Using Domain Knowledge to Boost Software Architecture Evaluation

  • Veli-Pekka Eloranta
  • Kai Koskimies
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6285)


Benefits of scenario-based software architecture evaluation such as ATAM are widely recognized. However, full-scale software architecture evaluation is resource and time consuming. In this paper we propose a technique to facilitate the creation of scenarios in a particular domain using a conceptual model especially targeted for architecture evaluation. The technique supports the finding of general, system-independent scenarios and the use of general scenarios in new evaluations. If the model is annotated with a (domain-specific) pattern language, the approach also supports the identification of solutions and the analysis of the architecture. The potential benefits of the technique in terms of semi-automatically produced scenarios are analyzed in the context of an industrial architecture evaluation.


Software Architecture General Scenario Change Category Pattern Language Architectural Solution 
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.
    Babar, M.A., Biffl, S.: Eliciting better quality architecture evaluation scenarios: a controlled experiment on top-down vs. bottom-up. In: ISESE 2006: Proceedings of the 2006 ACM/IEEE international symposium on empirical software engineering, pp. 307–315. ACM Press, New York (2006), Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bachmann, F., Bass, L., Klein, M.: Deriving architectural tactics: A step toward methodical architectural design (March 2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bass, L., Klein, M., Moreno, G.: Applicability of General Scenarios to the Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bass, L., Nord, R.L., Wood, W., Zubrow, D., Ozkaya, I.: Analysis of architecture evaluation data, vol. 81 (2008),
  5. 5.
    Bengtsson, P., Bosch, J.: An experiment on creating scenario profiles for software change, vol. 9, pp. 59–78. Springer, Netherlands (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bosch, J.: Design and use of software architectures: adopting and evolving a product-line approach. ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., New York (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clements, P., Kazman, R., Klein, M.: Evaluating Software Architectures: Methods and Case Studies. Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading (January 2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eloranta, V.P., Koskinen, J., Leppänen, M., Reijonen, V.: A pattern language for distributed machine control systems. Tech. rep., Tampere University of Techology (2010) ISBN 978-952-15-2319-9Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jansen, A., Vries, T., Avgeriou, P., Veelen, M.: Sharing the architectural knowledge of quantitative analysis. In: Becker, S., Plasil, F., Reussner, R. (eds.) QoSA 2008. LNCS, vol. 5281, pp. 220–234. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kazman, R., Carriére, S.J., Woods, S.G.: Toward a discipline of scenario-based architectural engineering (2000)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kazman, R., Klein, M., Clements, P.: ATAM: Method for Architecture Evaluation (2000)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lassing, N., Rijsenbrij, D., van Vliet, H.: The goal of software architecture analysis: Confidence building or risk assessment (1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Peng, L.: Paris, Avgeriou. In: Muhammad, A.B., Torgeir, D., Patricia, L., Hans, v.V. (eds.) Tools and Technologies for Architectural Knowledge Management, Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Veli-Pekka Eloranta
    • 1
  • Kai Koskimies
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Software SystemsTampere University of TechnologyFinland

Personalised recommendations