Advertisement

A Three-Dimensional Approach for a Quality-Based Alignment Between Requirements and Architecture

  • Carlos E. Salgado
  • Ricardo J. Machado
  • Rita S. P. Maciel
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 247)

Abstract

The relation between requirements and architecture is a crucial part of an information system, standing as one of the main challenges for its successful development, with traditional projects focused on the connection of functional requirements with architecture components having a tendency to ignore quality concerns. As the quality attributes of a system support its architecture high level structure and behavior, also being highly related to its early nonfunctional requirements, there is a pressing need to align these two realities. Following our solution for aligning business requirements with services quality characteristics by derivation of a logical architecture, we now propose the specification of a metamodel and method supporting a three-dimensional approach for handling the alignment of quality issues between requirements and architecture. Taking advantage of a cube structure and method definition within a SPEM approach, which is adaptable to model variations, our proposal contributes to an improved aligned and traceable solution.

Keywords

Quality Architecture Requirements Alignment Three-dimensional Modeling 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work has been supported by FCT– Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia in the scope of the project: FCT/MITP-TB/CS/0026/2013.

References

  1. 1.
    Galster, M., Eberlein, A., Moussavi, M.: Comparing methodologies for the transition between software requirements and architectures. In: Conference Proceedings - IEEE ICSMC, pp. 2380–2385 (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yue, T., Briand, L.C., Labiche, Y.: A systematic review of transformation approaches between user requirements and analysis models. Requir. Eng. 16, 75–99 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cleland-Huang, J., Hanmer, R.S., Supakkul, S., Mirakhorli, M.: The twin peaks of requirements and architecture. IEEE Softw. 30, 24–29 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Loniewski, G., Insfran, E., Abrahao, S.: A systematic review of the use of requirements engineering techniques in model-driven development. In: Petriu, D.C., Rouquette, N., Haugen, Ø. (eds.) MODELS 2010, Part II. LNCS, vol. 6395, pp. 213–227. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Breivold, H.P., Crnkovic, I., Larsson, M.: A systematic review of software architecture evolution research. Inf. Softw. Technol. 54, 16–40 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Salgado, C.E., Teixeira, J., Santos, N., Machado, R.J., Maciel, R.S.: A SoaML approach for derivation of a process-oriented logical architecture from use cases. In: Nóvoa, H., Drăgoicea, M. (eds.) IESS 2015. LNBIP, vol. 201, pp. 80–94. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Buglione, L., Abran, A.: QEST nD: n-dimensional extension and generalisation of a software performance measurement model. Adv. Eng. Softw. 33, 1–7 (2002)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hansen, E.G., Grosse-Dunker, F., Reichwald, R.: Sustainability innovation cube — a framework to evaluate sustainability-oriented innovations. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 13, 683–713 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Salgado, C.E., Machado, R.J., Maciel, R.S.P.: Exploring a three-dimensional, requirements-based, balanced scorecard business model: on the elicitation and generation of a business model canvas. In: IEEE 17th Conference on Business Informatics, pp. 88–95 (2015)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    CISQ: Specifications for Automated Quality Characteristic Measures (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Salgado, C.E., Machado, R.J., Maciel, R.S.P.: Using process-level use case diagrams to infer the business motivation model with a RUP-based approach. In: Escalona, M.J., Aragón, G., Linger, H., Lang, M., Barry, C., Schneider, C. (eds.) Information System Development, pp. 123–134. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    OMG: Software & Systems Process Engineering Meta-Model Specification (SPEM) (2008). http://www.omg.org/spec/SPEM/2.0/
  13. 13.
    Werneck, V.M.B., Oliveira, A. de P.A., do Prado Leite, J.C.S.: Comparing GORE Frameworks: i-star and KAOS. WER, pp. 1–12 (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Salgado, C.E., Machado, R.J., Maciel, R.S.: Aligning Business Requirements with Services Quality Characteristics by Using Logical Architectures. In: Rocha, A., Correia, A.M., Costanzo, S., Reis, L.P. (eds.) New Contributions in Information Systems and Technologies. AISC, vol. 353, pp. 593–602. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Salgado, C.E., Machado, R.J., Maciel, R.S.P.: A Three-dimensional, Requirements-based, Balanced Scorecard Business Model. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Information and Communication Systems, pp. 1–6 (2015)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Losavio, F., Matteo, A., Camejo, I.P.: Unified process for domain analysis integrating quality, aspects and goals. CLEI Electron. J. 17, 1–21 (2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ameller, D., Ayala, C., Cabot, J., Franch, X.: Non-functional requirements in architectural decision making. IEEE Softw. 30, 61–67 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carlos E. Salgado
    • 1
  • Ricardo J. Machado
    • 1
  • Rita S. P. Maciel
    • 2
  1. 1.Centro ALGORITMIUniversidade do MinhoGuimarãesPortugal
  2. 2.Dep. de Ciência da ComputaçãoUniversidade Federal da BahiaSalvadorBrazil

Personalised recommendations