National Journal of System and Information Technology

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access
Open Access Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Restricted Access Subscription Access

Quantitative Trade-off Analysis in Quality Attributes of a Software Architecture Using Bayesian Network Model


     

   Subscribe/Renew Journal


Research into design rationale in the past has focused on argumentation-based design deliberations. These approaches cannot be used to support change impact analysis effectively because the dependency between design elements and decisions are not well represented and cannot be quantified. Without such knowledge, designers and architects cannot easily assess how changing requirements and design decisions may affect the system. We apply Bayesian Network Model (BNM), to capture the probabilistic causal relationships between design elements and decisions. We employ three different BNMbased reasoning methods to analyze the trade-off between the conflicting quality attributes. Markov blanket discovery algorithms can be used for quality assessment BNMs. Additionally, work will be done to determine how known optimization methods such as Tabu search may be applied in the context of the proposed framework. Ultimately, the goal is to create a possibility of automatic execution of steps involved in architectural optimization.

Keywords

Network Model (BNM), Architectural Tradeoff Analysis Method (ATAM) Software Architectural Analysis Method (SAAM), Software Architecture Assessment using Bayesian Networks (SAABNet), Stake Holders Expects(SHE) , and Markov Blanket (MB)
Subscription Login to verify subscription
User
Notifications
Font Size


  • R. Kazman, M. Klein, M. Barbacci, T. Longstaff, H. Lipson, and J. Carriere, “The Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method”, Proceedings of ICECCS'98, 8-1- 1998.

  • R.L. Nord, M.R. Barbacci, P. Clements, R. Kazman, M. Klein, L. O'Brien, J.E. Tomayko, “Integrating the Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method (ATAM) with the cost benefit analysis method (CBAM)”, CMU SEI Technical Note CMU/SEI-2003- TN-038, Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, 2003.

  • Paul Clements, John Bergey and Dave Mason, ”Using the SEI Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method to Evaluate WIN-T: A Case Study” CMU SEI Technical Note CMU/SEI-2005-TN-027. Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, 2005.

  • Houmb, Siv Hilde; Georg, Geri ; Jürjens, Jan ; France, Robert: “An Integrated Security Verification and Security Solution Design Trade-Off Analysis Approach”. Integrating Security and Software Engineering: Advances and Future Visions / Mouratidis, Haralambos; Giorgini, Paolo: Idea Group Inc, 2006, 190-219.

  • Bate, I. and N. Audsley (2002): “Architecture Tradeoff Analysis and the Influence on Component Design”. Proceedings of Workshop on Component- Based Software Engineering: Composing Systems from Components

  • Mildred N. Ambe, Frederick Vizeacoumar ” Evaluation of two architectures Using the Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method (ATAM), 2002.

  • “Software Architecture for Software-Intensive Systems” from www.sei.cmu.edu/architecture /ata_method.html

  • Arnon Rotem-Gal-Oz, “Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method“ www.rgoarchitects.com/Files/ATAM.ppt

  • Liming Zhu, Muhammad Ali Babar, Ross Jeffery” Distilling Scenarios from Patterns for Software Architecture Evaluation – A Position Paper” EWSA 2004: 225-229.

  • Ali Babar, M., Kitchenham, B., “Assessment of a Framework for Comparing Software Architecture Analysis Methods”, in Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, 2007, Keele, England.

  • M. Savahnberg, C. Wohlin. L. Lundberg and M. Mattson, “A Method for Understanding Quality Attributes in Software Architecture Structure.” Proceedings of the 14th International Conference in Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering , pp. 819-826, July 2002

  • T.Saaty, The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning , Priority, Setting, Resource Allocation, McGraw-Hill, 1980.

  • Lee, J. and K.-H. Hsu, Modeling software architectures with goals in virtual university environment. Information and Software Technology, 2002. 44(6): p. 361- 380.

  • Van Gurp, J.B., J. SAABNet: Managing qualitative knowledge in software architecture assessment VO -. In Engineering of Computer Based Systems, 2000. (ECBS 2000) Proceedings. Seventh IEEE International Conference and Workshopon the. 2000.

  • N. Sankar Ram and Dr. Paul Rodrigues “Intelligent Risk Prophecy Using More Quality Attributes Injected ATAM and Design Patterns”, 7th WSEAS Int, Conf. on Software Engineering, Parallel and Distributed Systems(SEPADS ’08) University of Cambridge, UK, Feb 20-22, 2008

  • N.Sankar Ram et.al “Impact on quality attributes for evaluating software architecture using ATAM and Design Patterns” Asian Journal of Information Technology 7(3):126-129,2008, Medwell Journals,2008

  • N.Sankar Ram , Paul Rodrigues, B.Rajalakshmi, “Impact on quality attributes for evaluating software architecture”, Asian Journal of Information Technology 7 (3): 126-129, 2008 ISSN: 1682-3915 © Medwell Journals, 2008


Abstract Views: 308

PDF Views: 2




  • Quantitative Trade-off Analysis in Quality Attributes of a Software Architecture Using Bayesian Network Model

Abstract Views: 308  |  PDF Views: 2

Authors

Abstract


Research into design rationale in the past has focused on argumentation-based design deliberations. These approaches cannot be used to support change impact analysis effectively because the dependency between design elements and decisions are not well represented and cannot be quantified. Without such knowledge, designers and architects cannot easily assess how changing requirements and design decisions may affect the system. We apply Bayesian Network Model (BNM), to capture the probabilistic causal relationships between design elements and decisions. We employ three different BNMbased reasoning methods to analyze the trade-off between the conflicting quality attributes. Markov blanket discovery algorithms can be used for quality assessment BNMs. Additionally, work will be done to determine how known optimization methods such as Tabu search may be applied in the context of the proposed framework. Ultimately, the goal is to create a possibility of automatic execution of steps involved in architectural optimization.

Keywords


Network Model (BNM), Architectural Tradeoff Analysis Method (ATAM) Software Architectural Analysis Method (SAAM), Software Architecture Assessment using Bayesian Networks (SAABNet), Stake Holders Expects(SHE) , and Markov Blanket (MB)

References