Lindsey Brodie, Mark Woodman


Given the reality of resource constraints, software development always involves prioritization to establish what to implement. Iterative and incremental development methods increase the amount of prioritization required and introduce the need to support dynamic prioritization to identify high stakeholder value. Ideally the needs of all the stakeholders are considered in the priority decision-making and there might be negotiation amongst them. In this paper we argue that the current prioritization methods often lack adequate support for the prioritization process. Specifically that many methods fail to appropriately structure the data for stakeholder value, which results in explicit stakeholder value not being captured. This problem is often compounded by a lack of support for handling multiple stakeholder viewpoints. We propose an extension to an existing prioritization method, impact estimation, to move towards better capture of explicit stakeholder value and catering for multiple stakeholders. A key feature is the use of absolute scale data for stakeholder value. We use a small industry case study to evaluate this new approach. Our findings argue that it provides a better basis for supporting priority decision-making over the implementation choices for requirements and designs.


  1. Akao, Y., 1997. “QFD: Past, Present, and Future”, Procs. of the International Symposium on QFD 7897, Linkoping.
  2. Barney, S., Aurum, A., Wohlin, C., 2008. “A product management challenge: Creating software product value through requirements selection”, Journal of Systems Architecture, Elsevier.
  3. Bass, L., Ivers, J., Klein, M., Merson, P., 2005. “Reasoning Frameworks” (CMU/SEI-2005-TR-007), Software Engineering Institute, CMU.
  4. Beck, K., 2000. Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change, Addison Wesley.
  5. Berander, P., 2007. Evolving Prioritization for Software Product Management, Blekinge Institute of Technology. Doctoral Dissertation Series.
  6. Berander, P., Andrews, A., 2005. “Requirements Prioritization” (Chapter 4), Engineering and Managing Software Requirements, Aurum and Wohlin (Eds.), Springer-Verlag. ISBN 3540250433.
  7. Boehm, B., 2003. “Value-Based Software Engineering”, Software Engineering Notes, Vol. 28, No. 2, ACM.
  8. Boehm, B., Port, D., Basili, V.R., 2002. “Realizing the Benefits of the CMMI with the CeBASE Method”, Systems Engineering, J. Wiley and Sons, Inc.
  9. Bourque, P., Dupuis, R. (eds.), 2004. SWEBOK: Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge 2004 Version, IEEE Computer Society.
  10. Brodie, L., Woodman, M., 2008. “Towards a Rational Prioritization Process for Incremental and Iterative Systems Engineering”, Procs. of the 1st International Workshop on Requirements Analysis, Pearson.
  11. Carlshamre, P., Sandahl, K., Lindvall, M., Regnell, B., Natt och Dag, J., 2001. “An Industrial Survey of Requirements Interdependencies in Software Product Release Planning.” Procs. of the 5th IEEE International Symposium on RE.
  12. Cohen, L., 1995. Quality Function Deployment: How to Make QFD Work for You, Addison Wesley.
  13. Daniels, J., Werner P.W., Bahill, A.T., 2001. “Quantitative Methods for Tradeoff Analyses”, Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 4, 3.
  14. Davis, A., 2003. “The Art of Requirements Triage”, IEEE Computer, March 2003, 36, 3, pp. 42-49
  15. Denne, M., Cleland-Huang, J., 2004. Software by Numbers: Low-Risk, High-Return Development, Prentice-Hall. ISBN 0131407287. 190 pages.
  16. Favaro, J., 2003. “Value-Based Management and Agile Methods”, M.Marchesi and G. Succi (Eds.): Procs. of the 4th International Conference on XP and Agile Methods, May 2003, Springer-Verlag.
  17. Favaro, J., 2002. “Managing Requirements for Business Value”, IEEE Software, March/April 2002.
  18. Firesmith, D., 2004. “Prioritizing Requirements”, Journal of Object Technology.
  19. Gilb, T., 2005. Competitive Engineering: A Handbook For Systems Engineering, Requirements Engineering, and Software Engineering Using Planguage, L. Brodie (Ed.), Butterworth-Heinemann. ISBN 0750665076.
  20. Gilb, T., 1988. Principles of Software Engineering Management, Addison Wesley. ISBN 0201192462.
  21. Gorschek, T., Wohlin, C., 2006. “Requirements Abstraction Model”, Requirements Engineering, Springer Verlag, 11, pp. 79-101.
