Asymmetric Release Planning: Compromising Satisfaction against Dissatisfaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Maximizing satisfaction from offering features as part of the upcoming release(s) is different from minimizing dissatisfaction gained from not offering features. This asymmetric behavior has never been utilized for product release planning. We study Asymmetric Release Planning (ARP) by accommodating asymmetric feature evaluation. We formulated and solved ARP as a bi-criteria optimization problem. In its essence, it is the search for optimized trade-offs between maximum stakeholder satisfaction and minimum dissatisfaction. Different techniques including a continuous variant of Kano analysis are available to predict the impact on satisfaction and dissatisfaction with a product release from offering or not offering a feature. As a proof of concept,we validated the proposed solution approach called Satisfaction-Dissatisfaction Optimizer (SDO) via a real-world case study project. From running three replications with varying effort capacities, we demonstrate that SDO generates optimized trade-off solutions being (i) of a different value profile and different structure, (ii) superior to the application of random search and heuristics in terms of quality and completeness, and (iii) superior to the usage of manually generated solutions generated from managers of the case study company. A survey with 20 stakeholders evaluated the applicability and usefulness of the generated results.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".