Decision-making techniques for software architecture design: A comparative survey

ACM Computing Surveys

Volumn 43, Issue 4, 2011, Pages

  Falessi, Davide ^a   Cantone, Giovanni ^a   Kazman, Rick ^b,c   Kruchten, Philippe ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ROME TOR VERGATA   (Italy)

^b CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Architecture; Decision making; Design decisions

Indexed keywords

SOFTWARE ARCHITECTURE; SOFTWARE DESIGN;

ARCHITECTURAL DECISION; ARCHITECTURE DESIGNS; BEST DECISION; DECISIONS MAKINGS; DESIGN DECISIONS; SOFTWARE ARCHITECTURE DESIGN; SOFTWARE INTENSIVE SYSTEMS; SOFTWARE PROJECT; SYSTEM FUNCTIONALITY;

DECISION MAKING;

EID: 79959860766     PISSN: 03600300     EISSN: 15577341     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1145/1978802.1978812     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. AL-NAEEM, T., GORTON, I., ALI BABAR, M., 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. ACM Press, New York, NY.
2. ALI BABAR, M., ZHU, L., AND JEFFERY, R. 2004. A framework for classifying and comparing software architecture evaluation methods. In Proceedings of the Australian Software Engineering Conference.
3. AMERICA, P., OBBINK, H., AND ROMMES, E. 2003. Multi-view variation modeling for scenario analysis. In Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Product Family Engineering (PFE-5). Springer-Verlag.
4. ANDERSSON, J. 2000. A survey of multiobjective optimization in engineering design. LiTH-IKP-R-1097, Tech. rep. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Linkoping University, Linkoping, Sweden.
5. ANDREWS, A., MANCEBO, E., RUNESON, P., AND FRANCE, R. 2005. A framework for design tradeoffs. Softw. Quality J. 13, 4, 28.
6. BANDOR, M. S. 2006. Quantitative methods for software selection and evaluation. Tech. rep. CMU/SEI-2006-TN-026, Carnegie Mellon University.
7. BARBACCI, M. R., ELLISON, R., LATTANZE, A. J., STAFFORD, J. A., WEINSTOCK, C. B., AND WOOD, W. G. 2003. Quality attribute workshops (QAWs), 3rd ed. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/publications/documents/03.reports/03tr016.html
8. BASILI, V., CALDIERA, G., AND CANTONE, G. 1992. A reference architecture for the component factory. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Method. 1, 1, 53-80.
9. BASS, L., CLEMENTS, P., AND KAZMAN, R. 2003. Software Architecture in Practice. 2nd ed. Addison-Wesley. Reading, MA.
10. BIOLCHINI, J. C. D. A., MIAN, P. G., NATALI, A. C. C., CONTE, T. U., AND TRAVASSOS, G. H. 2007. Scientific research ontology to support systematic review in software engineering. Advanced Eng. Inform. 21, 2, 133-151. (Pubitemid 46771362)
11. BOOCH, G. 2007. The irrelevance of architecture. IEEE Softw. 24, 3, 10-11. (Pubitemid 46739291)
12. BOSCH, J. 2000. Design and Use of Software Architecture: Adopting and Evolving a Product-Line Approach. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
13. BOSCH, J. 2004. Software architecture: The next step. In Proceedings of the 1st European Workshop on Software Architecture (EWSA). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.
14. BROOKS, F. P. 1987. No silver bullet: Essence and accidents of software engineering. IEEE Comp. 20, 4, 10-19.
15. CANTONE, G. AND DONZELLI, P. 1999. Goal-oriented software measurement models. In Proceedings of the Sofware Control and Metrics for Software Quality Conference. Shaker Publishing, Maastricht.
16. CAVANAUGH, C. P. AND POLEN, S. M. 2002. Add decision analysis to your COTS selection process. J. Defense Softw. Eng. 21-25.
17. CHUNG, L., GROSS, D., AND YU, E. 1999. Architectural design to meet stakeholder requirements. In. P Donohue, Software Architecture, Kluwer Academic, TX.
18. CLEMENTS, P., KAZMAN, R., AND KLEIN, M. 2002. Evaluating Software Architecture: Methods and Case Studies. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
19. CLEMENTS, P. AND NORTHROP, L. 2002. Software Product Lines: Practice and Patterns. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
20. DABOUS, F. T. AND RABHI, F. A. 2006. A framework for evaluating alternative architectures and its application to financial business processes. In Poceedings of the Australian Software Engineering Conference.
