Enhancing Requirements Change Request Categorization and Prioritization in Agile Software Development Using Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)

Software development now relies heavily on agile methods, which call for the efficient administration and prioritization of change requests. In order to improve requirement prioritization using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) in Agile methods, this study article presents a new framework for classifying software requirements into Small Change Requests (SCRs) and Large Change Requests (LCRs). The paper examines the difficulties associated with requirement prioritization and categorization in Agile settings and offers a methodical system for dividing change requests into categories based on complexity, impact, and timeline. In order to provide a thorough grasp of the project scope and objectives, the framework considers both functional and non-functional needs. A case study containing several Agile software development projects is used to evaluate the performance of the suggested categorization and prioritization model. According to the findings, the combination of SCR and LCR categorization with AHP enables more effective teamwork and greater matching of development goals with partner objectives. The research also shows that the suggested framework's integration into the Agile development process results in a more efficient decision-making process, less time wasted on talks, and improved resource distribution. The model aids in risk mitigation by allowing a methodical and quantifiable approach to requirement prioritization. These risks are related to quick changes in project scope and changing client requirements. By presenting a fresh framework for requirement categorization and prioritization, this study adds to the current discussion on successful requirement management in Agile methods. Agile software development projects become more effective and adaptable overall thanks to the incorporation of AHP, which guarantees a more methodical and objective prioritization process. This study has the potential to greatly improve the administration of shifting needs and user expectations in Agile settings by offering a structured method to classify and rank change requests

An AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process)/ANP (Analytic Network Process)-based multi- criteria decision approach for the selection of solar-thermal power plant investment projects

In this paper the AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) and the ANP (Analytic Network Process) are applied to help the managing board of an important Spanish solar power investment company to decide whether to invest in a particular solar-thermal power plant project and, if so, to determine the order of priority of the projects in the company's portfolio. Project management goes through a long process, from obtaining the required construction permits and authorizations, negotiating with different stakeholders, complying with complex legal regulations, to solving the technical problems associated with plant construction and distribution of the energy generated. The whole process involves high engineering costs. The decision approach proposed in this paper consists of three phases. In the first two phases, the managing board must decide whether to accept or reject a project according to a set of criteria previously identified by the technical team. The third phase consists of establishing a priority order among the projects that have proven to be economically profitable based on project risk levels and execution time delays. This work analyzes the criteria that should be taken into account to accept or reject proposals for investment, as well as the risks used to prioritize some projects over others.The translation of this paper has been funded by the Universitat Politecnica de Valencia.Aragonés Beltrán, P.; Chaparro González, FV.; Pastor Ferrando, JP.; Pla Rubio, A. (2014). An AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process)/ANP (Analytic Network Process)-based multi- criteria decision approach for the selection of solar-thermal power plant investment projects. Energy. 66:222-238. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2013.12.016S2222386

Information Technology Project Prioritization

This thesis provides a contemporary review of several topics related to information technology project prioritization, which will help managers create their own custom methodology. Traditional prioritization tools such as weighted average scoring models are used for simultaneous comparison of a number of proposed projects on multiple dimensions, to facilitate alignment with organization goals. These methods are used for the analysis of information related to the weight preferences over criteria used. If used correctly with this procedure, it is possible to bring forward an authentic figure of merit, which is used as the projects strategic potential. This allows the projects to be ranked and the highest-ranking projects to be considered for selection. Visual tools can then be used for selection of optimum project portfolio. The literature dedicates less time on tools beyond the selection of projects. This study aims to bridge this gap by proposing a final phase of project prioritization as Project Portfolio Management

Anticipating Environmental Burdens in Research and Innovation Projects. Application to the Case of Active and Healthy Ageing

[EN] In this paper; for research and innovation projects without environmental goals; a procedure is proposed to operationalize the anticipation and reflexivity of environmental concerns in the initial phases. By using the expert knowledge of specialists; we have first conducted a study to identify the general environmental topics relevant in any kind of research and innovation project not addressing the environment. In a second phase; a strategy is proposed to rank order the topics in terms of environmental relevance by means of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. To illustrate it; the case of Information and Communication Technologies for Active and Healthy Ageing is used because of its increasing importance; and because normal environmental targets are not considered. Results show that; in this case; the most relevant topic to be considered is the primary energy consumption by sources; followed by hazardous solid waste and consumption of non-renewable and scarce materials. According to the experts; these should be the main issues to be considered regarding the environmental sustainability of the outputs of such research and innovation projects. In conclusion; this paper contributes to a better understanding of how to promote a wider integration of environmental sustainability in research and innovation when environmental goals are not initially included.This work was funded by Spanish Agencia Estatal de Investigacion under grants [CSO2016-76828-R and BES-2017-081141]; and the Generalitat Valenciana under grant [AICO/2018/270].Monsonís-Payá, I.; Gómez-Navarro, T.; García-Melón, M. (2020). Anticipating Environmental Burdens in Research and Innovation Projects. Application to the Case of Active and Healthy Ageing. International Journal of Environmental research and Public Health (Online). 17(10):1-21. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17103600S1211710Steffen, W., Grinevald, J., Crutzen, P., & McNeill, J. (2011). The Anthropocene: conceptual and historical perspectives. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 369(1938), 842-867. doi:10.1098/rsta.2010.0327Lewis, S. L., & Maslin, M. A. (2015). Defining the Anthropocene. Nature, 519(7542), 171-180. doi:10.1038/nature14258Geels, F. W. (2011). The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: Responses to seven criticisms. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 1(1), 24-40. doi:10.1016/j.eist.2011.02.002Wender, B. A., Foley, R. W., Hottle, T. A., Sadowski, J., Prado-Lopez, V., Eisenberg, D. A., … Seager, T. P. (2014). Anticipatory life-cycle assessment for responsible research and innovation. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 1(2), 200-207. doi:10.1080/23299460.2014.920121Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25(7), 739-755. doi:10.1016/0016-3287(93)90022-lStilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42(9), 1568-1580. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008Mejlgaard, N. (2017). Science’s disparate responsibilities: Patterns across European countries. Public Understanding of Science, 27(3), 262-275. doi:10.1177/0963662517724645RRI Tools RRI Tools: Towards RRI in actionwww.Rri-Tools.EuNordmann, A. (2013). (Im)Plausibility². International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy, 9(2/3/4), 125. doi:10.1504/ijfip.2013.058612Ligardo-Herrera, I., Gómez-Navarro, T., Inigo, E., & Blok, V. (2018). Addressing Climate Change in Responsible Research and Innovation: Recommendations for Its Operationalization. Sustainability, 10(6), 2012. doi:10.3390/su10062012Delvenne, P. (2017). Responsible research and innovation as a travesty of technology assessment? Journal of Responsible Innovation, 4(2), 278-288. doi:10.1080/23299460.2017.1328653Stemerding, D., Betten, W., Rerimassie, V., Robaey, Z., & Kupper, F. (2019). Future making and responsible governance of innovation in synthetic biology. Futures, 109, 213-226. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2018.11.005Bossink, B. (2018). The influence of knowledge flow on sustainable innovation in a project-based industry: From demonstration to limited adoption of eco-innovations. Journal of Cleaner Production, 193, 249-262. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.063De Medeiros, J. F., Ribeiro, J. L. D., & Cortimiglia, M. N. (2014). Success factors for environmentally sustainable product innovation: a systematic literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 76-86. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.08.035Hemphill, T. A. (2016). Responsible innovation in industry: a cautionary note on corporate social responsibility. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 3(1), 81-87. doi:10.1080/23299460.2016.1178896Halme, M., & Korpela, M. (2013). Responsible Innovation Toward Sustainable Development in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises: a Resource Perspective. Business Strategy and the Environment, 23(8), 547-566. doi:10.1002/bse.1801Silva, A. W. L. da, Selig, P. M., Lerípio, A. de Á., & Viegas, C. V. (2014). Strategic environmental assessment: one concept, multiple definitions. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, 8(1), 53. doi:10.1504/ijisd.2014.059222Motta, W. H., Issberner, L.-R., & Prado, P. (2018). Life cycle assessment and eco-innovations: What kind of convergence is possible? Journal of Cleaner Production, 187, 1103-1114. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.221Villares, M., Işıldar, A., van der Giesen, C., & Guinée, J. (2017). Does ex ante application enhance the usefulness of LCA? A case study on an emerging technology for metal recovery from e-waste. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 22(10), 1618-1633. doi:10.1007/s11367-017-1270-6Lobos, V., & Partidario, M. (2014). Theory versus practice in Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 48, 34-46. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2014.04.004Rivard, L., Lehoux, P., & Miller, F. A. (2019). Double burden or single duty to care? Health innovators’ perspectives on environmental considerations in health innovation design. BMJ Innovations, 6(1), 4-9. doi:10.1136/bmjinnov-2019-000348Chatfield, K., Iatridis, K., Stahl, B., & Paspallis, N. (2017). Innovating Responsibly in ICT for Ageing: Drivers, Obstacles and Implementation. Sustainability, 9(6), 971. doi:10.3390/su9060971Liotta, G., Ussai, S., Illario, M., O’Caoimh, R., Cano, A., Holland, C., … Palombi, L. (2018). Frailty as the Future Core Business of Public Health: Report of the Activities of the A3 Action Group of the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing (EIP on AHA). International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(12), 2843. doi:10.3390/ijerph15122843Smith, L., Tully, M., Jacob, L., Blackburn, N., Adlakha, D., Caserotti, P., … Koyanagi, A. (2020). The Association Between Sedentary Behavior and Sarcopenia Among Adults Aged ≥65 Years in Low- and Middle-Income Countries. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(5), 1708. doi:10.3390/ijerph17051708Porcelli, A. M., & Martínez, A. N. (2015). La nueva economía del siglo XXI: análisis de los impactos de la informática en el ambiente. Tendencias actuales en tecnologías informáticas verdes, un compromiso con la sustentabilidad. REVISTA QUAESTIO IURIS, 8(4). doi:10.12957/rqi.2015.20953Añón Higón, D., Gholami, R., & Shirazi, F. (2017). ICT and environmental sustainability: A global perspective. Telematics and Informatics, 34(4), 85-95. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2017.01.001Belkhir, L., & Elmeligi, A. (2018). Assessing ICT global emissions footprint: Trends to 2040 & recommendations. Journal of Cleaner Production, 177, 448-463. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.239Lubberink, R., Blok, V., van Ophem, J., & Omta, O. (2017). Lessons for Responsible Innovation in the Business Context: A Systematic Literature Review of Responsible, Social and Sustainable Innovation Practices. Sustainability, 9(5), 721. doi:10.3390/su9050721Hambling, T., Weinstein, P., & Slaney, D. (2011). A Review of Frameworks for Developing Environmental Health Indicators for Climate Change and Health. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 8(7), 2854-2875. doi:10.3390/ijerph8072854García-Melón, M., Pérez-Gladish, B., Gómez-Navarro, T., & Mendez-Rodriguez, P. (2016). Assessing mutual funds’ corporate social responsibility: a multistakeholder-AHP based methodology. Annals of Operations Research, 244(2), 475-503. doi:10.1007/s10479-016-2132-5Gómez-Navarro, T., García-Melón, M., Guijarro, F., & Preuss, M. (2017). Methodology to assess the market value of companies according to their financial and social responsibility aspects: An AHP approach. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 69(10), 1599-1608. doi:10.1057/s41274-017-0222-7Lee, C.-W., & Li, C. (2019). The Process of Constructing a Health Tourism Destination Index. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(22), 4579. doi:10.3390/ijerph16224579Zhang, S., Wei, Z., Liu, W., Yao, L., Suo, W., Xing, J., … Wang, J. (2015). Indicators for Environment Health Risk Assessment in the Jiangsu Province of China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 12(9), 11012-11024. doi:10.3390/ijerph120911012Kazuva, E., Zhang, J., Tong, Z., Si, A., & Na, L. (2018). The DPSIR Model for Environmental Risk Assessment of Municipal Solid Waste in Dar es Salaam City, Tanzania. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(8), 1692. doi:10.3390/ijerph15081692Dos Santos, P. H., Neves, S. M., Sant’Anna, D. O., Oliveira, C. H. de, & Carvalho, H. D. (2019). The analytic hierarchy process supporting decision making for sustainable development: An overview of applications. Journal of Cleaner Production, 212, 119-138. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.270Mardani, A., Jusoh, A., MD Nor, K., Khalifah, Z., Zakwan, N., & Valipour, A. (2015). Multiple criteria decision-making techniques and their applications – a review of the literature from 2000 to 2014. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 28(1), 516-571. doi:10.1080/1331677x.2015.1075139Rametsteiner, E., Pülzl, H., Alkan-Olsson, J., & Frederiksen, P. (2011). Sustainability indicator development—Science or political negotiation? Ecological Indicators, 11(1), 61-70. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.06.009Saaty, T. L. (2004). Fundamentals of the analytic network process — Dependence and feedback in decision-making with a single network. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, 13(2), 129-157. doi:10.1007/s11518-006-0158-yFerwati, M. S., Al Saeed, M., Shafaghat, A., & Keyvanfar, A. (2019). Qatar Sustainability Assessment System (QSAS)-Neighborhood Development (ND) Assessment Model: Coupling green urban planning and green building design. Journal of Building Engineering, 22, 171-180. doi:10.1016/j.jobe.2018.12.006Alizadeh, M., Ngah, I., Hashim, M., Pradhan, B., & Pour, A. (2018). A Hybrid Analytic Network Process and Artificial Neural Network (ANP-ANN) Model for Urban Earthquake Vulnerability Assessment. Remote Sensing, 10(6), 975. doi:10.3390/rs10060975Huang, J.-Y., & Wey, W.-M. (2018). Application of Big Data and Analytic Network Process for the Adaptive Reuse Strategies of School Land. Social Indicators Research, 142(3), 1075-1102. doi:10.1007/s11205-018-1951-yGrošelj, P., Hodges, D. G., & Zadnik Stirn, L. (2016). Participatory and multi-criteria analysis for forest (ecosystem) management: A case study of Pohorje, Slovenia. Forest Policy and Economics, 71, 80-86. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2015.05.006Xia, L., & Cheng, W. (2019). Sustainable development strategy of rural built-up landscapes in Northeast China based on ANP approach. Energy Procedia, 157, 844-850. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2018.11.250Grošelj, P., & Zadnik Stirn, L. (2015). The environmental management problem of Pohorje, Slovenia: A new group approach within ANP – SWOT framework. Journal of Environmental Management, 161, 106-112. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.06.038Monsonís-Payá, I., García-Melón, M., & Lozano, J.-F. (2017). Indicators for Responsible Research and Innovation: A Methodological Proposal for Context-Based Weighting. Sustainability, 9(12), 2168. doi:10.3390/su9122168Res-AGorA Project Res-AGorAhttp://res-agora.eu/news/Pansera, M., & Owen, R. (2018). Innovation for de-growth: A case study of counter-hegemonic practices from Kerala, India. Journal of Cleaner Production, 197, 1872-1883. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.19

