Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Introduction
Quality of the software product and process affects the competitive position of
the business organization and the role of the IS function within the
organization[1]. Information systems (IS) departments are under increased
pressure to deliver operational systems on-time[2]. Poor quality systems
consume additional resources and contribute to the two- to three-year backlog
of development projects that exists in most companies[1,3]. The lack of
information technology (IT) support in turn degrades the competitive position
of enterprise[1,4].
Software engineering and information engineering (IE) have long advocated
the application of engineering-like discipline to the software development
activity[1,5,6]. Integrated computer aided software engineering (I-CASE)
represents an attempt to use automation to increase developer productivity.
These advances provide improved methods for carrying out the software
development process; however, there is no accompanying improvement in the
understanding of this process. The adaptation of the philosophy of total quality
management (TQM) from the manufacturing quality literature has been
proposed by some as a possible guide for introducing quality into the software
development activity[7-10].
This article will examine the methods that have been proposed in the
literature for moving the quality focus from the software product to the
development process. The difficulties inherent in current software quality
methods and the relevance of TQM tools for addressing these problems will be
examined. Finally, a requirements specification model based on quality function
deployment (QFD) will be proposed.
Relative
importance "Hows"
"What" Relationship
matrix
Figure 1.
TQM relationship
matrix
requirements. Again the relationships between the two axes are evaluated for Application of
the strength of their relationships. The final matrix presented translates the QFD to software
product production features into product metrics. The metrics shown in the development
example are measurable characteristics that can be used to perform process
control using SPC. These process metrics are the same as the variable type
metrics presented by Folkes and Stubenvoll[1].
This presentation of SQFD primarily uses the matrix tool of TQM without 29
the extensions that define QFD. The rich information that can be gathered
through QFD as it is implemented in the quality literature is not obtained. The
authors did not employ the “house of quality” form (see Figure 2) that typifies
QFD in manufacturing[20,26,28]. This more traditional form permits the
comparison of current function to the competition, and the evaluation of the
relationships between the implementation characteristics or “hows”[20,28].
Zultner model of SQFD. Zultner’s[32] model for applying QFD to software
development is quite extensive and detailed. There are 14 basic matrices used in
the model and an in-depth presentation of each is beyond the scope of the
current study.
Haag[10] has summarized Zultner’s model for SQFD into four interrelated
sets of matrices that link customer requirements to software system
specifications and supports detailed a priori planning of a software
development project. The first set of matrices in Zultner’s model is the Z
matrices. This group of matrices extends the QFD method described by Hauser
and Clausing[28] by developing an understanding of the customer. The “Z-0”
and “Z-1” matrices identify customer characteristics, the major groupings of
Interaction
measures
Roof matrix
Relative Implementation
importance deployments
Objective measures
"Hows 1"
"What" Relationship
matrix
"Hows 2"
Figure 3.
“T” type matrix
The impact of new technologies are determined and evaluated during the third Application of
phase (E matrix set) of SQFD in Zultner’s model. New technologies are QFD to software
identified along the y-axis of the “E-0” matrix[10]. The new concepts that are development
necessary to implement these new technologies are then elaborated along the
x-axis. These new concepts are then related to the stated customer
requirements, technical requirements, and to the entity types and processes
required to meet the technical requirements. This set of matrices provides an 31
assessment of the impact of new technologies on the design of the finished
system. The fourth phase examines the impact of failure modes on the customer
requirements. The matrices used in this phase are similar to those used in the
examination of new technology. Failure modes are identified and then related to
the stated customer requirements, technical requirements, and to the entity
types and processes required to meet the technical requirements.
Discussion
Despite the apparent benefits of applying QFD to software development, this
technique has not received widespread discussion in the literature, nor has it
been incorporated into modern development methods such as information
engineering (IE) or object oriented (OO) methods. SQFD remains largely
misunderstood as an improvement in how software is developed. The most
likely explanation for the lack of acceptance is the absence of a systemic
approach to SQFD that is specific to the needs of the modern software
development process. This section will evaluate the capability of the two SQFD
models presented to support modern systems development.
Customer
deployment
Business
process
deployment
Functional
requirements
deployment
Procedural
requirements
Figure 4. deployment
Proposed SQFD model
The tool used to perform this analysis is the “house of quality” matrix described Application of
by Hauser and Clausing[28] shown in Figure 2. This form permits the QFD to software
development of quantitative measures of competitive standing, sales points, development
and customer preferences. Further, the addition of the interaction matrix along
the horizontal axis, the “roof ”, highlights the relationships between
implementation deployments or “hows”. The quantitative measurements and
assessments described in other works on QFD can be applied in each of the 35
matrices developed with this model. A detailed description of how each matrix
is constructed is beyond the scope of the current study. The discussion
presented in the following sections will focus on the intent of each particular
phase of the SQFD model and highlight areas that have been significantly
modified to create a software specific QFD model.
Conclusion
The consequences of poor software quality will become more pronounced as the
importance of systems increases in the operations of modern organization. Past
methods for ensuring software quality have focused on testing and inspection
to build quality into the software product. However, the increased complexity of
modern software makes the likelihood of testing every interaction quite remote.
Procedural
requirements
Functional
requirements
Distribution
implementation
Procedural
requirements
Information
implementation
Procedural
requirements Figure 5.
Deployment of
procedural
requirements
IJQRM The solution proposed to this crisis in software development is to build quality
12,6 into the process of constructing software[7,9]. TQM tools such as QFD have
been proposed as mechanisms to implement the improvement of the software
development process. However, these TQM tools have not become widely used
for software development.
One difficulty with incorporating these techniques into the software
40 development literature is that organizations which employ them attain
significant advantage in their development efforts[10]. Given the advantage
derived, application experience with these TQM tools remains proprietary in
many organizations. The most significant problem with the current SQFD
found in the literature is that they attempt to apply QFD methods without
modification to the software development activity.
This article has proposed a four-stage model for performing SQFD that is
grounded in both the quality and software development literature. Software
requirements are developed based on the requirements of customer segments
that positively contribute to the value of organizational processes. The series of
“house of quality” matrices that is developed links the software product design
to the supported business process. This serves as a formal method of obtaining
system requirements that is supportive of enterprise priorities and that is
quantitatively based.
References
1. Folkes, S. and Stubenvoll, S., Accelerated Systems Development, The BCS Practitioner
Series, Welland, R. (Ed.), Prentice-Hall, New York, NY, 1992, p. 210.
2. Taylor, D.A., Object-oriented Technology: A Manager’s Guide, Addison-Wesley, Reading,
MA, 1990, p. 147.
3. Yourdon, E., Modern Structured Analysis, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1989, p. 672.
4. Glass, R.L., Building Quality Software, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1992, p. 369.
5. Martin, J. and McClure, C., Structured Techniques: The Basis for CASE, rev. ed., Prentice- Application of
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1988.
6. Martin, J., Information Engineering, Book I: Introduction, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
QFD to software
NJ, 1989, p. 178. development
7. Dasilva, P.A., “Total quality management applied to systems development”, presentation
to the ORSA/TIMS Joint Meeting, Phoenix, AZ, 14-16 November 1993.
8. Zultner, R.E., “TQM for technical teams”, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 36 No. 10,
1993, pp. 79-91. 41
9. Mathieson, K. and Wharton, T.J., “Are information systems a barrier to total quality
management?”, Journal of Systems Management, Vol. 44 No. 9, 1993, pp. 34-8.
10. Haag, S.E., “A field study of the use of quality function deployment as applied to software
development”, doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Arlington, 1992.
11. Dunn, R.H., “Software quality assurance: a management perspective”, Quality Progress,
Vol. 21 No. 7, July 1988, pp. 52-6.
12. O’Brien, D.H., “Software quality starts with the customer”, Quality Progress, Vol. 30 No. 6,
June 1991, pp. 22-4.
13. Zultner, R., “The Deming approach to software quality engineering”, Quality Progress, Vol. 21
No. 11, 1988, pp. 58-63.
14. Cho, C.K., Quality Programming, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 1987, p. 473.
15. Gitlow, H., Gitlow, S., Oppenheim, A. and Oppenheim, R., Tools and Methods for the
Improvement of Quality, Irwin, Homewood, IL, 1989, p. 603.
16. Erikkson, I. and McFadden, F., “Quality function deployment: a tool to improve software
quality”, Information and Software Technology, Vol. 35 No. 9, 1992, pp. 491-8.
17. Curtis, B. and Paulk, M., “Creating a software process improvement program”, Information
and Software Technology, Vol. 35 No. 6/7, 1993, pp. 381-6.
18. Perry, W.E., “Quality concerns in software development: the challenge is consistency”,
Information Systems Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, 1992, pp. 48-52.
