Background: The selection and prioritizing of requirements is the most difficult challenge insoftware development. Prioritizing requirements is a difficult task. Due to the importance of thepriority of requirements, many methods have been developed on how to prioritize requirements.However, with the increase of software modules and the expansion of software platforms, thesingle requirement prioritization method can no longer match the increase in the number ofrequirements. Little is know in how to find and develop integrated requirement prioritizationmethod. Objectives: The main purpose of this research is to explore the main challenges and successcriteria that practitioners consider when determining the priority of product requirements. Builda good requirement prioritization model to tackle these challenges. And evaluate the strengthsand limitations of this model. Method: We conducted a questionnaire survey to learn more about the major problems andsuccess criteria for prioritizing product requirements. After that, we presented a model thatcombined the KANO model and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), and we examined its practicality. Finally, using Focus Group Research, we analyzed the benefits and limitations of theintegrated model and improved solutions. Result: The results show that practitioners face many challenges in product requirement prioritization. The model we developed is suitable for a variety of scenarios. It helps practitionersmanage priorities and improve end-user satisfaction, which can solve these challenges to a certain extent. Conclusion: Our research collected many major challenges encountered by requirement analysts and product managers in the process of requirement prioritization. And developed a newrequirement prioritization model, got a better understanding of requirement prioritization whichcan inspire practitioners to build more better requirement prioritization models.

Background: Requirements prioritization and its technique is still an important research topic. However, industry adoption of its techniques is still lack of research and has many challenges. As well, this topic involves the technology transfer. Objectives: The objective of this study is to find what challenges for practitioner to adopt requirement prioritization techniques in practice. Methods: We use a literature review and twice interview-based surveys. The literature review studies requirement prioritization techniques in literature. The 1st interview studies the status of practitioner’s used techniques and 2nd interview studies the practitioner’s idea towards recommended techniques in literature as well as adoption challenges. The data of interview is mainly analyzed by thematic analysis. Results: The literature review presents the procedure of 49 requirement prioritization techniques in literatures. The 1st time interview presents the technique procedures and other conditions of 11 practitioners. With above 2 results, we find the technique recommended to these 11 interviewees and then conduct the 2nd time interview to discover more interviewees’ ideas and the challenges of technique adoption, which are also compared with related works. Conclusions: Overall, there are many challenges for practitioner to adopt the requirement prioritization technique. As an independent subject, the practitioner’s adoption of prioritization technique still needs to be studied further: 1. Studying this subject needs to involve the scope of technology transfer; 2. Some challenges in requirement prioritization can also hamper the practitioner’s technique adoption and should be alleviated separately.

Kravprioritering är ett av de viktigaste och mest inflytelserika stegen vid tillverkning av en mjukvaruprodukt. Processen är iterativ; den sker under hela produktens agila mjukvaruutvecklingsprocess. Genom kravprioritering beslutas det om vilka krav som ska utvecklas, i vilken ordning och varför.  Målet med denna studie är att undersöka hur mjukvaruutvecklande företag gör för att kravprioritera, samt identifiera vilka prioriteringsmetoder de eventuellt använder sig av. Studiens syfte är att få en förståelse för varför en väl avvägd prioritering är viktig, vilka särskilda prioriteringsfaktorer som ger värde till en produkt och att se hur dessa faktorer är relaterade till resultatet. Syftet är även att undersöka vilka svårigheter som finns i en prioriteringsprocess, samt att skapa en översikt över några av de mest vedertagna prioriteringsmetoderna inom agil mjukvaruutveckling.  Studien utförs i samarbete med mjukvaruföretaget Monitor ERP för att analysera företagets prioriteringsprocesser som används för att utveckla deras affärssystem Monitor. Metoden som används är en kvalitativ undersökning som består av observationer av möten kring prioriteringsarbete och semi-strukturerade intervjuer. Bearbetning av insamlat material skedde genom att organisera, analysera och sammanställa resultat enligt begrepp och kategorier som framkom utifrån litteraturstudien. Resultatet redovisar arbetsprocesser, gemensamma mål, prioriteringsaspekter och utmaningar i prioriteringsarbetet hos Monitor ERP. En väl avvägd prioritering visade sig vara viktigt för att kunna leverera rätt funktionalitet i tid, för att kunna ge trovärdiga estimeringar om utvecklingen och det i sin tur leder till att kunder får förtroende för både produkten och företaget. En rad olika prioriteringsfaktorer som ger värde till programvaran Monitor identifierades, varav många bidrar till att öka kundnöjdheten och kvaliteten på produkten. Monitor ERP använder inte några särskilda prioriteringsmetoder, utan utvecklingsfilosofin Minimum Viable Product används som grund till deras prioriteringsval. Under prioriteringsarbetet upplevdes utmaningar såsom begränsade resurser, oförutsägbara uppgifter, svårigheter med tidsestimering och en utmaning i balansen mellan kundnytta och kundfokus. / Prioritizing requirements is one of the most important and influential steps in the creation of a software product. The process is iterative; it takes place during the entire agile software development. Through prioritizing requirements, it is decided which requirements are to be developed, in which order, and why.  The aim of this study is to investigate how companies that design software prioritize requirements and to identify which prioritization methods they might use during this process. The purpose of this study is to gain an understanding for why a well-balanced prioritization is important, which specific prioritization factors give value to a product, as well as identifying how these factors are related to the result. The purpose is also to investigate the difficulties that exist in a prioritization process, and to create an overview of some of the most used prioritization methods in agile software development.  This study is conducted in collaboration with the software company Monitor ERP in order to analyze the company's prioritization processes used to develop their business management system Monitor. The method used is a qualitative study that consists of observations of meetings about prioritization processes, and semi-structured interviews. Processing of collected material was done by organizing, analyzing, and compiling results according to concepts and categories that emerged from the literature study. The results documents work processes, common goals, prioritization aspects and challenges in the requirements prioritization at Monitor ERP.  A well-balanced prioritization proved to be important to be able to deliver the right functionality on time and to be able to provide dependable estimates of development, which in turn leads to customers gaining confidence in both the product and the company. A number of prioritization factors that give value to the Monitor software were identified, many of which contribute to increasing customer satisfaction and product quality. Monitor ERP does not use any specific prioritization methods, but the development philosophy Minimum Viable Product is used as a basis for their prioritization choices. During the prioritization process, challenges such as limited resources, unpredictable tasks, difficulties with time estimation, and a challenge in balancing customer value and customer focus were experienced.