meta-analysis methods in Python code.

cs.SE

What is the Difference Between Me and You? Benchmarking the Quality Gap Between Human-Written and AI-Generated Code

AI coding assistants are becoming co-authors of production software, yet their evaluation centers on functional correctness, leaving open whether their code differs from human code in the quality dimensions dominating lifecycle cost. We compare human-written and AI-generated code at scale: 787,562 function pairs across Python, Java, and C, each human function mined from open-source repositories paired with implementations generated from its docstring by three AI assistants (OpenAI GPT models, DeepSeek-Coder, Qwen2.5-Coder). We characterize structural complexity and statistical naturalness, and map static-analysis findings onto Orthogonal Defect Classification for defects and the Common Weakness Enumeration for vulnerabilities, making authors and languages directly comparable. AI-generated code is structurally compressed and stylistically templated: roughly half the size and branching of human code, clustering apart at the style level. Defect profiles differ in kind: human code concentrates issues of mature codebases, AI code repetitive boilerplate; security is language-dependent, with LLMs producing more, and more severe, findings in Python and Java but fewer high-severity memory-safety findings than humans in C. Once size is controlled for, complexity metrics carry little signal, while naturalness separates authors. Finally, we release CQBench, a benchmark of 27,346 issue-prone tasks with baselines and an evaluation pipeline for quality assurance and security testing.

cs.SE