A Quality Performance Model for Cost-Benefit Analysis of Non-functional Requirements Applied to the Mobile Handset Domain

  • Björn Regnell
  • Martin Höst
  • Richard Berntsson Svensson
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4542)


In market-driven requirements engineering for platform-based development of embedded systems such as mobile phones, it is crucial to market success to find the right balance among competing quality aspects (aka non-functional requirements). This paper presents a conceptual model that incorporates quality as a dimension in addition to the cost and value dimensions used in prioritisation approaches for functional requirements. The model aims at supporting discussion and decision-making in early requirements engineering related to activities such as roadmapping, release planning and platform scoping. The feasibility and relevance of the model is initially validated through interviews with requirements experts in six cases that represent important areas in the mobile handset domain. The validation suggests that the model is relevant and feasible for this particular domain.


Quality Indicator Quality Function Deployment Requirement Engineer Analytical Hierarchical Process Cost Barrier 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Carlshamre, P., Regnell, B.: Requirements Lifecycle Management and Relase Planning in Market-Driven Requirements Engineering Processes. Int. Workshop on the Requirements Engineering Process: Innovative Techniques, Models, and Tools to support the RE Process. In: Proc. 11th IEEE Conf. on Database and Expert Systems Applications. Greenwich, UK, pp. 961–965 (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carlshamnre, P., Sandahl, K., Lindvall, M., Regnell, B., Natt och dag, J.: An Industrial Survey of Requirements Dependencies in Software Product Release Planning. In: 5th Int. Symposium on Requirements Engineering. Toronto Canada, pp. 84–91 (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    deBaud, J.M., Schmid, K.: A systematic approach to derive the scope of software product lines. In: Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Software Engineering. Los Angeles, USA, pp. 34-43 (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dikel, D., Kane, D., Ornburn, S., Loftus, W., Wilson, J.: Applying software product-line architecture. IEEE Computer 30, 49–55 (1997)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ebert, C.: Requirements BEFORE the Requirements: Understanding the Upstream Impact. In: Proc. 13th IEEE Int. Conf. on Requirements Engineering. Paris, France, pp. 117–124 (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Grimshaw, D.J., Draper, G.W.: Non-functional requirements analysis: deficiencies in structured methods. Information and Software Technology 43, 629–634 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jacobs, S.: Introducing measurable quality requirements: a case study. In: Proc. IEEE Int. Symposium on Requirements Engineering, pp. 172–179 (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kano, N., Nobuhiro, S., Takahashi, F., Tsuji, S.: Attractive quality and must-be quality. Hinshitsu 14, 39–48 (1984)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Karlsson, J.: Managing Software Requirements Using Quality Function Deployment. Software Quality Journal 6, 311–325 (1997)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Karlsson, L.: Dahlstedt, Å.G., Natt och Dag, J., Regnell, B., Persson, A.: Challenges in Market-Driven Requirements Engineering - an Industrial Interview Study. In: Proc. 8th Int. Workshop on Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality. Essen Germany, pp. 37–49 (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Karlsson, J., Ryan, K.: A cost-value approach for prioritizing requirements. IEEE Software 14, 67–74 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kazman, R., Hoh, P., Hong-Mei, C.: From requirements negotiation to software architecture decisions. Information and Software Technology 47, 511–520 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lehtola, L., Kauppinen, M.: Suitability of Requirements Prioritization Methods for Market-driven Software Product Development. Software Process: Improvement and Practice 11, 7–19 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Matzler, K., Hinterhuber, H.H.: How to make product development projects more successful by integrating Kano’s model of customer satisfaction into quality function deployment. Technovation 18, 25–38 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Regnell, B., Brinkkemper, J.: Market-Driven Requirements Engineering for Software Products. In: Aurum, A., Wohlin, C. (eds.) Engineering and Managing Software Requirements, pp. 287–308. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Regnell, B., Olsson, H.O., Mossberg, S.: Assessing Requirements Compliance Scenarios in System Platform Subcontracting. In: Proc. 7th Int. Conf. on Product Focused Software Process Improvement. Amsterdam The Netherlands, pp. 362–376 (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Saaty, T.: The Analytical Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New York (1980)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Björn Regnell
    • 1
    • 3
  • Martin Höst
    • 2
    • 3
  • Richard Berntsson Svensson
    • 3
  1. 1.Sony Ericsson, LundSweden
  2. 2.Ericsson, LundSweden
  3. 3.Lund UniversitySweden

Personalised recommendations