A Comprehensive View on Quality Characteristics of the IoT Solutions

  • Miroslav BuresEmail author
  • Xavier Bellekens
  • Karel Frajtak
  • Bestoun S. Ahmed
Conference paper
Part of the EAI/Springer Innovations in Communication and Computing book series (EAISICC)


Categorization of quality characteristics helps in a more effective structuring of the testing process and in the determination of properties, which can be verified in the system under test. In the emerging area of Internet of Things (IoT) systems, several individual attempts have been made to summarize these aspects, but the previous work is rather heterogenic and focuses on specific subareas. Hence, we consolidated the quality characteristics into one unified view, which specifically emphasizes the aspects of security, privacy, reliability, and usability, as these aspects are often quoted as major challenges in the quality of contemporary IoT systems. The consolidated view also covers other areas of system quality, which are relevant for IoT system testing and quality assurance. In the paper, we also discuss relevant synonyms of particular quality characteristics as presented in the literature or being used in the current industry praxis. The consolidated view uses two levels of characteristics to maintain a suitable level of granularity and specificity in the discussed quality characteristics.


Internet of Things Quality characteristics Quality assurance Testing 



This research is conducted as a part of the project TACR TH02010296 Quality Assurance System for Internet of Things Technology.


  1. 1.
    Abbadi, Z.: Security metrics what can we measure? In: Open Web Application Security Project (OWASP), Nova Chapter meeting presentation on security metrics, viewed, vol. 2 (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Badenhorst-Weiss, J.A., Maurer, C., Brevis-Landsberg, T.: Developing measures for the evaluation of information flow efficiency in supply chains. J. Transp. Supply Chain Manag. 7(1), 1–13 (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Banerjee, T., Sheth, A.: IoT quality control for data and application needs. IEEE Intell. Syst. 32(2), 68–73 (2017). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bu, Y., Gu, T., Tao, X., Li, J., Chen, S., Lu, J.: Managing quality of context in pervasive computing. In: Sixth International Conference on Quality Software, QSIC 2006, pp. 193–200. IEEE, Piscataway (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bures, M.: Metrics for automated testability of web applications. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies, pp. 83–89. ACM, New York (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bures, M.: Model for evaluation and cost estimations of the automated testing architecture. In: New Contributions in Information Systems and Technologies, pp. 781–787. Springer, Berlin (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bures, M., Cerny, T., Klima, M.: Prioritized process test: more efficiency in testing of business processes and workflows. In: Kim, K., Joukov, N. (eds.) Information Science and Applications 2017, pp. 585–593. Springer Singapore, Singapore (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bures, M., Cerny, T., Ahmed, B.S.: Internet of things: current challenges in the quality assurance and testing methods. In: Kim, K.J., Baek, N. (eds.) Information Science and Applications 2018, pp. 625–634. Springer Singapore, Singapore (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Buyya, R., Yeo, C.S., Venugopal, S., Broberg, J., Brandic, I.: Cloud computing and emerging it platforms: vision, hype, and reality for delivering computing as the 5th utility. Futur. Gener. Comput. Syst. 25(6), 599–616 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gomes, R., Bouloukakis, G., Costa, F., Georgantas, N., Da Rocha, R.: Qos-aware resource allocation for mobile iot pub/sub systems. In: International Conference on Internet of Things, pp. 70–87. Springer, Berlin (2018)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Guceglioglu, A.S., Demirors, O.: Using software quality characteristics to measure business process quality. In: International Conference on Business Process Management, pp. 374–379. Springer, Berlin (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Han, R., Ghanem, M.M., Guo, L., Guo, Y., Osmond, M.: Enabling cost-aware and adaptive elasticity of multi-tier cloud applications. Futur. Gener. Comput. Syst. 32, 82–98 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Henry, S.L., Abou-Zahra, S., Brewer, J.: The role of accessibility in a universal web. In: Proceedings of the 11th Web for All Conference, W4A ’14, pp. 17:1–17:4. ACM, New York (2014).
  14. 14.
    Ikeda, Y., Kouno, S., Shiozu, A., Noritake, K.: A framework of scalable QoE modeling for application explosion in the Internet of Things. In: 2016 IEEE 3rd World Forum on Internet of Things (WF-IoT), Dec 2016, pp. 425–429 (2016). Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Islam, S., Falcarin, P.: Measuring security requirements for software security. In: 2011 IEEE 10th International Conference on Cybernetic Intelligent Systems (CIS), Sept 2011, pp. 70–75 (2011). Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jung, H.W., Kim, S.G., Chung, C.S.: Measuring software product quality: a survey of ISO/IEC 9126. IEEE Softw. 5, 88–92 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kim, Y., Lee, K.: A quality measurement method of context information in ubiquitous environments. In: International Conference on Hybrid Information Technology, ICHIT’06, vol. 2, pp. 576–581. IEEE, Piscataway (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kiruthika, J., Khaddaj, S.: Software quality issues and challenges of Internet of Things. In: 2015 14th International Symposium on Distributed Computing and Applications for Business Engineering and Science (DCABES), pp. 176–179. IEEE, Piscataway (2015)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Li, F., Nastic, S., Dustdar, S.: Data quality observation in pervasive environments. In: 2012 IEEE 15th International Conference on Computational Science and Engineering, Dec 2012, pp. 602–609 (2012). Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Li, N., Li, F., Offutt, J.: Better algorithms to minimize the cost of test paths. In: 2012 IEEE Fifth International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation (ICST), pp. 280–289. IEEE, Piscataway (2012)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Manuel, P.: A trust model of cloud computing based on quality of service. Ann. Oper. Res. 233(1), 281–292 (2015). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Manzoor, A., Truong, H.L., Dustdar, S.: On the evaluation of quality of context. In: European Conference on Smart Sensing and Context, pp. 140–153. Springer, Berlin (2008)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Neisse, R., Wegdam, M., Van Sinderen, M.: Trustworthiness and quality of context information. In: The 9th International Conference for Young Computer Scientists, ICYCS 2008, pp. 1925–1931. IEEE, Piscataway (2008)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sheikh, K., Wegdam, M., Van Sinderen, M.: Middleware support for quality of context in pervasive context-aware systems. In: Fifth Annual IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops (PerComW’07), pp. 461-466. IEEE, Piscataway (2007)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sollie, R.S.: Security and usability assessment of several authentication technologies. Master’s thesis (2005)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    TMap: a set of quality characteristics for iot testing. Accessed 09 Aug 2019
  27. 27.
    van der Aalst, L., Roodenrijs, E., Vink, J., Baarda, R.: TMap NEXT: business driven test management. Uitgeverij kleine Uil (2013)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zheng, X., Martin, P., Brohman, K., Xu, L.D.: Cloudqual: a quality model for cloud services. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inf. 10(2), 1527–1536 (2014). CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.FEECzech Technical University in PraguePragueCzech Republic
  2. 2.School of Design and InformaticsAbertay UniversityDundeeUK

Personalised recommendations