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 2014Publication History

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. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  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. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  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. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. J. Bosch. Design and Use of Software Architectures: Adapting and Evolving a Product-Line Approach. Addison-Wesley, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  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. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  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. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. P. Clements, R. Kazman, and M. Klein. Evaluating Software Architectures--Methods and Case Studies. Addison-Wesley, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. J. O. Coplien and G. Bjørnvig. Lean Architecture: for Agile Software Development. Wiley, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. L. Dobrica and E. Niemelä. A survey on software architecture analysis methods. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 28(7):638--653, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  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.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  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. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. M. Fowler. Who needs an architect? IEEE Software, Jul/Aug, pages 11--13, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  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. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. M. Hammersley. Some notes on the terms 'validity' and 'reliability'. British Educational Research Journal, 13(1):73--81, 1987.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  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. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  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.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  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. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  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. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  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. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  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. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. A. S. Lee and R. L. Baskerville. Generalizing generalizability in information systems research. Information Systems Research, 14(3):221--243, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  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. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. J. A. Maxwell. Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard Educational Review, 62(3):279--300, 1992.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. N. Rozanski and E. Woods. Software Systems Architecture: Working With Stakeholders Using Viewpoints and Perspectives. Addison-Wesley Professional, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  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. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. W. Shadish, T. Cook, and D. Campbell. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Houghton, Mifflin, Boston, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. A. Strauss and J. Corbin. Basics of Qualitative Research. Sage, 2 edition, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. E. Woods. Industrial architectural assessment using TARA. In Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture (WICSA), pages 56--65, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. R. K. Yin. Case Study Research. Sage: Thousand Oaks, London, 3 edition, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  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. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

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

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • 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

          Copyright © 2014 ACM

          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]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 27 June 2014

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          QoSA '14 Paper Acceptance Rate15of47submissions,32%Overall Acceptance Rate46of131submissions,35%
        • Article Metrics

          • Downloads (Last 12 months)6
          • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)3

          Other Metrics

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader