=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-3611/paper11
|storemode=property
|title=Development of a software quality assessment method
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3611/paper11.pdf
|volume=Vol-3611
|authors=Irakli Basheleishvili,Giorgi Kapanadze,Avtandil Bardavelidze
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/ivus/BasheleishviliK22
}}
==Development of a software quality assessment method==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3611/paper11.pdf
D e v el o p m e nt of a soft w ar e q u alit y a ss ess m e nt m et h o d
Ir a kli B as h el eis h vili, Gi or gi K a p a n a d z e a n d A vt a n dil B ar d a v eli d z e
A k a ki Ts er et eli St at e U ni v ersit y, T a m ar M e p e St # 5 9, K ut aisi, 4 6 0 0 , G e or gi a
A bstr a ct
T h e p a p er is a b o ut t h e d e v el o p m e nt of a s oft w ar e q u alit y ass ess m e nt m et h o d, w hi c h is b as e d
o n t h e F C M ( F a ct or -Crit eri a -M etri cs) s oft w ar e q u alit y ass ess m e nt m o d el, I S O / I E C 2 5 0 1 0
s oft w ar e q u alit y st a n d ar d a n d m ulti -crit eri a d e cisi o n a n al ysis m et h o d. T h e m et h o d pr es e nt e d i n
t h e p a p er all o ws us t o o bt ai n a q u a ntit ati v e ass ess m e nt of q u alit y i n di c at ors usi n g t h e I S O / I E C
2 5 0 1 0 st a n d ar d w h e n ass essi n g s oft w ar e q u alit y.
K e y w or ds 1
S oft w ar e, q u alit y, ass ess m e nt, F C M m o d el
1. I ntr o d u cti o n
2. St a n d ar d a n d m o d el of s oft w ar e
T h e r a pi d d e v el o p m e nt of i nf or m ati o n q u alit y
t e c h n ol o gi es is i n cr e asi n g t h e d e m a n d f or t h eir
us e i n al m ost all s p h er es of h u m a n a cti vit y,
T h er e ar e m a n y st a n d ar ds i n s oft w ar e q u alit y
m or e o v er, at pr es e nt it is i n c o n c ei v a bl e f or t h e m
e v al u ati o n t h at d et er mi n e t he f a ct ors
t o f u n cti o n eff e cti v el y wit h o ut t h e us e of m o d er n
( c h ar a ct eristi cs) of s oft w ar e q u alit y e v al u ati o n.
i nf or m ati o n t e c h n ol o gi es. T h e r a pi d d e v el o p m e nt
Q u alit y c h ar a ct eristi cs r efl e ct t h e diff er e nt
of i nf or m ati o n t e c h n ol o gi es a n d c o m p uti n g
q u aliti es e x hi bit e d b y s elf -pr o m oti o n al s oft w ar e,
pr o c ess es i n r e c e nt d e c a d es h as l e d t o t h e
I S O / I E C 2 5 0 1 0 is a s oft w ar e q u alit y st a n d ar d, it
e xist e n c e of s oft w ar e i n all ar e as of h u m a n
r ef ers t o t h e q u alit y of t h e s oft w ar e a p pli c ati o n as
a cti vit y [ 1]. T h er ef or e i n cr e asi n g t h e d e m a n d f or
a " pr o d u ct ", as w ell as t h e q u alit y of its cr e ati o n
s oft w ar e q u alit y. S oft w ar e q u alit y is t h e
pr o c ess es. T h e pr o d u ct q u alit y m o d el s p e cifi e d i n
c o m bi n ati o n of t h e c h ar a ct eristi cs of a c o m p ut er
I S O / I E C 2 5 0 1 0 i n cl u d es t h e f oll o wi n g q u alit y
s oft w ar e pr o d u ct a n d t h eir m e a ni n gs t h at r el at e t o
c h ar a ct eristi cs[ 1 ,3 ,1 1]:
t h e a bilit y t o us e it t o m e et est a blis h e d or e x p e ct e d
• F u n cti o n al S uit a bilit y - F u n cti o n al
r e q uir e m e nts [ 2]. Q u alit y i n s oft w ar e m e a ns n o
S uit a bilit y r ef ers t o h o w w ell a pr o d u ct or s yst e m
err ors i n it [ 3]. S oft w ar e err ors c a n c a us e gr e at
is a bl e t o pr o vi d e f u n cti o ns t h at m e et t h e st at e d
m at eri al d a m a g e, s o r es e ar c h i nt o s oft w ar e q u alit y
a n d i m pli e d n e e ds.
m a n a g e m e nt is v er y i m p ort a nt t o d a y.
