Skip to main content

Consensus Building when Comparing Software Architectures

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 2559))

Abstract

When designing a software system it is beneficial to study and use architectural styles from literature, to ensure certain quality attributes. However, as the interpretation of literature may differ depending on the background and area of expertise of the person reading the literature, we suggest that structured discussions about different architecture candidates provides more valuable insight not only in the architectures themselves, but in peoples’ opinions of the architectures’ benefits and liabilities. In this paper, we propose a method to elicit the views of individuals concerning architecture candidates for a software system and pinpoint where discussions are needed to come to a consensus view of the architectures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. D.R. Anderson, D.J. Sweeney, T.A. Williams, “An Introduction to Management Science: Quantitative Approaches to Decision Making”, South Western College Publishing, Cincinnati Ohio, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  2. L. Bass, P. Clements, R. Kazman, “Software Architecture in Practice”, Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Reading MA, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  3. F. Buschmann, C. Jäkel, R. Meunier, H. Rohnert, M. Stahl, “Pattern-Oriented Software Architecture-A System of Patterns”, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester UK, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  4. J. Bosch, “Design & Use of Software Architectures-Adopting and Evolving a Product Line Approach”, Addison-Wesley, Harlow UK, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  5. L. Chung, B.A. Nixon, E. Yu, J. Mylopoluos, “Non-Functional Requirements in Software Engineering”, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, the Netherlands, 2000.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. C. Hofmeister, R. Nord, D. Soni, “Applied Software Architecture”, Addison-Wesley, Reading MA., 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  7. I. Jacobson, G. Booch, J. Rumbaugh, “The Unified Software Development Process”, Addison-Wesley, Reading MA, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  8. E. Johansson, M. Höst, A. Wesslén, L. Bratthall, “The Importance of Quality Requirements in Software Platform Development-A Survey”, in Proceedings of HICSS-34, Maui Hawaii, January 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  9. J. Karlsson and K. Ryan, “A Cost-Value Approach for Prioritizing Requirements”, in IEEE Software 14 (5):67–74, 1997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. J. Karlsson, C. Wohlin and B. Regnell, “An Evaluation of Methods for Prioritizing Software Requirements”, in Information and Software Technology, 39(14-15):938–947, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  11. G. Kotonya, I. Sommerville, “Requirements Engineering”, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester UK, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  12. D.L. Parnas, “Software Aging”, in Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Software Engineering, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos CA, pp. 279–287, 1994.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. T. Saaty, “The Analytic Hierarchy Process”, McGraw-Hill, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  14. T.L. Saaty, L.G. Vargas, “Models, Methods, Concepts & Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process”, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, the Netherlands, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  15. M. Shepperd, S. Barker, M. Aylett, “The Analytic Hierarchy Process and almost Dataless Prediction”, in Project Control for Software Quality-Proceedings of ESCOM-SCOPE 99, R.J. Kusters, A. Cowderoy, F.J. Heemstra, E.P.W.M. van Weenendaal (eds), Shaker Publishing BV, Maastricht the Netherlands, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  16. M. Svahnberg, C. Wohlin, “An Investigation of a Method for Evaluating Software Architectures with Respect to Quality Attributes”, Submitted, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  17. M. Svahnberg, C. Wohlin, L. Lundberg, M. Mattsson, “A Method for Understanding Quality Attributes in Software Architecture Structures”, in Proceedings of the 14th International conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (SEKE 2002), ACM Press, New York NY, pp.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2002 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Svahnberg, M., Wohlin, C. (2002). Consensus Building when Comparing Software Architectures. In: Oivo, M., Komi-Sirviö, S. (eds) Product Focused Software Process Improvement. PROFES 2002. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2559. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36209-6_36

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36209-6_36

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-00234-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-36209-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics