Tradeoff and sensitivity analysis in software architecture evaluation using analytic hierarchy process

Software Quality Journal

Volumn 13, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 357-375

  Zhu, Liming ^a,b   Aurum, Aybüke ^a,b   Gorton, Ian ^a,b   Jeffery, Ross ^a,b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

^b CSIRO   (Australia)

^c International Software Engineering Research Network (ISERN)   (Australia)

Author keywords

Analytic hierarchy process; Architecture evaluation; Decision making; Multi criteria decision making; Non functional requirements; Quality attributes; Sensitivity analysis; Software architecture; Trade off

Indexed keywords

ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS; COMPUTER SOFTWARE SELECTION AND EVALUATION; DECISION MAKING; DESIGN; HIERARCHICAL SYSTEMS; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS;

ARCHITECTURE EVALUATION; MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION MAKING; NON-FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS; QUALITY ATTRIBUTES; TRADE-OFF;

SOFTWARE ARCHITECTURE;

EID: 27844542141     PISSN: 09639314     EISSN: 15731367     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11219-005-4251-0     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Al-Naeem, T., Gorton, T., Babar, M.A., Rabhi, F., and Benatallah, B. 2005. A quality-driven systematic approach for architecting distributed software applications, In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), St. Louis, USA.
2. Aurum, A. and Wohlin, C. 2003. The fundamental nature of requirements engineering activities as a decision-making process, Information and Software Technology 45(14): 945-954.
3. Bass, L., Clements, P., and Kazman, R. 2003. Software Architecture in Practice, Addison-Wesley.
4. Bengtsson, P., Lassing, N., Bosch, J., and Vliet, H.v. 2004. Architecture-level modiflability analysis (ALMA), Journal of Systems and Software 69(1/2): 129-147.
5. Bosch, J. 2000. Design & Use of Software Architectures: Adopting and Evolving a Product-Line Approach, Addison-Wesley.
6. Bosch, J. 2004. Software architecture: The next step, In Proceedings of the First European Workshop on Software Architecture (EWSA), pp. 194-199.
7. Chung, L., Nixon, B.A., Yu, E., and Mylopoluos, J. 2000. Non-Functional Requirements in Software Engineering. Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
8. Dobrica, L. and Niemela, E. 2002. A survey on software architecture analysis methods, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 28(7).
9. Expert Choice (version 11). 2004. http://www.expertchoice.com/Last accessed on 26th Sept., 2004.
10. Finan, J.S. and Hurley, W.J. 1996. A note on a method to ensure rank-order consistency in the analytic hierarchy process, International Transactions in Operational Research 3(1): 99-103.
11. Giorgini, P., Mylopoulos, J., Nicchiarelli, E., and Sebastiani, R. 2004. Formal reasoning techniques for goal models, Journal on Data Semantics 1: 1-20.
12. Gorton, I. and Haack, J. 2004. Architecting in the Face of Uncertainty: An experience report, In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), Edinburgh, United Kingdom, pp. 543-551.
13. Gross, D. and Yu, E.S.K. 2001. From non-functional requirements to design through patterns, Requirement Engineering 6(1): 18-36.
14. In, H., Boehm, B., Rodgers, T., and Deutsch, M. 2001. Applying Win Win to quality requirements: A case study, In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp. 555-564.
15. In, H., Kazman, R., and Olson, D. 2001. From requirements negotiation to software architectural decisions, In Proceedings of the First International Workshop from Software Requirements to Architectures (STRAW'01).
16. Jennings, D. and Wattam, S. 1998. Decision Making: An Integrated Approach, London, Washington, D.C., Financial Times Pitman Pub.
17. Karlsson, J., Wohlin, C., and Regnell, B. 1998. An evaluation of methods for prioritizing software requirements, Information and Software Technology 39(14/15): 938-947.
18. Kazman, R., Asundi, J., and Klein, M. 2001. Quantifying the costs and benefits of architectural decision, In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp. 297-306.
19. Kazman, R., Barbacci, M., Klein, M., and Carriere, J. 1999. Experience with performing architecture tradeoff analysis, In Proceedings of the 21st International Conferences on Software Engineering (ICSE'99), pp. 54-63.
20. Klein, M. and Kazman, R. 1999. Attribute-Based Architectural Styles, Soft Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University. CMU/SEI-99-TR-022.
21. Kleindorfer, P.R., Kunreuther, H., and Schoemaker, P.J.H. 1993. Decision Sciences: An Integrative Perspective, Cambridge, England; New York, N.Y., Cambridge University Press.
22. Lindblom, C.E. 1959. The science of muddling through, Public Administrative Review 19: 79-88.
23. Liu, L. and Yu, E. 2001. From requirements to architectural design - using goals and scenarios, In Proceedings of the First International Workshop from Software Requirements to Architectures (STRAW'01).
24. Nurmuliani, N., Zowghi, D., and Powell, S. 2004. Analysis of requirements volatility during software development life cycle, In Proceedings of the Software Engineering Conference, 2004. Proceedings. 2004 Australian, pp. 28-37.
25. Saaty, T.L. 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process, New York, McGraw Hill.
26. Svahnberg, M. and Wohlin, C. 2002. Consensus building when comparing software architectures, In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Product Focused Software Process Improvement (PROFES), pp. 436-452.
27. Svahnberg, M., Wohlin, C., Lundberg, L., andMattsson, M. 2002. A method for understanding quality attributes in software architecture structures, In Proceedings of the 14th international conference on Software engineering and knowledge engineering (SEKE), pp. 819-826.
28. Svahnberg, M., Wohlin, C., Lundberg, L., and Mattsson, M. 2003. A quality-driven decision-support method for identifying software architecture candidates, International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering 13(5): 547-573.
29. Triantaphyllou, E., Kovalerchuk, B., Jr, L.M., and Knapp, G.M. 1997. Determining the most important criteria in maintenance decision making, Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering 3(1): 16-28.
30. Triantaphyllou, E. and Mann, S.H. 1994. Some critical issues in making decisions with pair-wise comparisons, In Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on the AHP, pp. 225- 236.