A Review of Software Quality Models for the Evaluation of Software Products

Actually, software products are increasing in a fast way and are used in almost all activities of human life. Consequently measuring and evaluating the quality of a software product has become a critical task for many companies. Several models have been proposed to help diverse types of users with quality issues. The development of techniques for building software has influenced the creation of models to assess the quality. Since 2000 the construction of software started to depend on generated or manufactured components and gave rise to new challenges for assessing quality. These components introduce new concepts such as configurability, reusability, availability, better quality and lower cost. Consequently the models are classified in basic models which were developed until 2000, and those based on components called tailored quality models. The purpose of this article is to describe the main models with their strengths and point out some deficiencies. In this work, we conclude that in the present age, aspects of communications play an important factor in the quality of software

💡 Research Summary

The paper addresses the growing importance of measuring and evaluating software product quality as software becomes ubiquitous in everyday life. It begins by outlining the historical development of software quality models, dividing them into two broad categories: basic models created before the year 2000 and tailored quality models that emerged after 2000 to address component‑based development.

Basic models discussed include McCall, Boehm, Dromey, and the ISO/IEC 9126 family (later evolved into ISO/IEC 25010). These models share a hierarchical structure that decomposes quality into six primary characteristics—functionality, reliability, usability, efficiency, maintainability, and portability—and further into sub‑characteristics and metrics. Their strengths lie in wide industry acceptance, standardization, and suitability for whole‑system assessments. However, they were conceived for monolithic applications and lack the granularity needed to evaluate reusable components, micro‑services, or cloud‑native services.

Tailored models are presented as a response to the shift toward component‑based software engineering (CBSE) and service‑oriented architectures (SOA). Representative examples are the Component Quality Model (CQM), Reusability‑Focused Quality Model, Service‑Oriented Quality Model, and the updated ISO/IEC 25010 standard. These models introduce new quality attributes such as configurability, reusability, availability, interoperability, and security. They also propose more sophisticated measurement techniques, including static code analysis, dynamic profiling, and runtime monitoring, allowing each component to be assessed independently of the overall system. The benefits include early detection of quality defects in reusable assets, reduced integration costs, and shorter maintenance cycles. The drawbacks are higher implementation overhead, limited applicability across diverse domains, and potential redundancy or conflict among overlapping metrics.

A notable contribution of the paper is its emphasis on communication as a critical, yet often overlooked, factor influencing software quality. The authors cite recent studies showing strong correlations between communication efficiency (e.g., clear requirements articulation, effective documentation, collaborative tooling) and traditional quality attributes such as maintainability, reliability, and usability. This observation suggests that modern quality assessment must extend beyond purely technical metrics to incorporate human and organizational dimensions.

In the concluding section, the authors propose a unified quality framework that merges the strengths of basic and tailored models while integrating communication‑related metrics. Such a framework would enable organizations to define quality goals early in the development lifecycle, evaluate both whole‑system and component‑level attributes, and simultaneously improve collaborative processes. The paper identifies future research directions, including standardizing automated metric collection tools, aligning the unified framework with agile and DevOps practices, and developing quantitative measures for communication quality.

Overall, the study provides a comprehensive review of existing software quality models, highlights their respective advantages and shortcomings, and makes a compelling case for expanding quality evaluation to encompass both technical and communicative aspects in today’s component‑driven software ecosystem.