<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>About the framework of quality evaluation using SQuaRE</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Tsuyoshi Nakajima</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>Shibaura Institute of Technology Tokyo</institution>
          ,
          <country country="JP">Japan</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <abstract>
        <p>-Of the five core divisions of the SQuaRE series, the revision study of the quality evaluation division has started. As systems and software have become more complicated and diversified in recent years, it is important to have a mechanism to ensure the quality evaluation of them by a whole society. In order to do so, this revision aims to provide a framework for systematic quality evaluation using quality models and quality measures in the SQuaRE series. Furthermore, the framework will expand its scope of application to include four purposes: comparison, qualification to standard, conformity checking to requirements, and suitability evaluation in the market. This paper organizes and reports on the idea.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <kwd>- quality evaluation</kwd>
        <kwd>framework</kwd>
        <kwd>quality measurement</kwd>
        <kwd>quality rating</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>-</title>
      <p>Support
Support
Quality Measurement division (2502n)</p>
      <p>Based on</p>
      <p>Quality Model division (2501n)
Figure 1 Quality evaluation division in SQuaRE</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>INTRODUCTION</title>
      <p>
        ISO/IEC 25000 (SQuaRE) series is a set of international
standards for quality requirements and evaluation for a wide
range of systems and software [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ]. Fifteen standards have
been published since 2006 to cover all the five core divisions.
Among them, the quality evaluation division (ISO/IEC
2504n) is currently studying its revision in the study group.
      </p>
      <p>
        In the development of a system or software, there are no
absolute criteria for its quality to be achieved[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ]. This is
because the quality goal is a relative one needed in the context
of social demands and competition with others. Actual
products need to fulfill different types of quality, such as
performance efficiency and security, and so difficult
tradeoffs are often required to achieve those qualities in a balance.
      </p>
      <p>
        On the other hand, if a system or software operates as an
important service in the society or works with the other
systems already operating in the society, the quality
evaluation may exceed the responsibility of one company
because of the significance of its impact on society[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ] [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ] .
      </p>
      <p>Nevertheless, many of the quality evaluations for systems
and software, even if it drives the society, are carried out
based on the empirical knowledge of development
organizations for testing and ambiguous pass/fail criteria.
Although it may be managed by an experienced development
organization with high quality awareness, a small
organization with little experience in quality control hardly
can perform quality evaluation adequately for itself. This may
lead to a project failure.</p>
      <p>To overcome this situation, it is important to have a
mechanism to ensure the quality evaluation of a system and
software by a whole society, including objective comparison
techniques for its quality with other products in the industry,
and third parties’ reliable quality certification.</p>
      <p>This paper proposes a quality evaluation framework as a
basis to support such a mechanism, including systematic
quality evaluation in three stages: quality measurement,
quality rating, and quality evaluation, using quality models
and quality measures in the SQuaRE series. Furthermore, the
framework will expand its scope of application to deal with
four purposes: comparison, qualification to standard,
conformity checking to requirements, and suitability
evaluation in the market. This paper organizes and reports on
the idea.</p>
      <p>II.</p>
      <p>REVISION OF QUALITY EVALUATION DIVISION</p>
      <sec id="sec-2-1">
        <title>Quality evaluation division in SQuaRE</title>
        <p>SQuaRE divides the 25000 series into SQuaRE divides
the 25000 series into five core divisions and one extension
division. Figure 1 shows how quality evaluation division
relating to the other division in SQuaRE. At the center are the</p>
        <p>Quality
Requirements</p>
        <p>Definition
Quality Requirement
division (2503n)</p>
        <p>Use</p>
        <p>Quality
Engineering</p>
        <p>Quality</p>
        <p>Evaluation
Quality Evaluation
division (2504n)</p>
        <p>Use
quality model division in 2501n and the quality measurement
division in 2502n. The quality model division currently has
four quality models: quality in use and product quality
(ISO/IEC 25010), IT service quality (ISO/IEC TS 25011),
and data quality (ISO/IEC 25012), each of which defines
characteristics and sub-characteristics. The quality
measurement division defines the quality measures to
measure the quality (sub)characteristics defined in each
quality model. The quality evaluation division provides a
framework and usage guides to support the quality evaluation
process (partly, validation and verification activities in quality
engineering) using the pairs of quality model and quality
measurement.</p>
        <p>B.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-2-2">
        <title>Revision of quality evaluation division</title>
        <p>
          The SQuaRE Future Direction Study Group (2018-2019)
in ISO/IEC JTC1/SC7 WG6 concludes has improved the ISO
/ IEC 2504n quality evaluation department as follows[
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
          ].
