Exploring prioritization through systematic literature surveys and case studies <s> Background <s> A field study of ten organizations was conducted to determine their current practices on definition, interpretation, analysis, and use of the requirements for their software systems and products. The field study consisted of a series of in-depth, structured interviews with practitioners of various kinds. The findings of this study are summarized, and the implications for improving practice either by organizational and methodological interventions or by introducing new technology are explained. > <s> BIB001 </s> Exploring prioritization through systematic literature surveys and case studies <s> Background <s> As software development migrates from its roots as a process for building a custom product to a process for building packaged products, there is a greater need for an appropriate product development process model that is market-oriented. Field data suggests that process models are not widely used in the package industry. An overview of normative process models in the software engineering, engineering management, and marketing disciplines reveals that all of them fall short in one way or another for packaged software processes. Eight special needs are identified that set the packaged software process model apart from other individual models: addressing multiple user types; differentiating the product; finding the remote customer; involving the remote customer; facilitating speed of development; creating the marketing interface; developing in a highly iterative mode; and releasing a near defect-free product. These needs are operationalized into the proposed packaged software process model. The process model is based on two central constructs: a requirements loop; and a quality loop. The loops are separated by a stage in which requirements specifications are frozen. The requirements loop's goal is to discover requirements early and comprehensively. It is incremental (relying on prototyping), has several evaluation and exit points, and structures involvement of customers and other external sources such as marketing. The quality loop addresses the need to reduce defects; it begins with design and coding stages. It is also incremental and has several evaluation and exit points. > <s> BIB002 </s> Exploring prioritization through systematic literature surveys and case studies <s> Background <s> The requirements engineering research and consulting communities are not serving the interests of software developers who build off-the-shelf application software. Most of our models and methods evolved with the aid of funding from organizations interested in obtaining unique systems under contract and in which there is a clear interface between "customer" and "developer". These origins have spawned many assumptions about what requirements are. Through several design scenarios I illustrate how these assumptions break down in the case of off-the-shelf software. I then suggest some alternative priorities that would address these shortcomings. My aim is to provoke and stimulate thought, not to propose a developed solution. <s> BIB003 </s> Exploring prioritization through systematic literature surveys and case studies <s> Background <s> This paper reports on some preliminary results from the first stage of an interview survey, focusing on current practices and challenges in market-driven RE. The interviews are analysed based on the characteristics of market-driven RE presented in the literature. The interviews correspond largely with the literature. Identified discrepancies compared with the literature concerns the time-to-market attribute and documentation of requirements. Two major groupings among the participating companies were found. The RE processes of one of these groupings are focused on facilitating the activities fundamental in market-driven RE, e.g. the release planning activity, while the other is more document-driven. The results of the interviews also include some ideas on how market-driven RE activities may be performed. (Less) <s> BIB004 </s> Exploring prioritization through systematic literature surveys and case studies <s> Background <s> The process of selecting the right set of requirements for a product release is highly dependent on how well we succeed in prioritising the requirements candidates. There are different techniques available for requirements prioritisation, some more elaborate than others. In order to compare different techniques, a controlled experiment was conducted with the objective of understanding differences regarding time consumption, ease of use, and accuracy. The requirements prioritisation techniques compared in the experiment are the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and a variation of the planning game (PG), isolated from extreme programming. The subjects were 15 Ph.D. students and one professor, who prioritised mobile phone features using both methods. It was found that the straightforward and intuitive PG was less time consuming, and considered by the subjects as easier to use, and more accurate than AHP (Less) <s> BIB005 </s> Exploring prioritization through systematic literature surveys and case studies <s> Background <s> The best fully integrated study system available for the PMP exam Updated for the latest release of the Project Professional exam from PMI, PMP Project Management Professional Study Guide, Third Edition covers what you need to know--and shows you how to prepare--for this challenging exam. · 100% complete coverage of all objectives for the PMP exam · Exam Readiness checklist--you're ready for the exam when all objectives on the list are checked off · Inside the Exam sections highlight key exam topics covered · Two-Minute Drills for quick review · Simulated exam questions match the format, tone, topics, and difficulty of the real exam · Covers all the exam topics, including: · Project Initiation * Integration Management * Managing the Project Scope * Time Management * Cost Management * Quality Assurance * Human Resources * Communications * Risk Management * Procurement * PMP Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct CD-ROM includes: · Complete MasterExam practice testing engine, featuring: Two full practice exams; Detailed answers with explanations; Score Report performance assessment tool · Free