A Framework to Support Software Quality Trade-Offs from a Process-Based Perspective

  • Gabriel Alberto García-Mireles
  • Ma Ángeles Moraga
  • Félix García
  • Mario Piattini
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 364)


Organizations are attempting to provide software that will meet stakeholders’ quality requirements. Experts recognize that interactions between quality requirements might be conflictive. A trade-off study is an approach that can be carried out in order to resolve this issue. Since a trade-off study is a kind of decision process, we have reviewed the decision processes in CMMI and ISO/IEC 12207 in order to identify the process requirements. As we wished to deal with only one set of requirements, we have applied a harmonization technique whose results show that tasks of the ISO/IEC 12207 decision process could be embedded in practices from the CMMI decision process. We have then developed a proposal for a process framework to deal with these issues, which includes a trade-off quality process. We depict the elements taken into account to build the framework, and the trade-off process is presented at a generic level.


harmonization mapping trade-off study CMMI-DEV ISO/IEC 12207 quality requirements conflict decision process 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Barbacci, M., Klein, M., Longstaff, T., Weinstock, C.: Quality Attributes (CMU/SEI-95-TR-021) (1995),
  2. 2.
    Boehm, B., In, H.: Identifying quality-requirement conflicts. IEEE Software 13(2), 25–35 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
    Paech, B., Kerkow, D.: Non-Functional Requirements Engineering - Quality is essential. In: Regnell, B., Kamsties, E., Gervasi, V. (eds.) 10th Anniversary International Workshop on Requirements Engineering: Foundation of Software Quality (REFSQ 2004), pp. 237–250 (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chung, L., do Prado Leite, J.C.S.: On non-functional requirements in software engineering. In: Borgida, A.T., Chaudhri, V.K., Giorgini, P., Yu, E.S., et al. (eds.) Conceptual Modeling: Foundations and Applications. LNCS, vol. 5600, pp. 363–379. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Robinson, W.N., Pawlowski, S.D., Volkov, V.: Requirements Interaction Management. ACM Computing Surveys 35(2), 132–190 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Alexander, I.: Initial industrial experience of misuse cases in trade-off analysis. In: IEEE Joint International Conference on Requirements Engineering, pp. 61–68 (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chung, L., Nixon, B.A.: Dealing with non-functional requirements: three experimental studies of a process-oriented approach. In: 17th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 25–37 (1995)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Barney, S., et al.: Software quality trade-offs: A systematic map. Information and Software Technology 54(7), 651–662 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    CMMI, P.T. CMMI for Development, Version 1.3 (CMU/SEI-2010-TR-033) (2010),
  11. 11.
    ISO, ISO/IEC 12207 Systems and software engineering — Software life cycle processes (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    García-Mireles, G.A., Moraga, M.Á., García, F., Piattini, M.: Towards the Harmonization of Process and Product Oriented Software Quality Approaches. In: Winkler, D., O’Connor, R.V., Messnarz, R. (eds.) EuroSPI 2012. CCIS, vol. 301, pp. 133–144. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pino, F.J., et al.: Mapping software acquisition practices from ISO 12207 and CMMI. Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution: Research and Practice 22, 279–296 (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jedlitschka, A., Pfahl, D.: Towards Comprehensive Experience-Based Decision Support. In: Dingsøyr, T. (ed.) EuroSPI 2004. LNCS, vol. 3281, pp. 34–45. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zannier, C., Chiasson, M., Maurer, F.: A model of design decision making based on empirical results of interviews with software designers. Information and Software Technology 49(6), 637–653 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Aurum, A., Wohlin, C.: The fundamental nature of requirements engineering activities as a decision-making process. Information and Software Technology 45(14), 945–954 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ruhe, G.: Software Engineering Decision Support – A New Paradigm for Learning Software Organizations. In: Henninger, S., Maurer, F. (eds.) LSO 2003. LNCS, vol. 2640, pp. 104–113. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Clarke, P., O’Connor, R.V.: The situational factors that affect the software development process: Towards a comprehensive reference framework. Information and Software Technology 54(5), 433–447 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ngo-The, A., Ruhe, G.: Decision Support in Requirements Engineering. In: Aurum, A., Wohlin, C. (eds.) Engineering and Managing Software Requirements, pp. 267–286. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Van Lamsweerde, A., Darimont, R., Letier, E.: Managing conflicts in goal-driven requirements engineering. IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering. 24(11), 908–926 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Egyed, A., Grünbacher, P.: Identifying requirements conflicts and cooperation: How quality attributes and automated traceability can help. IEEE Software 21(6), 50–58 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zulzalil, H., Ghani, A., Selamat, M., Mahmod, R.: A Case Study to Identify Quality Attributes Relationships for Web-based Applications. IJCSNS International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security 8(11), 215–220 (2008)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Henningsson, K., Wohlin, C.: Understanding the Relations between Software Quality Attributes - A Survey Approach. In: 12th International Conference for Software Quality, Ottawa, Canada, pp. 1–12 (2002)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sadana, V., Liu, X.F.: Analysis of conflicts among non-functional requirements using integrated analysis of functional and non-functional requirements. In: Society, I.C. (ed.) 31st Annual International Computer Software and Applications Conference, COMPSAC 2007, pp. 215–218 (2007)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Falessi, D., Cantone, G., Kazman, R., Kruchten, P.: Decision-making techniques for software architecture design: A comparative survey. ACM Comput. Surv. 43(4), 1–28 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Babar, M.A., Liming, Z., Jeffery, R.: A framework for classifying and comparing software architecture evaluation methods. In: Proceedings of Software Engineering Conference, Australian, pp. 309–318 (2004)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Vantakavikran, P., Prompoon, N.: Constructing a Process Model for Decision Analysis and Resolution on COTS Selection Issue of Capability Maturity Model Integration. In: 6th IEEE/ACIS International Conference on Computer and Information Science, ICIS 2007, pp. 182–187 (2007)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Phillips, B.C., Polen, S.M.: Add decision analysis to your COTS selection process. CrossTalk, 21–25 (2002)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hayshi, A.: Establish decision making process for selecting outsourcing company. In: 21 International Conference on Softwre Engineering and Knowlegde Engineering, SEKE 2009, pp. 666–671 (2009)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pardo, C., et al.: From chaos to the systematic harmonization of multiple reference models: A harmonization framework applied in two case studies. Journal of Systems and Software 86(1), 125–143 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Siviy, J., Kirwan, P., Morley, J., Marino, L.: Maximizing your Process Improvement ROI through Harmonization (2008),
  32. 32.
    ISO, ISO/IEC FCD 25010: Systems and software engineering - system and software product quality requirements and evaluation (SQauRE) - System and software quality models (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gabriel Alberto García-Mireles
    • 1
  • Ma Ángeles Moraga
    • 2
  • Félix García
    • 2
  • Mario Piattini
    • 2
  1. 1.Departmento de MatemáticasUniversidad de SonoraHermosilloMéxico
  2. 2.Instituto de Tecnologías y Sistemas de InformaciónUniversidad de Castilla-La ManchaCiudad RealEspaña

Personalised recommendations