Scaling Up Software Architecture Evaluation Processes

  • Liming Zhu
  • Mark Staples
  • Ross Jeffery
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5007)


As software systems become larger and more decentralized, increasingly cross organizational boundaries and continue to change, traditional structural and prescriptive software architectures are becoming more rule-centric for better accommodating changes and regulating distributed design and development processes. This is particularly true for Ultra-Large-Scale (ULS) systems and industry-wide reference architectures. However, existing architecture design and evaluation processes have mainly been designed for structural architecture and do not scale up to large and complex system of systems. In this paper, we propose a new software architecture evaluation process – Evaluation Process for Rule-centric Architecture (EPRA). EPRA reuses and tailors existing proven architecture analysis process components and scales up to complex software-intensive system of systems. We exemplify EPRA’s use in an architecture evaluation exercise for a rule-centric industry reference architecture.


Quality Attribute Software Architecture Process Component Business Goal Business Process Execution Language 
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. 1.
    Bass, L., Clements, P., Kazman, R.: Software Architecture in Practice. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Northrop, L., Kazman, R., Klein, M., Schmidt, D., Wallnau, K., Sullivan, K.: Ultra-Large Scale Systems: The Software Challenge of the Future. SEI, Pittsburgh (2006) Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zhu, L., Staples, M., Jeffery, R.: Reference Architecture for Lending Industry in ULS Systems. In: Kazman, R. (ed.) 1st ICSE Workshop on Software Technologies for Ultra-Large-Scale (ULS) Systems (2007) Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bosch, J.: Software architecture: the next step. In: Oquendo, F., Warboys, B.C., Morrison, R. (eds.) EWSA 2004. LNCS, vol. 3047, Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kazman, R., Barbacci, M., Klein, M., Carriere, S.J.: Experience with Performing Architecture Tradoff Analysis. In: 21th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 54–63. ACM Press, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kazman, R., Bass, L., Abowd, G., Webb, M.: SAAM: A Method for Analyzing the Properties of Software Architectures. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 81–90 (1994) Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bengtsson, P., Lassing, N., Bosch, J., Vliet, H.v.: Architecture-level modifiability analysis (ALMA). Journal of Systems and Software 69(1-2), 129–147 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kazman, R., Bass, L., Klein, M.: The essential components of software architecture design and analysis. Journal of Systems and Software 79, 1207–1216 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Architectural-level risk analysis using UML. IEEE Transaction on Software Engineering (2003) Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zhu, L., Gorton, I.: UML Profiles for Design Decisons and Non-Functional Requirements. In: 2nd International Workshop on SHAring and Reusing architectural Knowledge - Architecture, Rationale, and Design Intent (SHARK/ADI 2007), colocated with ICSE 2007 (2007) Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kazman, R., Bass, L.: Categorizing Business Goals for Software Architectures. SEI (2005) Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zhu, L., Ali Babar, M., Jeffery, R.: Mining Patterns to Support Software Architecture Evaluation. In: 4th Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture, pp. 25–36. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bachmann, F., Bass, L., Klein, M.: Deriving Architectural Tactics: A Step Toward Methodical Architectural Design (2004) Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Metcalf, C., Lewis, G.A.: Model Problems in Technologies for Interoperability: OWL Web Ontology Language for Services (OWL-S). Software Engineering Institute (2006) Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lewis, G.A., Wrage, L.: Model Problems in Technologies for Interoperability: Web Services. Software Engineering Institute (2006) Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hohpe, G., Woolf, B.: Enterprise integration patterns: designing, building, and deploying messaging solutions. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Carney, D., Smith, J., Place, P.: Topics in Interoperability: Infrastructure Replacement in a System of Systems. SEI (2005) Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Carney, D., Fisher, D., Place, P.: Topics in Interoperability: System-of-Systems Evolution. SEI (2005) Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Carney, D., Fisher, D., Morris, E., Place, P.: Some Current Approaches to Interoperability. SEI (2005) Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Carney, D., Anderson, W., Place, P.: Topics in Interoperability: Concepts of Ownership and Their Significance in Systems of Systems. SEI (2005) Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kazman, R., Asundi, J., Klein, M.: Quantifying the costs and Benefits of Architectural Decision. In: 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp. 297–306 (2001) Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zhu, L., Aurum, A., Gorton, I., Jeffery, R.: Tradeoff and Sensitivity Analysis in Software Architecture Evaluation Using Analytic Hierarchy Process. Software Quality Journal 13, 357–375 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Liming Zhu
    • 1
  • Mark Staples
    • 1
  • Ross Jeffery
    • 1
  1. 1.NICTA, Australian Technology Park, Eveleigh, NSW, Australia, School of Computer Science and Engineering, University of New South WalesAustralia

Personalised recommendations