Computing Reviews
Today's Issue Hot Topics Search Browse Recommended My Account Log In
Review Help
Search
Evaluating software architecture evaluation methods: an internal replication
Abrahão S., Insfran E.  EASE 2017 (Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, Karlskrona, Sweden, Jun 15-16, 2017)144-153.2017.Type:Proceedings
Date Reviewed: Jul 28 2017

Software architecture plays a vital role in the development of products since it enables ex-ante analysis and tackles fundamentals early. In fact, starting the development of a software product with a no-architectural approach makes future changes extremely hard and expensive, as it is difficult to guarantee the completeness of the solutions with respect to quality attributes required by design (for example, privacy, availability, modifiability, and so on). The information technology (IT) software architect is not an artist, but he is constantly following design patterns and models in a disciplined way. But what makes a “good” architecture, with respect to given quality requirements? Scientific literature addresses several evaluation methods, but it lacks controlled experiments showing the current scenario of models and patterns used by the software architecture community.

The authors perform an empirical experiment evaluating their own proposed evaluation method, quality-driven architecture derivation and improvement (QuaDAI), and the architecture tradeoff analysis method (ATAM). This latter method is used to “elicit and refine the architecture’s [main] quality goals” by performing scenario-based workshops with architects and stakeholders on well-documented architectures. On the other hand, QuaDAI is based on “a set of activities conducted by transformations [over the architectural model] to allow the automatic derivation, evaluation, and improvement of a product architecture.”

Four groups of participants attended the study (92 in total), including both undergraduate to master’s students at the University of Valencia (Spain) and the University of Basilicata (Italy). The students were trained before the experiment. The results of the hypotheses provide evidence that QuaDAI helps with higher quality architectures over ATAM; there is no evidence with regards to efficiency (whether QuaDAI is more efficient than ATAM); and partial evidence that architects may use QuaDAI more than ATAM in the future.

The paper tackles an important research area in analyzing and evaluating software architectures. In fact, the more complex the systems are, the more crucial the need for software architecture, even in agile settings.

Reviewer:  Massimiliano Masi Review #: CR145452 (1710-0665)
Bookmark and Share
  Reviewer Selected
Featured Reviewer
 
 
Validation (D.2.4 ... )
 
 
Management (D.2.9 )
 
Would you recommend this review?
yes
no
Other reviews under "Validation": Date
Application of software inspection methodology in design and code
Buck R., Dobbins J.  Software validation: inspection-testing-verification-alternatives (, Darmstadt, West Germany,561984. Type: Proceedings
Nov 1 1985
Integrated software validation in the view of inspections/reviews
Remus H.  Software validation: inspection-testing-verification-alternatives (, Darmstadt, West Germany,641984. Type: Proceedings
Nov 1 1985
Introduction to the formal treatment of testing
Gourlay J.  Software validation: inspection-testing-verification-alternatives (, Darmstadt, West Germany,721984. Type: Proceedings
Nov 1 1985
more...

E-Mail This Printer-Friendly
Send Your Comments
Contact Us
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.   Copyright 1999-2024 ThinkLoud®
Terms of Use
| Privacy Policy