Documenting and Analyzing a Context-Sensitive Design Space

In most requirements engineering and software architecture documents, empha-sis is placed on the chosen alternative. The discarded ones, and the arguments that led to a particular choice, are often not explicitly recorded and documented. This makes it difficult to retrace decisions and explore alternatives. We have developed a representation for capturing quality requirements and associated architectural solution fragments, called the Feature-Solution (FS) graph. We use the knowledge captured in the FS-graph to iteratively compose an architecture. This paper shows that when the knowledge in the FS-graph captures context-sensitive architectural knowledge, such as the concerns of different stakeholders, this representation can also be used to document and reason about architectural trade-offs. The result not only documents feasible architectures, but also the traces of design decisions that led to those architectures, which is a valuable asset during the further implementation and evolution of the system.

[1]  Stephen Shaoyi Liao,et al.  Exploring Alternatives during Requirements Analysis , 2001, IEEE Softw..

[2]  H. Akkermans,et al.  e 3-value : Design and Evaluation of e-Business Models , 2001 .

[3]  Mark Klein,et al.  Experience with performing architecture tradeoff analysis , 1999, Proceedings of the 1999 International Conference on Software Engineering (IEEE Cat. No.99CB37002).

[4]  Bashar Nuseibeh,et al.  Weaving Together Requirements and Architectures , 2001, Computer.

[5]  Martin Becker,et al.  Mapping requirements to reusable components using Design Spaces , 2000, Proceedings Fourth International Conference on Requirements Engineering. ICRE 2000. (Cat. No.98TB100219).

[6]  Carlo Ghezzi,et al.  Guest Editorial: Introduction to the Special Section - Managing Inconsistency in Software Development , 1999, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[7]  Krzysztof Czarnecki,et al.  Generative programming - methods, tools and applications , 2000 .

[8]  Jaap Gordijn,et al.  Designing and evaluating e-business models , 2001 .

[9]  Jaap Gordijn,et al.  Scenario methods for viewpoint integration in e-business requirements engineering , 2001, Proceedings of the 34th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[10]  Andrew Dillon,et al.  Design rationale: Concepts, techniques, and use , 1997 .

[11]  Barry Boehm,et al.  Supporting distributed collaborative prioritization , 1999, Proceedings Sixth Asia Pacific Software Engineering Conference (ASPEC'99) (Cat. No.PR00509).

[12]  M. S. Feather Rapid application of lightweight formal methods for consistency analyses : Managing inconsistency in software development , 1998 .

[13]  Nick Hammond,et al.  Argumentation-based design rationale: what use at what cost? , 1994, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[14]  Thomas P. Moran,et al.  Questions, Options, and Criteria: Elements of Design Space Analysis , 1991, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[15]  Kyo Chul Kang,et al.  Feature-Oriented Domain Analysis (FODA) Feasibility Study , 1990 .

[16]  Nenad Medvidovic,et al.  Reconciling software requirements and architectures: the CBSP approach , 2001, Proceedings Fifth IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering.

[17]  Hans de Bruijn,et al.  Scenario-Based Generation and Evaluation of Software Architectures , 2001, GCSE.

[18]  Axel van Lamsweerde,et al.  Requirements engineering in the year 00: a research perspective , 2000, Proceedings of the 2000 International Conference on Software Engineering. ICSE 2000 the New Millennium.

[19]  Paul Clements,et al.  ATAM: Method for Architecture Evaluation , 2000 .

[20]  H. van Vliet,et al.  Top-down composition of software architectures , 2002, Proceedings Ninth Annual IEEE International Conference and Workshop on the Engineering of Computer-Based Systems.

[21]  Jaap Gordijn,et al.  Value based requirements creation for electronic commerce applications , 2000, Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[22]  Daniel Gross,et al.  Architectural Design to Meet Stakeholder Requirements , 1999, WICSA.