A Rationale-based Model for Architecture Design Reasoning

More documents

Recommendations

Info

7.2. An empirical study to validate the AREL model Using the EFT system, a comparison is made between the original design specifications that do not contain structured design rationale, and the AREL model. The comparison is to validate that the AREL representation is effective in facilitating the understanding of the architecture design of this case study. Although this validation cannot be generalised to all kinds of architecture design at this stage due to the single case limitation, it gives an indication of its potential. 7.2.2 About the empirical study The validation of the AREL representation and its effectiveness is done by way of using expert opinions. Expert-opinion elicitation is defined as a heuristic process of gathering information and data or answering questions on issues or problems of concerns [5]. This type of validation has been applied to validating requirement process improvement model by a panel of experts [9]. We sought expert opinion instead of using students as test subjects because the experts have experiences in the domain area as well as architecture design. Their knowledge can provide a more reliable feedback to support our study. Furthermore, experts have a much wider exposure to different design methodologies and tools and can provide valuable insights towards this study. We call on experts to mock carrying out design changes to the EFT system. Through this exercise, we gather the evidence to test whether or not AREL provides useful architecture design rationale to aid the understanding of system and software architecture. In a number of face-to-face interviews, the experts were asked about the design and design reasoning of the EFT system, with and without the AREL model. Then, the answers were analysed. The experts were also asked to comment on the usefulness of the the AREL method for capturing design rationale. The steps that were taken in the empirical study are listed below: 1. The design rationale for parts of the EFT system are retrospectively modelled using the AREL modelling method. The EFT design using AREL modelling is described in Section 7.1. 2. Original specifications are presented to the experts without the support of AREL. 3. Experts are asked four sets of design questions. 4. Answers from the experts are recorded. The experts would indicate whether the answers come from searching the specifications, memorising, deducing, guessing or any of the combinations. 123
7.2. An empirical study to validate the AREL model 5. Present the AREL model to the experts and discuss the design reasoning captured by AREL. 6. Compare the two sets of answers (with and without AREL support) to see if additional understanding are obtained with the use of the AREL model. 7. Interview the expert to obtain additional comments on advantages and disadvantages of AREL modelling. 7.2.3 Selecting experts Experts who were associated with the EFT system were asked to participate in this research. Use of expert opinion is dependendable because of the domain knowledge they possess [96]. We invited nine experts to participate (3 female and 6 male), all of whom have been working in this area for many years and can provide reliable assessment. On average, the experts have 16.6 years of IT experience (a maximum of 24 years and a minimum of 12 years), an average of 10.8 years of experience as an architect and designer (a maximum of 16 years and a minimum of 5 years), and an average of 7.7 years of experience in designing payment systems (a maximum of 18 years and a minimum of 1 year). The expert panels are selected for their experience with architecture design and their working in the electronic payment system field for a number of years. They are characterised by the following: • They have participated in the design, development and testing of the EFT systems or similar types of systems. Therefore, they were familiar with the functionality of such payment systems. • They have had extensive design and development experience. • They are willing to commit needed time and effort. • They are willing to provide evaluations and interpretations of the new approach. Owing to the specialised background knowledge required and the confidentiality of the system, there is a limitation as to who can be recruited. Consequently, we decided to use non-probabilistic sampling techniques and convenience sampling method instead of random sampling [80]. Availability sampling operates by seeking responses from those people who meet the inclusion criteria. They are available and willing to participate in the research. The major drawback of non-probabilistic sampling techniques is that the results cannot be considered statistically generalisable to the target population, in this case software architects. 124
Page 1 and 2:
A Rationale-based Model for Archite
Page 3 and 4:
maintenance. These techniques can h
Page 5 and 6:
Declaration This thesis contains no
Page 7 and 8:
2.2.6 DoD Architecture Framework .
Page 9 and 10:
5.4.6 Risk assessment in architectu
Page 11 and 12:
8.2 The architecture rationalisatio
Page 13 and 14:
12.2 Contributions . . . . . . . .
Page 15 and 16:
6.10 ≪AR≫ and ≪AAR≫ Stereot
Page 17 and 18:
11.13A Process to Synchronise Chang
Page 19 and 20:
5.13 Design Rationale Helps Evaluat
Page 21 and 22:
that architecture design is highly
Page 23 and 24:
1.2. Research motivations and resea
Page 25 and 26:
1.2. Research motivations and resea
Page 27 and 28:
1.4. Structure of the thesis the ch
Page 29 and 30:
Part I Problem Analysis 10
Page 31 and 32:
2.1. Industry practice of design ra
Page 33 and 34:
2.2. Architecture frameworks and de
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Chapter 3 Related work in design ra
Page 45 and 46:
3.2. Why do we need design rational
Page 47 and 48:
3.2. Why do we need design rational
Page 49 and 50:
3.3. Existing methods for capturing
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
3.4. Other related studies 3.3.7 Qu
Page 59 and 60:
3.4. Other related studies evolutio
Page 61 and 62:
3.5. How well design rationale meth
Page 63 and 64:
3.5. How well design rationale meth
Page 65 and 66:
Chapter 4 Research methodology and
Page 67 and 68:
4.1. Software engineering research
Page 69 and 70:
4.2. The chosen research and valida
Page 71 and 72:
Part II Architecture Design Rationa
Page 73 and 74:
on a regular basis. Their inputs ha
Page 75 and 76:
5.1. Architecture rationale in the
Page 77 and 78:
5.2. Survey methodology data collec
Page 79 and 80:
5.3. Survey findings experience). I
Page 81 and 82:
5.3. Survey findings Table 5.1: Fre
Page 83 and 84:
5.3. Survey findings Business Goals
Page 85 and 86:
5.3. Survey findings 5.3.5 Document
Page 87 and 88:
5.3. Survey findings Table 5.8 summ
Page 89 and 90:
5.3. Survey findings We used Spearm
Page 91 and 92: 5.3. Survey findings previous desig
Page 93 and 94: 5.4. Discussion of findings Since t
Page 95 and 96: 5.4. Discussion of findings or cons
Page 97 and 98: 5.5. Limitations and use design rat
Page 99 and 100: Part III The Representation and App
Page 101 and 102: 6.1. A conceptual model for design
Page 103 and 104: 6.2. Architecture Rationale and Ele
Page 105 and 106: 6.2. Architecture Rationale and Ele
Page 107 and 108: 6.3. Architecture elements Figure 6
Page 109 and 110: 6.4. Architecture rationale Figure
Page 111 and 112: 6.4. Architecture rationale • ris
Page 113 and 114: 6.4. Architecture rationale depicts
Page 115 and 116: 6.5. The extended AREL To prevent c
Page 117 and 118: 6.6. A UML representation of AREL a
Page 119 and 120: 6.6. A UML representation of AREL a
Page 121 and 122: 6.7. AREL usability AE by ≪AEsupe
Page 123 and 124: 6.8. Summary The AREL model is exte
Page 125 and 126: 7.1. The EFT system reasoning, a co
Page 127 and 128: 7.1. The EFT system The processing
Page 129 and 130: 7.1. The EFT system not chosen beca
Page 131 and 132: 7.1. The EFT system Figure 7.5: Int
Page 133 and 134: 7.1. The EFT system sequence checki
Page 135 and 136: 7.1. The EFT system Figure 7.7: Dec
Page 137 and 138: 7.1. The EFT system Therefore, in a
Page 139 and 140: 7.1. The EFT system Figure 7.10: De
Page 141: 7.2. An empirical study to validate
Page 145 and 146: 7.2. An empirical study to validate
Page 151 and 152: 7.3. Summary The case study is spec
Page 153 and 154: 8.1. Background Based on these assu
Page 155 and 156: 8.2. The architecture rationalisati
Page 163 and 164: 8.3. Other applications of ARM As d
Page 165 and 166: 8.3. Other applications of ARM Figu
Page 167 and 168: 8.3. Other applications of ARM area
Page 169 and 170: Chapter 9 Architecture rationale an
Page 171 and 172: 9.1. Background 9.1 Background In t
Page 173 and 174: 9.2. Traceability of architecture r
Page 175 and 176: 9.4. AREL and eAREL traceability ap
Page 185 and 186: Chapter 10 Architecture decision de
Page 187 and 188: 10.1. Background 10.1.2 Introductio
Page 189 and 190: 10.2. Building a BBN to represent a
Page 191 and 192: 10.2. Building a BBN to represent a
Page 193 and 194:
10.2. Building a BBN to represent a
Page 195 and 196:
10.2. Building a BBN to represent a
Page 197 and 198:
10.3. Reasoning about change impact
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
10.5. Summary design object may cau
Page 211 and 212:
11.1. Capturing architecture design
Page 213 and 214:
11.1. Capturing architecture design
Page 215 and 216:
11.2. Checking AREL models Figure 1
Page 217 and 218:
11.3. Tracing AREL models Figure 11
Page 219 and 220:
11.4. Analysing AREL with BBN • S
Page 221 and 222:
11.5. Limitations Figure 11.13: A P
Page 223 and 224:
Chapter 12 Conclusions 12.1 Summary
Page 225 and 226:
12.2. Contributions reasoning metho
Page 227 and 228:
12.2. Contributions implementations
Page 229 and 230:
12.3. Future work architecture deci
Page 231 and 232:
12.3. Future work to examine the co
Page 233 and 234:
BIBLIOGRAPHY [10] B. W. Boehm, Soft
Page 235 and 236:
BIBLIOGRAPHY [37] A. Eden and R. Ka
Page 237 and 238:
BIBLIOGRAPHY [62] J. D. Herbsleb an
Page 239 and 240:
BIBLIOGRAPHY [89] N. Lassing, D. Ri
Page 241 and 242:
BIBLIOGRAPHY [115] D. L. Parnas,
Page 243 and 244:
BIBLIOGRAPHY [142] Z. Simsek and J.
Page 245 and 246:
BIBLIOGRAPHY [167] W. F. Tichy, N.
Page 247 and 248:
Appendix A AREL Tool User Manual 1
Page 249 and 250:
4.1 AREL Check Model When the Check
Page 251 and 252:
4.2 AREL Model Tracing AREL model t
Page 253 and 254:
Figure 9 - result of downward trace
Page 255 and 256:
To initiate the graph’s creation,
Page 257 and 258:
onto the diagram 14 Assign values t
Page 259 and 260:
Useful Definitions The following ar
Page 261 and 262:
) Some projects only c) Not at all
Page 263 and 264:
19. I revisit architecture design d
Page 265 and 266:
Complaint Procedure If you have any
Page 267 and 268:
Privacy Protection Only investigato
Page 269 and 270:
B. Exploring design reasoning. 1. W
Page 271 and 272:
3. Why does the system use asynchro
Page 273 and 274:
C. General Comments on AREL Modelli
Page 275:
IEEE Computer Society Press. A. Tan
show all

A Rationale-based Model for Architecture Design Reasoning

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?