21. DING, L. AND MEDVIDOVIC, N. 2001. Focus: A light-weight, incremental approach to software architecture recovery and evolution. In Proceedings of the Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture (WICSA). IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA.
22. DOBRICA, L. AND NIEMELÄ, E. 2002. A survey on software architecture analysis methods. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 28, 7, 638-653.
23. EELES, P. 2005. Capturing Architectural Requirements. IBM Rational Developer Works. http://www.ibm. com/developerworks/rational/library/4706.html.
24. FALESSI, D., ALI BABAR, M., CANTONE, G., AND KRUCHTEN, P. 2010. Applying empirical software engineering to software architecture: Challenges and lessons learned. Empir. Softw. Eng. to appear. DOI 10.1007/s10664-009-9121-0.
25. FALESSI, D., CANTONE, G., AND BECKER, M. 2006. Documenting design decision rationale to improve individual and team design decision making: An experimental evaluation. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering.
26. FALESSI, D., CANTONE, G., AND KRUCHTEN, P. 2007a. Do architecture design methods meet architects' needs? In Proceedings of the 6th Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA.
27. FALESSI, D., CANTONE, G., AND KRUCHTEN, P. 2008. Value-based design decision rationale documentation: Principles and empirical feasibility study. In Proceeding of the 7th Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture (WICSA). IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA.
28. FALESSI, D., KRUCHTEN, P., AND CANTONE, G. 2007b. Issues in applying empirical software engineering to software architecture. In Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on Software Architecture.
29. GILB, T. AND BRODIE, L. 2005. Competitive Engineering: A Handbook for Systems Engineering, Requirements Engineering, and Software Engineering Using Planguage. Elsevier Butterworth Heinemann. Oxford, UK.
30. GOMAA, H. 2004. Designing-Software Product Lines with UML: From Use Cases to Pattern-Based Software Architectures. Addison Wesley Longman, Reading, MA.
31. GRÜNBACHER, P., EGYED, A., AND MEDVIDOVIC, N. 2004. Reconciling software requirements and architectures with intermediate models. J. Softw. Syst. Model. 3, 3, 235-253.
32. HARMAN, M. 2007. The current state and future of search based software engineering. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering: Future of Software Engineering IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA.
33. HOFMEISTER, C., KRUCHTEN, P., NORD, R. L., OBBINK, H., RAN, A., AND AMERICA, P. 2007. A general model of software architecture design derived from five industrial approaches. J. Syst. Softw. 8 0, 1, 106-126. (Pubitemid 44751161)
34. JANSEN, A. AND BOSCH, J. 2005. Software architecture as a set of architectural design decisions. In Proceedings of the 5th Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture (WICSA).
35. JAZAYERI, M. 2002. On architectural stability and evolution. In Proceedings of the 7th Ada-Europe International Conference on Reliable Software Technologies.
36. JAZAYERI, M., RAN, A., AND LINDEN, F. V. D. 2000. Software Architecture for Product Families: Principles and Practice. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
37. KANO. 1993. A special issue on Kano's methods for understanding customer-defined quality. Center Quality Manag. J. 2, 4, 3-35.
38. KARLSSON, L., HOST, M., AND REGNELL, B. 2006. Evaluating the practical use of different measurement scales in requirements prioritisation. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering. ACM Press, New York, NY.
39. KAZMAN, R., JAI, A., AND KLEIN, M. 2001. Quantifying the costs and benefits of architectural decisions. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering.
40. KEENEY, R. L. AND RAIFFA, H. 1976. Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs. Wiley, New York, NY.
41. KITCHENHAM, B. 2004. Procedures for performing systematic reviews. Joint tech. rep. TR/SE-0401 and NICTA 0400011T.1, Keele University, Staffordshire, U. K.
42. KLEIN, G. 1999. Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions MIT Press. Cambridge, MA.
43. KONTIO, J. 1996. A case study in applying a systematic method for COTS selection. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE).