  22. Green, P.E., Wind, Y., 1975. “New Way to Measure Consumers' Judgments”, Harvard Business Review.
  23. Greer, D., Ruhe, G., 2004. “Software release planning: an evolutionary and iterative approach”, Information and Software Technology, 46, 4, pp. 243-253.
  24. Karlsson, J., Ryan, K., 1997. “A Cost-Value Approach for Prioritizing Requirements”, IEEE Software.
  25. Karlsson, J., Wohlin, C., Regnell, B., 1998. “An Evaluation of Methods for Prioritizing Software Requirements”, Information and Software Technology, Elsevier Science B.V.
  26. Kazman, R., Asundi, J., Klein, M., 2001. “Quantifying the Costs and Benefits of Architectural Decisions”, Procs. of the 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2001), IEEE.
  27. Larman, C., Basili, V.R., 2003. Iterative and Incremental Development: a Brief History, IEEE Computer, 36, 6.
  28. Lehtola, L., 2006. Providing value by prioritizing requirements throughout software product development: State of practice and suitability of prioritization methods, Licentiate thesis, Helsinki University of Technology.
  29. Lehtola, L., Kauppinen, M., 2006. “Suitability of Requirements Prioritization Methods for Marketdriven Software Product Development”, Software Process Improvement and Practice, Wiley.
  30. Martins, A., Aspinwall, E., 2001. “Quality Function Deployment: an empirical study in the UK”, Total Quality Management, August 2001.
  31. Mead, N., 2006. “Requirements Prioritization Introduction”, Software Engineering Institute (SEI), Carnegie Mellon University (CMU).
  32. Mohamed, A., Ruhe, G., Eberlein, A., 2007a. “COTS Selection: Past, Present, and Future”, Procs. of the IEEE Intl. Conf. and Workshops on the Engineering of Computer-Based Systems (ECBS'07), IEEE.
  33. Mohamed, A., Ruhe, G., Eberlein, A., 2007b. “Decision Support for Handling Mismatches between COTS Products and System Requirements”, Procs. of the COTS-Based Software Systems (ICCBSS'07) Conf.
  34. Moisiadis, F., 2002. “The Fundamentals of Prioritising Requirements”, Procs. of the Systems Engineering, Test and Evaluation Conference.
  35. Park, J., Port, D., Boehm, B., 1999. “Supporting Distributed Collaborative Prioritization for Win-Win Requirements Capture and Negotiation”, Procs. of the International Third World Multi-conference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics (SCI'99), International Institute of Informatics and Systemics.
  36. Ruhe, G., Eberlein, A., Pfahl, D., 2003. “Trade-off Analysis for Requirements Selection”, International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, 13, 4, pp.345-366.
  37. Saaty, T.L., 1990. “How to Make a Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process”, European Journal of Operational Research, 48, 1990, pp. 9-26.
  38. Saliu, O., Ruhe, G., 2005. “Supporting Software Release Planning Decisions for Evolving Systems”, Procs. of the 2005 29th Annual IEEE/NASA Software Engineering Workshop (SEW'05), IEEE.
  39. Sivzattian, S.V., 2003. Requirements as Economic Artifacts: A Portfolio-Based Approach, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Computing, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, London.
  40. Stapleton, J. (Editor), 2003. DSDM: Business Focused Development (2nd Edition), Addison Wesley.
  41. Sullivan, K., 2007. Introduction to the First Workshop on the Economics of Software and Computation, In Companion to the Procs. of the 29th International Conf. on Software Engineering, IEEE.
  42. Wohlin, A., Aurum, A., 2005. “Criteria for Selecting Software Requirements to Create Product Value: An Industrial Empirical Study”, S. Biffl, A. Aurum, B. Boehm, H. Erdogmus, P. Grunbacher (Eds.), ValueBased Software Engineering, Springer.

Paper Citation

in Harvard Style

Brodie L. and Woodman M. (2010). ABSOLUTE SCALES TO EXPRESS STAKEHOLDER VALUE FOR IMPROVING SUPPORT FOR PRIORITIZATION . In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering - Volume 1: ENASE, ISBN 978-989-8425-21-8, pages 48-57. DOI: 10.5220/0002932600480057

in Bibtex Style

author={Lindsey Brodie and Mark Woodman},
booktitle={Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering - Volume 1: ENASE,},

in EndNote Style

JO - Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering - Volume 1: ENASE,
SN - 978-989-8425-21-8
AU - Brodie L.
AU - Woodman M.
PY - 2010
SP - 48
EP - 57
DO - 10.5220/0002932600480057