The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Experiences in assessing product family software architecture for evolution
Abstract
Software architecture assessments are a means to detect architectural problems before the bulk of development work is done. They facilitate planning of improvement activities early in the lifecycle and allow limiting the changes on any existing software. This is particularly beneficial when the architecture has been planned to (or already does) support a whole product family, or a set of products that share common requirements, architecture, components or code. As the family requirements evolve and new products are added, the need to assess the evolvability of the existing architecture is vital. I illustrate two assessment case studies I have recently worked on in the mobile telephone software domain: the Symbian operating system platform and the network resource access control software system. The former assessment has been carried out as a task within the European project ESAPS, while the latter has been performed solely by Nokia. By means of simple experimental data, I show evidence of the usefulness of architectural assessment as rated by the participating stakeholders. Both assessments have led to the identification of previously unknown architectural defects, and to the consequent planning of improvement initiatives. In both cases, stakeholders noted that a number of side benefits, including improvement of communication and architectural documentation, were also of considerable importance. I illustrate the lessons we have learned, and outline suggestions for future research and experimentation.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Inadequate tool support for sharing, version control, and tracing of scattered design documentation ( filetext , cogs ).”
From Software Architecture in Practice: Challenges and Opportunities (2023) · cites this paper as [55]
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A systematic review of software architecture evolution research
Breivold, H. P., Crnković, I., & Larsson, M. (2011) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2011.06.002 · Cited by 155
Experiences with software product family evolution
de la Riva, C., & Rosso, C. D. (2004) · International Workshop on Principles of Software Evolution · doi:10.1109/iwpse.2003.1231223 · Cited by 61
A holistic architecture assessment method for software product lines
Olumofin, F. G., & Mišić, V. B. (2007) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2006.05.003 · Cited by 40
Variability assessment in software product families
Deelstra, S., Sinnema, M., & Bosch, J. (2008) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2008.04.002 · Cited by 37
Evolutionary architecting of embedded automotive product lines: An industrial case study
Axelsson, J. (2009) · Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture (WICSA) · doi:10.1109/wicsa.2009.5290796 · Cited by 34
Metadata
- Authors
- Maccari, A.
- Affiliations
- Nokia (Finland) (FI)
- Corresponding author
- Maccari, Alessandro
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 24th international conference on Software engineering - ICSE '02
- Publisher
- ACM Press
- Published
- 2002
- Pages
- 585
- ISSN
- 0270-5257 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4245697556
- Cited by
- 20
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2023: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2012: 1
- Type
- conference abstract
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings (ICSE-Companion) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Advanced Software Engineering Methodologies
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › Product Development and Customization
- Keywords
- software architecture evaluation, software evolvability, stakeholder evaluation
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
