Methods for Supporting Management of Interactions Between
Quality Characteristics
Gabriel Alberto García-Mireles
1
, M
a
Ángeles Moraga de la Rubia
2
, Félix García
2
and Mario Piattini
2
1
Departamento de Matemáticas, Universidad de Sonora, Blvrd. Rosales y Rodríguez s/n, Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico
2
Instituto de Tecnologías y Sistemas de Información, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Ciudad Real, Spain
Keywords: Software Quality Characteristics, Interaction between Quality Characteristics, Mapping Study.
Abstract: Improving a particular quality characteristic in a software product may have a negative impact on the others.
The literature shows that few organizations handle interactions between quality characteristics; this neglect
may be a causal factor in failed projects. That led us to propose a process framework to support
organizations that want to manage the interactions between quality characteristics. In this paper, we present
the methods that may be used when the process framework is deployed. The methods were extracted from a
published mapping study on software quality trade-offs. They were classified with regard to the particular
context facet addressed and the specific decision-making approach used. Our contribution is a set of
methods to manage interaction between quality characteristics, organized into a software process
framework.
1 INTRODUCTION
When developing software, the enhancement of a
given quality characteristic may have a negative
impact on the others (Ashrafi, 2003). The
advantages and disadvantages of each solution
option should be analyzed in order to minimize
negative collateral effects. The lack of management
of interactions between quality characteristics can be
a causal factor in failed software projects (Thakurta,
2012); (Theofanos and Pfleeger, 2011).
Software organizations need adequate processes
to manage this kind of interactions. It is nonetheless
the case that product quality, as defined by standards
such as the ISO9126, is barely addressed in software
process improvement literature (Unterkalmsteiner et
al., 2012). In a previous paper, and in an effort to
support software organizations that want to deal with
interaction between software quality characteristics,
we proposed a process framework to manage
interactions between quality characteristics (García-
Mireles et al., 2013b).
Our goal in this paper is thus to identify an initial
set of methods that software organizations may
implement to manage the interactions between
quality requirements. The objective is to answer the
following research questions:
RQ1. What methods can a software organization use
to manage interactions between quality
characteristics?
RQ2. What particular quality models are considered
in these methods?
The research relies both on reviewing 20 empirical
papers of a mapping study (Barney et al., 2012) and
on applying techniques to carry out mapping studies
(Kitchenham and Charters, 2007). Our next step is to
map methods/practices reviewed with our
framework. The contribution is a set of methods or
practices directed at practitioners who wish to apply
a systematic approach to dealing with quality
characteristic interactions.
This paper is organized as follows: Section 2
describes the work related to managing interaction at
earlier stages of the software lifecycle and gives an
overview of our process framework. Section 3 gives
a description of the method used to study the
empirical papers. Section 4 provides the
categorization of articles studied in our attempt to
answer the research questions. Section 5 establishes
a relationship between the methods and our
proposal; it also outlines some results of the survey
carried out. Section 6 presents the discussion about
the results. Finally, Section 7 sets out our
conclusions and discusses future work.
93
García-Mireles G., Moraga de la Rubia M., García F. and Piattini M..
Methods for Supporting Management of Interactions Between Quality Characteristics.
DOI: 10.5220/0004867400930100
In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering (ENASE-2014), pages 93-100
ISBN: 978-989-758-030-7
Copyright
c
2014 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)
2 RELATED WORK
Interaction between requirements may arise in
situations in which one requirement places
constraints on the design or coding options
(Dahlstedt and Persson, 2005). To select a solution
option, there are prioritization and negotiation
approaches (Lehtola and Kauppinen, 2004).
On the one hand, prioritization approaches assign
weight to each relevant criterion when assessing
requirements/solution options (Berander and
Andrews, 2005). On the other hand, in a negotiation
approach the stakeholders look for an agreement in
which the conflict between goals is resolved
(Grünbacher and Seyff, 2005).
Figure 1: Partial view of the process framework.
Decisions about quality characteristics that must
be considered in a software project have an impact
on software process (Allen et al., 2006). Software
process literature, however, pays little attention to
product quality characteristics (Unterkalmsteiner et
al., 2012). Indeed, Chiam et al., (2013) argued that
there are no systematic approaches to represent and
integrate methods that support product quality
attributes within the current software process
models. Bearing all this in mind, in a previous work
we presented a process framework for managing
interactions between quality characteristics (García-
Mireles et al., 2013b).
The main goal of our process framework is to
manage interactions between quality characteristics
which arise during software development (García-
Mireles et al., 2013b). The framework relies on a
repository of tailored product quality models
focused on usability, maintainability, and security. It
also contains interaction matrices which describe the
type of relationships that exist between quality
characteristics. The initial content of these matrices
is based on a review of interactions between quality
characteristics (García-Mireles et al., 2013a).
The process framework is composed of several
processes, which can be implemented both at
organizational level and at project level. Fig. 1
shows the processes that may be applied at the
organizational level to tailor quality models and to
establish quality goals. A software organization
which wishes to manage quality characteristic
interactions should define an appropriate quality
model. If clients and users are expecting an
enhanced product quality, then the process to define
quality goals could be performed. Each process,
however, requires appropriate methods.
3 METHOD
The identification of an initial set of methods to
manage the interactions between software quality
characteristics was based on a review of the 20
empirical papers classified as process and
requirements in the mapping study (Barney et al.,
2012). This mapping study meets quality criteria
(Table 1) for follow-on research activities
(Kitchenham et al., 2011). After the mapping study
evaluation and in order to answer our research
questions (Section 1), we define a classification
schema to extract data.
Table 1: Quality of the mapping study.
Criterion Mapping study (Barney et al. 2012)
References List of 43 empirical papers
Reliable
Classification
Papers are categorized by artefact focus, rigour
and relevance (Ivarsson and Gorschek, 2011)
Stringent
search process
Five databases consulted
Search period limited to 2005-2010
Research protocol was built
Keywords identified iteratively
At least two researchers reviewed papers
Our first classification is concerned with research
type (Table 2). If a paper describes a technology for
changing the software process, it is considered as
intervention research (I). Otherwise, the empirical
ENASE2014-9thInternationalConferenceonEvaluationofNovelSoftwareApproachestoSoftwareEngineering
94
paper belongs to the descriptive research (D)
category.
Our second classification used the context facet
categories checklist (Petersen and Wohlin, 2009).
Process describes the work-flow of the
development. Practices, tools and techniques
describe systematic approaches that are used in the
organization; we added the component of method to
this category. Roles belong to the people facet.
Product is the software system developed. In the
organization facet, in contrast to the original
checklist, we consider those studies describing
issues/practices at an organizational level.
Since the rigour classification gives an
approximate overview of the state of research
(Ivarsson and Gorschek, 2011), we convert it to a
binary scale. The paper has high rigour if its value is
greater or equal to 2; otherwise, the rigour is
considered as low.
Other columns (Table 2), such as research
method, industrial sector and software type help us
to understand the context in which the research was
conducted. The QM/QC column (Table 2) is related
to the second question; it contains either the quality
models used or the quality characteristics mentioned.
In addition, we classify the papers with regard to
the approach used in making decisions (Berander
and Andrews, 2005); (Lehtola and Kauppinen,
2004). With the empirical studies now classified, we
explore the relationships between the methods
identified and the process framework (Fig. 1).
Finally, we present some results from an exploratory
survey.
4 ANALYSIS OF PUBLICATIONS
In this section we present the main findings from the
empirical papers reviewed. The papers belonging to
descriptive research also correspond to the
organization facet category (Berntsson Svensson et
al., 2009); (Barney and Wohlin, 2009); (Barney et
al., 2009). The principal findings reported are that
the priorities of product managers concerning
quality requirements (QR) are different from those
of project leaders.
To answer the research questions, we present the
findings from the papers reviewed, considering the
particular context facet used to classify the paper.
4.1 Tools
We found five papers whose main topic is the
description of tools. In their effort to assign a
priority to quality characteristics, Xiaojing and
Jihong (2010) and Chang et al., (2008) based their
tool on AHP and Fuzzy Logic. Fuzzy methods may
reduce ambiguity and uncertainty of values assigned
to software quality attributes. Assessment criteria are
based on quality models. However, these authors do
not discuss the impact of tools in software process.
From the negotiation approach perspective, the
studies proposed by Linhares et al., (2009) and
Ramires et al., (2005), introduce an argumentation-
based model to support either negotiation among
stakeholders or technical reviews. Patankar and
Hewett (2008), for their part, present an algorithm
for negotiating web services.
4.2 Methods
Six publications deal with methods. Four of them
correspond to the negotiation category (Svensson et
al., 2008); (Svensson et al., 2010); (Vanhanen et al.,
2009); (Regnell et al., 2007). The other two belong
to the prioritization approach (Lacerda et al., 2010);
(Yahaya and Deraman, 2010).
Regnell et al., (2007) present the Quality
Performance (QUPER) model. The method aims to
support prioritization of quality aspects at early
stages of release planning. It considers that a change
in quality level could result in a non-linear value in
either costs or benefits. The authors propose a
quality view in which they identify breakpoints and
barriers. Breakpoints are related to quality levels that
have an impact on benefits, while barriers are related
to quality levels and their respective costs.
Breakpoint and cost barriers are difficult to identify
when a new technology arises. Findings from
validating QUPER method show that it is difficult
to identify quality indicators and their respective
values (Svensson et al., 2008). They also tell us that
expertise in the area, the latest test outcomes and
years of domain knowledge are factors which might
contribute to establishing appropriate breakpoints
(Svensson et al., 2010).
Vanhanen et al., (2009) propose a method to
handle quality goals that is based on the Quality
Attribute Workshop (QAW) and Quality
Performance method (QUPER). Through a
brainstorming session the quality goals are elicited
and the most important quality goals are elaborated.
Lacerda et al., (2010) propose a method based on
measures and a balance-scoreboard to identify
business objectives for a new product portfolio,
considering contextual factors. In addition, Yahaya
and Deraman (2010) describe a method for assessing
software which is in the operation stage. Criteria
MethodsforSupportingManagementofInteractionsBetweenQualityCharacteristics
95
weights (based on ISO9126) for quality assessment
were determined previously, by means of a survey.
The method requires collaborative discussion on the
part of the user, developer, and independent
assessor.
4.3 Process
Of the papers which describe processes, three use a
prioritization approach (Onut and Efendigil, 2010);
(Trienekens et al., 2010); (Sibisi and Van Waveren,
2007). Another uses a risk-based approach (Mead
and Stehney, 2005).
Onut and Efendigil (2010) propose a decision
process for choosing an Enterprise Resource
Planning (ERP) supplier. The decision-makers
establish the priority of decision criteria using a
fuzzy AHP method. Trienekens et al., (2010), on the
other hand, based their proposal on two changes:
redefinition of quality characteristics from a product
model and using a prioritization method (AHP).
Mead and Stehney (2005) describe the
experience of applying a methodology for eliciting
and prioritizing security requirements in a company
which manages system assets. The process considers
how security requirements can be related to business
goals. Based on ISO 9126, the Goal-Question-
Metric (GQM) and ISO 14598, Sibisi and Van
Waveren (2007) present a process framework for
customizing software quality models. They develop
a survey questionnaire based on measures suggested
for each quality sub-characteristic.
Table 2: Empirical publications reviewed (legend: QM/QC: Quality model(s)/Quality characteristic(s). Type: I:
intervention, D: descriptive).
Id Type Facet QM/QC R. Method Industrial S. Software Type Rigour
(Svensson et al., 2008) I Method Performance
Action
Research
Telecomm. Mobile Products High
(Svensson et al., 2010) I Method
Maintainability,
efficiency
Action
Research
Electronic
Payment
Payment
Terminals
High
(Vanhanen et al., 2009) I Method ISO9126 Case Study Market Driven N/A High
(Regnell et al., 2007) I Method N/A Interview Telecomm. Mobile Product Low
(Berntsson Svensson et al., 2009) D
Organi-
zation
ISO9126 &
McCall
Interview
Telecomm &
Control
Embedded
Systems
High
(Barney and Wohlin, 2009) D
Organi-
zation
ISO9126 + time,
cost, scope
Survey Telecomm. 2 Products Low
(Lacerda et al., 2010) I Method N/A Case Study N/A SOA-Based Low
(Onut and Efendigil, 2010) I Process
ISO9126 + cost
+ reputation
Case Study
Manufacturing/
Chemical Industry
ERP System High
(Barney et al., 2009) D
Organi-
zation
Features, time,
cost, (ISO9126)
Survey Telecomm. 2 Products Low
(Mead and Stehney, 2005) I Process Security Case Study
Management
Services
IT Asset Mngmt Low
(Sibisi and Van Waveren, 2007) I Process
ISO9126, ISO
14598 + GQM
Survey Entertainment Embedded System High
(Trienekens et al., 2010) I Process ISO9126 Case Study Naval Mission-Critical High
(Oliveira et al., 2008) I Product Internal quality Experiment Control Systems
Embedded
Systems
High
(Yahaya and Deraman, 2010) I Method
ISO9126 +
integrity
Case Study Health Sector
Information
System
Low
(Fogelström et al., 2009) D Roles N/A Experiment N/A N/A High
(Linhares et al., 2009) I Tools N/A Experiment Telecomm. N/A Low
(Ramires et al., 2005) I Tools ISO9126 Experiment Government Pension Systems Low
(Xiaojing and Jihong, 2010) I Tools McCall Case Study N/A N/A Low
(Chang et al., 2008) I Tools ISO9126 Case Study Government
Video Recorder
System
Low
(Patankar and Hewett, 2008) I Tools QoS metrics Example N/A Web Services Low
ENASE2014-9thInternationalConferenceonEvaluationofNovelSoftwareApproachestoSoftwareEngineering
96
Table 3: Methods that might be used in the process framework to manage interactions between quality characteristics.
Make-decision
approach
Method /
technique
Purpose Requirements / Notes
Prioritization methods
AHP
Fuzzy AHP
To establish the weight of quality
characteristics in evaluation criteria
To assess software quality
To select the best product alternative
Require tool support to capture data and to validate them
The technique is time consuming
Define the term which is used to prioritize
Measures
To assess software alternatives with
regard to measures taken and presented
on a scoreboard or as performance
indicators
Build a specific quality model. Identify suitable measures and
procedures to perform measurement and data aggregation
Surveys
To elicit software quality with regard to
perception of users and developers
Build a specific quality model. Identify suitable measures and
procedures to perform data aggregation
Construct a questionnaire
Negotiation approach
Risk-based
To identify relevant quality requirements
based on the risks related to the software
product
Determine business goals and product goals
Use specific methods to elicit user requirements
Apply specific methods for modeling quality requirements
and assessing the related risks
Align product quality requirements with business goals
Tool-based
To support argumentation among
stakeholders
To support negotiation in a distributed
environment
A tool must be provided
The tool must have an argumentation model or component to
support participants’ comments
The tool must implement a model to support decision-making
Workshop
To elicit quality requirements , quality
indicators, quality measures, and quality
values
To customize quality models
To compare quality of their own product
with regard to market /competence
A moderator is needed to support the method
Stakeholder experience in the software domain and industry
sector is required to identify relevant quality indicators and
quality values
Standards and suppliers can help to identify quality indicators
and quality values
Establish a voting/ranking approach
4.4 How Quality Models Are Used
We found a broad range of reference to the term
“quality” in papers reviewed. ISO9126 is cited in ten
papers, while the McCall model is referred to in two
publications. Some particular quality characteristics
are also addressed. In addition, there are some
proposals that trade-off software quality against
other criteria such as time, cost, scope, intellectual
capital, the supplier’s reputation, or the impact
factor. Some papers, however, do not mention the
product quality model used as reference (Svensson
et al., 2010); (Regnell et al., 2007); (Svensson et al.,
2008).
Other papers addressed a measure-based
approach for dealing with software quality. Lacerda
et al., (2010) use quality terms without definition,
but their proposal includes measures to control
quality terms. Some authors used internal quality
measures to assess software internal quality
(Oliveira et al., 2008), or used measures to assess the
quality of web service (Patankar and Hewett, 2008).
Quality models are also used, as they are defined,
for classifying requirements (Ramires et al., 2005),
for establishing weight for evaluation criteria in
AHP (Xiaojing and Jihong, 2010); (Chang et al.,
2008); (Onut and Efendigil, 2010) as a checklist to
identify new quality requirements (Vanhanen et al.,
2009), or as a checklist for interviewing practitioners
(Berntsson Svensson et al., 2009).
Table 4: Main findings of the survey.
Aspect Findings
Quality
models
Usability and maintainability models based
on ISO25010
Stakeholders
Analyst, project leader, customer
representatives
Approach to
trade-offs
Negotiation and code measures aggregated
on a scoreboard
Other methods have adapted the ISO 9126 with
regard to the specific project context, establishing
specific quality indicators and specific measures
(Trienekens et al., 2010). Various other researchers
related quality characteristics to their respective
measures, producing a questionnaire that would
assess software quality (Yahaya and Deraman,
2010). In addition, one proposal set out a method
for building specific product quality models, taking
into account measures for assessing ISO9126 quality
characteristics; it uses GQM to clarify the meaning
of measures (Sibisi and Van Waveren, 2007).
MethodsforSupportingManagementofInteractionsBetweenQualityCharacteristics
97
5 METHODS SUPPORTING OUR
PROCESS FRAMEWORK
We selected all the empirical papers categorized as
intervention research because they validated the
method in an organizational setting. They are
presented as a summary of findings (Table 3) to
classify the evidence with regard to the approach
used to make decisions. The data shown in Table 3
can support the definition of a repository of methods
to support the process framework for managing
interactions between quality characteristics (García-
Mireles et al., 2013b).
A hypothetical example can show the
relationship between methods identified and the
process framework. For instance, if a software
organization wants to assess quality characteristics
when buying a software product, it may implement
the tailoring quality model process (Fig. 1). In this
context it may be appropriate to consider quality
models, taking into account relevant quality
characteristics and surveying stakeholders to
establish a relative order among the options (survey
method from Table 3). In contrast, when trade-offs
are required at earlier stages of software
development, it is necessary to customize the quality
model, identify relevant measures and quality
indicators, and establish target values (measures
method from Table 3).
We surveyed three small companies to
understand how they deal with interactions between
quality characteristics (Table 4). All of the firms
based their decisions on a measure-based scoreboard
which displayed values for usability and
maintainability. That means that if some discrepancy
about quality goals came up in the meeting,
participants reviewed the data and established
actions to carry out until the next meeting. The
survey results, then, allow us to undertake deeper
research on this topic.
6 DISCUSSION
As an answer for the first research question,
regarding methods for prioritization and negotiation
approaches, we found that AHP, fuzzy AHP,
surveys, and measure-based methods are suggested
for the prioritization of quality characteristics. Risk-
based analysis, argumentation-based tools and
workshops are the approaches that pertain to the
negotiation approach. The identification of the
purpose of methods and its requirements can support
the selection of methods, considering the particular
context in which software development is carried
out. The mapping of these methods to our process
framework organizes them with regard to
organizational and project goals (García-Mireles et
al., 2013b).
