nauman prioritization technique

7/31/2019 Nauman Prioritization Technique

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/nauman-prioritization-technique 1/43

Requirement Prioritizing

Assignment III

Submitted by

Naseer Jan 830413-T439 [email protected]

Muhammad Ibrar 780303-6693 [email protected]

Aftab Ahmed 810326-7939 [email protected]

Adeel Alam 850409-8073 [email protected]

PA1310 (PA1311) Practical Requirement Engineering



Contents

1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 4

2 Release plan. ................................................................................................................................... 4

2.1 Scope of release plan .............................................................................................................. 4

2.2 Time constraints ...................................................................................................................... 4

2.3 Purpose .................................................................................................................................... 4

2.4 Interaction with stakeholders ................................................................................................. 5

2.5 Methods for prioritization of requirements ............................................................................ 5

2.6 Technological Constraints ....................................................................................................... 5

2.7 Resource constraints ............................................................................................................... 5

2.8 System Constraints .................................................................................................................. 5

3 Requirement Prioritization .............................................................................................................. 5

3.1 Techniques for Requirements Prioritization ........................................................................... 5

3.2 Grouping of requirement on the basis of dependency ........................................................... 6

4 Combining AHP with PG Technique ................................................................................................ 8

4.1 Requirements’ Prioritization Using AHP method (Pile1 - value) ............................................. 9

4.2 Requirements’ value Graph in percentage (for Pile1) ........................................................... 13

4.3 Requirements Prioritization Using AHP method (Pile1 - Cost) .............................................. 14

4.4 Requirements’ Cost Graph in percentage (Pile1) .................................................................. 17

4.5 Requirements’ Cost–Value Analysis (Pile1) ........................................................................... 18

4.6 Requirements Prioritization using AHP method (Pile2 - Value) ............................................ 194.7 Requirements’ value Graph in percentage (Pile2) ................................................................ 22

4.8 Requirements Prioritization using AHP method (Pile2 - Cost) .............................................. 23

4.9 Requirements’ Cost Graph in percentage (Pile2) .................................................................. 25

4.10 Requirements’ Cost–Value Analysis (Pile2) ........................................................................... 26

4.11 Requirements Prioritization by AHP method (Pile3 - Value) ................................................. 27

4.12 Requirements’ value Graph in percentage (Pile3) ................................................................ 29

4.13 Requirements Prioritization by AHP method (Pile3 - Cost ) .................................................. 30

4.14 Pile 3 Requirements’ Cost Graph in percentage ................................................................... 324.15 Pile3 Requirements’ Cost–Value Analysis ............................................................................. 33

5 Development Release Plan & Schedule......................................................................................... 33

5.1 Releases Delivers Schedule ................................................................................................... 33

5.2 Schedule, Resources & Budget for overall system Development ......................................... 33

5.3 Plan for development ............................................................................................................ 33

5.3.1 Release 1: ...................................................................................................................... 33

5.3.2 Priority by Cost – Value Ratio ........................................................................................ 34

5.3.3 Priority by Value ............................................................................................................ 345.3.4 Priority by Cost .............................................................................................................. 35



5.3.5 Release 2........................................................................................................................ 35


5.3.7 Priority by Value ............................................................................................................ 35

5.3.8 Priority by Cost .............................................................................................................. 36

5.3.9 Release 3........................................................................................................................ 36

5.3.10 The table 23 Below shows the cost-value ratio of release 3: ........................................ 36



5.3.13 Priority by Cost .............................................................................................................. 36

5.3.14 Release 4........................................................................................................................ 37



5.3.17 Priority by Cost .............................................................................................................. 37

6 References ..................................................................................................................................... 37

Appendix A (System Requirements) ...................................................................................................... 38

Appendix-B (Factor Table) ..................................................................................................................... 40

Appendix-C (Gantt Chart) ...................................................................................................................... 41

Appendix-D (Resources) ........................................................................................................................ 42

Appendix-E (Budget).............................................................................................................................. 43



Abstract

This report aims to present the requirement prioritization process according to dimensions of

cost and value. It also includes a discussion about methodology used for prioritize the

requirements. A detailed discussion about different methodologies for requirement

prioritization and their comparison, in perspective of this study is also included.

