Integrating the Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method (ATAM) with the Cost Benefit Analysis Method (CBAM)

The Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Initiative at the Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute (SEI) has developed a number of architecture-centric methods currently in use including the SEI Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method (ATAM), the SEI Quality Attribute Workshop (QAW), the SEI Cost Benefit Analysis Method (CBAM), SEI Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs (ARID), and the SEI Attribute-Driven Design (ADD) method. Building on our success in developing and piloting a collection of software architecture methods, we're now focusing on integrating them, and building the bridges between them and the processes and architecture efforts outside the SEI, all the while continuing to refine existing methods and models.

This technical note reports on a proposal to integrate the SEI ATAM and SEI CBAM. The ATAM provides software architects with a framework for understanding the technical tradeoffs and risks they face as they make design decisions, but it does not provide any guidance for understanding economic tradeoffs. The CBAM helps software architects consider the return on investment of any architectural decision and provides guidance on the economic tradeoffs involved. The CBAM takes the architectural decision analysis done during the ATAM and helps make it part of a strategic roadmap for software design and evolution by associating priorities, costs, and benefits with architectural decisions.

PDF [129 KB]

Authors

Robert Nord

Mario R. Barbacci

Paul C. Clements

Rick Kazman

Mark H. Klein

James E. Tomayko

This report is related to the following area(s) of work:

Software Architecture

Technical Note
CMU/SEI-2003-TN-038
December 2003

Cite This Report

SEI:

Nord, Robert; Barbacci, Mario; Clements, Paul; Kazman, Rick; Klein, Mark; & Tomayko, James. Integrating the Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method (ATAM) with the Cost Benefit Analysis Method (CBAM) (CMU/SEI-2003-TN-038). Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, 2003. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/library/abstracts/reports/03tn038.cfm

IEEE:

R. Nord, M. Barbacci, P. Clements, R. Kazman, M. Klein, and J. Tomayko, "Integrating the Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method (ATAM) with the Cost Benefit Analysis Method (CBAM)," Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Technical Note CMU/SEI-2003-TN-038, 2003. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/library/abstracts/reports/03tn038.cfm

APA:

Nord, R., Barbacci, M., Clements, P., Kazman, R., Klein, M., & Tomayko, J. (2003). Integrating the Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method (ATAM) with the Cost Benefit Analysis Method (CBAM) (CMU/SEI-2003-TN-038). Retrieved May 18, 2013, from the Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University website: http://www.sei.cmu.edu/library/abstracts/reports/03tn038.cfm

CHI:

Nord, Robert, Mario Barbacci, Paul Clements, Rick Kazman, Mark Klein, and James Tomayko. Integrating the Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method (ATAM) with the Cost Benefit Analysis Method (CBAM) (CMU/SEI-2003-TN-038). Pittsburgh, PA: Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, 2003. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/library/abstracts/reports/03tn038.cfm

MLA:

Nord, R., Barbacci, M., Clements, P., Kazman, R., Klein, M., & Tomayko, J. 2003. Integrating the Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method (ATAM) with the Cost Benefit Analysis Method (CBAM) (Technical Report CMU/SEI-2003-TN-038). Pittsburgh: Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/library/abstracts/reports/03tn038.cfm

Find Us Here

Find us on Youtube  Find us on LinkedIn  Find us on twitter  Find us on Facebook

Share This Page

Share on Facebook  Send to your Twitter page  Save to del.ico.us  Save to LinkedIn  Digg this  Stumble this page.  Add to Technorati favorites  Save this page on your Google Home Page 

For more information

Contact Us

info@sei.cmu.edu

412-268-5800

Help us improve

Visitor feedback helps us continually improve our site.

Please tell us what you
think with this short
(< 5 minute) survey.