[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Health] ISO 25010 and GNU Health
Re: [Health] ISO 25010 and GNU Health
Sat, 15 Aug 2015 14:43:53 +0200
in 2014 Miguel et al. from Peru made "A Review of Software Quality Models for
Evaluation of Software Products" (arxiv.org/pdf/1412.2977).
Besides of ISO 25010 and other quality models they investigated also
OpenBRR (Open Business Readiness Rating),
SQO-OSS (Software Quality in an Open Source Context) and
QualOSS (Quality of Open Source,
which are quality models for Open Source software.
Maybe those fit better to GNU Health than ISO 25010 (but a short search on
their homepages was not successful or convincing for me).
On Wikipedia I found Open-source software assessment methodologies
Qualification and Selection of Open Source software (QSOS) is an non-GNU
under a GNU license (https://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/qsos/ )
which has a general mailing list that was last active in March 2013.
COBIT (Control Objectives for Information and Related Technology) and ITIL
(Information Technology Infrastructure Library) could be mentioned in this
The COBIT 5-process reference model defines 37 processes, which are grouped in
5 domains: one governance domain and 4 management domains.
ITIL is a set of practices for IT Service Management that focuses on aligning
IT services with the needs of business.
Maybe there are some GNU packages that are certified with this standards within
their organizations where they are used?
Maybe the GNU Software Evaluation page can also be useful
(http://www.gnu.org/help/evaluation.en.html) with the topics
Dependencies; Configuration, building, installation; Documentation;
Internationalization; Accessibility; Security; Licensing.
My conclusion: I fully agree with Luis and Axel!
Von: address@hidden [mailto:address@hidden Im Auftrag von Iwan de Rooij
Gesendet: Freitag, 14. August 2015 15:10
An: 'General GNU Health discussion and help' <address@hidden>
Betreff: Re: [Health] ISO 25010 and GNU Health
Thank you Axel,
I Totally agree !
Iwan de Rooij
One Stop Shop voor chronische ziekten
From: address@hidden [mailto:address@hidden On Behalf Of Axel Braun
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 4:42 AM
Subject: Re: [Health] ISO 25010 and GNU Health
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 13. August 2015 um 19:49 Uhr
> Von: "Luis Falcon" <address@hidden>
> An: "Iwan de Rooij" <address@hidden>
> Betreff: Re: [Health] ISO 25010 and GNU Health
> > Question mainly for Luis Falcon , but would like to hear
> > experiences from other people on the subject.
> > I am in the process of convincing certain stakeholders in the
> > ministry of health to switch to GNU health.
> > We are preparing a presentation and need some info.
> > If someone asked you how Gnu health stands related to the ISO 25010
> > quality standard, what would your answer be?
> My answer is, of course, quite subjective, but I feel that we're OK on
> their metrics (Functional Suitability, Maintainability, Usability
> Performance Efficiency, Security, Reliability, Compatibility,
> When I talk about "we", I talk about GNU Health + Tryton + PostgreSQL
> + Python + GNU/Linux + all other FLOSS project that GNU Health relies on.
Fully agree with Luis.
Question is how the ISO standard can be fulfilled, and how important some of
the measures (e.g. 18.104.22.168. - pleasure - degree to which a user obtains
pleasure from fulfilling their personal needs) really are.
Without having (bought and) read it completely, it does not deal only with the
software component, but as well with infrastructure aspects (Performance
efficiency - not only a SW design measure) and the implementation project
itself (e.g. requirements management, functional suitability). Many of the
points look like common sense to me (which does not surprise if you look at
other methodologies and guidelines, like Six Sigma).
> PS : One important metric that it should be added is "Freedom", and in
> that one, GNU Health is at the top.
Yes, freedom directly relates to Confidentiality, Modifiability, Reusability,
Adaptability, Replaceability, ...., and , last but not least, freedom from risk
and economic risk mitigation.