Advertisement

Is a Design Rationale Vital when Predicting Change Impact? – A Controlled Experiment on Software Architecture Evolution

  • Lars Bratthall
  • Enrico Johansson
  • Björn Regnell
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1840)

Abstract

Software process improvement efforts often seek to shorten development lead-time. A potential means is to facilitate architectural changes by providing a design rationale, i.e. a documentation of why the architecture is built as it is. The hypothesis is that changes will be faster and more correct if such information is available during change impact analysis. This paper presents a controlled experiment where the value of having access to a retrospective design rationale is evaluated both quantitatively and qualitatively. Realistic change tasks are applied by 17 subjects from both industry and academia on two complex systems from the domain of embedded real-time systems. The results from the quantitative analysis show that, for one of the systems, there is a significant improvement in correctness and speed when subjects have access to a design rationale document. In the qualitative analysis, design rationale was considered helpful for speeding up changes and improving correctness. For the other system the results were inconclusive, and further studies are recommended in order to increase the understanding of the role of a design rationale in architectural evolution of software systems.

Keywords

Design Rationale Software Architecture Aggregation Level Change Request Change Task 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bass, L., Clements, P., Kazman, R.: Software Architecture in Practise. Addison Wesley, Reading (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bauer, N., Olsson, T., Runeson, P., Bratthall, L.: Lead-time Impact of Distributed Testing on Distributed Real-time Systems. In: Under submission. Lund University, Sweden (1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bohner, S., Arnold, R. (eds.): Software Change Impact Analysis. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1996)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bratthall, L., Adelswärd, K., Eriksson, W., Runeson, P.: A Survey of Lead-Time Challenges in the Development and Evolution of Distributed Real-Time Systems (October 1999) (submitted)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bratthall, L., Runeson, P.: Architecture Design Recovery of a Family of Embedded Software Systems - An Experience Report. In: Proc. First IFIP Working Conf. on Software Architecture, San Antonio, Texas (February 1999)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bratthall, L., Runeson, P.: A Taxonomy of Orthogonal Properties of Software Architectures. In: Proc. 2nd Nordic Software Architecture Workshop, Ronneby (August 1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brooks, F.: The Mythical Man-Month: Essays on Software Engineering. In: Ingram Int’l., USA (1995)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Conklin, J.: Hypertext: An Introduction and Survey. IEEE Computer 20(9), 17–41 (1987)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cook, T.D., Campbell, D.T.: Quasi-Experimentation - Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Houghton Mifflin Company (1979)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cross, N.: The Nature and Nurture of Design Ability. Design Studies 11(3), 127–140 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Datar, S., Jordan, C., Kekre, S., Rajiv, S., Srinivasan, K.: New Product Development Structures and Time To Market. Management Science 43(4) (April 1997)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fisher, G., Lemke, A.C., McCall, R., Morch, A.I.: Making Argumentation Serve Design. Human-Computer Interaction 6(3&4) (1991)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Grundy, J.: Software Architecture Modelling, Analysis and Implementation with SoftArch (January 2000) (submitted)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Halasz, F.G.: Reflections on NoteCards: Seven Issues for the Next Generation of Hypermedia Systems. Comm. of the ACM 31, 836–852 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hamilton, F., Johnson, H.: An Empricial Study in Using Linked Documentation to Assist Software Maintenance. In: Human-Computer Interaction (Interact 1995), pp. 219–224. Chapman & Hall, London (1995)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hendricks, K.B., Singhal, V.R.: Delays in New Product Introduction and the Market Value of the Firm: The Consequences of Being Late to the Market. Management Science 43(4) (April 1997)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jarczyk, A.P.J., Løffler, P., Shipman III, F.M.: Design Rationale for Software Engineering: A Survey. In: Proc. 25th Annual Hawaii Int’l Conf. on System Sciences, pp. 577–586 (1992)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jørgensen, A.H., Aboulafia, A.: Perceptions of Design Rationale. In: Human-Computer Interaction (Interact 1995), pp. 61–66. Chapman & Hall, London (1995)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kruchten, P.: The 4+1 View Model. IEEE Software 12(6) (1995)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lee, J., Lai, K.: What’s in Design Rationale? Human-Computer Interaction 6(3,4) (1991)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lee, J.: Design Rationale Systems: Understanding the Issues. IEEE Expert, 78–85 (May/June 1997)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Message Sequence Charts (MSC), ITU-T Standard Z.120. International Telecommunication Union (1996)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Frankfort-Nachmias, C., Nachmias, D.: Research Methods in the Social Sciences, 4th edn. St. Martin’s Press, United Kingdom (1992)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nelson, T.H.: A File Structure for the Complex, the Changing, and the Indeterminate. In: Proc. ACM National Conference, pp. 84–100 (1965)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Perry, D.E., Wolf, A.L.: Foundations for the Study of Software Architecture. Software Engineering Notes 17(4), 40–52 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Porter, M.E.: Competitive Strategy - Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors. The Free Press, New York (1980)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rein, G.L., Ellis, C.A.: rIBIS: A Real-time Group Hypertext System. Int’l. Journal of Man-Machine Studies 24, 349–367 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Shilling, M.A.: Technological Lockout: An Integrative Model of the Economic and Strategic Factors Driving Technology Success and Failure. Academy of Management Review 23(2) (1998)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Shum, S.J.: A Cognitive Analysis of Design Rationale Representation. Ph.D. Thesis, York University, Great Brittain (December 1991)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Specification and Description Language (SDL), ITU-T Standard Z.100. International Telecommunication Union (1992)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Stalk, G.: Time - the Next Source of Competitive Advatage. Harward Business Review 66(4) (1998)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Stefik, M., Foster, G., Bobrow, D.G., Kahn, K., Lanning, S., Suchman, L.: Beyond the chalkboard: Computer Support for collaboration and problem solving in meetings. Comm. of the ACM 30(1), 32–47 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Toulmin, S.: The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1958)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Urban, G.L., Carter, T., Gaskin, S., Mucha, S.: Market Share Rewards to Pioneering Brands: An Empirical Analysis and Strategic Implications. Management Science 32(6) (June 1986)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wheelwrigt, S.C., Clark, K.B.: Leading Product Development - The Senior Manager’s Guide to Creating and Shaping the Enterprise. The Free Press, New York (1995)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wohlin, C.: The Challenge of Large Scale Software Development in an Educational Environment. In: Proc. Conf. on Software Engineering Education & Training, pp. 40–52. Virginia Beach, Virginia (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Ohlsson, M.C., Regnell, B., Wesslén, A.: Experimentation in Software Engineering: An Introduction. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lars Bratthall
    • 1
  • Enrico Johansson
    • 2
  • Björn Regnell
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of Communication SystemsLund UniversitySweden
  2. 2.Ericsson Mobile CommunicationsLundSweden

Personalised recommendations