# Requirements Engineering for a Drone-Enabled Integrated Humanitarian Logistics Platform
## 7 Discussion: Implications for AIRDROP  
This study revolved around conducting an exhaustive requirements engineering analysis for the AIRDROP platform. Our mission encompassed a thorough exploration of AIRDROP and its multifaceted services. Our overarching objective was to ensure that AIRDROP emerged as a holistic solution, capable of addressing a diverse spectrum of disaster scenarios across all four stages of disaster management. Within this scope, we embarked on the task of formulating RQs that guided the development process and ensured a focused and effective inquiry into the platform's capabilities and needs. The first question focused on the elicitation and specification of foundational requirements for AIRDROP, seeking to identify both functional and non-functional aspects essential for the platform's operation and success, whereas the second question moves us into the validation process, examining how the relevance and adequacy of these identified requirements can be affirmed to meet such complex HL dynamics. The effective execution of the proposed requirement engineering process is expected to significantly bolster the subsequent development stages and enhance the quality of the final software product to be developed. Addressing RQ1, this paper started with the elicitation and meticulous specification of AIRDROP's requirements. This involved a rigorous process that culminated in the collection and validation of a total of 335 functional and non-functional requirements, carefully distributed among 19 services. In response to RQ2, a questionnaire survey was carried out to validate the significance of these requirements. A panel of 26 experts from various professional backgrounds was asked to assess their importance, using a rating scale ranging from 1 to 5. Leveraging the renowned MoSCoW methodology, these requirements were then prioritized, ensuring that the most critical aspects were given their rightful precedence in the subsequent design phase. Our exploration did not halt at quantifiable assessments; we delved deeper to understand how respondents' diverse professional backgrounds influenced their perspectives. This analysis, facilitated through non-parametric tests, illuminated the nuanced dynamics within our participant groups. Moreover, recognizing the richness of qualitative insights, we solicited open-ended responses from our participants. Their feedback, concerns, and suggestions enriched our understanding and served as a vital complement to the quantitative findings. Most requirements ended up being ranked as \"MUST\" (N = 277, 82.69%) and \"SHOULD\" (N = 57, 17.01%). Only one requirement (N = 1, 0.3%) was ranked as \"COULD\". None of the requirements were ranked as \"WOULD\". In total, the Mann-Whitney U tests showed significant differences among participant groups in 14 (11 being \"MUST\" and 3 \"SHOULD\" requirements) out of the 25 requirements pinpointed by the Kruskal-Wallis H test. In the subsequent phase of AIRDROP design, none of the \"SHOULD\" or \"COULD\" requirements will be considered. This decision aligns with the purpose of the MoSCoW prioritization method, which is designed to guide teams in concentrating their efforts on the most high-priority requirements. In this context, \"MUST\" requirements are deemed indispensable for the system's core functionality and overall success, and this approach ensures that the core functionality is thoroughly established before entertaining the inclusion of supplementary, less critical elements. Additionally, this emphasis on \"MUST\" requirements in the initial design phase underscores a user-centric approach to software development. It guarantees that the most critical features, as determined by user needs and priorities, receive primary attention. Our requirement exclusion process for the design phase extends beyond this point, guided by the results of non-parametric tests. Out of the 11 \"MUST\" requirements identified as significantly different through the Mann-Whitney U tests, 4 were deemed necessary to exclude.