A Non-functional Framework for Assessing Organizations in Collaborative Networks

  • Aurélie Montarnal
  • Matthieu Lauras
  • Frédérick Bénaben
  • Jacques Lamothe
Conference paper
Part of the Proceedings of the I-ESA Conferences book series (IESACONF, volume 7)


The French project OpenPaaS aims to support collaborative process by first deducing the process from the collaboration objectives and then orchestrating it. In order to design the process, a functional matching is established in order to find which sets of organizations are able to fulfil the objectives. Then a non-functional selection has to be executed in order to find the “best” process, with the most adapted partners. This paper presents a framework that has been settled for evaluating the organizations through non-functional criteria. Based on various cases of partner selection, this framework is intended to be the most exhaustive possible: it should allow the system to evaluate organization as a human would do in the case of a request for proposal. A structure of framework is first proposed, that fits with the OpenPaaS utilization. Then, non-functional criteria are classified according to it.


Non-functional criteria Quality Collaborative process Partner selection 



The authors wish to acknowledge the French Project OpenPaaS for its support. We also wish to acknowledge our gratitude and appreciation to all the OpenPaaS Project partners for their contribution during the development of various ideas and concepts presented in this paper.


  1. 1.
    Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring customer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12–37.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Garvin, D. A. (1984). What does ‘product quality’ really mean? MIT Sloan Management Review, 26(1), 25–43.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hansen, E., & Bush, R. J. (1999). Understanding customer quality requirements: Model and application. Industrial Marketing Management, 28(2), 119–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bosak, J., McGrath, T., & Holman, G. K. (2006). Web services quality factors version 1.0. Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards (OASIS), Standard.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zribi, S., Bénaben, F., Lorré, J.-P., & Pingaud, H. (2013). Enhancing services selection by using non-functional properties within BPMN in SOA context. In Collaborative Systems for Reindustrialization (Vol. 18, pp. 305–313). Dresden, Germany.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Badr, Y., Abraham, A., Biennier, F., & Grosan, C. (2008). Enhancing web service selection by user preferences of non-functional features. In 4th International Conference on Next Generation Web Services Practices, 2008. NWESP’08 (pp. 60–65).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Roman, G. (1985). A taxonomy of current issues in requirements engineering. Computer, 18(4), 14–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boehm, B. W., Brown, J. R., & Lipow, M. (1976). Quantitative evaluation of software quality. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Software Engineering (pp. 592–605).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Davidrajuh, R., & Deng, Z. (2000). Identifying potential supplier for formation of virtual manufacturing systems. In Proceedings of 16th IFIP World Computer Congress. Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Xia, W., & Wu, Z. (2007). Supplier selection with multiple criteria in volume discount environments. Omega, 35(5), 494–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aurélie Montarnal
    • 1
  • Matthieu Lauras
    • 1
  • Frédérick Bénaben
    • 1
  • Jacques Lamothe
    • 1
  1. 1.Mines AlbiUniversity of ToulouseAlbiFrance

Personalised recommendations