Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Applying the ISO/IEC 25010 Quality Models to Software Product

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Systems, Software and Services Process Improvement (EuroSPI 2018)

Part of the book series: Communications in Computer and Information Science ((CCIS,volume 896))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

The software development process focuses on the delivery of a software implementation – its ‘product’, whether COTS or bespoke. However, potential acquirers are attracted by the promise of a future ‘service’ from that product: those aspects of the software’s behavior visible outside it, particularly those that deliver value in the real world.

ISO/IEC 25010: 2011 provides the leading models for assessing software product. This is an important contribution towards establishing the delivery performance of software processes and proposed improvements. This paper explores the scope and interpretation of the ISO/IEC 25010 quality models, in the light of this broad, lifetime service-oriented view, also identifying other significant aspects of product that concern acquirers of software, and for which quality requirements and quality evaluation are potentially needed. Suggestions for refinement and extension of the standard complete the paper.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Hofemann, S., Raatikainen, M., Myllärniemi, V., Norja, T.: Experiences in applying service design to digital services. In: Jedlitschka, A., Kuvaja, P., Kuhrmann, M., Männistö, T., Münch, J., Raatikainen, M. (eds.) PROFES 2014. LNCS, vol. 8892, pp. 134–148. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13835-0_10

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Sjøberg, D.I.K.: The relationship between software process, context and outcome. In: Abrahamsson, P., Jedlitschka, A., Nguyen Duc, A., Felderer, M., Amasaki, S., Mikkonen, T. (eds.) PROFES 2016. LNCS, vol. 10027, pp. 3–11. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49094-6_1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. ISO: ISO/IEC 25010:2011, Systems and software engineering – Systems and software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE) – System and software quality models

    Google Scholar 

  4. Estdale, J.: App stores & ISO/IEC 25000: product certification at last? In: Phalp, K., et al. (eds.) SQM XXIV: Systems Quality: Trends and Practices, pp. 37–48. Southampton Solent University (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Estdale, J.: Products and prototypes: what’s the difference? In: SQM XXV: Achieving Software Quality in Development and in Use, pp. 65–76. Southampton Solent University (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  6. ISO: ISO/IEC 25000:2014, Systems and software engineering – Systems and software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE) – Guide to SQuaRE

    Google Scholar 

  7. ISO: ISO/IEC 9126, various parts and dates. Software engineering – Product quality. Being superseded by SQuaRE [5]

    Google Scholar 

  8. ISO/IEC TS 25011:2017 Information technology—Systems and software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE)—Service quality models

    Google Scholar 

  9. Georgiadou, E.: Software process and product improvement: a historical perspective. Cybern. Syst. Anal. 39(1), 125–142 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023833428613

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Côté, M.A., Suryn, W., Georgiadou, E.: In search for a widely applicable and accepted software quality model for software quality engineering. Softw. Qual. J. 15(4), 401–416 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Miguel, J.P., Mauricio, D., Rodriguez, G.: A review of software quality models for the evaluation of software products. Int. J. Softw. Eng. Appl. (IJSEA) 5(6), 1–24 (2014). https://doi.org/10.5121/ijsea.2014.5603

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Oriol, M., Marco, J., Franch, X.: Quality models for web services: a systematic mapping. Inf. Softw. Technol. 56(10), 1167–1182 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2014.03.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Biscoglio, I., Marchetti, E.: Definition of software quality evaluation and measurement plans: a reported experience inside the audio-visual preservation context. In: Holzinger, A., Cardoso, J., Cordeiro, J., Libourel, T., Maciaszek, L.A., van Sinderen, M. (eds.) ICSOFT 2014. CCIS, vol. 555, pp. 63–80. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25579-8_4

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Bergman, B., Klefsjö, B.: Quality from Customer Needs to Customer Satisfaction. McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  15. App Store Review Guidelines. https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/. Accessed 17 Apr 2018

  16. McCann, T.: The Art of the App Store. John Wiley, Indianapolis (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Gibson, S.: ‘Well-behaved’ and ‘misbehaved’ software: past and present. InfoWorld 8(43), 65 (1986)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Gibson, S.: Programs that ‘behave’ lend themselves to compatibility successfully. InfoWorld 8(43), 69 (1986)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Haslam, K.: iOS security risks: after the XcodeGhost exploit is Apple’s iOS really safer than Android? Plus: what security apps do you need for iPad & iPhone. http://www.macworld.co.uk/feature/iosapps/is-ipad-iphone-ios-safe-xcodeghost-what-security-software-need-3453938/#antivirus. Accessed 16 Apr 2018

  20. Siakas, K.V., Georgiadou, E.: PERFUMES: a scent of product quality characteristics. In: International Software Quality Management Conference, pp. 211–220. BCS, London (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Bennett, K., Rajlich, V.: Software maintenance and evolution: a roadmap. In: International Conference on Future of Software Engineering, pp. 73–90. ACM, New York (2000). https://doi.org/10.1145/336512.336534

  22. Lehman, M.M.: On understanding laws, evolution, and conservation in the large-program life cycle. J. Syst. Softw. 1(1), 213–221 (1980). https://doi.org/10.1016/0164-1212(79)90022-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Lehman, M.M., Perry, D.E., Ramil, J.F.: Implication of evolution metrics on software maintenance. In: International Conference on Software Maintenance, pp. 208–217. IEEE (1998). https://doi.org/10.1109/icsm.1998.738510

  24. Cancian, M.H., Hauck, J.C.R., von Wangenheim, C.G., Rabelo, R.J.: Discovering software process and product quality criteria in software as a service. In: Ali Babar, M., Vierimaa, M., Oivo, M. (eds.) PROFES 2010. LNCS, vol. 6156, pp. 234–247. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13792-1_19

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. Trinkenreich, B., Santos, G., Barcellos, M.P.: SINIS: a method to select indicators for IT services. In: Abrahamsson, P., Corral, L., Oivo, M., Russo, B. (eds.) PROFES 2015. LNCS, vol. 9459, pp. 68–86. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26844-6_6

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. ISO: ISO/IEC 15504-5:2006 Process assessment – Part 5: An exemplar Process Assessment Model

    Google Scholar 

  27. Seddon, J.: Freedom from Command and Control: A Better Way to Make the Work Work, 2nd edn. Vanguard Education, Buckingham (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Tourniaire, F., Jarrell, R.: The Art of Software Support: Design and Operation of Support Centers and Help Desks. Prentice Hall, London (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  29. TL 9000 Overview. http://www.tl9000.org/about/tl9000/overview.html. Accessed 16 Apr 2018

  30. Woherem, E., Neil, M., Estdale, J.: Software process improvement through the GQM approach: a maintenance case study. In: 3rd International Conference on Software Quality, pp. 147–156. ASQC, Milwaukee (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Pries-Heje, J., Johanson J. (eds.): SPI Manifesto. http://www.iscn.com/Images/SPI_Manifesto_A.1.2.2010.pdf. Accessed 28 May 2018

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IT Architecture Specialists Ltd, Newbury, UK

    John Estdale

  2. Faculty of Science and Technology, Middlesex University, London, UK

    Elli Georgiadou

Authors
  1. John Estdale
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elli Georgiadou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Estdale .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Tecnalia Bizkaia, San Sebastián, Spain

    Xabier Larrucea

  2. Tecnalia Bizkaia, San Sebastián, Spain

    Izaskun Santamaria

  3. School of Computing, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland

    Rory V. O'Connor

  4. I.S.C.N. GesmbH, Graz, Austria

    Richard Messnarz

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Estdale, J., Georgiadou, E. (2018). Applying the ISO/IEC 25010 Quality Models to Software Product. In: Larrucea, X., Santamaria, I., O'Connor, R., Messnarz, R. (eds) Systems, Software and Services Process Improvement. EuroSPI 2018. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 896. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97925-0_42

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97925-0_42

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-97924-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-97925-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation