- The paper reviews and classifies software quality models into Basic (e.g., McCall, ISO 9126) and Tailored categories, detailing their evolution and characteristics.
- Basic models like ISO 9126 and 25010 provide foundational quality frameworks, while Tailored models address specific domains like component-based or open-source software.
- The review highlights the comprehensive nature of ISO 25010 and suggests future models should integrate communication quality and automated metrics collection.
Evaluating Software Quality Models: An In-Depth Review
The reviewed paper offers a comprehensive analysis of software quality models utilized for assessing software products. The authors, José P. Miguel, David Mauricio, and Glen Rodríguez, classify quality models into two primary categories: Basic Models and Tailored Quality Models, reflecting the evolutions in software development practices over the years.
Overview and Classification of Software Quality Models
Since the 1970s, the development of software quality models has aimed to address the increasing demand for high-quality software products. Basic Quality Models, such as McCall's model (1977), the Boehm model (1978), and later the ISO 9126 model, provide a hierarchical framework to evaluate software quality through a variety of characteristics, including reliability, efficiency, and usability. These models facilitate a holistic assessment of software products, originally focusing on general software quality attributes.
As software development shifted towards component-based approaches post-2001, the need for quality models tailored to specific domains or applications became prominent. Tailored Quality Models, including those put forward by Bertoa (2001) and Rawashdeh (2006), build upon the principles of Basic Models, incorporating domain-specific attributes essential for evaluating Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) components. These models emphasize the reusability and interoperability of software components, thereby catering to the specialized needs of software development in diverse sectors.
Methodology and Terminology
The authors lay out a systematic methodology for their review, employing search strategies revolving around key terms linked to software quality and applying inclusion criteria that prioritize model-centric literature. The paper adopts an international standard-based terminology, primarily drawing from ISO and IEEE sources, to ensure consistency in discussing software quality attributes across different models.
Basic Quality Models
The paper explores several seminal Basic Quality Models:
- McCall Model (1977): Characterized by its triad of perspectives—Product Operations, Product Revision, and Product Transition—this model introduces the relationship between software quality characteristics and associated metrics.
- Boehm Model (1978): Enhances the McCall model by offering a finer granularity in evaluating quality through utility, maintainability, and portability aspects.
- ISO 9126 Model (2001): An evolution of previous models, it establishes a dual framework comprising internal and external quality attributes, along with a quality-in-use dimension. This model set the stage for future international standards.
- ISO 25010 Model (2007): As an update to ISO 9126, it broadens the range of quality characteristics to include security and compatibility, reflecting modern software quality demands.
Tailored Quality Models
Tailored Quality Models respond to the nuanced needs of particular software domains:
- Bertoa Model (2001): Adapts ISO 9126's attributes for effective evaluation of COTS components, emphasizing features relevant to component-based software engineering.
- GEQUAMO Model: Offers a customizable approach that allows users across various roles to prioritize different quality attributes based on specific requirements.
Models for Open Source Software
The paper also explores quality models for open-source software, recognizing the unique community-driven development paradigm. Models like OpenBRR and SQO-OSS focus extensively on source code quality and community engagement as key determinants of software quality.
Comparative Analysis
The paper contrasts both Basic and Tailored Quality Models, identifying the ISO 25010 as the most encompassing in terms of quality attributes. It suggests that future model development will likely build upon this standard while incorporating real-time feedback mechanisms for better adaptability to upcoming technological trends.
Conclusions and Implications
The authors conclude with insights into the applicability of software quality models and note the gap in the integration of communication quality as a pivotal factor in modern software products. They foresee the continuous evolution of quality models, particularly in addressing community dynamics in free and open-source software development.
Future Directions
Looking forward, the research flags the importance of aligned communication channels and enhanced context sensitivity within quality models to effectively cater to evolving industry standards and user demands. The exploration of automated metrics collection stands out as a promising avenue for advancing software quality assessment methodologies.
In summation, this paper offers valuable perspectives on the progression and diversification of software quality models, providing a foundation for future advancements tailored to increasingly specialized and dynamic development landscapes.