Daniel Russo
Paolo Ciancarini
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
Information Systems Quality (ISQ) is a critical source of competitive advantages for organizations. In a scenario of increasing competition on digital services, ISQ is a competitive differentiation asset. In this regard, managing, maintaining, and evolving IT infrastructures have become a primary concern of organizations. Thus, a technical perspective on ISQ provides useful guidance to meet current challenges. The financial sector is paradigmatic, since it is a traditional business, with highly complex business-critical legacy systems, facing a tremendous change due to market and regulation drivers. We carried out a Mixed-Methods study, performing a Delphi-like study on the financial sector. We developed a specific research framework to pursue this vertical study. Data were collected in four phases starting with a high-level randomly stratified panel of 13 senior managers and then a target panel of 124 carefully selected and well-informed domain experts. We have identified and dealt with several quality factors; they were discussed in a comprehensive model inspired by the ISO 25010, 42010, and 12207 standards, corresponding to software quality, software architecture, and software process, respectively. Our results suggest that the relationship among quality, architecture, and process is a valuable technical perspective to explain the quality of an information system. Thus, we introduce and illustrate a novel meta-model, named SQuAP (Software Quality, Architecture, Process), which is intended to give a comprehensive picture of ISQ by abstracting and connecting detailed individual ISO models.
- European Banking Authority. 2017. Regulatory Technical Standards on Strong Customer Authentication and Secure Communication under PSD2, Author=European Banking Authority. Final Draft. EBA/RTS/2017/02.Google Scholar
- European Parliament and of the Council. 2007. Directive 2007/64/EC. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:02007L0064-20091207.Google Scholar
- European Parliament and of the Council. 2015. Directive 2015/2366/EU. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32015L2366.Google Scholar
- G. Abowd, G. Bass, P. Clements, R. Kazman, and L. Northrop. 1997. Recommended Best Industrial Practice for Software Architecture Evaluation. Technical Report. Software Engineering Institute.Google Scholar
- A. T. M. Aerts, J. B. M. Goossenaerts, D. K. Hammer, and J. C. Wortmann. 2004. Architectures in context: On the evolution of business, application software, and ICT platform architectures. Information 8 Management 41, 6 (2004), 781--794. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Aier, B. Gleichauf, and R. Winter. 2011. Understanding enterprise architecture management design -- An empirical analysis. In Proc. 10th Int. Conf. Wirtschaftsinformatik.Google Scholar
- A. April and F. Coallier. 1995. Q. Bell Canada, “trillium: A model for the assessment of telecom software system development and maintenance capability.” In Proc. Software Engineering Standards Sym. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. A. Babar, A. W. Brown, and I. Mistrík. 2013. Agile Software Architecture: Aligning Agile Processes and Software Architectures. Newnes. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. A. Babar, L. Zhu, and R. Jeffery. 2004. A framework for classifying and comparing software architecture evaluation methods. In Proc. Australian Software Engineering Conference. IEEE, 309--318. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. D. Banker, I. Bardhan, and O. Asdemir. 2006. Understanding the impact of collaboration software on product design and development. Information Systems Research 17, 4 (2006), 352--373. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Baskerville and M. D. Myers. 2004. Special issue on action research in information systems: Making IS research relevant to practice: Foreword. MIS Quarterly 8, 3 (2004), 329--335. Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. Bass, P. Clemens, and R. Kazman. 2012. Software Architecture in Practice (3rd ed.). Addison-Wesley. Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. Bass, I. Weber, and L. Zhu. 2015. DevOps: A Software Architect’s Perspective. Addison-Wesley. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Bellomo, I. Gorton, and R. Kazman. 2015. Toward Agile architecture: Insights from 15 years of ATAM data. IEEE Software 32, 5 (2015), 38--45.Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Bengtsson, N. Lassing, J. Bosch, and H. van Vliet. 2004. Architecture-level modifiability analysis (ALMA). Journal of Systems and Software 69, 1 (2004), 129--147. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Benlian and I. Haffke. 2016. Does mutuality matter? Examining the bilateral nature and effects of CEO--CIO mutual understanding. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 25, 2 (2016), 104--126. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. J. Berman. 2012. Digital transformation: Opportunities to create new business models. Strategy 8 Leadership 40, 2 (2012), 16--24.Google Scholar
- S. C. Blumenthal. 1969. Management Information Systems; A Framework for Planning and Development. Technical Report.Google Scholar
- B. Boehm. 1988. A spiral model of software development and enhancement. IEEE Computer 21, 5 (1988), 61--72. Google ScholarDigital Library
- B. Boehm, C. Abts, and S. Chulani. 2000. Software development cost estimation approaches--A survey. Annals of Software Engineering 10, 1--4 (2000), 177--205. Google ScholarDigital Library
- B. W. Boehm, J. R. Brown, and M. Lipow. 1976. Quantitative evaluation of software quality. In Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Software Engineering (ICSE’76). ACM/IEEE, 592--605. Google ScholarDigital Library
- W. F. Boh and D. Yellin. 2006. Using enterprise architecture standards in managing information technology. Journal of Management Information Systems 23, 3 (2006), 163--207. Google ScholarDigital Library
- V. Boucharas, M. van Steenbergen, S. Jansen, and S. Brinkkemper. 2010. The contribution of enterprise architecture to the achievement of organizational goals: Establishing the enterprise architecture benefits framework. Department of Information and Computing Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht.Google Scholar
- A. C. Boynton, B. Victor, and Pine J.1993. New competitive strategies: Challenges to organizations and information technology. IBM Systems Journal 32, 1 (1993), 40--64. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Brancheau, B. Janz, and J. Wetherbe. 1996. Key issues in information systems management: 1994-95 SIM Delphi results. MIS Quarterly 20, 2 (1996), 225--242. Google ScholarDigital Library
- W. Brown, R. Malveau, H. McCormick, and T. Mowbray. 1998. AntiPatterns: Refactoring Software, Architectures, and Projects in Crisis. John Wiley 8 Sons. Google ScholarDigital Library
- G. Campbell and P. Papapetrou. 2013. SonarQube in Action. Manning Publications Co. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Checkland. 1981. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. John Wiley.Google Scholar
- C. Cherryholmes. 1992. Notes on pragmatism and scientific realism. Educational Researcher 21, 6 (1992), 13--17.Google ScholarCross Ref
- T. Chow and D. Cao. 2008. A survey study of critical success factors in Agile software projects. Journal of Systems and Software 81, 6 (2008), 961--971. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. B. Chrissis, M. Konrad, and S. Shrum. 2003. CMMI Guidelines for Process Integration and Product Improvement. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Churchman. 1971. The Design of Inquiring Systems Basic Concepts of Systems and Organization. Basic Books.Google Scholar
- P. Ciancarini, D. Russo, A. Sillitti, and G. Succi. 2016. A guided tour of the legal implications of software cloning. In Proc. 38th Int. Conf. on Software Engineering (ICSE’16). ACM/IEEE, 563--572. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Ciancarini, D. Russo, A. Sillitti, and G. Succi. 2016. Reverse engineering: A european IPR perspective. In Proc. 31st Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC’16). 1498--1503. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Cleland-Huang, R. S. Hanmer, S. Supakkul, and M. Mirakhorli. 2013. The twin peaks of requirements and architecture. IEEE Software 30, 2 (2013), 24--29. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Clements, R. Kazman, and M. Klein. 2002. Evaluating Software Architectures. Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
- J. Creswell. 2013. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Sage.Google Scholar
- J. Creswell, V. Clark, and L. Plano. 2007. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Wiley.Google Scholar
- M. A. Cusumano. 2004. The Business of Software: What Every Manager, Programmer, and Entrepreneur Must Know to Thrive and Survive in Good Times and Bad. Simon and Schuster. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. S. David, D. Schuff, and R. St Louis. 2002. Managing your total IT cost of ownership. Communications of the ACM 45, 1 (2002), 101--106. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Deephouse, T. Mukhopadhyay, D. R. Goldenson, and M. I. Kellner. 1995. Software processes and project performance. Journal of Management Information Systems 12, 3 (1995), 187--205. Google ScholarDigital Library
