Advertisement

The Case Study of Software Build-in Design Based on Quality Factors and FMEA

  • Meng-Ling HsiehEmail author
  • Wei-Tsen Lin
  • Suhan Yu
  • Yi-Chi Chen
  • Jung-Shan Lin
  • Lin-Hui Nung
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 927)

Abstract

In order to improve the quality and stability of software, software quality factors must be considered in the early stages of system development as in [1]. Moreover, in the design stage, we use Failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) to analyze the abnormal situation. Different to traditional exception handling, FMEA is a systematic way of identifying failure modes of a system, and take actions to eliminate or reduce failures before the failures occur as in [2]. Consequently, the cost and rework of software development could be reduced, and the defect removal efficiency (DRE) could be increased. Based on McCall’s software quality factors and FMEA, we derive the quality problems that may be encountered in the software development stage and the failure scenarios that may be confronted during the operation phase. Furthermore, we analyze the failure mode and calculate their risk priority number (RPN). Following the systematic engineering thinking as in [3], we conclude the early design issues, and propose the built-in features which are worth to be designed in the early stage. Finally, we illustrate the multiple effects after its implementation.

References

  1. 1.
    Markopoulos, P., Martens, J.-B., Malins, J., Coninx, K., Liapis, A.: Collaboration in creative design: methods and tools, January 2016Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    McDermott, R.E., Mikulak, R.J., Beauregard, M.: The Basics of FMEA, 2nd edn. Productivity Press, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schultz, D.J.: A comparison of five approaches to software development, January 2000Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bourque, P., Fairley, R.E.D.: Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge. IEEE Computer Society, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cavano, J.P., McCall, J.A.: A framework for the measurement of software quality. ACM SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes 7, 133–139 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    TM Forum, AI: The time is now, December 2017Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Project Management Institute, A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge: PMBOK Guide, 5th edn., Project Management Inst. (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pentti, H., Atte, H.: Failure mode and effects analysis of software-based automation systems, August 2002Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Duggal, G., Suri, B.: Understanding regression testing techniques. In: National Conference on Challenges and Opportunities. Mandi Gobindgarh, Punjab, India, 29 March 2008. Accessed 3 Jan 2018Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kiczales, G., Lamping, J., Mendhekar, A., Maeda, C., Lopes, C., Loingtier, J.-M., Irwin, J.: Aspect-oriented programming. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming (ECOOP), June 1997Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Laddad, R.: AspectJ in Action, 2nd edn. Manning, Greenwich (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Campanella, J.: Principles of quality costs, 3rd edn. American Society for Quality Control, Milwaukee (1990)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Humble, J., Farley, D.: Continuous Delivery: Reliable Software Releases Through Build, Test, and Deployment Automation, 1st edn. Addison-Wesley, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rose, K.H.: Project Quality Management: Why, What and How, p. 41. J. Ross Publishing, Fort Lauderdale (2005). ISBN 1-932159-48-7Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Meng-Ling Hsieh
    • 1
    Email author
  • Wei-Tsen Lin
    • 1
  • Suhan Yu
    • 1
  • Yi-Chi Chen
    • 1
  • Jung-Shan Lin
    • 1
  • Lin-Hui Nung
    • 1
  1. 1.Chunghua Telecom LaboratoriesTaoyuan CityTaiwan (R.O.C.)

Personalised recommendations