Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

Un marco de clasificación para enfoques de priorización de requisitos de software

dc.contributor.authorMartinez Carod, Nadinaspa
dc.contributor.authorCechich, Alejandraspa
dc.date.accessioned2020-10-27T00:20:45Z
dc.date.available2020-10-27T00:20:45Z
dc.date.issued2009-12-01
dc.identifier.issn2539-2115
dc.identifier.issn1657-2831
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12749/8964
dc.description.abstractLa tarea de obtener requisitos se ha vuelto extremadamente difícil porque las partes interesadas tienen diferentes perspectivas sobre las expectativas de un sistema. Además, el tiempo para obtener el producto final es limitado. Para superar esta situación, una clasificación de requisitos puede ayudar en la planificación de versiones al indicar qué funciones son críticas y cuáles se pueden agregar, y en qué orden, en versiones sucesivas. El proceso de priorización debe mantener la satisfacción de las partes interesadas considerando primero los requisitos de alta prioridad. Sin embargo, la experiencia práctica muestra que priorizar los requisitos no es una tarea tan sencilla como sugiere la literatura. Considerando eso, este documento tiene dos objetivos: el primero es presentar un marco de clasificación para los enfoques de priorización de requisitos de software (enfatizando las diferencias y similitudes entre los once enfoques seleccionados); y el segundo es mostrar las debilidades de los enfoques y proponer posibles mejoras para futuras investigaciones en esta línea.spa
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfspa
dc.language.isospaspa
dc.publisherUniversidad Autónoma de Bucaramanga UNAB
dc.relationhttps://revistas.unab.edu.co/index.php/rcc/article/view/1170/1155
dc.relation.urihttps://revistas.unab.edu.co/index.php/rcc/article/view/1170
dc.rightsDerechos de autor 2009 Revista Colombiana de Computación
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/co/
dc.sourceRevista Colombiana de Computación; Vol. 10 Núm. 2 (2009): Revista Colombiana de Computación; 99-129
dc.subjectPriorización de requisitos de software
dc.subjectInformática cognitiva
dc.titleUn marco de clasificación para enfoques de priorización de requisitos de softwarespa
dc.title.translatedA classification framework for software requirements prioritization approacheseng
dc.type.driverinfo:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.localArtículospa
dc.type.coarhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_7a1f
dc.subject.keywordsSoftware requirements prioritizationeng
dc.subject.keywordsCognitive computingeng
dc.subject.keywordsSystems engineereng
dc.subject.keywordsResearcheng
dc.subject.keywordsInnovationeng
dc.subject.keywordsInformation systemseng
dc.subject.keywordsSoftwareeng
dc.subject.keywordsProcess improvementeng
dc.identifier.instnameinstname:Universidad Autónoma de Bucaramanga UNABspa
dc.type.hasversioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersion
dc.rights.accessrightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessspa
dc.relation.referencesAntón A. “Goal Based Requirements Analysis” In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Requirements Engineering (ICRE '96) IEEE software April 15 - 18, 1996.
dc.relation.referencesBoehm B.W., Grünbacher P., Briggs B. “Developing Groupware for RequirementsNegotiation: Lessons Learned”. IEEE Software, May/June 2001, pp. 46-55
dc.relation.referencesChiew V. and Wang Y. “From Cognit ive Psychology to Cognitive Informatics”. In Proceedings of the Second IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Informatics (ICCI'03) London, UK, August 2003, pp 114-120.
dc.relation.referencesDardenne A., van Lamsweerde A., and Fickas S, 1993. “Goal -directed RequirementsAcquisition”. Science of Computer Programming Vol. 20, pp. 3 -50.
dc.relation.referencesDean, Edwin. “Quality Function Deployment for Large Systems.”, International Engineering Management Conference '92, Eatontown NJ USA , October 25 -28, 199.
dc.relation.referencesEberlein. “Requirements Acquisition and Specification for Telecommunication Services” , PhD Thesis. University of Wales, Swansea, UK, 1997.
dc.relation.referencesEdwards, W. and Barron, F.H., “SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved Simple Methodsfor Multiattribute Utility Measurement”, Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses 60, 1994, pp. 306-325.
dc.relation.referencesGiesen J., Völker A., “Requirements Interdependencies and Stakeholders Preferences”, IEEE Joint International Conference on Requirements Engineering (RE'02). September 2002. pp 206 -212
dc.relation.referencesGoetz R. and Rupp C. “Psychotherapy for System Requirements”. Proceedings of Second IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Informatics (ICCI' 03). 127A Classification framework for Software Requirements Prioritization Approaches
dc.relation.referencesGRL homepage, http://www.cs.toronto.edu/k-m/GRL/
dc.relation.referencesGrüenbacher P. “Collaborative Requirements Negotiation with ndEasyWinWin” 2 International Workshop on the Requirements Engineering Process, Greenwich, London IEEE Computer Society,2000. ISBN 0-7695-0680-1. pp. 954-690.
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.sawtooth.com
dc.relation.referencesHui B., Lisakos S., and Mylopoulos J.. “Requirements Analysis for CustomizableSoftware: A Goals-Skills -Preferences thFramework” . In Proceedings of the 11IEEEInternational Requirements Engineering Conference, p p 117– 126, 2003
dc.relation.referencesI* homepage, http://www.cs.toronto.edu/km/istar
dc.relation.referencesIn H. and Roy, S., "Visualization Issues for Software Requirements Negotiation" , IEEE International Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC 2001), Chicago, Illinois, USA, pp. 10 -15, October 2001.
