On the Use of Quality Models to Address Distinct Quality Views

Different software product quality models interpret different amounts of information, i.e., they can capture and address different manifestations of software quality. This characteristic can cause misleading statements and misunderstandings while explaining or comparing the results of software product quality assessments. A total of 23 previously identified distinct software product quality models are analysed on how they handle the abstract notion of quality, and a taxonomy on the quality manifestations that the individual software product quality models are able to capture is established. Quality models that are able to solely describe the quality manifestation of the source code are attractive due to their full automation potential through static code analysers, but their assessment results ignore a huge part of software product quality, which is the one that most impresses the end user. The manifestations of software product quality that address the behaviour of the software while it operates, or the perception of the end user with regard to the software in use, require human involvement in the quality assessment. The taxonomy contributes to interpreting the quality assessment results of different quality models by showing the possible quality manifestations that can be captured by the identified models; moreover, the taxonomy also provides assistance while selecting a quality model for a given project. The quality manifestations used for the quality measurement always need to be presented, otherwise the quality assessment results cannot be interpreted in an appropriate manner.

[1]  Shing-Ko Liang,et al.  Selecting the Optimal ERP Software by Combining the ISO 9126 Standard and Fuzzy AHP Approach , 2006 .

[2]  Reinhold Plösch,et al.  Operationalised product quality models and assessment: The Quamoco approach , 2014, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[3]  Sepehr Forouzani,et al.  Method for Assessing Software Quality Using Source Code Analysis , 2016, ICNCC '16.

[4]  Souheil Khaddaj,et al.  A Proposed Adaptable Quality Model for Software Quality Assurance , 2005 .

[5]  Ali Idri,et al.  A Framework for Evaluating the Software Product Quality of Pregnancy Monitoring Mobile Personal Health Records , 2016, Journal of Medical Systems.

[6]  Reinhold Plösch,et al.  The EMISQ method and its tool support-expert-based evaluation of internal software quality , 2008, Innovations in Systems and Software Engineering.

[7]  Srinarayan Sharma,et al.  Impact of customization over software quality in ERP projects: an empirical study , 2016, Software Quality Journal.

[8]  Francisco Chiclana,et al.  Software Product Quality Models, Developments, Trends, and Evaluation , 2020, SN Computer Science.

[9]  T. Rajaram,et al.  Continual monitoring of code quality , 2011, ISEC.

[10]  R. Geoff Dromey,et al.  A Model for Software Product Quality , 1995, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[11]  Souheil Khaddaj,et al.  Use of an adaptable quality model approach in a production support environment , 2009, J. Syst. Softw..

[12]  Andreas S. Andreou,et al.  A quality framework for developing and evaluating original software components , 2007, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[13]  Forrest Shull,et al.  Using the ISO/IEC 9126 product quality model to classify defects: A controlled experiment , 2012, EASE.

[14]  Margaret Ross,et al.  Quality evaluation for Model-Driven Web Engineering methodologies , 2012, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[15]  Stefan Wagner,et al.  Introduction of static quality analysis in small- and medium-sized software enterprises: experiences from technology transfer , 2013, Software Quality Journal.

[16]  Rodger Drabick,et al.  Evolving a Corporate Software Quality Assessment Exercise : A Migration Path to ISO / IEC 9126 How , 2004 .