1 Introduction

In this paper a brief dissucusion about release plan is carried out. In release plan the time

factor for releases, getting feedback from stakeholders on the previos releases and remove the

flaws of previous releases by issuing new releases. It uses the resource, budget, schedule. In

release plan prioritization is also discussed.

Requirement prioritization provides a focal point for the development process of software

system and helps to acquire result according to customer and user’s expectations [1].

There are different techniques available for the prioritization of requirements. Choosing theright prioritization technique on right time make the successful completion of the project and

also fulfill the customer needs and demands. Sometime different combined technique is used

to prioritize the requirements according to the situation. In this paper Combine technique of

AHP and PG (AHPcPG) is used to prioritize the requirements of Public library Management

system.

2 Release plan.

Incremental developmental model approach provides the first version of the system to the

customer early. So customer is able to provide the feedback which is very essential for project

[13]. The releases contain the requirements which customers want. Each release diminishes

the defects of the earlier version which improve the quality of the project and fully satisfy thecustomers and stakeholders [14].

A good release plan should increase the value of the business, satisfy the client’s needs and

demands and shows the dependencies among the requirements [13].

2.1 Scope of release plan

The scope of our release plan is to deliver four deliveries to the customers. The purpose of

these deliveries is to fulfill the customer needs. Sometimes the stakeholders highly needed

requirements are not fulfilled so it leads to dissatisfaction of stakeholders in terms of needs

and demands. So different four releases will be carried out to fulfilled their demands and get

feedback from the customer [14, 15].

2.2 Time constraints

The project deadline is predetermined and fixed in such a way that the project shall be

implemented before summer. The time factor for four releases is different. Fisrt release is

essential which contain that feature without which system will not function. So according to

our plan, release 1 takes 45 working days, release 2 will take 32 working days, release 3 will

take 30 working days and release 4 will take 16 working days [14,15] see in Appendix-C .

2.3 Purpose

The requirements are prioritized on the basis of value and cost in order to satisfy the customer

needs [13]. There is no problem of budget so we shall prioritize the requirements on the basis

of relative value and cost and to give proper features in a proper release according to customer

wishes [14].



for judgmental errors is calculated then it gives inconsistencies, when consistency ratio is

smaller, then the inconsistency ratio will be minor. So AHP method is very important for

prioritizing the requirements [1]. AHP method transforms all information to the ratio scale

with the help of some mathematical calculations [3].

The CV also known as Hundred Dollar method is simple and easy method. It is used togenerate ratio scale result. It has been used in the political setup for long time. And its use

against the AHP is less in software engineering environment. This method uses simple

approach by giving hundred dollars to the stakeholder or individual [10]. Further the

stakeholder distributes hundred dollars among the requirements. The requirements with assign

dollars determine its relative priority with other requirements [2, 6].

The numerical assignment technique is most commonly used technique which is used to

group the requirements in priority order. The stakeholder has to define the critical, standard

and optional requirements [2] but there are some certain problems with this technique.

Planning game is a simple and an easy approach. The requirements are prioritize by thecustomer into three different piles. One pile belong to those requirements without which

system will not function, other pile belong to those requirements which are less important but

enhance the value of the business and other pile contains those requirements which are nice to

have for the system[2]

We need a method which is used for keeping the low comparison between requirements and

also used for searching [5].Binary search tree(BST) uses ordinal scale between the

requirements it means that we can only judge that one requirement is better than the other but

not up to much extent. There is no clue on the basis of one can judge that whether the

prioritization is precisely done or not because there is no way to find out consistency ratio in it

[8].

AHP prioritize the requirements in good manner. AHP technique is not so much quick and

easy to perform but it gives ratio scale information and also it is more favorable for more

detail requirements and it prioritizes the requirement on the basis of relative cost and value.