19. Daughtrey, T., “The search for software quality”, Quality Progress, Vol. 21 No. 11, 1988,
pp. 29-31.
20. Bossert, J.L., “Quality function deployment: a practitioner’s approach”, in Schilling, E.G.
(Ed.), Quality and Reliability, ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee, WI, 1991, p. 125.
21. Rowe, J.M. and Neal, R.D., “TQM in system development: a paradigm without a sound
foundation”, Journal of Systems Management, Vol. 44 No. 5, 1993, pp. 12-16.
22. Card, D.N., “Software quality engineering”, Information and Software Technology, Vol. 32
No. 1, 1990, pp. 3-10.
23. Sullivan, L.P., “The seven stages in company-wide quality control”, Quality Progress, Vol. 19
No. 5, 1986, pp. 77-83.
24. Mills, H.D. and Poore, J.H., “Bringing software under statistical quality control”, Quality
Progress, Vol. 21 No. 11, 1988, pp. 52-5.
25. Amsden, R.T., Butler, H.E. and Amsden, D.M., SPC Simplified: Practical Steps to Quality,
Quality Resources, White Plains, NY, 1989, p. 262.
26. Fortuna, R.M., “Beyond quality: taking SPC upstream”, Quality Progress, Vol. 21 No. 6,
1988, pp. 23-8.
27. Sullivan, L.P., “Quality function deployment”, Quality Progress, Vol. 19 No. 6, 1986,
pp. 39-50.
28. Hauser, J.R. and Clausing, D., “The house of quality”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 66 No. 3,
1988, pp. 63-73.
29. McMenamin, S.M. and Palmer, J.F., Essential Systems Analysis, Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ, 1984.
IJQRM 30. Martin, J., Information Engineering, Book II: Planning and Analysis, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1989, p. 178.
12,6 31. Haag, S.E., A Quality Paradigm for Software Engineering, seminar notes, University of
Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX, 1993.
32. Zultner, R.E., Software Quality Deployment Basic Seminar: Applying QFD to Software,
seminar notes, Zultner and Company, 1991.
33. Automation & Robotics Research Institute, Consensus Process Model, Automation and
42 Robotics Research Institute, working paper, 1991.
34. Harrington, H.J., Business Process Improvement: The Breakthrough Strategy for Total
Quality, Productivity, and Competitiveness, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1991, p. 274.
35. Harrington, H.J., “Process breakthrough: business process improvement”, Cost
Management, Vol. 6 No. 3, Fall 1993, pp. 30-43.
36. Cash, J.I., McFarlan, F.W., McKenney, J.L. and Applegate, L.M., Corporate Information
Systems Management: Text and Cases, 3rd ed., Irwin, Homewood, IL, 1992, p. 702.
37. Davenport, T.H., Process Innovation: Reengineering Work through Information
Technology, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, 1993, p. 337.
38. Hammer, M. and Champy, J., Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business,
Harper Business, New York, NY, 1993, p. 223.
39. Porter, M.E. and Millar, V.E., “How information gives you competitive advantage”, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 63 No. 4, July-August 1985, pp. 149-60.
40. Banker, R.D. and Kauffman, R.J., “Reuse and productivity in integrated computer-aided
software engineering: an empirical study”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 3, 1991, pp. 375-401.
41. Atre, S., “Twelve steps to successful client/server”, DBMS, 1994, pp. 70-6.
42. Edelstein, H., “Unraveling client/server architectures”, DBMS, 1994, pp. 34-42.
43. Automation & Robotics Research Institute, Perform Continuous Enterprise Improvement
Model, working paper, Automation & Robotics Research Institute, University of Texas at
Arlington, Arlington, TX, 1991.
44. Prahalad, C.K. and Hamel, G., “The core competence of the corporation”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 68 No. 3, 1990, pp. 79-91.
45. Appleton, D., Corporate Information Management: Process Improvement Methodology for
DOD Functional Managers, 2nd ed., D. Appleton, Arlington, VA, 1993, p. 185.
46. Henderson, J.C. and Venkatraman, N., “Strategic alignment: leveraging information
technology for transforming organizations”, IBM Systems Journal, Vol. 32 No. 1, 1993,
pp. 4-16.
47. Zachman, J.A., “A framework for information systems architecture”, IBM Systems Journal,
Vol. 26 No. 3, 1987, pp. 276-92.