video training from the author · Electronic book for studying on the go · Bonus downloadable project management process review MasterExam with free online registration <s> BIB006 </s> Exploring prioritization through systematic literature surveys and case studies <s> Background <s> Abstract In incremental software development, requirement prioritization is undertaken to make a decision about set of requirements to be implemented. Effectiveness of requirement prioritization depends on effectiveness of decision aspects selected for prioritizing requirements. This paper proposed new technique for prioritizing decision aspects in geographically distributed environments. This hybrid technique prioritizes the negotiated and hence mutually agreed decision aspects by creating win-win situation among diverse globally distributed stakeholders. Hybrid technique is applied on embedded payroll management software system that was failed project, delivered in two increments earlier. The results of the experiment conducted on the software system, were found to be very promising. Results proved the technique to be effective in terms of selection of highest priority aspects thereby enhancing customer satisfaction and ultimately resulting in successful software development. <s> BIB007 </s> Exploring prioritization through systematic literature surveys and case studies <s> Background <s> IEEE 802.11p Wireless Access for Vehicular Environments (WAVE) is the approved communication protocol for Vehicular Ad-hoc Networks (VANETs) and Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) applications. WAVE offers service differentiation by prioritizing packets based on an application's requested QoS. These priorities are static and do not account for network load or vehicle's context severity. In this paper, we propose a novel opportunistic service reprioritization (OSR) technique for IEEE 802.11p (WAVE). It dynamically promotes and/or demotes vehicle's load to different access categories, by taking into account the vehicle's context severity and network link layer bounds. We show the feasibility of our approach by formulating the opportunistic service reprioritization technique as a Linear Programming (LP) problem and solve it to guarantee optimal QoS with respect to severity for all access categories. We compare our opportunistic service reprioritization technique with WAVE and show significant improvement. The weighted average delay in OSR outperforms classical WAVE, on average by 90%. <s> BIB008
Mass market development progresses from a limited set of requirements, gathered from "unsure and small" customer base through increments, facing flood of requirements as input from "larger and slightly known customer base", until the product captures market and becomes stable. Progress in calendar time leads to the discovery of new viewpoints of new customers [including continuous feedback from existing customers BIB005 ] and new insight into the development process and market trends BIB002 BIB004 BIB003 BIB001 , thereby making the change in requirement priorities as a function of time; a usual activity. The particular increments will involve the stakeholder requests for the new functionality and the requests for the changes to be made in already delivered functionality. The decision is to be made regarding the requirements to be selected for the next release, which makes it common for new changed and delayed requirements to fight for their place. Already implemented requirements are to be resubjected to prioritization because priority varies, as a function of time and it is better to keep priorities updated for many good reasons (example priorities employed during regression testing). Organizations employ prioritization techniques based on pairwise comparisons to establish priorities, which involve huge effort, as number of input requirements increases because every requirement is to be compared with each other; again leading to increase in number of pairwise comparison  . Prioritization of new requirement will lead to comparison with already implemented, changed and delayed requirements leading to re-estimation of the priorities of the latter. A re-allotment involves replacement of old priority with newly calculated priority, meaning complete prioritization again, which is natural with pairwise comparison. The less effortful method is required that will quickly and accurately estimate and re-estimate priorities of requirements. Reprioritization impacts various activities of incrementally developed software like decision aspect prioritization, requirement prioritization and regression testing BIB007 (Gupta et al. , b, 2014a . Reprioritization technique finds its applications in a variety of activities, such as reprioritization of services in IEEE 802.11p (WAVE) VANET's BIB008 , reprioritization of messages in real-time vehicle applications  , reprioritization of presentation materials  , reprioritization of test cases  , reprioritization of projects BIB006 etc. The area of reprioritization demands the work to identify unaddressed issues and problems. The broad scope of reprioritization study is selected to focus on setting the right position with respect to prioritization, motivating audiences towards the need for generating optimal reprioritization practices and adopting practices in development processes. The paper is structured as follows: "Research questions" sets the context of the paper by setting research questions with an aim to analyze the state and practices of reprioritization in mass market situations. "Methodology" elaborates the findings of the systematic literature survey and compares it with the general practices adopted by the mass market software developing firms (details in "State of art: an outcome of systematic literature survey and case studies"). "Reprioritization in context to prioritization" tries to set a different, yet related context of reprioritization with respect to prioritization. Details of a literature survey and case study findings and comparison are carried out in "State of art: an outcome of systematic literature survey and case studies". Finally, the paper concludes in "Conclusion and future work" highlighting the need for considering reprioritization-aware development so that efficient and evaluated reprioritization practices can benefit the overall development.