Evaluation of mutual influences of software quality characteristics based ISO 25010:2011

Hovorushchenko, Tetiana; Pomorova, Oksana

doi:10.1109/stc-csit.2016.7589874

Cited by 15 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…According to stage 1: pair wise comparison of software quality characteristics for joint measures (matrix CMJ ) and for number of joint measures (matrix CMJN ) are represented in [16]. There are 10 joint measures (set JMCH ) for software quality characteristics: Operation Time, Number Of Functions, Number Of Data Items, Number Of Faults, Number Of Failures, Number Of Test Cases, Number Of Resolved Failures, Number Of Illegal Operations, Number Of Tasks, Number Of IO-Related Errors.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Dependence of software quality characteristics on joint measures (matrix MCH ) is represented in Table 1 (where FS -Functional Suitability, R -Reliability, U -Usability, SSecurity, PE -Performance Efficiency, M -Maintainability, P -Portability, C -Compatibility). According to stage 2: pair wise comparison of software quality subcharacteristics for joint measures and for number of joint measures, and the list of joint measures for software quality subcharacteristics are represented in [16]. Dependence of software quality subcharacteristics on joint measures is represented in Table 2 (on the example of subcharacteristics of Usability).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Method of Evaluating the Weights of Software Quality Measures and Indicators

Hovorushchenko¹

2017

Appl. Theory Comput. Technol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nowadays the actual task is evaluating the mutual influences of the software quality characteristics and subcharacteristics by the measures and software quality metrics -by the indicators. The aim of this study is the development of the method of evaluating the weights of software quality measures and indicators. The first time developed method of evaluating the weights of the software quality measures and indicators differs from known methods that: considers the correlation of software quality subchcaracteristics by the measures and metrics by the indicators, calculates the weights of exactly measures and indicators, provides the conclusion about the presence of which measures and indicators in the software requirements specification (SRS) is necessary for the appropriate level of veracity of the software quality assessment. The weights of the software quality measures and indicators provide the sorting of all missing in the SRS measures and indicators in descending of their significance (in descending of their weights), i.e. the priority of their further addition in the SRS.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Method of Evaluating the Weights of Software Quality Measures and Indicators

Hovorushchenko¹

2017

Appl. Theory Comput. Technol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, if the unconcerned stakeholders or participants are identified, this might result in incomplete requirements, resulting in project failure and affecting the software requirements specification [6,46,23,56]. Whereas, All the ISO/IEC 25000, ISO 25010, and ISO 9126 have mentioned the significance of these functionalities (Correctness, completeness, and consistency) as pivotal modules for software quality [56], 57,58,128]. Many research approaches now emphasize the importance of correctly identifying stakeholders for the software project.…”

Section: Implications Of Incorrect Stakeholdermentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparative Systematic Analysis of Stakeholder’s Identification Methods in Requirements Elicitation

Khan

Assam

et al. 2022

IEEE Access

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context and Motivation]Before eliciting and gathering requirements for a software project, it is considered pivotal to know about concerned stakeholders. It becomes hard to elicit the actual system requirements without identifying relevant stakeholders, leading the software project to failure. Despite the paramount importance of stakeholder identification in requirement elicitation, it has been given less attention in the software engineering literature.[Method] For this purpose, we conducted a thorough Systematic Literature Review (SLR) on stakeholder identification (SI) and its methods in requirement elicitation. However, previously, a literature study on SI in the requirement elicitation was conducted. We found that no one has proposed any standard or baseline research method for stakeholder identification, stakeholder assessment, and stakeholder interaction up to date according to our knowledge. It provides an opportunity to update the current SLR on SI in requirements elicitation from 2011 till 2021 to search for a baseline methodology for the SI. For this purpose, we explored the existing literature research that involves the SI methods in requirements elicitation. [Principle Ideas/Results] Furthermore, we identify and capture seventeen research methodologies for SI, eight key stakeholders interaction methods, and ten stakeholders assessment methods in requirement elicitation. To further enhance the stakeholder identification process, we additionally identify pivotal information such as different potential stakeholder categories, stakeholder assessments methods, and stakeholder interaction methods. Also, based on the proposed SLR, we find out the existing gaps and new opportunities for SI methods in the requirement elicitation. [Contribution] These SI methodologies help requirements engineers and practitioners identify key stakeholders and efficiently improve the requirements quality. Moreover, this research study helps identify the effective practices used for the traditional and CrowdRE SI, recover consequences that can affect the effectiveness of SI, and recommend advisable SI practices to be employed in the future. This research study would help the software researchers and developers efficiently and accurately identify correct and concerned stakeholders to improve end-user satisfaction instead of considering it a self-evident task. INDEX TERMS Stakeholder Identification, stakeholder methods, Requirement Elicitation, SLR.

show abstract

“…Compared to its predecessor ISO9126, ISO/IEC 25010 has simplified the division of software quality characteristics into two quality model: Product Quality and Quality in Use. Product Quality is associated with characteristics relevant to the properties of the software product, while Quality in Use relates to the degree to which a product or system can be used by specific users to meet their needs [19]. Effectiveness is measured in actions per task.…”

Section: Iso/iec 25010:2011mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating Quality Characteristics of Ubiquitous Application Through Means of Quality Models using Meta-metrics Approach

Hamzah

Chuprat

Handayani

et al. 2021

J. Phys.: Conf. Ser.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ubiquitous computing shifted the way how users interact with applications. The demand of information anytime and anywhere impacts the daily life of its users, be it work related or personal. Difficulty arises when determining the quality of ubiquitous application due to lack in appropriate metrics of quality models, which serves as the motivation behind this paper. The aim of this paper is to assess the quality of ubiquitous application using comparative analysis of quality model metrics via meta-metrics approach. Preliminary review mapping was conducted where distinctive quality characteristics of ubiquitous applications from AQUARIUM model are identified. Metrics mapping was then conducted to compare metrics characteristics with quality characteristics via value assignment using meta-metrics technique. Results shows that most of the metrics mapped are not of definitive derivation, providing opportunity to have a more structured and defined measurement function.

show abstract

Evaluation of mutual influences of software quality characteristics based ISO 25010:2011

Cited by 15 publications

References 4 publications

Method of Evaluating the Weights of Software Quality Measures and Indicators

Method of Evaluating the Weights of Software Quality Measures and Indicators

A Comparative Systematic Analysis of Stakeholder’s Identification Methods in Requirements Elicitation

Evaluating Quality Characteristics of Ubiquitous Application Through Means of Quality Models using Meta-metrics Approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About