The architecture tradeoff analysis method

This paper presents the Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method (ATAM), a structured technique for understanding the tradeoffs inherent in the architectures of software-intensive systems. This method was developed to provide a principled way to evaluate a software architecture's fitness with respect to multiple competing quality attributes: modifiability, security, performance, availability, and so forth. These attributes interact-improving one often comes at the price of worsening one or more of the others-as is shown in the paper, and the method helps us to reason about architectural decisions that affect quality attribute interactions. The ATAM is a spiral model of design: one of postulating candidate architectures followed by analysis and risk mitigation, leading to refined architectures.

[1]  Mark Klein,et al.  A practitioner's handbook for real-time analysis - guide to rate monotonic analysis for real-time systems , 1993, The Kluwer international series in engineering and computer science.

[2]  Mario R. Barbacci,et al.  Principles for Evaluating the Quality Attributes of a Software Architecture , 1997 .

[3]  Barry W. Boehm,et al.  A spiral model of software development and enhancement , 1986, Computer.

[4]  Kishor S. Trivedi.  Probability and Statistics with Reliability, Queuing, and Computer Science Applications , 1984 .

[5]  Ken Shumate,et al.  Designing large real-time systems with Ada , 1988, CACM.

[6]  Mario R. Barbacci,et al.  Steps in an Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method: Quality Attribute Models and Analysis , 1998 .

[7]  Leonard J. Bass,et al.  Scenario-Based Analysis of Software Architecture , 1996, IEEE Softw..

[8]  Paul Clements,et al.  Software architecture in practice , 1999, SEI series in software engineering.

[9]  Connie U. Smith,et al.  Performance Engineering of Software Systems , 1990, SIGMETRICS Perform. Evaluation Rev..

[10]  M. Saksena,et al.  A Practitioner's Handbook for Real-time Analysis-guide to Rate Monotonic Analysis for Real Time Systems. Symbolic Model Checking for Event-driven Real-time Systems. Acm Toplas , 2007 .

[11]  G. Kerr.  Quality factors. , 1988, Health physics.

[12]  Marco Spuri,et al.  Implications of Classical Scheduling Results for Real-Time Systems , 1995, Computer.

[13]  Sheldon M. Ross,et al.  Introduction to Probability Models (4th ed.). , 1990 .

[14]  Bo Ingvar Sandén.  Entity-life modeling and structured analysis in real-time software design—a comparison , 1989, CACM.

[15]  Connie U. Smith,et al.  Software Performance Engineering: A Case Study Including Performance Comparison with Design Alternatives , 1993, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[16]  William L. Maxwell,et al.  Theory of scheduling , 1967 .