A Unique Value that Synthesizes the Quality Level of a Product Architecture: Outcome of a Quality Attributes Requirements Evaluation Method

  • Mariana FalcoEmail author
  • Gabriela Robiolo
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11915)


The architecture can inhibit or enable the different quality attributes that guide to software product, so it is extremely important to approach the evaluation of the architecture to determine at what level the quality is being achieved. Although there are frameworks and assessment methods for the architecture or quality characteristics in particular, none of them synthesizes in a single value the level of quality of a software product. We address this shortcoming by introducing a new five-step architecture evaluation method which defines, analyze and measure the quality characteristics of a product architecture and its implementation, obtaining as a final output a unique value that represents the quality level. We illustrate the method by analyzing an architecture of a web and mobile application within the healthcare domain, developed in an agile context.


Quality attributes Quality characteristics Evaluation method 


  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Alenezi, M.: Software architecture quality measurement stability and understandability. Int. J. Adv. Comput. Sci. Appl. (IJACSA) 7(7), 550–559 (2016)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bass, L., Clements, P., Kazman, R.: Software Architecture in Practice, 3rd edn. Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Basili, V.R.: Software Modeling and Measurement: The Goal/Question/Metric Paradigm (1992)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Caldiera, V., Basili, V.R., Dieter Rombach, H.: The goal question metric approach. In: Encyclopedia of Software Engineering, pp. 528–532 (1994)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yang, Q., Li, J.J., Weiss, D.M.: A survey of coverage-based testing tools. Comput. J. 52(5), 589–597 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Horgan, J.R., London, S., Lyu, M.R.: Achieving software quality with testing coverage measures. Computer 27(9), 60–69 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Parra, P., da Silva, A., Polo, O.R., Sánchez, S.: Agile deployment and code coverage testing metrics of the boot software on-board Solar Orbiter’s Energetic Particle Detector. Acta Astronaut. 143, 203–211 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kazman, R., Bass, L., Abowd, G., Webb, M.: SAAM: a method for analyzing the properties of software architectures. In: Proceedings of 16th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 81–90. IEEE (1994)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kazman, R., Klein, M., Clements, P.: ATAM: method for architecture evaluation (No. CMU/SEI-2000-TR-004). Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, Software Engineering Institute (2000)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ortega, M., Pérez, M., Rojas, T.: Construction of a systemic quality model for evaluating a software product. Softw. Qual. J. 11(3), 219–242 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bachmann, F., Bass, L., Klein, M., Shelton, C.: Designing software architectures to achieve quality attribute requirements. IEE Proc.-Softw. 152(4), 153–165 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kazman, R., Nord, R.L., Klein, M.: A life-cycle view of architecture analysis and design methods (No. CMU/SEI-2003-TN-026). Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, Software Engineering Institute (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bengtsson, P., Lassing, N., Bosch, J., van Vliet, H.: Architecture-level modifiability analysis (ALMA). J. Syst. Softw. 69(1–2), 129–147 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dolan, T.J.: Architecture assessment of information-system families: a practical perspective (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jimenez-Fernandez, S., De Toledo, P., Del Pozo, F.: Usability and interoperability in wireless sensor networks for patient telemonitoring in chronic disease management. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 60(12), 3331–3339 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    van Solingen, D.R., Berghout, E.W.: The Goal/Question/Metric Method: A Practical Guide for Quality Improvement of Software Development. McGraw-Hill, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Segue Technologies: What Characteristics Make Good Agile Acceptance Criteria?, 3 September 2015.
  19. 19.
    Maia, P., et al.: A web platform for interconnecting body sensors and improving health care. Procedia Comput. Sci. 40, 135–142 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vassis, D., Belsis, P., Skourlas, C., Pantziou, G.: A pervasive architectural framework for providing remote medical treatment. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments, p. 23. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ray, P.P.: Home Health Hub Internet of Things (H 3 IoT): an architectural framework for monitoring health of elderly people. In: International Conference on Science Engineering and Management Research (ICSEMR), pp. 1–3. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sakamoto, K., Washizaki, H., Fukazawa, Y. Open code coverage framework: a consistent and flexible framework for measuring test coverage supporting multiple programming languages. In: 10th International Conference on Quality Software, pp. 262–269. IEEE (2010)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rayadurgam, S., Heimdahl, M.P.E.: Coverage based test-case generation using model checkers. In: Proceedings of Eighth Annual IEEE International Conference and Workshop on the Engineering of Computer-Based Systems (ECBS 2001), pp. 83–91. IEEE (2001)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Li, Z., Avgeriou, P., Liang, P.: A systematic mapping study on technical debt and its management. J. Syst. Softw. 101, 193–220 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LIDTUA (CIC)/CONICET, Facultad de IngenieríaUniversidad AustralPilarArgentina
  2. 2.LIDTUA (CIC), Facultad de IngenieríaUniversidad AustralPilarArgentina

Personalised recommendations