Multicriteria Decision Making (MCDM) Methods for Ranking Estimation Techniques in Extreme Programming


  • S. Alshehri Computer Science and Information Technology, College, Majmaah University, Majmaah, Saudi Arabia


It is essential to use multicriteria decision making (MCDM) methods to evaluate human judgments, for decision problems requiring the measuring of tangible and intangible criteria. Among the MCDM techniques, the analytic hierarchical process (AHP) and its extended version, the analytic network process (ANP) are the most powerful methodologies for ranking options and alternatives. They have been utilized by many scientists and researchers in numerous fields, especially for complex engineering problems. Both tools allow leaders to structure their issues numerically utilizing individual judgments. In this article, it is suggested that the MCDM can be useful in agile processes where complicated decisions happen routinely. This paper shows the ranking of the extreme programming (XP) estimation methods using AHP and ANP in educational and industrial environments.


analytic hierarchy process, analytic network process, extreme programming, planning game, estimation techniques, user stories


Download data is not yet available.


M. Cohn, “Advantages of user stories for requirements”, InformIT Network, available at:

article.aspx?p=342885, 2004, (Last accessed: 05/31/2018)

M. Cohn, Agile estimating and planning, Pearson Education, 2005

K. Beck, Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change, Addison-Wesley, 2000

J. Shore, S. Warden, The Art of Agile Development, Q’Reilly Media Inc, 2007

P. Faria, E. Miranda, “Expert Judgment in Software Estimation During the Bid Phase of a Project--An Exploratory Survey”, In: 2012 Joint Conference of the 22nd International Workshop on Software Measurement and the 2012 Seventh International Conference on Software Process and Product Measurement, Assisi, Italy, pp. 126-131, IEEE, 2012 DOI:

F. J. Heemstra, “Software cost estimation”, Information and Software Technology, Vol. 34, No. 10, pp. 627-639, 1992 DOI:

Y. Yavari, H. Bashiri, “Effort Estimation of Software Development: Depth View on IRAN Case”, American Journal of Software Engineering, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 5-11, 2013

V. Mahnic, T. Hovelja, “On using planning poker for estimating user stories”, Journal of Systems and Software, Vol. 85, No. 9, pp. 2086-2095, 2012 DOI:

L. Layman, L. Williams, L. Cunningham, “Motivations and measurements in an agile case study”, Journal of Systems Architecture, Vol. 52, No. 11, pp. 654-667, 2006 DOI:

G. R. Finnie, G. E. Wittig, “AI tools for software development effort estimation”, In: International Conference on Software Engineering: Education and Practice, Dunedin, New Zealand, pp. 346-353, IEEE, 1996

R. Popli, N. Chauhan, “Research Challenges of Agile Estimation”, Journal of Intelligent Computing and Applications, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 108-111, 2013

T. L. Saaty, “Fundamentals of the analytic network process—Dependence and feedback in decision-making with a single network”, Journal of Systems science and Systems engineering, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 129-157, 2004 DOI:

N. Tiwari, Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to Identify Performance Scenarios for Enterprise Application, The Computer Measurement Group, Google Scholar, 2006

T. L. Saaty, The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill, 1980 DOI:

T. L. Saaty, Theory and Applications of the Analytic Network Process: Decision Making with Benefits, Opportunities, Costs, and Risks, RWS Publications, 2005

T. L. Saaty, “How to Make a Decision: the Analytic Hierarchy Process”, Interfaces, Vol. 24, No. 6, pp.19-43, 1994 DOI:

R. K. Yin, Case study research: Design and methods, fourth edition, Sage publications, 2009

A. Aljuhani, L. Benedicenti, S. Alshehri, “Ranking XP Estimation Methods Based on the ANP”, International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, Vol. 8, No. 5, pp. 1-8, 2017 DOI:


How to Cite

S. Alshehri, “Multicriteria Decision Making (MCDM) Methods for Ranking Estimation Techniques in Extreme Programming”, Eng. Technol. Appl. Sci. Res., vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 3073–3078, Jun. 2018.


Abstract Views: 617
PDF Downloads: 328

Metrics Information
Bookmark and Share