Identifying Usability Risks for Mobile Application
Hotma Antoni Hutahaean Rajesri Govindaraju
Industrial Engineering Industrial Engineering
Department Department
Bandung Institute of Technology Bandung Institute of Technology
Bandung, Indonesia Bandung, Indonesia
hotma.hutahaean@atmajaya.ac.id rajesri_g@mail.ti.itb.ac.id
ABSTRACT
Risk is an important factor that determines the success of mobile
application development. Identifying risks will help developers
minimize failures. Likewise, the determination of risks that affect
usability can support taking preventive action before failure
occurs. Previous researches have shown that many risks have
been identified in mobile application development. However, it is
rare to determine usability risks in mobile applications. This
study aims to identify the risks that affect the usability of mobile
application users. This study uses a literature study with several
stages, namely: identifying a combination of usability attributes,
identifying risk factors (potential risks), and determining the
potential usability risk of each usability attribute at each stage of
information system application development. This study resulted
in 8 usability attributes, 107 risk factors (potential risks), and
usability potential risks for each usability attribute at each stage
of mobile application development. The results of this study can
also determine the usability attributes that affect each phase of
mobile application development.
CCS CONCEPTS
• Software and its engineering• Software creation and
management • Software development process management
• Risk management
KEYWORDS
Risk Factor, Usability Attribute, Usability Risk
ACM Reference format:
Hotma Antoni Hutahaean, Rajesri Govindaraju and Iman Sudirman.
2020. Identifying Usability Risks for Mobile Application. In Proceedings of
International Conference on Engineering and Information Technology for
Sustainable Industry (ICONETSI 2020), September 28-29, 2020, Tangerang,
Indonesia. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 6 pages.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal
or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or
distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice
and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work
owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is
permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute
to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from
Permissions@acm.org.
ICONETSI, September 28–29, 2020, Tangerang, Indonesia
© 2020 Association for Computing Machinery.
ACM ISBN 978-1-4503-8771-2/20/09…$15.00
https://doi.org/10.1145/3429789.3429813
Iman Sudirman
Industrial Engineering
Department
Bandung Institute of Technology
Bandung, Indonesia
imansudirman_itb@yahoo.com
1 Introduction
Mobile applications are software applications specifically
designed for use in small and wireless computing [1]. The
development of an information system application should take
into account three main things, namely: defining the exact
needs, considering the usability aspects, and considering the risk
aspects (usability risk) in the initial definition of needs. The
initial process of defining needs is called requirements
engineering, which is an essential part of the development and
life cycle of an information system application.
Problems that arise in determining requirements were caused by
not considering risks. Risk is the potential action or activity
chosen (including inaction options) that will cause harm
(undesirable results) [16]. Wiegers defined risk as a problem that
can potentially cause harm or threaten project achievement [17].
These potential problems adversely affect the cost, schedule, or
technical success of the project, the quality of the software
product, or the morale of the project team. Example of problems
occurred due to not considering the risk were: losing 50% of
potential sales and 40% of users not returning to the website due
to a bad experience when first visiting the website [2]. There
was also about 15% cancellation to 35% of system application
development information, and the failure in achieving the initial
goal [3]. Hijazi et al. stated that the causes of risk in software
development included problems with requirements, incomplete
requirements, and changes in requirements [4].
Besides risk, usability is also a factor that is considered in the
initial definition of requirements. Usability is one of the
important factors in product quality of information system
applications [5], non-functional requirements [24], and software
risk factors [6]. Lack of emphases on usability elements in an
information system application product causes various usability
problems that impact the failure of an information system
application product, including mobile applications [8]. Usability
problems can be caused by usability risk. Usability risk as a
cause of usability problems should be defined at an early stage in
the information systems application development process [7, 8].
Considering the term risk and usability, Dey [18] defines
usability risk as a risk that results from the use of a particular
technology (in this case, context-awareness) that impacts the
usability of a system. Usability risk is a potential disadvantage
due to the choice of action. It can affect the usefulness of
ICONETSI 2020, September 28-29, Tangerang, Banten, Indonesia
information system applications, and if not appropriately
managed, results in a negative user experience [20, 23]. Previous
research also stated that to identify the usefulness of risk can be
done by calculating the usability problem. Therefore, this study
aims to identify usability risks that can improve the quality of
engineering process requirements.
In information system applications like mobile applications,