- W. DeLone and E. McLean. 1992. Information systems success: The quest for the dependent variable. Information Systems Research 3, 1 (1992), 60--95. Google ScholarDigital Library
- W. DeLone and E. McLean. 2003. The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: A ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems 19, 4 (2003), 9--30. Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. Dewey. 1938. Logic: The Theory of Inquiry. Holt.Google Scholar
- G. W Dickson. 1968. Management information-decision systems: A new era ahead? Business Horizons 11, 6 (1968), 17--26.Google ScholarCross Ref
- L. Dobrica and E. Niemela. 2002. A survey on software architecture analysis methods. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 28, 7 (2002), 638--653. Google ScholarDigital Library
- E. Doke and N. Swanson. 1995. Decision variables for selecting prototyping in information systems development: A Delphi study of MIS managers. Information 8 Management 29, 4 (1995), 173--182. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Dorling. 1993. SPICE: Software process improvement and capability determination. Software Quality Journal 2, 4 (1993), 209--224.Google ScholarCross Ref
- K. E. Emam, W. Melo, and J.-N. Drouin. 1997. SPICE: The Theory and Practice of Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination. IEEE. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Etezadi-Amoli and A. Farhoomand. 1996. A structural model of end user computing satisfaction and user performance. Information 8 Management 30, 2 (1996), 65--73. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Feeny, M. Lacity, and L. Willcocks. 2005. Taking the measure of outsourcing providers. MIT Sloan Management Review 46, 3 (2005), 41.Google Scholar
- D. F. Feeny, B. R. Edwards, and K. M. Simpson. 1992. Understanding the CEO/CIO relationship. MIS Quarterly 16, 4 (1992), 435--448. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Garlan and D. E Perry. 1995. Introduction to the special issue on software architecture. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 21, 4 (1995), 269--274. Google ScholarDigital Library
- B. G. Glaser. 1978. Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory. Sociology Press.Google Scholar
- B. G. Glaser. 1992. Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis: Emergence vs Forcing. Sociology Press.Google Scholar
- N. Gorla and S. C. Lin. 2010. Determinants of software quality: A survey of information systems project managers. Information and Software Technology 52, 6 (2010), 602--610. Google ScholarDigital Library
- N. Gorla, T. Somers, and B. Wong. 2010. Organizational impact of system quality, information quality, and service quality. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 19, 3 (2010), 207--228. Google ScholarDigital Library
- E. Guba. 1981. Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Communication and Technology Journal 29, 2 (1981), 75--91.Google ScholarCross Ref
- U. G. Gupta and R. E. Clarke. 1996. Theory and applications of the Delphi technique: A bibliography (1975--1994). Technological Forecasting and Social Change 53, 2 (1996), 185--211.Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. Hayne and C. Pollard. 2000. A comparative analysis of critical issues facing Canadian information systems personnel: A national and global perspective. Information 8 Management 38, 2 (2000), 73--86. Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. A. Von Hellens. 1997. Information systems quality versus software quality a discussion from a managerial, an organisational and an engineering viewpoint. Information and Software Technology 39, 12 (1997), 801--808.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. Highsmith and M. Fowler. 2001. The Agile manifesto. Software Development Magazine 9, 8 (2001), 29--30.Google Scholar
- R. Hirschheim and H. K Klein. 2011. Tracing the history of the information systems field. The Oxford Handbook of Management Information Systems: Critical Perspectives and New Directions, 16--61.Google Scholar
- W. Humphrey. 1988. Characterizing the software process: A maturity framework. IEEE Software 5, 2 (1988), 73--79. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Judd. 1972. Use of Delphi methods in higher education. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 4, 2 (1972), 173--186.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. Jun and S. Cai. 2001. The key determinants of internet banking service quality: A content analysis. International Journal of Bank Marketing 19, 7 (2001), 276--291.Google ScholarCross Ref
- H. W. Jung. 2007. Validating the external quality subcharacteristics of software products according to ISO/IEC 9126. Computer Standards 8 Interfaces 29, 6 (2007), 653--661.Google Scholar
