1

DIMENSION - SYSTEM QUALITY

TECHNOLOGY - INTERNET OF THINGS

[Student’s Name]

[Institute’s Name]

[Date]
 2

DIMENSION - SYSTEM QUALITY

TECHNOLOGY - INTERNET OF THINGS

Introduction

The Internet of Things (IoT) is an evolutionary technical subject that has recently gained

importance due to its potential impact on our daily lives and future societies. It is expected that

our cars, consumer products, industries, and other everyday things will work collaboratively

through Internet connection and robust data analysis shortly. This combination of items

combined with data analysis capabilities can be an authoritative tool for making intelligent

decisions that could change the way people live in the future. In 1999, British technology pioneer

Kevin Ashton introduced the term "Internet of Things" (IoT) to describe Internet-connected

sensors' ability to bring new services[ CITATION Ash09 \l 2057 ]. Although the name was new, the

concept has been around for decades as computers and networks worked together to control and

monitor devices.

Applications using IoT concepts are growing by leaps and bounds. These applications cover a

wide range of e-health, security, entertainment, smart cities, defense and many other essentials.

Also, more items are going to have direct internet connection capabilities in the coming years.

As this range of communication and use expands, IoT will directly affect our personal lives and

public safety. With this expansion, the chances of system and network failures in IoT become

higher than ever. It is not acceptable to develop inadequate, substandard IoT systems for this

purpose, which could lead to loss of luck, data or even life. Because of this, Quality Assurance

(QA) is an essential and valuable issue for IoT systems before these sensors, devices,

applications, and designs enter the market. For example, to ensure accurate delivery times,
 3

shipment tracking systems can use many sensors that interact with many back-end software and

many sophisticated algorithms. This system requires a robust QA process to validate algorithms

and workflows carefully[ CITATION Fen11 \l 2057 ].

In traditional software engineering processes, QA extends to every stage of the software

development process, intending to provide software with minimal defects, reliability, and

performance-specific performance levels [ CITATION Max16 \l 2057 ]. As in the case of evolving

technology, the QA aspect of IoT should be clearly defined and improved. These QA aspects

from time to time to meet basic principles such as security, privacy, compatibility, reliability, and

many other elements, such as market and user expectations. Should be improved. Furthermore, it

is a systematic example of all the steps taken to provide and prove the software process's

capability to build high-quality products [ CITATION Boo03 \l 2057 ]. It also seeks to improve the

development process from the stage of necessity to the end [ CITATION Ahm19 \l 2057 ]. As such, it

improves the functionality of the software, including security and reliability. In fact, for IoT, QA

does not deviate from this perspective. Ensuring the IoT system's quality is a different challenge

than the interaction of different products, different platforms, configurations, and input domains

to ensure the quality of the software. To ensure the quality of such a system, a framework is

needed to inspect each component and verify the expected output individually.

Related work

After the study, we concluded on research on the use of Internet of Things and standard models

that all these studies used the ISO model, so we did not find any specific model for the Internet

of Things alone, in particular, This ISO / ICE 25010 was used following the development and

modification of ISO / IEC 9126 [ CITATION Ros15 \l 2057 ].

 4

This standard was introduced in 2007 when the ISO 9126 model was updated, the ISO 9126

model was edited by the ISO 25010 in 2007, which explained how to increase their basic

features from six to eight. Was gone The product quality model described in ISO 25010 includes

eight quality features: functional suitability, reliability, performance efficiency, usability,

security, compatibility, maintenance and portability, and 31 sub-features. ISO 9126 Compared

to, ISO 25010 is more comprehensive and complete. ISO 9126 provides six features and 27 sub-

features, while ISO 25010 provides eight features and 31 sub-features. There are some

limitations due to the general nature[ CITATION Sto17 \l 2057 ]. Some of the concepts presented in

ISO 9126 should be improved before they can actually be implemented in the actual project. In

addition, the elements of the software matrix should be clear when defining the criteria. ISO

25010 added new features such as security and compatibility. Both features were not defined in

ISO 9126. In addition, features related to the organizational structure of features and sub-features

[ CITATION Man15 \l 2057 ] were reorganized to improve the understanding.

Table 1: Proposed unified classification of IoT systems Quality Characteristics

Accessibility The extent to which users can handle the system with specific
needs.
Installability What is the life expectancy of a single HW device?
Availability The availability of specific data provided as part of the service
provided or part of the service.
Interoperability The ability of a system, product or device to interact with or
exchange data with another system, product or device.
Maintainability Efforts are needed to perform a variety of maintenance tasks.
Privacy To the extent that the system complies with the specified access
rights of all parties to the user's information and to the extent that
the system prevents the misuse of user data.
Usability How easy, efficient and enjoyable the system interface is to use
and how efficiently the user interface plays a role in supporting
the user to perform tasks in the system.
Reliability To the extent that the system is free of hardware and software
defects, or other defects, which can lead to system malfunctions.
Resource utilization To the extent that the system's required resources were used for
 5

accuracy and completeness, the users of the system achieve their

goals.
Responsiveness The system handles an application within a specified time interval
to a certain extent
Security The system protects its data to the extent that any other party
accessing the system may be granted a level of access to that data,
which is appropriate for a particular level of authority.
Satisfaction When the system is used in a particular operation, the user is
satisfied to the extent required.