dc.relation.referencesIn H., Olson D., Rodgers T. “A Requirements Negotiation Model Based on Multi -Criteria Analysis.” Fifth IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering(RE '01). August 27-31, 2001. Toronto, Canada. pp 312
dc.relation.referencesKaiya H., Horai H., and Saeki M., “AGORA: Attributed Goal -Oriented RequirementsAnalysis Method” , In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference onRequirements Engineering, 2002, pp. 13-22.
dc.relation.referencesKAOS homepage, http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/research /projects/AVL/ReqEng.html
dc.relation.referencesKarlsson, J. “Software Requirements Prioritizing”. ICREE p. 110, ndProceedings of the 2 International Conference on Requirements Engineering ICRE, April, 1996.
dc.relation.referencesarlsson, J. and Ryan, K. “A Cost -Value Approach for Prioritizing Requirements”. IEEE Software, Vol. 14(5): p. 67-74, September/October 1997.
dc.relation.referencesKimura D. homepage. http:// www.dhushara.com/book/socio/kimura/kimura.h tm.
dc.relation.referencesKitchenham B. DESMET : “A method for evaluating Software Engineering methods. and tools”. Technical Report TR96 -09, ISSN:1353-7776, 1996.
dc.relation.referenceseoucopoulos P. and Karakostas V. “System Requirements Engineering”, Mc Graw-Hill, 1995128Nadina Martinez Carod, Alejandra Cechich
dc.relation.referencesMartín A., Martínez C., Martínez Carod N., Aranda G., and Cechich A. “ClassifyingGroupware Tools to Improve Communication in Geographically Distributed Elicitation”. IX Congreso Argentino en Ciencias de la Computación, CACIC 2003, LaPlata, 6 -10 Octubre 2003, pp. 942-953.
dc.relation.referencesMartinez Carod N. and Cechic A. “Applying Learning Style Models To Prioritize Conflicting Goals”. (WICC 2004)- May'04.
dc.relation.referencesMartinez Carod, N. and Cechich, A. “Classifying Software Requirement PrioritizationApproaches”. XI Congreso Argentino en Ciencias de la Computación, CACIC 2005,Entre Ríos, 6 -10 Octubre 2005.
dc.relation.referencesReubenstein H.B. and Waters R.C.: “The Requirements Apprentice: AutomatedAssistance for Requirements Acquisition”, IEEE Transactions on SoftwareEngineering.,
dc.relation.referencesRuhe G., Eberlein A, and Pfahl D. “Quantitative WinWin - A Quantitative Method for Decision Support in Requirements Negotiation” Fraunhofer IESE, Germany, 2002, ISERN-02-05.
dc.relation.referencesRupp C.. “Requirements and Psychology”. IEEE (Software May/June) pp.16-18
dc.relation.referencesSaaty T.L., 1990. “The Analytic Hierarchy Process” . McGraw-Hill.
dc.relation.referencesShi Z., Shi J. “Perspectives On Cognitive Informatics”. In Proceedings of the Second IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Informatics. (ICCI ́03), p p . 129-137, 2003.
dc.relation.referencesSoloman B and Felder R. homepage, http://www.engr.ncsu.edu/ learningstyles/ ilsweb.html
dc.relation.referenceshomas P., Oliveros A. “Elicitación de Objetivos, un estudio comparativo”. IX Congreso Argentino en Ciencias de la Computación, CACIC 2003, La Plata, 6-10 Octubre 2003, p p. 990-1002.
dc.relation.referencesWang Y. “Cognitive Informatics: A New Transdisciplinary Reseearch Field”. (2003)
dc.relation.referencesWang Y. “On Cognitive Informatics”. In Proceedings of the First IEEE InternationalConference on Cognitive Informatics. (ICCI ́02), Calgary, Alberta, Canada, August 2002, pp 34-42
dc.relation.referencesoung R.. “Recommended Requirements Gathering Practices”. CroossTalk The Journal of Defense Software Engineering. April 2002. pp. 9 -12129A Classification framework for Software Requirements Prioritization Approaches
dc.contributor.googlescholarCechich, Alejandra [HutJAtsAAAAJ]spa
dc.contributor.orcidCechich, Alejandra [0000-0003-4804-6270]spa
dc.contributor.researchgateCechich, Alejandra [Alejandra-Cechich]spa
dc.subject.lembPriorización de requisitos de softwarespa
dc.subject.lembComputación cognitivaspa
dc.subject.lembIngeniería de sistemasspa
dc.subject.lembInvestigacionspa
dc.identifier.repourlrepourl:https://repository.unab.edu.co
dc.description.abstractenglishThe task of eliciting requirements has became extremely difficult because stakeholders have different perspectives on an expectation on a system. Besides, the time to obtain the final product is limited. To overcome this situation, a requirements ranking may help in planning releases by indicating which functions are critical and which ones can be added, and in what order, over successive releases. The prioritizing process must hold stakeholder satisfaction considering high-priority requirements first. However, practical experience shows that prioritizing requirements is not as straightforward task as the literature suggests. Considering that, this paper has two goals: the first one is to present a classification framework for software requirements prioritization approaches (emphasizing differences and similarities among eleven selected approaches); and the second one is to show the approaches' weaknesses and to propose possible improvements for future research on this line.eng
dc.subject.proposalInnovaciónspa
dc.subject.proposalSistemas de informaciónspa
dc.subject.proposalSoftwarespa
dc.subject.proposalMejoramiento de procesosspa
dc.identifier.doi10.29375/25392115.1170
dc.type.redcolhttp://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/CJournalArticle
dc.rights.creativecommonsAttribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International*


Ficheros en el ítem

Thumbnail
Nombre:
Articulo_Un marco de clasificación ...
Tamaño:
1.086Mb
Formato:
PDF
Descripción:
Artículo
Ver/

Este ítem aparece en la(s) siguiente(s) colección(ones)

Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International
Excepto si se señala otra cosa, la licencia del ítem se describe como Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International