The use of hundred Dollar method gives rise issues when there are too many requirements

increases. It is not easy method to deal with additional information [6].

3.2 Grouping of requirement on the basis of dependency

Group of requirements are made which have highly dependencies and these requirements are

prioritize together. There are 58 requirements in PLMS so these requirements are grouped

together on the basis of highly dependency and these requirements within a group are

prioritize together [2].

Following table shows the grouping of requirements on bases of highly dependency.

Requirement Requirements grouped by dependency Dependency

R1 User Interface_R001, User Interface_R002,

User Interface_R003, User Interface_R004,

User Interface_R005

The user interface_R001 is a

class interface while the

remaining interfaces will be

depended on this interface.



R2 General_R006, General_R007,

General_R008

The user will authenticate

when he is successfully login

and after authentication his

session will be created.

R3 General_R009 N/A

R4 General_R010, General_R011,General_R012, General_R013,

General_R014

The General_R010 is a classwhile the remaining

requirements will be

depended on this

requirement.

R5 Training_R015 N/A

R6 Help_R016 N/A

R7 LibrarianSearch_R017 N/A

R8 LibrarianSearch Media_R018, N/A

R9 MediaSearch_R019 N/A

R10 LibrarianStatisticalReport_R020 N/A

R11 LibrarianAddPublicUser_R021,

LibrarianUpdatePublicuser_R022, Librarian

DeletePublicuser_R023

To update and delete user is

depend on first add user.

R12 LibrarianAddMedia_R024 ,

LibrarianUpdateMedia_R025

To update media first it need

to be added.

R13 LibrarianReturnMedia_R026 ,

LibrarianDueValidation_R027

Due date will be check when

user is returning his media to

librarian.

R14 LibrarianLateReturn_R028 ,

LibrarianLateReturn.Actions_R029

Late return actions will

perform when media would

be late from user.R15 PublicSearch_R030 ,

PublicReservemedia_R031,

Notification_R035

Public user can reserve

media by searching and on

available his media email

notification will generate.

R16 PublicBorrowmedia_R032,

PublicReturnmedia_R033,

Notification_R036

Media will be return when it

is borrowed and in case of

late a notification will be

send to borrower. So

notification and return

depends on borrow media.

R17 PublicStatistics_R034 N/AR18 Performance_R037, Performance_R038,

Performance_R039

The performance in case of

response time and process

time depends on specific

number of terminal with in

library.

R19 LogicalDatabaseMedia_R040,

LogicalDatabaseUser_R041,

LogicalDatabaseLibrarian_R042,

LogicalDatabaseUser_R043,

LogicalDatabaseReservation_R044,

LogicalDatabaseIssue/Return_R045,

LogicalDatabaseFine_R046

The reservation, issue/return

and fine information depends

on user and librarian

information and librarian and

user information depends on

user type information.



R20 DesignDBMS_R047 N/A

R21 DesignBrowser_R048 N/A

R22 Availibility_R049, Availability_R050 When system is available 24

hours a day would be

available in working hours in

library.R23 SECURITY_R051, Security_R052,

Security_R053

To keep the history of user

actions it will manage the

user hierarchy and at end will

close the session of user after

specific time of system idle.

R24 BACKUP_R054 , Recovery_R056 For recovery it needs back

up.

R25 BACKUP_R055 , Recovery_R056 For recovery it needs back

up.

R26 Reliabilit_R057 N/A

R27 Portable_R058 N/A

R28 Deadline_R058 N/A

Tabel 1: Grouping of requirements on dependency base

4 Combining AHP with PG Technique

It is possible to combine different technique to make the prioritization process easy and

effective. It depends on the requirements of the project [2]. So in the light of above mentioned

fact we combine the AHP method with planning game technique. The requirements for the

public library system are grouped together on the basis of dependencies. First we apply

planning game technique on the requirements. Those requirements which are highly importantand which keep the system in its functioning state are placed in Pile-1. Those requirements

which are less important but enhance the value of the business are placed in the Pile-2 and

those requirements which are neither essential nor add business value but are nice to have are

placed in Pile-3.

After prioritization of requirements through planning game we apply AHP method on each

pile and prioritize the requirements on the basis of relative cost and value [6].

The table below shows prioritizing the requirements through PG method:

Pile1: Those without

Which system will notfunction

Pile2: Less essential but

provide significant businessvalue

Pile3: Nice to have

R1 R3 R5

R2 R4 R27

R7 R6 R28

R8 R10

R9 R14

R11 R17

R12 R18

R13 R21

R15 R23

R16 R25



R19 R26

R20

R22

R24

Table 2: Prioritize requirements by PG method.

4.1 Requirements’ Prioritization Using AHP method (Pile1 - value)

First we will find out the relative values of all the requirements included in pile-1. For this

purpose we apply AHP’s pair-wise comparison method to each candidate requirement

included in pile-1. As there are fourteen (14) candidate requirements in pile-1, therefore, we

have carried out ninety one (91) comparisons by the following formula “(n (n – 1))/2” [1].

The fundamental scale used for these comparisons is shown in Appendix-B.

Step 1: Placing the candidate requirements in 14 x 14 matrixes and then performing the pair-

wise comparison in order to find out relative value of each requirement [1].

Table 3: AHP’s pair-wise Comparisons 1

Step 2: In this step, we calculate the sum of each column and then divide each element in the

matrix by that column’s sum (i.e. the element is member of) and then we calculate the sum of

each row [1].



Table 4: Step 2 Implementation

Step 3: Now we divide the sum of each row (calculated in step 2) by the number of candidate

requirements (in this case 14) in order to get the priority vector (eigenvalues) [1].

Step 4: Now we calculate the Consistency Index (CI) by using the formula CI = (λmax-N)/N –

1, here N denotes the number of candidate requirements and λmax denotes the maximum

principal eigenvalues which is unknown. To estimate the λmax 1st

we multiply thecomparison matrix (i.e. in step 1) by the priority vector [1].



Next we divide 1st

element of the resulting vector by the first element in the priority vector

(eigenvalues), the second element of the resulting vector by the second element in the priority

vector, till the end.



Step 5: Now we calculate the consistency ratio (CR) by using the formula CR= CI/RI, where

RI (Random Indices) is constant, here RI value for 14 x 14 order matrix is 1,57 which is

shown in the following table 2 [2,11,12].

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

0.00 0.00 0.58 0.90 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49 1.51 1.48 1.56 1.57 1.59

Table 5: RI values [11]



4.2 Requirements’ value Graph in percentage (for Pile1)

Figure 1 shows the value of each requirement in percentage of Pile-1. The above graph shows

that R1, R24, R22, R20 and R19 constitute 69.64% of the total value. Looking again at the

extreme values, requirement number R24 is about 17 times as expensive as to implement as

requirement number R13.

Figure: The value distribution of Pile1 requirements



4.3 Requirements Prioritization Using AHP method (Pile1 - Cost)

As we explain in detail all the steps for AHP’s pair -wise comparison method (i.e. in Pile 1

requirements prioritization for value). Therefore, we skip the detail for comparing the

candidate requirements of Pile-1 (cost), Pile-2 and Pile-3.

Step 1: Pair-wise Comparisons

Table 6: Pair wise comparison

Step 2: Normalized comparison matrix




Step 3: priority vector (Eigenvalues)

Step 4: Calculate the Consistency Index (CI)



Step 5: Calculate the consistency ratio (CR)



4.4 Requirements’ Cost Graph in percentage (Pile1)

Figure 2 shows the cost of each requirement in percentage of Pile-1. The above graph shows

that R1, R12, R19, R20 are most expensive which constitute 61.04% of the total cost.

Looking again at the extreme values, requirement number R19 is about 20 times as expensive

as to implement as requirement number R2.

Figure 2: The Cost distribution of Pile-1 requirements.



4.5 Requirements’ Cost– Value Analysis (Pile1)

In figure 3 the candidate requirements are shown in a cost – value chart for the Pile -1

Requirements. There are total fourteen (14) requirements, three falls into high ratio, six falls

into medium ration and five fall into low ratio category.

Figure 3: Cost – value diagram for Pile-1 requirements

High

Medium

Low



4.6 Requirements Prioritization using AHP method (Pile2 - Value)


Table 8: Pair wise Comparisons


Table 9: Step 2 Implementations



Step 3: Priority vector (Eigen values)




4.7 Requirements’ value Graph in percentage (Pile2)

Figure 4 shows the value of each requirement in percentage of Pile-2. The below graph

shows that R18, R23, R25 and R26 constitute 62.32% of the total value. By examining the

graph we can extract that requirement R25 is having approximately 16 times more value than

requirement R6.

Figure 4: The value distribution of Pile-2 requirements.



4.8 Requirements Prioritization using AHP method (Pile2 - Cost)


Table 10: Pair wise Comparison



Step 3: Priority vector (Eigenvalues)




4.9 Requirements’ Cost Graph in percentage (Pile2)

Figure 5 shows the cost of each requirement in percentage of Pile-2. There are eleven (11)

candidate requirements in pile-2 and the graph below shows their development cost.

Requirement R26 has high cost while R6 has lowest cost in percentages. It also depicts that

only four requirements namely R18, R23, R26 and R3 are more expensive and they occupy

57,22% cost of the total cost.




4.10 Requirements’ Cost– Value Analysis (Pile2)

In figure 6 the candidate requirements are shown in a cost – value chart for the Pile -2

Requirements. In this figure cost is taken on x-axis while value is on y-axis. There are total

fourteen (11) requirements, out of which only one candidate requirement falls into high ratio

category and seven (07) fall into medium ratio category while three requirements fall into lowratio category.




4.11 Requirements Prioritization by AHP method (Pile3 - Value)




Table 13:Step 2 Implementation





Step 5: calculate the consistency ratio (CR)



4.12 Requirements’ value Graph in percentage (Pile3)

Figure 7 shows the value of each requirement in percentage of Pile-3. The below graph

shows that R27 and R28 - constitute 92.19% of the total value. By examining the graph we

can extract that requirement R28 has approximately 40 times more value than requirement

R5.

Figure 7: The value distribution of Pile-3 requirements.



4.13 Requirements Prioritization by AHP method (Pile3 - Cost )




Table 15:Step 2 Implementation




Step 5: calculate the consistency ratio (CR)

4.14 Pile 3 Requirements’ Cost Graph in percentageFigure 8 shows the cost of each requirement in percentage, the below graph shows that R27

and R28 are most expensive which constitute 92.73% of the total cost. By comparing the

requirements costs with each other, we observe that R27 is approximately 60 and 41 times

expensive than R5 and R28 respectively. Similarly, R28 is approximately 17 times expensive

than R5.




4.15 Pile3 Requirements’ Cost– Value Analysis

Figure 9 shows the candidate requirements in a cost – value diagram of Pile-3. In this figure

cost is taken on x-axis while value is on y-axis. There are total three (03) requirements, and

there lies only one requirement in each of three ratio categories.


5 Development Release Plan & Schedule

5.1 Releases Delivers Schedule

Release Start Date End Date

1 12/15/2008 02/13/2009

2 02/16/2009 03/31/2009

3 04/01/2009 05/12/2009

4 05/13/2009 06/03/2009

Table 16: Releases Delivers Schedule

5.2 Schedule, Resources & Budget for overall system Development

See Schedule in Appendix-C,

See resources in Appendix-D

See budget in Appendix-E

5.3 Plan for development

5.3.1 Release 1:

Release one should contain those requirements, that are necessary to perform system

functionality. These requirements are in pile 1 of planning game (PG) method. Theserequirements would be achieve according to schedule defined in Appendix C. All these



requirements would be design, develop, test and implement to customer’s environment. QA

will perform inspection with collaboration of customer/user, if there would be any need to

change in release 1, it will be handle in same release to justify the performance of system

accurately.