- H. W. Jung, S. G. Kim, and C. S. Chung. 2004. Measuring software product quality: A survey of ISO/IEC 9126. IEEE Software 21, 5 (2004), 88--92. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. H. Kaisler, F. Armour, and M. Valivullah. 2005. Enterprise architecting: Critical problems. In Proc. 38th Annual Hawaii Int. Conf. on System Sciences (HICSS’05). IEEE, 224b. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Kazman, L. Bass, G. Abowd, and M. Webb. 1994. SAAM: A method for analyzing the properties of software architectures. In Proc. Int. Conf. on Software Engineering (ICSE’94). ACM/IEEE, 81--90. Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. G. W. Keen. 1987. MIS research: Current status, trends and needs. Information Systems Education: Recommendations and Implementation, R. A. Buckingham, R. A. Hirschheim, F. F. Land, and C. J. Tully (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1--13.Google Scholar
- Ravi Khadka, Belfrit V. Batlajery, Amir M. Saeidi, Slinger Jansen, and Jurriaan Hage. 2014. How do professionals perceive legacy systems and software modernization?. In Proc. of the 36th Int. Conf. on Software Engineering. ACM/IEEE, 36--47. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Krafft, K. Stol, and B. Fitzgerald. 2016. How do free/open source developers pick their tools?: A Delphi study of the Debian project. In Proc. 38th Int. Conf. on Software Engineering (ICSE’16). ACM/IEEE, 232--241. Google ScholarDigital Library
- V. Krotov. 2015. Bridging the CIO-CEO gap: It takes two to tango. Business Horizons 58, 3 (2015), 275--283.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. Lange, J. Mendling, and J. Recker. 2016. An empirical analysis of the factors and measures of enterprise architecture management success. European Journal of Information Systems 25, 5 (2016), 411--431.Google ScholarCross Ref
- B. Langefors. 1973. Theoretical Analysis of Information Systems. Technical Report.Google Scholar
- P. Lavrakas. 2008. Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods. Sage.Google Scholar
- Z. Li, P. Liang, and P. Avgeriou. 2015. Architectural technical debt identification based on architecture decisions and change scenarios. In Proc. 12th Work. Int. Conf on Software Architecture (WICSA’15). IEEE, 65--74. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Luftman and H. S. Zadeh. 2011. Key information technology and management issues 2010--11: An international study. Journal of Information Technology 26, 3 (2011), 193--204.Google ScholarCross Ref
- G. H. Mead. 1913. The social self. Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods 10, 14 (1913), 374--380.Google ScholarCross Ref
- N. Medvidovic and R. N. Taylor. 2010. Software architecture: Foundations, theory, and practice. In Proc. Int. Conf. Software Engineering (ICSE’10). ACM/IEEE, 471--472. Google ScholarDigital Library
- meta. 2013. Oxford Dictionary of English (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.Google ScholarDigital Library
- metamodel. 2013. Oxford Dictionary of English (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Miller and B. A Doyle. 1987. Measuring the effectiveness of computer-based information systems in the financial services sector. MIS Quarterly 11, 1 (1987), 107--124. Google ScholarDigital Library
- I. Mistrik, R. Bahsoon, P. Eeles, R. Roshandel, and M. Stal. 2014. Relating System Quality and Software Architecture. Morgan Kaufmann. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. N. Mohanty. 1979. Models and measurements for quality assessment of software. Computing Surveys 11, 3 (1979), 251--275. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Moody. 2005. Theoretical and practical issues in evaluating the quality of conceptual models: Current state and future directions. Data 8 Knowledge Engineering 55, 3 (2005), 243--276. Google ScholarDigital Library
- K. Mordal-Manet, F. Balmas, S. Denier, S. Ducasse, H. Wertz, J. Laval, F. Bellingard, and P. Vaillergues. 2009. The Squale model--A practice-based industrial quality model. In Proc. Int. Conf. on Software Maintenance (ICSM’09). IEEE, 531--534.Google Scholar
- C. Moustakas. 1994. Phenomenological Research Methods. Sage.Google Scholar
- P. Mulligan. 2002. Specification of a capability-based IT classification framework. Information 8 Management 39, 8 (2002), 647--658. Google ScholarDigital Library
- E. Mumford. 1974. Computer systems and work design: Problems of philosophy and vision. Personnel Review 3, 2 (1974), 40--49.Google ScholarCross Ref
- R. R. Nelson and S. G. Winter. 2009. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- S. Nidumolu. 1995. The effect of coordination and uncertainty on software project performance: Residual performance risk as an intervening variable. Information Systems Research 6, 3 (1995), 191--219. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Nidumolu and G. W. Knotts. 1998. The effects of customizability and reusability on perceived process and competitive performance of software firms. MIS Quarterly 22, 2 (1998), 105--137. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Nidumolu and M. Subramani. 2003. The matrix of control: Combining process and structure approaches to managing software development. Journal of Management Information Systems 20, 3 (2003), 159--196. Google ScholarDigital Library
- B. Nuseibeh. 2001. Weaving together requirements and architectures. IEEE Computer 34, 3 (2001), 115--119. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Okoli and S. Pawlowski. 2004. The Delphi method as a research tool: An example, design considerations and applications. Information 8 Management 42, 1 (2004), 15--29. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Parthasarthy and S. Sethi. 1992. The impact of flexible automation on business strategy and organizational structure. Academy of Management Review 17, 1 (1992), 86--111.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. C. Paulk, B. Curtis, M. B. Chrissis, and C. V. Weber. 1993. Capability maturity model, version 1.1. IEEE Software 10, 4 (1993), 18--27. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. S. Peirce. 1905. The architectonic construction of pragmatism. Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Pierce 5 (1905), 3--6.Google Scholar
- J. Peppard and J. Ward. 2016. The Strategic Management of Information Systems: Building a Digital Strategy. Wiley.Google Scholar
- S. Petter, W. DeLone, and E. McLean. 2008. Measuring information systems success: Models, dimensions, measures, and interrelationships. European Journal of Information Systems 17, 3 (2008), 236--263.Google ScholarCross Ref
- L. Pitt, R. Watson, and B. Kavan. 1995. Service quality: A measure of information systems effectiveness. MIS Quarterly 19, 2 (1995), 173--187. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. E. Porter and V. E. Millar. 1985. How information gives you competitive advantage. Harvard Business Review 63, 4 (1985), 149--160.Google Scholar
- T. C. Powell and A. Dent-Micallef. 1997. Information technology as competitive advantage: The role of human, business, and technology resources. Strategic Management Journal 18, 5 (1997), 375--405.Google ScholarCross Ref
- C. K. Prahalad and M. S. Krishnan. 1998. The new meaning of quality in the information age. Harvard Business Review 77, 5 (1998), 109--18.Google Scholar
- R. Pressman. 2014. Software Engineering: A Practitioner’s Approach. McGrawHill. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Pilar Rodríguez, Alireza Haghighatkhah, Lucy Ellen Lwakatare, Susanna Teppola, Tanja Suomalainen, Juho Eskeli, Teemu Karvonen, Pasi Kuvaja, June M. Verner, and Markku Oivo. 2017. Continuous deployment of software intensive products and services: A systematic mapping study. Journal of Systems and Software 123 (2017), 263--291.Google ScholarCross Ref
- K. Rostami, R. Heinrich, A. Busch, and R. Reussner. 2017. Architecture-based change impact analysis in information systems and business processes. In Proc. Int. Conf. on Software Architecture (ICSA’17). IEEE, 179--188.Google Scholar
- K. Rostami, J. Stammel, R. Heinrich, and R. Reussner. 2015. Architecture-based assessment and planning of change requests. In Proc. 11th Int. Conf. on Quality of Software Architectures (QoSA’15). ACM, 21--30. Google ScholarDigital Library
- W. Royce. 1987. Managing the development of large software systems: Concepts and techniques. In Proc. Int. Conf. Software Engineering (ICSE’87). ACM/IEEE, 328--338. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Russo, P. Ciancarini, T. Falasconi, and M. Tomasi. 2017. Software quality concerns in the italian bank sector: The emergence of a meta-quality dimension. In Proc. 39th Int. Conf. on Software Engineering (ICSE’17). ACM/IEEE, 63--72. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Schmidt and P. Buxmann. 2011. Outcomes and success factors of enterprise IT architecture management: Empirical insight from the international financial services industry. European Journal of Information Systems 20, 2 (2011), 168--185.Google ScholarCross Ref
- R. Schmidt. 1997. Managing Delphi surveys using nonparametric statistical techniques. Decision Sciences 28, 3 (1997), 763--774.Google ScholarCross Ref
- R. Schmidt, K. Lyytinen, M. Keil, and P. Cule. 2001. Identifying software project risks: An international Delphi study. Journal of Management Information Systems 17, 4 (2001), 5--36. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Shaw and D. Garlan. 1996. Software Architecture: Perspectives on an Emerging Discipline. Prentice Hall Englewood Cliffs. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Singh. 1996. International standard ISO/IEC 12207 software life cycle processes. Software Process Improvement and Practice 2, 1 (1996), 35--50.Google ScholarCross Ref