Prioritization Of The Indicators And Sub-Indicators Of Maqasid Al-Shariah In Measuring Liveability Of Cities

Opinions were sought from a panel of two groups of Malaysian experts, i.e., the urban planners and the Maqasid al-Shariah scholars with the aim of developing an evaluation model via identifying and ranking the Maqasid indicators and sub-indicators for liveability and quality of life in cities. The measurement takes off with the Dharuriyyat (essentials or necessities) dimension of the Maqasid al-Shariah principles based on Al-Shatibi’s School of maslahah which targets public interests and benefits living in cities. This is supported by Ibn Ashur and contemporarily by Yusuf al-Qaradhawi who emphasise on harmony, justice and global peace. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) has been used as a main method to prioritise the indicators and sub-indicators. The AHP results indicate that religion, life, intellect, lineage and wealth are in descending order of importance, similar to the priorities of the classic Maqasid al-Shariah doctrine. However, the sub-indicators are ranked in terms of priorities based on the consensus of the urban planners and maqasid practitioners which ultimately form the Islamic liveability measurement for cities

Developing a Decision Model for Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) Proposal Selection

This research uses decision analysis to develop a structured, repeatable and most importantly defensible decision model for the evaluation of proposed IED defeat solutions submitted to the Joint IED Defeat Organization (JIEDDO). Additive value models using Value-Focused Thinking (VFT) and the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) are examined as possible methodologies. VFT is determined to be the best fit for JIEDDO\u27s decision situation in which proposals are submitted continuously and must be scored independently of previous proposals. VFT is first used to determine desirable qualities in IED defeat options, and then to generate a hierarchal value model to evaluate these qualities in a selected group of alternatives. The most important criteria for IED defeat proposal evaluation are: Need for the Capability, Operational Effectiveness, and Usability. A group of 30 proposals, previously assessed by the current JIEDDO process, is evaluated suing the VFT decision model and the rank ordered results are compared with JIEDDO\u27s previous selection decisions. The VFT decision model results support JIEDDO\u27s past decisions to accept or reject IED defeat proposals, validating the model. Sensitivity analysis is then conducted to allow further insight to the robustness of the model. The resulting effort creates a decision model that, when consistently applied, provides a repeatable and defensible decision support model that reflects JIEDDO\u27s priorities for proposal selection

Application of a Multi-criteria and Participated Evaluation Procedure to Select Typology of Intervention to Redevelop Degraded Urban Area

Through urban redevelopment of a degraded area, the deficiency in urban planning and/or building developments can be remedied, allowing for the flourishing of activities that can provide economic stimulus while improving the living conditions of citizens; in this way the local economy can be relaunched. Evaluation methodologies and procedures can contribute to steering the choices made by Public Administration (PA) in creating programmes and hypothesis of intervention that may be considered sustainable and shared by stakeholders. The text proposes the application of an evaluation procedure (Capanne area in Terracina, Latina, Lazio Region), based on the integrated use of a Multi-Criteria Analysis technique - the Analytic Hierarchy Process, as well as a technique promoting participation and interaction among stakeholders, the Stakeholders Analysis. The evaluation procedure can be used to support the PA to make the decision related to the best type of hypothesis of intervention among those possible: the decision must be taken on the basis of identified Stakeholders' needs and available resources, in order to further exploit the unexpressed potential of the intervention area. The structural elements of the evaluation procedure are aligned to article 1 of the "Prime Ministerial Decree" regarding ‘Projects for the social and cultural regeneration of decaying urban areas’ (15 October 2015) in order to identify the type of intervention allowable for financing provided in the Decree

Toward collisions produced in requirements rankings: A qualitative approach and experimental study

Requirements prioritization is an important issue that determines the way requirements are selected and processed in software projects. There already exist specific methods to classify and prioritize requirements, most of them based on quantitative measures. However, most of existing approaches do not consider collisions, which are an important concern in large-scale requirements sets and, more specifically, in agile development processes where requirements have to be uniquely selected for each software increment. In this paper, we propose QMPSR (Qualitative Method for Prioritizing Software Requirements), an approach that features the prioritization of requirements by considering qualitative elements that are related to the project's priorities. Our approach highlights a prioritization method that has proven to reduce collisions in software requirements rankings. Furthermore, QMPSR improves accuracy in classification when facing large-scale requirements sets, featuring no scalability problems as the number of requirements increases. We formally introduce QMPSR and then define prioritization effort and collision metrics to carry out comprehensive experiments involving different sets of requirements, comparing our approach with well-known existing prioritization methods. The experiments have provided satisfactory results, overcoming existing approaches and ensuring scalabilityThis work was partially supported by the Spanish Government [grant number RTI2018-095255-B-I00 ] and the Madrid Research Council [grant number P2018/TCS-4314

Adapting RRI public engagement indicators to the Spanish scientific and innovation context: a participatory methodology based on AHP and content analysis

The paradigm proposed by Responsible Research and Innovation in the European Commission policy discourse identifies Public Engagement as a key area for exchange and dialogue among multiple actors following an inclusive and participatory process. Two definite set of indicators have already arisen at European level to monitor Public Engagement activities in the Science and Innovation realm. Our study aims to propose a deliberative participatory process, which involves selected stakeholders, for the adaptation of the European indicators to the specific Spanish scientific and innovation context. The methodological procedure is of exploratory nature and will be based in a combination of, on the one hand, qualitative content analysis techniques for the in-depth study of the deliberative process and the generation of indicators; and, on the other hand, a multi-criteria decision analysis technique such as the Analytic Hierarchy Process for the prioritization of the indicators. The discussion will focus on the procedure to articulate stakeholders' values and use them as the basis for creating a context-based improved list of indicators. Two types of research questions arise: (i) Is the proposed methodology adequate for the adaptation of the European indicators to the Spanish context? (ii) What are the main indicators to monitor and to expand reflection on the public engagement in the Spanish science and innovation