A holistic architecture assessment method for software product lines

Information and Software Technology

Volumn 49, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 309-323

  Olumofin, Femi G ^a   Mišić, Vojislav B ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANITOBA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method (ATAM); Software architecture assessment; Software product line architectures

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER ARCHITECTURE; INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY; RISK ASSESSMENT;

ARCHITECTURE TRADEOFF ANALYSIS METHOD (ATAM); SOFTWARE ARCHITECTURE ASSESSMENT; SOFTWARE PRODUCT LINE ARCHITECTURES;

COMPUTER SOFTWARE;

EID: 33846550580     PISSN: 09505849     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.infsof.2006.05.003     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Parnas D.L. On the design and development of program families. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 2 1 (1976) 1-9
2. Bass L., Clements P., and Kazman R. Software Architecture in Practice. second ed. (2002), Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA
3. Clements P., and Northrop L. Software Product Lines (2002), Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA
4. L. Dobrica, E. Niemelä, A strategy for analyzing product line software architectures, Technical Report VTT-PUBS-427, VTT Electronics, Oulu, Finland, 2000.
5. Kazman R., Abowd G., Bass L., and Clements P. Scenario-based analysis of software architecture. IEEE Software 13 6 (1996) 47-55
6. R. Kazman, M. Klein, P. Clements, ATAM: Method for architecture evaluation, CMU SEI Technical Note CMU/SEI-2000-TR-004, ADA382629, Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, 2000.
7. Clements P., Kazman R., and Klein M. Evaluating Software Architectures - Methods and Case Studies (2002), Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA
8. M. Barbacci, P. Clements, A. Lattanze, L. Northrop, W. Wood, Using the Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method (ATAM) to evaluate the software architecture for a product line of avionics systems: A case study, CMU SEI Technical Note CMU/SEI-2003-TN-012, Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, 2003.
9. L. Etxeberria, G.S. Mendieta, Product-line architecture: new issues for evaluation, in: Proc. 9th Int. Conf. on Software Product Lines (SPLC2005), Rennes, France, 2005, pp. 174-185.
10. F.G. Olumofin, V.B. Mišić, Extending the ATAM Architecture Evaluation to Product Line Architectures, in: Proc. 5th Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture WICSA5, Pittsburgh, PA, 2005, pp. 45-56.
11. M.A. Babar, L. Zhu, D.R. Jeffery, A framework for classifying and comparing software architecture evaluation methods., in: Proc. Australian Software Engineering Conference, Melbourne, Australia, 2004, pp. 309-318.
12. Dobrica L., and Niemelä E. A survey on software architecture analysis methods. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 28 7 (2002) 638-653
13. Kazman R., Bass L., Klein M., Lattanze T., and Northrop L. A basis for analyzing software architecture analysis methods. Software Quality Control 13 4 (2005) 329-355
14. S. Ferber, P. Heidl, P. Lutz, Reviewing product line architectures: experience report of ATAM in an automotive context, in: Revised Papers from the 4th Int. Workshop on Software Product-Family Engineering (PFE'01), London, UK, 2002, pp. 364-382.
15. ThoughtWorks, Case Study on Financial Services ATAM, available at , last accessed on 25 April 2006.
16. L.G. Jones, A.J. Lattanze, Using the architecture tradeoff analysis method to evaluate a wargame simulation system: a case study, CMU SEI Technical Report CMU/SEI-2001-TN-022, Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, PA (Dec. 2001).
17. N. Boucké, T. Holvoet, T. Lefever, R. Sempels, K. Schelfthout, D. Weyns, J. Wielemans, Applying the architecture tradeoff analysis method (ATAM) to an industrial multi-agent system application, Report CW 431, Department of Computer Science, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (Dec. 2005).
18. D. Smith, P. Merson, Using architecture evaluation to prepare a large web based system for evolution, in: Proc. Fifth IEEE International Workshop on Web Site Evolution, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2003, pp. 85-92.
