Supporting Roadmapping of Quality Requirements

Would slightly better performance be significantly more valuable from a market perspective? Would significantly better performance be just slightly more expensive to implement? When dealing with performance, usability, reliability, and so on, you often end up in difficult trade-off analysis. You must take into account aspects such as release targets, end-user experience, and business opportunities. At the same time, you must consider what is feasible with the evolving system architecture and the available development resources.Quality requirements are of major importance in the development of systems for software-intensive products. To be successful, a company must find the right balance among competing quality attributes. How should you balance, for example, investments for improved usability of a mobile phone's phone book and better mobile positioning? In the context of quality requirements, decision making typically combines market considerations and design issues in activities such as roadmapping, release planning, and platform scoping. Models that address requirements prioritization in a market-driven context often emphasize functional aspects. (For a comparison of other relevant techniques with Quper, see the sidebar.) Quper provides concepts for reasoning about quality in relation to cost and value and can be used in combination with existing prioritization approaches.

[1]  Kurt Matzler,et al.  How to make product development projects more successful by integrating Kano's model of customer satisfaction into quality function deployment , 1998 .

[2]  Rick Kazman,et al.  The architecture tradeoff analysis method , 1998, Proceedings. Fourth IEEE International Conference on Engineering of Complex Computer Systems (Cat. No.98EX193).

[3]  Martin Höst,et al.  A Quality Performance Model for Cost-Benefit Analysis of Non-functional Requirements Applied to the Mobile Handset Domain , 2007, REFSQ.

[4]  Stephan Jacobs Introducing measurable quality requirements: a case study , 1999, Proceedings IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering (Cat. No.PR00188).

[5]  N. Kano,et al.  Attractive Quality and Must-Be Quality , 1984 .

[6]  Joachim Karlsson,et al.  Managing software requirements using quality function deployment , 1997, Software Quality Journal.

[7]  Björn Regnell,et al.  Requirements lifecycle management and release planning in market-driven requirements engineering processes , 2000, Proceedings 11th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications.

[8]  Klaus Schmid,et al.  A systematic approach to derive the scope of software product lines , 1999, Proceedings of the 1999 International Conference on Software Engineering (IEEE Cat. No.99CB37002).

[9]  Joachim Karlsson,et al.  A Cost-Value Approach for Prioritizing Requirements , 1997, IEEE Softw..

[10]  M. Bohanec,et al.  The Analytic Hierarchy Process , 2004 .

[11]  Björn Regnell,et al.  Market-Driven Requirements Engineering for Software Products , 2005 .