The method’s purpose allows us to find out
which process, as described in ISO/IEC 12207 (ISO,
2008), may use it. The following processes may
have a relationship with the methods reviewed:
acquisition process, measurement process, software
review process, software operation process,
stakeholder requirements definition process, system
requirements analysis process, and software
requirements analysis process. Since the
management of interactions between quality
characteristics can be considered throughout the
software life cycle, our proposed framework
provides a systematic approach to deal with this kind
of interactions (García-Mireles et al., 2013b).
On the other hand, research question two focused
on the quality models addressed. In a nutshell,
quality models such as ISO9126 can be used without
any change and may be employed either to evaluate
perceptions about quality or to assess the general
product quality. During software development,
however, the quality model must be customized,
based on suitable indicators and appropriate
measures. The adaptation can include adding new
quality sub-characteristics, removing unnecessary
components or redefining quality terms. It should be
said, nevertheless, that we did also find some papers
which do not include the definition of quality terms;
this may be an issue when the method is compared
with other studies.
Limitations on the research method include the
selection of primary papers and data aggregation.
Despite the fact that the research period is limited to
2005-2010 (Barney et al., 2012), the mapping study
offers the possibility of exploring the whole range of
options for dealing with interactions between quality
characteristics. This fulfils our goal of identifying an
initial set of methods to manage the interaction
between quality characteristics. With regard to the
classification schema used, we use published
classification schema that can facilitate the review of
empirical papers from both a process and a decision-
making perspective. Indeed, data synthesis based on
classification schema has also been reported in
literature reviews (Genero et al., 2011).
ENASE2014-9thInternationalConferenceonEvaluationofNovelSoftwareApproachestoSoftwareEngineering
98
7 CONCLUSIONS
The software engineering community is aware of
interdependencies among software quality
characteristics. When conflictive interactions arise,
software engineers should manage them. In order to
understand how the methods to manage interactions
can be used from a software process perspective, we
reviewed empirical publications reported in a
mapping study.
In order to answer our first question, about
methods to manage interactions between quality
characteristics, the literature suggests that AHP,
measures, surveys, workshops and tools can be used
to prioritize or negotiate quality
characteristics/requirements. The goals of a
particular project, as well as the resources available
are relevant factors in choosing appropriate methods.
In addition, the classification schema applied help in
the identification of methods to support our process
framework for managing interactions between
quality characteristics.
In order to answer the second question, about the
quality models used, we found that quality models,
such as ISO9126, can be used either just as they had
been defined, or customized. The particular
contextual factors of the software systems and the
goals to evaluate software product quality should be
considered when the quality model is used or
adapted.
As future work, we need to enhance the proposed
framework, by considering methods and techniques
that could be used at different software lifecycle
stages. In this exploratory study we considered some
of the methods proposed, but we will also have to
review specific methods related to usability,
security, and maintainability, as well as those
concerning how to deal with their interdependencies.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work has been funded by the GEODAS-BC
project (Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad
and Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional FEDER,
TIN2012-37493-C03-01).
REFERENCES
Allen, J., Kitchenham, B. & Konrad, M. 2006. Theme Q.
The relationships between processes and product
qualities. In: E. Forrester (eds.) A Process Research
Framework. In: Forrester, E. (ed.) A Process Research
Framework. Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie
Mellon.19-28.
Ashrafi, N. 2003. The impact of software process
improvement on quality: in theory and practice.
Information & Management 40, 677-690.
Barney, S., Petersen, K., Svahnberg, M., Aurum, A. &
Barney, H. 2012. Software quality trade-offs: A
systematic map. Information and Software
Technology, 54, 651-662.
Barney, S. & Wohlin, C. 2009. Software Product Quality:
Ensuring a Common Goal. In: Wang, Q., Garousi, V.,
Madachy, R. & PFAHL, D., eds. Trustworthy
Software Development Processes. Springer Berlin
Heidelberg, 256-267.
Barney, S., Wohlin, C. & Aurum, A. 2009. Balancing
software product investments. In: Empirical Software
Engineering and Management (ESEM). 257-268.
