This Article 
 Bibliographic References 
 Add to: 
Supporting Roadmapping of Quality Requirements
March/April 2008 (vol. 25 no. 2)
pp. 42-47
Björn Regnell, Lund University
Richard Berntsson Svensson, Lund University
Thomas Olsson, Sony Ericsson
When dealing with quality requirements, you often end up in difficult trade-off analysis. You must take into account aspects such as release targets, end-user experience, and business opportunities. At the same time, you must consider what is feasible with the evolving system architecture and the available development resources. Our experience from the mobile-phone domain shows that much can be gained if development team members share a common framework of quality indicators and have a simple, easy-to-use model for reasoning about quality targets. To support quality-requirements analysis, the Quper (quality performance) model combines cost and benefit views into a roadmap of each important quality indicator for the particular domain. The practical application of Quper involves six steps. This article is part of a special issue on quality requirements.

1. B. Regnell, M. Höst, and R. Berntsson Svensson, "A Quality Performance Model for Cost-Benefit Analysis of Non-Functional Requirements Applied to the Mobile Handset Domain," Proc. Working Conf. Requirements Eng.: Foundation for Software Quality (REFSQ07), LNCS 4542, Springer, 2007, pp. 277–291.
2. S. Jacobs, "Introducing Measurable Quality Requirements: A Case Study," Proc. 4th IEEE Int'l Symp. Requirements Eng. (RE 99), IEEE CS Press, 1999, pp. 172–179.
3. B. Regnell and J. Brinkkemper, "Market-Driven Requirements Engineering for Software Products," Engineering and Managing Software Requirements, A. Aurum and C. Wohlin, eds., Springer, 2005, pp. 287–308.
4. P. Carlshamre and B. Regnell, "Requirements Lifecycle Management and Release Planning in Market-Driven Requirements Engineering Processes," Proc. Int'l Workshop Requirements Eng. Process: Innovative Techniques, Models, and Tools to Support the RE Process, IEEE CS Press, 2000, pp. 961–965.
5. J.M. deBaud and K. Schmid, "A Systematic Approach to Derive the Scope of Software Product Lines," Proc. 21st Int'l Conf. Software Eng. (ICSE 99), IEEE CS Press, 1999, pp. 34–43.
6. J. Karlsson and K. Ryan, "A Cost-Value Approach for Prioritizing Requirements," IEEE Software, vol. 14, no. 5, 1997, pp. 67–74.
1. J. Karlsson and K. Ryan, "A Cost-Value Approach for Prioritizing Requirements," IEEE Software, vol. 14, no. 5, 1997, pp. 67–74.
2. T. Saaty, The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill, 1980.
3. N. Kano et al., "Attractive Quality and Must-Be Quality," Hinshitsu, vol. 14, no. 2, 1984, pp. 39–48.
4. K. Matzler and H.H. Hinterhuber, "How to Make Product Development Projects More Successful by Integrating Kano's Model of Customer Satisfaction into Quality Function Deployment," Technovation, vol. 18, no. 1, 1998, pp. 25–38.
5. J. Karlsson, "Managing Software Requirements Using Quality Function Deployment," Software Quality J., vol. 6, no. 4, 1997, pp. 311–326.
6. T. Gilb, Competitive Engineering, Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, 2005.
7. R. Kazman et al., "The Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method," Proc. 4th Int'l Conf. Eng. of Complex Computer Systems (ICECCS98), IEEE Press, 1998, pp. 68–78.
8. E.W. Aslaksen, The Changing Nature of Engineering, McGraw-Hill, 1996.

Index Terms:
requirements engineering, nonfunctional requirements, quality requirements, trade-off analysis, cost-benefit analysis, performance requirements, roadmapping
Björn Regnell, Richard Berntsson Svensson, Thomas Olsson, "Supporting Roadmapping of Quality Requirements," IEEE Software, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 42-47, March-April 2008, doi:10.1109/MS.2008.48
Usage of this product signifies your acceptance of the Terms of Use.