In the Table…, Requirements in release one are mentioned:

(1) Development order of requirements, priority vise.

(2) Dependencies and priority of requirements, each next requirement depends on

previous one.

(3) List of prioritized requirements based on Cost – Value ratio.

5.3.2 Priority by Cost – Value Ratio

Priority Requirement ID Cost - Value Ratio

High Medium Low

1 R24 2 R22

3 R2 4 R19 5 R20 6 R1 7 R15 8 R9 9 R7 10 R12 11 R11 12 R16 13 R8 14 R13

Table 17: Priority by Cost – Value

5.3.3 Priority by Value

Table 18: Priority by Value

Priority Requirement ID

1 R24

2 R22

3 R19

4 R205 R1

6 R2

7 R12,R11

8 R16

9 R15

10 R8

11 R9

12 R7

13 R13



5.3.4 Priority by Cost


1 R19

2 R12

3 R14 R11

5 R16

6 R15

7 R8

8 R13

9 R7

10 R24

11 R9

12 R22

13 R2Table 19: Priority by Cost

5.3.5 Release 2

Release two is containing those requirements, which are less essential but provide significant

business value. These requirements are mentioned in pile 2 of PG, it only includes those

requirements which have high and some medium cost – value ratio, which is included in

following table 20 These requirements would be achieve according to schedule defined in

Appendix C. All these requirements shall be develop, test, and merge with release 1

requirements and implements to customer environment.

Requirements in release 2 are mentioned in the Tabel 20:



High Medium Low

1 R25 2 R26 3 R18 4 R23 5 R14

6 R4 Table 20: Priority by Value – Cost


Priority Requirement

ID

1 R25

2 R26

3 R18

4 R23

5 R146 R4



Table 21: Priority by value


Priority Requirement

ID

1 R262 R18

3 R23

4 R25

5 R14

6 R4

Table 22: Priority by Cost

5.3.9 Release 3

Release three is containing requirements, which are less essential but provide significant

business value. These requirements include the requirements from pile 2 of PG which have

medium cost – value ratio and also low priority in this and low cost – value ratio.

5.3.10 The table 23 Below shows the cost-value ratio of release 3:



High Medium Low

1 R21 2 R6 3 R3 4 R10 5 R17

Table 23: Priority by Value – Cost



1 R3

2 R21

3 R10

4 R17

5 R6




1 R3

2 R10

3 R17

4 R21

5 R6

Table 25: Priority by cost



5.3.14 Release 4

Release four is containing the requirements those are nice to have for system according to pile

3 of PG.

The table 26 shows the cost-value ratio for release 4:



High Medium Low

7 R28 8 R27 9 R5

Table 26: Priority by Cost – Value



1 R282 R27

3 R5




1 R27

2 R28

3 R5

6 References

[1]. J. Karlsson. (1997). A Cost – Value Approach for Prioritizing Requirements. Available at:

ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel4/52/13290/00605933.pdf?arnumber=605933

[2]. P. Berander, EVOLVING PRIORITIZATION FOR SOFTWARE PRODUCT

MANAGEMENT, Sweden: Blekinge Institute of Technology, 2007.

[3]. B. Regnell, M. Host and Jn Och Dag,”An Industrial Case Study on Distributed

Prioritization in Market-Driven Requirements Engineering for Packaged Software”,

Requirements Engineering, vol 6, pp. 51-62. 2001.

[4]. D. Zowghi, V. Gervasi, ”The Three Cs of Requirements:Consistency,

Completeness,and Correctness”, in Proc. 8th

International Workshop on Requirements

Engineering:Foundations for Software Quality 2002.

[5] R. Bayer. “Symmetric binary B-tress: Data structures and maintenance algorithms”. Acta

informatica, pp. 290-306, 1972.

