Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Architecture analysis of enterprise systems modifiability: a metamodel for software change cost estimation

  • Published:
Software Quality Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Enterprise architecture models can be used in order to increase the general understanding of enterprise systems and specifically to perform various kinds of analysis. The present paper proposes a metamodel for enterprise systems modifiability analysis, i.e. assessing the cost of making changes to enterprise-wide systems. The enterprise architecture metamodel is formalized using probabilistic relational models, which enables the combination of regular entity-relationship modeling aspects with means to perform enterprise architecture analysis. The content of the presented metamodel is validated based on survey and workshop data and its estimation capability is tested with data from 21 software change projects. To illustrate the applicability of the metamodel an instantiated architectural model based on a software change project conducted at a large Nordic transportation company is detailed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aggarwal, K., Singh, Y., & Chhabra, J. K. (2002). An integrated measure of software maintainability. In Proceedings of the annual IEEE reliability and maintainability symposium.

  • Aier, S., Buckl, S., Franke, U., Gleichauf, B., Johnson, P., Närman, P., Schweda, C., & Ullberg, J. (2009). A survival analysis of application life spans based on enterprise architecture models, enterprise modelling and information systems architectures. In Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop EMISA.

  • Allen, R. (1997). A formal approach to software architecture. PhD Thesis, Carnegie Mellon University.

  • April, A., & Abran, A. (2008). Software maintenance management. Hoboken, New Jersey: IEEE Computer Society/John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bass, L., Clements, P., & Kazman, R. (1998). Software architecture in practice. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley Longman/Software Engineering Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bengtsson, P. O. (2002). Architecture-level modifiability analysis. PhD Thesis, Blekinge Institute of Technology.

  • Boehm, B. (1981). Software engineering economics. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Boehm, B., Abts, C., & Chulani, S. (2000). Software development cost estimation approaches—a survey. Annals of Software Engineering, 10, 177–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brinkkemper, S. (1996). Method engineering: Engineering of information systems development methods and tools. Information and Software Technology, 38, 275–280.

  • Brinkkemper, S. (2000). Method-engineering with web-enabled methods. In Informations Systems engineering—State of the art and research themes (pp. 123–133). Berlin: Springer.

  • Chan, T., Chung, S. L., & Ho, T. H. (1996). An economic model to estimate software rewriting and replacement times. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 22.

  • Chulani, S., Boehm, B., & Steece, B. (1999). Calibrating software cost models using bayesian analysis. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 573–583.

  • Conte, S., Dunsmore, H., & Chen, V. (1985). Software effort estimation and productivity. New York: Academic Press Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Defense Architecture Framework Working Group. (2007). DoD architecture framework, version 1.5. Technical Report, Department of Defense, USA.

  • Fenton, N. E., & Pfleger, S. L. (1997). Software metrics: A rigorous and practical approach. Boston, MA: PWS Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, R., Aier, S., & Winter, R. (2007). Enterprise modelling and information systems architectures. A Federated Approach to Enterprise Architecture Model Maintenance, 2, 14–22.

  • Franke, U., Flores, W. R., & Johnson, P. (2009a). Enterprise architecture dependency analysis using fault trees and bayesian networks. In Proceedings of 42nd annual simulation symposium (ANSS) (pp. 209–216), http://www.scs.org.

  • Franke, U., Höök, D., König, J., Lagerström, R., Närman, P., Ullberg, J., Gustafsson, P., & Ekstedt, M. (2009b). EAF2—a framework for categorizing enterprise architecture frameworks. In Proceedings of 10th ACIS international conference on software engineering, Artificial intelligence, Networking and Parallel/Distributed Computing (pp. 327–332).

  • Friedman, N., Getoor, L., Koller, D., & Pfeffer, A. (1999). Learning probabilistic relational models. In Proceedings of the 16th international joint conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 1300–1309).

  • Granja-Alvarez, J. C., & Barranco-Garcia, M. J. (1997). A method for estimating maintenance cost in a software project: A case study. Software Maintenance: Research and Practice, 9, 161–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grubb, P., & Takang, A. (2003). Software maintenance: Concepts and practice. Singapore: World Scientific.

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Gustafsson, P., Höök, D., Ericsson, E., & Lilliesköld, J. (2009). Analyzing it impacts on organizational structure. In Portland international center for management of engineering and technology Conference Proceedings.

  • Halstead, M. H. (1975). Toward a theoretical basis for estimating programming effort. In ACM 75: Proceedings of the 1975 annual conference (pp. 222–224). New York, NY, USA: ACM.

  • Harrison, W., & Cook, C. (1990). Insights on improving the maintenance process through software measurement. In Proceedings of the IEEE software maintenance Conference.

  • Höök, D., Nordström, L., & Johnson, P. (2009). An enterprise architecture based method for quantified analysis of ict system impact on maintenance management. In ICOMS asset management conference proceedings.

  • IDS Scheer. (2009). Aris business performance edition. Available on http://www.ids-scheer.com/en/ARIS, Accessed 18 June 2009.

  • IEEE Standards Board. (1990). IEEE standard glossary of software engineering technology. Technical Report, The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.

  • International Organization for Standardization. (2001). Software engineering–product quality–part 1: Quality model. International standard ISO/IEC TR 9126–1:2001(E), International Organization for Standardization.

  • International Organization for Standardization. (2003a). Software engineering–product quality–part 2: External metrics. International standard ISO/IEC TR 9126–2:2003(E), International Organization for Standardization.

  • International Organization for Standardization. (2003b). Software engineering–product quality–part 3: Internal metrics. International standard ISO/IEC TR 9126–3:2003(E), International Organization for Standardization.

  • Jarzabek, S. (2007). Effective software maintenance and evolution: A reuse-based approach. Boca Raton, FL: Auerbach Publications, Taylor & Francis Group.

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, F. (2001). Bayesian networks and decision graphs. New York, Secaucus, NJ, USA: Springer.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Johansson, E. (2005). Assessment of enterprise information security—How to make it credible and efficient. PhD Thesis, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm, Sweden.

  • Johnson, P., & Ekstedt, M. (2007). Enterprise architecture—Models and analyses for information systems decision making. Studentlitteratur.

  • Johnson, P., Lagerström, R., Närman, P., & Simonsson, M. (2007). Enterprise architecture analysis with extended influence diagrams. Information Systems Frontiers, 9.

  • Jürjens, J. (2005). Secure systems development with UML. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Kan, S. (2003). Metrics and models in software quality engineering (2nd ed.). London: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kazman, R., Asundi, J., & Klein, M. (2001). Quantifying the costs and benefits of architectural decisions. In Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on software engineering (pp. 297–306).

  • Kazman, R., Klein, M., & Clements, P. (2000). ATAM: Method for architecture evaluation.

  • König, J., & Nordström, L. (2009). Assessing impact of ict system quality on operation of active distribution grids. In IEEE PowerTech.

  • Kurpjuweit, S., & Winter, R. (2007). Viewpoint-based meta model engineering. In Enterprise modelling and information systems architectures (EMISA 2007).

  • Lagerström, R. (2007). Analyzing system maintainability using enterprise architecture models. Journal of Enterprise Architecture, 3, 33–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lagerström, R., Chenine, M., Johnson, P., & Franke, U. (2008). Probabilistic metamodel merging. In Proceedings of the Forum at the 20th international conference on advanced information systems (Vol. 344, pp. 25–28).

  • Lagerström, R., Franke, U., Johnson, P., & Ullberg, J. (2009a). A method for creating enterprise architecture metamodels—applied to systems modifiability analysis. The International Journal of Computer Science and Applications, 6, 89–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lagerström, R., Johnson, P., & Höök, D. (2009b). Architecture analysis of enterprise systems modifiability—models, analysis and validation. submitted to journal.

  • Lagerström, R., Johnson, P., Höök, D., & König, J. (2009c). Software change project cost estimation—a bayesian network and a method for expert elicitation. In the International Workshop on Software Quality and Maintainability Proceeding.

  • Lagerström, R., Johnson, P., & Närman, P. (2007). Extended influence diagram generation. In Interoperability for enterprise software and applications conference.