44. KRUCHTEN, P. 1995. Mommy, where do software architectures come from? In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Architectures for Software Systems (IWASS1).
45. KRUCHTEN, P. 2003. The Rational Unified Process: An Introduction, 3rd Ed. Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading, MA.
46. KRUCHTEN, P. 2004. An ontology of architectural design decisions in software intensive systems. In Proceedings of the 2nd Groningen Workshop on Software Variability.
47. KRUCHTEN, P., CAPILLA, R., AND DUENAS, J. 2009. The decision view's role in software architecture practice. IEEE Softw. 26, 2, 36-42.
48. KRUCHTEN, P., OBBINK, H., AND STAFFORD, J. 2006. The past, present and future for software architecture. IEEE Softw. 23, 2, 2-10.
49. LI, B., ZENG, G., AND LIN, Z. 1999. A domain specific software architecture style for CSCD system. ACM SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes 24, 1, 59-64.
50. LI, J., CONRADI, R., BUNSE, C., TORCHIANO, M., SLYNGSTAD, O. P. N., AND MORISIO, M. 2009. Development with off the shelf components: 10 facts. IEEE Softw. 26, 2, 80-870.
51. LOZANO-TELLO, A. AND GÓMEZ-PÉREZ, A. 2002. BAREMO: How to choose the appropriate software component using the analytic hierarchy process. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering. ACM Press, New York, NY.
52. MARANZANO, J. F., ROZSYPAL, S. A., ZIMMERMAN, G. H., WARNKEN, G. W., WIRTH, P. E., AND WEISS, D. M. 2005. Architecture reviews: Practice and experience. IEEE Softw. 22, 2, 34-43. (Pubitemid 40556017)
53. MOORE, M., KAZMAN, R., KLEIN, M., AND ASUNDI, J. 2003. Quantifying the value of architecture design decisions: Lessons from the field. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Software Engineering, (ICSE).
54. NCUBE, C. AND MAIDEN, N. 1999. PORE: Procurement oriented requirements engineering method for the component-based systems engineering development paradigm. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on CBSE.
55. NUSEIBEH, B. 2001. Weaving together requirements and architectures. Computer 34, 3, 115-117.
56. OBBINK, H., KRUCHTEN, P., KOZACZYNSKI, W., HILLIARD, R., RAN, A., POSTEMA, H., LUTZ, D., KAZMAN, R., TRACZ, W., AND KAHANE, E. 2002. Report on software architecture review and assessment (SARA), Version 1.0. At http://philippe.kruchten. com/architecture/SARAv1.pdf.
57. OZKAYA, I., BASS, L., SANGWAN, R. S., AND NORD, R. L. 2008. Making practical use of quality attribute information. IEEE Softw. 25, 2, 25-33. (Pubitemid 351404572)
58. SAATY, T. L. 2000. Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory with the Analytic Hierarchy Process. RWS Publications. Pittsburgh, PA.
59. SCHUSTER, N., ZIMMERMANN, O., AND PAUTASSO, C. 2007. ADkwik: Web 2.0 collaboration system for architectural decision engineering. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (SEKE).
60. SEI. 2007. Published software architecture definitions. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/architecture/published-definitions.html.
61. SHAW, M. AND CLEMENTS, P. 2006. The golden age of software architecture. IEEE Softw. 23, 2, 31-39.
62. SHAW, M. AND GARLAN, D. 1996. Software Architecture: Perspectives on an Emerging Discipline. Prentice-Hall. Upper Saddle River, NJ.
63. SVAHNBERG, M., WOHLIN, C., LUNBERG, L., AND MATTSSON, M. 2003. A quality-driven decision support method for identifying software architecture candidates. Int. J. Softw. Eng. Knowl. Eng. 13, 5, 547-575.
64. TAYLOR, R. N., MEDVIDOVIC, N., AND DASHOFY, E. 2009. Software Architecture: Foundations, Theory, and Practice. Wiley Publishing, New York, NY.
65. TRIANTAPHYLLOU, E. 2004. Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods: A Comparative Study. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
66. WANYAMA, T. AND FAR, B. H. 2005. Towards providing decision support for COTS selection. In Proceedings of the Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering.
67. ZIMMERMANN, O., GSCHWIND, T., KÜSTER, J., LEYMANN, F., AND SCHUSTER, N. 2007. Reusable architectural decision models for enterprise application development. In Proceedings of the Conference on Quality of Softwares.
68. ZIMMERMANN, O., KOEHLER, J., LEYMANN, F., POLLEY, R., AND SCHUSTER, N. 2009. Managing architectural decision models with dependency relations, integrity constraints, and production rules. J. Syst. Softw. 82, 8, 1249-1267.