Journal of KIISE:Software and Applications (한국정보과학회논문지:소프트웨어및응용)

Korean Institute of Information Scientists and Engineers (한국정보과학회)
권호 표지

Selecting Internal Quality Metrics by Software Integrity Level

소프트에어 무결성 수준에 따른 내부품질 척도의 선정

  • Published : 2000.12.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

ISO/IEC 14598-4(소프트웨어 제품의 구매자 평가 지침)는 소프트웨어 평가에서 무결성 수준의 중요성을 전제로 품질특성의 우선순위를 제시하고 있다. 그러나 이러한 제시는 현실에 적용한 것이 없는 이론적인 것이다. 본 연구에서는 ISO/IEC 14598-4에서 제시한 무결성 수준에 따른 품질특성의 중요도가 타당성이 있는지를 실증하였다. 중요도 산출을 위해 15명을 면담 조사하였으며, 이는 중요도 계산을 위한 AHP를 활용하기에 충분한 표본의 개수이다. 본 연구결과와 ISO/IEC 14598-4에서 제시한 품질특성의 중요도 순위는 일부가 상이하게 나타났다. 또한 척도를 이용한 소프트웨어 품질경영을 시작할 때 통상적으로 권고되는 척도의 수 범위(최소 4개~최대 8개) 내에서 무결성 수준에 관계없이 동일한 척도가 선정되었다.

Keywords

References

  1. Fenton, N., S. Pflcegcr, S. Page, and J. Thornton, The SMAH.TIE Standards Evaluation Methodology, Technical Report, Center for Software Engineering, Dublin University, 1994
  2. Fenton, N., B. Littlewood, and S. Page, 'Evaluating Software Engineering Standards and Methods. In:' Thyer, R. and R. McGettridck(eds.), Software Engineering: A European Perspective, pp.463-470, IEEE CS Press, 1993
  3. Meek, B., 'Too soon, Too late, Too Narrow, Too wide, Too Shallow, Too Deep,' StandView, Vol.4, No.2, pp.114-118,1996 https://doi.org/10.1145/234999.235007
  4. Land, K., Results of the IEEE Survey of Software Engineering Standard Users, Technical report, BTG Inc., presented at the IEEE International Symposium on Software Engineering Standards, 1997 https://doi.org/10.1109/SESS.1997.595987
  5. Land, K., Second Software Engineering Standard Users' Survey, presented at' the IEEE International Symposium on Software Engineering Standards, 1999
  6. ISO/IEC TR. 15504:1998(E) Information Technology - Software Process Assessment, ISO, 1998
  7. ISO/IEC 14598-4, Information Technology Software Product Evaluation - Part 4: Process for Acquirers, ISO, July. 1996
  8. Daskalantonakis, M. K., 'A Practical View of Software Measurement and Implementation Experiences within Motorola,' IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering, Vo1.18, No.11, pp.998-1010, 1992 https://doi.org/10.1109/32.177369
  9. Saaty, T. L., 'How To Make A Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process,' European Journal of Operational Research, Vo1.48, pp.9-26, 1990
  10. Finnie, G. R, G. E. Wittig, and D. I. Petkov, 'Prioritizing Software Development Productivity Factors Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process,' The Journal of Systems and Software, Vo1.22, pp.129-139, 1993 https://doi.org/10.1016/0164-1212(93)90091-B
  11. ISO/IEC 9126, Information Technology - Software Quality Characteristics and Metrics - Part 1 Part 3, ISO, Oct. 1996
  12. Seawright, K. W. and S. T. Young, 'A Quality Definition Continuum,' Interfaces, Vo1.26, pp.107-113, May-June 1996
  13. Simmons, P., 'Quality Outcomes: Determining Business Value,' IEEE Software, Vol. 13, No.1, pp.25- 2, 1996 https://doi.org/10.1109/52.476283
  14. Abel, D. E. and T. P. Abel, 'Defining and Spcci lying the Quality Attributes of Software Products,' The Australian Computer Journal, Vo1.25, No.3, pp.105-112, 1993
  15. Lee, J. M. and H. Jung, 'Prioritization of Internal Quality Characteristics by Software Quality Views,' Proc. of the 2nd World Congress of Software Quality (2WCSQ), pp.421-426, Sept. 2000
  16. Stalhane, T., P. C. Borgersen, and K. Arnesen, 'In Search of the Customer's Quality View,' The Journal of Systems and Software, Vo1.38, pp.85-93, 1997 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0164-1212(97)00059-9
  17. Bevan, N., 'Quality in use: Meeting user needs for quality,' The Journal of Systems and Software, Vo1.49, pp.89-96, 1999 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0164-1212(99)00070-9
  18. INUSE, http://www.npl.co.uk/inuse, 1998
  19. RESPECT, http://www.npl.co.uk/resuect, 1998
  20. Boegh, J, S. Depanfilis, B. Kitchenharn, and A. Pasquini, 'A Method for Software Quality Planning, Control, and Evaluation,' IEEE Software, Vo1.l6, No.2, pp.69-77, 1999 https://doi.org/10.1109/52.754056
  21. Shi, X. and L. Yang, 'Design and Implementation of a Software Quality Evaluation System,' Proc. of the 5th ISSAT International Conference on Reality and Quality in Design, pp.153-157, 1999
  22. Saaty, T. L. and L. G. Vargas, The Logic of Priorities, Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing, London, 1982
  23. Mendenhall, W., A Course in Business Statistics, 2nd ed., PWS-KENT Publishing, Boston, 1988