Berander, P. & Andrews, A. 2005. Requirements
Prioritization. In: AURUM, A. & WOHLIN, C., eds.
Engineering and Managing Software Requirements.
Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 69-94.
Berntsson Svensson, R., Gorschek, T. & Regnell, B. 2009.
Quality requirements in practice: An interview study
in requirements engineering for embedded systems.
In: Requirements Engineering: Foundation for
Software Quality. 218-232.
Chang, C. W., Wu, C. R. & Lin, H. L. 2008. Integrating
fuzzy theory and hierarchy concepts to evaluate
software quality. Software Quality Journal, 16, 263-
276.
Chiam, Y. K., Staples, M., Ye, X. & Zhu, L. 2013.
Applying a selection method to choose Quality
Attribute Techniques. Information and Software
Technology, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.infsof.2013.02.001.
Dahlstedt, Å. & Persson, A. 2005. Requirements
Interdependencies: State of the Art and Future
Challenges. In: AURUM, A. & WOHLIN, C., eds.
Engineering and Managing Software Requirements.
Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 95-116.
Fogelström, N. D., Barney, S., Aurum, A. & Hederstierna,
A. 2009. When product managers gamble with
requirements: Attitudes to value and risk. In: 15th
International Working Conference on Requirements
Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality
(RefsQ). 1-15.
García-Mireles, G. A., Moraga, M. Á., Garcia, F. &
Piattini, M. 2013a. Identificación de interacciones
entre las características de calidad del software. In:
JISBD2013, Universidad Complutense de Madrid,
Madrid, España. 141-154.
García-Mireles, G. A., Moraga, M. Á., García, F. &
Piattini, M. 2013b. A framework to support quality
trade-offs from a process-based perspective.
In:
MCCAFFERY, F., O’CONNOR, R. V. &
MESSNARZ, R., eds. EuroSPI2013,CCIS 364.
Springer-Verlag Berling Heidelberg, 96-107.
Genero, M., Fernández-Saez, A. M., Nelson, H. J., Poels,
G. & Piattini, M. 2011. A systematic literature review
MethodsforSupportingManagementofInteractionsBetweenQualityCharacteristics
99
on the quality of UML models. Journal of Database
Management, 22, 46-70.
Grünbacher, P. & Seyff, N. 2005. Requirements
Negotiation. In: AURUM, A. & WOHLIN, C., eds.
Engineering and Managing Software Requirements.
Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 143-162.
Iso 2008. ISO/IEC 12207 Systems and software
engineering — Software life cycle processes.
Ivarsson, M. & Gorschek, T. 2011. A method for
evaluating rigor and industrial relevance of technology
evaluations. Empirical Software Engineering, 16, 365-
395.
Kitchenham, B. & Charters, S. 2007. Guidelines for
Performing Systematic Literature Review in Software
Engineering. ver. 2.3, Keele University, EBSE
Technical Report, EBSE-2007-01.
Kitchenham, B. A., Budgen, D. & Pearl Brereton, O.
2011. Using mapping studies as the basis for further
research - A participant-observer case study.
Information and Software Technology, 53, 638-651.
Lacerda, R. T. O., Ensslin, L. & Ensslin, S. R. 2010. A
study case about a software project management
success metrics. In: Software Engineering Workshop
(SEW), 2009 33rd Annual IEEE 45-54.
Lehtola, L. & Kauppinen, M. 2004. Empirical evaluation
of two requirements prioritization methods in product
development projects. In: LNCS 3281. 161-170.
Linhares, G. R., Borges, M. S. & Antunes, P. 2009.
Negotiation-Collaboration in Formal Technical
Reviews. In: CARRIÇO, L., BALOIAN, N. &
FONSECA, B., eds. Groupware: Design,
Implementation, and Use. Springer Berlin Heidelberg,
344-356.
Mead, N. R. & Stehney, T. 2005. Security quality
requirements engineering (SQUARE) methodology.
In: Proceedings of the 2005 workshop on Software
engineering for secure systems\—building
trustworthy applications, St. Louis, Missouri.
