Software Architecture And

Testing
CT059-3-2

Active Reviews for

Intermediate Design
(ARID) – An evaluation
method for partial
architecture
 Topic & Structure of the lesson

• Active design reviews

• Active Review for Intermediate Design(ARID) – An ARID/ATAM hybrid
• The steps of ARID

Module Code & Module Title Slide Title SLIDE 2

Slide 2Slide
(out of222)
 Learning Outcomes

• By the end of this lecture, YOU should be able to :

– Explain the purpose of active design reviews
– Use ARID – An ARID/ATAM hybrid to evaluate an architecture
– Identify the steps of ARID

Module Code & Module Title Slide Title SLIDE 3

Slide 3Slide
(out of322)
 Key Terms you must be able to use

• If you have mastered this topic, you should be able to use the following terms
correctly in your assignments and exams:
– Active Reviews for Intermediate Design (ARID)
– Active Design Review (ADR)
– Hybrid Approach
– Nine Steps

Module Code & Module Title Slide Title SLIDE 4

Slide 4Slide
(out of422)
 WHY ARID?

• ATAM & SAAM are comprehensive methods for evaluation

• Architecture do not spring into final form but emerge slowly
• If intermediate design are inappropriate, the entire architecture can be
undermined
• Lightweight evaluation approach that concentrate on suitability

Module Code & Module Title Slide Title SLIDE 5

Slide 5Slide
(out of522)
 Active Design Reviews (ADR)
• Effective technique for ensuring quality of a design
• Method is involving reviewer to review the tasks carefully
• Conventional review often begins with the chosen multitude of
reviewers receiving stacks of read-ahead documents.
• ADR primarily used to evaluate detailed designs of coherent units of
software

Module Code & Module Title Slide Title SLIDE 6

Slide 6 (out of 16) Slide 6
 Conventional vs. ADR Questions/
Instructions

Module Code & Module Title Slide Title SLIDE 7

Slide 7 (out of 16) Slide 7
 ARID

• In ADR stakeholder receive detailed documentation and then

complete exercise questionnaires on their own
• ATAM is geared toward evaluating a whole architecture, not a
portion of it
• But for preliminary designs we are interested only in whether
the overall approach is suitable

Module Code & Module Title Slide Title SLIDE 8

Slide 8 (out of 16) Slide 8
 Phase1 – Rehearsal
• An one day meeting between the lead designer and the review facilitator takes
place.
• 1.0 Identify the reviewers
– The reviewers are the software engineers who will be expected to the use
of the design
• 2.0 Prepare the design briefing (by designer)
– To present the design in detail
– Give a dry run to the review facilitator
• To ask “first order questions”
• To identify area of improvement
• To have proper pace for the presentation
• To give designer practice in presenting the materials

Module Code & Module Title Slide Title SLIDE 9

Slide 9 (out of 16) Slide 9
 Phase1 – Rehearsal

• 3.0 Prepare the seed scenarios (Designer and review facilitator)

– Designed to illustrate the concepts of a scenario to the reviewers
• 4.0 Prepare the materials
– Copies of the presentation, seed scenarios and review agenda are produced
for distribution to the reviewers during the phase 2 meeting .

Module Code & Module Title Slide Title SLIDE 10

Slide 10 (out of 16) Slide 10
 Phase 2 – Review

• Stakeholders are assembled and main activities of the review commence. It

takes a day and half
• 5.0 Present ARID
– The review facilitator spends 30 mins explaining the steps of ARID to the
participants.
• 6.0 Present the design
– The role of the lead designer (2 hour)
– Ground rule is no questions concerning implementation or suggestion
regarding the alternate design
– The goal is to see if the design is suitable, not to find why were done a
certain way.
– Questions of factual clarification are encouraged.
– Scribe capture questions and instances

Module Code & Module Title Slide Title SLIDE 11

Slide 11 (out of 16) Slide 11
 Phase 2 – Review
• 7.0 Brainstorm and prioritize scenarios
– Stakeholders suggest scenarios for the design to solve the problem
– The seed scenario will put into the pool with all others
– Voting (reviewer is allowed a vote total equal to 30 percent of the
number of scenarios)
– prioritizing
• 8.0 Apply the scenarios
– Select the most votes scenarios
– Ask the group of reviewers to create pseudo codes that uses the design
services to solve the problem posed by the scenario
– Ground rule is the designer is not allowed to help or give hints
– But when something goes wrong the facilitator can stop the proceeding
and provide whatever necessary information

Module Code & Module Title Slide Title SLIDE 12

Slide 12 (out of 16) Slide 12
 Phase 2 – Review

• 9.0 Summarize
– Facilitator recounts the list of issues
– Polls the participants for their opinions regarding the review
exercise.

Module Code & Module Title Slide Title SLIDE 13

Slide 13 (out of 16) Slide 13
 Reference

Clements, Kazman & Klein – Evaluating Software Architectures ––

Addison-Wesley.

Module Code & Module Title Slide Title SLIDE 14

Slide 14 (out of 16) Slide 14
 Summary of Main Teaching
Points
• Active design reviews
• Active Review for Intermediate Design(ARID) – An ARID/ATAM hybrid
• The steps of ARID

Module Code & Module Title Slide Title SLIDE 15

Slide 15
 REFERENCE

Module Code & Module Title Slide Title SLIDE 16

Slide 16
 Question and Answer Session

Q&A

Module Code & Module Title Slide Title SLIDE 17

Slide 17Slide
(out of17
25)
 What To Expect Next Week

In Class Preparation for Class

• Compare software • Download the slide and study
architecture evaluation for the next chapter.
methods

Module Code & Module Title Slide Title SLIDE 18

Slide 18