Software Quality Journal

, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 313–323 | Cite as

GEQUAMO—A Generic, Multilayered, Customisable, Software Quality Model

  • Elli Georgiadou


Software quality models have primarily been based on top down process improvement approaches. Such models are based on the fundamental principle of empowerment of all involved and foster a questioning attitude through the active exchange of ideas and criticism ensuring that the most appropriate approach for quality improvements is adopted. The holistic view of systems enables the incorporation of many viewpoints held by different parties within the same organisation and by the same party at different stages of development. In this paper the GEQUAMO (GEneric, multilayered and customisable) QUAlity MOdel is proposed. GEQUAMO encapsulates the requirements of different stakeholders in a dynamic and flexible manner so as to enable each stakeholder (developer, user or sponsor) to construct their own model reflecting the emphasis/weighting for each attribute/requirement. Using a combination of the CFD (Composite Features Diagramming Technique) developed by the author, and Kiviat diagrams a multilayered and dynamic model is constructed. Instances of models are presented together with the algorithm for the computation of the profiles. Indications of future work conclude the paper.

Software Quality model multilayer model customisable model profiling stakeholders' worldview 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barbor, N. and Georgiadou, E. 2002. Investigating the applicability of the Taguchi method to software development, Proceedings of Quality Week, San Francisco, USA, July.Google Scholar
  2. Boehm, B. 1989. Software Risk Management, IEEE Computer Society Press, CA.Google Scholar
  3. Burr, A. and Georgiadou, E. 1995. Software development maturity-a comparison with other industries, 5th World Congress on Total Quality, India, New Delhi, February.Google Scholar
  4. Checkland, P. and Scholes, J. 1990. Soft Systems Methodology in Action, Wiley.Google Scholar
  5. Dromey, R.G. 1995. A model for software product quality, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 21(2): 146–162.Google Scholar
  6. Fenton, N. 1991. Software Metrics-A Rigorous Approach, London, Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
  7. Georgiadou, E., Hy, T. and Berki, E. 1998. Automated qualitative and quantitative evaluation of software methods and tools, Proceedings of the 12th International Conference of the Israel Society for Quality, Jerusalem, Israel, December.Google Scholar
  8. Hyatt, I. and |Rosenberg, L. 1996. A software quality model and metrics for identifying project risks and assessing software quality, Scholar
  9. Ince, D. 1995. Software Quality Assurance, New York, McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  10. ISO-12207. 1998. Scholar
  11. ISO-9126. 2001. Scholar
  12. Logothetis, N. and Wynn, H.P. 1989. Quality through Design: Experimental Design, 'Off-line Quality Control and Taguchi's Contributions', Oxford, Oxford Science Publications.Google Scholar
  13. McCall, J.A., Richards, P.K. and Walters, G.F. 1977. Factors in software quality, RADC TR-77-369, Us Rome Air Development Center Reports.Google Scholar
  14. Siakas, K. 2002. SQM-CODES; Software quality management-cultural and organisational diversity evaluation, Ph.D. thesis submitted November 2002 for the degree of Ph.D. at London Metropolitan University.Google Scholar
  15. Siakas, K., Berki, E., Georgiadou, E. and Sadler, C. 1997. The complete alphabet of quality software systems, 7th World Congress for Total Quality Management, New Delhi, India, February.Google Scholar
  16. Version 1.00Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elli Georgiadou
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computing ScienceMiddlesex UniversityLondonUK

Personalised recommendations