Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Published in:
Software Architecture Challenges and Emerging Research in Software-Intensive Systems-of-Systems Read chapter Read first chapter

2016 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

Consistent Inconsistency Management: A Concern-Driven Approach

Authors : Jasper Schenkhuizen, Jan Martijn E. M. van der Werf, Slinger Jansen, Lambert Caljouw

Published in: Software Architecture

Publisher: Springer International Publishing

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

During the development of a software system, architects deal with a large number of stakeholders, each with differing concerns. This inevitably leads to inconsistency: goals, concerns, design decisions, and models are interrelated and overlapping. Existing approaches to support inconsistency management are limited in their applicability and usefulness in day to day practice due to the presence of incomplete, informal and heterogeneous models in software architecture. This paper presents a novel process in the form of a lightweight generic method, the Concern-Driven Inconsistency Management (CDIM) method, that is designed to address limitations of different related approaches. It aims to aid architects with management of intangible inconsistency in software architecture.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
previous chapter Statistical Model Checking of Dynamic Software Architectures
next chapter Formal Verification of Software-Intensive Systems Architectures Described with Piping and Instrumentation Diagrams
Literature
1.
Babar, M.A., Zhu, L., Jeffery, R.: A framework for classifying and comparing software architecture evaluation methods. In: 15th Australian Software Engineering Conference, pp. 309–319. IEEE Computer Society (2004)
2.
Blanc, X., Mounier, I., Mougenot, A., Mens, T.: Detecting model inconsistency through operation-based model construction. In: 30th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 511–520. ACM (2008)
3.
Dashofy, E.M., Taylor, R.N.: Supporting stakeholder-driven, multi-view software architecture modeling. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Irvine (2007)
4.
Easterbrook, S.: Handling conflict between domain descriptions with computer-supported negotiation. Knowl. Acquis. 3(3), 255–289 (1991)CrossRef
5.
Finkelstein, A.: A foolish consistency: technical challenges in consistency management. In: Ibrahim, M., Küng, J., Revell, N. (eds.) DEXA 2000. LNCS, vol. 1873, pp. 1–5. Springer, Heidelberg (2000). doi:10.​1007/​3-540-44469-6_​1 CrossRef
6.
Finkelstein, A., Spanoudakis, G., Till, D.: Managing interference. In: 2nd International Software Architecture Workshop (ISAW-2) and International Workshop on Multiple Perspectives in Software Development, pp. 172–174 (1996)
7.
Ghezzi, C., Nuseibeh, B.: Guest editorial: introduction to the special section - managing inconsistency in software development. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 25(6), 782–783 (1999)CrossRef
8.
Grenning, J.: Planning Poker or How to Avoid Analysis Paralysis While Release Planning, vol. 3. Renaissance Software Consulting, Hawthorn Woods (2002)
9.
Herzig, S.J.I., Paredis, C.J.J.: A conceptual basis for inconsistency management in model-based systems engineering. Procedia CIRP 21, 52–57 (2014)CrossRef
10.
Hilliard, R.: Lessons from the unity of architecting. In: Software Engineering in the Systems, Context, pp. 225–250 (2015)
11.
Johnson, C.N.N.: The benefits of PDCA. Qual. Prog. 35(3), 120 (2002)
12.
Kazman, R., Bass, L., Klein, M.: The essential components of software architecture design and analysis. J. Syst. Softw. 79(8), 1207–1216 (2006)CrossRef
13.
Kruchten, P., Lago, P., Vliet, H.: Building up and reasoning about architectural knowledge. In: Hofmeister, C., Crnkovic, I., Reussner, R. (eds.) QoSA 2006. LNCS, vol. 4214, pp. 43–58. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). doi:10.​1007/​11921998_​8 CrossRef
14.
Lago, P., Avgeriou, P., Hilliard, R.: Guest editors’ introduction: software architecture: framing stakeholders’ concerns. IEEE Softw. 27(6), 20–24 (2010)CrossRef
15.
Lucassen, G., Dalpiaz, F., van der Werf, J.M.E.M., Brinkkemper, S.: The use and effectiveness of user stories in practice. In: Daneva, M., Pastor, O. (eds.) REFSQ 2016. LNCS, vol. 9619, pp. 205–222. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). doi:10.​1007/​978-3-319-30282-9_​14 CrossRef
16.
Luinenburg, L., Jansen, S., Souer, J., van de Weerd, I., Brinkkemper, S.: Designing web content management systems using the method association approach. In: 4th International Workshop on Model-Driven Web Engineering, pp. 106–120 (2008)
17.
Muskens, J., Bril, R.J., Chaudron, M.R.V., Generalizing consistency checking between software views. In: 5th Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture, pp. 169–180. IEEE Computer Society (2005)
18.
Nentwich, C., Capra, L., Emmerich, W., Finkelstein, A.: xlinkit: a consistency checking and smart link generation service. ACM Trans. Internet Technol. 2(2), 151–185 (2002)CrossRef
19.
Nuseibeh, B.: To be, not to be: on managing inconsistency in software development. In: 8th International Workshop on Software Specification and Design, p. 164. IEEE Computer Society (1996)
20.
Nuseibeh, B., Easterbrook, S.M., Russo, A.: Making inconsistency respectable in software development. J. Syst. Softw. 58(2), 171–180 (2001)CrossRef
21.
Robinson, W.N., Pawlowski, S.D.: Managing requirements inconsistency with development goal monitors. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 25(6), 816–835 (1999)CrossRef
22.
Rozanski, N., Woods, E.: Software Systems Architecture: Working with Stakeholders Using Viewpoints and Perspectives. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2012)
23.
24.
Spanoudakis, G., Zisman, A.: Inconsistency management in software engineering: survey and open research issues. Handb. Softw. Eng. Knowl. Eng. 1, 329–380 (2001)CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Consistent Inconsistency Management: A Concern-Driven Approach
Authors
Jasper Schenkhuizen
Jan Martijn E. M. van der Werf
Slinger Jansen
Lambert Caljouw
Copyright Year
2016
Book
Software Architecture

Print ISBN: 978-3-319-48991-9

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-48992-6

Copyright Year: 2016

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48992-6_15

Premium Partner

    Image Credits