A Hybrid Software Architecture Evaluation Method for Dynamic System Development Method

R. Awan, S. S. Muhammad, M. A. Fahiem, S. Awan


Quality is an important paradigm while delivering software. Past traditional models have many problems. Agile process models overcome these problems, but these models are facing many challenges. The main challenge is the absence of proper Software Architecture Evaluation Method (SAEM) for agile models. It is essential to improve quality of agile models because these methods are lacking quality requirement, well defined software architecture and verified design. Without proper evaluation, these models suffer from severe quality and maintenance issues. Architecture evaluation is known as a standard to evaluate the quality of product. This study focuses on the development of a hybrid SAEM for agile process model. Dynamic System Development Method (DSDM) is a framework of agile methodology. This framework delivers a quality product in a short time. It is very important to improve quality of DSDM phases. Pre-project, project life-cycle and post-project are the phases of DSDM. It is required to apply a hybrid SAEM in phases of DSDM. By applying a hybrid SAEM on DSDM, the quality of DSDM phases may be improved. This improvement may be in term of quality attributes which are well defined in early life cycle. Furthermore, the quality attribute requirements are best satisfied due to well-formed software architecture design. A survey has been conducted in the software industry to validate this model.

Full Text:



L. Williams, A survey of agile development methodologies, NC State University, North Carolina, United State, pp: 209-227, 2007. [2] A. Bagel and N. Nagappan, Usage and perceptions of agile software development in an industrial context: An exploratory study, Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement: Proc. of the First Int. Symp. on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, ESEM 2007 WA, USA, Madrid: IEEE, pp. 255-264, 20-21 Sept., 2007, Available: IEEE Xplore, http://www.ieee.org.

B. Boehm, A survey of agile development methodologies, NC State University.2007 (North Carolina, USA), pp. 209-227.

F. Martensson, Software architecture quality evaluation- approaches in an industrial context, Blekinge Institute of Technology. (Karlskrona, Sweden). ISSN: 1650- 2140, 2006.

K. N. Rao, , G. K. Naidu and P. Chakka, A Study of the agile software development methods, applicability and implications in industry, International Journal of Software Engineering and Its Applications, ISSN: 1738-9984 (Tasmania, Australia), vol. 5, no. 26, pp. 35-45, 2011 [6] M. Cristal, D. Wildt and R. Prikladnicki, Usage of scrum practices within a global company, Proc. of Int. Conf. on Global Software Engg., ICGSE 2008, pp. 222-226, 17-20 Aug. 2008, Bangalore, India,. Available: IEEE Xplore, http://www.ieee.org.

V. E. Jyothi and K. N. Rao, Effective Implementation of Agile Practices Ingenious and Organized Theoretical Framework, International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, vol. 2, no. 3, pp: 41-48, March 2011. [8] P.O. Bengtsson and J. Bosch, Scenario-based software architecture re-engineering, Proc. of 5th Int. Conf. on Software Reuse, BC. Victoria, IEEE, pp. 308-317, 2-5 June 1998, available: IEEE Xplore, http://www.ieee.org. [9] Buchgeher, G. and R. Weinreich. An approach for combining model-based and scenario-based software architecture analysis, Proc. of 5th Int. Conf. on Software Engineering Advances (ICSEA10). (Nice, France). pp. 141-148. ISBN: 978-1-4244-7788-3. 2010. [10] P. Clements, R. Kazman and M. Klein, Evaluating software architectures: methods and case studies, Boston: London, Reading: Addison-Wesley, 1st Edition, 2001.

G. Abowd, L. Bass, P. Clements, R. Kazman, L. Northrop and A. Zaremski, Recommended best industrial practice for software architecture evaluation, Soft Eng. Inst., Carnegie Mellon Univ., PA, USA, Tech. Rep. CMU/SEI-96-TR-025, pp. 1-33, Jan 1997. [12] O. Sohaib and K. Khan, The Role of software quality in agile software development methodlogies, Technical Forces, Journal of Engg. and Sci., Karachi, Pakistan, pp. 20-25, 2010. [13] M. Fontoura, P. Wolfgang, and B. Rumpe, UML-F: A modeling language for object-oriented frameworks, Proc. of the 14th Europ. Conf. on Object-Oriented Programming, ECOOP 2000, London, UK, Verlag: Springer, pp. 63-82, 2000.

F. Kanwal, K. Junaid and M. A. Fahiem, A hybrid software architecture evaluation method for FDD An agile process model, Proc. of Int. Conf. on Computational Intelligence and Software Engg., CiSE 2010, Wuhan, China, pp. 1-5, 10-12 Dec., 2010.

R. Kazman, M. Barbacci, M. Klein, S. J. Carriere and S. G. Woods, Experience with performing architecture tradeoff analysis, Proc. of the 21st Int. Conf. on Software Engg., ICSE 1999, CA, USA, 16-22 May, 1999, pp. 54-64. [16] M. N .Aydin, F. Harmsen, K. V. Slooten and R. A. Stagwee, An agile information systems development method in use, Turk J. Elec. Engg., Ankara, Turkey, vol. 12, pp.127-138, 2004. [17] P. Abrahamsson, J. Warsta, M. T. Siponen and J. Ronkainen, New directions on agile methods: A comparative analysis, Proc. of 25th Int. Conf. On Software Engineering, IEEE 2003, CA, USA, pp. 244-254, May 3-5, 2003.

S. Coyle and K. Conboy, A case study for risk management in Agile Systems Development, Information Systems: Proc. of 17th Europ. Conf. on Inf. Systems, Verona, Italy, May 8, 2009, S. Newell, EA. Whitley, N. Pouloudi, J. Wareham, L. Mathiassen, eds, pp. 2567-257, 2009.

N. Lassing, D. Rijsenbrij and H. V. Vliet,. The goal of software architecture analysis: confidence building or risk assessment, Proc. of 1st BeNeLux Conf. on Software Architecture. (Amsterdam, Netherlands), pp. 47-57, 1999a.

Shaw, M. Comparing architectural design styles. IEEE Software. (CA, USA).vol. 12, no 6, pp: 27-41. ISSN: 0740-7459.1995. [21] S. Nerur, R. Mahapatra and G. Mangalaraj, Challenges of migrating to agile methodologies, Communications of the ACM (NY, USA), vol. 48, no. 5, pp. 72-78, 2005.


  • There are currently no refbacks.