Advertisement

Quality Attribute Techniques Framework

  • Yin Kia Chiam
  • Liming Zhu
  • Mark Staples
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 42)

Abstract

The quality of software is achieved during its development. Development teams use various techniques to investigate, evaluate and control potential quality problems in their systems. These “Quality Attribute Techniques” target specific product qualities such as safety or security. This paper proposes a framework to capture important characteristics of these techniques. The framework is intended to support process tailoring, by facilitating the selection of techniques for inclusion into process models that target specific product qualities. We use risk management as a theory to accommodate techniques for many product qualities and lifecycle phases. Safety techniques have motivated the framework, and safety and performance techniques have been used to evaluate the framework. The evaluation demonstrates the ability of quality risk management to cover the development lifecycle and to accommodate two different product qualities. We identify advantages and limitations of the framework, and discuss future research on the framework.

Keywords

Quality Attribute Techniques Product Quality Software Process Improvement Process Tailoring 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Forrester, E.: A Process Research Framework. The International Process Research Consortium (IPRC) (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zhu, L., Jeffery, D.R., Staples, M., Huo, M., Tran, T.T.: Effects of Architecture and Technical Development Process on Micro-process. In: Wang, Q., Pfahl, D., Raffo, D.M. (eds.) ICSP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4470, pp. 49–60. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Smith, C.U., Williams, L.G.: Best Practices for Software Performance Engineering. Technical report, Performance Engineering Services and Software Engineering Research (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Basili, V.R., Rombach, H.D.: Tailoring the Software Process to Project Goals and Environments. In: International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSP), pp. 345–357 (1987)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bowers, J., May, J., Melander, E., Baarman, M., Ayoob, A.: Tailoring XP for Large System Mission Critical Software Development. In: Wells, D., Williams, L. (eds.) XP 2002. LNCS, vol. 2418, pp. 100–111. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pedreira, O., Piattini, M., Luaces, M.R., Brisaboa, N.R.: A Systematic Review of Software Process Tailoring. SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 32(3), 1–6 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zhu, L., Tran, T.T., Staples, M., Jeffery, D.R.: Technical Development Process in the XML Domain. In: International Conference of Software Process, ICSP (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Juristo, N., Ferre, X.: How to Integrate Usability into The Software Development Process. In: International Conference on Software engineering (ICSE 2006), pp. 1079–1080. ACM, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lutz, R.R.: Targeting Safety-related Errors During Software Requirements Analysis. SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes 18(5), 99–106 (1993)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lawrence, J. D.: Software Safety Hazard Analysis Version 2.0. Technical report, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (1995)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Alberico, D., Bozarth, J., Brown, M., Gill, J., Mattern, S., McKinlay VI, A.: Software System Safety Handbook. A Technical and Managerial Team Approach (1999)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Borcsok, J., Schaefer, S.: Software Development for Safety-related Systems. In: International Conference on Systems (ICONS 2007), pp. 38–42 (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wojcicki, M.A., Strooper, P.: An Iterative Empirical Strategy for the Systematic Selection of a Combination of Verification and Validation Technologies. In: International Workshop on Software Quality (WoSQ 2007), p. 9 (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    EWICS TC7 Software Sub-group: Techniques for Verification and Validation of Safety-related Software. Computers and Standards 4(2), 101–112 (1985)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Leveson, N.: Safeware: System Safety and Computers. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1995)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stephans, R.A.: System Safety for the 21st Century. Wiley, Chichester (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zurich Risk Engineering: Which Hazard Analysis? - A Selection Guide (1998)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Smith, C., Williams, L.: Performance Solutions: A Practical Guide to Creating Responsive, Scalable Software. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2002)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fox, G.: Performance Engineering as A Part of The Development Life Cycle for Large-Scale Software Systems. In: International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSP), pp. 85–94. ACM Press, New York (1989)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vegas, S.: Identifying The Relevant Information for Software Testing Technique Selection. In: International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering (2004)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Storey, N.: Safety Critical Computer Systems. Addison Wesley, Reading (1996)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vincoli, J.W.: Basic Guide to System Safety. Wiley, Chichester (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    OMG: Software Process Engineering Metamodel (SPEM) Version 2.0 (2008)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pfahl, D., Ruhe, G., Lebsanft, K., Stupperich, M.: Software Process Simulation with System Dynamics - A Tool for Learning and Decision Support. New Trends in Software Process Modelling. World Scientific 18, 57–90 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    AS/NZS ISO/IEC 16085:2007: Risk Management (2007)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Boehm, B.W.: Software Risk Management. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yin Kia Chiam
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Liming Zhu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Mark Staples
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.NICTAAlexandriaAustralia
  2. 2.School of Computer Science and Engineering, K17University of New South WalesSydneyAustralia
  3. 3.School of Computer ScienceUniversity of MalayaKuala LumpurMalaysia

Personalised recommendations