having excellent and correct identification of requirements,
fulfilling usability aspects, and are free from risks that can affect
user usability, become the precious modal for the company to
compete and guarantee customer satisfaction. Problems will
occur if the user's usability software is disrupted because of the
requirements that are not good and not right, or because the
usability aspects are not met. To avoid the problems, the ability
of developers to (1) identify requirements correctly and
adequately, (2) identify aspects of user usability, and (3) identify
and prevent risks, can reduce potential losses that affect the
usability of the developed mobile application. The ability should
be completed by a comprehensive model to support the
development of an expected information system application: (1)
meets the usability aspect that provides convenience and
comfort for its users, (2) free of potential risk at the time of its
use. So that it requires proper and good requirements starting
from the beginning.
Many previous studies have discussed the identification of risk
factors in the development of information systems adaptation
[21], [4], and [22]. Lawrence emphasized the importance of
identifying requirements and risks at the requirements
engineering stage [21]. Ramesh identified the risks to
engineering requirements [22]. Hijazi described the risk factors
at each step in the development of a complete information
system application along with its descriptions [4]. These studies
have shown that many risks have been identified in mobile
application development. However, it is rare to determine
usability risks in mobile applications. Therefore, this study aims
to identify the risks that affect the usability of mobile application
users. As the main approach, the study used a literature review
that was done in several stages.
2 Methods
In this study, the determination of usability risk was carried out
in the following steps:
2.1 Determination of the combination of
usability attributes.
Nielsen states that usability is a vital attribute to influence the
acceptance of a product or a quality attribute that explains or
measures how easy it is to use an interface [9]. The usability
attribute is inherent to the usability model. Research on the
development of usability models in application systems,
generally produces variations in the combination of usability
attributes in accordance with the purpose of development.
Determining the prioritized usability attributes is necessary
because the usability attributes of a developed mobile application
have a combination of usability attributes with others [12]. A
literature review was conducted to determine attribute
H.A. Hutahaean et al.
combinations for mobile applications. This study used seven
existing usability models, with various variations of attribute
combinations, namely: Zhang and Adipat [10], Seffah [11],
Baharuddin [12], Harrison [13], Kaur [14], Goel [1], and Alturki
and Gay [15]. Attributes considered for the next steps were
attributes that had a minimum frequency of 3.
2.2 Determination of risk factors for the
application to be developed.
Several studies have examined risk factors in mobile applications
as well as at the application system development stage [21, 22].
This study tries to describe the risk factors that can occur at any
stage of mobile application development [4] by doing a literature
review. The literature review summarized the risk factors in
information system applications, including for mobile
applications, consisted of Ramesh [22], Lawrence [21], Hijazi [4].
The development stage of information system application was
built in accordance to Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC)
approach [4], which are: the feasibility study stage, requirements
definition, system and software design, implementation and unit
testing, integration and system testing, and ends with the
operation and maintenance stages. Hijazi's research [4] has
helped in determining and analyzing risk factors in detail for
every stage of information system application development,
including for mobile application development.
2.3 Identify usability risks to determine the
impact of risk factors on user usability
attributes.
Two studies that addressed the risk of use were came from Platt
and Moorthy. Platt stated that the concept of usability risk was
first introduced in the context of e-commerce services and the
World Wide Web [8, 19]. Usability risk is the potential loss due
to the choice of action that can affect the usability of software
[8]. Usability risk that is not managed properly results in a
negative user experience [8, 20]. Moorthy's study conducted a
literature review and produced usability attributes to identify
potential usefulness risks [8].
This study used Moorthy's as the main approach to determine
the impact of risk factors on user usability attributes. According
to Moorthy, usability risk factors can be considered as the risk of
information system application, which results in the failure to
achieve usability attributes in information system application
development [23]. In this study, usability risk was determined by
analyzing the impact of risk factors on the usability attributes
generated in stage 1. The result of this process is a list of
usability risks for each risk factor at each stage of mobile
application development.
3 Results and Discussion.
3.1 Determination of the combination of
usability attributes.
A literature search was conducted from several previous studies
to obtain a combination of usability attributes in mobile
applications. There are 7 usability models from 2005 to 2019
Identifying usability risks for mobile application ICONETSI 2020, September 28-29, Tangerang, Banten, Indonesia