[Problems]
        </p>
        <p>There is a great demand from the industry for methods
and techniques to support how to plan inspections and testing
on quality, and concrete assessment based on their results. In
addition, due to the development of 2502n and the revision
of 25030, the quality requirements and their measurement
have been clarified, so modifications aligning with these will
also be necessary.
[Proposed solution]
Ø Ensuring consistency with 2502n and 25030R
Ø Improving the concept of evaluation modules (EVs) (and
encouraging industries to provide ANNEXs)
Ø Guidelines for the following activities:
² Organizing quality testing including inspections,
aligning with 29119 (WG 26)
² Comprehensive quality evaluation (e.g., for
judgment of delivery) based on measurement
results
⁻ How to devise a set of quality measure suitable
for evaluation
⁻ Concept of evaluation (analysis of testing results,
etc) and rating
² Selecting the right quality characteristics from some
evaluation goal
² Choosing an appropriate evaluation module for the
characteristics or to make a new evaluation
module.</p>
        <p>Based on this policy, we are currently studying a study
group within WG6 for revision.</p>
        <p>III.</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>FRAMEWORK OF QUALITY EVALUATION</title>
      <p>A.</p>
      <sec id="sec-3-1">
        <title>Quality evaluation and its types</title>
        <p>Quality evaluation is a systematic examination of the
extent to which an entity is capable of fulfilling stated and
implied needs. This is a set of activities to perform objective
confirmation work on the target to produce quality evaluation
results.</p>
        <p>However, there exist many cases in which the quality
evaluation based on the current ISO/IEC 25040 and 25041,
cannot be applicable because it requires a full set of quality
requirements for the target. Therefore, we decided to expand
its scope so that it can deal with the cases without fixed
requirements. We categorize the assumed situations that
require quality evaluation and reconstructed the quality
evaluation framework so that such cases can be included.</p>
        <p>We have identified the following four types of quality
evaluation:
(T1) Quality evaluation for comparison</p>
        <p>This is a type of quality evaluation:
- for the purpose of obtaining information for
product/component/data selection
- to finds out:
Ø whether the candidate entities meet the setting
criteria,
Ø which entities are better overall, and
Ø what are the strengths and weaknesses of each
entity,
- by comparing multiple entities based on quality
requirements or general guidelines (including industry
standards)
- mainly performed by the acquirer or development
organization (integrator).
(T2) Quality evaluation for qualification to quality standard
This is a type of quality evaluation:
- for the purpose of obtaining quality certification or
information for quality improvement of the target
entity
- based on the standards in the industrial domain
- to find out:
Ø whether the entity meets the setting standards
(mostly minimum set) and,
Ø what are its strengths and weaknesses from the
quality perspective
- mainly performed by the development organization
(quality assurance) or an independent evaluation and
certification organization.
(T3) Quality evaluation for conformity checking to
requirements
This is a type of quality evaluation:
- for the purpose of confirming the satisfaction of the
contract items
- based on the agreed requirements
- to confirm whether the product satisfies the quality
requirements
- mainly performed by:
Ø the ordering party (at its acceptance) or
Ø the development organization (quality
assurance)
(at the time of final inspection before delivery).
(T4) Quality evaluation for suitability to the market
This is a type of quality evaluation:
- for the purpose of obtaining information for</p>
        <p>management decisions
- on in-house products / services
Ø based on the requirements derived from the</p>
        <p>assumed stakeholder needs
Ø to check how well the product meets the needs
of the assumed market
- mainly performed by the development organization
(quality assurance).</p>
        <p>The revision of ISO/IEC 25040 needs to provide the
framework which covers these four types of quality
evaluation.</p>
        <p>B.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-3-2">
        <title>Relationships between Quality models/measures and quality valuation</title>
        <p>Quality evaluation can be performed objectively,
quantitatively, and comprehensively by using SQuaRE's
quality model and quality measures. As shown in TABLE I, the
SQuaRE series defines a pair of quality model and quality
measures for each entity type to be evaluated.</p>
        <p>As shown in Figure 2, the Quality model classifies the
quality that the target entity should have as quality
characteristics and subcharacteristics. Quality property is an
attribute (information needs) of the target entity which you
want to measure. Quality measure measures a specific quality
property. In general, one quality property corresponds to
multiple quality measures.</p>
        <p>The quality evaluator must first select a quality model for
quality evaluation based on the type of the target entity.
Furthermore, all the quality characteristics and
subcharacteristics defined in the model are examined for the
target to identify the important quality characteristics and
subcharacteristics for the quality evaluation. For ICT products,
important quality (sub)characteristics differ depending on the
category of its system type. For example, user interface
aesthetics is important for consumer products while
operational operability and user error prevention are required
more for mission-critical systems.</p>
        <p>Furthermore, even if the same quality characteristics/
subcharacteristics are selected, the quality properties to be
evaluated differ depending on the target category. For
example, even with the same time behavior, it is necessary to
evaluate "efficiency in processing requests" (throughput) on
the server and "quickness of response to input events"
(response time) on the client. Even with the same learning
ability, it is "the degree of operation without a manual" for
consumer products, and "a lot of support for learning
operations" for mission-critical systems. These are measured
by different quality measures.</p>
        <p>Use of the SQuaRE quality model and quality measures,
quality evaluation can be systematically performed
according to the flow shown in Figure 3, including three
activities: quality measurement, quality rating, and quality
evaluation. These activities are described below.
(1) Quality measurement</p>
        <p>Quality measurement is an activity to measure the quality
property of the target entity using a quality measure under a
certain measurement condition. Since a quality measure
defines the measurement method, whose concrete tasks
includes testing or inspection (including static analysis) on the
target entity, detailed measurement conditions (how many
subjects to use, what to do with the parameters of the
execution environment, etc.) at that time must be given.</p>
        <p>ISO/IEC 2502n provides quality measures corresponding
to each quality model defined in ISO/IEC 2501n. If no
suitable quality measures for the target entity are found, a new
quality measure that meets the requirements specified in
ISO/IEC 25020 can be used.
(2) Quality rating</p>
        <p>Quality rating is an activity to classify the values of
quality measures into preset rating levels. The rating level
gives the meaning of the degree of quality to the measured
value. An example of rating levels that can be used to
determine pass/fail.</p>
        <p>Figure 4 shows an example of a typical pre-determined
rating level, in which four rating levels are set for the
measurement scale of quality measurements. Acceptable is a
level that has an unconditionally acceptable value as the lower
limit with the target value as the upper limit. When scoring,
the level of Acceptable can be divided into multiple levels. In
the case of Type 3, the allowable value uses the value
determined by agreement with the customer. Boundary is not
unconditional but acceptable by setting conditions.
Notacceptable is a level that means unconditional fail. Excessive
quality (optionally defined) represents a level above the target
value, which means unnecessarily high quality. In Figure 4,
the lower limit values of Excessive quality, Acceptable, and
Boundary are respectively 0.008, 0.02, and 0.025.
(3) Quality evaluation</p>
        <p>Quality evaluation is an activity to determine pass/fail or
score regarding quality (sub)characteristics using the quality
rating results for each quality property. The quality evaluation
is the integration of the quality rating results for the lower
quality properties, or the integration of the quality evaluation
results for the quality subcharacteristics immediately below.</p>
        <p>In case of determining pass/fail, the following calculation
can be used.</p>
        <p>() = min (())
() = min-()/
!"#$%&amp;&amp; = min (())
c
ℎ
s : a quality subcharacteristic
c : a quality characteristic
 : a vector of all quality properties under s
: a vector of all the selected subcharacteristics under
 : a vector of all the selected characteristics
(  ): evaluation result of s or c
(): a vector of rating result for each element of 
!"#$%&amp;&amp;: total quality evaluation result for the target
The evaluation value () for the quality
subcharacteristic s is the minimum value among the rating
results of , and the evaluation value () for the quality
characteristic c is the minimum value among the evaluation
result of . The quality evaluation value !"#$%&amp;&amp; of the target
are calculated as the minimum value among the evaluation
results of .</p>
        <p>With this calculation method, the lowest level of rating
results for all quality properties goes to the overall result. If
all are boundary or higher, it passes (conditionally), and if
there is even one Not-acceptable, the whole fails.</p>
        <p>In case of obtaining a score for quality of the target entity,
it is reasonable to assign a value to the quality level. This is
because a quality measure basically has a value ranging from
0 to 1 but cannot be used as a universal scale. To interpret the
levels into some score value, it is recommended that
Boundary should be 0, Acceptable should be further divided
into multiple levels and integer values of 1 or more should be
assigned to the levels, and Not-acceptable should be assigned
values of -1 or less.</p>
        <p>From the quality rating results, the quality evaluation
score can be calculated for each stage by the following
calculation. Here, wi, wj, and wk are weighting coefficients for
each stage. It is good to normalize each (adding up to 1 for
all).</p>
        <p>() =
6 ' ∗ (('))
'</p>
        <p>(
() =</p>
        <p>6 ( ∗ (()
!"#$%&amp;&amp; =
6 ) ∗ ())
)
ℎ () is a function to map from quality level to
score.</p>
        <p>IV.</p>
        <p>DIFFRENCES IN FOUR TYPES OF QUALITY</p>
        <p>EVALUATION
Quality evaluation is classified into four types according to
its purpose, which is useful to clarify variation points on how
to conduct quality evaluation activities. We identified these
points as below:
a) Model: Which quality model should be applied, Quality
in use, Product quality, Data quality, or IT service
quality (TABLE III “Model to use”)
b) Charas &amp; measures: Which quality characteristics and
sub-characteristics are important, which quality
properties and quality measures should be used.
