A quality-model-based approach for describing and evaluating software packages

Abstract

Selection of software packages from user requirements is currently a central task in software engineering. Selection of inappropriate packages may compromise some business processes and may interfere negatively in the functioning of the involved organization. Success of package selection is currently endangered because of many factors, being one of the most importants the absence of structured descriptions of both the package features and the user quality requirements. In this paper, we propose a methodology for describing the quality factors of software packages using the ISO/IEC quality standard as framework. Following this standard, relevant attributes for a specific software domain are identified and structured as a hierarchy, and metrics for them are chosen. Software packages in this domain can be then described in a uniform and comprehensive way. Therefore, selection of packages can be ameliorated by transforming user quality requirements into requirements expressed in terms of the quality model attributes. We illustrate the approach by presenting in some depth a quality model for the mail servers domain.

Efficient COTS selection with OPAL tool

“…To do this, we need to organise them according to different perspectives like the business model (made of different generic business processes), the functional domain (ERP, CMS, etc) generic goals or qualities (like the approach proposed in [8]. As an example of preliminary result, in the ERP domain, we have identified a set of 40 high-level requirements that can guide the consultants in his/her reuse effort.…”

Quality specification and metrication, results from a case-study in a mission-critical software domain

“…The mentioned authors in the foregoing state that tailoring the generic ISO9126 standard toward a specific quality model can consist of respectively: a redefinition or refinement of definitions of quality characteristics, a splitting up of quality characteristics into two or more characteristics, and the definition of additionally needed quality (sub) characteristics and attributes. Not only the quality characteristics and attributes should be defined but also metrics have to be defined and selected (Franch and Carvallo 2002). The latter authors recommend strongly the use of mathematical concepts for describing precisely the meaning of a metric, and recommend that besides ISO9126 (part 2) the general theory of metrics should be followed, e.g.…”

“…To solve this type of problem, the benefits of applying software quality standards has already been reported a number of times in literature, see e.g. (Franch and Carvallo 2002;Botella et al 2003Botella et al , 2004Behkamal et al 2009). To strive at solutions at CAMS the first research subject has been defined as:…”

“…In particular, the development of ISO9126-based quality models for specific software domains has been addressed over the last 10 years. Examples are the development of ISO9126-based quality models for respectively mail servers (Franch and Carvallo 2002), ERP packages (Botella et al 2003), COTS selection (Botella et al 2004), and B2B applications (Behkamal et al 2009). These authors stress on the one hand the importance of an internationally accepted generic framework for software quality to avoid confusion and subjectivity, but on the other hand also the need for tailoring the generic ISO9126 quality model to specific software domains.…”

“…they are defined independently, both from an application domain, see e.g. (Franch and Carvallo, 2002;Botella et al 2003;Botella et al 2004), and from purposes, such as specification, evaluation or assessment, see (Behkamal et al 2009). The mentioned authors in the foregoing state that tailoring the generic ISO9126 standard toward a specific quality model can consist of respectively: a redefinition or refinement of definitions of quality characteristics, a splitting up of quality characteristics into two or more characteristics, and the definition of additionally needed quality (sub) characteristics and attributes.…”