used, with variations in the combination of attributes, namely: • Errors. It isused to reflect how well the user can complete
Zhang and Adipat [10], Seffah et al. [11], Baharuddin et al. [12], the desired tasks without errors [13].
Harrison et al. [13], Kaur et al. [14], Goel et al. [1], and Alturki • Usefulness. Perceived usefulness refers to the degree to
and Gay [15]. The attribute selection was done by considering which the user believes using a particular system would
the attributes that have a minimum frequency of 3. There are 8 enhance his or her job performance. It depends on the
attributes selected. Table 1 show the process of determining the features and functionality offered by the mobile application.
usability attribute. It also reflects the skill level of the user while performing
some tasks [11].
Table 1 The combination of usability attributes in a mobile • Memorability refers to the level of ease with which users
Application can recall how to use an application after discontinuing it
for some time [13]

3.2 Determination of risk factors for the

Zhang and Adipat [10]

Baharuddin et al. [12]

Alturki and Gay [15]

application to be developed.
Harrison et al. [13]
Seffah et al. [11]

Kaur et al. [14]

Identification of the impact of risk factors on usability attributes
Goel et al. [1]

FREQUENCY
using 'Moorthy's approach [23] The analysis used a description
Usability Attributes of each risk factor from Hijazi's description [4], and the usability
attribute considered is the usability attribute generated from
Table 1.Table 2 shows the risk factors and their descriptions, and
Usefulness X X X X 4
their effects on usability attributes for the feasibility study stage.
Satisfaction X X X X X X 6
Efficiency X X X X X X X 7
Table 2 Software risk and affected usability attributes
Errors X X X X 4
Effectiveness X X X X X X X 7 No Software risk Description Affected
Aesthetic X X 2 / Risk Factor usability
Simplicity X X X X 4 attributes
Learnability X X X X X 5 Phase: Feasibility study
Intuitiveness X 1 1 Inadequate This will have the fatal consequences Effectiveness
Understandable X X 2 estimation of of unrealistic project schedules,
project time, budgets, unclear scope and
Intuitiveness X 1
cost, scope insufficient resources, which are
Attractiveness X X 2 and other considered to be the main causes of
Security X 1 resources [4]. project failure.
Memorability X X X 3 2 Unclear The difficulty of determining what Efficiency
Cognitive load X X 2 project scope the project should do exactly, can lead
Comprehensibility X 1 [4]. to many core functions being missed
Learning and additional ones being considered,
X 1 in both cases project failure is the
performance
expected outcome.
Productivity X 1
3 Unrealistic The estimated time for the project as Efficiency
Safety X 1 schedule [4]. a whole may exceed the agreed
Trustfulness X 1 delivery date. In most of these cases,
Accessibility X 1 the project manager adds time
Universality X 1 constraints and burdens the developer
to deliver on time in an unrealistic
way, which is largely not the case.
From Table 1, it can be seen that eight attributes have a
4 Unrealistic The estimated costs for the project Efficiency
frequency of 3. The eight attributes that used as a combination of budget [4]. may exceed the available budget, if
attributes in the usability mobile application are: not addressed, the project runs out of
funds at the start of the SDLC and
• Effectiveness. It is defined as the accuracy and completeness fails.
with which targeted users can achieve the specified goal 5 Insufficient Insufficient resources to complete the Efficiency
within the specific context of use [13]. resources [4]. project, can threaten the project to be
• Efficiency. It is the ability of the user to complete their task implemented successfully, where the
developer may suffer from the risk of
with speed and accuracy. This attribute reflects the
technological change.
productivity of a user while using the application [13].
• Satisfaction. It can be defined as the level of comfortability
while using an application [11]. 3.3 Determination of potential usability risks
• Learnability. It focuses on how easily a user can finish the for each usability attribute.
task for the first time and how quickly she can improve her
performance [13]. Usability risk for mobile applications was obtained by analyzing
• Simplicity. It refers to the degree of comfort with which risk factors and their impact on the corresponding usability
users are able to navigate between different tasks [11]. attributes. In this research, determining the potential usability
risk of each usability attribute was done at each stage of
ICONETSI 2020, September 28-29, Tangerang, Banten, Indonesia H.A. Hutahaean et al.