• R eli a b ilit y - R eli a bilit y r ef ers t o h o w w ell
B as e d o n t h e a b o v e, t h e ai m of o ur p a p er is t o
a s yst e m, pr o d u ct, or c o m p o n e nt p erf or ms
d e v el o p a s oft w ar e q u alit y ass ess m e nt m et h o d
s p e cifi e d f u n cti o ns u n d er s p e cifi e d
b as e d o n t h e F C M ( F a ct or -Crit eri a -M etri cs)
c o n diti o ns[ 1 1].
s oft w ar e q u alit y ass ess m e nt m o d el, t h e I S O / I E C
• P erf or m a n c e Effi ci e n c y - T his
2 5 0 1 0 s oft w ar e q u alit y st a n d ar d, a n d t h e m ulti -
c h ar a ct eristi c r e pr es e nts t h e p erf or m a n c e r el ati v e
crit eri a d e cisi o n a n al ysis m et h o d .
t o t h e a m o u nt of r es o ur c es us e d u n d er st at e d
c o n diti o ns.
I V U S 2 0 2 2: 2 7t h I nt er n ati o n al C o nf er e n c e o n I nf or m ati o n T e c h n ol o g y
E M AI L: ir a kli. b as h el eis h vili @ ats u. e d u. g e (I. B as h el eis h vili);
k a p a n a d z e. gi or gi 2 @ ats u. e d u. g e ( G. K a p a n a d z e);
a vt a n dil. b ar d a v eli d z e @ ats u. e d u. g e ( A. B ar d a v eli d z e)
O R CI D: 0 0 0 0- 0 0 0 2- 4 4 2 9- 7 5 7 7 (I. B as h el eis h vili);
0 0 0 0- 0 0 0 2- 9 8 7 3- 4 4 0 2 ( A. B ar d a v eli d z e)
©️ 2 0 2 2 C o p yri g ht f or t his p a p er b y its a ut h ors. Us e p er mitt e d u n d er Cr e ati v e C o m m o ns
Li c e ns e Attri b uti o n 4. 0 I nt er n ati o n al ( C C B Y 4. 0).
C E U R W or ks h o p Pr o c e e di n gs ( C E U R- W S. or g)
CEUR
ceur-ws.org
Workshop ISSN 1613-0073
Proceedings
• Us e a bilit y - Us a bilit y r ef ers t o h o w w ell a f e at ur es of s oft w ar e o p er ati o n a n d n o n-f u n cti o n al
pr o d u ct or s yst e m c a n b e us e d t o a c hi e v e s p e cifi e d f e at ur es t h at c h ar a ct eri z e t h e b e h a vi or of t h e
g o als eff e cti v el y, effi ci e ntl y, a n d s atisf a ct oril y. s oft w ar e pr o d u ct d uri n g d ail y us e. N o n -f u n cti o n al
• S e c urit y - S e c urit y r ef ers t o h o w w ell a f e at ur es r el at e d t o r eli a bilit y, us a bilit y a n d
pr o d u ct or s yst e m pr ot e cts i nf or m ati o n a n d d at a effi ci e n c y s h o ul d b e cl assifi e d as r e q uir e m e nts
fr o m s e c urit y v ul n er a biliti es[ 3,1 1]. t h at a s oft w ar e pr o d u ct, m ust m e et i n t h e c o urs e
• C o m p ati bilit y - C o m p ati bilit y r ef ers t o of its o p er ati o n. T o d et er mi n e t h at a s oft w ar e
h o w w ell a pr o d u ct, s yst e m, or c o m p o n e nt c a n pr o d u ct m e ets diff er e nt q u alit y c h ar a ct eristi cs,
e x c h a n g e i nf or m ati o n as w ell as p erf or m its t h er e ar e diff er e nt m o d els a n d m et h o ds of
r e q uir e d f u n cti o ns w hil e s h ari n g t h e s a m e pr o c ess es [ 1 ,2 ,3 ,5]. S o m e m o d els c a n b e
h ar d w ar e or s oft w ar e e n vir o n m e nt[ 1 0 ,1 1]. attri b ut e d ( n e ar est) t o t h e c o n c e pt of pr o c ess
• M a i nt ai n a bilit y - M ai nt ai n a bilit y r ef ers t o q u alit y. T his m e a ns t h at t h e hi g h -q u alit y pr o c ess
h o w w ell a pr o d u ct or s yst e m c a n b e m o difi e d t o of cr e ati n g a pr o d u ct cr e at es a hi g h -q u alit y
i m pr o v e, c orr e ct, or a d a pt t o c h a n g es i n t h e pr o d u ct. T h at is w h y s p e ci al att e nti o n is p ai d t o
e n vir o n m e nt as w ell as r e q uir e m e nts. t h e pr o c ess es [ 3,6 ,1 0].
• P ort a bilit y - P ort a bilit y r ef ers t o h o w w ell T h e F C M m o d el is a g e n er al m o d el f or
a s yst e m, pr o d u ct, or c o m p o n e nt c a n b e e v al u ati n g s oft w ar e q u alit y, i n t h e m o d el t h e
tr a nsf err e d fr o m o n e e n vir o n m e nt t o a n ot h er. s oft w ar e t er mi n ati o n f a ct or is o n e f a ct or, o n e
T h es e f e at ur es c a n b e di vi d e d i nt o t w o f a ct or is t h e d e cisi v e crit eri o n, s e v er al crit eri a ar e
c at e g ori es: f u n cti o n al f e at ur es w hi c h ar e t h e m ai n d e ci d e d b y s o m e m etri cs.
Fi g ur e 1 : F C M m o d el [ 3, 1 1]
©️ 1 𝐶1 ⋯ 𝐶𝑛
𝑞1 𝑥11 𝑥12 ⋯ 𝑥1𝑛
3. M et h o d ol o g y ( 1)
𝑞2 𝑥21 𝑥22 ⋯ 𝑥2𝑛
𝑞3 𝑥31 𝑥32 ⋯ 𝑥3𝑛
If w e l o o k at t h e s oft w ar e q u alit y e v al u ati o n
m o d el pr es e nt e d a b o v e, w e will s e e t h at its I n t his c as e, t h e m atri x c o nsists of o n e r e al
str u ct ur e is si mil ar t o t h e str u ct ur e of a m ulti -
alt er n ati v e ( q u alit y c h ar a ct eristi c - q 1) a n d t w o
crit eri a d e cisi o n a n al ysis t as k. B e c a us e i n di vi d u al
q u alit y c h ar a ct eristi cs ar e c h ar a ct eri z e d b y f or m al alt er n ati v es ( q 2 - wit h t h e m a xi m u m
diff er e nt crit eri a, c o m pil e a d e cisi o n m atri x f or a p ossi bl e v al u es a c c or di n g t o t h e crit eri a, a n d q 3 -
p arti c ul ar q u alit y c h ar a ct eristi c ( c o nsisti n g of wit h t h e mi ni m u m v al u es). F or t h e r e al alt er n ati v e,
alt er n ati v es ( q u alit y c h ar a ct eristi c) a n d e v al u ati o n t h e x 1j v al u es ar e d et er mi n e d usi n g n u m b ers
crit eri a f or alt er n ati v es). B as e d o n w hi c h t h e o bt ai n e d fr o m m etri cs a n d usi n g v ari o us t y p es of
m ulti -crit eri a d e cisi o n a n al ysis T O P SI S m et h o d
t esti n g m et h o ds ( w hi c h m ust b e r e pr es e nt e d o n a
[ 6,7 ,8] c a n b e us e d t o d et er mi n e t h e q u a ntit ati v e
e v al u ati o n r at e f or t h e q u alit y c h ar a ct eristi c (i n t h e 1 0 0 -p oi nt s c al e).
r a n g e 0 -1). O n c e w e h a v e d efi n e d t h e d e cisi o n m atri x, t h e
f oll o wi n g st e ps n e e d t o b e p erf or m e d:
St a g e 1. D et er mi n e t h e w ei g ht v e ct or ©️ = n e c ess ar y t o c o m pil e a d e cisi o n m atri x f or
[𝐶 1 ,𝐶 2 ,… ,𝑛 𝑞 ] f or t h e e v al u ati o n crit eri a, w hi c h i n di vi d u al c h ar a ct eristi cs a n d p erf or m t h e a b o v e
m ust s atisf y t h e f oll o wi n g c o n diti o n: st e ps b as e d o n it.
𝑥
∑ 𝑥 𝑥= 1
(2 )
𝑛= 1 4. Pr a cti c al e x a m pl e
St a g e 2 . N or m ali z e t h e d e cisi o n m atri x usi n g T o ill ustr at e t h e us e of t h e m et h o d pr es e nt e d i n t h e
t h e f oll o wi n g f or m ul a: w or k, c o nsi d er a pr a cti c al c as e, f or e x a m pl e, f or
s p e cifi c s oft w ar e, w e w a nt t o e v al u at e t h e q u alit y
𝑥 𝑛𝑞 c h ar a ct eristi c r eli a bilit y, t h e e v al u ati o n crit eri a of
𝑞𝑥 𝑥 =
w hi c h ar e: a c c ur a c y, c o nsist e n c y and
√ ∑ 𝑛𝑖= 1 𝑥 𝑥2 𝑥 (3 )
c o m pl et e n ess. First d efi n e t h e d e cisi o n m a tri x
r e pr es e nt e d b el o w:
St a g e 3. C o m p ut e a w ei g ht e d n or m ali z e d T a bl e 1
d e cisi o n m atri x a c c or di n g t o t h e f oll o wi n g D e cisi o n m atri x
f or m ul a: a c c ur a c o nsist e c o m pl et e n
cy nc y ess
𝑉 𝑖 𝑗 = 𝑤 𝑗 ∗ 𝑟𝑖 𝑗 (4 )
q 1 (r el e a bili
St a g e 4. D efi n e p ositi v e i d e al a n d n e g ati v e 87 97 78
t y)
i d e al s ol uti o ns: q2 100 100 100
P ositi v e I d e al D e cisi o n:
q3 0 0 0
𝑆 +
= {𝑣 1+ ,𝑣 2+ ,… ,𝑣 𝑛+ } (5 ) As i n t h e d e ci d e d m atri x, q 1 is t h e r e al
W h er e: c h ar a ct eristi c (i n o ur c as e r eli a bilit y), w hil e q 2 a n d
𝑣 𝑗+ = m a x ( 𝑣 𝑖 𝑗 ) q 3 is t h e f or m al alt er n ati v e ( q2 is e v al u at e d
N e g ati v e i d e al s ol uti o n: a c c or di n g t o t h e crit eri a wit h m or e si g nifi c a nt
v al u es, a n d q 3 - wit h mi ni m al v al u es). q 1
𝑆 − = {𝑣 1− ,𝑣 2− ,… ,𝑣 𝑛− } (6 ) Alt er n ati v el y us e s a m pli n g m etri cs usi n g n u m b ers
𝑣 𝑗−
= mi n ( 𝑣 𝑖 𝑗 ) a n d ot h er t y p es of t esti n g m et h o ds.
St a g e 5. C al c ul at e t h e dist a n c e t o t h e i d e al O n c e w e h a v e d efi n e d t h e d e cisi o n m atri x, w e
p ositi v e a n d i d e al n e g ati v e s ol uti o n f or t h e q 1 m ust w ei g h t h e w ei g hts f or t h e e v al u ati o n crit eri a,
alt er n ati v e: i n t his c as e w e t a k e e q u al w ei g hts f or t h e t hr e e
2 crit eri a ( w 1 = 0. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3, w2 =
𝑑 1+ = √ ∑ 𝑛𝑗 = 1 ( 𝑣 1 𝑗 − 𝑣 𝑗∗ ) (7 )
0. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3, w 3 = 0. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ).
2
N or m al i z e t h e d e cisi o n m atri x a n d d efi n e a
𝑑 1− = √ ∑ 𝑛𝑗 = 1 ( 𝑣 1 𝑗 − 𝑣 𝑗′ ) (8 ) w ei g ht e d n or m ali z e d m atri x t h at l o o ks li k e t his:
T a bl e 2
St a g e 6. C al c ul at e t h e alt er n ati v e cl os est t o t h e W ei g ht e d n or m aliz e d m atri x
i d e al s ol uti o n. W hi c h is c al c ul at e d b y t h e a c c ur a c o nsist e c o m pl et e n
f oll o wi n g f or m ul a: cy nc y ess
𝑑 1−
𝑅1 = q 1 (r el e a bili
𝑑 1 + 𝑑 1+
−
(9 )
0. 2 2 0. 2 3 0. 2 1
t y)
W h er e:
q2 0. 2 5 0. 2 4 0. 2 6
0 ≤ 𝑅1 ≤ 1 q3 0 0 0
I n or d er t o e v al u at e all q u alit y c h ar a ct eristi cs
a c c or di n g t o I S O / I E C 2 5 0 1 0 st a n d ar d, it is
Define positive ideal and negative ideal Inf0
1 mation Technologies"(IT&QM&IS)
solutions as follows: (pp. 496-499). IEEE.
positive ideal solution - [ 0.25, 0.24, 0.26 ] [5] Hovornshchenko, T. (2018). Methodology of
evaluating the sufficiency of info1mation for
negative ideal solution - [ 0, 0, O ]
software quality assessment according to
Calculate the distance to the ideal positive and ISO 25010. Jownal of info1mation and
ideal negative solution for the q1 alternative, in organizational sciences, 42(1), 63-85.
our case the distance to the ideal solution is [6] Pamucar, D. S., Bozanic, D., & Randelovic
0.06681, and the distance to the negative ideal A. (2017). Multi-crite1ia decision making'.
solution is 0.37916. Using this to calculate the An example of sensitivity analysis. Serbian
coefficient of proximity to the ideal solution for journal of management, 12(1), 1-27.
the q1 alternative, which is equal to 0.850187. This
is the target value for us by the proximity of which [7] Basheleishvili, I. (2020). Developing the
expe1t decision-making algorithm using the
we detennine the level of evaluation of the quality methods of multi-c1ite1ia analysis.
characteristic. Cybernetics and Info1mation Technologies,
20(2), 22-29.
[8] I. Basheleishvili, S. Tsiramua (2019),
5. Conclusion Development of Method of Multifunctional
Personnel Assessment Using a Topsis
The work presents a software quality Method. Journal of Technical Science and
assessment method based on the FCM (Factor Technologies, 7(1), 31-36.
Criteria-Metrics) software quality assessment [9] Madler, J., Viedt, I., & Urbas, L. (2021).
Applying quality assurance concepts from
model, ISO / IEC 25010 software quality standard software development to simulation model
and multi-criteria solution analysis method, assessment in smait equipment. In Computer
allows us to evaluate software quality features, Aided Chemical Engineering (Vol. 50, pp.
which is an imp01tant tool for the software quality 813-818). Elsevier.
management process, which aims to develop and [10] Estdale, J., & Georgiadou, E. (2018,
manage software quality so that the product meets September). Applying the ISO/IEC 25010
quality models to softwme product. In
the quality standards required by the user as much
European Conference on Softwai·e Process
as possible. Improvement (pp. 492-503). Sp1inger,
Cham.
6. References [l 1] https://iso25000.com/index.php/en/iso-
25000-standards/iso-2501O?stait=3
[l] Galin, D. (2018). Software quality: concepts [12] Fraser, G., & Rojas, J. M. (2019). Softwai·e
and practice. John Wiley & Sons. testing. In Handbook of Software
[2] Dalla Palma, S., Di Nucci, D., Palomba, F., Engineering (pp. 123-192). Springer, Cham.
& Tambw1i, D. A. (2020). Toward a catalog [13] Kassab, M., Defranco, J. F., & Laplante, P.
of software quality metiics for infrastrncture A. (2017). Softwai·e testing: The state of the
code. Jomnal of Systems and Software, 170, practice. IEEE Softwai·e, 34(5), 46-52.
110726. [14] Jainil, M. A., Alif, M., Abubakai·, N. S. A.,
[3] G. Chogovadze, G. Surguladze, M. & Ahmad, A. (2016, November). Software
Gulitashvili and S. Dolidze(2020), Software testing techniques: A literature review. In
application quality management: testing and 2016 6th international conference on
optimization, Georgian Technical inf01mation and communication technology
University. pp. 366. for the Muslim world (ICT4M) (pp. 177-
[4] Desyatirikova, E. N., Belousov, V. E., 182). IEEE.
[15] Molnai·, A. J., Neamtu, A., & Motogna, s.
Zolotarev, V. N., & Lavlinskaia, 0. Y. (2017, (2019, May). Longitudinal Evaluation of
September). Design process of software
quality management. In 2017 International Softwai·e Quality Metiics in Open-Source
Conference" Quality Management, Applications. In ENASE (pp. 80-91).
Transp01t and Inf01mation Secwity,