John Krogstie
Abstract
The notion of quality of information system models and other conceptual models is not well understood. However, recent quality frameworks have tried to take a more systematic approach. We have earlier developed a framework for understanding and assessing the quality of models in general, with emphasis on models made in conceptual modeling languages. At the same time, there is a long tradition on discussing quality of more specialized models, e.g. in the form of requirements specifications. Several authors have created taxonomies of useful properties of models and requirements specifications, the most comprehensive overview being presented by Alan Davis.We have in this paper extended our quality framework for models based on the work by Davis on quality in requirement specifications, looking upon a requirements specification as a specific type of model. Comparing the approaches we find on the one hand that the properties as summarized by Davis are subsumed by our framework on a high level, and that there are aspects within our framework that are not covered by Davis. On the other hand, the comparison has resulted in a useful extension and deepening of our framework on this specific kind of model, and in this way improved the practical applicability of our framework when applied to discussing the quality of requirements specifications.
- 1. Berger, P. and Luckmann, T. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Penguin 1966.Google Scholar
- 2. Carlsen, S. Krogstie, J. Sølvberg, A. and Lindland, O. I. "Evaluating Flexible Workflow Systems" in Nunamaker, J. F. and Sprague, R. H. (eds) Proceedings of the Thirtieth Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences HICCS'97. Volume II Information Systems- Collaboration Systems and Technology. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 3. Costello, R. J. and Liu, D-B. Metrics for requirements engineering. Journal of Systems and Software, 29(1): 39-63, April 1995. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 4. Davis, A. M. Overmeyer, S. Jordan, K. Caruso, J. Dandashi, F. Dinh, A. Kincaid, G. Ledeboer, G. Reynolds, P. Sitaram, P. Ta, A. and Theofanos, M. Identifying and measuring quality in a software requirements specification. In Proceedings of the First International Software Metrics Symposium pages 141-152, 1993.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 5. Jaffe, M. et al. Software requirements analysis for real-time process-control systems. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 17(3):241-258, March 1991. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 6. Krogstie, J. Conceptual Modeling for Computerized Information Systems Support in Organizations. PhD Thesis IDT, NTH, Trondheim, Norway, 1995.Google Scholar
- 7. Krogstie, J. Lindland, O. I. and Sindre, G. Defining quality aspects for conceptual models. In Falkenberg, E. D. Hesse, W. and Olive, A. (eds) Proceedings of the IFIP8.1 working conference on Information Systems Concepts (ISCO3); Towards a consolidation of views, pages 216-231 Marburg, Germany, March 28-30 1995. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 8. Krogstie, J. Lindland, O. I. and Sindre, G. Towards a deeper understanding of quality in requirements engineering. In Iivari, J. Lyytinen, K. and Rossi, M. (eds). Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE'95) pages 82-95, Jyväskylä, Finland, 1995. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 9. Krogstie, J. and Sindre, G. Extending a temporal rule language with deontic operators. In Proceedings from the 6th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (SEKE'94), pages 314-321. IEEE, June 21-23 1994.Google Scholar
- 10. Lindgren, P. (ed) A framework of information systems concepts. Interim report FRISCO, May 1990.Google Scholar
- 11. Lindland, O. I. Sindre, G. and Sølvberg, A. Understanding quality in conceptual modeling. IEEE Software. pages 42-49, April 1994. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 12. McDonald, M. P. Quality Function Deployment. Introducing product development into the systems development process. In Seventh Symposium on Quality Function Deployment, Novi, Michigan, June 1995.Google Scholar
- 13. Moody, D. L. and Shanks, G. G. What makes a good data model? Evaluating the quality of entity relationship models. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on the Entity-Relationship Approach (ER'94), pages 94-111, Manchester, England, 1994. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 14. Nöth, W. Handbook of Semiotics Indiana University Press 1990.Google Scholar
- 15. Pohl, K. The three dimensions of requirements engineering: A framework and its applications. Information Systems, 19(3):243- 258, April 1994. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 16. Sindre, G. and Krogstie, J. Process heuristics to achieve requirements specification of feasible quality. In Pohl, K. and Peters, P. (eds), Second International Workshop on Requirements Engineering: Foundations for Software Quality (REFSQ'95), pages 92-103, Jyväskylä, Finland, 1995.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Integrating the understanding of quality in requirements specification and conceptual modeling
Recommendations
From conceptual modelling to requirements engineering
Conceptual modelling is situated in the broader view of information systems requirements engineering. Requirements Engineering (RE) explores the objectives of different stakeholders and the activities carried out by them to meet these objectives in ...
Quality Requirements Analysis Using Requirements Frames
QSIC '11: Proceedings of the 2011 11th International Conference on Quality SoftwareDefining quality requirements completely and correctly is more difficult than defining functional requirements because stakeholders do not state most of quality requirements explicitly. We thus propose a method to measure a requirements specification ...
MOQARE: misuse-oriented quality requirements engineering
This work presents MOQARE (misuse-oriented quality requirements engineering), a method to explore quality requirements. The aim of MOQARE is to support intuitive and systematic identification of quality requirements. It was developed by integrating and ...
Comments