Software Quality Models: A Comparative Study paper
Download as PPTX, PDF1 like4,813 views
The document presents a comparative study of various software quality models, including McCall, Boehm, FURPS, Dromey, and ISO/IEC 9126, outlining their advantages and disadvantages. It proposes a formal comparison method based on mathematical evaluation to assess strengths and weaknesses and aid in creating standardized software quality metrics. The study also emphasizes the importance of defining clear evaluation criteria and the relationships between quality factors and software characteristics.
![Introduction
■ McCall [2] model was developed in 1976-7, which is one of the oldest software quality models.
This model started with a volume of 55 quality characteristics which have an important
influence on quality, and called them "factors".
■ The quality factors were compressed into eleven main factors in order to simplify the model.
■ The quality of software products was defined according to three major perspectives,
– product revision (ability to undergo changes),
– product transition (adaptability to new environments) and
– product operations (its operation characteristics).
■ Boehm model[4], the model was based on McCall model, he defined the second set of quality
factors.
■ SPARDAT is a commercial quality model was developed in the banking environment.The
model classified three significant factors: applicability, maintainability, and adaptability.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/presentation1-170521145141/85/Software-Quality-Models-A-Comparative-Study-paper-5-320.jpg)
Software Quality Models: A Comparative Study paper
- 1. Software Quality Models: A Comparative Study paper Summarized in 2017 Presented by: Moutasm tamimi Software Quality Al-Badareen, Anas Bassam, et al. "Software Quality Models: A Comparative Study." ICSECS (1). 2011.
- 2. Outline ■ Abstract ■ Introduction ■ Background ■ McCall, Boehm, FURPS, Dromey, and ISO (Comparisons) ■ This study intends to ■ McCall Model ■ Boehm Model ■ FURPS Model ■ Dromey (1995) Model ■ ISO IEC 9126 Model ■ ISO IEC 9126 Model Advantages ■ The Comparison Method ■ Case Study ■ Result and Discussion ■ The values ■ Conclusion
- 3. Abstract The models were proposed to evaluate general or specific scopes of software products. ■ The proposed models were developed based on comparisons between the well-known models, in order to customize the closed model to the intended scope. ■ These comparisons are leak of criteria that is conducted based on different perspectives and understanding. ■ Therefore, a formal method of comparison between software quality models is proposed. ■ The proposed method is applied on a comprehensive comparison between well-known software quality models. ■ The result of the proposed method shows the strength and weaknesses of those models.
- 4. Background hierarchical models meta-model-based models Statistical and Implicit Quality Models McCall FURPS model ISO/IEC 9126 COQUAMO SQUID (MI) ISO 9000 1978 1985 19771987 Boehm
- 5. Introduction ■ McCall [2] model was developed in 1976-7, which is one of the oldest software quality models. This model started with a volume of 55 quality characteristics which have an important influence on quality, and called them "factors". ■ The quality factors were compressed into eleven main factors in order to simplify the model. ■ The quality of software products was defined according to three major perspectives, – product revision (ability to undergo changes), – product transition (adaptability to new environments) and – product operations (its operation characteristics). ■ Boehm model[4], the model was based on McCall model, he defined the second set of quality factors. ■ SPARDAT is a commercial quality model was developed in the banking environment.The model classified three significant factors: applicability, maintainability, and adaptability.
- 6. McCall, Boehm, FURPS, Dromey, and ISO (Comparisons) ■ The method of develop a software quality models is started based on comparisons between selected well-known models in order to customize the closed model to the intended scope. ■ Comparisons based on the factors levels:
- 7. This study intends to ■ Develop a formal method that can be used to compare and differentiate between software quality models mathematically. ■ Help to avoid any contradictions that may occur during development. ■ help to define a standard basic for developing a software quality model. ■ The paper have the following: – Section two: Quality Models Background – Section three: Comparison Method – Section four: CaseStudy – Section Five: Result and Discussion
- 8. McCall Model external factors product quality criteria Assess the relationships Classified in three major types External view of the software (11 factors ) Internal view of the software (23 quality criteria) user view developer view Metrics to provide a scale and method for measurement factors reduced to eleven Correctness, Reliability, Efficiency, Integrity, Usability, Maintainability,Testability, Flexibility, Portability, Reusability, and Interoperability. Adv:The major contribution of this model the relationship between the quality characteristics and metrics Dis adv: model not consider directly on the functionality of software products
- 9. Boehm Model new factors to McCall’s maintainability of software product Adv: Address the contemporary shortcomings of models that automatically and quantitatively evaluate the quality of software Adv: Represents the characteristics of the software product hierarchically in order to get contribute in the total quality Dis adv: model contains only a diagram without any suggestion about measuring the quality characteristics.