  • Lagerström, R., Saat, J., Franke, U., Aier, S., & Ekstedt, M. (2009d). Enterprise meta modeling methods—combining a stakeholder-oriented and a causality-based approach. In Enterprise, business-process and information systems modeling, Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing (Vol 29, pp. 381–393), Berlin Heidelberg: Springer. ISSN 1865-1348.

  • Laird, L., & Brennan, C. (2006). Software measurement and estimation: A practical approach. Hoboken, New Jersey: IEEE Computer Society/John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lankhorst, M. (2005). Enterprise architecture at work. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matinlassi, M., & Niemelä, E. (2003). The impact of maintainability on component-based software systems. In Proceedings of the 29th IEEE EUROMICRO conference “New Waves in System Architecture”.

  • Matson, J., Barrett, B., & Mellichamp, J. (1994). Software development cost estimation using function points. Software Engineering, IEEE Transactions on, 20, 275–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moløkken-Østvold, K., Haugen, N. C., & Benestad, H. C. (2008). Using planning poker for combining expert estimates in software projects. Journal of Systems and Software, 81, 2106–2117. New York, NY, USA: Elsevier Science Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Närman, P., Johnson, P., & Nordström, L. (2007). Enterprise architecture: A framework supporting system quality analysis. In Proceedings of the international annual enterprise distributed object computing Conference.

  • Neapolitan, R. (2003). Learning bayesian networks. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oman, P., Hagemeister, J., & Ash, D. (1992). A definition and taxonomy for software maintainability. Technical Report, Software Engineering Lab.

  • Pigoski, T. (1997). Practical software maintenance. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, L., & Myers, W. (2003). Five core metrics. New York: Dorset House Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, J. W., Weill, P., & Robertson, D. (2006). Enterprise architecture as strategy: Creating a foundation for business execution. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simonsson, M. (2008). Predicting IT governance performance: A method for model-based decision making. PhD Thesis, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm, Sweden.

  • Smith, D. (1999). Designing maintainable software. Berlin: Springer.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Society of Automotive Engineers. (2009). Architecture analysis and design language (aadl) standard. Technical Report, Carnegie Mellon University.

  • Tekinerdogan, B. (2004). ASAAM: aspectual software architecture analysis method. In Proceedings of the fourth working IEEE/IFIP conference on software architecture (pp. 5–14). IEEE Computer Society.

  • Telelogic-IBM. (2009). Ibm rational system architect. Available on http://www.telelogic.com/Products/systemarchitect/, Accessed 15 June 2009.

  • The IT Governance Institute. (2007). Control objectives for information and related technology (COBIT) 4.1. Technical Report, The IT Governance Institute.

  • The Open Group. (2009). The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF)—version 9. The Open Group.

  • Troux Technologies. (2009). Troux 8. Available on http://www.troux.com, Accessed June 15, 2009.

  • Ullberg, J., Lagerström, R., & Johnson, P. (2008). A framework for service interoperability analysis using enterprise architecture models. IEEE International Conference on Services Computing.

  • Warner, R. (2008). Applied statistics—From bivariate through multivariate techniques. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage Publications Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter, R., & Fischer, R. (2007). Essential layers, artifacts, and dependencies of enterprise architecture. Journal of Enterprise Architecture, 3, 7–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zachman, J. (2009). The Zachman framework—the official concise definition. Available on http://www.zachmaninternational.com, Accessed 16 June 2009.

  • Zachman, J. A. (1987). A framework for information systems architecture. IBM Systems Journal, 26, 276–292. Riverton, NJ, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuse, H. (1997). A framework of software measurement. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Industrial Information and Control Systems, The Royal Institute of Technology, Osquldas väg 12, 100 44, Stockholm, Sweden

    Robert Lagerström, Pontus Johnson & Mathias Ekstedt

Authors
  1. Robert Lagerström
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pontus Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mathias Ekstedt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert Lagerström.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lagerström, R., Johnson, P. & Ekstedt, M. Architecture analysis of enterprise systems modifiability: a metamodel for software change cost estimation. Software Qual J 18, 437–468 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-010-9100-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-010-9100-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation