评估软件架构评估方法:内部复制

S. Abrahão, E. Insfrán
{"title":"评估软件架构评估方法:内部复制","authors":"S. Abrahão, E. Insfrán","doi":"10.1145/3084226.3084253","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Context: The size and complexity of software systems along with the demand for ensuring quality requirements have fostered the interest in software architecture evaluation methods. Although several empirical studies have been reported, the actual body of knowledge is still insufficient. To address this concern, we presented a family of four controlled experiments that compares a recently proposed method, the Quality-Driven Architecture Derivation and Improvement (QuaDAI) method against the well-known Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method (ATAM). Objective: To provide further evidence on the efficiency, effectiveness, and perceived satisfaction of participants using these two software architecture evaluation methods. We report the results of a differentiated internal replication study. Method: The same materials used in the baseline experiments were employed in this replication but the participants were sixteen practitioners. In addition, we used a simpler design to reduce the treatments' application sequences. Results: The participants obtained architectures with better quality when applying QuaDAI, and they found this method to be more useful and likely to be used than ATAM, but no difference in terms of efficiency and perceived ease of use were found. Conclusions: The results are in line with the baseline experiments and support the hypothesis that QuaDAI achieve better results than ATAM when performing architectural evaluations; however, further work is need to improve the methods usability.","PeriodicalId":192290,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating Software Architecture Evaluation Methods: An Internal Replication\",\"authors\":\"S. Abrahão, E. Insfrán\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3084226.3084253\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Context: The size and complexity of software systems along with the demand for ensuring quality requirements have fostered the interest in software architecture evaluation methods. Although several empirical studies have been reported, the actual body of knowledge is still insufficient. To address this concern, we presented a family of four controlled experiments that compares a recently proposed method, the Quality-Driven Architecture Derivation and Improvement (QuaDAI) method against the well-known Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method (ATAM). Objective: To provide further evidence on the efficiency, effectiveness, and perceived satisfaction of participants using these two software architecture evaluation methods. We report the results of a differentiated internal replication study. Method: The same materials used in the baseline experiments were employed in this replication but the participants were sixteen practitioners. In addition, we used a simpler design to reduce the treatments' application sequences. Results: The participants obtained architectures with better quality when applying QuaDAI, and they found this method to be more useful and likely to be used than ATAM, but no difference in terms of efficiency and perceived ease of use were found. Conclusions: The results are in line with the baseline experiments and support the hypothesis that QuaDAI achieve better results than ATAM when performing architectural evaluations; however, further work is need to improve the methods usability.\",\"PeriodicalId\":192290,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering\",\"volume\":\"31 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-06-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3084226.3084253\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3084226.3084253","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

背景:软件系统的规模和复杂性,以及确保质量需求的需求,促进了人们对软件架构评估方法的兴趣。虽然已经报道了一些实证研究,但实际的知识体系仍然不足。为了解决这个问题,我们提出了一个由四个控制的实验来比较最近提出的方法,即质量驱动的体系结构派生和改进(QuaDAI)方法和著名的体系结构权衡分析方法(ATAM)。目的:为使用这两种软件体系结构评估方法的参与者的效率、有效性和感知满意度提供进一步的证据。我们报告一项差异化内部复制研究的结果。方法:本实验采用与基线实验相同的材料,但参与者为16名从业人员。此外,我们使用了更简单的设计来减少处理的应用顺序。结果:参与者在使用QuaDAI时获得的架构质量更好,并且他们发现该方法比ATAM更有用和更可能被使用,但在效率和感知易用性方面没有发现差异。结论:结果与基线实验一致,支持QuaDAI在进行建筑评价时优于ATAM的假设;然而,需要进一步的工作来提高方法的可用性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluating Software Architecture Evaluation Methods: An Internal Replication
Context: The size and complexity of software systems along with the demand for ensuring quality requirements have fostered the interest in software architecture evaluation methods. Although several empirical studies have been reported, the actual body of knowledge is still insufficient. To address this concern, we presented a family of four controlled experiments that compares a recently proposed method, the Quality-Driven Architecture Derivation and Improvement (QuaDAI) method against the well-known Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method (ATAM). Objective: To provide further evidence on the efficiency, effectiveness, and perceived satisfaction of participants using these two software architecture evaluation methods. We report the results of a differentiated internal replication study. Method: The same materials used in the baseline experiments were employed in this replication but the participants were sixteen practitioners. In addition, we used a simpler design to reduce the treatments' application sequences. Results: The participants obtained architectures with better quality when applying QuaDAI, and they found this method to be more useful and likely to be used than ATAM, but no difference in terms of efficiency and perceived ease of use were found. Conclusions: The results are in line with the baseline experiments and support the hypothesis that QuaDAI achieve better results than ATAM when performing architectural evaluations; however, further work is need to improve the methods usability.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信