Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Requirements Validation in the Information System Software Development Lifecycle: A Software Quality in Use Evaluation

  • Published:
Programming and Computer Software Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Peruvian government adopted the ISO/IEC 12207 standard and established its mandatory implementation in public entities to improve the quality of the software products. In this context, software requirements validation tasks were introduced to improve the quality of the software product. In this study, the relationship between the improvement of software requirement quality and the software product quality in use was explored and analyzed. Analysis was based on the design of software product quality-in-use and the measure of metrics from ISO/IEC 25010 standard in two software products. The results show that the validation activities introduced in the software requirements stage have a positive relationship with the quality in use of the software products analyzed. In the software studied, it can be said that the improvement of the quality of the requirements has contributed to the improvement of the quality in use of software products. In this case, it has increased time efficiency to complete tasks by 45%, reduced errors for a task by 40%, the number of tasks with errors by 47%, the cost of time to perform tasks by 29%, and unnecessary actions by 53%. In addition, overall satisfaction, user pleasure, information quality, and interfaces quality are the metrics that significantly improve.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.
Fig. 5.

REFERENCES

  1. PCM: RM no. 179-2004-PCM: Uso obligatorio de la Norma Tecnica Peruana NTP-ISO/IEC 12207:2004, 2004.

  2. PCM: RM no. 041-2017-PCM. Uso Obligatorio de la Norma Tecnica Peruana NTP-ISO/IEC 12207:2016, Peru, 2017.

  3. ISO/IEC: no. TR 29110-1:2016: Systems and Software Engineering–Lifecycle Profiles for Very Small Entities (VSEs)–Part 1: Overview, Genewa, 2016.

  4. Demirel, S.T. and Das, R., Software requirement analysis: research challenges and technical approaches, in Proc. 6th Int. Symp. on Digital Forensic and Security, ISDFS 2018, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., 2018, pp. 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISDFS.2018.8355322

  5. Atoum, I., Baklizi, M.K., Alsmadi, I., Otoom, A.A., Alhersh, T., Ababneh, J., Almalki, J., and Alshahrani, S.M., Challenges of software requirements quality assurance and validation: A systematic literature review, IEEE Access, 2021, vol. 9, pp. 137613–137634. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3117989

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Anuar, U., Ahmad, S., and Emran, N.A., A simplified systematic literature review: Improving software requirements specification quality with boilerplates, in Proc. 9th Malaysian Software Engineering Conf., MySEC 2015, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., 2015, pp. 99–105. https://doi.org/10.1109/MySEC.2015.7475203

  7. García-Mireles, G.A., Addressing product quality characteristics using the ISO/IEC 29110, in Trends and Applications in Software Engineering. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, Mejia, J., Munoz, M., and Rocha, Á.C.-M.J., Eds., Cham: Springer, 2016, pp. 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26285-7_3

  8. Hussain, A., Mkpojiogu, E.O.C., and Kamal, F.M., The role of requirements in the success or failure of software projects, Proc. Int. Soft Science Conf. (ISSC), Kedah, 2016.

  9. Niazi, M., Mahmood, S., Alshayeb, M., Qureshi, A.M., Faisal, K., and Cerpa, N., Toward successful project management in global software development, Int. J. Project Manag., 2016, vol. 34, pp. 1553–1567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.08.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bhardwaj, M. and Rana, A., Key software metrics and its impact on each other for software development projects, Int. J. Electr. Comput. Eng., 2016, vol. 6, pp. 242–248. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijece.v6i1.8247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Duran Toro, A., Un Entorno Metodológico de Ingeniería de Requisitos para Sistemas de Información, PhD, 2000. https://idus.us.es/handle/11441/15365

  12. Mishra, D. and Abdalhamid, S., Software quality issues in SCRUM: a systematic mapping, J. Univ. Comput. Sci., 2018, vol. 24, pp. 1690–1716.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Atoum, I., A novel framework for measuring software quality-in-use based on semantic similarity and sentiment analysis of software reviews, J. King Saud Univ., Comput. Inf. Sci., 2020, vol. 32, pp. 113–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksuci.2018.04.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Salomón, S., Duque, R., Montana, J.L., and Tenés, L., Towards automatic evaluation of the quality-in-use in context-aware software systems, J. Ambient Intell. Humaniz. Comput., 2022, vol. 14, pp. 10321–10346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-021-03693-w

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Canchari, L. and Dávila, A., Requirements validation in the information systems software development: an empirical evaluation of its benefits for a Public Institution in Lima, in Trends and Applications in Software Engineering. CIMPS 2019. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, Mejia, J., Munoz, M., and Rocha, A.A.C.-M.J., Eds., Guanajuato: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2020, pp. 23–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33547-2_3

  16. ISO/IEC no. 25022:2016: Systems and Software Engineering–Systems and Software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE)–Measurement of Quality in Use, Genewa: Springer US, 2016.

  17. Kim, S.-H. and Kim, W.-J., Evaluation of software quality-in-use attributes based on analysis network process, Cluster Comput., 2019, vol. 22, pp. 2101–2114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10586-018-2309-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. ISO/IEC no. 25001:2014: Systems and Software Engineering–Systems and Software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE)–Planning and Management, Genewa, 2014.

  19. Marín, B., Condori-Fernández, N., and Pastor, O., Calidad en Modelos Conceptuales: Un Analisis Multidimensional de Modelos Cuantitativos Basados en la ISO 9126, Proc. 8th Conf. Anu. de la Asociacion Espanola de Metricas de Sistemas Informaticos, 2007, pp. 153–167.

  20. ISO/IEC no. 25010:2011: Systems and Software Engineering–Systems and Software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE)–System and Software Quality Models, Genewa, 2011.

  21. Fenton, N. and Nell, M., Software metrics: roadmap, Proc. 22nd Int. Conf. on Software Engineering “Future of Software Engineering,” Limerick, 2000, pp. 357–370. https://doi.org/10.1145/336512.336588

  22. Estayno, M., Dapozo, G., Cuenca Pletsch, L., and Greiner, C., Modelos y Métricas para Evaluar Calidad de Software, Proc. 11th Workshop de Investigadores en Ciencias de la Computacion, San Juan, 2009, pp. 382–388.

  23. Bevan, N., Los Nuevos Modelos de ISO para la Calidad y la Calidad en Uso del Software, in Calidad del Producto y Proceso Software, Calero, C., Moraga, A., and Piattini, M., Eds., Madrid, 2012, pp. 55–78.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Kurosu, M., Usability, quality in use and the model of quality characteristics, in Human-Computer Interaction: Design and Evaluation, Los Angeles: Springer Int. Publ. Switzerland, 2015, pp. 227–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20901-2_21

  25. Atoum, I., Bong, C.H., and Kulathuramaiyer, N., Towards resolving software quality-in-use measurement challenges, J. Emerging Trends Comput. Inf. Sci., 2014, vol. 5, pp. 877–885.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Charters, E., The use of think-aloud methods in qualitative research an introduction to think-aloud methods, Brock Edu. J., 2003, vol. 12, pp. 68–82.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Nielsen, J., Thinking Aloud: The #1 Usability Tool. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/thinking-aloud-the-1-usability-tool/. Accessed May 30, 2021.

  28. Sauro, J., 10 Things to Know about the Post Study System Usability Questionnaire. https://measuringu.com/pssuq/. Accessed March 3, 2019.

  29. Allasi, D. and Dávila, A., Financial impact on the adoption of software validation tasks in the analysis phase: A business case, in Trends and Applications in Software Engineering. CIMPS 2017. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, Mejia, J., Munoz, M., Rocha, A., and Quinonez, Y.C.-M.J., Eds., Zacatecas: Springer Int. Publ., 2018, pp. 106–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69341-5_10

  30. Pardo, C., Garcia, F., Pino, F., and Piattini, M., Producto y Proceso: Una Relación Compleja en la Ingeniería de Software, Hombre Maquina, 2013, nos. 42–43, pp. 67–72.

  31. Covella, G. and Olsina, L., Medición y Evaluación de Calidad en Uso: Un Caso de Estudio para una Aplicación E-Learning, in Proc. 9th Conf. Iberoamericana de Software Engineering–CibSE, Castro, J., Cernuzzi, L., and Gordillo, S.E., Eds., La Plata, 2006, pp. 317–330.

  32. Sierra González, J.C., Métodos de Evaluación de Usabilidad para Sistemas de Información Web: Una Revisión, in Proc. Conf. Colombiana en Gestión de Sistemas de Información y de TIC–GSTIC, Manizalez: Univ. Nacional de Colombia, 2013, pp. 1–13.

  33. Hassan Montero, Y. and Ortega Santamaria, S., Informe APEI sobre usabilidad, Gijon: Asociacion Profesional de Especialistas en Informacion, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Del-Ángel-Flores, H., López-Domínguez, E., Hernández-Velázquez, Y., Domínguez-Isidro, S., Medina-Nieto, M.A., and De-La-Calleja, J., Usability evaluation of a mobile learning platform focused on learning monitoring and customization based on a laboratory study, Program. Comput. Software, 2022, vol. 48, pp. 583–597. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0361768822080102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Hornbæk, K., Current practice in measuring usability: Challenges to usability studies and research, Int. J. Human Comput. Stud., 2006, vol. 64, pp. 79–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.06.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. González-Sánchez, J.-L., Montero-Simarro, F., and Gutiérrez-Vela, F.-L., Evolución del Concepto de Usabilidad como Indicador de Calidad del Software, Prof. Inf., 2012, vol. 21, pp. 529–536. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2012.sep.13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Runeson, P. and Höst, M., Guidelines for conducting and reporting case study research in software engineering, Emp. Softwaer Eng., 2009, vol. 14, pp. 131–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-008-9102-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Genero Bocco, M., Cruz-Lemus, J.A., and Piattini Velthuis, M.G., Métodos de Investigación en Ingeniería de Software, Madrid, 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Pedrosa, I., Suárez-Álvarez, J., and García-Cueto, E., Evidencias sobre la Validez de Contenido: Avances Teóricos y Métodos para su Estimacion, Acc. Psicol., 2014, vol. 10, pp. 3–18. https://doi.org/10.5944/ap.10.2.11820

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Canchari, L., La validación de requisitos de software como base del éxito de los proyectos de sistemas informáticos desarrollados e implementados en la Comisión Nacional para el Desarrollo y Vida sin Drogas-DEVIDA, 2018.

  41. Pérez-Verdejo, J.M., Sánchez-García, J., Ocharán-Hernández, J.O., Mezura-Montes, E., and Cortés-Verdín, K., Requirements and GitHub issues: An automated approach for quality requirements classification, Program. Comput. Software, 2021, vol. 47, pp. 704–721. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0361768821080193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Dávila Nicanor, L. and Mejia Alvarez, P., Evaluación de la Calidad de Software en Sistemas de Información en Internet, Proc. Congreso de Ingenierıa Electrica, CInvestAv-IPN., Zacatenco, 2003, pp. 1–11.

Download references

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was supported by Software Engineering Research and Development Group (GIDIS) – Pontifical Catholic University of Peru.

Funding

This work was supported by ongoing institutional funding. No additional grants to carry out or direct this particular research were obtained.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universidad Continental, Huancayo, Perú

    L. Canchari

  2. Universidad de Belgrano, Buenos Aires, Argentina

    P. Angeleri

  3. Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Lima, Perú

    A. Dávila

Authors
  1. L. Canchari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. P. Angeleri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. Dávila
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to L. Canchari, P. Angeleri or A. Dávila.

Ethics declarations

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note.

Pleiades Publishing remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

Appendix A and B in original Spanish language are presented in https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/169Z4QhsO4nVxoRaDj_kEndoGS7JdyBey?usp=drive_link.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Canchari, L., Angeleri, P. & Dávila, A. Requirements Validation in the Information System Software Development Lifecycle: A Software Quality in Use Evaluation. Program Comput Soft 49, 610–624 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1134/S0361768823080054

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S0361768823080054

Search

Navigation