Assessing the influence on processes when evolving the software architecture

9th International Workshop on Principles of Software Evolution, IWPSE 2007, Held in Conjunction with the 6th ESEC/FSE Joint Meeting

Volumn , Issue , 2007, Pages 59-66

  Larsson, Stig ^a   Wall, Anders ^a   Wallin, Peter ^b  

^a ABB CORPORATE RESEARCH   (Sweden)

^b MÄLARDALEN UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Architecture; Business Objectives; Organization; Process

Indexed keywords

ARCHITECTURAL CHANGES; ARCHITECTURAL EVOLUTION; BUSINESS BENEFITS; BUSINESS OBJECTIVES; PROCESS CHANGE; PROCESS REFERENCE MODELS; STRUCTURED METHOD;

COMPUTER SOFTWARE; TECHNICAL PRESENTATIONS;

SOFTWARE ARCHITECTURE;

EID: 77950529674     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (15)

1. Bennett, K.H. and Rajlich, V.T., Software maintenance and evolution: a roadmap. in Proceedings of the Conference on The Future of Software Engineering, (Limerick, Ireland, 2000), ACM Press, 73-87.
2. Del Rosso, C. Continuous evolution through software architecture evaluation: a case study. Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution: Research and Practice, 18 (5). 351-383.
3. EIA-731.1. Systems Engineering Capability Model, Electronic Industries Alliance, 2002.
4. Greer, D. and Ruhe, G. Software release planning: an evolutionary and iterative approach. Information and Software Technology, 46 (4). 243-253.
5. ISO/IEC15504:2004. Information technology - Process assessment, ISO/IEC, 2004.
6. ISO/IEC12207:1995. Information technology - Software life cycle processes, ISO/IEC, 1995.
7. ISO/IEC15288:2002. Systems engineering - Systems life cycle processes, ISO/IEC, 2002.
8. Kazman, R., Klein, M. and Clements., P. ATAM: Method for architecture evaluation. CMU/SEI-2000-TR-004, Carnegie Mellon University, Software Engineering Institute, 2000.
9. McFeeley, R. IDEALSM: A User's Guide for Software Process Improvement, Carnegie Mellon University, Software Engineering Institute, 1996.
10. Nord, R.L., Barbacci, M.R., Clements, P., Kazman, R., Klein, M., O'Brien, L. and Tomayko, J.E. Integrating the Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method (ATAM) with the Cost Benefit Analysis Method (CBAM), CMU/SEI-2003- TN-038, Carnegie Mellon University, Software Engineering Institute, 2003.
11. Ovaska, P., Rossi, M. and Marttiin, P. Architecture as a coordination tool in multi-site software development. Software Process: Improvement and Practice, 8 (4). 233-247.
12. Roper-Lowe, G.C. and Sharp, J.A. The Analytic Hierarchy Process and Its Application to an Information Technology Decision. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 41 (1). 49-60.
13. SCAMPI update team, Standard CMMI® Appraisal Method for Process Improvement (SCAMPISM ) A, Version 1.2: Method Definition Document, Carnegie Mellon University, Software Engineering Institute, 2006.
14. SEI. CMMI® for Development, Version 1.2., Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 2006.
15. Wallin, P., Fröberg, J. and Axelsson, J., Making Decisions in Integration of Automotive Software and Electronics: A Method Based on ATAM and AHP. In Fourth International Workshop on Software Engineering for Automotive Systems (SEAS 2007), (Minneapolis, USA, 2007). (Pubitemid 350124149)