Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/2602576.2602583acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescomparchConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Architecture management and evaluation in mature products: experiences from a lightweight approach

Published: 27 June 2014 Publication History
  • Get Citation Alerts
  • Abstract

    Software architecture evaluation is an essential part of architecture management and a means to uncover problems and increase confidence in the capability of the software architecture in fulfilling the most critical requirements. Architecture evaluation is typically carried out at an early stage of a software development. However, development efforts are often related to further development of existing software. We present a case study of the software architecture board (SWAB) initiative carried out at in a company called NSN. SWAB employed a lightweight architecture evaluation and management approach to exchange architectural experiences with related products and assess ability to fulfill future requirements. SWAB operated for two years but ultimately came to an end because the desired objectives were not achieved. The case study provides lessons for the evaluation of architecture in mature products and for using a lightweight evaluation approach: Evaluation in mature products seems not to be about finding problems and risk or making trade-offs, but about architecture management such as better communication, raising awareness about the architecture, and increased confidence to the architecture throughout the organization; and a lightweight architecture evaluation seems to be a good approach especially for mature products. However, the motivation and justification for architectural evaluation of mature products remains challenging, as their architecture is already in place and evolved over years towards good candidates, although the need for inter-product communication and alignment of architectural issues can be argued for.

    References

    [1]
    M. Babar and I. Gorton. Software architecture review: The state of practice. Computer, 42(7):26--32, 2009.
    [2]
    M. Babar, L. Zhu, and R. Jeffery. A framework for classifying and comparing software architecture evaluation methods. In Australian Software Engineering Conference, pages 309--318, 2004.
    [3]
    L. Bass and R. L. Nord. Understanding the context of architecture evaluation methods. In Joint Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture (WICSA) and European Conference on Software Architecture (ECSA), WICSA-ECSA '12, pages 277--281. IEEE Computer Society, 2012.
    [4]
    J. Bosch. Design and Use of Software Architectures: Adapting and Evolving a Product-Line Approach. Addison-Wesley, 2000.
    [5]
    N. Boucké, D. Weyns, K. Schelfthout, and T. Holvoet. Applying the atam to an architecture for decentralized contol of a agv transportation system. In In 2nd International Conference on Quality of Software Architecture, (QoSA), LNCS 4214, pages 180--198, 2006.
    [6]
    G. Buchgeher and R. Weinreich. An approach for combining model-based and scenario-based software architecture analysis. In International Conference on Software Engineering Advances (ICSEA), pages 141--148, 2010.
    [7]
    P. Clements, R. Kazman, and M. Klein. Evaluating Software Architectures--Methods and Case Studies. Addison-Wesley, 2002.
    [8]
    J. O. Coplien and G. Bjørnvig. Lean Architecture: for Agile Software Development. Wiley, 2010.
    [9]
    L. Dobrica and E. Niemelä. A survey on software architecture analysis methods. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 28(7):638--653, 2002.
    [10]
    L. Dominick, R. Hilliard, E. Kahane, R. Kazman, K. P., W. Kozaczynski, H. Obbink, H. Postema, A. Ran, and W. Tracz. Software architecture review and assessment (SARA) report, version 1.0. Technical report, 2002.
    [11]
    S. Ferber, P. Heidl, and P. Lutz. Reviewing product line architectures: Experience report of ATAM in an automotive context. In Revised Papers from the 4th International Workshop on Software Product-Family Engineering (PFE), LNCS 2290, pages 364--382, 2002.
    [12]
    M. Fowler. Who needs an architect? IEEE Software, Jul/Aug, pages 11--13, 2003.
    [13]
    A. Grimán, M. Pérez, L. Mendoza, and F. Losavio. Feature analysis for architectural evaluation methods. Journal of Systems and Software, 79(6):871--888, 2006.
