Evaluating Technical Debt in Cloud-Based Architectures Using Real Options

A Cloud-based Service-Oriented Architecture (CBSOA) is typically composed of web services, which are offered off the cloud marketplace. CB-SOA can improve its utility and add value to its composition by switching among its constituent services. We look at the option to defer the decision of substitution under uncertainty. We exploit Binomial Options to the formulation. We quantify the time-value of the architecture decisions of switching web services and technical debt they can imply on the structure. As CB-SOA are market-sensitive, dynamic and "volatile", the decision of deferral tends to be sensitive to these dynamics. Henceforth, the structural complexity of a CB-SOAcan change over time and so the technical debt as its constituent web services are modified, replaced, upgraded, etc. The method builds on Design Structure Matrix (DSM) and introduces time and complexity aware propagation cost metrics to assess the value of deferral decisions relative to changes in the structure. Architects of CB-SOA can use our method to assess the time value of deferring the decisions to switch web services relative to complexity, technical debt and value creation. We demonstrate the applicability of the method using an illustrative example.

[1]  Robert L. Nord,et al.  Enabling Agility Through Architecture , 2010 .

[2]  Rick Kazman,et al.  A cost-benefit framework for making architectural decisions in a business context , 2010, 2010 ACM/IEEE 32nd International Conference on Software Engineering.

[3]  Hakan Erdogmus,et al.  Keep Your Options Open: Extreme Programming and the Economics of Flexibility , 2002 .

[4]  R. Voeks.  Real Options: Managerial Flexibility and Strategy in Resource Allocation , 1997 .

[5]  Marcelo R. Campo,et al.  Easy web service discovery: A query-by-example approach , 2008, Sci. Comput. Program..

[6]  J. Hull.  Options, Futures, and Other Derivatives , 1989 .

[7]  John M. Favaro,et al.  Value based software reuse investment , 1998, Ann. Softw. Eng..

[8]  Barry Boehm,et al.  Software economics: a roadmap , 2000, ICSE '00.

[9]  William G. Griswold,et al.  The structure and value of modularity in software design , 2001, ESEC/FSE-9.

[10]  Nicole Propst.  Real Options Managing Strategic Investment In An Uncertain World , 2016 .

[11]  Anne H. H. Ngu,et al.  QoS-aware middleware for Web services composition , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[12]  Forrest Shull,et al.  Perfectionists in a World of Finite Resources , 2011, IEEE Softw..

[13]  Shehnila Zardari,et al.  Cloud adoption: a goal-oriented requirements engineering approach , 2011, SECLOUD '11.

[14]  Simon Shiu,et al.  Migration to Cloud as Real Option: Investment Decision under Uncertainty , 2011, 2011IEEE 10th International Conference on Trust, Security and Privacy in Computing and Communications.

[15]  R. Kazman,et al.  Quality-Attribute Based Economic Valuation of Architectural Patterns , 2007, 2007 First International Workshop on the Economics of Software and Computation.

[16]  Alan MacCormack,et al.  Exploring the Duality between Product and Organizational Architectures: A Test of the Mirroring Hypothesis , 2011 .

[17]  Rami Bahsoon,et al.  CloudMTD: Using real options to manage technical debt in cloud-based service selection , 2013, 2013 4th International Workshop on Managing Technical Debt (MTD).

[18]  Robert L. Nord,et al.  Managing technical debt in software-reliant systems , 2010, FoSER '10.

[19]  Yuanfang Cai,et al.  Using technical debt data in decision making: Potential decision approaches , 2012, 2012 Third International Workshop on Managing Technical Debt (MTD).

[20]  Rami Bahsoon,et al.  A decentralized self-adaptation mechanism for service-based applications in the cloud , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[21]  Rajkumar Buyya,et al.  Article in Press Future Generation Computer Systems ( ) – Future Generation Computer Systems Cloud Computing and Emerging It Platforms: Vision, Hype, and Reality for Delivering Computing as the 5th Utility , 2022 .

[22]  Rami Bahsoon,et al.  Using real options to select stable middleware-induced software architectures , 2005, IEE Proc. Softw..

[23]  Hakan Erdogmus,et al.  Quantitative approaches for assessing the value of COTS-centric development , 1999, Proceedings Sixth International Software Metrics Symposium (Cat. No.PR00403).

[24]  Vasant Honavar,et al.  Web Service Substitution Based on Preferences Over Non-functional Attributes , 2009, 2009 IEEE International Conference on Services Computing.

[25]  Ward Cunningham,et al.  The WyCash portfolio management system , 1992, OOPSLA '92.

[26]  Kevin J. Sullivan.  Software design: the options approach , 1996, ISAW '96.

[27]  Robert L. Nord,et al.  In Search of a Metric for Managing Architectural Technical Debt , 2012, 2012 Joint Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture and European Conference on Software Architecture.

[28]  Vasant Honavar,et al.  On Context-Specific Substitutability of Web Services , 2007, IEEE International Conference on Web Services (ICWS 2007).

[29]  S. Ross,et al.  Option pricing: A simplified approach☆ , 1979 .

[30]  Robert L. Nord,et al.  Analysis and Management of Architectural Dependencies in Iterative Release Planning , 2011, 2011 Ninth Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture.

[31]  Somesh Jha,et al.  Software Design as an Investment Activity: A Real Options Perspective , 1998 .

[32]  Kim B. Clark,et al.  Design Rules: The Power of Modularity Volume 1 , 1999 .

[33]  Rajkumar Buyya,et al.  Pricing Cloud Compute Commodities: A Novel Financial Economic Model , 2012, 2012 12th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Cluster, Cloud and Grid Computing (ccgrid 2012).

[34]  Yanchun Zhang,et al.  Web Services Discovery Based on Latent Semantic Approach , 2008, 2008 IEEE International Conference on Web Services.

[35]  Mark Klein,et al.  Quantifying the costs and benefits of architectural decisions , 2001, Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering. ICSE 2001.

[36]  Jonathan P. Bowen,et al.  Formal Versus Agile: Survival of the Fittest , 2009, Computer.