19. S. Hallsteinsen, Ø. Dragsten, M. Johnsen, J.O. Ofstad, A component oriented domain architecture for fish farming, in: 2000 Int. Workshop on Component-Based Software Engineering, Limerick, Ireland, 2000.
20. D.L. Parnas, D.M. Weiss, Active design reviews: principles and practices, in: Proc. 8th Int. Conf. Software Engineering (ICSE'85), London, UK, 1985, pp. 132-136.
21. Boehm B.W. Software Engineering Economics (1981), Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ
22. R. Kazman, J. Asundi, M. Klein, Making architecture design decisions: an economic approach, CMU SEI Technical Note CMU/SEI-2002-TR-035, ADA408740, Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, 2002.
23. R.L. Nord, M.R. Barbacci, P. Clements, R. Kazman, M. Klein, L. O'Brien, J.E. Tomayko, Integrating the Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method (ATAM) with the cost benefit analysis method (CBAM), CMU SEI Technical Note CMU/SEI-2003-TN-038, Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, 2003.
24. B. Tekinerdogan, ASAAM: aspectual software architecture analysis method, in: Proc. 4th Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture, Oslo, Norway, 2004, pp. 5-14.
25. D. Garlan, Software architecture: a roadmap, in: Proc. 22nd Int. Conf. on Software engineering (ICSE'00), Limerick, Ireland, 2000, pp. 91-101.
26. J.-M. DeBaud, O. Flege, P. Knauber, PuLSE-DSSA: a method for the development of software reference architectures, in: Proc. Third Int. Workshop on Software Architecture (ISAW'98), Orlando, FL, 1998, pp. 25-28.
27. J. Bayer, Anastasopoulos, C. Gacek, O. Flege, A process for product line architecture creation and evaluation: PuLSE-DSSA version 2.0, Technical Report No.038.00/E, Fraunhofer IESE, Kaiserslautern, Germany (Jun. 2000).
28. T.J. Dolan, Architecture Assessment of Information-Systems Families, Ph.D. thesis, Department of Technology Management, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands (Feb. 2002).
29. Graaf B., van Dijk H., and van Deursen A. Evaluating an embedded software reference architecture - industrial experience report. Proc. Ninth European Conf. on Software Maintenance and Reengineering (CSMR'05) (2005), Manchester, UK 354-363
30. Lassing N., Bengtsson P., van Vliet H., and Bosch J. Experiences with ALMA: architecture-level modifiability analysis. Journal of System Software 61 1 (2002) 47-57
31. M. Auerswald, M. Herrmann, S. Kowalewski, V. Schulte-Coerne, Reliability-oriented product line engineering of embedded systems, in: Revised Papers from the 4th Int. Workshop on Software Product-Family Engineering (PFE'01), London, UK, 2002, pp. 83-100.
32. A. Maccari, Experiences in assessing product family software architecture for evolution, in: Proc. 24th Int. Conf. on Software Engineering (ICSE'02), Orlando, Florida, 2002, pp. 585-592.
33. C. Riva, C. Del Rosso, Experiences with software product family evolution, in: Proc. 6th International Workshop on Principles of Software Evolution (IWPSE'03), Helsinki, Finland, 2003, pp. 161-169.
34. G.C. Gannod, R.R. Lutz, An approach to architectural analysis of product lines, in: Proc. 22nd Int. Conf. on Software engineering (ICSE'00), Limerick, Ireland, 2000, pp. 548-557.
35. E. Niemelä, M. Matinlassi, A. Taulavuori, Practical evaluation of software product family architectures, in: Proc. Third Software Product Line Conference (SPLC 2004), Boston, MA, 2004, pp. 130-145.
36. F. van der Linden, J. Bosch, E. Kamsties, K. Känsälä, J.H. Obbink, Software product family evaluation, in: Proc. Third Software Product Line Conference (SPLC 2004), Boston, MA, 2004, pp. 110-129.
37. Chrissis M.B., Konrad M., and Shrum S. CMMI: Guidelines for Process Integration and Product Improvement (2003), Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA
38. M.A. Babar, I. Gorton, Comparison of scenario-based software architecture evaluation methods, in: Proc. 11th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference, Busan, Korea, 2004, pp. 600-607.
39. J.M. Thompson, M.P.E. Heimdahl, Extending the product family approach to support n-dimensional and hierarchical product lines, in: Proc. Fifth IEEE Int. Symp. Requirements Engineering (RE'01), Toronto, Ont., 2001, pp. 56-65.
40. F.G. Olumofin, V.B. Mišić, Quality-driven conformance checking in product line architectures, in: Proc. First Int. Workshop on Reengineering towards Product Lines (R2PL2005), Pittsburgh, PA, 2005.
41. Jayaratna N. Understanding and Evaluating Methodologies: NIMSAD, a Systematic Framework (1994), McGraw-Hill, New York, NY