Comparing, Reviewing and Analyzing a Detailed System Architecture Using ATAM (Research Paper Sample)

Running Head: COMPARING, REVIEWING AND ANALYZING A DETAILED SYSTEM
ARCHITECTURE USING ATAM.
Comparing, Reviewing and Analyzing a Detailed System Architecture Using ATAM.
Name
Institution
Table of Contents
TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u Comparing, reviewing and analyzing a detailed system architecture using ATAM. PAGEREF _Toc383115735 \h 2
AN INTRODUCTION TO ARCHITECTURAL TRADEOFF ANALYSIS MODEL (ATAM) PAGEREF _Toc383115736 \h 2
Understanding the Architectural Tradeoff Analysis Model (ATAM) PAGEREF _Toc383115737 \h 4
How to enrich the Architectural Tradeoff Analysis Model (ATAM) PAGEREF _Toc383115738 \h 5
Participants in ATAM PAGEREF _Toc383115739 \h 7
Steps in Architectural Tradeoff Analysis Model (ATAM) PAGEREF _Toc383115740 \h 7
Conclusion PAGEREF _Toc383115741 \h 15
References PAGEREF _Toc383115742 \h 17
Comparing, reviewing and analyzing a detailed system architecture using ATAM.
The software development process is such that the demand for a disciplined approach is inevitable. As far as the resources available is concerned, a product can only be successfully developed if it is within the resource bracket and capable of meeting the requirements as defined within its scope. This demand calls for measures that should be in place in order to make the process assessable and the benefits from such an exercise can be used to improve the development. Within the architectural framework all this becomes a very significant consideration and a number of ways in which this can be done can be explored. In this project we shall focus on two of such methods namely the cost benefit analysis model (CBAM) and the architectural tradeoff analysis model (ATAM). These two methods will be demonstrated herein with a focus on a detailed system architecture in order to highlight there specific areas of application and their associated benefits.
AN INTRODUCTION TO ARCHITECTURAL TRADEOFF ANALYSIS MODEL (ATAM)
During the software development process a number of considerations are of great importance. First of all the software architecture design and evaluation are closely linked. Therefore the software architecture should be such as to reflect the goals of the business for which it is intended. It is also important that the architecture fulfills the quality attributes like usability, modifiability, security and performance. Certainly some of these attributes can be evaluated and it is important that they be evaluated in order to correctly gauge the quality of a particular software product. Most of the evaluation methods available help us to assess how well the quality attributes have been represented within the designed architecture. Basing on this understanding, two of the most commonly used architecture evaluation methods are the cost benefit analysis model (CBAM) and the architectural tradeoff analysis model (ATAM). Basically the ATAM will enable system architects to identify the items that they can tradeoff basing on the quality attributes. Furthermore by using the ATAM the architects can identify the risks which are a fundamental part of an effective software development process. The CBAM enables the architects to identify and use architectural strategies that will result in the product that is economically viable arrived at by using specific economic tradeoffs that can be calculated. The benefit envisaged through such strategies introduces an aspect of utility of the software product that comes from the architectural process. Therefore by combining the ATAM and CBAM in analyzing system architecture the product owners and users are likely to benefit immensely apart from realizing cost saving benefits. It must be realized that software development can be a complex exercise that demands a disciplined approach.
Before looking at the application of ATAM and CBAM within a system architecture context, it suffices to mention a number of things that relate to system architecture. Accordingly this development process commonly termed architecture centric is an iterative process that focuses on creating a business case for the system (Bass, Clements & Kazman, 2012). This process will be accomplished iteratively. The other iterative accomplishments that fall under the architecture centric development include an understanding of the requirements, an analysis of the software architecture, a documentation and communication of the architecture, an implementation of the system based on the architecture and ensuring that the implementation is conforming to the software architecture. Architectural tradeoff analysis model (ATAM) more specifically provides a framework that will be used by the software architects to identify the possible tradeoffs from a technical point of view. However if it is intended that this evaluation also projects an economic point of view, it becomes important that the ATAM evaluation also combine with the CBAM to be able to give an economic perspective to the whole evaluation process.
More typically Asundi & Klein (2013) assert that the cost benefit analysis model (CBAM) will therefore help the architects to identify and assess the return on investment for any architectural decision that they make and also give practical guidance on the possible tradeoffs that are economic or project based. Hence when an architectural tradeoff analysis model (ATAM) based evaluation is completed the evaluation team will report the risks that were identified to the various stakeholders. This information is important for the stakeholders who can focus on alternatives based on the risk factor. However this cannot just be successfully done in isolation which makes it important for these stakeholders to also associate the costs and benefits with the identified alternatives so that the identified risks can be effectively mitigated. Therefore it can be seen that CBAM is designed to complement ATAM when it comes to projecting the costs and benefits of the alternatives that the stakeholders settle for after the ATAM based evaluation identifies the risks. Hence the resultant link between ATAM and CBAM is such that the two are able to establish a value chain that consists of business goals, architectural decisions, scenarios and quality attributes.
Understanding the Architectural Tradeoff Analysis Model (ATAM)
According to Bachmann (2011) the Architectural Tradeoff Analysis Model (ATAM) is a very important approach to helping stakeholders to understand the consequences that relate to certain architectural decisions. Note that a software product needs to posses certain mandatory attribute more specifically relating to its quality and this will also impact on the way such a product is able to fulfill the business goals. Therefore during the adoption of the ATAM based evaluation the process itself demands an input of a number of factors. These include business drivers, and the architectural documentation. These inputs are subject to a detailed analysis by the evaluation team, architecture stakeholders and all those whose input is critical to the success of the project. The ATAM inputs can be presented in a format that can be understood by the various participants. The role or the evaluation team is to make such documentation as legible as possible so that based on that the eventual output from the modeling can in the same manner be legible to all the stakeholders. In order to understand the ATAM evaluation process more clearly we can assume that a business is in the process of developing or evolving a new system where the latter may already be in the field. If the latter is the case we assume that the architectural documentation is already available since the architects are responsible for carrying out such documentation. However the business requires help in order to understand the possible tradeoffs that can be made during the decision making process that specifically focuses on the design. However these tradeoffs involve some economical value and this is associated to certain benefits. This in essence implies that the architectural tradeoff analysis model (ATAM) process will be followed by a CBAM in order to assign some cost benefit valuation on the tradeoffs. This is important because some of the stakeholders are probably the financiers of the project and to them an evaluation that focuses on cost and the benefits is more understandable than one involving the architectural elements of the system.
How to enrich the Architectural Tradeoff Analysis Model (ATAM)
Since it is important to make a thorough evaluation of system architecture in order to enhance the quality of the product, it is important to include a number of enhancements to the architectural tradeoff analysis model (ATAM) in order to ensure its effectiveness. According to Avgeriou, Stal, & Hilliard (2013) the enhancements can be applied at each step of the ATAM process" in order to add value to the evaluation. At the point of input we present the architecture and the business drivers. Typically at this point a number of enhancements can also apply. Such would be like adding information that will cater for multiple response measures relating to scenarios and tactics necessary to attaining the desired quality. The additional information may also be based on the rationale barriers, enablers and cost constraints among other things. Other information is like the architecture related elements including the properties and relations. Eventually the process of identifying the various architectural processes can follow. At this time the evaluation can be further enriched by cross reference approaches and additional architectural information that is relevant at this stage.
Following the identification of architectural approaches comes the analysis of the architectural approaches. At this point scenario refinement can be initiated by eliciting the best and worst case response measures. It is imperative at this point to methodicall...