Cluster Computing

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 105–113 | Cite as

A case study of HMS using CIPA

  • S. Angeline JuliaEmail author
  • Paul Rodrigues


In recent years, research into software architecture (SA) has become an important topic within the domain of software engineering. Since architecture plays a dominant role, analysis of SA is more important. Aim of analysing SA is to predict the quality of that system before it has been built. Among many SA analysis methods available, architecture trade-off analysis method is the most desirable one. Pattern’s which has impact on quality attributes is also used in this paper. This paper analyses hospital management system case study as a major work and uses new patterns named creative innovative patterns for architecture analysis to analyse its architecture.


ATAM Creative innovative patterns for architecture analysis Hospital management system Pattern Software architecture Software architecture analysis methods 


  1. 1.
    Kruchten, P., Obbink, H., Stafford, J.: The past, present and future of software architecture. IEEE Comput. Soc. 23(2), 22–30 (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Patidar, A., Ugrasen, S.: A Survey of Software Architecture Evaluation Methods, pp. 967–972. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dobrica, L., Eila, N.: A survey on software architecture analysis methods. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 28(7), 638–653 (2002)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Li, S.Q., Lie, J.: Two Software Architecture Evaluation Methods Based on Scenario, pp. 2001–2004. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Colquitt, D., Leaney, J.: Expanding the view on complexity within architecture trade-off analysis method. In: Proceedings of the 14th Annual IEEE International Conference and Workshops on the Engineering of Computer-Based Systems (ECBS’07), 26–29 March 2007, pp. 1–10Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rotem-Gal-Oz, A.: Architecture Trade-Off Analysis Method (2004). Accessed March 2016
  7. 7.
    Kazman, R., Klein, M., Paul, C.: ATAM: Method for Architecture Evaluation. Technical report, CMU/SEI (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nord, R., Barbacci, M., Clements, P., Kazman, R., Klein, M.: Integrating the Architecture Trade Off Analysis Method (ATAM) with the Cost Benet Analysis Method (CBAM). Technical report, CMU/SEI-2003-TN-038. Software Engineering Institute (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Paul, C., Felix, B., Len, B., David, G., James, I., Reed, L., Nord, R., Judith, S.: Documenting Software Architectures: Views and Beyond, pp. 13–15. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Koscho, W.J., Ries, W.: Identifying and proactively managing architecture risk. In: Proceedings of the 2009 ICSE Workshop on Leadership and Management in Software Architecture, pp. 1–5 (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hospital Information System. Accessed May 2016
  12. 12.
    Rao Muzamal, L., Ali, A., Saqib, N.A.: Intelligent agent based system for monitoring and control of hospital management system. In: 2nd International Conference on Information Science and Security (ICISS), pp. 1–5. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ali, M., Elish, M.O.: A comparative literature survey of design patterns impact on software quality. In: International Conference on Information Science and Applications (ICISA), pp. 1–7. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sri Harsha, V., Outi, S., Kai, K., Kari, S.: Using constrained satisfaction and optimization for pattern based software design. In: 23rd Australian Software Engineering Conference (ASEC), pp. 29–37. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sorana, C., Vincent, C.: Can styles improve architectural pattern reuse. In: Seventh IEEE/FIP Conference on S.A., pp. 263–266. IEEE Computer Society (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Buschmann, F., Meunier, R., Rohnert, H., Sommerlad, P., Stal, M.: Pattern Oriented Software Architecture: A System of Patterns, vol. 1. Wiley, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gamma, E., Johnson, R., Helm, R., Vlissides, J.: Design Patterns, Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software. Addison-Wesley, Boston (1995)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Coplien, J.O.: Advanced C++: Programming Styles and Idioms. Addison-Wesley, Boston (1992)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Goldenberg, J., Yoram, L., Solomon, S., David, M.: Finding your innovation sweet spot. Harv. Bus. Rev. 81, 1–11 (2003)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Angeline Julia, S., Rodrigues, P.: Novel creative innovative patterns for architecture analysis (CIPA). Indian J. Sci. Technol. (2016). doi: 10.17485/ijst/2016/v9i30/96653

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Computer Science DepartmentSRM UniversityKattankulathur, ChennaiIndia
  2. 2.Computer Science DepartmentKing Khalid UniversityAbhaSaudi Arabia

Personalised recommendations