Therefore, in the the assessment as well. These documents included assessment, an architectural list was provided which strategy plans, project plans, process descriptions, included functional descriptions defining the selling agreement and different financial statements.
The vendor also emphasized the importance of the component 4. It was After the discussion, it was decided that value developed in collaboration, by the vendor and the would be calculated for the architectural components customer. The vendor was responsible for listed in the architectural description.
The vendor and the accounting system made it possible to track real customer used project organization for specifying, costs for the specified components. In practice, As a final point of the initial meeting, vendor and both sides nominated project managers to handle all customer roles were discussed. However, if which the same components were analyzed in terms needed, they would give their comments on any of worth and cost. When asked to mark how much of questions that arose.
The customer saw that the most the total price they would assign to each component, interesting phase for them was functional analysis, the customer representatives preferred to use where both sides would prioritize components, and percentages rather than actual monetary values. The give estimates of worth and cost using relative vendors shared this viewpoint, and stated that it was numbers like percentages not stating real costs.
As the final parties, as the customer was primarily interested in customer price and real production costs for evaluating component priorities, in order to see how components were all known, it was decided that well the vendor had understood their wishes. As a these allocations would also be done, but for vendor secondary issue the vendor was also interested in use only.
The representatives it was fairly easy to assign worth to customer understood all wishes of vendor and saw components. They found the component lists, which contained technical names classes, etc. During the were agreed in the information phase. Especially all customer representatives the architectural components. Afterwards, the saw this list helpful. Figure 1 shows the average customers allocated worth to each component using priorities for components.
The idea was Priorities for Architecture to identify in percentages what kind of worth the customer sees in the components. As a result of this, the customers had 10,0 given worth percentages for all components, and the 8,0 Priority vendors had given cost percentages for the same C AV items.
In practice certain components have to Component be implemented before other ones. Some components are independent, and others are not. Certain components rely on certain other Fig.
Average priorities for components components for their existence. During the 14 interviews, two customer representatives also 12 underlined that the architectural structure was V1 evaluated separately before the project was begun 10 P riority V2 because this was seen as vitally important for the 8 V3 future development of the product. Vendor 6 V AV representatives fully shared this point of view. How 4 the customer prioritized components can be seen in 2 Figure 2.
Average priorities for components This is Di Component most probably due to the fact that there is more variance in technical knowledge among the customers. How the vendor prioritized components Fig. Average worth and cost for components can be seen in Figure 3. According to customer they also had In accordance with the agreement between the their own idea about the actual costs of production, customer and the vendor, only the vendor and since they knew the worth they were satisfied participated in the phases from creativity to for the situation.
Figure 4 presents the average worth presentation. The first step in the creativity phase and cost for components. According On the whole, the experiences of using to the vendor it was easy to allocate costs to the prioritization in ranking components were positive. General costs were perhaps the most Even more interest was seen in the analysis of worth difficult costs to allocate. Designing was problematic The project team decided that for the purposes of and time-consuming, and code implementation often this assessment it was satisfactory for only project- had to be paused.
This took a lot of time, and people level costs to be allocated to components. Business often had to wait for updates in design and unit- and company-level general costs were not architecture before they could start coding again. Hence, from a value index The problem was significantly smaller at the end of point of view, the results are more optimistic than the project when the architectural plan was stable they should be.
However, because the project and clear design plans also existed. Naturally, if this assessment had included The new technical environment delayed the business unit- and company-level functions, these implementation of certain components significantly. New technical challenges, such as developing After cost allocations had been completed, the software for multiprocessor environments, were also project team started brainstorming.
The vendors named as one reason for delays. This was because evaluated priority lists, figures, and worth and cost project personnel did not have sufficient training in calculations for all components.
All personnel were working in the multiprocessor environment. According to their for work times were not realistic. Architectural Value Architectural Value 4,00 20,00 3,50 18,00 3,00 16,00 2,50 14,00 2,00 V a lu e 12,00 10,00 1,50 Value V a lu e 1,00 index 8,00 Value interview 6,00 index 0,50 Value 4,00 interview index 0,00 2,00 Value real index g s o er gs s 0,00 er m Lo y de ic e Se e S e ig rv nc om t t in Us tu r f Vi real Se on rv ge uc l ec ec er s tr Te Em T e Log s o nc Us r A c in g gs s r v ie s er e m Se y E m V id e Se n ce s ic ic e S e tu r e S e n f ig rv nc s ta om t t in nd S u t iv it Ba rv ge la Di o uc l ec e il ec er s tr nc Component s ic s ta Ba Di Component were not implemented at all.
Value indexes for fully-implemented Fig. Value indexes for components including all components including all interviewees interviewees In Figure 6, the real value of these components Based on the figures it was noted that certain are also extremely high, because in real cost components did not create good value.
After accounting costs are not allocated to these targets at discussion of this, the project members shared the all. This is due to the fact that the planned opinion that this was because of the unfinished components sending, activities, and surveillance architectural plan. This had an influence on the were not implemented as planned, or were not planning and design of these items and thus they had implemented at all. Therefore, when calculating been delayed, and created significantly higher costs.
By comparing value indexes interview and projects. There had not calculations differ from the real situation. In practice been enough time to review these phases, which can this is due to production costs, because worth was be seen in the presence of incomplete plans. Both calculated based on product price that was know plans had been updated several times during the from sales agreement. Project personnel also identified a clear organized workshops with their teams to discuss the need to develop criteria for these review rounds.
A most time-consuming work practices. Based on clear criteria stating what kind of characteristics are these workshops it was noted that: the most relevant in a new project was seen to help At the beginning of the evaluation phase the significantly to evaluation of architectural and project team discussed criteria for the evaluation of design plans too.
The criteria decided on were The advantages of the proposed change are system stability, safety, optimized functioning, ease numerous. If all the project members work together of use, maintainability, and profitability. Secondly, project foresee all the forthcoming problems himself and personnel calculated averages for all the criteria.
The take full responsibility for the technical environment calculated averages were as follows: system stability and the quality of plans.
The points allocated were multiplied by At the moment, the ability to use the existing the calculated weighting percentages. The project characteristics of technical tools is weak. The use of team discussed these results. The most surprising pre-existing components is also rather poor. The result was that the importance of the technical result is that code has to be written from start to environment was as high as third place.
Problems in finish each time. Up to this point, training in using design and architectural planning were expected, as the new technical environments has not been were problems related to project management. Estimation and multiprocessing got the least points, so their importance to the project was not considered The change proposal is that there should be to be as high. However, it was noted that if the component libraries at company-level, categorized project would have been more business critical this into classes to indicate how the component in would not have been the case.
The more business question could be used. When starting a project, critical the project would have been the more there should also be an evaluation of the needed weighting the profitability criterion would have got. The 4. Each idea methods for handling the component libraries. The developed included issues such as description, project group evaluated that if basic components for positive consequences, negative consequences and development work had existed, fewer working potential cost savings.
In total, the potential cost savings due to lack of resources. All customer and vendor representatives problematic that all the employees are always considered product-focused assessment an assigned one hundred percent to a given project.
As interesting method for the development of product a consequence, there is not enough support available quality and value, and process capability. This could be done so that of using value assessment for product architecture in competence center resources are allocated to projects an industrial case. All participants agreed that the It is a clear advantage in setting up new projects if value assessment process was clear and practical.
This way, involved to the assessment as it increased the projects would not all have to reinvent the wheel, but efficient use of resources and brought more business would learn from previous mistakes.
However, point of view to the assessment, which was setting up an existing competence center might considered to be extremely important. The product assessment for architecture had The project team evaluated that with satisfactory several strengths.
Compared to all process support in evaluating the architectural plan, the assessments it was seen to give more customer- design plans, and the extra need for time in starting oriented improvement proposals than process to use new technologies, fewer working hours assessments. Product assessment also involved the would have been required. To learn more, view our Privacy Policy. To browse Academia.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Google. Remember me on this computer. Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link. Need an account? Click here to sign up. Download Free PDF. Hassan Reza. A short summary of this paper. Pattern-based software architecture: a case study. HPrTN patterns rely problem with common solution occurred in on a pattern catalog, and a formal basis for different contexts.