- B. Slife and R. Williams. 1995. What’s Behind the Research?: Discovering Hidden Assumptions in the Behavioral Sciences. Sage.Google Scholar
- Deloitte Italy S.p.A. 2016. Payments Service Directive 2 (PSD2): Il Nostro Approccio. Technical Report. Deloitte Consulting.Google Scholar
- A. Strauss and J. M Corbin. 1997. Grounded Theory in Practice. Sage.Google Scholar
- T. Sunazuka, M. Azuma, and N. Yamagishi. 1985. Software quality assessment technology. In Proc. 8th Int. Conf. on Software Engineering (ICSE’85). ACM/IEEE, 142--148. Google ScholarDigital Library
- CMMI Product Team. 2002. Capability maturity model® integration (CMMI), version 1.1--Continuous representation.Google Scholar
- D. Teichroew. 1972. A survey of languages for stating requirements for computer-based information systems. In Proc. Fall Joint Computer Conference. ACM, 1203--1224. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Tian. 2004. Quality-evaluation models and measurements. IEEE Software 21, 3 (2004), 84--91. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Unterkalmsteiner, T. Gorschek, A. Islam, C. Cheng, R. Permadi, and R. Feldt. 2012. Evaluation and measurement of software process improvement--A systematic literature review. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 38, 2 (2012), 398--424. Google ScholarDigital Library
- N. Venkatraman. 1994. IT-enabled business transformation: From automation to business scope redefinition. Sloan Management Review 35, 2 (1994), 73.Google Scholar
- Stefan Wagner, Klaus Lochmann, Lars Heinemann, Michael Kläs, Adam Trendowicz, Reinhold Plösch, Andreas Seidl, Andreas Goeb, and Jonathan Streit. 2012. The Quamoco product quality modelling and assessment approach. In Proc. 34th Int. Conf. on Software Engineering (ICSE’12). ACM/IEEE, 1133--1142. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Stefan Wagner, Andreas Goeb, Lars Heinemann, Michael Kläs, Constanza Lampasona, Klaus Lochmann, Alois Mayr, Reinhold Plösch, Andreas Seidl, Jonathan Streit, and others. 2015. Operationalised product quality models and assessment: The Quamoco approach. Information and Software Technology 62 (2015), 101--123. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Wagner and F. Deissenboeck. 2007. An integrated approach to quality modelling. In Proc. 5th Int. Workshop on Software Quality. IEEE Computer Society, 1--6. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Winter, C. Legner, and K. Fischbach. 2014. Introduction to the special issue on enterprise architecture management. Information Systems and e-Business Management 12, 1 (2014), 1--4. Google ScholarDigital Library
- B. Wixom and H. Watson. 2001. An empirical investigation of the factors affecting data warehousing success. MIS Quarterly 25, 1 (2001), 17--41. Google ScholarDigital Library
- B. H. Wixom and P. A. Todd. 2005. A theoretical integration of user satisfaction and technology acceptance. Information Systems Research 16, 1 (2005), 85--102. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Wohlin, P. Runeson, M. Höst, M. Ohlsson, B. Regnell, and A. Wesslén. 2012. Experimentation in Software Engineering. Springer Science 8 Business Media. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Yang, P. Liang, and P. Avgeriou. 2016. A systematic mapping study on the combination of software architecture and Agile development. Journal of Systems and Software 111 (2016), 157--184. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- A Meta-Model for Information Systems Quality: A Mixed Study of the Financial Sector
Recommendations
Software quality models: a systematic mapping study
ICSSP '19: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software and System ProcessesQuality Models play a critical role in assuring quality and have evolved over 40+ years. They provide support for defining quality attributes, building and measuring the quality of the resulting product. Each quality model adopts a critical view on ...
Software Quality Initiatives: An Empirical Study of Indian SMEs in the IT Sector
Through extensive research into the area of quality management practices, such as ISO International Standard Organization, Six Sigma has been observed within small and medium-sized enterprises SMEs. Few empirical studies have reported the application of ...
Quantifying software architecture quality report on the first international workshop on software architecture metrics
Architects of complex software systems face the challenge of how best to assess the achievement of quality attributes and other key drivers, how to reveal issues and risks early, and how to make decisions about architecture improvement. Software ...
Comments