Towards a distributed software architecture evaluation process - A preliminary assessment

Proceedings - International Conference on Software Engineering

Volumn 2006, Issue , 2006, Pages 845-848

  Babar, Muhammed Ali ^a,b   Kitchenham, Barbara ^a   Gorton, Ian ^a  

^a CSIRO   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

Author keywords

Architecture evaluation; Process improvement

Indexed keywords

DISTRIBUTED COMPUTER SYSTEMS; PROCESS CONTROL; SHAREHOLDERS;

ARCHITECTURE EVALUATION; DISTRIBUTED SOFTWARE ARCHITECTURE EVALUATION; PROCESS IMPROVEMENT; STAKEHOLDERS;

SOFTWARE ARCHITECTURE;

EID: 34247139802     PISSN: 02705257     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (19)

1. Ali-Babar, M., et al., Capturing and Using Software Architecture Knowledge for Architecture-Based Software Development, in Proc. of the 5th International Conference on Quality Software, (2005).
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. Ali-Babar, M., et al., A Framework for Classifying and Comparing Software Architecture Evaluation Methods. in 15th Australian Software Engineering Conference, (Melbourne, Australia, 2004).
4. Bass, L., et al. Software Architecture in Practice. Addison-Wesley, 2003.
5. Bengtsson, P. and Bosch, J. An Experiment on Creating Scenario Profiles for Software Change. Annals of Software Engineering, 9. pp. 59-78.
6. Biuk-Aghai, R.P. and Hawryszkiewyez, I.T., Analysis of Virtual Workspaces, in Proceedings of the Database Applications in Non-Traditional Environments, (Japan, 1999).
7. Boeham, B., et al. Developing Groupware for Requirements Negotiation: Lessons Learned. IEEE Software, 18 (3). pp. 46-55.
8. Clements, P., et al. Evaluating Software Architectures: Methods and Case Studies. Addison-Wesley, 2002.
9. Damian, D.E., et al. Using Different Communication Media in Requirements Negotiation. IEEE Software, 17 (3). pp. 28-36.
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. Hailing, M., et al., Tailoring a COTS group support system for software requirements inspection, in Proc. of the 16th International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, (2001).
13. Kazman, R. and Bass, L. Making Architecture Reviews Work in the Real World. IEEE Software, 19 (1). pp. 67-73.
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. Nunamaker, J.F., et al. Electronic Meeting Systems to Support Group Work. Communication of the ACM, 34 (7). pp. 40-61.
16. Perry, D.E., et al. Reducing inspection interval in large-scale software development. IEEE Transactions of Software Engineering, 28 (7). pp. 695-705.
17. Sauer, C., et al. The Effectiveness of Software Development Technical Reviews: A Behaviorally Motivated Program of Research. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 26 (1). pp. 1-14.
18. Senn, S. Cross-Over Trials in Clinical Research. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 2002.
19. Williams, L.G. and Smith, C.U., PASA: A Method for the Performance Assessment of Software Architecture. in Proc. of the 3rd Workshop on Software Performance, (Rome, Italy, 2002).