    [14]
    M. Hammersley. Some notes on the terms 'validity' and 'reliability'. British Educational Research Journal, 13(1):73--81, 1987.
    [15]
    C. Hofmeister, P. Kruchten, R. L. Nord, J. H. Obbink, A. Ran, and P. America. A general model of software architecture design derived from five industrial approaches. Journal of Systems and Software, 80(1):106--126, 2007.
    [16]
    ISO/IEC/(IEEE). ISO/IEC 42010 (IEEE Std) 1471--2000 : Systems and Software engineering - Recomended practice for architectural description of software-intensive systems, 07 2007.
    [17]
    A. Jansen and J. Bosch. Software architecture as a set of architectural design decisions. In Working IEEE / IFIP Conference on Software Architecture (WICSA), pages 109--120. IEEE Computer Society, 2005.
    [18]
    R. Kazman, M. Barbacci, M. Klein, S. Jeromy Carriere, and S. Woods. Experience with performing architecture tradeoff analysis. In International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pages 54--63. ACM, 1999.
    [19]
    R. Kazman, L. Bass, and M. Klein. The essential components of software architecture design and analysis. Journal of Systems and Software, 79(8):1207--1216, 2006.
    [20]
    R. Kazman, L. Bass, M. Webb, and G. Abowd. SAAM: a method for analyzing the properties of software architectures. In International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pages 81--90. IEEE Computer Society Press, 1994.
    [21]
    R. Kazman, M. Klein, and P. Clements. ATAM: Method for architecture evaluation. Technical Report Carnegie Mellon University/SEI-2000-TR-004, Carnegie Mellon University, Software Engineering Institute, 2000.
    [22]
    A. S. Lee and R. L. Baskerville. Generalizing generalizability in information systems research. Information Systems Research, 14(3):221--243, 2003.
    [23]
    J. F. Maranzano, S. A. Rozsypal, G. H. Zimmerman, G. W. Warnken, P. E. Wirth, and D. M. Weiss. Architecture reviews: Practice and experience. IEEE Software, 22(2):34--43, Mar. 2005.
    [24]
    J. A. Maxwell. Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard Educational Review, 62(3):279--300, 1992.
    [25]
    N. Rozanski and E. Woods. Software Systems Architecture: Working With Stakeholders Using Viewpoints and Perspectives. Addison-Wesley Professional, 2005.
    [26]
    P. Runeson and M. Höst. Guidelines for conducting and reporting case study research in software engineering. Empirical Software Engineering, 14(2):131--164, 2009.
    [27]
    W. Shadish, T. Cook, and D. Campbell. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Houghton, Mifflin, Boston, 2002.
    [28]
    A. Strauss and J. Corbin. Basics of Qualitative Research. Sage, 2 edition, 1998.
    [29]
    C. Urquhart, H. Lehmann, and M. D. Myers. Putting the 'theory' back into grounded theory: guidelines for grounded theory studies in information systems. Information Systems Journal, 20(4):357--381, 2010.
    [30]
    E. Woods. Industrial architectural assessment using TARA. In Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture (WICSA), pages 56--65, 2011.
    [31]
    R. K. Yin. Case Study Research. Sage: Thousand Oaks, London, 3 edition, 2003.
    [32]
    A. Zalewski and S. Kijas. Beyond ATAM: Early architecture evaluation method for large-scale distributed systems. Journal of Systems and Software, 86(3):683--697, 2013.

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Conferences
    QoSA '14: Proceedings of the 10th international ACM Sigsoft conference on Quality of software architectures
    June 2014
    158 pages
    ISBN:9781450325769
    DOI:10.1145/2602576
    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Sponsors

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 27 June 2014

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. architecture evaluation
    2. architecture management
    3. case study
    4. software architecture

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Conference

    CompArch'14
    Sponsor:

    Acceptance Rates

    QoSA '14 Paper Acceptance Rate 15 of 47 submissions, 32%;
    Overall Acceptance Rate 46 of 131 submissions, 35%

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • 0
      Total Citations
    • 131
      Total Downloads
    • Downloads (Last 12 months)6
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    View Options

    Get Access

    Login options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media