Article

Simon: modeling and analysis of design space structures

Authors:

Kevin J. SullivanAuthors Info & Claims

ASE '05: Proceedings of the 20th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering

Pages 329 - 332

https://doi.org/10.1145/1101908.1101962

Published: 07 November 2005 Publication History

Abstract

The structure of the coupling relation on design decisions is a key factor influencing the evolvability properties and the economic value of a design. The work of Baldwin and Clark is an important step toward a theory of the relationship between structure and value. A key step to enabling rigorous validation and perhaps the eventual use of their ideas for software engineering is formalization of their model. In this paper, we present a brief overview of such a formal model and a prototype software tool, Simon, implementing it. We present Simon's functions for deriving design structure matrices and computing impacts of changes in design decisions, and we sketch an initial experimental evaluation in the form of a replication study of our earlier analysis of Parnas's 1972 paper on information hiding modularity.

References

[1]

R. Arnold and S. Bohner. Software Change Impact Analysis. Wiley-IEEE Computer Society Pr, first edition, 1996.

Digital Library

[2]

C. Y. Baldwin and K. B. Clark. Design Rules, Vol. 1: The Power of Modularity. The MIT Press, 2000.

Digital Library

[3]

D. Batory and S. O'Malley. The design and implementation of hierarchical software systems with reusable components. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 1(4):355--398, 1992.

Digital Library

[4]

Y. Cai and K. Sullivan. Simon: A tool for logical design space modeling and analysis. In 20th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, Long Beach, California, USA, Nov 2005.

Digital Library

[5]

S. D. Eppinger. Model-based approaches to managing concurrent engineering. Journal of Engineering Design, 2(4):283{{290, 1991.

[6]

M. S. Feather. Risk reduction using ddp (defect detection and prevention): Software support and software applications. In RE, page 288, 2001.

Digital Library

[7]

D. Garlan and D. Notkin. Formalizing design spaces: Implicit invocation mechanisms. In Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium of VDM Europe on Formal Software Development-Volume I, pages 31--44. Springer-Verlag, 1991.

Digital Library

[8]

D. Jackson. Alloy: a lightweight object modelling notation. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol., 11(2):256--290, 2002.

Digital Library

[9]

T. G. Lane. Studying software architecture through design spaces and rules. Technical Report CMU/SEI-90-TR-18, Carnegie Mellon University, 1990.

[10]

C. V. Lopes and S. K. Bajracharya. An analysis of modularity in aspect oriented design. In AOSD '05, pages 15--26, New York, NY, USA, 2005. ACM Press.

Digital Library

[11]

A. MacCormack, J. Rusnak, and C. Baldwin. Exploring the structure of complex software designs: An empirical study of open source and proprietary code. Harvard Business School Working Paper Number 05-016.

[12]

A. Mackworth. Consistency in networks of relations. In Artificial Intelligence, 8, pages 99--118, 1977.

Digital Library

[13]

D. L. Parnas. On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules. Communications of the ACM, 15(12):1053--8, Dec. 1972.

Digital Library

[14]

N. Sangal, E. Jordan, V. Sinha, and D. Jackson. Using dependency models to manage complex software architecture. In OOPLSA, 2005.

Digital Library

[15]

H. A. Simon. The Sciences of the Artificial. The MIT Press, third edition, 1996.

Digital Library

[16]

M. Sinnema, S. Deelstra, J. Nijhuis, and J. Bosch. Covamof: A framework for modeling variability in software product families. In Proceedings of SPLC 2004, volume 3154, pages 197--213, August 2004.

[17]

D. V. Steward. The design structure system: A method for managing the design of complex systems. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 28(3):71--84, 1981.

[18]

K. Sullivan, Y. Cai, B. Hallen, and W. G. Griswold. The structure and value of modularity in software design. SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 26(5):99--108, Sept. 2001.

Digital Library

[19]

K. Sullivan, W. Griswold, Y. Song, and Y. C. et al. Information hiding interfaces for aspect-oriented design. In ESEC/FSE '05, Sept 2005.

Digital Library

Cited By

Mo RGarcia JCai YMedvidovic NKruchten PNord ROzkaya I(2013)Mapping architectural decay instances to dependency modelsProceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Managing Technical Debt10.5555/2663297.2663304(39-46)Online publication date: 20-May-2013
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/2663297.2663304
Hoffman KEugster P(2013)Trading obliviousness for modularity with cooperative aspect-oriented programmingACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/2491509.249151622:3(1-46)Online publication date: 30-Jul-2013
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2491509.2491516
Cai YSullivan K(2013)A formal model for automated software modularity and evolvability analysisACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/2377656.237765821:4(1-29)Online publication date: 7-Feb-2013
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2377656.2377658
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Simon: modeling and analysis of design space structures
1. Software and its engineering
  1. Software creation and management
    1. Designing software

Recommendations

Hebert A. Simon: AI Pioneer

Herbert A. Simon was one of the founding fathers of artificial intelligence. Simon, who, along with Allen Newell and J.C. Shaw, wrote the first AI program in 1956, received many honors in his lifetime, including the Nobel Prize in Economic Science in ...
HARLAND SIMON ACQUIRES JOHN BROWN AUTOMATION

LAST OCTOBER A LEADING BRITISH ASSEMBLY AUTOMATION COMPANY, JOHN BROWN AUTOMATION, WAS ACQUIRED BY THE HARLAND SIMON GROUP. DEREK HARBOUR, MANAGING DIRECTOR OF HARLAND SIMON AUTOMATION SYSTEMS, TALKED TO JACK HOLLINGUM ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES OF THIS ...
The structure and value of modularity in software design

The concept of information hiding modularity is a cornerstone of modern software design thought, but its formulation remains casual and its emphasis on changeability is imperfectly related to the goal of creating added value in a given context. We need ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

ASE '05: Proceedings of the 20th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering

November 2005

482 pages

ISBN:1581139934

DOI:10.1145/1101908

General Chair:
David Redmiles
University of California, Irvine, CA
,
Program Chairs:
Tom Ellman
Vassar College
,
Andrea Zisman
City University, UK

Copyright © 2005 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 07 November 2005

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Article

Conference

ASE05

Sponsor:

ASE05: International Conference on Automated Software Engineering 2005

November 7 - 11, 2005

CA, Long Beach, USA

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 82 of 337 submissions, 24%

Upcoming Conference

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

18
Total Citations
View Citations
320
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)5
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1

Reflects downloads up to 23 Sep 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Mo RGarcia JCai YMedvidovic NKruchten PNord ROzkaya I(2013)Mapping architectural decay instances to dependency modelsProceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Managing Technical Debt10.5555/2663297.2663304(39-46)Online publication date: 20-May-2013
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/2663297.2663304
Hoffman KEugster P(2013)Trading obliviousness for modularity with cooperative aspect-oriented programmingACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/2491509.249151622:3(1-46)Online publication date: 30-Jul-2013
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2491509.2491516
Cai YSullivan K(2013)A formal model for automated software modularity and evolvability analysisACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology10.1145/2377656.237765821:4(1-29)Online publication date: 7-Feb-2013
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2377656.2377658
Mo RGarcia JCai YMedvidovic N(2013)Mapping architectural decay instances to dependency models2013 4th International Workshop on Managing Technical Debt (MTD)10.1109/MTD.2013.6608677(39-46)Online publication date: May-2013
https://doi.org/10.1109/MTD.2013.6608677
Gouvêa Dde A. Assis D. Muniz CPinto GAvritzer ALeão Rde Souza e Silva EDiniz MBerardinelli LLeite JMossß DCai YDalton MKapova LKoziolek AKounev SCortellessa VMirandola RLilja DSachs K(2011)Experience building non-functional requirement models of a complex industrial architectureProceedings of the 2nd ACM/SPEC International Conference on Performance engineering10.1145/1958746.1958757(43-54)Online publication date: 14-Mar-2011
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1958746.1958757
Cai YIannuzzi DWong S(2011)Leveraging design structure matrices in software design educationProceedings of the 2011 24th IEEE-CS Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training10.1109/CSEET.2011.5876085(179-188)Online publication date: 22-May-2011
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1109/CSEET.2011.5876085
Wong S(2010)An Architecture-Centric Approach to CoordinationProceedings of the 2010 5th IEEE International Conference on Global Software Engineering10.1109/ICGSE.2010.51(359-360)Online publication date: 23-Aug-2010
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1109/ICGSE.2010.51
Gay GMenzies TJalali OMundy GGilkerson BFeather MKiper J(2010)Finding robust solutions in requirements modelsAutomated Software Engineering10.1007/s10515-009-0059-717:1(87-116)Online publication date: 1-Mar-2010
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10515-009-0059-7
Navarro ILeveson NLunqvist K(2010)Semantic decoupling: reducing the impact of requirement changesRequirements Engineering10.1007/s00766-010-0109-515:4(419-437)Online publication date: 1-Nov-2010
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s00766-010-0109-5
Wong SCai Y(2009)Improving the Efficiency of Dependency Analysis in Logical Decision ModelsProceedings of the 24th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering10.1109/ASE.2009.55(173-184)Online publication date: 16-Nov-2009
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1109/ASE.2009.55
Show More Cited By

View Options

Get Access

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents