The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Decoupling level: a new metric for architectural maintenance complexity
Open accessAbstract
Despite decades of research on software metrics, we still cannot reliably measure if one design is more maintainable than another. Software managers and architects need to understand whether their software architecture is "good enough", whether it is decaying over time and, if so, by how much. In this paper, we contribute a new architecture maintainability metric---Decoupling Level (DL)---derived from Baldwin and Clark's option theory. Instead of measuring how coupled an architecture is, we measure how well the software can be decoupled into small and independently replaceable modules. We measured the DL for 108 open source projects and 21 industrial projects, each of which has multiple releases. Our main result shows that the larger the DL, the better the architecture. By "better" we mean: the more likely bugs and changes can be localized and separated, and the more likely that developers can make changes independently. The DL metric also opens the possibility of quantifying canonical principles of single responsibility and separation of concerns, aiding cross-project comparison and architecture decay monitoring.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Literature has proposed various metrics to measure software architecture quality, including coupling and cohesion.
“Literature has proposed various metrics to measure the quality of software architectures, including coupling [67] and cohesion [77].”
From Software Architecture in Practice: Challenges and Opportunities (2023) · cites this paper as [67]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 39
- 10.5555/555152 · DOI
- 10.1007/s11219-011-9140-0 · DOI
- 10.1109/ICSM.2011.6080827 · DOI
- 10.1109/ICSME.2014.43 · DOI
- 10.1109/ASE.2006.53 · DOI
- 10.1145/2465478.2465480 · DOI
- 10.1109/TSE.2009.42 · DOI
- 10.1109/32.295895 · DOI
- F. B. e Abreu. The mood metrics set. In Proc. ECOOP'95 Workshop on Metrics, 1995.
- 10.5555/850947.853338 · DOI
- 10.5555/186897 · DOI
- 10.1080/09658210344000530 · DOI
- 10.1109/32.859533 · DOI
- 10.5555/540137 · DOI
- 10.1023/A:1009784121652 · DOI
- 10.1109/QUATIC.2007.7 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1469-8137.1912.tb05611.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.5555/2819009.2819037 · DOI
- 10.1016/0164-1212(93)90077-B · DOI
- Y. Lin, X. Peng, Y. Cai, D. Dig, D. Zheng, and W. Zhao. Refactoring navigator: Interactive and guided refactoring with search-based recommendation. In Submission, 2015.
- 10.5555/177063 · DOI
- 10.1287/mnsc.1060.0552 · DOI
- 10.1109/TSE.1976.233837 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/s11219-005-1754-7 · DOI
- 10.1109/WICSA.2015.12 · DOI
- 10.1145/1134285.1134349 · DOI
- 10.1109/ICSM.1992.242525 · DOI
- 10.1016/0164-1212(94)90067-1 · DOI
- 10.1109/TSE.2005.49 · DOI
- 10.5555/2486788.2486910 · DOI
- 10.1109/WICSA.2009.5290817 · DOI
- 10.1145/503271.503224 · DOI
- 10.1145/503209.503224 · DOI
- 10.1109/ASE.2011.6100072 · DOI
- 10.1002/smr.345 · DOI
- 10.1109/ASE.2009.53 · DOI
- 10.1145/2568225.2568241 · DOI
- 10.1145/2635868.2661677 · DOI
- 10.1049/iet-sen.2008.0084 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Software Architecture in Practice: Challenges and Opportunities
Wan, Z., Zhang, Y., Xia, X., Jiang, Y., & Lo, D. (2023) · Proceedings of the 31st ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/3611643.3616367 · Cited by 30
Metadata
- Authors
- Mo, R., Cai, Y., Kazman, R., Xiao, L., & Feng, Q.
- Affiliations
- Drexel University (US)
- University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2016-05-14
- Pages
- 499-510
- ISSN
- 0270-5257 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2392975828
- Cited by
- 80
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 3
- FWCI
- 8.77
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings (ICSE-Companion) (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (CCF-1065189,CCF-1514315,CCF-1514561)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Advanced Software Engineering Methodologies
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Software System Performance and Reliability
- Keywords
- software metrics, option theory, modular software design, separation of concerns, bug localization, open source software
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review