Tradeoff and Sensitivity Analysis in Software Architecture Evaluation Using Analytic Hierarchy Process

被引:0
作者
Liming Zhu
Aybüke Aurum
Ian Gorton
Ross Jeffery
机构
[1] University of New South Wales,School of Computer Science and Engineering
[2] National ICT Australia,Empirical Software Engineering
[3] University of New South Wales,School of Information Systems, Technology and Management
来源
Software Quality Journal | 2005年 / 13卷
关键词
software architecture; architecture evaluation; analytic hierarchy process; trade-off; sensitivity analysis; decision making; multi-criteria decision making; non functional requirements; quality attributes;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Software architecture evaluation involves evaluating different architecture design alternatives against multiple quality-attributes. These attributes typically have intrinsic conflicts and must be considered simultaneously in order to reach a final design decision. AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process), an important decision making technique, has been leveraged to resolve such conflicts. AHP can help provide an overall ranking of design alternatives. However it lacks the capability to explicitly identify the exact tradeoffs being made and the relative size of these tradeoffs. Moreover, the ranking produced can be sensitive such that the smallest change in intermediate priority weights can alter the final order of design alternatives. In this paper, we propose several in-depth analysis techniques applicable to AHP to identify critical tradeoffs and sensitive points in the decision process. We apply our method to an example of a real-world distributed architecture presented in the literature. The results are promising in that they make important decision consequences explicit in terms of key design tradeoffs and the architecture's capability to handle future quality attribute changes. These expose critical decisions which are otherwise too subtle to be detected in standard AHP results.
引用
收藏
页码:357 / 375
页数:18
相关论文
共 26 条
  • [1] Aurum A.(2003)The fundamental nature of requirements engineering activities as a decision-making process Information and Software Technology 45 945-954
  • [2] Wohlin C.(2004)Architecture-level modifiability analysis (ALMA) Journal of Systems and Software 69 129-147
  • [3] Bengtsson P.(1996)A note on a method to ensure rank-order consistency in the analytic hierarchy process International Transactions in Operational Research 3 99-103
  • [4] Lassing N.(2004)Formal reasoning techniques for goal models Journal on Data Semantics 1 1-20
  • [5] Bosch J.(2001)From non-functional requirements to design through patterns Requirement Engineering 6 18-36
  • [6] Vliet H.v.(1998)An evaluation of methods for prioritizing software requirements Information and Software Technology 39 938-947
  • [7] Finan J.S.(1959)The science of muddling through Public Administrative Review 19 79-88
  • [8] Hurley W.J.(2003)A quality-driven decision-support method for identifying software architecture candidates International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering 13 547-573
  • [9] Giorgini P.(1997)Determining the most important criteria in maintenance decision making Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering 3 16-28
  • [10] Mylopoulos J.(undefined)undefined undefined undefined undefined-undefined