Annals of Software Engineering

, Volume 9, Issue 1–4, pp 59–78 | Cite as

An experiment on creating scenario profiles for software change

  • PerOlof Bengtsson
  • Jan Bosch


Scenario profiles are used increasingly often for the assessment of quality attributes during the architectural design of software systems. However, the definition of scenario profiles is subjective and no data is available on the effects of individuals on scenario profiles. In this paper we present the design, analysis and results of a controlled experiment on the effect of individuals on scenario profiles, so that others can replicate the experiments on other projects and people. Both scenario profiles created by individuals and by groups are studied. The findings from the experiment showed that groups with prepared members proved to be the best method for creating scenario profiles. Unprepared groups did not perform better than individuals when creating scenario profiles.


Quality Attribute Change Scenario IEEE Computer Society Software Architecture Independent Person 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abowd, G., L. Bass, P. Clements, R. Kazman, L. Northrop, and A.M. Zaremski (1997), “Recommend Best Industrial Practice for Software Architecture Evaluation,” Technical Report, CMU/SEI-96-TR-025, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.Google Scholar
  2. Basili, V.R., R.W. Selby, and D.H. Hutchens (1986), “Experimentation in Software Engineering,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 12, 7, 733–743.Google Scholar
  3. Bass, L., P. Clements, and R. Kazman (1998), Software Architecture in Practise, 1st Edition, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.Google Scholar
  4. Bengtsson, P. (1998), “Towards Maintainability Metrics on Software Architecture: An Adaptation of Object-Oriented Metrics,” In Proceedings of First Nordic Workshop on Software Architecture, Research Report 1998:14 ISSN: 1103-1581, University of Karlskrona/Ronneby, Ronneby, Sweden, pp. 87–91.Google Scholar
  5. Bengtsson, P. and J. Bosch (1998), “Scenario Based Software Architecture Reengineering,” In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference of Software Reuse, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, pp. 308–317.Google Scholar
  6. Bengtsson, P. and J. Bosch (1999), “Architecture Level Prediction of Software Maintenance,” In Proceedings of Third European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, pp. 139–147.Google Scholar
  7. Boehm, B.W. (1981), Software Engineering Economics, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.Google Scholar
  8. Bosch, J. and P. Molin (1999), “Software Architecture Design: Evaluation and Transformation 2,” In Proceedings of IEEE Engineering of Computer Based Systems Symposium, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, pp. 4–10.Google Scholar
  9. Carrière, J., R. Kazman, and S. Woods (1999), “Assessing and Maintaining Architectural Quality,” In Proceedings of the Third European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering, IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, pp. 22–30.Google Scholar
  10. Dueñas, J.C., W.L. de Oliveira, and J.A. de la Puente (1998), “A Software Architecture Evaluation Method,” In Proceedings of the Second International ESPRIT ARES Workshop, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1429, Springer Verlag, Berlin, pp. 148–157.Google Scholar
  11. Kazman, R., L. Bass, G. Abowd, and M.Webb (1994), “SAAM: A Method for Analyzing the Properties of Software Architectures,” In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Software Engineering, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, pp. 81–90.Google Scholar
  12. Kazman, R., M. Klein, M. Barbacci, T. Longstaff, H. Lipson, and J. Carriere (1998), “The Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method,” In Proceedings of 4th International Conference on Engineering of Complex Computer Systems, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, pp. 68–78.Google Scholar
  13. Krutchen, P.B. (1995), “The 4 + 1 View Model of Architecture,” IEEE Software, 12, 6, 42–50.Google Scholar
  14. Li, W. and S. Henry (1993), “Object-Oriented Metrics that Predict Maintainability,” Journal of Systems and Software, 23, 2, 111–122.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • PerOlof Bengtsson
    • 1
  • Jan Bosch
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Software Engineering and Computer ScienceUniversity of Karlskrona/RonnebyRonnebySweden E-mail:

Personalised recommendations