Abstract
Experience shows that many software systems suffer from inherent conflict among Non-Functional Requirements (NFRs). It also confirms that resolution strategies for handling NFRs conflicts often result in changing overall design guidelines, not by simply changing one module. Therefore, in software system development, software developers need to analyse the NFRs and conflicts among them in order to make decisions about alternative design solutions. This paper presents the use of Multi Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) approach for NFRs conflict decision analysis. TOPSIS (Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution), as one of the essential MCDA techniques has been adopted to resolve such conflict. We show how the systematic application of TOPSIS can assist software developers select the most preferable design solutions with respect to the conflicting NFRs. The quantitative result generated with this technique will be used as the basis for decision support. An example that shows the application of TOPSIS is also presented.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Chung, L., Nixon, B.A., Yu, E., Mylopoulos, J.: Non-functional requirements in software engineering. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Massachusetts (2000)
Ebert, C.: Putting requirement management into praxis: Dealing with nonfunctional requirements. Information and Software Technology 40, 175–185 (1998)
Firesmith, D.: Using quality models to engineer quality requirements. Journal of Object Technology 2, 67–75 (2003)
Kotonya, G., Sommerville, I.: Non-functional requirements (1998)
Mittermeir, R.T., Roussopoulos, N., Yeh, R.T., Ng, P.A.: Modern software engineering, foundations and current perspectives. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York (1989)
Mairiza, D., Zowghi, D., Nurmuliani, N.: An investigation into the notion of non-functional requirements. In: 25th ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, Switzerland (2010)
Breitman, K.K., Prado Leite, J.C.S., Finkelstein, A.: The world’s a stage: A survey on requirements engineering using a real-life case study. Journal of the Brazilian Computer Society 6, 1–57 (1999)
Boehm, B., In, H.: Identifying quality-requirements conflict. IEEE Software 13, 25–35 (1996)
Leveson, N.G., Turner, C.S.: An investigation of the Therac-25 accidents. IEEE Computer 26, 18–41 (1993)
Wiegers, K.E.: Software requirements, 2nd edn. Microsoft Press, Washington (2003)
Mairiza, D., Zowghi, D., Nurmuliani, N.: Managing conflicts among non-functional requirements. In: 12th Australian Workshop on Requirements Engineering (AWRE 2009), Sydney, Australia (2009)
Chung, L., Nixon, B.A., Yu, E.: Dealing with change: an approach using non-functional requirements. Requirements Engineering 1, 238–260 (1996)
Curtis, B., Krasner, H., Iscoe, N.: A field study of the software design process for large systems. Communication of the ACM 31, 1268–1287 (1988)
Boehm, B., Egyed, A.: WinWin requirements negotiation processes: A multi-project analysis. In: 5th International Conference on Software Processes (1998)
Egyed, A., Boehm, B.: A comparison study in software requirements negotiation. In: 8th Annual International Symposium on Systems Engineering, INCOSE 1998 (1998)
Robinson, W.N., Pawlowski, S.D., Volkov, V.: Requirements interaction management. ACM Computing Surveys 35, 132–190 (2003)
Paech, B., Kerkow, D.: Non-functional requirements engineering - quality is essential. In: 10th International Workshop on Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality, pp. 27–40 (2004)
Boehm, B., In, H.: Aids for identifying conflicts among quality requirements. IEEE Software (March 1996)
In, H., Boehm, B., Rodgers, T., Deutsch, M.: Aplying WinWin to quality requirements: A case study. In: 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, pp. 555–564 (2001)
Egyed, A., Grünbacher, P.: Identifying requirements conflicts and cooperation: how quality attributes and automated traceability can help. IEEE Software 21, 50–58 (2004)
Guan, Y., Ghose, A.K.: Use constraint hierarchy for non-functional requirements analysis. In: Lowe, D., Gaedke, M. (eds.) ICWE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3579, pp. 104–109. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
Mairiza, D., Zowghi, D.: An ontological framework to manage the relative conflicts between security and usability requirements. In: The Third International Workshop on Managing Requirements Knowledge (MaRK 2010), in conjunction with the 18th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE 2010), Sydney, Australia (2010)
Mairiza, D., Zowghi, D., Gervasi, V.: Conflict characterization and analysis of non functional requirements: An experimental approach. In: 12th International Conference on New Trends in Software Methodologies, Tools and Techniques (SOMET 2013), Budapest, Hungary, pp. 83–91 (2013)
Mairiza, D.: Non-functional requirements in software development projects: A systematic review. Presented at the ACS – BRASIG 29, Sydney, Australia (September 2011)
Simon, H.A.: The science of the artificial (1996)
Belton, V., S.T.J.: Multiple criteria decision analysis: An integrated approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers (2002)
Zopounidis, C., Pardalos, P.M.: Handbook of multicriteria analysis. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)
Damian, D.: Empirical studies of computer support for distributed requirements negotiation. University of Calgary (2001)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Mairiza, D., Zowghi, D., Gervasi, V. (2014). Utilizing TOPSIS: A Multi Criteria Decision Analysis Technique for Non-Functional Requirements Conflicts. In: Zowghi, D., Jin, Z. (eds) Requirements Engineering. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 432. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-43610-3_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-43610-3_3
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-662-43609-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-662-43610-3
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)