[6]. V.Ahl, “An experimental comparison of five prioritization methods,” Thesis no: MSE-

2005-11, Aug, 2005.



[7]. S. Hatton. (2008). Choosing the “Right” Prioritization Method. Available at:

ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/4483171/4483172/04483241.pdf?arnumber=4483241 -

[8]. M. R. Beg, Q. Abbas and R. P. Verma. (2008). An Approach for Requirement

Prioritization using B-Tree. Available at:

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?isnumber=4579840&arnumber=4580090&count=276&index=249.

[9]. Bergman, B. and Klefsjö, B. (2003): Quality - From Customer Needs

to Customer Satisfaction, Studentlitteratur AB, Lund, Sweden.

[10] A. M. Davis, Just Enough Requirement Management,Where Software Development

Meets Marketing Dorset House Publishing Company Incorporated New York USA, 2005.

Appendix

[11]. T. L. Saaty, “How To Make A Decision: The Analytic Heirarchy Process,” Vol.48,

1990.

[12]. T.L. Saaty, The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980. 8. C.

Potts, “Software Engineering Research Revisited,” IEEE Software,Sept. 1993, pp. 19-28.

[16]. J. Karlsson. (1998): A Systematic Approach for Prioritizing Software Requirements,

Linköping Studies in Science and Technology, Doctoral Dissertation No. 526, Department of

Computer and Information Science, Linköping Institute of Technology, Sweden.

Appendix A (System Requirements)

Serial No Requirement Identifier

1 User Interface_R001


3 User Interface _R003



6 General_R006

7 General_R007

8 General_R008

9 General_R009

10 General_R010

11 General_R011

12 General_R012

13 General_R013

14 General_R014

15 Training_R015

16 Help_R016

17 LibrarianSearch_R017

18 LibrarianSearch Media_R01819 MediaSearch_R019



20 LibrarianStatisticalReport_R020

21 LibrarianAddPublicUser_R021

22 LibrarianUpdatePublicuser_R022

23 Librarian DeletePublicuser_R023

24 LibrarianAddMedia_R024

25 LibrarianUpdateMedia_R02526 LibrarianReturnMedia_R026

27 LibrarianDueValidation_R027

28 LibrarianLateReturn_R028

29 LibrarianLateReturn.Actions_R029

30 PublicSearch_R030

31 PublicReservemedia_R031

32 PublicBorrowmedia_R032

33 PublicReturnmedia_R033

34 PublicStatistics_R034

35 Notification_R03536 Notification_R036

37 Performance_R037

38 Performance_R038

39 Performance_R039

40 LogicalDatabaseMedia_R040

41 LogicalDatabaseUser_R041

42 LogicalDatabaseLibrarian_R042

43 LogicalDatabaseUser_R043

44 LogicalDatabaseReservation_R044

45 LogicalDatabaseIssue/Return_R045

46 LogicalDatabaseFine_R046

47 DesignDBMS_R047

48 DesignBrowser_R048

49 Availibility_R049

50 Availability_R050

51 SECURITY_R051

52 Security_R052

53 Security_R053

54 BACKUP_R054

55 BACKUP_R055

56 Recovery_R05657 Reliabilit_R057

58 Portable_R058

59 Deadline_R058



Appendix-B (Factor Table)

Scale for pair wise comparisons

Relative

Intensity

Defination Explanation

1 Equal Value Two requirements are of equal value3 Slightly more value Experience slightly favors one

requirements over another

5 Essential or strong value Experience strongly favors one

requirements over another

7 Very strong value A requirement is strongly favored and its

dominance is demonstrated in practice

9 Extreme value The evidence favoring one over another is

of the highest possible order of

affirmation

2,4,6,8 Intermediate values betweentwo adjacent judgments When compromise is needed

Reciprocals If requirements a has one of the above numbers assigned to it when campared

with requirement b, then b has the reciprocal value when compared with a.



Appendix-C (Gantt Chart)



Appendix-D (Resources)



Appendix-E (Budget)

nauman prioritization technique

Documents