what industry needs from architectural languages

WHAT INDUSTRY NEEDS FROM ARCHITECTURAL LANGUAGES: A SURVEY

Ivano Malavolta, Patricia Lago, Antony Tang, Henry Muccini, Patrizio Pelliccione

IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 39(6): 869-891 (2013)

Purpose of this presentation

The following slides report on some of the findings of a study we conducted with practitioners on the needs they do have with architectural languages.

The full results have been published at:Ivano Malavolta, Patricia Lago, Henry Muccini, Patrizio Pelliccione, Antony Tang: What Industry Needs from Architectural Languages: A Survey. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 39(6): 869-891 (2013)

We wish to warmly thank all the practitioners who invested some of their time to make this study

possible.

Goal and Work Plan

Goals of this study: To investigate the use of notations and languages for

architecture descriptions in practice. Our goal: to better understand the real needs about

using ADLs for software architecture modeling in industry ADL: It may be a formal language (like Acme, Darwin, AADL),

a UML-based notation, as well as any other means you may have used to describe a software architecture.

Work plan: A. Questionnaire B. The study population C. (Preliminary) Results

A. Questionnaire

Questionnaire 51 questions:

42 open ended questions Parts:

a. Company info (a1-a3) b. Personal info (b1-b5) c. Generic questions on the current use of software architecture

descriptions (c1-c5) d. Have you ever used an ADL in a project? (d1-d27)

General questions on your architecting practice with ADLs (d1-d4) ADL-specific questions, in a selected project (d5-d14) Technical questions (d15-d17) Tool-related questions (d18-d24) Questions for architects using ADLs only in the Past (d25-d26) Questions for architects never using ADL (d27)

e. Usefulness of ADL features (in past and future projects) (e) f.-g. Concluding questions

A. Questionnaire (available at http://goo.gl/J4C0x4)

B. The study population

Systematic selection of potential participants from industry 120 ADLs

Contact authors to ask them: To participate (if they are industrial) To point out some industrial partners to be contacted

Industrial contacts Others: mailing lists (IASA Chile, IEEE1471), newsletters, etc.

People contacted/participating: From the papers = 371/ 13 Our industrial contacts = 63 / 14 Others / 21

Participants = 48 25 interviews 23 on-line questionnaires

Henry_2

Warning: the meaning of ADL here differs from the one we used in the questionnaire


Participants = 48 25 interviews 23 on-line questionnaires

Localization: 15 countries USA (9), Sweden (6), Germany (5), Netherlands (5), Canada

(4), Australia (4), France (4), Argentina (2), UK (2), Austria (1), Belgium (1), Chile (1), Croatia (1), India (1), Switzerland (1), unknown (1)

Number of employees

18%

34%23%

25%

A(0-99)B(100-999)C(1000-4999)D(5000-above)

Henry_2

##A1##

Current role or interviewed people

Indu

stria

l res

earc

her (

IR)

Consu

ltant

(CO)

Acade

mic

rese

arch

er (A

R)

Softw

are

arch

itect

(SA)

Syst

em a

rchi

tect

(Sys

A)

Ente

rpris

e ar

chite

ct (E

A)

Softw

are

engi

neer

(SE)

Proj

ect m

anag

er (P

M)

Model

er/d

esig

ner (

MD)

Requi

rem

ents

eng

inee

r (RE)

Devel

oper

(DEV

)0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Current role

Current role

Henry_2

column L


Software Architects Average of 27 architects per company

One with 5.000 architects (not counted in the average above)

58% recognize “software architect” as a distinct professional figure

Skills of people interviewed: In software development since 19 years (in

average) Current role (see chart in next slide)

List of Research Questions (1/2)

RQ1: What are the most popular notations used by the interviewed companies?

RQ2: Is analysis perceived as a need when architecting a software system?

RQ3: Which is the role of Viewpoints when architecting a software system?

RQ4 : Extra Functional

Needs and Features

List of Research Questions (2/2)

ADLs and architectural styles ADL support for Testing ADLs and Requirements ADL and Implementation ADL customization Knowledge sharing & communication …

Those RQs, while included in our publication, are not reported in this

presentation

RQ1: most popular notations


UML vs formal ADL Standard notation types Do you use UML?

How? Which UML diagrams?

Used ADL About 21% of the respondents use multiple ADLs Free sketching is advocated as useful

Gener

ic n

otat

ion

Dom

ain-

spec

ific no

tatio

n

Info

rmal

not

atio

n (V

isio,

Pow

erpo

int,

etc.)

