Applying the ATAM to an Architecture for Decentralized Control of a Transportation System

For two years, we have been involved in a challenging project to develop a new architecture for an industrial transportation system. The motivating quality attributes to develop this innovative architecture were flexibility and openness. Taking these quality attributes into account, we proposed a decentralized architecture using multiagent systems (MASs). A MAS consists of multiple autonomous entities that coordinate with each other to achieve decentralized control. The typical advantages attributed to such decentralized architecture are flexibility and openness, the motivating quality attributes to apply MAS in this case. The Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method (ATAM) was used to provide insights wether our architecture meets the expected flexibility and openness, and to identify tradeoffs with other quality attributes. Applying the ATAM proved to be a valuable experience. One of the main outcome of applying the ATAM was the identification of a tradeoff between flexibility and communication load that results from the use of a decentralized architecture. This paper describes our experiences in applying the ATAM to a MAS architecture, containing both the main outcomes of the evaluation and a critical reflection on the ATAM itself.

[1]  Jo Wyns,et al.  Reference architecture for holonic manufacturing systems, the key to support evolution and reconfiguration , 1999 .

[2]  Danny Weyns,et al.  Gradient field-based task assignment in an AGV transportation system , 2006, AAMAS '06.

[3]  Danny Weyns,et al.  Decentralized allocation of tasks with delayed commencement , 2004 .

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

[5]  Jacques Ferber,et al.  Environments for Multiagent Systems State-of-the-Art and Research Challenges , 2004, E4MAS.

[6]  Danny Weyns,et al.  Protocol-based communication for situated multi-agent systems , 2004, Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 2004. AAMAS 2004..

[7]  Franco Zambonelli,et al.  Developing multiagent systems: The Gaia methodology , 2003, TSEM.

[8]  Liming Zhu,et al.  A framework for classifying and comparing software architecture evaluation methods , 2004, 2004 Australian Software Engineering Conference. Proceedings..

[9]  Andrea Omicini,et al.  SODA: Societies and Infrastructures in the Analysis and Design of Agent-Based Systems , 2000, AOSE.

[10]  Yael Edan,et al.  Navigation of decentralized autonomous automatic guided vehicles in material handling , 2003, IEEE Trans. Robotics Autom..

[11]  J. K. Rosenblatt,et al.  A fine-grained alternative to the subsumption architecture for mobile robot control , 1989, International 1989 Joint Conference on Neural Networks.

[12]  R. A. Brooks,et al.  Intelligence without Representation , 1991, Artif. Intell..

[13]  Rick Kazman,et al.  Evaluating Software Architectures: Methods and Case Studies , 2001 .

[14]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  Introduction to multiagent systems , 2001 .

[15]  Danny Weyns,et al.  Middleware for protocol-based coordination in dynamic networks , 2005, MPAC '05.

[16]  Onn Shehory,et al.  Architectural Properties of Multi-Agent Systems , 1999 .

[17]  Antonio Bicchi,et al.  Decentralized Cooperative Conflict Resolution for Multiple Nonholonomic Vehicles , 2005 .

[18]  Fabien Michel,et al.  Environments for Multi-Agent Systems III , 2008 .

[19]  Danny Weyns,et al.  Applying the architecture tradeoff analysis method (ATAM) to an industrial multi-agent system application , 2005 .

[20]  Danny Weyns,et al.  Decentralized control of E'GV transportation systems , 2005, AAMAS '05.

[21]  Reid G. Smith,et al.  The Contract Net Protocol: High-Level Communication and Control in a Distributed Problem Solver , 1980, IEEE Transactions on Computers.

[22]  Toby Tyrrell,et al.  Computational mechanisms for action selection , 1993 .

[23]  Jacques Ferber,et al.  Multi-agent systems - an introduction to distributed artificial intelligence , 1999 .

[24]  Eila Niemelä,et al.  A Survey on Software Architecture Analysis Methods , 2002, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[25]  Lawrence Ong,et al.  An Investigation of an Agent-Based Scheduling in Decentralised Manufacturing Control , 2003 .

[26]  Nicholas R. Jennings.  Agent-Oriented Software Engineering , 1999, MAAMAW.

[27]  Tom Holvoet,et al.  Coordination middleware for decentralized applications in dynamic networks , 2005, DSM '05.

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

[29]  Vojislav B. Misic,et al.  Extending the ATAM Architecture Evaluation to Product Line Architectures , 2005, 5th Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture (WICSA'05).

[30]  Mario R. Barbacci,et al.  Architectural Evaluation of Collaborative Agent-Based Systems , 1999 .

[31]  Paulo S. C. Alencar,et al.  Software Engineering for Multi-Agent Systems II , 2004 .

[32]  Barbara Messing,et al.  An Introduction to MultiAgent Systems , 2002, Künstliche Intell..

[33]  Jan Bosch,et al.  Experiences with ALMA: Architecture-Level Modifiability Analysis , 2002, J. Syst. Softw..

[34]  Luc Bongaerts,et al.  Reference architecture for holonic manufacturing systems: PROSA , 1998 .

[35]  Carlos José Pereira de Lucena,et al.  Aspectizing Multi-agent Systems: From Architecture to Implementation , 2004, SELMAS.

[36]  Danny Weyns,et al.  A Reference Architecture for Situated Multiagent Systems , 2006, E4MAS.

[37]  David Garlan,et al.  Documenting software architectures: views and beyond , 2002, 25th International Conference on Software Engineering, 2003. Proceedings..