Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Setting quality targets for coming releases with QUPER: an industrial case study

  • Quality RE for Sys. & Architecting
  • Published:
Requirements Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Quality requirements play a critical role in driving architectural design and are an important issue in software development. Therefore, quality requirements need to be considered, specified, and quantified early during system analysis and not later in the development phase in an ad-hoc fashion. This paper presents the quality performance model that estimates quality targets in relation to market expectations as a basis for the architecting of quality requirements. The purpose of the model is to provide concepts for qualitative reasoning of quality levels in the decision-making of setting actual targets of quality requirements for coming releases of the product. The quality performance model is evaluated at one case company, using a market-driven development approach, in the electronic payment-processing domain. The results show that the model is useful for supporting early decision-making in, e.g., release planning of quality requirements.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ali-Babar M, Capilla R (2008) Capturing and using quality attributes knowledge in software architecture evaluation process. In: Proceedings of the first international workshop on managing knowledge (MARK’08), IEEE, Barcelona, Spain, pp 56–62

  2. Carriere J, Kazman R, Ozkaya I (2010) A cost-benefit framework for making architectural decisions in a business context. In. Proceedings of the 32nd international conference on software engineering (ICSE’10), IEEE, Cape Town, South Africa, pp 149–157

  3. Bass L, Clements P, Kazman R (2003) Software architecture in practice. Addison-Wesley, USA

  4. Cleland-Huang J, Settimi R, Zou X, Sole P (2007) Automated classification of non-functional requirements. Requir Eng 12(2):103–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Folmer E, Bosch J (2002) Architecting for usability: a survey. J Syst Softw 70(1–2):61–78

    Google Scholar 

  6. Svahnberg M, Wohlin C, Lundberg L, Mattsson M (2002) A method for understanding quality attributes in software architecture structures. In: Proceedings of the 14th international conference on software engineering and knowledge engineering (SEKE’02), Ischia, Italy, pp 819–826

  7. Regnell B, Höst M, Berntsson Svensson R (2007) A quality performance model for cost-benefit analysis of non-functional requirements applied to the mobile handset domain. In: Proceedings of the 13th working conference on requirements engineering: foundation for software quality (REFSQ′07), Springer-Verlag, Trondheim, Norway, pp 277–291

  8. Kazman R, Barbacci M, Klein M, Carriere SJ (1999) Experience with performing architecture tradeoff analysis. In: Proceedings of the 21st international conference on software engineering (ICSE’99), IEEE, Los Angeles, USA, pp 54–63

  9. Kazman R, Abowd G, Bass L, Clements P (1996) Scenario-based analysis of software architecture. IEEE Softw 13(6):47–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bosch J (2000) Designing and use of software architecture adopting and evolving a product line approach. Pearson Education, UK

  11. Berntsson Svensson R, Olsson T, Regnell B (2008) Introducing support for release planning of quality requirements—an industrial evaluation of the QUPER model. 2nd international workshop on software product management (IWSPM′08), Barcelona, Spain

  12. Berntsson Svensson R, Sprockel Y, Regnell B, Brinkkemper S (2010) Cost and benefit analysis of quality requirements in competetive software product management. 4th international workshop on software product management (IWSPM’10), Sydney, Australia

  13. Gorschek T, Garre P, Larsson S, Wohlin C (2006) A Model for Technology Transfer in Practice. IEEE Softw 23(6):88–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Regnell B, Olsson HO, Mossberg S (2006) Assessing requirements compliance scenarios in system platform subcontracting. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on product focused software process improvements (PROFES′06), Springer-Verlag, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp 362–376

  15. Regnell B, Berntsson Svensson R, Olsson T (2008) Supporting roadmapping of quality requirements. IEEE Softw 25(2):42–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Berntsson Svensson R, Regnell B, Aurum A (2010) Towards modeling guidelines for capturing the cost of improving software product quality in release planning. In: Second proceeding: short papers, doctoral symposium and workshops of the 11th international conference on product focused software process improvements (PROFES′10), Limerick, Ireland, pp 24–27

  17. Regnell B, Brinkkemper S (2005) Market-driven requirements engineering for software products. In: Aurum A, Wohlin C (eds) Engineering and managing software requirements. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 287–308

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Karlsson J, Ryan K (1997) A cost-value approach for prioritizing requirements. IEEE Softw 14(5):67–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Pfleeger SL (1999) Understanding and improving technology transfer in software engineering. J Syst Softw 47(2):111–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Svahnberg M, Gorschek T, Feldt R, Torkar R, Saleem SB (2010) A systematic review on strategic release planning models. Inf Softw Technol 52(3):237–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Greer D, Ruhe G (2004) Software release planning: an evolutionary and iterative approach. Inf Softw Technol 46(4):243–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Carlshamre P, Regnell B (2000) Requirements lifecycle management and release planning in market-driven requirements engineering. In: Proceedings of the 11th workshop on database and expert systems applications, IEEE Comput Soc, London, UK, pp 961–965

  23. van den Akker M, Brinkkemper S, Diepen G, Versendaal J (2008) Software product release planning through optimization of what-if analysis. Inf Softw Technol 50(1–2):101–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ruhe G, Eberlein A, Pfahl D (2003) Trade-off analysis for requirements selection. Int J Softw Eng Knowl Eng 13(4):345–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Gilb T (2005) Competetive engineering. Elsevier, Butterworth-Heinemann

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kano N, Nobuhiro S, Takahashi F, Tsuji S (1984) Attractive quality and must-be quality. Hinshitsu 14:39–48

    Google Scholar 

  27. Karlsson J (1997) Managing software requirements using quality function deployment. Softw Qual 6(4):311–325

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  28. Saaty T (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw, Hill

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Lauesen S (2002) Software requirements—styles and techniques. Addison-Wesley, UK

  30. Robson C (2002) Real world research. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  31. Runeson P, Höst M (2009) Guidelines for conducting and reporting case study research in software engineering. Empir Softw Eng 14(2):131–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Wohlin C, Runeson P, Höst M, Ohlsson MC, Regnell B, Wesslén A (2000) Experimentation in software engineering: an introduction. Kluwer Academic, Boston

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, Lund University, P.O. Box 118, 22100, Lund, Sweden

    Richard Berntsson Svensson & Björn Regnell

  2. Department of Information and Computing Sciences, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80 089, 3508 TB, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Yuri Sprockel & Sjaak Brinkkemper

Authors
  1. Richard Berntsson Svensson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yuri Sprockel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Björn Regnell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sjaak Brinkkemper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard Berntsson Svensson.

Appendix

Appendix

See Fig. 9.

Fig. 9
figure 9

The QUPER activities and data tailored to the specific case

Full size image

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Berntsson Svensson, R., Sprockel, Y., Regnell, B. et al. Setting quality targets for coming releases with QUPER: an industrial case study. Requirements Eng 17, 283–298 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-011-0125-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-011-0125-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation