Classifying and Evaluating Architecture Design Methods

  • Bedir Tekinerdoğan
  • Mehmet Akşit
Part of the The Springer International Series in Engineering and Computer Science book series (SECS, volume 648)


The concept of software architecture has gained a wide popularity and is generally considered to play a fundamental role in coping with the inherent difficulties of the development of large-scale and complex software systems. This chapter provides a classification and evaluation of existing software architecture design methods. For this, contemporary definitions on software architectures are analyzed and a general definition of software architecture is introduced. Further, a meta-model for architecture design methods is presented, which is used as a basis for comparing various architecture design approaches. The problems of each architecture design method are described and the corresponding conclusions are given.


Software architecture classification of architecture design methods problems in designing architectures 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    G. Abowd, L. Bass, R. Kazman and M. Webb. SAAM: A Method for Analyzing the Properties of Software Architectures. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Software Engineering, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 81–90, May, 1994.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. Akşit and L. Bergmans. Obstacles in Object-Oriented Software Development. In Proceedings OOPSLA 92, ACM SIGPPLAN Notices, Vol. 27, No. 10, pp. 341–358, October 1992.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    G. Arrango. Domain Analysis Methods. In: Software Reusability, Schäfer, R. Prieto-Díaz, and M. Matsumoto (Eds.), Ellis Horwood, New York, New York, pp. 17–49, 1994.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    L. Bass, P. Clements, S. Cohen, L. Northrop, and J. Withey. Product Line Practice Workshop Report, Pittsburgh, PA: Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, 1997.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    L. Bass, P. Clements, G. Chastek, S. Cohen, L. Northrop and J. Withey. 2nd Product Line Practice Workshop Report, Pittsburgh, PA: Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, 1997.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    L. Bass, P. Clements and R. Kazman. Software Architecture in Practice, Addison-Wesley 1998.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    P.A. Bernstein and E. Newcomer. Principles of Transaction Processing, Morgan Kaufman Publishers, 1997.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    G. Booch. Object-Oriented Design with Applications, The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Inc, 1991.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    P. Clements. A Survey of Architectural Description Languages. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Software Specification and Design, Paderborn, Germany, March, 1996.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    P. Clements and L.M. Northrop. Software Architecture: An Executive Overview, Technical Report, CMU/SEI-96-TR-003, Carnegie Mellon University, 1996.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    P. Clements, D. Parnas and D. Weiss. The Modular Structure of Complex Systems. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 259–266, 1985.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    K. Czarnecki & U.W. Eisenecker. Generative Programming: Methods, Tools, and Applications. Addison-Wesley, 2000.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    C.J. Date. An Introduction to Database Systems, Vol. 3, Addison Wesley, 1990.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    E.W. Dijkstra. The Structure of the ‘T.H.E.’ Mulitprogramming System. Communications of the ACM, Vol. 18, No. 8, pp. 453–457, 1968.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    A.K. Elmagarmid (ed.) Transaction Management in Database Systems, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 1991.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    D. Garlan and M. Shaw. An Introduction to Software Architecture. Advances in: Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering. Vol 1. River Edge, NJ: World Scientific Publishing Company, 1993.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    D. Garlan, R. Allen and J. Ockerbloom. Architectural Mismatch: Why Its Hard to Build Systems Out of Existing Parts. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Software Engineering. Seattle, WA, April 23–30, 1995. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 170–185, 1995.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    H. Gomaa. An Object-Oriented Domain Analysis and Modeling Method for Software Reuse. In: Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii, January, 1992.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    F. Hayes-Roth. Architecture-Based Acquisition and Development of Software: Guidelines and Recommendations from the ARPA Domain-Specific Software Architecture (DSSA) Program. Version 1.01, Technical Report, Teknowledge Federal Systems, 1994.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    R.W. Howard. Concepts and Schemata: An Introduction, Cassel Education, 1987.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    I. Jacobson, G. Booch, and J. Rumbaugh. The Unified Software Development Process. Addison-Wesley, 1999.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    K. Kang, S. Cohen, J. Hess, W. Nowak and S. Peterson. Feature-Oriented Domain Analysis (FODA) Feasibility Study. Technical Report, CMU/SEI-90-TR-21, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, November 1990.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    G. Lakoff. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind, The University of Chicago Press, 1987.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    D. Parnas. On the Criteria for Decomposing Systems into Modules. Communications of the ACM, Vol. 15, No. 12, pp. 1053–1058, 1972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    D. Parnas. On the Design and Development of Program Families. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering SE-2, 1: 1–9, 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    J. Parsons and Y. Wand. Choosing Classes in Conceptual Modeling, Communications of the ACM, Vol 40. No. 6., pp. 63–69, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    D.E. Perry and A.L. Wolf. Foundations for the Study of Software Architecture. Software Engineering Notes, ACM SIGSOFT 17, No. 4, pp. 40–52, October 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    R. Prieto-Diaz and G. Arrango (Eds.). Domain Analysis and Software Systems Modeling. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, California, 1991.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    J. Rumbaugh, M. Blaha, W. Premerlani, F. Eddy and W. Lorensen. Object-Oriented Modeling and Design, Prentice Hall, 1991.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    M. Shaw and D. Garlan. Software Architectures: Perspectives on an Emerging Discipline, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1996.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    M. Simos, D. Creps, C. Klinger, L. Levine and D. Allemang. Organization Domain Modeling (ODM) Guidebook, Version 2.0. Informal Technical Report for STARS, STARS-VC-A025/001/00, June 14,, 1996.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    E.E. Smith and D.L. Medin. Categories and Concepts, Harvard University Press, London, 1981.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon university, Web-site:, 2000.
  34. 34.
    D. Soni, R. Nord and C. Hofmeister. Software Architecture in Industrial Applications. 196–210. Proceedings of the 17th International ACM Conference on Software Engineering, Seattle, WA, 1995.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    B. Tekinerdoğan. Synthesis-Based Software Architecture Design, PhD Thesis, Dept. Of Computer Science, University of Twente, March 23, 2000.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    W. Tracz. DSSA (Domain-Specific Software Architecture) Pedagogical Example. In: ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, Vol. 20, No. 4, July 1995.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    W. Tracz and L. Coglianese. DSSA Engineering Process Guidelines. Technical Report. ADAGE-IBM-9202, IBM Federal Systems Company, December, 1992.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    E. Yourdon. Modern Structured Analysis. Yourdon Press, 2000.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Webster on-line Dictionary,, 2000.
  40. 40.
    S. Wartik and R. Prieto-Díaz. Criteria for Comparing Domain Analysis Approaches. In: International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 403–431, September 1992.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bedir Tekinerdoğan
    • 1
  • Mehmet Akşit
    • 1
  1. 1.TRESE Group, Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations