Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Towards a quality meta-model for information systems

  • Published:
Software Quality Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

All models of information system (IS) quality postulate two constructs, namely ‘quality’ and ‘model’. These concepts are seldom explicitly discussed and defined in connection with IS. Together, they constitute an information system quality meta-model. Compared to lower level models, a meta-model is likely to be more applicable in a wider variety of contexts. This article aims, firstly, to validate and develop further an initial IS quality meta-model that emerged from two previous studies. Secondly, it is an account of a real quality modeling process, in connection with the development of an Education Management Information System (EMIS) in Tanzania, and one that can be referenced by other researchers. This case is used to discover how the meta-model can be used as part of system development process, with a view to instantiating system- and attribute-specific quality models. The study supports the general validity of a two-part and three-level quality meta-model. It further suggests that quality is by its nature relative and that the essence of quality is embodied in relationships between the information system and its context. The meta-model functions well as a safeguard that can prevent developers from neglecting important aspects of quality design. In addition, it generates relevant questions for future research.

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
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Basili, V. (1993). Applying the goal/question/metric paradigm in the experience factory. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual CSR (Centre for Software Reliability) Workshop, Holland, September 29–October 1, 1993.

  • Basili, V., Caldiera, G., & Rombach, H. D. (1994). Goal question metric approach. In J. J. Marciniak (Ed.), Encyclopedia of software engineering (pp. 528–532). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berki, E., Georgiadou, E., & Holcombe, M. (2004). Requirements engineering and process modelling in software quality management–towards a generic process metamodel. Software Quality Journal, 12, 265–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boehm, B. W., Brown, J. R., Kaspar, H., Lipow, M., McCleod, G. J., & Merritt, M. J. (1978). Characteristics of software quality. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chung, L., Nixon, B., Yu, E., & Mylopoulos, J. (2000). Non-functionalrequirements in software engineering. Boston: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Côté, M.-A., Suryn, W., & Georgiadou, E. (2007). In search for a widely applicable and accepted software quality model for software quality engineering. Software Quality Journal, 15, 401–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crispin, L. (2006). Driving software quality: How test-driven development impacts software quality. IEEE Software, 23(6), 70–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cysneiros, L. M., & Leite, J. C. S. P. (2004). Nonfunctional requirements: From elicitation to conceptual models. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 30(5), 328–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Bruin, H., & van Vliet, H. (2003). Quality driven software architecture composition. The Journal of Systems and Software, 66, 269–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denger, C., & Shull, F. (2007). A practical approach for quality-driven inspections. IEEE Software, 24(2), 79–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dromey, G. (1996). Cornering the chimera, IEEE Software (January): 33–43.

  • Egyed, A., & Grünbacher, P. (2004). Identifying requirements conflict and cooperation: How quality attributes and automated traceability can help. IEEE Software, 21(6), 50–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finne, A. (2005). Blueprint for general quality attribute model. In Proceedings of Information Systems Research Seminar in Scandinavia 28, Kristiansand, Norway, August 6–9, 2005.

  • Finne A. (2006). Applying a Twofold Quality Model: Producing Groundwork for System Specific Attribute Models. In Proceedings of the Fourth IEEE International Workshop on Technology for Education in Developing Countries, Iringa, Tanzania, July 10–12, 2006.

  • Huang, L., & Boehm, B. (2006). How much software quality investment is enough: A value-based approach. IEEE Software, 23(5), 88–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ISO (International Organization for Standardization) (2001). Software engineering –product quality–part 1: quality model. Geneva: ISO/IEC.

  • Jacobson, I., Booch, G., & Rumbaugh, J. (1999). The unified software development process. Boston: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Järvinen, P. (2001). On research methods. Tampere: Opinpajan kirja.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kazman, R., Bass, L., Klein, M., Lattanze, T., & Northrop, L. (2005). A basis for analyzing software architecture analysis methods. Software Quality Journal, 13, 329–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinreich, I. (2004). Software–the power of the invisible. In L. Kearns & M. Falls (Eds.), Inside the minds: The software business (pp. 111–119). USA: Aspatore, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Losavio, F., Chirinos, L., Lévy, N., & Ramdane-Cherif, A. (2003). Quality characteristics for software architecture. Journal of Object Technology, 2(2), 133–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCall, J. A., Richards, P. K., & Walters, G. F. (1977). Factors in software quality, Vol. I–III, AD/A-049–014/015/055. Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortega, M., Pérez, M., & Rojas, T. (2003). Construction of a systemic quality model for evaluating a software product. Software Quality Journal, 11, 219–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Shull, F., Seaman, C., & Zelkowitz, M. (2006). Victor R. Basili’s contributions to software quality. IEEE Software, 23(1), 16–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svahnberg, M., & Wohlin, C. (2005). An investigation of a method for identifying a software architecture candidate with respect to quality attributes. Empirical Software Engineering, 10, 149–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Svahnberg, M., Wohlin, C., Lundberg, L., & Mattsson, M. (2003). A quality-driven decision-support method for identifying software architecture candidates. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, 13(5), 547–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tian, J. (2004). Quality evaluation models and measurements. IEEE Software, 21(3), 84–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voas, J. (2004). Software’s Secret Sauce: The “-ilities”. IEEE Software, 2004, 14–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wand, Y., & Wang, R. Y. (1996). Anchoring data quality dimensions in ontological foundations. Communications of the ACM, 39, 86–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science and Information Systems, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland

    Auvo Finne

Authors
  1. Auvo Finne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Auvo Finne.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Finne, A. Towards a quality meta-model for information systems. Software Qual J 19, 663–688 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-011-9131-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-011-9131-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation