Abstract
Quality is currently considered one of the main assets with which a firm can enhance its competitive global position. This is one reason why quality has become essential for ensuring that a company's products and processes meet customers' needs. A recent innovation in the systems area is the development of a set of mechanisms and models for evaluating quality. This article describes the design of a Quality Model with a systemic approach to software products that assesses a product's efficiency and effectiveness. Different quality models were studied: McCall, Boehm, FURPS, ISO 9126, Dromey, ISO 15504 in an attempt to identify the aspects present in these models that are deemed important in a Systemic Quality model. We designed a model prototype that reflects the essential attributes of quality. This model was evaluated using a method so it can be validated and also enhanced. The evaluation method consisted of: designing a survey, formulating, validating and applying the measurement instruments; defining an algorithm to obtain the quality estimate and analyzing the results. The model prototype enabled the strengths and weaknesses of the software products studied to be identified. When evaluating a software product using the model prototype, it was possible to ascertain its compliance with the standards and use the results to improve it. Since the evaluation was systemic, processes that affect certain characteristics of the product could be identified. Companies can benefit from the model proposed because it serves as a benchmark that allows their products to evolve and be competitive.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Albrecht, A. and Gaffney, J. 1983. Software function, source lines of code, and development effort prediction: A software science validation, Transactions on Software Engineering 9(6): 639–648.
Bertoa, M. and Vallecillo, A. 2002. Atributos de calidad para componentes COTS, Proceedings of IDEAS'02, La Habana, Cuba, pp. 352–363.
Boehm, B.W., Brown, J.R., Kaspar, H., Lipow M., McCleod, G.J., and Merritt M.J. 1978. Characteristics of Software Quality. Amsterdam, North-Holland.
Callaos, N. and Callaos, B. 1996. Designing with a systemic total quality, Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems Analysis and Synthesis, ISAS'96, Orlando, USA, pp. 15–23.
Carmines, E. and Zeller, R. 1979. Reliability and Validity Assessment. Newbury Park, Sage Publications.
Dromey, G. 1996. Cornering the chimera, IEEE Software (January): 33–43.
Fenton, N. and Pfleeger, S.L. 1997. Software Metrics: A Rigorous and Practical Approach, 2nd ed. PWS Publishing.
Google. 2003. Google Web directory: Testing services, http://directory.google.com/Top/Computers/Software/ Testing
Grady, R. and Caswell, D. 1987. Software Metrics: Establishing a Company-Wide Program. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall.
Hernández, R., Fernández, C., and Baptista, P. 1998. Metodología de la Investigación, 2nd ed. New York, McGraw-Hill.
Humphrey, W.S. 1989. Managing the Software Process. Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley.
ISO/IEC IS 9126. 1991. Information Technology-Software Product Evaluation: Quality Characteristics and Guidelines for Their Use. Geneva, ISO.
ISO/IEC 9126-1.2. 1998. ISO/IEC 9126-1.2: Information Technology-Software Product Quality, Part 1: Quality Model. ISO/IEC JTC1/SC7/WG6.
ISO/IEC TR 15504-2. 1998. (E) Information Technology-Software Process Assessment, Part 2: A Reference Model for Processes and Process Capability. Canada, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 7.
McCall, J.A., Richards, P.K., and Walters, G.F. 1977. Factors in Software Quality, Vols. I-III, AD/A-049-014/015/055. Springfield, VA, National Technical Information Service.
Mendoza, L.E., Pérez, M.A., Griman, A.C., and Ortega, M. 2003. Análisis del impacto del proceso de desarrolloen las características de calidad de software, IDEAS'2003, Asunción, Paraguay.
OOSPICE. 2002. http://www.oospice.com.
Pérez, M.A., Rojas, T., Mendoza, L., and Grimán, A. 2001. Systemic quality model for system development process: Case study, Seventh Americas Conference on Information Systems-AMCIS 2001, eds. D. Strong and D. Straub. Boston Association for Information Systems, pp. 1297–1304, http://www.lisi.usb.ve/ publicaciones/calidad11.zip.
Pfleeger, S.L. 1998. Software Engineering: Theory and Practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall.
Preiss, O. and Wegmann, A. 2002. A systems perspective on the quality description of software components, 6th World Multiconference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics. The 8th International Conference on Information System Analysis and Synthesis, Orlando.
Pressman, R. 1998. Ingeniería de Software: Un Enfoque Práctico. New York, McGraw-Hill.
Rojas, T. and Pérez, M. 1995. A comparison of three information system development methodologies related to effectiveness/efficiency criteria, International Symposium on Applied Corporate Computing (ISACC'95), Monterrey, México.
Rojas, T., Pérez, M.A., Griman, A.C., Ortega, M., and Díaz, A.M. 2000. Modelo de decisión para soportar la selección de herramientas CASE, Revista de la Facultad de Ingeniería, UCV 15(2): 117–144.
Seijas, F. 1999. Investigación por Muestreo. Caracas, Ediciones Faces, UCV.
Voas, J. 1999. Certification: Reducing the hidden costs of poor quality, IEEE Software (July/August): 22–25.
Writing at CSU. 2003. Overview: Reliability and validity, Writing Center at Colorado State University, http://writing.colostate.edu/references/research/relval/index.cfm.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ortega, M., Pérez, M. & Rojas, T. Construction of a Systemic Quality Model for Evaluating a Software Product. Software Quality Journal 11, 219–242 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025166710988
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025166710988