A method for understanding quality attributes in software architecture structures

ABSTRACT

To sustain the qualities of a software system during evolution, and to adapt the quality attributes as the requirements evolve, it is necessary to have a clear software architecture that is understood by all developers and to which all changes to the system adheres. This software architecture can be created beforehand, but must also be updated as the domain of the software, and hence the requirements on the software system evolves. Creating an architectural structure for a system or part of a system so that the architecture fulfils the desired quality requirements is often hard. In this paper we propose a decision support method to aid in the understanding of different architecture structure candidates for a software system. We propose a method that is adaptable with respect to both the set of potential architecture structures, and quality attributes relevant for the system's domain to help in this task. The method creates a support framework, using a multi-criteria decision method, supporting comparison of different software architecture structures for a specific software quality attribute and vice versa. Moreover, given a prioritization of quality attributes for the software system, or part thereof, the most suitable software architecture structure can be indicated using the created framework.

REFERENCES

• 1: D. R. Anderson, D. J. Sweeney, T. A. Williams, "An Introduction to Management Science: Quantitative Approaches to Decision Making", South Western College Publishing, Cincinnati Ohio, 2000.
• 2: Len Bass , Paul Clements , Rick Kazman, Software architecture in practice, Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, 1998
• 3: Jan Bosch, Design and use of software architectures: adopting and evolving a product-line approach, ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., New York, NY, 2000
• 4: Frank Buschmann , Regine Meunier , Hans Rohnert , Peter Sommerlad , Michael Stal, Pattern-oriented software architecture: a system of patterns, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 1996
• 5: L. Chung, B. A. Nixon, E. Yu, J. Mylopoluos, "Non-Funcfional Requirements in Software Engineering", Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, the Netherlands, 2000.
• 6: Christine Hofmeister , Robert Nord , Dilip Soni, Applied software architecture, Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, 1999
• 7: "Software Qualities", ISO/IEC FDIS 9126-1:2000(E).
• 8: Ivar Jacobson , Grady Booch , James Rumbaugh, The unified software development process, Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, 1999
• 9: E. Johansson , A. Wesslén , L. Bratthall , M. Höst, The Importance of Quality Requirements in Software Platform Development - A Survey, Proceedings of the 34th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences ( HICSS-34)-Volume 9, p.9057, January 03-06, 2001
• 10: Enrico Johansson , Martin Höst, Tracking degradation in software product lines through measurement of design rule violations, Proceedings of the 14th international conference on Software engineering and knowledge engineering, July 15-19, 2002, Ischia, Italy [doi>10.1145/568760.568805]
• 11: Joachim Karlsson , Kevin Ryan, A Cost-Value Approach for Prioritizing Requirements, IEEE Software, v.14 n.5, p.67-74, September 1997 [doi>10.1109/52.605933]
• 12: J. Karlsson, C. Wohlin and B. Regnell, "An Evaluation of Methods for Prioritizing Software Requirements", in Information and Software Technology,39(14-15):938-947, 1998.
• 13: Rick Kazman , Mario Barbacci , Mark Klein , S. Jeromy Carrière , Steven G. Woods, Experience with performing architecture tradeoff analysis, Proceedings of the 21st international conference on Software engineering, p.54-63, May 16-22, 1999, Los Angeles, California, United States [doi>10.1145/302405.302452]
• 14: Rick Kazman , Jai Asundi , Mark Klein, Quantifying the costs and benefits of architectural decisions, Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering, p.297-306, May 12-19, 2001, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
• 15: Ian Sommerville , Gerald Kontonya , Gerald Kotonya, Requirements Engineering: Processes and Techniques, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 1998
• 16: David Lorge Parnas, Software aging, Proceedings of the 16th international conference on Software engineering, p.279-287, May 16-21, 1994, Sorrento, Italy
• 17: T. L. Saaty, "The Analytic Hierarchy Process", McGraw Hill, Inc., New York NY, 1980.
• 18: M. Shepperd, S. Barker, M. Aylett, "The Analytic Hierarchy Process and almost Dataless Prediction", in Project Control for Software Quality - Proceedings of ESCOM-SCOPE 99, R. J. Kusters, A. Cowderoy, F. J. Heemstra, E. P. W. M. van Weenendaal (eds), Shaker Publishing BV, Maastricht the Netherlands, 1999.
• 19: M. Svahnberg, C. Wohlin, "Evaluation of Software Quality Aspects for Architectural Structures using the Analythical Hierarchy Process", submitted, 2002.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  D. Software
  D.2 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
      D.2.2 Design Tools and Techniques

Additional Classification:
  D. Software
  D.2 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
        D.2.11 Software Architectures

General Terms:
Design, Experimentation

Keywords:
analytic hierarchy process, architecture structures, quality attributes