- 10. FURPS Model user’s requirements Functional (F) and non-functional requirements (NF) Characteristics were classified (F) Defined by input and expected output (NF) URPS): Usability, reliability, performance, supportability. Adv: this model considered only the user’s requirements and disregards the developer consideration Dis adv: the model fails to take into account the software some of the product characteristics, such as portability and maintainability
- 11. Dromey (1995) Model Adv: model broad enough to work for different systems To increase understanding of relationship Attributes (characteristics) sub-attributes (sub- characteristics) model defined two layers high-level attributes subordinate attributes Dis adv: this model suffers from lack of criteria for measurement of software quality dynamic process modelling
- 12. ISO IEC 9126 Model confusion happened and new standard model Standard for quality assurance ISO 9000 ISO 9126 ISO/IEC JTC1 began to develop the required consensus and encourage standardization world-wide. Software product quality attributes classified hierarchical tree structure characteristic s Sub characteristic s Six (Functionality, Reliability, Usability, Efficiency, Maintainability and Portability) Is used as part of a computer system, and are the result of internal software attributes highest level of the structure consists of the quality characteristics lowest level consists of the software quality criteria.
- 13. ISO IEC 9126 ModelAdvantages The characteristics are applicable to every kind of software Provide a framework for making trade-offs between software product capabilities
- 14. The Comparison Method Assigning values Factors comparison Models comparison model selection Depends on the scope intended to be evaluated Well-known software quality models are considered in developing a new model Factors Selection are collected and combined in one structural tree (Fa, Fb…Fn) the sub factors are combined under their factors (S1, S2, Sn). FactorsWeighting the weight of factors (W1, W2…….Wn) and sub factor (Wa, Wb……Wm) are assigned FactorsValues the value of the same factor within the selected models is calculated (Formula 1) the total value of each model is calculated (Formula 2), based on the calculated values of their factors. The Comparison total value for each factor is compared between the selected models It consists of four main tasks Model selection
- 16. Case Study The comparison shows the main differences between these models.The following steps are followed in order to perform the task: – Step 1: combine the factors of the selected models and remove the repeated – Step 2: combine the sub-factors for each factor – Step 3: assign the weight for each factor – Step 4: assign the weight for each sub factor Step – 5: calculate the weight for each factor in every model independently – Step 6: compare the values of same factors in all of the selected models
- 17. Result and Discussion ■ This study was to collect the factors that included by selected models and remove the repeated according to the definition of each of them. ■ The second step is combining the sub-factors from all of the models for specific factor. ■ The repeated sub characteristics were removed according to the definition of each of them.
- 18. The values ■ The values were seated equivalently which gave 50% of the value to present whether the factor is included in the model, whereas 25% was given if the characteristic is included as a sub factor. ■ Because of the generality of this comparison which not considered any type of software or any specific software domain, the value of the factors are same. ■ the values for each factor within the same model are calculated according to the same formula that was used to calculate the values of the factors.
- 19. The total value for each model ■ Table 2 presents the total value for each model, whereas figure 2 shows the graphical presentation of these values.
- 22. Conclusion ■ Each model was discussed in details, the advantages and disadvantages were expressed. ■ Comprehensive comparison between the selected models was presented.The comparison goes behind the definitions of the software quality factors into sub factors and criteria. ■ New comparison method was proposed, in order to get clear and accurate differences between software quality models. ■ The comparison was basic on mathematical formula, in order to show graphically the differences between those models. ■ This method requires assign values for the sub factors moreover the main factors. Which is gave a clear picture of the differences between the models
- 23. Speaker Information Moutasm tamimi Independent consultant , IT Researcher , CEO at ITG7 Instructor of: Project Development. DBMS. .NET applications. Digital marketing. Email: [email protected] LinkedIn: click here.