c) Criteria: Quality criteria to set quality levels, including
weights for scoring for quality properties, quality
subcharacteristics and quality characteristics.</p>
        <p>PQ</p>
        <p>DQ</p>
        <p>Expected results
Pass/
Fail</p>
        <p>Candidate
selection</p>
        <p>Score</p>
        <p>Strength
and
weakness
M
S
S
M</p>
        <p>M
M
M
S</p>
        <p>M
M
M
S</p>
        <p>V
V</p>
        <p>V</p>
        <p>V
V</p>
        <p>V
V
V
V</p>
        <p>Source of quality criteria
Quality requirements or
general guidelines (including
industry setting standards)
Standards in the industrial
domain
Agreed requirements
Requirements derived from
the assumed stakeholder
needs
（established during
development）
M: major, S: supplementary</p>
        <p>a) Output: What kind of output are needed (TABLE III
“Expected results”)</p>
        <p>TABLE II shows variation points of quality evaluation
and their factors. The factors to determine these variation
points includes the type of the quality evaluation, entity type
of the quality evaluation, and industrial domain of the target
entity.</p>
        <p>TABLE III shows each type has its own pattern of quality
model selection to use and expected results. Only T1 can
have multiple targets while the others cannot. Concerning
model to use, T1 can use all types of quality models, T2 and
T3 mainly use product quality (PQ) and data quality (DQ)
model, but supplementarily use quality in use (QiU) model.
Contrary to that, T4 mainly use QiU model. Expected results
have four possibilities: pass / fail, candidate selection, score,
and strength and weakness. Which results are needed also
depends on the evaluation types, as shown in this table.
Source of quality criteria describes what kinds of information
source should be used to determine the quality criteria.</p>
        <p>V.</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>CONCLUSION</title>
      <p>This paper proposes a quality evaluation framework, which
will be hopefully used for the revision of the quality
evaluation division (ISO/IEC 2504n). The framework would
serve as a basis to support systematic quality evaluation,
which consist of three activities: quality measurement,
quality rating, and quality evaluation, using quality models
and quality measures in the SQuaRE series. Furthermore, the
framework will expand its scope of application to include four
purposes: comparison, qualification to standard, conformity
checking to requirements, and suitability evaluation in the
market. This paper organizes and reports on the idea.</p>
      <p>We hope to get many feedbacks from SQuaRE users on the
ideas in this paper to successfully complete the revision of the
quality evaluation division.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          [1]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Esaki</surname>
            , Kazuhiro,
            <given-names>Motoei</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Azuma</surname>
            , and
            <given-names>Toshihiro</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Komiyama</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>"Introduction of quality requirement and evaluation based on ISO/IEC square series of standard."</article-title>
          <source>International Conference on Trustworthy Computing and Services</source>
          . Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg,
          <year>2012</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          [2]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Cavano</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>Joseph P.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>James</surname>
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>McCall</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>"A framework for the measurement of software quality</article-title>
          .
          <source>" Proceedings of the software quality assurance workshop on Functional and performance issues</source>
          .
          <year>1978</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          [3]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Nakajima</surname>
            , Tsuyoshi, and
            <given-names>Toshihiro</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Komiyama</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>"Applying Quality Requirements Framework to an IoT System and its Evaluation."</article-title>
          <source>International Journal on Advances in Internet Technology Volume 12, Number</source>
          <volume>1</volume>
          &amp;
          <fpage>2</fpage>
          ,
          <year>2019</year>
          (
          <year>2019</year>
          ).
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          [4]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Vargas</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>Iohan</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Gonçalves</surname>
          </string-name>
          , Thiago Gottardi, and Rosana Teresinha Vaccare Braga.
          <article-title>"Approaches for integration in system of systems: a systematic review</article-title>
          .
          <source>" 2016 IEEE/ACM 4th International Workshop on Software Engineering for Systems-of-Systems (SESoS)</source>
          . IEEE,
          <year>2016</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          [5]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Nakajima</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>Tsuyoshi.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          "
          <source>Study group report on square future direction." CEUR Workshop Proceedings</source>
          . Vol.
          <volume>2545</volume>
          .
          <string-name>
            <surname>CEUR-WS</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <year>2020</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>