Testability As far as system tests are concerned, how easy it is to conduct and
conduct tests, especially automatic tests.

Regarding the choice of resources, in order to formulate the proposed stable theory, we preferred

works that also strengthen the previous ideas, for example, [ CITATION LiD12 \l 2057 ], which

collects as a collection of previous works [ CITATION Man08 \l 2057 ]. While creating a solid

theory of IoT system quality features, individual authors' interpretation may vary. As an

example, availability can be discussed: this feature is described as "percentage of uptime of

cloud services during a break" by [ CITATION Zhe14 \l 2057 ], or as "the availability of data

sources, is measured in proportion to the number of available attributes in the total number of

attributes" by [ CITATION Rum17 \l 2057 ].

In such cases, we further strengthened the metrics to the general public, because, for example,

the "availability of service" was the provision of a service or the availability of specific data

provided as part of a service. Another example of this generality is the quality of the data, where

[ CITATION Kim06 \l 2057 ] understand this feature of encompassing. All layers of SUT extending

from the body layer to the user interface layer, while [ CITATION Tan15 \l 2057 ] Discuss this

feature in the context of IoT devices. Similarly, we have united the concept of being able to scale

differently understood by different authors [ CITATION Han14 \l 2057 ]. As suggested by[ CITATION

van13 \l 2057 ], the two types are not contradictory in terms of resource utilization and efficiency,
 6

although they are not equal. Therefore, we have decided to merge these two categories into the

use of the final resource, as this feature reflects the idea better. In another case, we have decided

to add more specific quality features than reporting to work with this topic. Worth the example.

Availability is apparently perceived as part of the use, however, according to the general

understanding of these two concepts, for example [ CITATION Bur18 \l 2057 ], we suggest that these

two types [ CITATION Isl11 \l 2057 ] to be distinguished. We've also made suggested privacy

normalization - we've included this feature as a subcategory of the privacy category, called Data

Privacy, because we use this feature to store data Connect with what was suggested by the Islam

Date Store.

If discussed, the trusted uptime subcategory does not mimic the suggested availability. Since

uptime refers to their reliability in particular to IoT devices, while the availability category

describes the system's overall availability, we have decided to keep these two features separate.

In the proposed classification we decided to exclude the matrix to test the performance of test

cases in addition to the scale of features related to the level of test coverage [ CITATION Abb11 \l

2057 ]. Such a matrix can be discussed in terms of the performance of the testing process;

however, it does not directly relate to the SUT's quality characteristics (there will be related

exceptions, when the automatic test suite is considered the SUT Was). Another point can be

raised in relation to a question, if the proposed two-level categories are appropriate for setting the

quality criteria discussed. In the current categories, only one level list is usually used, for

example, [ CITATION Jun04 \l 2057 ]. However, the focus on aspects of the IoT system's physical

layer, security, privacy, reliability, and retention led us to identify more relevant subcategories,

which justify the proposed two-tier structure.

 7

The use of quality features aids in the better structure of the testing process, assists in test

reporting, and serves as a checklist to assist testing engineers' decision. To examine aspects of

For these reasons, we find it useful to provide a comprehensive overview of quality features for

IoT systems, focusing on the features of these systems. Since the previous work has discussed

individual areas and the quality of the system, especially the suburbs, rather than the IoT system,

in this article we present a solid theory. The effort involved a wide range of discussions arising

from attempts to consolidate specific terms used by different authors. We summarize this

discussion

Legislation and rules in UAE

The Internet of Things (IoT) (as described in IoT Policy (as described below)) is a global

infrastructure for the Information Society, which provides existing and developed interpersonal

information and communication. Enables state-of-the-art services through technology-based

interactions (physical and virtual). . Investments in IoT within the United Arab Emirates (UAE)

are projected to increase from 57 574.89 million to 67 672.75 million (an increase of 17%) over

the next year (574.89 million). The UAE's Telecommunications Regulatory Authority (TRA) has

recently published a new publication, the IoT Regulatory Policy (IoT Policy) and Procedures

aimed at successfully regulating IoT. To develop safely and securely "and to secure the UAE's

position as a world leader in the IoT space[ CITATION Als15 \l 2057 ].

More specifically, the stated objectives are as follows:

 providing secure IoT Service

 meeting all reasonable demands for IoT Service
 supporting ongoing innovation
 managing scarce resources efficiently
 8

 protecting the rights and interests of user of IoT, and

 Providing clarity for IoT market development.