We show the usefulness of our that they may influence the applicability of Petri approach via modeling of a Blackboard system.
Reuse of software artifacts such as a Distributed Data Mining Systems segment of codes is perceived as a key to improving the design of new software [1], [10]. Introduction Nevertheless, there are some misconceptions Software design patterns or design patterns try surrendering the notion of software design to document those recurring problems, solutions, patterns [3].
These misconceptions are attributed together with their contexts in which they can be to the imprecise definition of patterns. Our used. HPrTN patterns are based on a high class of Petri 2. HPrTN patterns nets [13] known as hierarchical predicate We have made conscious efforts to extract and to transitions nets HPrTNs in sequel in which document the previous modeling experiences in tokens have identifying sorts together with a net the area of Petri nets as much as possible.
As a inscription that associates attributes to the result, 22 patterns have been cataloged [8],[9]. HPrTN be easy-to-read and identified by an average patterns are inspired by object-oriented design user.
One way that may ease pattern retrieval is patterns and share the same objectives as object- to adopt the commonly accepted pattern oriented design patterns do. A classical Alexandrian pattern format composing primitives ones, and may be arbitrary consists of 1 the name of the pattern; 2 a large and more complex [9].
Pattern instantiation allows a the problem. More precisely, 1. A sort, like a used to identify a pattern uniquely; type, is a finite set of values. Operations dictate AlsoKnown i: Refers to other names that can how to build, alter and distinguish values of the be used to refer to the same pattern; sort. The axioms define equivalence sets of Examplei: Sample example of a pattern; values in the sort. Contexti: Refers to the delineation of Pattern specialization allows a modeler to create a conditions under which a pattern can be new pattern or to tune the existing ones to meet used; Solutioni: Refers to informal different requirements.
The specialized pattern is descriptions or main idea used to created by instantiating an HPrTN pattern implement the pattern; KnownUses i: Refers according to the architectural type i. HPrTi is an HPrTN specification of the create a new pattern that handles a particular pattern, and it consists of three fields: requirement.
For pattern; An algebraic specification SPECi example, two parallel patterns might be composed includes a finite set of sorts, a finite set of to form a Counterpoint pattern [8]. Pattern sorted operations together with the composition may require both pattern properties of those operations; A net instantiation and specialization. Vertical composition composes structure such as predicates.
BDESi is a detailed informal description of together a series of correct patterns located on pattern behaviors.
HPrTN Patterns fall into two major categories: 1 Horizontal composition is used to compose primitive patterns, and 2 composite patterns. The important consideration when and are used only as building blocks for composing patterns horizontally is the composing new patterns. The correctness of subsystem that retains a significant amount of a composition requires that if a fact about a shared information that is accessible by all of pattern is not explicitly specified or inferred in the ASs, via a controller connector.
This is a focus of that is driven by combination of transaction completeness assumption initially discussed by types, the access mechanisms, and the form and Moriconi et al.
Once the meaning of information e. This changes in the architecture. R5: The autonomous systems are not allowed to interact with each other directly; 3. R7: Any autonomous system requesting access Blackboard systems were originally introduced in to the blackboard should eventually receive the the field of artificial intelligence as a problem accessing result correctly; solving method in speech recognition area.
In R8: A read access requires the autonomous general, the Blackboard architectural style refers system sending a request message to the to the metaphor that defines the problem-solving blackboard and the blackboard responding with a approach in terms of a set of specialized message that contains the data; programs that collectively solve problems by R9: A write access requires sending a message writing on a shared memory area known as containing the data to be written to the blackboard [14].
Each autonomous system is R When there is no pending writing request to specialized in solving a particular computation or the shared data, an arbitrary number of reading task and normally does not maintain any requests should be allowed. Instead, each posts its partial solution to the blackboard component.
0コメント