information system application development. The summary of Table 3 Table Summary of risk factors and usability
the results of the process in Table 2 is shown in Table 3. Existing attributes in SDLC for mobile application (Cont.)
risk factors use 107 risk factors and descriptions, which were
generally obtained from the Hijazi's model [4]. Table 3 also Related
shows a summary of the potential usability risks that will affect No Software risk / Risk Factor usability
attribute
usability attributes at each stage of mobile application
Phase: System and Software Design
development. 30 RD is not clear for developers [4].
31 Improper Architecture Design method choice [4].
Information system application risks that lead to failure to 32 Improper choice of the Programming Language [4]. Satisfaction
achieve usability attributes in the development of information 33 Too much complex system [25] Efficiency
system applications can be considered as usability risks [23]. For 34 Complicated Design [4]. Usefulness
an example, risk factor no 1: New requirements emerge. The 35 Large size components [4]. Simplicity
Learnability
description: "This will have the fatal consequences of unrealistic 36 Unavailable expertise for reusability [4].
Effectiveness
project schedules, budgets, unclear scope and insufficient 37 Less reusable components than expected [4]
resources, which are considered to be the main causes of project 38 Difficulties in verifying design to requirements [4].
39 Many feasible solutions [4].
failure." [4]. Based on the description of risk factors, the affected
40 Incorrect Design [4].
usability attribute software is Effectiveness.
41 Difficulties in allocating functions to components
[4].
Table 3 Table Summary of risk factors and usability 42 Extensive specification [4].
attributes in SDLC for mobile application 43 Omitting data processing functions [4].
Related 44 Large amount of tramp data [4].
No Software risk / Risk Factor usability 45 Incomplete Design Document [4].
attribute 46 Large Design Document [4].
Phase: Feasibility study 47 Unclear Design Document [4].
1 Inadequate estimation of project time, cost, scope 48 Inconsistent Design Document [4].
and other resources [4].
2 Unrealistic schedule [4]. Effectiveness Phase: Implementation and unit testing
3 Unrealistic budget [4]. Efficiency 49 Non-readable Design Document [4].
4 Unclear project scope [4]. 50 Programmers cannot work independently [4].
5 Insufficient resources [4]. 51 Developing the wrong user functions and properties
[26].
Phase: Requirement Definition 52 Developing the wrong user interface [26] Learnability
6 Inaccurate Requirements [4]. 53 PL does not support architectural design [4]. Effectiveness
54 Modules are developed by different programmers Error
7 Unclear Requirements [4].
[4]. Efficiency
8 Incomplete Requirements [4].
9 Ignoring the Non-functional requirements [4]. 55 Complex, ambiguous, inconsistent code [4].
10 Conflicting user requirements [4]. Effectiveness 56 Different versions for the same component [4].
11 Unclear Description of the real environment [4]. Simplicity 57 Developing components from scratch [4].
12 Gold plating [4]. Usefulness 58 Large amount of repetitive code [4].
13 Non-verifiable Requirements [4]. Efficiency 59 Inexperienced Programmers [28]
Learnability 60 Too many syntax errors [4].
14 Infeasible Requirements [4].
Satisfaction 61 Technology change [4].
15 Inconsistent Requirements [4].
16 Non-traceable Requirements [4]. 62 High fault rate in newly designed components [4].
17 Unrealistic Requirements [4] 63 Code is not understandable by reviewers [4].
18 Misunderstood domain specific terminology [4]. 64 Lack of complete automated testing tools (Rajendran,
19 Mis-expressing user requirements in natural [4]
language [4]. 65 Testing is monotonous, boring and repetitive [4]
20 Inconsistent requirements data and Requirement 66 Informal and ill-understood testing process [4].
Document [4]. 67 Not all errors are found in unit tests [4].
21 Non-modifiable Requirement Document [4]. 68 Poor documentation of test cases [4]
22 Lack of existence stability [22] 69 Data needed modules other than those under testing
23 Insufficient developer and user [21] [4].
24 Ignore a critical requirement [21,22] 70 Coding Drivers and Stubs [4].
25 Modeling is only a functional requirement [21, 22] 71 Poor regression testing [4].
26 No inspecting requirements [21, 22]
27 Presenting requirements in the form of design [22] Phase: integration and system testing
28 Strive to meet perfect requirements before starting 72 Difficulties in ordering 'components' integration [4].
construction [21, 22] 73 Integrate the wrong version of components [4].
29 A schedule of essential errors [22] 74 Omissions or oversights [4]. Efficiency
75 A lot of bugs emerged during the integration [4]. Effectiveness
76 Data Loss across an interface [4]. Error
77 Integration may not produce the desired Satisfaction
functionality [4]. Simplicity
78 Difficulty in localizing errors [4].
79 Difficulties in repairing errors [4].
Identifying usability risks for mobile application ICONETSI 2020, September 28-29, Tangerang, Banten, Indonesia

Table 3 Summary of risk factors and usability attributes in This research uses literature study to obtain a framework for
SDLC for mobile application (Cont.) determining usability risks in mobile application development.
This framework consists of 3 components, namely: a
Related combination of usability attributes, risk factors (potential risks)
No Software Risk/Risk Factor usability and usability risk. The results of this study can be used to
attribute
measure user usability risk and estimate potential losses when a
80 Unqualified testing team [4].
81 Limited testing resources [4].
mobile application cannot fulfill its function from the consumer
82 Inability to test in the operational environment side.
[4].
83 Impossible complete testing (Coverage Issues) [4]. This research can be applied in various combinations of different
84 Testers rely on process myths [4]. attributes. Table 3 depends on the results of determining the
85 Testing cannot cope with requirements change combination of attributes generated in Table 1. Differences in
[4]. determining the combination of utility attributes can result in
86 Time wasted building test equipment [4].
different potential use risks according to goal setting.
87 The system being tested cannot be tested [4].

Phase: Operation and Maintenance

The results of this study are very useful information for: (1)
88 Problems with installation [4]. supporting the determination of risk prevention measures,
89 The effect on the environment [4]. especially those directly related to users and (2) determining the
90 Change in environment [4]. priority of risk prevention strategies to be developed. This is an
91 New requirements emerge [4]. Satisfaction opportunity for further research.
92 Difficulties in using the system [4]. Memorability
93 User resistance to change [4]. Learnability
94 Missing capabilities [4]. Efficiency
95 Too many software faults [4]. Effectiveness REFERENCES
Errors [1] Sakshi Goel, Renuka Nagpal, and Deepti Mehrotra, 2018. Mobile Applications
96 Testers do not perform well [4].
Simplicity Usability Parameters: Taking an Insight View. Lecture Notes in Networks
97 Suspension and forwarding issues [4].
and Systems, 35–43. DOI:10.1007/978-981-10-3932-4_4
98 Insufficient data handling [4]. [2] Sigit Hadi Prayoga and Dana Indra Sensuse, 2010. Analisis usability pada
99 The software engineer cannot reproduce the aplikasi berbasis web dengan mengadopsi model kepuasan pengguna (user
problem [4]. satisfaction), Jurnal Sistem Informasi MTI-UI 6, 1 (2010), 64-73.
100 Problems with maintenance [4]. DOI: 10.21609/jsi.v6i1.278.
101 Budget Contention [4]. [3] Pu Tianyin. 2011. Development of software project risk management model
review, In Proceeding 2nd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence,
Management Science and Electronic Commerce (AIMSEC'11), 2979-2982. DOI:
Risk Factors common to all SDLC phases
10.1109/AIMSEC.2011.6011139.
102 Continually changing requirements [27]. [4] Haneen Hijazi, Shihadeh Khaleel Alqrainy, Hasan Muaidi, and Thair jamal
103 Time contention [4]. Khdour, 2014. Risk Factors in Software Development Phases. European
104 Loss of project funding [4]. Satisfaction Scientific Journal 10, 3 (Jan, 2014), 213-232.
105 Team Turnover [28], [4] Efficiency [5] Eelke Folmer, Martjin van Welie, and Jan Bosch, 2006. Bridging patterns: an
106 Data loss [4]. approach to bridge gaps between SE and HCI. Journal of Information and
Software Technology 48, 2 (Feb 2006), 69-89. DOI:10.1016/ j.infsof.2005.02.005.
107 Incorrect communication [2]
[6] Dale Walter Karolak. 1999. Software Engineering Risk Management,
Computer Society Press.
The results of the study will provide information about potential [7] Jacob Nielsen. 1992. Finding usability problems through heuristic evaluation,
In Proceeding ACM 'CHI'92 (Monterey, CA, 3-7 May), 373-380.
risks that could negatively impact user usability. For example, at [8] Jayaletchumi T. Sambantha Moorthy, Suhaimi bin Ibrahim, and Mohd 'Maz'ri
the feasibility study stage, there are 5 risk factors, namely: (1) Mahrin, 2014. Identifying usability risk: A survey study, In 8th Malaysian
inadequate estimated project time, costs, scope and other Software Engineering Conference (MySEC), IEEE Xplore, 148-153.
resources, (2) unrealistic schedules, (3) unrealistic budgets, (4) DOI:10.1109/MYSEC.2014.6986005..
[9] Jacob Nielsen. 1993. Usability engineering. Academic press, San Diego, CA.
coverage unclear project, and (5) insufficient resources. Usability [10] Dongsong Zhang and Boonlit Adipat (2005): Challenges methodologies and
risks related at this stage are effectiveness and efficiency. This issues in the usability testing of mobile applications", International Journal of
means that if the risk factors cannot be overcome, it can cause Human Computer Interaction 18, 3 (July, 2005), 293-308. DOI:
10.1207/s15327590ijhc1803_3
the effectiveness and efficiency of the user to be impaired. This [11] Ahmed Seffah, Mohammad Donayaee, Rex B. Kline, and Harkirat K. Padda,
approach also applies to other stages. 2006. Usability measurement and metrics: A consolidated model, Software
Further research is needed to determine the priority of Quality Control 14, 2 (Jun, 2006), 159-178. DOI: 10.1007/s11219-006-7600-8.
appropriate attributes and a validation process to ensure the [12] Rosnita Baharuddin, Dalbir Singh, and Rozilawati Razali, 2013. Usability
dimensions for mobile applications-a review. Research Journal of Applied
suitability of the resulting usability risk. This should be done Sciences, Engineering and Technology 5, 6 (Feb, 2013), 2225–2231. DOI:
because risk factors can impact on several useful attributes. 10.19026/rjaset.5.4776.
[13] Rachel Harrison, Derek Flood, and David Duce, 2013. Usability of mobile
applications: literature review and rationale for a new usability model,
4 Conclusion Journal of Interaction Science, 1 (May 2013), 1-16.
[14] Ekjyot Kaur and Pali Delir Haghighi. 2016. A context-aware usability model
for mobile health applications. In Proceeding. 14th Int. Conf. Adv. Mobile
Appropriate requirements, usability aspects, and risk aspects Comput. Mult Media (MoMM), 181-189. DOI: 10.1145/3007120.3007135.
determine the success of the development of mobile application. [15] Ryan Alturki and Valerie, 2019. Augmented and Virtual Reality in Mobile
Risk factors (potential risks) can affect the user experience when Fitness Applications: A Survey. In Applications of Intelligent Technologies in
Healthcare, Springer, (Jan, 2019), 67-75. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-96139-2_7.
using mobile application. [16] P. M. Chawan, Jijnasa Patil, and Radhika Naik, 2013. Software risk
management. International Journal of Computer Science and Mobile
Computing 2, 5 (May, 2013), 60-66.
ICONETSI 2020, September 28-29, Tangerang, Banten, Indonesia H.A. Hutahaean et al.

