Towards a distributed software architecture evaluation process

Subscribe (Full Service)


	Search: The ACM Digital Library The Guide

	Feedback

Towards a distributed software architecture evaluation process: a preliminary assessment

Full text

Pdf (81 KB)

Source

International Conference on Software Engineering archive
Proceedings of the 28th international conference on Software engineering table of contents

Shanghai, China

SESSION: Emerging results: architecture table of contents

Pages: 845 - 848

Year of Publication: 2006

ISBN:1-59593-375-1

Authors

Muhammed Ali Babar	National ICT Australia Ltd; Sydney, Australia and University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
Barbara Kitchenham	University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
Ian Gorton	University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

Sponsors

ACM: Association for Computing Machinery
SIGSOFT: ACM Special Interest Group on Software Engineering

Publisher

ACM New York, NY, USA

Bibliometrics

Downloads (6 Weeks): 8, Downloads (12 Months): 94, Citation Count: 1

Additional Information:

abstract references cited by index terms collaborative colleagues

Tools and Actions:	Review this Article Save this Article to a Binder Display Formats: BibTeX EndNote ACM Ref

DOI Bookmark:	Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1134285.1134430 What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

Scenario-based methods for evaluating software architecture require a large number of stakeholders to be collocated for evaluation sessions. Collocating stakeholders is often an expensive exercise. We have proposed a framework for distributed evaluation process. We present the proposed framework and initial results of a controlled experiment that we ran to assess the effectiveness of the proposed idea.

REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

	1	Muhammad Ali Babar , Ian Ian Gorton , Ross Jeffery, Capturing and Using Software Architecture Knowledge for Architecture-Based Software Development, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Quality Software, p.169-176, September 19-20, 2005 [doi>10.1109/QSIC.2005.17]
	2	Ali-Babar, M., et al. Design and Evaluation of a Research Program for Distributed Software Architecture Evaluation. Technical Report No. 0417, University of New South Wales, Sydney, 2004
	3	Muhammad Ali Babar , Liming Zhu , Ross Jeffery, A Framework for Classifying and Comparing Software Architecture Evaluation Methods, Proceedings of the 2004 Australian Software Engineering Conference (ASWEC'04), p.309, April 13-16, 2004
	4	Len Bass , Paul Clements , Rick Kazman, Software architecture in practice, Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, 1998
	5	PerOlof Bengtsson , Jan Bosch, An experiment on creating scenario profiles for software change, Annals of Software Engineering, v.9 n.1-4, p.59-78, 2000 [doi>10.1023/A:1018968506874]
	6	Robert P. Biuk-Aghai , Igor T. Hawryszkiewycz, Analysis of Virtual Workspaces, Proceedings of the 1999 International Symposium on Database Applications in Non-Traditional Environments, p.325, November 28-30, 1999
	7	Barry Boehm , Paul Grünbacher , Robert O. Briggs, Developing Groupware for Requirements Negotiation: Lessons Learned, IEEE Software, v.18 n.3, p.46-55, May 2001 [doi>10.1109/52.922725]
	8	Evaluating software architectures: methods and case studies, Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, 2001
	9	Daniela E. Herlea Damian , Armin Eberlein , Mildred L. G. Shaw , Brian R. Gaines, Using Different Communication Media in Requirements Negotiation, IEEE Software, v.17 n.3, p.28-36, May 2000 [doi>10.1109/52.896247]
	10	Genuchten, M.V., et al. Supporting Inspection with an Electronic Meeting System. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14 (3). pp. 165--178.
	11	Griffith, T., et al. Virtualness and Knowledge in Teams: Managing the Love Triangle of Organisations, Individuals, and Information Technology. MIS, Quarterly, 27 (2). pp. 265--287.
	12	Michael Hallin , Paul Grünbacher , Stefan Biffl, Tailoring a COTS Group Support System for Software Requirements Inspection, Proceedings of the 16th IEEE international conference on Automated software engineering, p.201, November 26-29, 2001
	13	Rick Kazman , Len Bass, Making Architecture Reviews Work in the Real World, IEEE Software, v.19 n.1, p.67-73, January 2002 [doi>10.1109/52.976943]
	14	Nunamaker, J.F., et al. Lessons from a Dozen Years of Group Support Systems Research: A Discussion of Lab and Field Findings. Journal of Management Information Systems, 13 (3). pp. 163--207.
	15	J. F. Nunamaker , Alan R. Dennis , Joseph S. Valacich , Douglas Vogel , Joey F. George, Electronic meeting systems, Communications of the ACM, v.34 n.7, p.40-61, July 1991 [doi>10.1145/105783.105793]
	16	Dewayne E. Perry , Adam Porter , Michael W. Wade , Lawrence G. Votta , James Perpich, Reducing inspection interval in large-scale software development, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, v.28 n.7, p.695-705, July 2002 [doi>10.1109/TSE.2002.1019483]
	17	Chris Sauer , D. Ross Jeffery , Lesley Land , Philip Yetton, The Effectiveness of Software Development Technical Reviews: A Behaviorally Motivated Program of Research, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, v.26 n.1, p.1-14, January 2000 [doi>10.1109/32.825763]
	18	Senn, S. Cross-Over Trials in Clinical Research. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 2002.
	19	Lloyd G. Williams , Connie U. Smith, PASA^SM: a method for the performance assessment of software architectures, Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on Software and performance, July 24-26, 2002, Rome, Italy [doi>10.1145/584369.584397]