Architecture Design and Evaluation 6-7

Main Ideas / Concepts

• Course context: The video is part of a course on Architecture Design and Evaluation. This session focuses specifically on architecture evaluations.
• Method being applied: Students apply an architecture evaluation method called ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method).
• Case study: The evaluation is performed on previously designed architectures for a Smart IoT healthcare system with IoT sensors.
• Role-based evaluation: Students participate in roleplay to simulate stakeholders, including:
  • Customers
  • The architecture evaluation team
  • Other stakeholders (implied)

Core Lesson / Workflow (Step-by-Step)

Step 0: Set Up the Exercise

• Students join based on their group numbers.
• Group membership may change, since some participants were reassigned to new evaluation groups.
• Evaluators should verify whether the team’s architecture design is sufficient to achieve the desired quality attributes.

Step 1: Begin the Architecture Evaluation Exercise

• Start with the customer and architecture team presenting their architectures.
• Presenters should:
  • Explain the architecture approach adapted in their architecture
  • Provide the information so evaluators can compile a list of relevant architectural approaches

Step 2: Create Utility Trees (Shared Work)

• All members work together to build utility trees using:
  • One or two scenarios (chosen as the basis for evaluation)
• Scenarios must be organized into the utility tree structure.

Step 3: Tag Scenario Importance and Difficulty

For each scenario, add tags indicating:

• Level of importance: 3 levels (high / medium / low)
• Difficulty: 3 levels (also described as high/medium and a third level likely corresponding to “loads”)

Step 4: Prioritize Scenarios

• Based on the importance/difficulty tags, select roughly 3–4 scenarios.
• (The text describes this as “approximatory 3 or 4.”)

Step 5: Evaluate Architectural Approaches per Scenario

• For each selected scenario, the evaluator identifies and evaluates relevant architecture approaches.
• Evaluation order:
  • Start with the highest-priority scenario
  • Proceed in priority order

Step 6: Use Provided Evaluation Templates and Record Results

• Evaluation sheets/templates are provided in Excel.
• For each case/scenario:
  • Record results using a supplementary template in a sheet
• Repeat the process:
  • Evaluate the first/highest-priority scenario on one sheet
  • Evaluate the second scenario on a new sheet

Step 7: Use the Candidate Architecture Approach List

• During evaluation, use the list created in Step 2.
• This list serves as a starting point for finding candidate approaches relevant to the current scenario.

Step 8: Ask Clarifying Questions

• Evaluators ask the architecture team questions as needed to understand the design and support the evaluation.

Step 9: Document Sensitivities and Tradeoffs

• Evaluators must record:
  • Sensitivities
  • Tradeoffs (explicitly stated)
• The written content should be:
  • Sufficient for understanding the tradeoffs
  • Clear and non-confusing for involved stakeholders

Step 10: Time Management and Additional Summary

• Allocate about 20 minutes per scenario (“roughly speaking and if time permit…”).
• If time permits, the architecture side should summarize:
  • How they will divide/fix risks identified during evaluation
  • (i.e., how to address or mitigate those risks)

Speakers / Sources Featured

• No specific speakers or individuals are explicitly named in the provided subtitles.
• References mentioned:
  • ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)
  • Excel evaluation templates for recording results
• Stakeholder roles used in roleplay:
  • Customer
  • Architecture evaluation team
  • Other stakeholders (not named)