A Semi-Automation of a Cost Benefit Analysis Method

Lisa M. Darville, Cui Zhang

Department of Computer Science, California State University Sacramento, Sacramento, USA.
Department of Computer Science, California State University Sacramento, Sacramento, USA..

DOI: 10.4236/jsea.2012.56045                

Abstract

This paper presents CBAM Assistant, a tool that semi-automates the Cost Benefit Analysis Method (CBAM) developed by the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) at Carnegie Mellon University. CBAM is a process used to estimate the Return on Investment (ROI) of various software architectural design strategies. CBAM generally follows the Architectural Trade-off Analysis Method (ATAM) also developed by SEI. ATAM aids in defining scenarios and architectural strategies. The result is a qualitative trade-off analysis of the various strategies. CBAM further refines the scenarios and architectural strategies from ATAM. CBAM aids in quantitative analysis for cost, utility and importance ratings to determine the ROI of each architectural strategy. CBAM Assistant is a web-based system that walks a user through the CBAM process which can be started by using scenarios and architectural strategies created from ATAM. The tool is intended to be used by a facilitator who will provide input from stakeholders. The primary output of the tool is the ROIs of each architectural strategy for comparison and selection.

Keywords

Software Architecture; CBAM; ATAM; Non-Functional Requirements

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	L. Bass, P. Clements and R. Kazman, “Software Architecture in Practice,” Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Company Incorporated, Boston, 2003.
[2]	R. Kazman, J. Asundi and M. H. Klein, “Making Architecture Design Decisions: An Economic Approach,” Technical Report, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, 2002.
[3]	R. Nord, M. R. Barbacci, P. C. Clements, R. Kazman, M. H. Klein, L. O’Brien and J. E. Tomayko, “Integrating the Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method (ATAM) with the Cost Benefit Analysis Method (CBAM),” Technical Report, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, 2003.
[4]	B. Lionberger and C. Zhang, “ATAM Assistant: A Semi-Automated Tool for the Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method,” Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Software Engineering and Applications, Cambridge, 19-21 November 2007, pp. 330-335.
[5]	R. Kazman, L. Bass, M. Webb and G. Abowd, “SAAM: A Method for Analyzing the Properties of Software Architectures,” Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Software Engineering, Sorrento, 16-21 May 1994, pp. 81-90. doi:10.1109/ICSE.1994.296768
[6]	N. Lassing, D. Rijsenbrij and H. Vliet, “On Software Architecture Analysis of Flexibility Complexity of Changes: Size Isn’t Everything,” Proceedings of 2nd Nordic Software Architecture Workshop, Ronneby, 12-13 August 1999, pp. 1103-1581.
[7]	C. H. Lung, S. Bot, K. Kalaichelvan and R. Kazman, “An Approach to Software Architecture Analysis for Evolution and Reusability,” Proceedings of the 1997 Conference of the Centre for Advanced Studies on Collaborative, Toronto, 10-13 November 1997, pp. 144-154.
[8]	P. Bengtsson and J. Bosch, “Scenario-Based Architecture Reengineering,” Proceedings 5th International Conference on Software Reuse, Victoria, 2-5 June 1998, pp. 308-317.
[9]	G. Molter, “Integrating SAAM in Domain-Centric and Reuse-Based Development Processes,” Proceedings of Second Nordic Workshop Software Architecture, Ronneby, 12-13 August 1999, pp. 1103-1581.
[10]	P. Bengtsson and J. Bosch, “Architecture Level Prediction of Software Maintenance,” Proceedings 3rd European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering, Amsterdam, 3-5 March 1999, pp. 139-147.
[11]	J. C. Duenas, W. L. de Oliveira and J. de la Puente, “A Software Architecture Evaluation Model,” Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1429, 1998, pp. 148-157. doi:10.1007/3-540-68383-6_22
[12]	L. Dobrica and E. Niemela, “A Survey on Software Architecture Analysis Methods,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. 28, No. 7, 2002, pp. 638-653. doi:10.1109/TSE.2002.1019479
[13]	http://npoi.codeplex.com/