In recognition of the IoT space's evolving nature, IoT policy explicitly allows TRAs to change

further regulations, and / or existing regulations, guidelines and / or guidelines, and when they do

so. If desired, especially on roaming IoT devices. In addition to the TRA, ministries and

regulators for specific industries have their own additional IOs through liaison and consultation

with the IoT Advisory Committee (formed for IoT-related matters within the UAE). May also

develop guidelines, regulated by regulators, public sector agencies and experts, and is headed by

TRA) and / or TRA.

The IoT policy applies to all IoT-affiliated individuals in the UAE, including

telecommunications providers, IoT service providers, and IoT service users (listed below). ,

Business and government). The provision of IoT-related services/solutions (excluding contact)

(IoT service) to customers located in the UAE is defined as an IoT service provider (IoT service

provider)[ CITATION AlA19 \l 2057 ]. IoT service providers include (but are not limited to) the

choice of system integrators, telecom equipment manufacturers and machine-to-machine

communication providers. Where an IoT service provider does not currently have a presence in

the UAE (either on the coast or in one of the free zones), under IoT policy, it must rely on one of

its representatives. Who is locally and who is responsible for all communications with TRA and

UAE law enforcement agencies.

 9

References
Maxim, B. R., & Kessentini, M. (2016). An introduction to modern software quality assurance. In Software

Quality Assurance (pp. 19-46). Morgan Kaufmann.

Booch, G. (2003). The privilege and responsibility of software development. Both Sides of the Fence, 801,
24.

Ahmed, B. S., Bures, M., Frajtak, K., & Cerny, T. (2019). Aspects of quality in Internet of Things (IoT)
solutions: A systematic mapping study. IEEE Access, 7, 13758-13780.

Rose, K., Eldridge, S., & Chapin, L. (2015). The internet of things: An overview. The Internet Society
(ISOC), 80, 1-50.

Manyika, J. (2015). The Internet of Things: Mapping the value beyond the hype. McKinsey Global
Institute.

Stojkoska, B. L. R., & Trivodaliev, K. V. (2017). A review of Internet of Things for smart home: Challenges
and solutions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 1454-1464.

Li, F., Nastic, S., & Dustdar, S. (2012, December). Data quality observation in pervasive environments.
In 2012 IEEE 15th International Conference on Computational Science and Engineering (pp. 602-609).
IEEE.

Manzoor, A., Truong, H. L., & Dustdar, S. (2008, October). On the evaluation of quality of context.
In European Conference on Smart Sensing and Context (pp. 140-153). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Zheng, X., Martin, P., Brohman, K., & Da Xu, L. (2014). Cloudqual: A quality model for cloud
services. IEEE transactions on industrial informatics, 10(2), 1527-1536.

Rumyantsev, A., & Morozov, E. (2017). Stability criterion of a multiserver model with simultaneous
service. Annals of Operations Research, 252(1), 29-39.

Kim, Y., & Lee, K. (2006, November). A quality measurement method of context information in ubiquitous
environments. In 2006 International conference on hybrid information technology (Vol. 2, pp. 576-581).
IEEE.

Tanganelli, G., Vallati, C., & Mingozzi, E. (2015, December). CoAPthon: Easy development of CoAP-
based IoT applications with Python. In 2015 IEEE 2nd World Forum on Internet of Things (WF-IoT) (pp.
63-68). IEEE.

Han, R., Ghanem, M. M., Guo, L., Guo, Y., & Osmond, M. (2014). Enabling cost-aware and adaptive
elasticity of multi-tier cloud applications. Future Generation Computer Systems, 32, 82-98.

van der Aalst, L., Roodenrijs, E., Vink, J., & Baarda, R. (2013). TMap NEXT: business driven test
management. Uitgeverij kleine Uil.

Bures, M., Cerny, T., & Ahmed, B. S. (2018, June). Internet of things: Current challenges in the quality
assurance and testing methods. In International Conference on Information Science and Applications (pp.
625-634). Springer, Singapore.

Islam, S., & Falcarin, P. (2011, September). Measuring security requirements for software security.
In 2011 IEEE 10th International Conference on Cybernetic Intelligent Systems (CIS) (pp. 70-75). IEEE.

Abbadi, Z. (2011, July). Security metrics: What can we measure. In Open Web Application Security
Project (OWASP), Nova Chapter meeting presentation on security metrics, viewed (Vol. 2).
 10

Jung, H. W., Kim, S. G., & Chung, C. S. (2004). Measuring software product quality: A survey of ISO/IEC
9126. IEEE software, 21(5), 88-92.

Alsaadi, E., & Tubaishat, A. (2015). Internet of things: features, challenges, and
vulnerabilities. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Information Technology, 4(1), 1-
13.

Al Ali, J., Nasir, Q., & Dweiri, F. T. (2019, March). Business continuity management framework of Internet
of Things (IoT). In 2019 Advances in Science and Engineering Technology International Conferences
(ASET) (pp. 1-7). IEEE.