Sim

ulat

ion-

orie

nted

not

atio

n (E

.g.,

Sim

ulin

k, S

DL)

Ent

erpr

ise

nota

tion

UML

05

1015202530354045

Standard notation types

Henry_2

##C3.AE##






AS IS (73%)

NO USAGE (19%)

PROFILED (25%)

Henry_2

##C5.AH##






38%

5%

57%

Kind of UML diagrams

Structural Behavioral Mixed(Structural/Behav-ioral)

Henry_2

##C5.AI##





Used ADL (see next slide) About 21% of the respondents use multiple ADLs Free sketching is advocated as useful

RQ1: Used ADLs

MIND

UML in

cludi

ng U

ML pr

ofile

sSD

OAADL

ACME

RAPIDE

EAST

-ADL

MODELIC

APC

M

SAMM

CCLSL

X

ARCHIMATE

HOODSD

L

OLAN IA

F

ADHOC = in

-hou

se la

ngua

ge

KOALAKIS

S

ABACUS

YOURDON

DARWIN

XADL0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Used Architectural Notations

Henry_2

##D1.AN##





Used ADL (see next slide) About 21% of the respondents use multiple ADLs Free sketching is advocated as useful

21%

79%

Use of multiple ADLs

YesNo

Henry_2

##D.14##

RQ1 - Summary

Summary: UML very used (86%) Formal ADL: only rarely and produced by industry

(AADL, Archimate, ad hoc, Rapide)

needs

RQ2 : analysis (1/2)


Need to analyze an architecture

Most important needs need: 30% Dissadisfaction with ADL: 45% of those needing analysis

(the second most important unsatisfactory need was about analysis) Did you analyse your architecture description produced with

the ADL? (did you analyse: 74% is yes, but 32% is manual) (why you analyse: 48% for extra functional) (why not: no value, ADLs too limited/imprecise, ...)

63%

37%

10%

Need for analysis

yesnoblank

Henry_2

##C2.AA##




Most important needs need: 30% Dissadisfaction with ADL: 45% of those needing it

(the second most important unsatisfactory need was about analysis) ????????

Did you analyse your architecture description produced with the ADL? (did you analyse: 74% is yes, but 32% is manual) (why you analyse: 48% for extra functional) (why not: no value, ADLs too limited/imprecise, ...)

Analy

sis

Impl

emen

tatio

n

Com

mun

icatio

n

Des

ign

Pro

cess

Docum

enta

tion

0

5

10

15

20

25

-1

+1

-1

+1

Type of needs

Type of needs

Henry_2

##D6##







35%

20%

45%

level of satisfaction

Satisfied Neutral Not satisfied

Henry_2

##D6##







74%

26%

Analysis

Yes No

Henry_2

##D11##




Needs but unsatisfaction with current ADLs need: 30% Dissadisfaction with ADL: 45% of those needing it



48%

4%

8%

24%

12%

Kind of analyzed properties

Extra-functional propertiesFunctional propertiesHW/SW integrationBehaviorNo info

Henry_2

##D11##




Needs but unsatisfaction with current ADLs need: 30% Dissadisfaction with ADL: 45% of those needing it


the ADL? (did you analyse: 74% is yes, but 32% is manual) (why you analyse: 48% for extra functional) (why not: 26%. no value, ADLs too limited/imprecise, ...)

Henry_2

##D11##


22% extended (or customized) the ADL for analysis (extended ADL: 22% for analysis)

Analysis and tools (tool feature missing: 17% analysis)

Summary: Practitioners do analyze software architecture

descriptions, but they are unsatisfied with current ADLs and tools

010203040

Henry_2

##D15##


22% extended (or customized) the ADL for analysis (extended ADL: 22% for analysis)

Analysis and tools (tool feature missing: 17% analysis) (see next slide)

Summary: Practitioners do analyze software architecture

descriptions, but they are unsatisfied with current ADLs and tools

Henry_2

##D15##

Tool feature missing: 17% analysis

Poor

link

to im

plem

enta

tion/

code

Poo

r doc

umen

tatio

n ge

nera

tion

Poo

r tra

ceab

ility

to/fr

om re

quire

men

ts

Hard

to syn

c with

info

out

side

the

tool

Poo

r sup

port

for m

ultip

le v

iewpo

ints

No

reve

rse

arch

itect

ing

supp

ort

Bet

ter s

uppo

rt fo

r ana

lysis

Poo

r gra

phical

repr

esen

tatio

ns

Poo

r usa

bilit

y

Not p

erm

issiv

e

Inco

mpl

ete

No

inte

rope

rabi

lity

with

oth

er to

ols

Too

l/ven

dor l

ocki

n

poo

r sup

port

for m

anag

ing

chan

ges i

n th

e SA

No

miss

ing

feat

ures

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Features missing from the tools


needs

Henry_2

##D19##

RQ3: Viewpoints (1/2)


85% uses multiple views

Use of multiple views for architectural description. Types of views

50% of multi view users apply consistency check Why not using multiple views

(lack of tool, no benefits today but use in the future)






Stru

ctur

al

Beh

avio

ral

Phy

sica

l

Req

uire

men

ts

Con

cept

ual

Impl

emen

tatio

n

Act

or in

tera

ctio

n

Bus

ines

s

Pro

perty

-rela

ted

05

1015202530354045

Type of views

Type of views

Henry_2

##D13.a##






010203040

Views consistency mechanism

Views consistency mechanism

Henry_2

##D13.b##




50% of multi view users apply consistency check Why not using multiple views [only 5 respondents]


RQ3 : Viewpoints (2/2)

About 33% model/focus on relevant system concerns

43% extended ADLs for adding new views

Tool support (tool feature missing: 14% viewpoint)

Additional feature required to ADLs (cross-view consistency)

Summary: Practitioners use multiple views and others would like to

do so. They also apply consistency checking. Better Tool support is required

010203040

Is the focus on modeling the entire system?

Is the focus on modeling the entire system?

Henry_2

##D10##

Henry_2

##D15##

Henry_2

##D19##

Henry_2

##D27.c##

Henry_2

##D10




Tool support (tool feature missing: 14% viewpoint)




010203040

Extension/customization: how?


Henry_2

##D15##

Henry_2

##D19##

Henry_2

##D27.c##




Tool support (tool feature missing: 14% viewpoint) (see next slide)




Henry_2

##D15##

Henry_2

##D19##

Henry_2

##D27.c##

Tool support: missing features

Poor

link

to im

plem

enta

tion/

code

Poo

r doc

umen

tatio

n ge

nera

tion

Poo

r tra

ceab

ility

to/fr

om re

quire

men

ts

Hard

to syn

c with

info

out

side

the

tool

Poo

r sup

port

for m

ultip

le v

iewpo

ints

No

reve

rse

arch

itect

ing

supp

ort

Bet

ter s

uppo

rt fo

r ana

lysis

Poo

r gra

phical

repr

esen

tatio

ns

Poo

r usa

bilit

y

Not p

erm

issiv

e

Inco

mpl

ete

No

inte

rope

rabi

lity

with

oth

er to

ols

Too

l/ven

dor l

ocki

n

poo

r sup

port

for m

anag

ing

chan

ges i

n th

e SA

No

miss

ing

feat

ures

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45





Tool support (tool feature missing: 14% viewpoint)[see next slide]

Additional feature required to ADLs (cross-view consistency) [only 4 respondents]



needs

Henry_2

##D27.c##


RQ4: How ADLs support Extra Functional properties?

Analysis of E. F. properties

Insufficient expressiveness for extra-functional properties

Interaction with verification engines for performance and dependability (24% interact with verific. engines for performance and

dependability analysis, most with external tools)

48%

4%

8%

24%

12%

Kind of analyzed properties

Extra-functional propertiesFunctional propertiesHW/SW integrationBehaviorNo info

Henry_2

##D.11##

Henry_2

##D7##

Henry_2

##D16##





Interaction with verification engines for performance and dependability (24% interact with verific. engines for performance and


0

10

20

30

40

Limitations

Henry_2

##D7##

Henry_2

##D16##





Interaction with verification engines for performance and dependability [only 8 respondents] (24% interact with verific. engines for performance and


Kind of engine Kind of analysis

Internal verification engine Performance

3 (37,5%) 4 (50%)

External verification engine Dependability

5 (62,5%) 3 (37,5%)

Generic constraints

4 (50%)

blank blank

41 (85,5%) 40 (85%)

Henry_2

##D16##

Needs and Limitations of existing ADLs


Needs: design, communicate, analyze

How ADLs satisfy the needs Design is satisfied, the others are not!

94% use ADL in the design phase Limitations of existing ADLs:

(limitations: extra func, communic, analysis) extensions to ADL to cope with new views, constraints,

analysis Tool limitations

Anal

ysis

Impl

emen

tatio

n

Com

mun

icat

ion

Des

ign

Pro

cess

Docum

enta

tion

0

10

20

Type of needs

Henry_2

##D6##

Henry_2

##D6##

Henry_2

##D8##

Henry_2

##D7##

Henry_2

##D15##

Henry_2

##D18##



Needs: design, communicate, analyze How ADLs satisfy

the needs Design is satisfied,

the others are not! 94% use ADL in the design phase Limitations of existing ADLs:



Analy

sis

Impl

emen

tatio

n

Com

mun

icatio

n

Des

ign

Pro

cess

Docum

enta

tion

0

5

10

15

20

25

Type of needs

Type of needs

Henry_2

##D6##

Henry_2

##D8##

Henry_2

##D7##

Henry_2

##D15##

Henry_2

##D18##





94% use ADL in the design phase

Limitations of existing ADLs: (limitations: extra func, communic, analysis) extensions to ADL to cope with new views, constraints,


Proj

ect d

efini

tion

Req

uire

men

ts

Des

ign

Ver

ifica

tion

Impl

emen

tatio

n

Tes

ting

Dep

loym

ent

Mai

ntai

nanc

e05

1015202530354045

Life-cycle phases

Henry_2

##D8##

Henry_2

##D7##

Henry_2

##D15##

Henry_2

##D18##








010203040

Limitations

Henry_2

##D7##

Henry_2

##D15##

Henry_2

##D18##








0

15

30

45


68%

32%

Extended/customized an architectural notation?

yesNo

Henry_2

##D7##

Henry_2

##D15##

Henry_2

##D18##








9%46%

12%

21%

12%

Tool satisfaction

Very satis-fied

Satisfied Neutral

Not satis-fied

Absolutely not satis-fied

Henry_2

##D7##

Henry_2

##D15##

Henry_2

##D18##

Features: missing, required, useful (1/2)

Features: missing, required, useful

Missing: Tool features missing

86% find missing tool features (see next slide) (additional feature: flexibility 40%, capture conceptual

features 16%) Multi-view consistency missing feature

(versioning: 82% yes, only 3% built in the ADL)

Required Additional feature required to use an ADL: cross-view

consistency

Henry_2

##D19##

Henry_2

##F##

Henry_2

##D22##

Henry_2

##D27.c##

86% find missing tool features

Poor

link

to im

plem

enta

tion/

code

Poo

r doc

umen

tatio

n ge

nera

tion

Poo

r tra

ceab

ility

to/fr

om re

quire

men

ts

Hard

to syn

c with

info

out

side

the

tool

Poo

r sup

port

for m

ultip

le v

iewpo

ints

No

reve

rse

arch

itect

ing

supp

ort

Bet

ter s

uppo

rt fo

r ana

lysis

Poo

r gra

phical

repr

esen

tatio

ns

Poo

r usa

bilit

y

Not p

erm

issiv

e

Inco

mpl

ete

No

inte

rope

rabi

lity

with

oth

er to

ols

Too

l/ven

dor l

ocki

n

poo

r sup

port

for m

anag

ing

chan

ges i

n th

e SA

No

miss

ing

feat

ures

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45






features 16%) (see next slide) Multi-view consistency missing feature

(versioning: 82% yes, only 3% built in the ADL)


consistency

Henry_2

##D19##

Henry_2

##F##

Henry_2

##D22##

Henry_2

##D27.c##

Additional Features

Bette

r lin

k to

code

Flexi

bilit

y/ex

tens

ibili

ty

Usabi

lity

Bette

r sup

port

for d

omai

n-sp

ecifi

c con

cept

s

Bette

r lin

k to

arti

fact

s in

othe

r life

-cyc

le p

hase

s

Stan

dard

conc

epts

Bette

r sup

port

for c

omm

unicat

ion

Bet

ter l

ink

to th

e who

le d

evel

opm

ent p

roce

ss

Bette

r sup

port

for c

ompa

ring

solu

tions

Bette

r sup

port

for m

ultip

le v

iewpo

ints

Bet

ter/n

ew a

naly

sis t

echn

ique

s

Bette

r tra

inin

g pr

ogra

mm

es0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Additional needed features for architectural notations

Henry_2

##F##





features 16%) (see next slide) Multi-view consistency missing feature

(versioning: 82% yes, only 3% built in the ADL) (see next slide)


consistency

Henry_2

##D19##

Henry_2

##F##

Henry_2

##D22##

Henry_2

##D27.c##

Versioning

Yes

Yes

, con

figur

atio

n m

anag

emen

t

Yes

,pro

ject

man

agem

ent t

ools

Yes,b

uilt-

in in

to th

e ar

chite

ctur

al to

ol

Yes

, man

ually

Yes

, CMS No

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

SA descriptions versioning

SA descriptions versioning

Henry_2

##D22##

usefulness of ADL features in past and future projects

Henry_2

##E##

Contact information

For any further information, feel free to contact us at any time.

Henry Muccini: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

what industry needs from architectural languages

Education