1083214: ACM, 1-7.
Oliveira, M. F. S., Redin, R. M., Carro, L., Lamb, L. D. C.
& Wagner, F. R. 2008. Software quality metrics and
their impact on embedded software. In: Model-based
Methodologies for Pervasive and Embedded Software,
2008. MOMPES 2008. 5th International Workshop on
68-77.
Onut, S. & Efendigil, T. 2010. A theorical model design
for ERP software selection process under the
constraints of cost and quality: A fuzzy approach.
Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, 21, 365-378.
Patankar, V. & Hewett, R. 2008. Automated negotiations
in web service procurement. In: Internet and Web
Applications and Services, 2008. ICIW '08. Third
International Conference on 620-625.
Petersen, K. & Wohlin, C. 2009. Context in industrial
software engineering research.
In: Empirical Software
Engineering and Measurement, 2009. ESEM 2009. 3rd
International Symposium on. 401-404.
Ramires, J., Antunes, P. & Respício, A. 2005. Software
requirements negotiation using the software quality
function deployment. In: Groupware: Design,
Implementation, and Use. 308-324.
Regnell, B., Höst, M. & Berntsson Svensson, R. 2007. A
Quality Performance Model for Cost-Benefit Analysis
of Non-functional Requirements Applied to the
Mobile Handset Domain. In: SAWYER, P., PAECH,
B. & HEYMANS, P., eds. Requirements Engineering:
Foundation for Software Quality. Springer Berlin
Heidelberg, 277-291.
Sibisi, M. & Van Waveren, C. C. 2007. A process
framework for customising software quality models.
In: AFRICON 2007. 1-8.
Svensson, R. B., Olsson, T. & Regnell, B. 2008.
Introducing Support for Release Planning of Quality
Requirements- An Industrial Evaluation of the
QUPER Model. In: Software Product Management,
2008. IWSPM '08. Second International Workshop on
18-26.
Svensson, R. B., Sprockel, Y., Regnell, B. &
Brinkkemper, S. 2010. Cost and benefit analysis of
quality requirements in competitive software product
management: A case study on the QUPER model. In:
Software Product Management (IWSPM), 2010
Fourth International Workshop on. 40-48.
Thakurta, R. 2012. A framework for prioritization of
quality requirements for inclusion in a software
project. Software Quality Journal, doi:
10.1007/s11219-012-9188-5, 1-25.
Theofanos, M. F. & Pfleeger, S. L. 2011. Guest Editors'
introduction: Shouldn't all security be usable? IEEE
Security and Privacy, 9, 12-17.
Trienekens, J. J. M., Kusters, R. J. & Brussel, D. C. 2010.
Quality specification and metrication, results from a
case-study in a mission-critical software domain.
Software Quality Journal, 18, 469-490.
Unterkalmsteiner, M., Gorschek, T., Islam, A. K. M. M.,
Cheng, C. K., Permadi, R. B. & Feldt, R. 2012.
Evaluation and Measurement of Software Process
Improvement— A Systematic Literature Review.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SOFTWARE
ENGINEERING, 38, 398-424.
Vanhanen, J., Mäntylä, M. V. & Itkonen, J. 2009.
Lightweight elicitation and analysis of software
product quality goals - A multiple industrial case
study. In: Software Product Management (IWSPM),
2009 Third International Workshop on. IEEE
Computer Society, 42-52.
Xiaojing, L. & Jihong, P. 2010. A Fuzzy Synthetic
Evaluation Method for Software Quality. In: e-
Business and Information System Security (EBISS),
2010 2nd International Conference on. 1-4.
Yahaya, J. H. & Deraman, A. 2010. Measuring
unmeasurable attributes of software quality using
pragmatic quality factor. In: Computer Science and
Information Technology (ICCSIT), 2010 3rd IEEE
International Conference on. 197-202.
ENASE2014-9thInternationalConferenceonEvaluationofNovelSoftwareApproachestoSoftwareEngineering
100