[17] Karl E. Wieger, 1998. Know your enemy: Software risk management,
Software Development 6, 10 (Oct, 1998), 6 pages. DOI:
10.1207/s15327590ijhc1803_3.
[18] Anind K. Dey and Jonna Häkkilä. 2008. Context-Awareness and Mobile
Devices. User Interface Design and Evaluation for Mobile Technology 1, 205-
217.
[19] Ann Bryd Platt, 1999. The usability risk, In Proceedings of the 18th IEEE
Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems, 396-400.
[20] Pekka Ketola. 2002. Integrating usability with concurrent engineering in mobile
phone development, Academic Dissertation, Department of Computer and
Information Sciences, University of Tampere, Finland.
[21] Brian Lawrence, Karl Wiegers and Christof Ebert, 2001. The top risks of
requirement engineering, IEEE Software 18, 6 (Dec, 2001), 62-63.
DOI: 10.1109/52.965804.
[22] Balasubramaniam Ramesh, Lan Coa, and Richard Baskerville. 2010. Agile
requirement engineering practices and challenges: an empirical study, Info
Systems Journal 20, 5 (Sept, 2010), 449-480.
[23] Jayaletchumi T. Sambantha Moorthy, Suhaimi bin Ibrahim, and Mohd 'Maz'ri
Mahrin, 2014. Identification of usability risk in software development
projects, International Journal of Software Engineering and Technology 1, 2
(Dec, 2014) IEEE Xplore, 7-12
[24] Ivan Sommerville. 2016. Software engineering (10th. ed). Addison-Wesley,
Harlow, England.
[25] Sun-Jen Huang and Wen-Ming Han, 2008. Exploring the relationship
between software project duration and risk exposure a cluster analysis.
Information and Management 45, 3 (April, 2008), 175-182. DOI:
10.1016/j.im.2008.02.001.
[26] Barry W. Boehm, 1991. Software risk management: principles and practices,
IEEE Software 8, 1 (Jan, 1991), 32-41.
[27] Linda Wallace, Mark Keil, and Arum Rai, 2004. Understanding software
project risk: a cluster analysis. Information & Management 42, 5 (March,
2004), 115–125. DOI: 10.1016/j.im.2003.12.007.
[28] Basit Shahzad, Abdullah S. Al-Mudimigh, and Zahid Ullah, 2010. Risk
identification and preemptive scheduling in software development life cycle.
Global Journal of Computer Science and Technology 10, 2 (April, 2010), 55–63.