Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Question framework for architectural description quality evaluation

  • Published:
Software Quality Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The challenges of architectural descriptions (AD), processes and practices have become increasingly important for enterprise information system and software developers. As the development and efficient usage of different architectures are highly dependent on the quality of their documentation, there is an evident need for practical means for AD evaluation. In this paper, we introduce a question framework for AD quality evaluation. The framework was developed in a joint study with industry and validated by the industry experts. This framework can be used as a practical tool for evaluating and further developing the quality of the AD within organisations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bass, L., Clements, P., & Kazman, R. (2003). Software architecture in practice. Boston: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernus, P. (2003). Enterprise models for enterprise architecture and ISO9000:2000. Annual Reviews in Control, 27(2), 211–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolloju, N., & Leung, F. S. K. (2006). Assisting novice analyst in developing quality conceptual models with UML. Communications of the ACM, 49(7), 108–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapurlat, V., Kamsu-Foguem, B., & Prunet, F. (2003). Enterprise model verification and validation: An approach. Annual Reviews in Control, 27(2), 185–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Claxton, J. C., & McDougall, P. A. (2000). Measuring the quality of models. The Data Administration Newsletter, TDAN.com, http://www.tdan.com/view-articles/4877. Accessed 31 Dec 2008.

  • Clements, P., Bachmann, F., Bass, L., Garlan, D., Ivers, J., Little, R., et al. (2002). Documenting software architectures: Views and beyond. Boston: Addison Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairbanks, G. (2003). Why can’t they create architecture models like “Developer X”? An experience report. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Software Engineering (pp. 548–552). Washington: IEEE Computer Society.

  • Fu, Y., Dong, Z. & He, X. (2005). An approach to validation of software architecture model. In Proceedings of 12th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference APSEC ’05 (pp. 375–384). Washington: IEEE Computer Society.

  • Hargis, G., Carey, M., Hernandez, A. K., Hughes, P., Longo, D., Rouiller, S., et al. (2004). Developing quality technical information—A handbook for writers and editors. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

  • He, X., Ding, J., & Deng, Y. (2002). Model checking software architecture specifications in SAM. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering SEKE’02 (pp. 271–274). New York: ACM.

  • IEEE Std 1471-2000, Recommended practice for architectural description of software-intensive systems.

  • ISO/IEC 10746. (1994). Reference model of open distributed processing (RM-ODP).

  • ISO/IEC 42010:2007. Systems and software engineering—Recommended practice for architectural description of software-intensive systems.

  • Jonkers, H., Lankhorst, M., Van Buuren, R., Hoppenbrouwers, S., Bosanque, M., & Van der Torre, L. (2004). Concepts for modeling enterprise architectures. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems, 13(3), 257–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaisler, S.·H., Armour, F., & Valivullah, M. (2005). Enterprise architecting: Critical problems. In Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, HICSS’05 (p. 224b). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.

  • Kruchten, P. (1995). 4+1 view model of architecture. IEEE Software, 12(6), 42–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2000). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lankhorst, M. (2005). Enterprise architecture at work. Modelling, communication, and analysis. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, J., & Horgan, R. (2000). χSuds-SDL: A tool for testing software architecture specifications. Software Quality Journal, 8(4), 241–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindland, O. I., Sindre, G., & Solvberg, A. (1994). Understanding quality in conceptual modeling. IEEE Software, 11(2), 42–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • May, N. (2005). A survey of software architecture viewpoint models. In Proceedings of the Sixth Australasian Workshop on Software and System Architectures (pp. 13–24). Melbourne, Australia: Swinburne University of Technology.

  • McDavid, D. (1999). A standard for business architecture description. IBM Systems Journal, 38(1), 12–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, H. J., & Monarchi, D. (2007). Ensuring the quality of conceptual representations. Software Quality Journal, 15(2), 213–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polikoff, I., & Coyne, R. (2005). Towards executable enterprise models: Ontology and semantic web meet enterprise architecture. Journal of Enterprise Architecture, 1(1), 45–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosen, M. (2006). Opening statement. Cutter IT Journal, 19(3), 3–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rozanski, N., & Woods, E. (2005). Software systems architecture: Using viewpoints and perspectives. Boston: Addison-Wesley Professional.

  • Smart, K. L. (2002). Commentaries: Assessing quality documents. ACM Journal of Computer Documentation, 26(3), 130–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smolander, K., Hoikka, K., Isokallio, J., Kataikko, M. & Makela, T. (2002). What is included in software architecture? A case study in three software organizations. In Proceedings of the Ninth Annual IEEE International Conference and Workshop on the Engineering of Computer-Based Systems (ECBS’02) (pp. 131–138). Washington: IEEE Computer Society.

  • Steen, M., Akehurst, D., Doest, H., & Lankhorst, M. (2004). Supporting viewpoint-oriented enterprise architecture. In Proceedings of the eighth IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC 2004) (pp. 201–211). Washington: IEEE Computer Society.

  • Soni, D., Nord, R., & Hofmeister, C. (1995). Software architecture in industrial applications. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Software Engineering (pp. 196–207). New York: ACM.

  • TOGAF. (2007). The Open Group Architecture Framework, Version 8.1.1 “Enterprise Edition”. The Open Group. http://www.opengroup.org/togaf/.

  • Worthen, B., & Fitzpatrick J. (1997). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.

  • Youngs, R., Redmond-Pyle, D., Spaas, P., & Kahan, E. (1999). A standard for architecture description. IBM Systems Journal, 38(1), 32–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zachman, J. A. (1987). A Framework for Information Systems Architecture. IBM Systems Journal, 26(3), 276–292.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

This paper is based on the work carried out during the AISA project (Quality Management of Enterprise and Software Architectures) organized by the Information Technology Research Institute (ITRI), University of Jyväskylä. AISA project was financed by the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation (Tekes) and participating companies: Elisa Oyj, OP Bank Group, IBM Finland, S Group, Tieturi, and A-Ware Oy. We wish to thank the participating companies for their co-operation. In addition, Tanja Ylimäki and Eetu Niemi participated in the validation of these results.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Aditro HRM Oy, P.O. Box 146, 40101, Jyvaskyla, Finland

    Niina Hämäläinen

  2. Department of Information Processing Science, University of Oulu, P.O. Box 3000, 90014, Oulu, Finland

    Jouni Markkula

Authors
  1. Niina Hämäläinen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jouni Markkula
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Niina Hämäläinen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hämäläinen, N., Markkula, J. Question framework for architectural description quality evaluation. Software Qual J 17, 215–228 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-008-9068-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-008-9068-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation