Architecture-level modifiability analysis (ALMA)

Journal of Systems and Software

Volumn 69, Issue 1-2, 2004, Pages 129-147

  Bengtsson, PerOlof ^a   Lassing, Nico ^b   Bosch, Jan ^c   Van Vliet, Hans ^d  

^a ERICSSON RESEARCH   (Sweden)

^b ACCENTURE   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

^d VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Architecture analysis; Modifiability; Scenarios; Software architecture

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE; COSTS; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS; SOFTWARE ENGINEERING;

SOFTWARE ARCHITECTURE;

COMPUTER SOFTWARE;

EID: 0242636605     PISSN: 01641212     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0164-1212(03)00080-3     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Abowd, G., Bass, L., Clements, P., Kazman, R., Northrop, L., Zamerski, A., 1996. Recommended best industrial practice for software architecture evaluation. Technical Report (CMU/SEI-96-TR-025), Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
2. Argyris C., Putnam R., Smith D. Action Science: Concepts, Methods, and Skills for Research and Intervention. 1985;Jossey-Bass, San Fransisco, CA.
3. AT&T, 1993. Best current practices: software architecture validation. Internal Report, AT&T, US.
4. Bass L., Clements P., Kazman R. Software Architecture in Practice. 1998;Addison Wesley Longman, Reading, MA.
5. Bengtsson P., Bosch J. Scenario-based software architecture reengineering. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Software Reuse (ICSR5). 1998;308-317 IEEE CS Press, Los Alamitos, CA.
6. Bengtsson P., Bosch J. Architecture level prediction of software maintenance. Proceedings of 3rd EuroMicro Conference on Maintenance and Reengineering (CSMR'99). 1999;139-147 IEEE CS Press, Los Alamitos, CA.
7. Bengtsson P., Bosch J. Haemo dialysis software architecture design experiences. Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE'99). 1999;516-525 ACM Press, Los Angeles, CA.
8. Bengtsson P., Bosch J. An experiment on creating scenario profiles for software change. Annals of Software Engineering. 9:2000;59-78.
9. Bohner S.A. Software change impact analysis for design evolution. Proceedings of 8th International Conference on Maintenance and Re-engineering. 1991;292-301 IEEE CS Press, Los Alamitos, CA.
10. Bosch J., Bengtsson P. Assessing optimal software architecture maintainability. Proceedings of Fifth European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering (CSMR'01). 2001;168-175 IEEE CS Press, Los Alamitos, CA.
11. Briand L., Arisholm E., Counsell S., Houdek F., Thévenod-Foss P. Emprical studies of object-oriented artifacts, methods, and processes: state of the art and future directions. Empirical Software Engineering. 4(4):1999;387-404.
12. Ecklund Jr., E.F., Delcambre, L.M.L., Freiling, M.J., 1996. Change cases: use cases that identify future requirements. In: Proceedings OOPSLA '96, ACM, pp. 342-358.
13. Henry J.E., Cain J.P. A quantitative comparison of perfective and corrective software maintenance. Journal of Software Maintenance: Research and Practice. 9:1997;281-297.
14. Hofmeister C., Nord R., Soni D. Applied Software Architecture. 1999;Addison Wesley Longman, Reading, MA.
15. Hofmeister C., Nord R.L., Soni D. Describing software architecture with UML. Donohoe P. Software architecture: Proceedings of the 1st Working IFIP Conference on Software Architecture (WICSA1). 1999;145-159 Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
16. IEEE, 2000. Recommended practice for architectural description. IEEE Standard P1471.
17. ISO/IEC, 2000. Information technology - software product quality - Part 1: Quality model. ISO/IEC FDIS 9126-1:2000(E).
18. Jacobson I., Christerson M., Jonsson P., Övergaard G. Object-Oriented Software Engineering. A Use Case Driven Approach. 1992;Addison Wesley Longman, Reading, MA.
19. Kazman R., Abowd G., Bass L., Clements P. Scenario-based analysis of software architecture. IEEE Software. 13(6):1996;47-56.
20. Kazman R., Barbacci M., Klein M., Carrière S.J. Experience with performing architecture tradeoff analysis. Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE'99). 1999;54-63 ACM Press, Los Angeles, CA.
21. Kazman, R., Klein, M., Clements, P., 2000. ATAM: Method for architecture evaluation (CMU/SEI-2000-TR-004). Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
22. Kruchten P.B. The 4. + 1 view model of architecture IEEE Software. 1995;42-50.
23. Kung D., Gao J., Hsia P., Wen F., Toyoshima Y., Chen C. Change impact in object oriented software maintenance. Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM'94). 1994;202-211 IEEE CS Press, Los Alamitos, CA.
24. Lassing N., Rijsenbrij D., van Vliet H. Towards a broader view on software architecture analysis of flexibility. Proceedings of the 6th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC'99). 1999;238-245 IEEE CS Press, Los Alamitos, CA.
25. Lassing, N., Rijsenbrij, D., van Vliet, H., 1999b. The goal of software architecture analysis: confidence building or risk assessment. In: Proceedings of the 1st Benelux Conference on State-of-the-art of ICT architecture. Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
26. Lassing N., Rijsenbrij D., van Vliet H. Flexibility of the ComBAD architecture. Donohoe P. Software Architecture: Proceedings of the 1st Working IFIP Conference on Software Architecture (WICSA1). 1999;341-355 Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
27. Lassing N., Rijsenbrij D., van Vliet H. Viewpoints on modifiability. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering. 11(4):2001.
28. Li W., Henry S. OO metrics that predict maintainability. Journal of Systems and Software. 23(1):1993;111-122.
29. Lientz B.P., Swanson E.B. Software Maintenance Management. 1980;Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
30. Lindvall M., Runesson M. The visibility of maintenance in object models: an empirical study. Proceedings of International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM'98). 1998;54-62 IEEE CS Press, Los Alamitos, CA.
31. Lindvall M., Sandahl K. How well do experienced software developers predict software change? Journal of Systems and Software. 43(1):1998;19-27.
32. Maxwell K.D., Van Wassenhove L., Dutta S. Software development productivity of European space, military, and industrial applications. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. 22(10):1996;706-718.
33. Parnas D.L. On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules. Communications of the ACM. 15(12):1972;1053-1058.
34. Robson C. Real World Research. 1993;Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, UK.
35. Stark G.E., Oman P.W. Software maintenance management strategies: observations from the field. Software Maintenance: Research and Practice. 9(6):1997;365-378.
36. Sutcliffe A.G., Maiden N.A.M., Minocha S., Manuel D. Supporting scenario-based requirements engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. 24(12):1998;1072-1088.
37. Tichy W.F. Should computer scientists experiment more? IEEE Computer. (May):1998;32-40.
38. Wohlin C., Runeson P., Höst M., Ohlsson M.C., Regnell B., Wesslén A. Experimentation in Software Engineering: An Introduction. 2000;Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA.