[USER-STORY]: Decision-Maker - Relative Importance of Factors

[tonysan98]

User Story

Story

[User-Story]

As a decision-maker I want to assign importance weight levels to the factors that are more significant to me

so that:

the output I receive is consistent with my priorities

Acceptance Criteria

Rules

• Each factor is assigned a level of relative importance determined by the decision-maker..

Supporting Information

User story resource link

Dependencies

Depends On

• UI Text Fields for each factor
• UI button to submit

  Dependents

• UI (frontend)
• backend algorithms

[jody]

This is a good start for a user story!

Perhaps the user story's "I want" part should be what is given in the "so that" part. For example, As a user, I want the product to give more importance to the factors are more significant to me, so that...

Now we need to know why the user wants this.

[jody]

Please have your collaborator add a comment to this issue so that they can be added as an assignee.

[jody]

Please update the stakeholder type from "user" to "decision-maker" to match the stakeholder types found in the web documentation and the decision_support/README.md

[Donsch377]

Commented

[jody]

The story looks great! However, it might be too big to satisfy all at once.

Also, the rationale seems to be at a more abstract level than the story itself.

so that I can make an informed decision that aligns with my priorities.

Maybe consider something that mentions the product's output, like "the rank ordering of alternatives resulting from the product aligns with my priorities."

Another way to check the scope and level of the user story is by checking how well the acceptance criteria match the intent without over-prescribing how that outcome is accomplished.

Rules Each factor has a significance level entered by the user

Scenario 1 Given two factors when I give one factor a weight of 100 and another a different weight of 50 then the factor with the weight of a 100 will be twice as important as the other factor

The rule seems to presume that the user enters a significance level for each factor, which might not be the only way that the significance levels are established. For example, the user might be entering pairwise values and the product might use those to derive the significance levels for each factor.

The scenario presumes that the user enters numeric values, which might not be necessary. For example, the user might position a slider between two factors using the visual distance as the indicator of relative importance. The product might use those to derive numerical values.

[jody]

Let's drop the scenario and stick to just rules. Here's the original:

Each factor has a significance level entered by the user

The documentation states "Each factor can have a different level of relative importance."

How about using that terminology in the rule? For example,
"Each factor has a level of relative importance determined by the decision-maker."

This wording, "determined by", is more general and allows for actual values to be derived from information entered by the decision-maker.

[tonysan98]

Edited user story to implement the changes recommended.

[tonysan98]

User story ready for review

[jody]

Acceptance Criteria: How will the decision-maker determine whether or not the product supported them to "assign importance weight levels to the factors that are more significant to me"? This is what we mean by acceptance criteria.

Given the specifications of how decision-makers interact with the product, this would involve the two-item comparison process and ensuring that all factors have been involved in the comparisons. See: Decision Support Process

"Dependencies" refers to existing issues, each linked using # followed by their number. If appropriate, please create an issue for each of the items on which this depends, then add those as links in the "Depends On" section.

[jody]

Marked this as depending on user-story #116 which addresses the two-at-a-time method for eliciting this information from decision-makers.

[jody]

Is there now more to this than #116 ? Or are they now duplicates that can be merged?

[jody]

Assuming lack of response means this is a duplicate. Closing accordingly.